NATO Chief Scientist Report - Autonomous Tech

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION (STO) RESEARCH ON AUTONOMY (2010 – 2021) NATO Chief Scientist Research Report This document should be announced and supplied only to NATO, Government Agencies of NATO Nations and their bona fide contractors , and to other recipients approved by the STO National Coordinators.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Volume 3 June 2022

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DISCLAIMER The research and analysis underlying this report and its conclusions were conducted by the NATO Science & Technology Organization (STO). This report does not represent the official opinion or position of NATO or individual governments.

This report has been optimised for reading digitally, including internal and external links.

NATO Chief Scientist Research Report

E. J. Braithwaite L. G. Lim D.F. Reding

NATO Science & Technology Organization Office of the Chief Scientist NATO Headquarters B-1110 Brussels Belgium http:\www.sto.nato.int

NATO Chief Scientist Research Reports provide evidence‑based advice or policy insights based on research and analysis activities conducted across the NATO Science & Technology Organization.

Activity findings relevant to this Report are already published or will be published on the NATO Science & Technology Organization website: <http:\www.sto.nato.int>.

This report is distributed free of charge for informational purposes. The sale and reproduction of this report for commercial purposes is prohibited. Extracts may be used for bona fide educational and informational purposes subject to attribution to the NATO Science & Technology Organization.

Unless otherwise credited, all non-original graphics are used under Creative Commons licensing For graphics used from DVIDS, please note: The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

Copyright © NATO Science & Technology Organization, 2022.

First published, June 2022.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

FOREWORD

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

1

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

FOREWORD Technological developments in the field of autonomy occupy a leading role in our conception of the future battlespace and represent a key technological area for NATO today. Over a wide range of military tasks, autonomous technologies will reduce the risks to humans or enhance military capabilities in ways that may fundamentally alter the strategic calculus of modern warfare. From simple automated tasks to more sophisticated applications of artificial intelligence, autonomous technologies have already become a regular feature of conflicts, permeating all domains. There is still much to be learned about the capabilities and operational choices offered by robotic and autonomous systems (RAS).

Dr. Bryan Wells Nevertheless, NATO benefits from expertise spanning the Alliance, allowing the organisation to think critically about the application of autonomous systems, as well as the opportunities and challenges they present. NATO is looking ahead towards the publication of an Autonomy Implementation Plan, which will outline how NATO will grapple with this rapidly evolving area.

In support of that effort and to introduce the wider NATO community to the work of the Science & Technology Organization (STO), the Office of the Chief Scientist has produced this report, the third in a series of NATO Chief Scientist Research Reports. It consolidates the STO’s research activities in this area over the past decade spanning questions of interoperability and system verification to the exploration of platform autonomy across a range of domains of operations. In so doing, we seek to expose this wealth of knowledge to a wider audience and thereby guide NATO and the Nations at all levels as we prepare to integrate ever more mature autonomous technologies into our strategic thinking and our warfighting capabilities.

We remain immensely grateful to the national experts who make up the STO and whose efforts are reflected in this report. It is their collective spirit of inquiry and resolute dedication to tackling the most pressing scientific and technological problems that underpin the findings presented here.

Dr. Bryan Wells – NATO Chief Scientist

2

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

3

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) are widely acknowledged to provide a wide range of emerging and transformative opportunities for military and security capabilities. Unmanned systems, or more broadly autonomous systems, have already become regular features of conflicts, in particular the extensive use of drones (or unmanned aerial systems) for intelligence gathering or strike missions. Going forward, the fusion of machines, computing, sensing, and increasingly sophisticated software will generate progressively intelligent systems capable of interacting with complex and unpredictable environments. These systems will play an increasingly significant role across the five NATO operational domains of land, sea, air, space and cyber.

This report addresses the body of NATO Science and Technology Organization (STO) research conducted between 2010 and 2021 related to the Autonomy Theme for a broad audience. The report identifies six central areas, defining an Autonomy taxonomy: •

Operations and Systems;

•

Platforms and Design;

•

Human‑Machine Teaming;

•

Sensing;

•

Interoperability, VV&A (Verification, Validation, and Accreditation), Standards, and Assurance; and

•

Key findings drawn from across the research undertaken by the STO include: •

Noting that the potential cost effects of introducing autonomy into operations may be considerable, autonomous systems should be evaluated both for their military advantage and the extent to which they delivery tangible financial benefits. Capability development may help to break the cost curve but there are second and third order costs that will result from the introduction of autonomy.

•

Flight testing of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is valuable to both obtain necessary data and to effectively manage risk. The procedures for flight testing applicable to UAS are different from those of crewed air systems.

This means there is an increased demand for testing UAS – including logistics support, UAS in swarms, and interoperability with other UAS and with crewed systems.

•

Several common standards and software frameworks exist to enable interoperability between heterogeneous unmanned systems (UxS). These protocols are not necessarily suitable to the full range of autonomous tasks that are emerging as the technology matures in different operational domains.

There is potential value in harmonising existing standards and of having a single standard of reference for the interoperability of UxS.

•

Operating environments continue to challenge the performance of autonomous systems, with factors such as terrain, sea state, icing, weather, and illumination all posing considerable obstacles to their widespread deployment. Field experimentation in diverse environments is required to achieve improvements, particularly for autonomous vehicles and sensing applications.

•

The ongoing evolution of autonomous systems reveals a rapid blurring of the boundaries between the roles of humans and machines.

Human‑Autonomy Teaming (HAT) system interfaces are needed to enable operators to be closer in the loop and to deliver Meaningful Human Control (MHC) across the full suite of functions and domains.

Countermeasures.

Overall, the research described in this document provides a robust evidence‑based framework for ensuring informed decisions are made in the field of RAS. This completed body of work is substantial with a particular effort on the part of researchers to confront the practical challenges associated with the operational deployment of RAS, including barriers to performance and the control exercised over such systems in battlefield environments.

RAS research spans most domains of operations, with further work needed in the domains of space and cyber. In the maritime domain, the STO’s Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) has conducted a significant body of world‑leading research with a focus on autonomous Anti‑Submarine Warfare (ASW) and maritime robotic exploitation. The report also details ongoing research activities that will further advance our collective understanding of the application of RAS by NATO forces.

4

Supported by the burgeoning strategic and policy landscape surrounding autonomous technologies in NATO, the STO has made extraordinary progress in advancing the Alliance’s collective knowledge about the opportunities and challenges presented by these capabilities for the future battlefield.

Although research in this area is substantial, there remain substantial gaps in the cross‑domain activity in the field. A complete list of research gaps is provided in the conclusion to this report.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

INTRODUCTION

11

HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

12

TERMINOLOGY

13

ACCESSING ACTIVITY REPORTS

13

OPERATIONS & SYSTEMS

15

CPOW RES­EARCH

17

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

17

ROBOTICS UNDERPINNING FUTURE NATO OPERATIONS (SAS‑097)

18

AUTONOMY IN COMMUNICATIONS‑LIMITED ENVIRONMENTS (SCI‑288)

20

SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

22

AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE (SCI‑296)

23

AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE – VERSION 2.0 (SCI‑335)

24

SPECIALIST TEAMS

26

UNDERSTANDING THE COST RELATED IMPLICATIONS OF AUTONOMY – A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE (SAS‑146)

27

WORKSHOPS

29

SCI PANEL ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIALISTS MEETING ON AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE (SCI‑299)

TECHNOLOGY WATCH

30

31

INTELLIGENT AUTONOMY (IST‑TW‑003)

32

EXPLORATORY TEAMS

33

MODELLING AND SIMULATION (M&S) OF AUTONOMOUS ASW CAPABLE VEHICLES TO AUGMENT SURFACE AND MARITIME AIR CAPABILITIES (MSG‑ET‑036)

34

SAR APPLICATIONS IN UAS FOR THE MARITIME ISR (SET‑ET‑091)

34

ONGOING RESEARCH

35

ENABLING PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES FOR RESILIENT SMALL SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS FOR NATO MISSIONS (AVT‑336)

36

AUTOMATION IN THE INTELLIGENCE CYCLE (SAS‑157)

37

HOW COULD TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFORM THE FUTURE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT (SAS‑159)

38

ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR MILITARY LOGISTICS (SAS‑165)

38

EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) TELE‑MANIPULATION ROBOT TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT (SCI‑342)

39

RESCUE SYSTEMS FOR BROKEN TRUST (IST‑191)

39

CMRE RESEARCH

40

ADVANCED MINE NEUTRALISATION PROJECT

41

MORPH EU PROJECT

41

ICARUS UNMANNED SEARCH AND RESCUE (FP7 PROJECT)

42

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ONGOING RESEARCH

43

COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY FOR MINE COUNTERMEASURES: A PROJECT IN THE AUTONOMOUS NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES (ANMCM) CMRE PROGRAMME

44

ADVANCED HETEROGENEOUS COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY OF MUS FOR ASW: A PROJECT IN THE AUTONOMOUS ANTI‑SUBMARINE WARFARE CMRE PROGRAMME

45

MODELLING AND SIMULATION FOR MARITIME UNMANNED SYSTEMS: A PROJECT IN THE PARC AND MUSE PROGRAMMES4.

46

ROBORDER EU PROJECT

46

INFORE (INTERACTIVE EXTREME‑SCALE ANALYTICS AND FORECASTING)

47

COMPASS2020 EU PROJECT

47

NATO HQ DAT POW – AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND VR/AR FOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN HARBOUR PROTECTION

47

ARESIBO EU PROJECT

47

PLATFORMS & DESIGN

48

OVERVIEW

49

CPOW RESEARCH

50

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

50

QUALIFICATION AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MILITARY UAVS (AVT‑174)

51

UNMANNED SYSTEMS (UMS) PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES AND PERFORMANCES FOR AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS (AVT‑175)

54

AEROACOUSTICS OF ENGINE INSTALLATION FOR MILITARY AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑233)

55

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑239)

56

MULTI‑DISCIPLINARY DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVE, AGILE NATO AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑251)

57

FORMATION FLYING FOR EFFICIENT OPERATIONS (AVT‑279)

58

DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑295)

59

SYMPOSIUMS

60

FLIGHT TESTING OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) (SCI‑269)

61

SITUATION AWARENESS OF SWARMS AND AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑341)

62

SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

63

TECHNOLOGICAL AND OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH UGV APPLICATION FOR FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS (AVT‑241)

64

INTELLIGENCE & AUTONOMY (ROBOTICS) (IST‑127)

66

SWARM CENTRIC SOLUTION FOR INTELLIGENT SENSOR NETWORKS (SET‑222)

67

WORKSOPS

68

INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVED MISSION READINESS OF MILITARY UXVS (AVT‑355)

TECHNOLOGY WATCH

6

69

70

COGNITIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MULTI‑SOURCE MULTI‑FORMAT INFORMATION FUSION IN AUTONOMOUS SCENARIOS (AVT‑TW‑016)

71

AUTONOMOUS MILITARY SYSTEMS (AVT‑TW‑014)

72

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EXPLORATORY TEAMS

73

NEW SOLUTIONS FOR PLATFORM PROPULSION, AUXILIARY AND RESERVE POWER (AVT‑ET‑126)

74

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND TOOLS FOR MOBILITY OF AUTONOMOUS MILITARY GROUND SYSTEMS (AVT‑ET‑194)

74

TECHNOLOGY TRENDS IN MANNED AND UNMANNED ARMOURED GROUND VEHICLES (AVT‑ET‑196)

75

ONGOING RESEARCH

76

DEVELOPMENT OF A VALIDATION MODEL OF A STEALTH UCAV (SET‑252)

77

ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF INSTALLED PROPELLER AND ROTOR NOISE FROM UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (AVT‑314)

77

SWARMS SYSTEMS FOR INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE & RECONNAISSANCE (SET‑263)

78

UAV APPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY SEARCH (SCI‑321)

79

DIGITAL EMPLOYEES FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL (IST‑ET‑105)

79

AG‑300‑V.37 FLIGHT TESTING OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (SCI‑338)

80

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COCKPITS FOR UAVS (AVT‑353)

80

EVALUATION OF SWARM SYSTEM FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS (SCI‑334)

81

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTONOMOUS TRANSPORT AND MEDICAL SYSTEMS FOR CASUALTY EVACUATION (HFM‑332)

82

OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) IN ICING ENVIRONMENTS (AVT‑ET‑214)

83

MOBILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS AND TOOLS FOR AUTONOMOUS MILITARY GROUND SYSTEMS (AVT‑341)

83

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES – ADVANCED CONCEPTS (AVT‑350)

84

ASSESSMENT OF MICRO TECHNOLOGIES FOR AIR AND SPACE PROPULSION (AVT‑344)

85

FLIGHT TESTING OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) (SCI‑328)

85

CMRE RESEARCH

86

SAUC‑E CMRE INTERNAL PROGRAMME AND EURATHLON, ROCKEU2, SCIROC, METRICS EU PROJECTS (ROBOTICS COMPETITIONS)

HUMAN‑MACHINE TEAMING

87

88

CPOW RES­EARCH

89

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

90

SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF MULTIPLE UNINHABITED SYSTEMS: METHODOLOGY AND ENABLING HUMAN‑ROBOT INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES (HFM‑170)

91

HUMAN‑AUTONOMY TEAMING: SUPPORTING DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTABLE COLLABORATION (HFM‑247)

92

SYMPOSIUMS

94

HUMAN AUTONOMY TEAMING (HFM‑300)

WORKSHOPS

95

96

SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF MULTIPLE UNINHABITED SYSTEMS ‑METHODOLOGIES AND HUMAN‑ROBOT INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES (HFM‑217)

EXPLORATORY TEAMS

97

98

RISK BASED OPERATIONAL PLANNING IN CO‑OPERATIVE HUMAN‑MACHINE BATTLE NETWORKS (SAS‑ET‑DV)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

99 7

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ONGOING RESEARCH

100

AGILE, MULTI‑DOMAIN C2 OF SOCIO‑TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS IN COMPLEX ENDEAVORS (SAS‑143)

101

MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL OF AI‑BASED SYSTEMS: KEY CHARACTERISTICS, INFLUENCING FACTORS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (HFM‑322)

102

HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION FOR MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL OVER AI‑BASED SYSTEMS (HFM‑330)

102

NEUROSCIENCE‑BASED TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMBAT‑ORIENTED CREW COCKPIT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS (HFM‑AVT‑340)

103

SENSING

104

OVERVIEW

105

CPOW RES­EARCH

106

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

106

DISPOSABLE MULTI‑SENSOR UNATTENDED GROUND SENSORS SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING PERSONNEL (SET‑158)

107

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COORDINATION METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTED MOBILE SENSORS (SET‑199)

108

ACOUSTIC TRANSIENT THREAT DETECTION SENSORS & SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR BATTLEFIELD SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (SET‑233)

110

SYMPOSIUMS

112

9TH NATO MILITARY SENSING SYMPOSIUM (SET‑241)

SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

114

AUTONOMOUS SENSING AND MULTI‑SENSOR INTEGRATION FOR ISR APPLICATIONS (SET‑176)

LECTURE SERIES

115

116

ACTIVE PASSIVE ELECTRO‑OPTIC/INFRARED (EO/IR) AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION (ATR) LECTURE SERIES (SET‑194)

117

ACTIVE PASSIVE ELECTRO‑OPTIC/INFRARED (EO/IR) AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION (ATR) (SET‑221)

118

EXPLORATORY TEAMS

119

BIOLOGY‑BASED SOLUTIONS (BIOMETRICS, BIO‑MIMETICS, BIO‑SIGNATURES) (HFM‑ET‑114)

120

DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION FOR AUTONOMOUS SENSING (SET‑ET‑121)

120

ONGOING RESEARCH

121

MULTI‑FUNCTIONAL EO/IR SENSORS FOR COUNTER‑SURVEILLANCE (SET‑266)

122

AUTOMATED SCENE UNDERSTANDING FOR BATTLEFIELD AWARENESS (SET‑272)

122

INTEROPERABILITY, VV&A (VERIFICATION, VALIDATION, AND ACCREDITATION), STANDARDS, & ASSURANCE

123

OVERVIEW

124

CPOW RES­EARCH

125

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

8

113

125

CAPABILITY CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR FOR INTEROPERABILITY WITHIN UNMANNED GROUND SYSTEMS AND C2 (IST‑149)

126

RISK‑BASED SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL AIRWORTHINESS AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RPASS (AVT‑278)

127

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

128

APPROVAL OF RPAS OPERATIONS: AIRWORTHINESS, RISK‑BASED METHODS, OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS (AVT‑273)

129

MISSION ASSURANCE FOR AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED SYSTEMS (IST‑166)

130

HUMAN‑MACHINE TRUST: RISK‑BASED ASSURANCE AND LICENCING OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑313)

131

WORKSHOPS

132

VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑274)

LECTURE SERIES

133

134

COMMAND AND REPORTING STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT TOOLS FOR UXS (SCI‑271)

135

UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES: TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES, CONCEPTS OF OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY ISSUES (AVT‑274)

136

EXPLORATORY TEAMS

137

MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR AUTONOMOUS MANEUVERING OF WEAPON SYSTEMS (IST‑ET‑067)

ONGOING RESEARCH

138

139

SECURING UNMANNED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES FOR MISSION ASSURANCE (IST‑164)

140

INTEROPERABILITY FOR SEMI‑AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES (IST‑179)

140

SYNTHETIC LEGAL ADVISER ‒ AI‑BASED DECISION MAKING IN HYPERWAR (IST‑HFM‑182)

141

EMPLOYING THE C2‑SIMULATION INTEROPERATION (C2SIM) STANDARD FOR COALITION MILITARY OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES (MSG‑194)

141

ENABLING FEDERATED, COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY (SCI‑343)

142

CMRE RES­EARCH

143

CAMELOT UNMANNED SEARCH AND RESCUE (FP7 PROJECT)

144

OPEN COOPERATION FOR EUROPEAN MARITIME AWARENESS (A PROJECT WITH THE EU PREPARATORY ACTION ON DEFENCE RESEARCH)

144

ONGOING RESEARCH

145

INTEROPERABILITY, STANDARDS AND SECURITY FOR MARITIME UNMANNED SYSTEMS (A PROJECT IN THE CMRE MUSE PROGRAMME)

146

COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR MARITIME ROBOTIC EXPLOITATION (C3MRE)

146

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION (ACT) INNOVATION HUB PROJECT

146

COUNTERMEASURES

147

OVERVIEW

148

CPOW RES­EARCH

145

RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

149

ANALYSIS AND RECOGNITION OF RADAR SIGNATURES FOR NON‑COOPERATIVE IDENTIFICATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (SET‑180)

150

RADIO FREQUENCY DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS IN TACTICAL SCENARIOS (SCI‑250)

151

RADAR BASED NON‑COOPERATIVE TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) IN THE LOW AIRSPACE AND COMPLEX SURFACE ENVIRONMENTS (SET‑245)

152

LOW SLOW SMALL (LSS) THREATS MODELLING AND SIMULATION (MSG‑154)

154

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

9

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ONGOING RESEARCH

151

DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH OF EFFECTS OF RF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ON ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED VEHICLES, VESSELS AND UAVS (SCI‑294)

156

DEFEAT OF LOW SLOW AND SMALL (LSS) AIR THREATS (SCI‑301)

157

ASSESSMENT OF EO/IR TECHNOLOGIES FOR DETECTION OF SMALL UAVS IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT (SET‑260)

158

DRONE DETECTABILITY: MODELLING THE RELEVANT SIGNATURE (MSG‑SET‑183)

158

REALISATION AND EVALUATION OF ROBOTIC MULTISPECTRAL DECOYS FOR LAND EQUIPMENT (SCI‑324)

159

RF FINGER PRINTING OF DRONES (IST‑ET‑120)

159

ADVANCED RADAR TECHNIQUES FOR ROBUST SITUATION AWARENESS AND THREAT ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING CLASS I UAS IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS (SET‑307)

160

CMRE RES­EARCH

161

CUAXS COUNTERING UNMANNED AUTONOMOUS X‑DOMAIN SYSTEMS: A PROJECT LED BY ACT WITH THE MULTINATIONAL CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT CAMPAIGN (MCDC)

CONCLUSION

163

CONCLUSION

164

APPENDICES

165

APPENDIX A – ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

10

162

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

166

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INTRODUCTION

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

11

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INTRODUCTION This NATO Chief Scientist Research Report aggregates the research conducted in the field of autonomous technologies over the past decade. Its primary purpose is to share with the wider NATO community the findings of STO research activity in this area. By doing so, this report supports the maturation of NATO’s strategic decisions on the opportunities and challenges presented by autonomous technologies, including the development of the Autonomy Implementation Plan.

The report divides the research activities into six chapters reflecting the central themes that the STO has explored in this area: •

Operations and Systems;

•

Platforms and Design;

•

Human‑Machine Teaming;

•

Sensing;

The OCS is the STO’s executive body closest to • Interoperability, VV&A (Verification, Validation, political and military leaders at NATO HQ. The OCS and Accreditation), Standards, and Assurance; supports the NATO Chief Scientist’s two essential and functions: first, as the Chairperson of the Science and Technology Board (STB) and second as the • Countermeasures. senior scientific adviser to NATO leadership.

Beyond providing the executive support to the STB and its chartered responsibilities, the OCS acts as a focal point for the STO Programmes of Work (PoWs) and its users represented at NATO HQ. To that end, the OCS works with the S&T results generated through the STO PoWs and facilitates their use in the political and military context.

Engaging the committees and staff at NATO HQ and beyond, the OCS aims to Figure 1: Diagram showing the six central themes in this report (Design tool credit: Miro) bring to bear the most relevant and up‑to‑date S&T results available to inform senior NATO Naturally, like all such taxonomies, the above decision making. taxonomy is imprecise, with overlaps between categories. However, the taxonomy does provide a useful overview of core military functions HOW TO READ THIS REPORT that may be performed using RAS‑solutions.

The research conducted by the STO in the field of Furthermore, it should be noted that many of the Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) over the research activities fit into multiple areas in the past decade is extensive. This report is therefore a above taxonomy. However, to aim for clarity, the significant piece of work, providing summaries and activities have been assigned by the main category analyses of these research activities. (or chapter) to which they apply. Additionally, the activities are presented in each chapter by the Given its length, readers are encouraged to use the activity’s start date.

Table of Contents to identify areas of interest and assess these findings in light of comments made in Readers should note that the STO Programme the report’s Conclusion. of Work is undertaken through two streams: the Collaborative Programme of Work (CPoW) and the Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) Programme of Work.

For each chapter, CPoW research is firstly listed, followed by CMRE research.

12

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The STO’s collaborative research (CPoW) is conducted in seven different technical areas, represented by STO Panels and/or Groups.1 The research summarised in this report comes from across the six Panels and one Group. These research activities each have a reference code linked to the organising panel. For example, ‘SAS‑097’ indicates an activity was conducted under the System Analysis and Studies (SAS) Panel.

In the CPoW, participating Allied or Partner nations pool resources and expertise by joining together to collaborate on a research activity. These research activities take various forms representing differing degrees of effort, investment, and time.

An overview of activities relevant to this report follows: Exploratory Team (ET) – A feasibility study to establish whether it is worth starting a more extensive activity, usually one year in duration (here, we have only included an ET where this did not lead on to a longer STO activity).

Research Task Group (RTG) – A study group established to examine a particular scientific or technology development problem, up to three years in duration unless delayed.

Research Symposium (RSY) – Over 100 participants, 3 – 4 days in duration.

Specialist Team (ST) – A quick reaction study.

Research Workshop (RWS) – Focussed discussion on a specific topic among a limited number of invited experts, 2 – 3 days in duration.

Research Specialists’ Meeting (RSM) – Up to 100 participants, 2 – 3 days in duration.

Meanwhile in the CMRE Programme of Work, research activities are undertaken as projects or as part of a broader research programme which may span several years. Projects may be undertaken and funded on behalf of a client, within a broader CMRE research programme, or with CMRE acting as a consortium member along with other research institutions according to an established proposal (this specifically relates to the EU‑funded projects listed). All projects involving the EU are individually approved by the STB in accordance with ‘Customer Base and Contracting Procedures for the CMRE,’ reference AC/323‑D(2018)0008, 10 October 2018.

Each research activity summary provided in this report lists the type of activity conducted and the central conclusions of the activity. Ongoing activities are also listed and expected completion dates are provided for readers who wish to follow these activities’ progression and release of final reports.

TERMINOLOGY The activities listed in this report are built upon collaborative national efforts and do not use any approved STO‑wide language. As such, they may demonstrate inconsistencies in the selected terminology for like themes. A complete list of abbreviations and acronyms is available in Appendix A, but it may be useful to note at this stage that there are numerous terms applied to describe similar unmanned systems of various kinds.

ACCESSING ACTIVITY REPORTS It is a welcome reflection of the fullness of the STO’s research in this area that this report provides only a snapshot of the detail contained in the individual papers, symposia reports, and findings.

Research Lecture Series (RLS) – Aims to disseminate state‑of‑the‑art scientific knowledge among junior and mid‑level scientists in military‑relevant domains.

Technology Watch (TW) – A technology forecasting exercise.

1 T hese are: the Applied Vehicle Technology (AVT) Panel; Human Factors and Medicine (HFM) Panel; Information Systems Technology (IST) Panel; System Analysis and Studies (SAS) Panel; Systems Concepts and Integration (SCI) Panel; Sensors and Electronics Technology (SET) Panel; and the NATO Modelling and Simulation Group (NMSG).

INTRODUCTION

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

13

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

To access the full reports, readers should be mindful of the restrictions imposed by different levels of classification. Readers must firstly locate the activity code or title allocated to the activity of interest (e.g., ‘SAS‑097’ or ‘Robotics Underpinning Future NATO Operations’). Once located, this code or title can be searched in the ‘Publications’ search function of the STO website. Access based on classification is divided as follows:

14

1.

Open Access: Some of the papers are open access and can be accessed in full using the ‘Publications’ search function on the STO website by searching for the activity code or title you are interested in: < https://www.sto.nato.int >.

2.

NATO Unclassified: This report is released at NATO Unclassified, which reflects most research activities detailed within the report. These papers can be accessed using the ‘Publications’ search function on the STO website as detailed in Step 1, however access can only be gained by logging into the STO website. Allied nations, STO Partner nations, and in‑house staff may gain full access to these reports by gaining individual login credentials for the STO website. These can be obtained by contacting the STO. Contact details can be found at: < https://www.sto.nato.int/Pages/contactus.aspx >

3.

NATO Restricted (or above): A minority of activities are NATO Restricted or above; the metadata for these reports is listed on the STO website, but not the actual report. Access to these reports is given on a need‑to‑know basis. Please contact your national S&T points of contact. Contact details can be found at: < https://www.sto.nato.int/Pages/contactus.aspx >.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OPERATIONS & SYSTEMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

15 15 15

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OPERATIONS & SYSTEMS OVERVIEW This chapter surveys STO research that considers how autonomous systems fit into larger system‑of‑systems or how autonomous applications contribute to a particular operational domain. The research facilitated by the STO concentrated on the challenges associated with integrating autonomous systems into expansive systems and operations, including issues related to trust, risk control, and legal and ethical concerns.

The researchers collaborating within the STO have also highlighted the costs of integration and the challenges of system reliability, particularly in less constrained military environments.

While there are few completed CPoW activities in this area, several new or ongoing activities will further contribute to the STO’s knowledge

base in the coming years. Key themes in this area include novel autonomous applications as part of comprehensive integration into systems and into military operations. Notably, STO research spans all domains of operation, with significant work conducted by CMRE in the maritime domain.

There are also considerable overlaps between activities conducted in this area with other areas of STO research in the field of autonomy. Questions of trust, interoperability, cyber vulnerability, and verification and validation naturally link to the operationalisation of autonomous technologies and their integration into system‑of‑systems.

This reflects the broad and pervasive nature of autonomy and the diverse mission capabilities it will deliver and augment.

Figure 2: This section refers to STO research that considers how autonomous systems fit into larger systems‑of‑systems or how autonomous applications could contribute to a particular operational domain (Credit: iStock)

16

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

17

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ROBOTICS UNDERPINNING FUTURE NATO OPERATIONS (SAS‑097) DURATION

FINDINGS

January 2012 – December 2016

Completing its objectives, during its tenure RTG SAS‑097:

OVERVIEW NATO Task Group SAS‑097 sought to analyse how robotics will shape future NATO operations, bringing together expertise from ten NATO Member countries.

OBJECTIVES •

Analyse the gap between operational requirements and technical possibilities.

•

Bridge the gap between the forefront of technology and military operational needs.

•

Provide analytical and technological/ operational experimentation support for robotics concept development and testing.

•

Organise a NATO supported symposium or conference to demonstrate innovative robotics technologies to military users.

•

Develop bidirectional working links with European Commission R&D activities in robotics.

•

Open possibilities for new robotics research motivated by military needs and funded by third parties, including both public bodies and industry.

Conducted a trends analysis in Autonomous Systems (AxS) in the areas of CONTROL, SENSORS and PLATFORM, completed an analysis of Operational Requirements, analysed the EU Perspective, and completed an analysis of research into Human‑Robot Cooperation.

Participated in NATO exhibitions and exercises, cooperated with other NATO research organisations and centres of excellence, and participated in NATO and EU symposiums, demonstrations, and workshops.

Conducted joint experiments, worked on multipurpose platform development, supported real mission deployments and joint exercises with National entities and engaged with the academic community by participating in academic conferences and publishing articles.

Created and supervised bidirectional working links with the European Commission R&D activities in the dual use of robotics.

Opened possibilities for new robotics research motivated by military needs and funded by third parties.

Figure 3: Virtual mobile robot (SAS‑097 Technical Report) Page 169

18

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

This Task Group found that growing familiarity with robots increases their effective employment.

The applications of game controllers for ‘driving’ robots have reduced training needs and improved usage. It was noted that interoperability is an issue in theatre, while electronic interference is becoming an issue as is the lack of commonality of parts among the growing number of distinct types of robotic systems.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

It was determined from a workshop organised by this Task Group that the following is needed to address operational requirements: •

Development of concepts of operation for robotics across DOTMLPFI2 and standards for testing, communications, etc.

•

Open architectures to allow technology insertion.

•

Standardisation of terminology.

•

Autonomous navigation to reduce operator workload by determining the proper course to a target and then to returning to the starting position.

•

Operation of robotic systems at the speed of the unit that they support.

•

Operation Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS).

•

Clarification of issues in the areas of the right to self‑defence and laws of armed conflict related to robotics.

•

Integration of the transport of robots in the design of combat vehicles.

•

Introduction of modularity (i.e., one robot for many missions to reduce space, training, and service requirements).

•

Sufficient clarity of vision and recording capability to capture biometrics, tool marks, electronic components for identifying and profiling IED builders.

2 D octrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities, and interoperability.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

19

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMY IN COMMUNICATIONS‑LIMITED ENVIRONMENTS (SCI‑288) DURATION

FINDINGS

November 2015 – November 2019

OVERVIEW RTG SCI‑288 was commissioned under the NATO Systems Concepts and Integration (SCI) Panel to focus on autonomy in communications‑limited environments. The group decided to negotiate and define a common message set and associated protocol that promotes collaborative operations between the autonomous systems of Allied nations regardless of the autonomy software used by the individual nations and including a generic task model to support an extension to future capabilities.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this activity were to investigate:

20

•

A shared autonomy framework to facilitate a collective understanding of autonomy capabilities and collaboration among the member nations.

•

Interface standards that support rapid integration and interoperability of vehicles and capabilities.

•

The development of data processing and algorithms to enable increased autonomy in communications‑limited environments.

•

Human operator/autonomy interactions for autonomy augmentation in conditions of severely limited communications.

•

The establishment of a common testbed for shared simulated and at‑sea experimentation.

•

Verification and validation of autonomy and autonomous systems.

The final demonstration of the Task Group showed that the protocol developed by SCI‑288 allows a common planner to assign tasks to squads of vehicles from multiple nations, leveraging a shared world model and task definitions. Squads were able to accept tasking, report status, and progress, alongside maintaining awareness of the other squads using their status reports.

Rather than requiring all nations to use the same autonomy solution or performing bespoke integration efforts between nations, this message set provides a common method for collaboration of autonomous systems that not only permits operations between heterogeneous assets but also takes advantage of the different capabilities available from different nations using the common task model.

All participants agreed that additional technical rigour should be applied to the work conducted and to mature the protocol by more clearly and completely defining the proposed protocol.

RTG SCI‑288 successfully negotiated a protocol to enable the autonomous collaboration of squads of vehicles under communications constraints. This solution allows multi‑national operations to share tasking and information over a shared standard and is designed to do so without loss of existing autonomy capabilities.

The approach defines five core messages: two for high‑bandwidth, a priori information sharing and three for execution under limited communications.

It also uses a task model to define libraries of capabilities that can be extended to support the integration of new capabilities.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The protocol was demonstrated in simulation and allowed systems from the Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE), the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States to receive taskings from a common command and control actor and to share information to inform execution.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

Building on the success of this limited and prototype protocol, participants agreed that the next step is to apply additional technical rigour to the work conducted and to mature the protocol by more clearly and completely defining the proposed protocol. The proposed improvements are intended not only to clarify the core message set and task definitions, but also the administration of the protocol. These improvements are noted to include the following: •

The protocol will require the ability to segregate sensitive information from common information.

•

Hierarchical implementations of the protocol and how this would be implemented in terms of various squad IDs and memberships in the squad message.

•

More explicit delineation between tasks and the core messages. This includes a clearer definition of the task model and clarification of the method by which tasks will be imported into the protocol for any operation.

•

Transition of ownership of the work from the temporary NATO RTG to a permanent administrative body. If the protocol developed by this group is to remain supported and available, ownership of the work must be transitioned to a permanent administrative body and rules for its maintenance established.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

21

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

22

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE (SCI‑296) OVERVIEW

FINDINGS

This Specialists’ Meeting was held in May 2017 and constructed as a cross‑panel effort due to the broad and pervasive nature of autonomy. The main objective of this meeting was to identify areas where NATO should increase its scientific and technical focus in autonomy and autonomous systems. A secondary objective was to raise awareness of all the ongoing and planned NATO activities in autonomy and make connections between the appropriate personnel representing the various Panels, NATO bodies, S&T areas, and other communities as needed.

The proliferation of AS is underway. NATO should learn how to integrate AS quickly. The Meeting identified numerous existing and novel applications that are or could be improved/ enabled by improvements in autonomy and/or HM interoperability.

The state‑of‑the‑art in in human‑machine interdependence varies depending on the context and application. Challenges include the establishment of trust and situational awareness, security and risk, data fidelity, and V&V.

APPROACH

There is an urgent requirement for capability development with respect to autonomous systems; specifically, to break the cost curve, to make and demonstrate step changes using AS, and to reduce the risks inherent in military operations.

The meeting was structured to include keynote addresses each morning followed by interactive panels. Breakout sessions (with participants divided according to themes) were held each afternoon, leveraging the collective expertise present which included engineering, human factors, political‑technical, ethics, operational analysis, program management, and military operations.

A systems perspective is required, rather than a technology perspective, one that considers all aspects of autonomous systems together.

Design and integration considerations require a multidisciplinary team approach to develop a collective understanding across various disciplines to enable their successful integration.

The Specialists’ Meeting covered the following topics: •

State‑of‑the‑art in autonomy & autonomous systems;

•

Key mission capability areas and the respective art‑of‑the‑possible for autonomy, including existing mission capabilities augmented by autonomy as well as novel mission capabilities enabled by autonomy;

Furthermore, the following general recommendations were made by this activity: •

Continue engagement with ACT with respect to their Autonomy program.

•

The appropriate pairing of mission capabilities and autonomy at specific interdependency levels;

•

Engage STO Panels to address the gaps identified and further define possible research activities.

•

Corresponding maturity level; and

•

•

Identification of high‑payoff areas.

Facilitate Community of Interest (COI) engagement in an ongoing dialogue pertaining to AS.

•

Socialise insights from this meeting, engage other NATO bodies, and consider the alignment of STO activities as contributions to their work.

•

Consider/identify S&T activities to pursue using a multi‑disciplinary approach.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

23

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE – VERSION 2.0 (SCI‑335) OVERVIEW Operations in all domains are becoming more complex, interconnected, and rapid. In all cases, the speed, quality and robustness of decisions and actions can be improved by augmenting humans with machines. However, this requires a complete system approach starting with data collection, algorithm development, integration, and testing.

Human interactions are critical to achieving overall system performance and flexibility in operational use cases, as well as attaining the appropriate level of trust.

The overarching objective of this effort was to further refine the areas where NATO should increase its scientific and technical focus in autonomy and autonomous systems. This Specialists’ Meeting held in May 2021 was planned as a cross‑panel effort due to the broad and pervasive nature of autonomy.

APPROACH For three days in May 2021, approximately 60 experts in autonomy from 11 Nations met online to listen to speakers including Dr Bryan Wells, the NATO Chief Scientist. Discussions and presentations considered the military, scientific, and technical perspectives of AS. Participants also collaborated in three workshops identifying predictions regarding specific applications, understanding the level of human‑machine interdependency with a focus on safety and trust, and assessing the insights from the previous two days and recommending areas for increased focus that may result in future proposed activities.

The key issues associated with AS technologies, as well as the related military implications and technological challenges were identified.

UNDERSTANDING THE MILITARY IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF AS Autonomy is poised to offer force multiplication effects, new combat strategies (such as swarming and timing attacks), logistical optimisations, as well as supporting an increase in the speed of operations across multiple domains. It will be important for nations to stay at the forefront of this field to prevent technological surprise and to gain experience with the technology to guide the establishment of ethical use and standards.

Regarding immediate military applications, there are already areas where autonomy and autonomous systems can prove useful. Autonomy can process massive amounts of data and create decision aids for commanders as well as enhanced situation awareness. Swarm capabilities are becoming viable and will have the capability of overwhelming defensive and offensive mechanisms.

KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH AS TECHNOLOGIES Autonomy is a broad field, making it difficult to identify key issues with a common theme.

However, some key issues can be identified: •

Human factor issues limiting AS such as safety, robustness, and understanding operator trust.

Importantly, operator trust can influence the risks associated with the technology, promoting both under‑use and misuse.

•

A lack of widely adopted standards for interoperability are slowing down the adoption of AS. Organizations are producing technologies that excel at specific tasks but do not cooperate with other autonomous systems, thus increasing the burden of adopting a suite of AS systems. This issue is magnified when AS require specific user interfaces.

•

Finally, there are issues relating to research teams lacking clearly laid out objectives, training data sets, and forums for experimentation and validation.

FINDINGS Autonomy is poised to offer force multiplication effects, new combat strategies, logistics optimisations, as well as supporting an increase in the speed of operations across multiple domains.

Human factor issues limiting AS such as safety, robustness, and understanding operator trust need to be addressed.

A lack of widely adopted standards for interoperability are slowing down the adoption of AS. There are issues relating to research teams lacking clearly laid out objectives, training data sets, and forums for experimentation and validation.

NATO has a unique role in fostering progress in AS for the Alliance.

24

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO’S ROLE IN FOSTERING PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN THE TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE Autonomy is still new and requires exploration to reap its benefits. NATO can therefore accelerate the adoption of autonomous systems so that the technological edge is maintained among Allied nations. Furthermore, NATO has the unique position to help establish interoperability standards relating to autonomous systems. NATO also can explore and establish the ethical use cases of this technology through leading by example.

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED FUTURE WORK Moving forward from this meeting, prospective topics and lines of effort for further exploration by the STO and other NATO entities were noted: •

Create and publish well‑defined scenarios in all domains for researchers to aim towards with a focus on applying capabilities for mission effect through experimentation. Systematically build up test cases along with M&S to help with validation.

•

Experiment with interoperability standards between multi‑domain and multi‑national autonomous systems. Standards, goal‑sharing techniques, and ethical considerations are to be developed. Includes consideration of human‑machine communication and mission planning.

•

Standardise test and certification procedures for autonomous systems and protocols.

•

Explore trust as it pertains to the usage and dependence on AS with an emphasis on “calibrated trust.”

•

Autonomous shared situational awareness between humans and machines, building the consistent common operating picture and explainable AI.

The following general recommendations were defined: •

Engage the STO Panels to address the issues and recommendations brought up in the breakout sessions.

•

Socialise insights from this meeting, engage other NATO bodies, and consider the alignment of STO activities as contributions to their work.

•

Consider activities to pursue by means of a multi‑disciplinary approach where S&T input is required to address the various problems identified.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

25

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH SPECIALIST TEAMS

26 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

UNDERSTANDING THE COST RELATED IMPLICATIONS OF AUTONOMY – A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE (SAS‑146) DURATION October 2018 – October 2019

OVERVIEW This Specialist Team was formed to consider how to cost autonomous systems and whether it is likely to be cost effective to invest in certain types of autonomous systems now. The team sought to develop an analytical approach to: •

Facilitate awareness of the potential cost effects of the introduction of autonomy in military operations;

•

Explore the relationship between costs and autonomy, to include aspects of cost‑effectiveness; and

•

Identify the second and third order costs that will result from the introduction of autonomy.

conditions (both benign and heavily contested) present a challenge. Considering these military needs, it was determined that it is highly difficult to demonstrate that autonomous systems can reduce the resources consumed by the defence budget. However, in some cases, policymakers are willing to pay for the reduction in risk to troops which those autonomous systems can bring. As autonomous systems become increasingly able to

APPROACH A review of the available literature was undertaken to identify existing work related to the cost implications of autonomy in defence and particularly that where tangible savings have been realised. The team also developed a methodology using a scenario‑based approach to examine the cost‑related implications of introducing autonomy.

FINDINGS The literature review revealed that tangible financial benefits from automation appear to be more difficult to realise than expected at the project’s initiation, although near‑term return on investment can be possible in more controlled environments.

A scenario‑based approach on the cost‑related implications of autonomy was developed.

Based on the available information analysed during the literature review, tangible financial benefits from automation appear to be more difficult to realise than expected at project initiation. Near‑term return on investment can be possible in more controlled environments (e.g., warehouses and fuel logistics) but the complexity of the battlespace, the need for all‑weather capability and the need for systems (both human and autonomous) to operate under a range of

Figure 4: Understanding the cost related implications of autonomous systems is a crucial factor in their development (Credit: iStock)

operate in uncertain environments, it is likely that actual resource savings will become deliverable in a wider range of military contexts.

The team piloted a scenario‑based approach recommended for military planning that allows for the comparison of existing systems with autonomous alternatives. This has taken a scenario‑based approach and considered changes in cost as well as changes in performance when an autonomous system is used in the place of an existing system, noting that automation is not always applied directly in place of a conventional system. The costs have included second and third order effects and the changes to the organisation, from removing human operators to the changes in the business of delivering defence capability that would take place if an autonomous resupply system were used for the front line. Overall, this methodology allows for the comparison of existing systems with autonomous alternatives, and it is recommended that this approach be adopted as a standard way of comparing systems. This will allow a more complete understanding of the cost implications of autonomy to be developed over time.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

27

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Although specific examples of successful autonomous systems are limited in number, there are examples of specific, contained uses of autonomy leading to cost savings and efficiency gains and it appears likely that most nations could benefit from a similar, controlled introduction of autonomy. However, there is little concrete evidence to suggest that defence sector‑wide savings from widespread automation are anything more than long‑term aspirations. It is likely that significant technical advances, to allow autonomous systems to operate in less constrained environments, would be required before these could be realised.

28

It is recommended that nations use the standardised approach in this report with their own data and share the results where possible.

This will lead to more focus on the cost of autonomous systems and therefore a fuller understanding of the cost related implications of autonomy over time.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH WORKSHOPS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

29

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SCI PANEL ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIALISTS MEETING ON AUTONOMY FROM A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE (SCI‑299) OVERVIEW

FINDINGS

The objective of this workshop in October 2017 was to review the results from the three‑day SCI‑296 Specialists’ Meeting, to provide a quick assessment of the activities covering the topic areas identified, and to discuss a way ahead to ensure momentum is sustained for the Autonomy Theme and for engagement with the community of interest established in SCI‑296.

APPROACH SCI‑296 identified 17 Topic Areas, and for each area it generated descriptions of possible activities in varying degrees of granularity. These areas were discussed and considered during the SCI‑299 workshop.

OBJECTIVES 1.

Create a shared understanding of the results of SCI‑296 Research Specialists’ Meeting.

2.

Consider how to shepherd continuing cross‑panel coordination and momentum in autonomy.

3.

SCI Panel planning: 1.

Identifying the SCI Panel‑specific outputs and recommendations.

2.

Ensure current and future topics are addressed within each SCI Working Session.

3.

Ensure an effective dialogue across the SCI Working Sessions.

Insight and direction gained for further STO research into the Autonomy Theme.

Since the SCI‑296 Specialists’ Meeting, some STO panels have continued to explore and progress the original draft ideas and, in some cases, generated new activities. The SCI‑299 workshop has drafted an annex that provides a snapshot of the status of autonomy‑related activities. It is suggested to use this annex as the starting point of an STO‑level living document to continue to capture current and future activities and from which recommendations for new, revised research directions on autonomy and autonomous systems can be identified.

In addition to these recommendations, the workshop put forward a proposal for shepherding these 17 Topic Areas whereby the SCI Panel would lead the thematic area and the coordinating panels would provide coordination for the specific topic areas (i.e., foster new activities, maintain account of progress, and engage with ACT to maintain shared situational awareness).

In conclusion, the 17 Topic Areas provide good coverage for the overall area of autonomy, and the workshop proposed several approaches to shepherd this thematic area across the Panels. In absence of a formal process, the SCI Panel will continue to track the current ‘autonomy’ efforts, analyse these efforts vis‑à‑vis the framework of the 17 Topic Areas, and function as a proponent for needed new efforts.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

30

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH TECHNOLOGY WATCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

31

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INTELLIGENT AUTONOMY (IST‑TW‑003) OVERVIEW

KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

This technology forecasting exercise was completed in 2016.

•

Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL): TRL 2‑3: Concepts of potential applications are formulated, but proof of some concepts is beyond the current state‑of‑the‑art. This is especially true with respect to the assurance of these systems.

•

15 – 20‑year timeframe TRL: Warfighting units should have autonomous systems that are completely trusted and capable of performing both mundane and dangerous tasks. Intelligence analysts should have trusted systems capable of retrieving information across the entire spectrum of sensors and archival data that is relevant to the decision at hand. Networks and information systems should be configured, supported, and protected by autonomous agents.

•

Blue force implications: Many important software desktop applications (such as intelligent decision aids) must use autonomy to reduce the operator’s cognitive load. These systems will assess and interpret vast amounts of sensor and intelligence data to produce actionable information and recommendations for the warfighter and will have the ability to make independent decisions and act upon these decisions rapidly, while at the same time be able to work as part of a team that includes humans.

•

Red force implications: Adversaries will be seeking the same benefits from intelligent autonomy that we will. They will also be looking for ways to subvert our intelligent systems. Trust and high assurance for autonomous systems will be a major concern.

FINDINGS CURRENT RESEARCH FOCUS Most of today’s deployed unmanned systems are remotely operated by a warfighter who augments the system’s guidance, situational assessment, and decision making. These systems have demonstrated unquestioned value, playing vital roles such as Improvised Explosive Device (IED) interrogation, aerial surveillance, checkpoint inspection, and land or sea mine clearance.

Although these systems help keep warfighters safe and have improved surveillance, the current unmanned system technology is resulting in increased labour needs and places an increased cognitive load on warfighters. While some levels of autonomy have been introduced in recent unmanned systems, the autonomy lacks the intelligence to reduce crewing requirements, reduce warfighter cognitive load, or increase the pace of operations. Intelligent autonomy will enable capabilities that are not currently possible, such as long‑duration unmanned underwater vehicles, where the vehicle must be able to work for months without human intervention or even communication.

ACCESS THIS TW CARD See TW card for further detail.

Figure 5: Patrolling unmanned air vehicle (Credit: iStock)

32

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH EXPLORATORY TEAMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

33

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MODELLING AND SIMULATION (M&S) OF AUTONOMOUS ASW CAPABLE VEHICLES TO AUGMENT SURFACE AND MARITIME AIR CAPABILITIES (MSG‑ET‑036) DURATION November 2014 – December 2015

OVERVIEW With the advent of unmanned maritime systems able to carry limited sonar capabilities, the question arises of how and where they can best fit into the existing force layout. This Exploratory Team (ET) sought to better quantify the benefits of unmanned systems when they are inserted into NATO surface/maritime air Anti‑Submarine Warfare (ASW) capabilities.

OBJECTIVES This ET aimed to pinpoint and use networked modelling and simulation capabilities, distributed amongst the cooperating NATO Nations, to assess the added search and classification benefits provided by unmanned ASW systems when inserted into existing surface and maritime air capabilities.

SAR APPLICATIONS IN UAS FOR THE MARITIME ISR (SET‑ET‑091) DURATION January 2015 – December 2016

OVERVIEW The effective integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into NATO forces depends on the payload availability for the typical range of mass and volume that can be accommodated in an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). For maritime ISR applications the use of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is crucial. However, this integration and operational validation needs to be more intensively carried by the NATO Nations. This Exploratory Team sought to bridge this gap by bringing together partners with expertise in SAR technology and UAS development and operation.

OBJECTIVES This activity has the purpose to advance SAR technology to better enable integration into unmanned air systems for maritime surveillance applications.

OUTCOMES No record of follow‑on activity.

OUTCOMES The analysis suggested the guidelines, architectures, and requirements to be adopted to support future SA3C3 federation development; these considerations are based on existing scientific research, Subject Matter Expert (SME) feedback, and demo examples.

The potential of SA3C became clear for the Alliance and Nations in terms of ASW. Based on these considerations, a roadmap was suggested for future SA3C developments and the guidelines for SA3C Architecture and Requirements.

Today, CMRE have progressed from those concepts and ideas and are working on interoperable simulation and autonomous systems for Anti‑Submarine warfare.

3 SA3C: Modelling and Simulation of Autonomous ASW capable vehicles to Augment surface and maritime air Capabilities.

34

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RES­EARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

35

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ENABLING PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES FOR RESILIENT SMALL SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS FOR NATO MISSIONS (AVT‑336) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RSM

The group will prepare a report of findings and recommendations on the benefits of exploiting enabling platform technologies for resilient small satellite constellations, in comparison to current methods, and to enhance NATO capabilities.

This report will draw upon the presentations, discussions, and conclusions of the Specialists’ Meeting to be held in 2021 to bring together experts in the field.

DURATION February 2019 – December 2021

OVERVIEW Interoperable small satellites are effective for specific military missions and can operate individually, together in constellations, or autonomously in swarms for higher complexity missions. RSM AVT‑336 seeks to investigate the state‑of‑of‑the‑art, gaps, opportunities, and benefits to be derived by infusing new platform technologies for resilient small satellite constellations.

FINDINGS The Specialists’ Meeting was held 11‑14 October 2021, and the resulting meeting proceedings will shortly be published.

OBJECTIVES RSM AVT‑336 will further communicate and advance the technology readiness levels of enabling platform technologies for resilient small satellite constellations for NATO missions at a Small Satellite Specialists’ Meeting to be held in October 2021.

36

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTOMATION IN THE INTELLIGENCE CYCLE (SAS‑157) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

Firstly, the team will address the question of whether automation can support the intelligence cycle, at which phases it could play a role, and in which form. Secondly, the team will choose a subset of identified opportunities and assess the benefit of automation in specific cases within national and NATO exercises.

DURATION January 2020 – January 2023

OVERVIEW With the technological developments of recent years, including improved sensors and platforms, there exists a growing availability of data for the intelligence community. Techniques from the fields of AI and autonomous systems might therefore be applied in support of the intelligence process.

Research Task Group SAS‑157 seeks to consider these implications and the possible opportunities to be realised.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in January 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

OBJECTIVES The high‑level aim of this activity is to identify opportunities to improve the intelligence cycle by application of AI‑enabled systems and automation.

This could be through accelerating the intelligence cycle, or by increasing other quality aspects yet to be identified.

Detailed objectives: 1.

Mapping’: conceptual mapping of AI technologies versus functionalities of the intelligence cycle. This will produce a first assessment of the benefit they could bring and a proposed method for assessing the (hypothesised) benefit.

2.

Field experiments: assessment of the (hypothesised) benefit of autonomy for the intelligence cycle through experiments with intelligence professionals.

3.

Extra Objective: design and test novel concept(s) of conducting intelligence.

4.

Overall deliverable: Report results of all objectives, overall conclusions, and future recommendations.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

37

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

HOW COULD TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFORM THE FUTURE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT (SAS‑159)

ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR MILITARY LOGISTICS (SAS‑165)

ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

RSY

DURATION

DURATION

March 2020 – March 2023

July 2020 – September 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

Technological leaps such as AI or quantum computing may be, if not around the corner, possible within the next 20+ years (i.e., within the long‑term defence planning perspective). The promises (and fears) of full autonomy both for civil and military applications as well as developments in synthetic biology and other technological areas mean that both civil society and military organisations may face enormous challenges within the next few decades. This Task Group will consider how technological developments will shape future operations.

This symposium aims to offer an opportunity for various subject matter experts to collaborate and assess the implications of new and emerging technologies for military logistics.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this activity is to explore the possible consequences of potentially game‑changing technology development on the future operational environment (FOE) in the 2040 to 2050 timeframe and to better understand how to identify potentially game‑changing technology in the future. This would help advise decision‑makers on where to introduce changes in military capability development and how to direct such investment.

APPROACH The work will build upon existing analyses of technology and strategic trends, including identified research and technologies of interest from each of the member nations.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in March 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

38

OBJECTIVES Individually, and in combination, innovative technologies have the potential to transform how defence and security logistics services are provided. Prototype innovative technologies expected to make a significant impact on logistics provision include: •

Additive manufacturing;

•

Use of data science, AI, and analytics; and

•

Autonomy and automation throughout the supply chain.

The symposium will bring together subject matter experts in logistics, logistics technologies and those undertaking OR&A on future logistics capabilities. This symposium will allow them to see new and emerging technology, and to explore and assess their impacts on logistics.

APPROACH Symposium bringing together various subject matter experts on this topic.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in September 2022, and a final symposium report will subsequently be published.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) TELE‑MANIPULATION ROBOT TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT (SCI‑342)

RESCUE SYSTEMS FOR BROKEN TRUST (IST‑191) ACTIVITY TYPE RWS

DURATION

ACTIVITY TYPE

June 2021 – June 2022

RTG

OVERVIEW

DURATION November 2020 – November 2023

OVERVIEW Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) operations are often dangerous. Risk to human lives can be reduced by employing EOD robots, which a trained operator can use to investigate and manipulate the object of interest and surroundings.

However, contemporary robotic EOD systems lack the sophistication to perform the demanding handling tasks swiftly from a remote location and autonomously assist the operator to completely fulfil the task. Consequently, the EOD operators are often forced to approach the explosive threat in‑person to perform the manipulation task locally.

By improving the dexterous capabilities of EOD tele‑manipulation robots and control interfaces, EOD operators will be able to perform a wider array of handling tasks at safe standoff distances.

Command systems require cooperation based on trust and mutual authentication in the system. To authenticate the elements of autonomous systems, behavioural observation and reputation metrics are used. Having ‘Trust Rescue Systems’ class combat modules on standby in case of ‘broken trust’ events may help by performing a control function over the components of autonomous systems that are no longer confident of their correct operation or that make decisions that do not lead to success.

These systems help to support and maintain the continuity of operation of the components of autonomous systems, on which success or failure depends in critical operational moments.

OBJECTIVES Expected outcomes/foci of the workshop: •

An exchange of views on the continuity and correctness of the operation of semi‑ or self‑learning, self‑organising, and reconfiguring systems.

•

An attempt to establish the risk of losing trust in cooperating systems.

•

Consequences of limiting human perception in command and the ‘unlimited’ perception of AI, Machine‑Learning systems.

•

Decision‑making speed (the idea of nanosecond decision and nanosecond operational advantage) and the speed of its implementation in C4ISR systems.

•

The speed and effectiveness of AI oversight by Trust Rescue Systems (TRS).

OBJECTIVES This Task Group looks to work towards the improvement of EOD tele‑manipulation robots and control interfaces.

APPROACH This RTG will use a System‑of‑Systems (SoS) approach to characterise robot system requirements enabling EOD operators to manipulate objects, executing an analysis for the different scientific domains contributing to SoS, and creating a technology roadmap for the future EOD tele‑manipulation of robot SoS. The RTG plans to engage with the EOD community.

FINDINGS

APPROACH

This study is due to conclude in November 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

This workshop will bring together experts in this area for an exchange of views and discussion on rescue systems for broken trust.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in June 2022, and a final report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

39

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH

40 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ADVANCED MINE NEUTRALISATION PROJECT

MORPH EU PROJECT

DURATION

2012 – 2016

DURATION

2010 – 2013

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVES This CMRE project explored ways to perform maritime mine neutralisation more safely, efficiently, and cost‑effectively by developing cooperative autonomy between a highly capable Autonomous Surface Vehicle (ASV) and a low‑cost (disposable, less capable) mine intervention Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV).

This project, which saw CMRE work with the MORPH EU Project, aimed to demonstrate smart AUV teaming to achieve higher quality underwater sensing products. This includes automatic formation re‑shaping in response to the terrain.

OUTCOMES The project has developed and evaluated at sea a prototype system composed of an ASV and an UUV, capable of doing autonomous sonar target re‑acquisition, autonomous UUV deployment, UUV guidance, and target visual identification.

Figure 7: An AUV surfaces, a state‑of‑the‑art autonomous device that could help provide amphibious units with quick and accurate underwater survey data (Credit: DVIDS)

OUTCOMES

Figure 6: AUV calibration and training in California, May 2020 (Credit: DVIDS)

The main goals were achieved with new techniques introduced for cooperative formation flying and distributed localisation of AUVs. The consortium network was explored in other follow‑on activities and the knowledge acquired/developed is being employed in CMRE.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

41

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ICARUS UNMANNED SEARCH AND RESCUE (FP7 PROJECT) DURATION

OUTCOMES

2012 – 2016

The project increased the level of autonomy of the robots, supplied a multi‑domain common and interoperable framework for the robot communications and designed a common command and control station.

OBJECTIVES CMRE participated in this EU project. Its aim was to bridge the gap between the research community and the end‑users, by developing a toolbox of integrated components for unmanned Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. The use of unmanned search and rescue devices embedded in a suitable information architecture and integrated into existing infrastructures help crisis personnel by providing detailed and easy to understand information about the situation.

42

CMRE has developed an autonomy package that includes a set of sensors and software behaviours (waypoint navigation, obstacle avoidance) for performing real‑time data fusion and processing.

The system was integrated, adopting the JAUS protocol, in a common C2 station and validated in a realistic SAR scenario.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

43

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY FOR MINE COUNTERMEASURES: A PROJECT IN THE AUTONOMOUS NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES (ANMCM) CMRE PROGRAMME DURATION

OUTCOMES

2007 – Present

•

OBJECTIVES

Development of sensors (synthetic aperture sonars);

•

Development of perception layers (machine learning and AI algorithms) for comprehension of the NMCM environment;

•

Development of adaptive behaviours for optimised mine search and classification;

•

Development of solutions of collaborative autonomy for NMCM;

•

Development of interoperability and standardisation approaches for autonomy (with the MUSE/PARC programmes), and domain‑specific gaps; and

•

Demonstration of above in NATO, National, and CMRE exercises at sea.

This ongoing project looks to contribute to the development of autonomy architectures and demonstrator implementations for naval mine countermeasures (NMCM) to inform the NMCM capability of Alliance.

44

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ADVANCED HETEROGENEOUS COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY OF MUS FOR ASW: A PROJECT IN THE AUTONOMOUS ANTI‑SUBMARINE WARFARE CMRE PROGRAMME DURATION

•

Integration of the autonomy engine with on‑board environmental prediction software;

•

Development of environmentally‑aware behaviours (e.g., to improve communication performance – in collaboration with the EKOE programme, and/or target probability of detection);

•

Development of perception layers (machine learning and AI algorithms) for contact/track classification for informing the autonomy engine;

•

Development and integration of communication, simulation, interoperability, and standardisation approaches for A‑ASW autonomy software (with the MUSE/PARC programmes);

•

Porting of the developed approaches on heterogeneous vehicles and demonstration of the systems in NATO, National and CMRE exercises at sea;

•

Demonstration of a Technical Demo (TD) at REPMUS2021 of a network of AUVs equipped with passive sonar sensors for localisation of a submarine in a distress situation. The robots were controlled by the developed task‑oriented autonomy architecture and used cooperative autonomy and data‑fusion of bearing measurements to survey the area and to accurately localise the submarine in distress; and

•

During the REPMUS2021 TD, the CMRE ASW hybrid robotic network was integrated with an on shore C2 centre using SCI‑288 messages for autonomy interoperability.

2008 – Present

OBJECTIVES This ongoing project strives to contribute to the development of autonomy architectures and a portfolio of cooperative behaviours for managing an Anti‑Submarine Warfare (ASW) robotic heterogeneous network (AUVs, ASVs, gliders, gateway buoys) in the different tasks that compose an ASW mission. The project also aims to implement and assess demonstrators to validate the new concepts in at‑sea experimentations and NATO exercises.

OUTCOMES •

Development of a task oriented, multi‑robot mission management and execution architecture suited to control heterogeneous assets orchestrating multiple adaptive behaviours to face the current tactical and environmental situation;

•

Development of adaptive behaviours for target prosecution (for improving target tracking and classification) and area clearance both for active and for passive sonar sensing;

•

Real‑time data fusion on‑board the robots;

•

Development of cooperative strategies based on data fusion (e.g., target prosecution strategies);

•

Management of multi‑task mission with the integration of real‑time, on‑board contact/ track classifiers for effective decision making;

•

Development of distributed high‑level task allocation strategies specifically designed for communications‑limited environments;

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

45

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MODELLING AND SIMULATION ROBORDER EU PROJECT FOR MARITIME UNMANNED DURATION SYSTEMS: A PROJECT IN THE 2017 – 2021 PARC AND MUSE PROGRAMMES4 OBJECTIVES

DURATION 2016 – Present

OBJECTIVES This ongoing CMRE project, part of the (completed)4PARC and (ongoing) MUSE CMRE programmes, aims to institute a federated simulation environment for maritime Unmanned Systems.

ROBORDER aims at developing and demonstrating a fully functional autonomous border surveillance system with unmanned mobile robots including aerial, water surface, underwater and ground vehicles that will incorporate multimodal sensors as part of an interoperable network. This ongoing EU project aims to develop an M&S capability to allow: •

End users experimenting configuration of autonomous vehicles in support of their tasks, simulating realistic scenarios in a safe to fail environment.

•

Technical users testing autonomous behaviours, sensors, vehicle configurations prior to its employment in the real operative environment. The capability would supply the tools to support the assessment of system performances under test and the outcomes of CD&E experiments.

•

Coordinate the organisation and execution of the project demonstrations.

•

Lead the evaluation of the project performances.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

4 PARC – Persistent Autonomous Reconfigurable Capability. PARC was replaced by MUSE – Maritime Unmanned Systems Enablers. PARC is a completed CMRE programme, while MUSE is an ongoing CMRE programme.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

46

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INFORE (INTERACTIVE EXTREME‑SCALE ANALYTICS AND FORECASTING) DURATION 2018 – 2022

NATO HQ DAT POW – AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND VR/AR FOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN HARBOUR PROTECTION DURATION

OBJECTIVES The CMRE objective of the INFORE EU project (a collaboration between the A‑ASW and DKOE programmes) is the development of a hybrid, autonomous, robotic network composed of two Waveglider surface robots and autonomous underwater vehicles equipped with passive sonars and a thermal camera ashore for maritime surveillance. The INFORE system will use the global view provided by AIS and satellite data to command the robotic network to collect effective local view of the maritime situation (e.g., monitoring and investigating suspicious vessels).

Cooperative autonomy and data fusion strategies are developed for controlling the robotic network to optimise the survey of an area of interest and the localisation of a suspicious vessel once the robotic nodes are cued by the analysis of global view sensors.

2019 – 2022

OBJECTIVES This ongoing CMRE project seeks to define and analyse current gaps on harbour protection operations in the areas of situational and spatial awareness, develop and test a prototype for the collection, processing and fusion of raw data; and visualisation and manipulation of information in a VR/AR (Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality) framework.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

ARESIBO EU PROJECT

OUTCOMES

DURATION

Ongoing.

2019 – 2022

OBJECTIVES This project seeks to develop a training environment based on serious gaming for augmented reality for autonomous systems in border protection.

COMPASS2020 EU PROJECT DURATION 2019 – 2021

OUTCOMES

OBJECTIVES

Ongoing.

With CMRE as a contributing member, this ongoing EU project looks to develop innovative concepts of deployment that maximise the benefits of maritime Unmanned Systems, demonstrating the benefits of unmanned systems and data fusion maritime boarder security.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

47

NATO NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

PLATFORMS & DESIGN

48

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

SEXUAL VIOLENCE & EMPLOYMENT HARASSMENT: & INTEGRATION SYMPOSIUMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

PLATFORMS & DESIGN OVERVIEW This chapter surveys STO research that has considered aspects of autonomous platform design and characteristics that may influence the performance of these platforms in different domains and operational environments. The research conducted in this category varies widely in focus, including activities that discuss design methodologies for unmanned vehicles (UxVs) as well as others that focus more specifically on the performance of different autonomous platforms, such as situational awareness for swarm technologies and formation flying for unmanned aerial vehicles.

In many cases, the researchers participating in the STO CPoW have showed a clear interest in the mission performance of autonomous platform technologies. This is particularly the case given the increasingly contested and more sophisticated environments in which autonomous capabilities will be expected to operate. Relatedly therefore, many activities included in this chapter highlight testing, evaluation, and prototyping as necessary steps to assess the operational readiness of autonomous platforms in their various guises.

There is also a significant amount of ongoing research, highlighting the considerable scope of this area and the potential to generate further insights into the optimisation of design for autonomous platforms. Many of these ongoing activities build on work previously conducted, interrogating, for example, swarm systems for ISR, flight testing of UAVs, and control effectors for manoeuvring of air vehicles.

It is worth pointing out that research in design and testing is not exclusive to the air domain. Research has been undertaken covering the broader design and evaluation of autonomous systems of all types, including digital intelligent agents. Ongoing research is also examining mobility assessment methods for autonomous military ground systems, and the development and implementation of autonomous logistics, transport, and medical systems for casualty evacuation. Although lacking the depth of research and focus on UAVs, this breadth of research indicates the significant expected mid‑to‑long‑term application and adoption of autonomous platforms and systems in a wide array of domains, both on the battlefield and in terms of operational support.

Figure 8: Engineers working on a drone project (Credit: iStock)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

49

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

50

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

QUALIFICATION AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MILITARY UAVS (AVT‑174) DURATION

qualification recommendations summarised in the accompanying technical report. The report was also informed by dialogue with qualification authorities for both military and civilian airspace.

January 2010 – December 2012

OVERVIEW This Task Group met to examine the qualification and structural design guidelines for military UAVs.

FINDINGS General structural design guidelines and validation approaches generated.

OBJECTIVES This Task Group aimed to recommend a set of guidelines for the design criteria and structural qualification of UAVs tailored to reduce the level of effort needed, specifically in terms of testing requirements.

APPROACH The team considered several factors, including the vehicle speed, mass, operating system, weaponry, its lethality to both air and ground personnel, and its flight regime or airspace. All these factors influenced the formation of the categories and

A Technical Report was produced which supplies a set of guidelines that are valuable from both a designer’s and customer’s perspective. It should allow designers to develop a product with less time and lower costs, while providing the data and analyses necessary to prove that the product meets its requirements for both performance and safety. These guidelines outline: •

General structural design guidelines

•

Validation approaches

Figure 9: Design process for a UAV (Credit: iStock)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

51

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

GENERAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Key factors to be considered in the formation of design guidelines were identified below. These guidelines assume that UAVs will one day have full authority to fly in international airspaces shared with crewed aircraft under rules and regulations that assure equivalent safety to those applied to crewed aircraft. For further in‑depth detail on these factors, please see the AVT‑174 Technical Report.

Weight and Balance

One of the key drivers for the development of these guidelines was the lack of weight and balance information(what could be carried where) on the initial set of UAVs that were beginning to be sold from one nation to another. This information is crucial to the determination of loads for the vehicle.

Loads

The importance of assessment and validation of loads, both static and dynamic, was addressed. The team also presented methods to demonstrate structural strength to a certain safety level not less than that is used for crewed aircraft.

STANAG 4671 is used as a reference and a starting point for these Guidelines.

Aeroelasticity and Aeroservoelasticity

Structural integrity must be sufficient to avoid, with minimum safety margins, aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic phenomena.

Strength/Factors of Safety

A strategy was proposed to adjust the factor of safety according to the design type and the maturity of the: • Technologies being used • Design configuration • Development at the time of flight

52

Structural Health and Event Monitoring

Raises the importance of a structural health‑monitoring and decision system, the latter for in‑flight events where there is no pilot to take an action.

Durability

The durability of the structure must be assessed against the expected fatigue spectrum.

Damage Tolerance

Guidelines should consider damage risk exposure.

Discrete Events

Certain events should be considered in the design of UAVs, for they might seriously compromise the safe operation of the UAV. These include live fire, rotor burst, severe hail, bird strike, tire burst, and severe lightening.

Crashworthiness

Crash load factors are to be considered in the design.

(Re)producibility

The question of the reproducibility of a high‑quality airframe is addressed in this section since the product the customer is getting is not the as‑designed or as‑successfully evaluated one.

In‑Service Inspection and Maintenance

Because real usage might and will most certainly differ from what was assumed during the design phase, it is crucial to monitor load exposure of the aircraft to manage fatigue life.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

VALIDATION APPROACHES The Task Group identified the most common approaches used for the certification/qualification process as below, a process which is currently very time consuming and expensive. For further in‑depth detail on these approaches, please see the AVT‑174 Technical Report.

Conventional Qualification

The current approach is based on a building block strategy where analytical tools are gaining acceptance for increasing reliability.

Qualification by Analysis

The future direction of aircraft qualification is unquestionably towards saving time and money.

Achieving the desired efficiency in this process depends on an improved reliability in our analytical tools.

Qualification of Hybrid Structures

The differences between the materials that make up a hybrid structure (i.e., composites and metals) can lead to adaptations in the certifying/ qualifying process. Differences arise from both material‑specific properties and experience.

Spiral Development as a New Design and Qualification Concept

The conventional building block approach is not scaled to the intended domain of operation of the aircraft, and this inevitably leads to a waste of resources. A different approach is proposed which is based on a step‑by‑step progression that adjusts the level of testing to the usage of the aircraft – i.e., spiral development. The certification process is continuous, the difference being the ability to use the aircraft before full certification, even in a limited way.

Qualification of Limited Operational Vehicles and Prototype Qualification

Guidelines for the structural validation of limited operational vehicles and prototypes.

Resolution of Non‑Conformance Issues

During the design process, non‑conformance issues are likely to occur. Necessary tools are needed to deal with these issues.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

53

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

UNMANNED SYSTEMS (UMS) PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES AND PERFORMANCES FOR AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS (AVT‑175) DURATION January 2010 – December 2012

OVERVIEW At the time this Task Group was formed, an urgent need existed to provide users with a tool for not only defining a UMS’s level of autonomy but also quantitatively measuring the impact of autonomy on UMS mission performance. This Task Group thus sought to define the technologies affecting autonomy and autonomous performance, present a comprehensive overview of current UMS systems in use by NATO Nations for potential military applications, and provide an exhaustive review of the current test methods, standards, autonomy definitions, and autonomous performance assessment tools in use at this time.

OBJECTIVES This RTG aimed to develop procedures for assessment of vehicle/operator system performance as a function of platform autonomy for un‑crewed and crewed land, air, and sea vehicles, through the development of a unified design framework.

APPROACH The scope of the RTG was to include UMS for each application domain: air, ground, and sea, and provide details on current UMS in each domain area and the technologies used by these UMS to realise some level of autonomous operations.

The RTG’s efforts were limited by the lack of data related to full‑scale operations at higher levels of autonomy, as autonomous UMS were at the time yet to be fielded extensively for NATO missions.

The RTG developed a new performance assessment tool for predicting mission performance using the system technologies present within Unmanned Systems (UMS), dubbed the Mission Performance Potential (MPP). The MPP was implemented in software and evaluated against a sample UAV reconnaissance mission using field‑testing data.

The MPP works by taking data related only to the UMS platform hardware, software, and intelligence and combining this data using logic rules derived from the mission profile. The MPP starts from a pre‑defined autonomy level and predicts the UMS performance for its mission at that level of autonomy. The MPP methodology removes the two major barriers preventing performance assessment of UMS: the need for field‑testing and the need for detailed, standardised environment, and mission metrics. Furthermore, the MPP was implemented and calculated for two example UMS, moving from the theoretical world to the practical, a key step that is missing with many other proposed methodologies and frameworks.

This tool will be useful not only to users in selecting the proper asset for a given mission, but also as a design tool by providing a quantitative measure of the impact of different technologies on UMS mission performance. The RTG recommends that further work be done to refine the MPP software tool, distribute this tool to NATO Nations, and use field‑testing data to better verify and validate the MPP.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

FINDINGS Development and testing of a viable framework for predicting the impact of autonomy on UMS mission performance.

54

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AEROACOUSTICS OF ENGINE INSTALLATION FOR MILITARY AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑233) DURATION January 2014 – December 2017

OVERVIEW Military Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) systems require exceptionally low observability for certain operations such as surveillance.

One important aspect of observability is noise.

Design methods to minimise the noise output of military air vehicles need to be improved. A better understanding of noise profiles of relevant aircraft geometries and validated acoustic prediction methods will help achieve this.

Figure 10: Army aerospace engineers work on a UAV (Credit: iStock)

FINDINGS

This Task Group worked to help identify and then validate appropriate acoustic prediction methods as a basis for low noise military aircraft design with a focus on acoustic shielding of engine noise.

Validated tools have been established with which to take the next logical step toward a full simulation of actual low noise design modifications on realistic NATO military air vehicles.

OBJECTIVES •

To study installation effects on the radiated sound of generic vehicle models;

All main objectives of AVT‑233 were accomplished.

Among the goals achieved:

•

To determine the shielding properties that can be used as an effective means of reducing noise; and,

•

Appropriate test noise sources were developed for conducting acoustic shielding tests.

•

To validate sound radiation prediction methods.

•

A model was successfully derived to describe the laser pulse source analytically in time and frequency domain, thus providing simple and relevant sources for prediction codes.

•

Highly relevant acoustic shielding test campaigns were conducted in four different wind tunnels.

APPROACH A group of experts from industry, research organisations, and academia in aeroacoustic prediction and testing took this challenge and developed a structured approach towards progress in this area of concern. To establish a fundamental aeroacoustic shielding database for validation of acoustic prediction codes, a set of related aeroacoustic shielding tests was planned and executed in four different wind tunnels for three different geometries of increasing complexity to cover all relevant prediction scenarios.

The Task Group concluded by calling for further work to deal with more realistic sources and a realistic, concurrent agile (unmanned) NATO air vehicle design.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

55

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑239) DURATION

FINDINGS

January 2015 – December 2018

Active Flow Control (AFC) technology appears feasible to apply to low‑observable combat aircraft configurations.

OVERVIEW This Task Group aimed to investigate the feasibility of applying Active Flow Control (AFC) to low‑observable combat aircraft configurations.

Future crewed and un‑crewed military vehicles will rely on surface geometries with smooth, continuous outer mould lines to enhance survivability. This requirement to be seamless invokes a critical challenge for vehicle control and suggests that new flight control effector strategies may be needed. New seamless flight control effector strategies using Active Flow Control (AFC) offer the potential for enhanced survivability of future military air vehicles.

OBJECTIVES The objective of the Task Group was to increase the TRL of the application of novel control technologies to manoeuvring through the assessment and development against key integration criteria, e.g., complexity, maintainability, reliability, etc. The Task Group also aimed to identify any barriers to exploitation, which may direct future research.

APPROACH The goal was to identify the technologies that minimised the reliance on conventional control surfaces during different portions of the vehicle mission profile. The aerodynamic performance of these technologies was evaluated on two platforms representative of next generation tailless aircraft for a representative early mission phase.

56

A framework for integrating flow control into the preliminary aerodynamic design process of a next‑generation UAV and assessing its system impact on that aircraft was established.

The study concluded that Active Flow Technology (AFC) technology is both feasible and reasonable for application to next generation air vehicle platforms. For the early mission phases, both trailing edge tangential blowing/circulation control and yaw fluidic thrust vectoring are the most promising technologies.

Areas highlighted for future R&D investment include AFC valve reliability/maintainability and the maturation of technology, integration, and manufacturing readiness to level 5 or greater.

Further assessments are proposed to explore the application of AFC to the take‑off/landing and manoeuvring mission phases.

A comprehensive framework for integrating flow control into the preliminary aerodynamic design process of a next‑generation UAV and assessing its system impact on that aircraft was established.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MULTI‑DISCIPLINARY DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVE, AGILE NATO AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑251) DURATION January 2016 – December 2018

OVERVIEW Task Group AVT‑251 was established to work on the aerodynamic and structural design of UCAVs.

OBJECTIVES The aim of AVT‑251 was to re‑design and enhance the existing SACCON UCAV concept based on selected requirements and to document and evaluate the design strategy and use of advanced design tools. The group aimed to achieve these goals to address the challenges connected to the design of future low observable, agile aerial vehicles.

Figure 11a: Design Sequence Used for AVT-251

APPROACH This task group followed on from previous STO task groups that analysed the SACCON UCAV geometry with wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, as well as control surface effectiveness estimations.

AVT‑251 started with the SACCON UCAV geometry and then re‑designed the configuration to meet specific mission requirements. The design studies were conducted within a framework of several design teams, focusing on aircraft design, aerodynamics, controls, structures, and engine integration.

The re‑design resulted in a new geometry called MULDICON (‘Multi‑disciplinary Configuration’).

FINDINGS Following on from previous task groups, the group designed a new UCAV concept to improve UCAVs fulfilment of more challenging missions.

Figure 11b: SACCON and MULDICON Planform Comparisons

The main achievement of AVT‑251 was the design of a new UCAV concept called MULDICON. The MULDICON concept represents a feasible design for controllable flight characteristics at angles of attack that will make the configuration agile and capable of fulfilling more challenging missions.

Overall, this study represents a good example of how modern design and analysis tools can streamline the design process, as well as how a feasible configuration can be generated within a reasonably brief period and limited resources.

The MULDICON concept has similarities to several other modern UCAV concepts and represents a feasible design that will make the configuration agile and capable of fulfilling more challenging missions.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

57

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

FORMATION FLYING FOR EFFICIENT OPERATIONS (AVT‑279) DURATION

FINDINGS

January 2017 – December 2019

OVERVIEW This Task Group sought to investigate formation flying to improve flight efficiency.

OBJECTIVES The objective was to facilitate the adoption of formation flight technology to significantly improve flight efficiency, reduce fuel burn, and extend range for multi‑aircraft operations. The study aimed to cover unique aspects of the challenges including as they relate to unmanned aerial vehicles.

APPROACH Discussions on the topic and reviews of the available literature are presented in the final Technical Report. This includes:

58

•

A historical review of advances in theory, modelling, equipment, and flight testing;

•

Description of the required systems that are available and/or will need to be advanced for the successful adoption of formation flying;

•

Explanation of the basic operational challenges and opportunities including benefits from reduced fuel burn in the trailing aircraft; and,

•

The development of a roadmap for future research and implementation.

Formation flying has a well‑established and validated pedigree and is worthy of strong consideration for inclusion in NATO air operations.

The major finding is that Air Wake Surfing for Efficiency (AWSE) has a well‑established and validated pedigree and is worthy of strong consideration for inclusion in NATO air operations.

Moreover, the study encouraged NATO to take the first step in having a dialogue and debate regarding interest, commitment, and investment for efficient formation flight.

AVT‑279’s Technical Report covers the history of efficient formation flight; theory of vortex generation and benefit modelling; systems and controls to execute air wake surfing; operational considerations and procedures; and recommendations including modelling and simulation scenarios, technology roadmaps, and potential demonstrations.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DEMONSTRATION OF INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES (AVT‑295) DURATION May 2017 – May 2020

OVERVIEW This Task Group convened to examine innovative control effectors for the manoeuvring of air vehicles.

OBJECTIVES Next generation UAVs will confront an increasingly contested and more sophisticated threat environment. To operate in this theatre, these aircraft must feature low detectability and on‑demand high agility. AVT‑295 evaluated scaled versions of relevant next‑generation UAV configurations equipped with advanced aerodynamic technologies that eliminate the complex, moving flight control surfaces that constrain UAV performance.

APPROACH Collaborating with and following on from RTG AVT‑239 Innovative Control Effectors for Manoeuvring of Air Vehicles, this Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT) aimed to integrate pneumatic‑based control effectors onto a subscale air vehicle with a representative tailless platform and ultimately demonstrate effective flight control, whole or in part, with minimal, or no, conventional control surface input.

RTG AVT‑239 and the subsequent RTG AVT‑295 came together to investigate the application of novel flight control technologies to aircraft manoeuvring. Candidate technologies were identified, developed, and assessed against key vehicle performance and vehicle integration criteria (e.g., complexity, maintainability, and reliability). The aerodynamic performance of these technologies was assessed and demonstrated on two unmanned platforms representative of next generation tailless aircraft (i.e., Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles ‒ UCAVs).

Tangential, trailing edge blowing, and yaw fluidic thrust vectoring together supplied the necessary vehicle control during the early mission of two configurations.

This was an outstanding example of multidisciplinary teaming of academia, government, and industry collaborating on complex problems to aid the defence of NATO Nations. In recognition of the outstanding work and significant scientific contribution, the 2021 STO Excellence Award was awarded to the AVT‑239/295 team.

FINDINGS Novel flight control technologies can offer a solution to the requirements of next‑generation air vehicles including UAVs.

Figure 12: UAV in flight (Credit: iStock)

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

59

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SYMPOSIUMS

60 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

FLIGHT TESTING OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) (SCI‑269) OVERVIEW This symposium’s goal was to provide a forum for presentations on NATO Nations’ achievements in UAV flight‑testing and to establish a basis for future collaboration on the development of appropriate flight test techniques and accepted practices for UAV projects.

APPROACH A two‑day symposium was held in May 2015, convening participants from 15 nations to hear technical presentations on UAS flight‑testing topics. The presentations were well received and produced discussion that should lead to additional future technical exchanges and collaboration between participants and improvement in NATO’s UAS flight‑testing capabilities.

FINDINGS The symposium provided an opportunity to share valuable information about the flight‑testing of unmanned aerial systems and unique developmental issues affecting those tests.

UAV operations in national airspace is still the largest obstacle to the full utilisation of UAS. Flight testing is valuable to both obtain necessary data and to effectively manage risk in a test programme.

A requirement to follow established crewed flight test methodology or to establish UAS unique processes based on existing flight test methodology was a common theme throughout the symposium. An additional high priority topic was the integration of UAS and UAV operations into the airspace structure of NATO Nations while preserving safe skies for crewed flight.

Figure 13: A UAV is assessed in the initial phase of data collection in DARPA’s Fast Lightweight Autonomy programme (Credit: DARPA) https://www.darpa.mil/news‑events/2016‑02‑12

In addition to specific information on flight tests of unique UAV and UAS efforts, two overriding items regarding UAS flight testing, and development emerged from this symposium: operations of unmanned aircraft in unrestricted national airspace; and the high value of applying or adapting established flight tests methodologies and processes to UAV testing.

It appeared that UAV operations in national airspace remain the largest obstacle to the full utilisation of UAS with both sense and avoid technology and airspace regulatory guidance currently being worked on to address this issue.

In addition, the symposium presentations showed that a disciplined and professional flight test approach is valuable to both obtain necessary data and to effectively manage risk in a test programme.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

61

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SITUATION AWARENESS OF SWARMS AND AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑341) OVERVIEW This symposium met in May 2021 to establish an overview of the state‑of‑the‑art regarding situational awareness in swarms of autonomous systems and identify the relevance of future developments to NATO operations.

APPROACH The symposium brought together subject matter experts from various fields including in autonomy, swarming, situation awareness, and multi‑agent systems to discuss the topic.

During the final discussion, it was decided by participants that a potential outcome to be explored could be a research activity on human‑machine teaming and the shared representation of their SA. Meetings Proceedings are yet to be published.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

FINDINGS Altogether, the symposium included one keynote speech and eight presentations divided into three sessions.

62

•

The first session discussed relations between concepts of autonomy and Situation Awareness (SA), including presentations on control methods for autonomous swarms, weather intelligence for autonomous operations, and synthetic environments for the Modelling and Simulation (M&S) of robotic and autonomous systems.

•

The second session discussed how to provide better SA for human‑in‑the‑loop, via both improved swarm displays and anomaly detection via explainable artificial intelligence.

•

The third session discussed swarm intelligence in the context of SA through topics such as swarm tasking, swarm performance evaluation using synthetic environments, and swarm‑to‑swarm interactions.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

63

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

TECHNOLOGICAL AND OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH UGV APPLICATION FOR FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS (AVT‑241) OVERVIEW

FINDINGS

This Specialists’ Meeting met in April 2015 to examine the employment of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) for future operations, particularly in the complex urban environment.

Insight gained on the employment of UGVs. Accommodation to be made for the use of this modern technology, including concerning training, CONOPS, and standards.

This Specialists’ Meeting aimed to: •

Exchange the present information on novel UGV systems (including design, manufacturing, and testing);

•

Identify concepts of employment in asymmetric conflicts, considering Lessons Learned experiences resulting from NATO missions;

•

Identify problems connected with the evolution of future urban operations by using UGV; and,

•

Prioritise areas for potential collaborative, international R&D.

The meeting had the following notable observations: •

UGVs are a revolutionary concept and war‑fighting tool that is new to many soldiers.

Therefore, extensive training should be expected. The more soldiers are familiar with the tools, the better they will be able to take advantage of robotic capabilities. Moreover, trained soldiers will also be better equipped to provide feedback for further improvement of the UGV.

•

More presentations on interactions between the users (i.e., the warfighters) and robot developers would have been beneficial. This collaboration should help both sides.

•

It is worth exploring CONOPs involving integrating UGV, UAS, USV, and UUV.

•

It would be beneficial for relevant standards to continue to be assessed and used for the integration and interoperability of UGVs.

APPROACH This technical meeting consisted of 16 presentations along with two keynote presentations and a demonstration session.

The emphases of the keynote speeches were UGV functional requirements and Modelling & Simulation (M&S) respectively. Both are key UGV technology areas. The demonstrations displayed some of the ongoing research and development efforts aiming at advancing relevant UGV capabilities.

The presentations offered respective but integrated perspectives, including system conceptualisation, modelling and simulation, and standardisation.

Figure 14: The collaboration between warfighters and robot developers is a key aspect to the deployment of this technology (Credit: iStock)

64

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The overall recommendation was made to systematically develop and enrich UGV technology along the mission lifecycle model using an integrated approach. Further recommendations included: •

A roadmap could help chart a long‑term course for integrating UGVs into future NATO operations.

•

It is recommended to use common terminology to articulate UGV requirements and capabilities.

•

It is recommended to use a common capability identification, measurement, and evaluation framework that enables detailed identification and evaluation of the system’s autonomous capabilities.

•

Rigorous testing and evaluation, safety, and security is vital and must be conducted.

•

The development of flexible and organic architectures to ease integration as well as revolutionised doctrine for readiness, training, and operation should be considered as essential elements in technology insertion.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

65

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INTELLIGENCE & AUTONOMY (ROBOTICS) (IST‑127) OVERVIEW The aim of this Specialists’ Meeting in October 2016 was to bring together world‑renowned researchers working on the various aspects of intelligent autonomous military robot systems to discuss current trends and solutions.

APPROACH This RSM consisted of several sessions with oral and poster presentations.

Presentations covered areas such as: Environment perception; Robot motion planning; Task and mission planning; Autonomous navigation; mobile manipulation; multi‑robot coordination; soldier‑robot cooperation; and Interoperability.

FINDINGS

The presentations showed that there is huge interest in unmanned systems with increased autonomous capabilities, but that there was no cooperation to be found at that time across nations in the development process. It was determined that this research area could gain from cooperation within NATO, especially as in many cases, nations develop solutions for similar autonomous capabilities with slightly different assumptions and different operational requirements such as weather or vegetation. To deploy an autonomous capability, it is necessary to know under which conditions it operates reliably and to have solutions that work under a broad range of conditions.

Therefore, IST‑127 proposed further STO research on autonomous capabilities for unmanned systems.

This research was suggested to focus on:

Insight gained on intelligent autonomous military robot systems.

1.

Identifying autonomous capabilities of interest across NATO.

The RSM reinforced the need for cooperation within NATO in this area.

2.

Developing (or consolidating) the requirements and supplying means for testing and evaluation (TEVV).

3.

Bridging technical gaps through joint research or by the exchange of data sets.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

66

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SWARM CENTRIC SOLUTION FOR INTELLIGENT SENSOR NETWORKS (SET‑222) OVERVIEW This Specialists’ Meeting held in June 2016 looked to bring together experts in different topics to clarify the issues associated with swarm‑centric intelligent sensor networks.

Resembling the organisation of biological systems (e.g., social insects like bees), the main concept of swarm‑based technology is the ability of realising complex, decentralised behaviours by combining simple actions performed by many distributed and self‑organised agents. This feature is considered particularly important for future challenges in defence and military missions, in which the challenge is to develop and deal with many small and coordinated units.

Thus, swarm‑centric intelligent sensor networks are defined as sensory systems based on network‑centric architectures of cooperating nodes, which can dynamically (self‑) organise to fulfil common mission goals and adapt to react to the same threats (e.g., the threats posed by asymmetrical warfare or by natural disasters).

APPROACH During the meeting, experts from 11 countries shared their contributions on different topics related to swarm technologies. The meeting was organised in two keynote presentations and five technical sessions as follows: •

Enabling Technologies & Algorithms

•

Sensing & Signal Processing

•

Cooperation & Coordination

•

Operations & Applications

•

System Architectures & Methodologies

FINDINGS Insight gained on this area for NATO operations.

Swarm technology is applicable to various operational needs, including seeking, coverage, and patrolling.

Further research generated from this RSM on swarm centric systems.

The presentations showed that many efforts and results in this field could be relevant for several NATO operations. The main relevance to NATO is that, from the human operator viewpoint, swarm‑centric intelligent sensor networks improve human awareness by acting as a ubiquitous sensory system that can function as an extension of human perception in the field.

Swarm technology is applicable to various operational needs, including seeking, coverage, and patrolling. To address such challenges, robot and sensor swarms must exhibit system features including autonomy, ability to adapt, self‑organisation, and robustness.

The resulting Technical Report noted that the following topics should be considered and addressed in the design, development, and deployment of swarm‑centric systems: •

Security, safety, privacy issues in swarm systems;

•

Human‑swarm interaction;

•

Modelling and Simulation;

•

Heterogeneous swarms;

•

Enabling Technologies & Algorithms;

•

Sensing & Signal Processing;

•

Cooperation & Coordination;

•

Operations & Applications; and

•

System & Architectures & Methodologies.

Given the success of the meeting in launching an expert group in swarm intelligent systems, the participants agreed in proposing further research.

This led to the Exploratory Team Swarm‑Centric Systems (SET‑ET‑100). Following on from this ET, related activity RTG SET‑263 was assembled on Swarms Systems for Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance. Click here for further detail on SET‑263.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

67

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH WORKSHOPS

68

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVED MISSION READINESS OF MILITARY UXVS (AVT‑355) OVERVIEW UxVs present a shift in who is responsible for information related to readiness. This online workshop was held in May 2021 and explored the needs, progress, and challenges related to the increasing readiness of autonomous platforms in air, ground, and maritime applications. The aims of this workshop were to summarise the state‑of‑the‑art technologies, best practices, research challenges and directions, and to generate recommendations of specific topics for follow‑on AVT Panel activities in related areas.

APPROACH The workshop combined keynote presentations, roundtables, and interactive discussions covering four different topic areas in relation to UxVs: •

Military needs and impacts of UxV reliability/ sustainability on operations.

•

Technologies that enable intelligent and reliability‑centred maintenance for UxVs.

•

Assessment of dynamic reconfigurable mission planning capabilities of UxVs.

•

Design methodologies that will optimise UxV maintenance needs.

FINDINGS There is significant room for improving the monitoring, control, and prognosis systems for UxVs. The development of human‑ platform interfaces as well as standards and guidelines are necessary areas of focus.

Further cross‑domain and cross‑discipline events supporting the development of this field would be beneficial.

To enable a high‑readiness operation without the intervention of a crew requires the designer to take ownership of much more information around health and maintenance assessments, activities that would traditionally be left to the crew. Many of these crew inputs are not formalised today, relying instead on the crew’s senses and experience, not on written procedures. Understanding such a human‑platform interface is necessary, as equivalent systems may be needed for the UxV.

The presentations offered may be sorted into roughly three distinct levels of hierarchy: work on building blocks and component health models; platform‑level reasoning models; and dynamic mission replanning and logistics models. All three levels are currently the subject of research and prototyping efforts. Similarly, wider concerns about intellectual property, regulation, and standardisation were repeatedly raised. In this area, more work needs to be undertaken to support the rapid development and application of this technology.

The overall mood from the workshop was that while there is significant room for improving the monitoring, control, and prognosis systems for UxVs, there is also significant work underway to solve these problems. Across the air, ground, and maritime domains, many similar challenges were noted, and at the level of sensors streams, data management, and data‑model fusion, it was clear that there was extensive overlap between the domains. Common themes and structures for processing health and readiness information were repeatedly raised throughout the workshop, though algorithmic implementations showed greater diversity and a community that has not yet standardised on optimal approaches. Such overlap suggests that cross‑domain workshops such as AVT‑355 will be helpful in supporting S&T developments for this community.

The topic of increased readiness for military UxVs clearly resonated with the NATO S&T community.

The workshop attracted a wide variety of participants covering the air, ground, and maritime domains. There is an elevated level of interest in this topic and that the state‑of‑the‑art is limited in terms of the military applications of UxVs. It is expected however that with more research, the tools available for ensuring readiness are expected to improve.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

69

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY WATCH

70

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COGNITIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MULTI‑SOURCE MULTI‑FORMAT INFORMATION FUSION IN AUTONOMOUS SCENARIOS (AVT‑TW‑016) OVERVIEW

TRL developments in the short, medium, and long term noted. Please see TW card for further detail.

This technology forecasting exercise was completed in 2020.

Recommendations made:

FINDINGS Practical solutions that are based on both centralized and distributed AI (Artificial Intelligence) utilising the latest in cognitive signal processing technology and adaptive data fusion algorithms are identified by this TW card. Typical applications are for aviation and maritime sectors which make available geospatial situational awareness by exploiting sensor data collected from both crewed and un‑crewed vehicles working in a swarm. Processing may occur on individual platforms or at a remote location.

The main implication for Blue Forces of developing cognitive solutions for multi‑source information fusion in autonomous swarm’s scenarios is related to sharing capabilities in between a wider asset of node.

The main implication for Red Forces of developing cognitive solutions for multi‑source information fusion in autonomous swarm scenarios is related to a higher resistance to attacks.

•

Empower the system to function as a distributed intermediary to disseminate on‑board processed results from every node within the swarm to external registered agents.

This will remove the single point of failure of a single node connection and will require fully implementing a common agnostic open architecture module.

•

Inclusion of a swarm into the common operating picture, developing a geographical representation of the deployed and deployable nodes array onto a multi‑domain 3D environment. A decision support system may make available a quick evaluation for swarm reallocation, when considering the vehicles’ residual autonomy and equipment.

•

Incrementally improve the swarm performance with dynamically managing nodes into dedicated sub‑swarm(s). Desired performance can be assessed with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

ACCESS THIS TW CARD See TW card for further detail.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

71

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMOUS MILITARY SYSTEMS (AVT‑TW‑014) OVERVIEW

RED FORCE IMPLICATIONS:

This technology forecasting exercise was completed in 2020.

In the technological race towards autonomy, adversaries might be given the opportunity to get hold of, if not the same, similar autonomous platform solutions. Having the ability to assess the performance and limitations of such technology both quantitatively and qualitatively, in terms of mobility, will not only be a useful factor in selecting a solution but will also be a strategic asset over potential adversaries. Reliability and quality assurance will be especially important for the mobility of autonomous systems and will be a major strategic consideration for both Blue and Red force implications.

FINDINGS Applications for autonomy may include scenarios hazardous for crewed platforms, and operation in hostile or uncertain environments. For some Concepts of Operation (CONOP), missions might also be tedious, arduous, and lengthy, which would burden human operators. Broad categories of missions that may be well suited to unmanned autonomous systems are those that are ‘dull, dirty, and dangerous.’

BLUE FORCE IMPLICATIONS There is broad interest in developing autonomous capabilities to execute tasks that are increasingly hazardous for humans and to enhance warfighting capabilities. In addition to developing these autonomous technologies and platform capabilities, it is highly desired to have the ability to understand and assess the technology appropriately. To judge the reliability and relevance of autonomous technologies in the military context, it is critical to set up standard methods and tools for assessing them. The military context offers extremely challenging environments (terrain, sea state, weather, illumination, etc.), platform characteristics, and strategic considerations.

Another key factor is having the capability to upgrade the mobility assessment framework so that it can adapt to continual technological advancements.

72

Expected developments: currently, autonomous technologies and applications vary in terms of TRL.

ACCESS THIS TW CARD See TW card for further detail.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH EXPLORATORY TEAMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

73

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NEW SOLUTIONS FOR PLATFORM PROPULSION, AUXILIARY AND RESERVE POWER (AVT‑ET‑126)

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND TOOLS FOR MOBILITY OF AUTONOMOUS MILITARY GROUND SYSTEMS (AVT‑ET‑194)

DURATION

DURATION

October 2011 – October 2012

January 2019 – December 2019

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

This ET met to examine new, emerging technologies for application in land, sea, and air vehicles.

This ET explored the performance and reliability of autonomous ground systems.

OBJECTIVES Unmanned vehicles such as underwater mine reconnaissance vehicles and loitering weapons require power systems that may have unique requirements, such as the power system size and weight.

This Exploratory Team aimed to review emerging technologies to assess their level of maturity and suitability for application in land, sea, and air vehicles. The team planned to discuss concepts and technologies, and identify focus areas for a potential RTG, or RSM. The goals were as follows: •

Identify high energy density power technologies and concepts that afford significant advantages for land, sea, and air vehicles.

•

Identify barriers to the realisation of these advantages.

•

Recommend direction for NATO activities.

OUTCOMES

OBJECTIVES Recognising the need for autonomous ground systems to operate in the unknowns of a mission, NATO is making investments in ground vehicle autonomous mobility M&S to improve and prepare for future off‑road operations. The AVT Panel launched the Exploratory Team AVT‑ET‑194 to explore methods and approaches to assess the performance and reliability of autonomous ground systems and, more importantly, cultivate a strategy to create an overarching framework to develop, integrate, and sustain advanced crewed and autonomy‑enabled ground system capabilities.

OUTCOMES Scientists from 11 NATO Nations compiled data from 17 modelling and simulation tools and generated a detailed report on their conducted explorations. This report also supplies a concise summary of existing capabilities, planned future activities on the subject, and strategic direction for follow‑on research. This research is being continued by RTG ATV-341 Mobility Assessment Methods and Tools for Autonomous Military Ground Systems.

It cannot be established which subsequent STO activities have had their origin in this ET, as the tracking of STO activities has changed since 2012.

74

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

TECHNOLOGY TRENDS IN MANNED AND UNMANNED ARMOURED GROUND VEHICLES (AVT‑ET‑196) DURATION

OUTCOMES

January 2019 – December 2019

Novel technologies were identified, structured and their relevance for future land systems was assessed. A workshop (RWS) or Specialists’ Meeting (RSM) was proposed as a follow‑on activity in April 2020. Due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, this has not been pursued for the time being.

OVERVIEW A few NATO Nations have started or are planning programmes of work to develop a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles. Innovative technologies provide the potential for a change in thinking in terms of vehicle capabilities, enhancing performance and breaking the traditional spiral of increasing weight. This ET met to examine the technology trends in this area.

Amongst others, RTG AVT‑341 Mobility Assessment Methods and Tools for Autonomous Military Ground Systems is strongly related to this activity.

OBJECTIVES This ET looked to explore how performance modelling can be built on to develop methods to investigate the trades between technologies and concepts, and hence how new and novel concepts can be reflected in user requirements.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

75

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

76

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DEVELOPMENT OF A VALIDATION MODEL OF A STEALTH UCAV (SET‑252)

ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF INSTALLED PROPELLER AND ROTOR NOISE FROM UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (AVT‑314)

ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

RTG

DURATION

DURATION

November 2017 – November 2022

January 2019 – June 2022

OVERVIEW The radar signature of an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) is the critical factor for detection range and detectability assessments during mission planning, as well as survivability and vulnerability analysis. This Task Group will develop a validation model of a stealth UCAV, with the intention that this may help increase our capability to obtain reliable estimates of the radar signatures of modern low‑signature aircraft and missiles, both our own and those of potential adversaries.

OBJECTIVES The main aim of the group is to develop and manufacture a validation model of a stealth UCAV. Theoretical models are complementary to experimental evaluation of the radar signature since full‑scale models can be considered, enemy aircraft can be simulated, and different configurations are easily analysed. The validation of these theoretical models is necessary to have confidence in their predictions, and therefore the group will build a validation model based on UCAV studies. This validation model will then be used in a follow‑on group to confirm the theoretical models.

OVERVIEW This Task Group aims to focus on installed propeller and rotor noise in relation to improving the effectiveness of UAS operations.

OBJECTIVES A technical report will be delivered that will pinpoint gaps in the technical knowledge and technology itself while proposing methods to fill these gaps. An example would be the assessment and development of methods for the design and manufacture of quiet propellers or rotors.

APPROACH The group will assess the state‑of‑the‑art in Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) noise prediction and reduction and perform a technical assessment of the potential noise from UAS operations.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in June 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

APPROACH Although the group will work on a particular model UCAV, both the reliability and performance of numerical tools will be developed for the computation of the radar signature, with emphasis on low‑signature aircraft with extensive use of non‑metallic components and Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM). The group will work closely with AVT-251 (which works on the aerodynamic and structural design of the UCAV) and SET-245 (which works on the identification of small, low‑flying UAS ).

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in November 2021 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

77

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SWARMS SYSTEMS FOR INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE & RECONNAISSANCE (SET‑263) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

The study will address a set of key issues such as:

DURATION

•

Swarm Applications, such as Detection & Tracking

•

Data Fusion for perception, action, and control

•

Swarm System Interactions, which includes Robot‑Robot Interaction, Human‑Swarm Interaction, and Interoperability

February 2019 – February 2022

OVERVIEW This RTG looks to build on previous STO research in analysing swarm systems for Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR).

FINDINGS

OBJECTIVES Following on from earlier STO research activities, expected achievements are as follows: •

Identification of key ISR mission requirements that relate to swarm systems in terms of Vignettes, Capabilities, and Operational activities;

•

Definition of key features for swarm systems for ISR Missions in terms of system nodes and system functions;

•

The development of a Swarm System High level Reference Architecture, which correlates key operational issues with system and technological issues.

This study is due to conclude in February 2022, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

Figure 15: Swarm in an urban environment (Credit: iStock)

78

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

UAV APPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY SEARCH (SCI‑321)

DIGITAL EMPLOYEES FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL (IST‑ET‑105)

ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

ET

DURATION April 2019 – April 2022

DURATION

OVERVIEW

November 2019 – October 2021 (extension requested)

Military Search (MS) operations are mostly conducted by dismounted soldiers using a set of sensors to detect and locate specific targets in support of a military operation. The application of a small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) as a carrying platform for sensors for military search will increase the safety of the soldier and increase the rate of advance of MS operations. This RTG looks to assess the limitations and challenges of the use of UAVs for the detection of targets in MS operations.

OBJECTIVES The aims of this RTG will be the assessment of the potential limitations and challenges of the use of UAVs for the detection of targets in MS operations.

APPROACH A Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT), in which defence R&D agencies, academia and industry will be invited to take part, can be foreseen as part of the overall assessment.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in April 2022, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

OVERVIEW In the commercial market, there have recently appeared several software tools that are aimed at ‘off‑loading’ many of the tasks performed by the traditional IT Service Desk. These Intelligent Agents (IAs) are purported to be capable of answering the customers’ calls (or chats, etc.) and resolving issues.

OBJECTIVES This activity will assess the potential of these technologies for use on defence networks and assess the potential advantages and disadvantages. It will produce an initial feasibility study into deploying digital employees to conduct service management and control functions in deployed and static locations.

APPROACH Although the study will be focused on the service management and control aspects of this technology, the study will also document any related non‑technical aspects related to this type of technology that are discovered or arise. For example, the displacement of a segment of the human workforce with intelligent agents in the military domain.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in October 2021 and a report will subsequently be produced summarising findings and recommending the next course of action (e.g., symposium, lecture series, or research task group).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

79

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AG‑300‑V.37 FLIGHT TESTING OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES COCKPITS FOR UAVS (AVT‑353) (SCI‑338) ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RWS

AGARDograph (AG) 5

DURATION

DURATION

January 2020 – December 2022

January 2020 – December 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW Flight‑testing plays a significant role in the development of UAS. UAS are systems of systems, composed of various subsystems, such as the air vehicle systems, the payload and the sensors system, weapons system, the ground control system, and the communication and relay system (etc.). Therefore, the flight‑testing procedures applicable to UAS and to its different classes are significantly different from the flight‑testing of crewed air systems. This AG will revisit an existing study in this area and update it in various areas.

Autonomous systems have seen an astounding growth with the adoption of innovative technology in a relatively brief time. The increasingly wide use of unmanned systems in civil and military applications is resulting in a change in basic assumptions in the execution and strategies used in operational theatres. However, UAS depend on the availability of real‑time data to derive the necessary information while ensuring safe operations. This workshop looks to advance the collective understanding of UAV systems.

OBJECTIVES The intention is to update an existing AGARDograph testing unmanned aircraft systems.

The expected achievement from this re‑write is an evaluation of the state‑of‑the art of methods for the flight testing of UAS, concentrating on the differences in the methods for evaluating the performance parameters of UAS, logistics support for UAS testing, the integration and interoperability of UAS and crewed systems, and testing for autonomy and communications.

APPROACH The team will update an existing AGARDograph on testing unmanned aircraft systems.

Figure 16: Artificial Intelligence (Credit: iStock)

OBJECTIVES To create a shared understanding between experts of different technologies to improve the level of autonomy of UAVs through analysis of all data available.

FINDINGS

APPROACH

This study is due to conclude in December 2022, and a final report will subsequently be published.

•

Exchange information between experts.

•

Examine ultramodern technologies to establish predictable benefits in the performance of autonomous systems.

•

Identify gaps and recommend a way ahead for the NATO S&T community.

•

Promote and continue effective dialogue among NATO Nations about unmanned and autonomous systems.

5 Advanced Guidance for Alliance Research and Development Publication.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

80

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EVALUATION OF SWARM SYSTEM FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS (SCI‑334) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

The study will evaluate how integration with current weapons can be made and what future standards are needed. The control and use of swarms imply testing and own countermeasure protection systems that will also be evaluated.

Scenarios will also be designed and evaluated.

DURATION April 2020 – March 2023

OVERVIEW This Task Group has met to advance the understanding and knowledge of swarm systems for military operations.

OBJECTIVES

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in March 2023 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

The goal of the RTG is to create a ‘101’ on swarm system architectures (size, type, number, covered area, on‑board equipment, and level of autonomy) for various mission scenarios.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

81

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTONOMOUS TRANSPORT AND MEDICAL SYSTEMS FOR CASUALTY EVACUATION (HFM‑332) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

This RTG plans to:

DURATION

•

Establish common NATO concepts, policy, and doctrines that use emerging general‑purpose UMS platforms for medical missions to include CASEVAC (evacuation of casualties), medical supply, and re‑supply.

•

Establish a common NATO research and development roadmap for RASEVAC6 and medical resupply.

•

Develop methods and approaches for implementing safe ride standards for emerging UMS platforms for tactical care evacuation.

•

Survey and propose NATO interoperability standards for RASEVAC.

•

Recommend NATO Mission Planning Capabilities required to effectively execute RASEVAC.

April 2021 – April 2024

OVERVIEW This RTG seeks to lead the development of a roadmap regarding the use of autonomous logistical systems for casualty evacuation.

OBJECTIVES Building on the work of the preceding Exploratory Team (HFM‑ET‑167), the RTG will produce a strategic plan with guidance coordinated across operational and medical communities of interest that is based on current research and technology in autonomous systems, C5ISR, robotics, and automation of transportation and medical care of casualties. Plans and guidance will include the use of UMS for casualty transport, implementation of safe ride standards, interoperability of medical equipment, platform and C5 systems, and mission planning for casualty evacuation using unmanned systems. The RTG will also produce a strategic roadmap of future research and development requirements.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in April 2024, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

6 The evacuation of wounded, sick and injured personnel using robotic, autonomous, and/or unmanned air, ground, or maritime platforms with or without a human attendant and/or autonomous en‑route care systems.

82

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) IN ICING ENVIRONMENTS (AVT‑ET‑214)

MOBILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS AND TOOLS FOR AUTONOMOUS MILITARY GROUND SYSTEMS (AVT‑341)

DURATION

ACTIVITY TYPE

January 2021 – December 2021

RTG

OVERVIEW

DURATION

Operating UAVs in cold and/or humid environments can expose them to the dangerous hazard of in‑flight icing, which is a common aviation threat for both crewed and un‑crewed aircraft. While icing affects the operation of all types of aircraft, UAVs are particularly vulnerable to in‑flight icing because of their lower cruising altitudes, lower speeds, and smaller excess power and payload margins. This ET seeks to study their operation in harsh environments.

January 2021 – December 2023

OBJECTIVES The goal is to gather a team of subject matter experts from the participating nations to brainstorm and discuss the challenging phenomenon of icing in UAVs in order to: •

•

Identify R&D areas and the data to be generated to advance knowledge in the field of icing in UAVs. Identify the enabling technologies for the safe operation of UAVs in icing conditions.

OVERVIEW This RTG is working towards the evaluation of the methods and approaches used to assess the mobility performance and reliability of autonomous ground systems.

OBJECTIVES The primary aims of the team are to: •

Develop a comprehensive set of requirements for the assessment of autonomous mobility systems.

•

Establish a framework that would specifically be designed for assessing autonomous mobility.

•

Evaluate the current leading‑edge software tools against a comprehensive set of autonomous mobility scenarios.

•

Conduct a Cooperative Demonstration (CDT) of Autonomous Mobility Technologies.

OUTCOMES This study is due to conclude in December 2021 and a report will subsequently be produced summarising findings and recommending the next course of action (e.g., symposium, lecture series, or research Task Group).

APPROACH The team will define methods and tools adequate to assess future possible autonomous military ground systems by setting up a mobility assessment framework that would be specifically designed for assessing autonomous mobility.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

83

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS FOR MANOEUVRING OF AIR VEHICLES – ADVANCED CONCEPTS (AVT‑350) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

Building from earlier STO research, this Task Group will aim to:

DURATION January 2021 – December 2023

•

Determine the viability and design/ performance implications of a ‘fully flow control enabled aircraft’ capable of performing throughout the entire flight envelope without the need for conventional, moving control surfaces.

•

Explore the longer‑term aspiration of gaining an understanding of how the consideration of fluidic control effectors at the conceptual design stage of an aircraft can affect the configuration layout and its overall performance.

OVERVIEW The survivability of future crewed and un‑crewed military vehicles will rely on surface geometries with smooth, continuous outer mould lines. Vehicle designs that do not involve ‘seams,’ ‘gaps’ or moving surfaces have been studied in the past and continue to evolve. This requirement to be seamless invokes a critical characteristic for vehicle control and suggests that new control effector strategies may be a requirement. This Task Group will build on earlier work to examine innovative flight control effectors.

OBJECTIVES The RTG will build upon the outputs of AVT‑239 Innovative Control Effectors for Manoeuvring of Air Vehicles and AVT‑295 Demonstration of Innovative Control Effectors for Manoeuvring of Air Vehicles to extend those studies to more challenging regimes of the flight envelope (particularly to take‑off, landing, and manoeuvre).

84

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ASSESSMENT OF MICRO TECHNOLOGIES FOR AIR AND SPACE PROPULSION (AVT‑344)

FLIGHT TESTING OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) (SCI‑328)

ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

RSY

DURATION

DURATION

January 2021 – December 2023

January 2022 – December 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

Micro power technology has a high potential to enable an in‑space propulsion system, i.e., the primary propulsion as well as precision pointing and orbital manoeuvring. Moreover, micro power systems enable sensors, which can be easily integrated to form intelligent on‑board systems for both micro‑UAVs and small satellite platforms.

Flight‑testing plays a significant role in the development of UAS. This symposium seeks to share the lessons learned and experiences among NATO Nations as well as disseminate knowledge gained from the flight‑testing of different UAS.

This Task Group will form a coherent multi‑national effort to establish a common experimental database, define specific evaluation criteria, assess current predictive capabilities, and encourage high performing micro power devices.

OBJECTIVES The Task Group aims to investigate and assess power technology at the micro scale for propulsion systems applied to air and space vehicles, with the focus being electrical power micro propulsion.

APPROACH This RTG will facilitate an international collaboration of leading experimentalists and numerical simulation experts towards the development of high performing micro power systems for aerospace propulsion.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2023, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this symposium is to share and to disseminate the experience and the lessons learned from flight‑testing of UAVs among different NATO Nations. This will help NATO Nations to improve, shorten and reduce the time and the risks involved in flight‑testing of their own UAS.

APPROACH The symposium hopes to foster discussion on the state‑of‑the art of methods for the flight testing of UAS, concentrating on the differences in methods for evaluating the performance parameters of UAS, the testing of UAS in swarms, logistics support for UAS testing, the integration and interoperability of UAS and crewed systems, and testing for autonomy and communications.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2022, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

85

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH

86

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SAUC‑E CMRE INTERNAL PROGRAMME AND EURATHLON, ROCKEU2, SCIROC, METRICS EU PROJECTS (ROBOTICS COMPETITIONS) DURATION

OUTCOMES

2010 – Present

•

Organisation of competitions at the CMRE water basin and in a power plant site in Piombino, Italy;

•

CMRE has organised the first and unique multi‑domain competitions involving underwater, surface, land and aerial robots cooperating in search and rescue tasks inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident (euRathlon 2015 Grand Challenge and the European Robotics League Emergency 2017);

•

Cross‑fertilisation between different communities to advance the cooperative autonomy state‑of‑the‑art;

•

Creation of an international network for autonomy and robotics; and

•

Interaction and networking with key‑players in robotics (e.g., euRobotics, EU Commission, DARPA, ONR, NIST, etc.).

OBJECTIVES Through the Student AUV Challenge Europe (SAUC‑E) internal programme at CMRE (started in 2010) and EU funded projects, CMRE organises robotic competitions for research teams from both academia and industry in different scenarios.

Key objectives are to push the state‑of‑the‑art in autonomy, cooperation and multi‑domain robotic systems, establishing CMRE as a leading institution in autonomy and robotics in the international community.

In the framework of the ongoing METRICS EU project, the organised competition will also explore the use of competitions for the benchmarking and evaluation of robotics systems. A virtual competition has also been organised and will be launched at the beginning of 2022 to involve the AI community in robotics events.

Figure 17: Deployment of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) during a day of at‑sea testing (Credit: DVIDS)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

87

NATO NATOUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

HUMAN‑MACHINE TEAMING

88

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OVERVIEW This chapter presents research conducted in human‑machine teaming with an emphasis on how to achieve human supervisory control of autonomous systems and how to develop successful, safe, and trusted teaming methodologies and interface design practices.

The number of research activities in this area is low and STO’s research has acknowledged the need to increase activity, particularly in relation to human‑machine trust.7 Some of the activities (both completed and active) emphasise the value of technology demonstrators for evaluating the role of the operator in relation to the autonomous system and how operators can be kept in the loop.

Much of the work in this area also focuses on evaluating existing literature and disseminating lessons learned both from research conducted in the nations and collaboratively within the STO. This again points to the limited activity in this area and the importance of the Nations learning from each other’s experiences to enhance the cross‑Alliance knowledge base. There is also a clear focus on the harmonisation of approaches to human‑machine teaming, on issues such as system‑level framework pattern approaches and multi‑domain arrangements.

7 F or more information see AC/323‑CS(2021)0001 ‒ 2021 STO Plans & Programmes Workshop (PPW): Outcomes and Suggest Way Forward.

Figure 18: Human‑Machine teaming (Credit: iStock)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

89

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

90

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF MULTIPLE UNINHABITED SYSTEMS: METHODOLOGY AND ENABLING HUMAN‑ROBOT INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES (HFM‑170) DURATION April 2008 – April 2011

OVERVIEW With increasingly automated Unmanned Vehicles (UVs), the operator’s role will become more supervisory in nature. RTG HFM‑170 identified and demonstrated successful supervisory control methodologies and interface design practices for enabling single operator control of multiple UVs in network‑centric operations.

OBJECTIVES This Task Group sought to identify and demonstrate supervisory control human‑system interface design practices and concepts for Uninhabited Vehicle (UV) operations.

APPROACH 15 Technology Demonstrations are summarised, and a supervisory control framework developed by which to characterise and communicate research within the supervisory control domain.

FINDINGS Supervisory control human‑system interface design practices and operator interface concepts for Uninhabited Vehicles (UVs) network‑centric operations were identified and demonstrated.

It was shown that the operator’s role is becoming more supervisory in nature since future UVs will be increasingly automated, while new sensor and control technologies enable operators to be closer in the loop in a telepresence situation.

HFM‑170 identified and demonstrated pertinent supervisory control human‑system interface design practices and concepts for UV network‑centric operations through 15 specific technology demonstrations. These demonstrations focused on

Figure 19: Human‑Robot interface (Credit: iStock)

many critical issues including multi‑vehicle control, manned‑unmanned teaming, human‑automation interaction, telepresence interfaces, authority sharing, cognitive workload assessment, swarming interfaces, and dynamic mission management. The applications addressed varied in the degree of autonomy, from manual robotic control to highly autonomous, swarming UVs. Through the demonstrations, it was shown that the operator’s role is becoming more supervisory in nature since future UVs will be increasingly automated (e.g., autonomous capabilities, multiple systems, systems of systems). On the other hand, it was demonstrated that new sensor and control technologies enable operators to be closer in the loop in a telepresence situation.

The report produced summarises in alphabetical order the Technology Demonstrations, including a summary description of the activity, human factors issues involved, results, and lessons learned.

The report also provides a discussion on the development of a supervisory control framework by which to characterise and communicate research and technology development occurring within the supervisory control domain.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

91

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

HUMAN‑AUTONOMY TEAMING: SUPPORTING DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTABLE COLLABORATION (HFM‑247) DURATION

FINDINGS

April 2014 – December 2018

OVERVIEW RTG HFM‑247 explored the rapidly developing area of human‑autonomy teaming.

OBJECTIVES This RTG consisted of 20 scientists representing seven NATO Nations, with the ultimate goal being to increase the effectiveness of NATO operations through flexible and robust human‑autonomy teams.

APPROACH HFM‑247 took a structured approach to studying Human‑Autonomy Teaming (HAT) that allowed for creative explorations in select areas. The group established an initial list of HAT research challenges that was revisited and refined at the end of the effort, based upon knowledge gained over the lifespan of the group. The group first reviewed the literature of Human‑Human Teaming (HHT) to identify lessons learned, guidelines, and metrics that might be applicable to HAT. This effort proved informative for understanding the factors that most influence team dynamics. This Human‑Human Teaming investigation also allowed the group to identify how HAT is different with unique challenges that might arise.

To stimulate enhanced interactions and collaboration within the group, each participating nation identified at least one HAT‑related Technical Activity (TA) being conducted within that nation which served as that team member’s ‘contribution’ to the group. A total of 10 TAs were identified across the seven nations and mapped to the HAT research challenges in order to identify similar research objectives and to inspire potential collaborations.

92

RTG HFM‑247 successfully developed and demonstrated pertinent Human‑Agent‑Robot Teamwork (HART) systems, based on progress in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Human Performance Modelling.

A variety of prominent issues were addressed such as agreement on a common system‑level framework pattern approach, HAT performance metrics, and practical solutions focused on dialogue management, working agreements, transparency, and explicit intent communication. During the Technical Applications, HFM‑247 also concentrated on the identification and demonstration of successful HAT applications, methodologies, and design practices for HAT.

HFM‑247 identified and demonstrated successful teaming methodologies and interface design practices that allow for shared situational awareness of the task and environment, bi‑directional understanding of intent, dynamic work distribution, and effective human‑autonomy mission collaboration.

Furthermore, HFM‑247 successfully addressed a variety of critical issues such as agreement on a common system‑level framework pattern approach, HAT performance metrics, and practical solutions focused on dialogue management, working agreements, transparency, and explicit intent communication. Through the TAs, the group also concentrated on the identification and demonstration of successful HAT applications, methodologies, and design practices for HAT. However, this area is complex, and there are still significant challenges to overcome before true HAT can be achieved across NATO applications.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The following areas of research were suggested for further focus and development: •

Meaningful human control: how to establish and maintain across all AI systems;

•

Team design patterns for dynamic evolving behaviours;

•

Continuous trust‑calibration for proper reliance on automation;

•

Scope enlargement to cover all relevant teaming structures and characteristics;

•

Explainable AI in human‑agent teamwork; and

•

Evolving hybrid intelligence by co‑learning.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

93

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SYMPOSIUMS

94

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

HUMAN AUTONOMY TEAMING (HFM‑300) OVERVIEW This symposium held in October 2018 addressed Human‑Autonomy Teaming (HAT) from a variety of perspectives: the overall system, technological and human factors, operational issues, as well as the corresponding legal and ethical questions.

APPROACH Starting from an overview of where we have come from regarding autonomy and human autonomy teaming, the symposium sought to chart the state‑of‑the‑art and map future directions, balancing risks and opportunities associated with developments in this area.

The symposium also determined that for the design and evaluation of autonomous systems, it was more productive to move away from the ‘Levels of Autonomy’ approach, and instead replace this with three critical considerations as spearheaded by the US: Cognitive Echelons; Mission Timelines Dynamics; and Complex Human‑Machine Systems Trades Space.8 The symposium noted that making further generalised conclusions risks becoming redundant and therefore interested readers are encouraged to dive further into the symposium discussion reports.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

FINDINGS Key enabling HAT technologies identified and insight gained on the design and evaluation of autonomous systems.

The symposium comprised five themes: operational requirements; human‑autonomy teaming structure; autonomous capabilities that support teaming; HAT interaction and design; and HAT institutional integration.

8 US Defense Science Board DSB 2012 Task Force Framework for the Design and Evaluation of Autonomous Systems: DSB 2012. The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. DSB Task Force Report. United States Department of Defense, Defense Science Board Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington D.C. 20301‑3140, July 2012.

The key enabling HAT technologies identified include perceptual processing, planning, learning, interaction, natural language understanding, and multi‑agent coordination. The focus is on interactions and interfaces for reliable and trusted HAT collaboration, providing situational awareness to operate in a complex battle space.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

95

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH WORKSHOPS

96

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF MULTIPLE UNINHABITED SYSTEMS ‑METHODOLOGIES AND HUMAN‑ROBOT INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES (HFM‑217) OVERVIEW The purpose of this workshop held in May 2012 was to disseminate the results and lessons learned associated with the technical demonstrations of RTG HFM‑170 Supervisory Control of Multiple Uninhabited Systems ‑Methodologies and Enabling Human‑Robot Interface Technologies. The aim was to bring together representatives of the research and operational communities to present technical demonstration results and to review progress in this area.

APPROACH Around 50 human factors researchers gathered to discuss the human factors aspects of uninhabited systems, focusing on the supervisory control of multiple uninhabited systems. The workshop was enriched by the presence of 13 interactive technology demonstrators from the different nations.

FINDINGS Models need to be developed that can support human factors engineers in deciding which type of task distribution in controlling multiple uninhabited vehicles best matches real‑world drivers.

The ongoing evolution of uninhabited systems reveals a rapid blurring of the boundaries between the roles of humans and machines as well as the difference between the notions of uninhabited systems and other automated processes.

There are two main sets of conclusions that can be drawn from this workshop and that can be read as recommendations: •

Firstly, that models need to be developed and selected that can support the human factors engineers balancing act of deciding which type of task distribution in controlling multiple uninhabited vehicles best matches the real‑world drivers. A model like that could also be instrumental in providing consistency in user interface design decisions around NATO.

•

The second conclusion is based on the observation that the ongoing evolution of uninhabited systems reveals a rapid blurring of the boundaries between the roles of humans and machines as well as the difference between the notions of uninhabited systems and other automated processes. In the future, we need not focus much more on supervising uninhabited systems, but on the multi‑faceted and reciprocal interaction between human and automated processes. That a particular system is uninhabited will be a disappearing notion. What we need is flexible, adjustable, and trustworthy automation being operated under user sovereignty. This will require not just intense collaboration but potentially even a merge of the field of human factors engineering with other engineering fields such as process automation and computer science.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

97

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH EXPLORATORY TEAMS

98

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RISK BASED OPERATIONAL PLANNING IN CO‑OPERATIVE HUMAN‑MACHINE BATTLE NETWORKS (SAS‑ET‑DV) DURATION February 2019 – February 2020

OVERVIEW Recent advances in robotics, human‑machine interfaces, sensors, and computing technology introduce the possibility to network intelligent, autonomous systems and human operators in multi‑domain Battle Management Networks (Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I) networks/sensor grids).

However, the integration of intelligent and autonomous weapon systems into complex operations introduces new possibilities and risks, requiring a framework of risk‑based planning that includes several different and competing risk perspectives (e.g., ethical, legal, political, economic, and military risks). At the same time, the increasing blurring of distinctions and the compression of time in networked (hybrid) warfare challenges the classical military bureaucracy and its decision‑making processes.

Figure 20: Legal and ethical perspectives must be considered in the development of these technologies (Credit: iStock)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this activity is to couple risk‑based strategic planning and risk‑based operational planning in a joint framework that enable NATO Nations to deal with new types of risk and uncertainty in increasingly hybrid and automated battle networks.

OUTCOMES No record of follow‑on activity.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

99

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

100

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AGILE, MULTI‑DOMAIN C2 OF SOCIO‑TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS IN COMPLEX ENDEAVORS (SAS‑143) ACTIVITY TYPE

Scientific topics to be covered:

RTG

•

C2 agility implications of socio‑technical enterprises: collaborating teams of humans, autonomous entities, and intelligent networks.

•

Challenges associated with agile multi‑domain C2 in hybrid operations.

•

Harmonisation of C2 approaches appropriate for kinetic, cyber, and non‑kinetic operations.

DURATION April 2018 – April 2022

OVERVIEW This Task Group seeks to develop the C2 concepts and tools necessary to achieve harmonisation across operations in multiple domains with a variety of human and non‑human partners. These will be evaluated in simulations, wargames, and exercises.

OBJECTIVES

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in April 2022, and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

The objective of the Task Group is to explore the nature of agile multi‑domain C2 of a socio‑technical enterprise that includes humans, intelligent networks, and autonomous entities in a cyber‑contested and hostile environment.

APPROACH Among its anticipated achievements, SAS‑143 aims to provide: 1.

A way to systematically describe and assess the suitability of different Multi‑Domain C2‑Harmonisation Arrangements (MDC2‑H);

2.

Insights as to the types of missions and circumstances that particular MDC2‑H arrangements are best suited;

3.

Insights as to the employment of non‑Human partners; and,

4.

Findings of an analysis of the ability of different MDC2‑H arrangements to continue to function in a contested cyber environment.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

101

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL OF AI‑BASED SYSTEMS: KEY CHARACTERISTICS, INFLUENCING FACTORS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (HFM‑322) ACTIVITY TYPE

HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION FOR MEANINGFUL HUMAN CONTROL OVER AI‑BASED SYSTEMS (HFM‑330) ACTIVITY TYPE RTG

DURATION

RWS

February 2020 – February 2023

DURATION

OVERVIEW

October 2019 – February 2022

OVERVIEW The aim of this workshop is to inform follow‑on activities that inform NATO on how to identify, achieve, maintain, and regain Meaningful Human Control (MHC) across a wide range of AI applications.

It is foreseen that a MHC Team will be formed to serve as the centre of a dynamic structure between teams to enhance cross‑team communications, leverage efforts, and maximise overall progress towards integrated MHC solutions.

OBJECTIVES The preceding Exploratory Team (HFM‑ET‑178) to this activity discussed several dimensions associated with MHC and settled on a subset for increased investigation. These MHC ‘Themes’ have become the organising focus and objectives of this workshop. These themes are:

This Task Group seeks to build on earlier STO research activities to further study Meaningful Human Control (MHC) in AI‑based autonomous systems.

OBJECTIVES The core objective is not to duplicate the ongoing efforts at the national and international level in the legalities and ethics of MHC. Rather, it is to learn from these ongoing discussions, apply a perspective to the problem squarely rooted in human factors and cognitive science, and thus distil a set of practical human‑centred guidelines to inform future NATO actions in this increasingly critical area.

APPROACH

•

Organisational considerations of MHC (including team training, agile C2 structures).

•

Human Factors guidelines to achieve and maintain MHC for all NATO AI applications.

At the end of this effort, the team hope to have established useful and usable guidelines that can assist NATO Nations in conceptualising, developing, organising, assessing, and validating MHC over future AI‑based systems. The team also foresee a Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT) potentially arising out of the many discussions with other related NATO activities in this critical area.

•

Systems Engineering methods (including TEV&V for learning systems) to support MHC.

FINDINGS

•

Adversary tactics to counter/undermine MHC.

•

MHC for complex socio‑technical system of systems.

•

Legal, ethical, political, and the public perception of MHC over AI‑based systems.

This study is due to conclude in February 2023 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

APPROACH Although led by the STO HFM Panel, these activities will be intensely cross‑panel and inter‑organisational to produce comprehensive solutions.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in February 2022 and a final report will subsequently be published.

102

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NEUROSCIENCE‑BASED TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMBAT‑ORIENTED CREW COCKPIT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS (HFM‑AVT‑340) ACTIVITY TYPE

against which the monitoring system can then be validated, and thus the need to produce a recognised and objective measure of cognitive workload.

RTG

DURATION

Thus, seeking to produce a recognised and objective measure of cognitive workload, this RTG aims to evaluate whether the crew pilot has:

April 2021 – April 2024

OVERVIEW Future combat scenarios will become increasingly complex and dynamic, encompassing the introduction of Robotics Autonomous Systems (RAS) actors and assets. Inevitably, autonomous systems and pilots must be able to enhance their ability to quickly adapt to mission changes and to adequately deal with unexpected events.

In response to this challenge, the focus of this ongoing RTG is on the generation of objective cognitive workload metrics which may create tangible human performance or safety benefits for the human operator.

OBJECTIVES This RTG builds on the work of a preceding Exploratory Team (HFM‑AVT‑ET‑185) which identified the need to develop a real‑time, neuro‑psychophysiological stress monitoring system for the evaluation of Air Vehicle Human‑Machine Interface (HMI) and mission systems support. The accurate and timely evaluation of the workload of the crew could drive the development of new HMI concepts, which could help to find the optimal way to show all the data needed by the pilots, while avoiding exceeding their limits. Concluding their work, this Exploratory Team recognised the need to define a common set of requirements and standards

•

The capability to perform the assigned tasks;

•

Enough spare capacity to take on additional tasks; and

•

Enough spare capacity to cope with emergency situations.

APPROACH The research team will firstly produce a strategic plan with guidance approaches to crew workload and stress monitoring systems, coordinated across the operational, medical, neuroscientist, and psychological communities of interests. Taking this forward, the team subsequently aims to test and evaluate the existing systems and methodologies.

The foreseen approach to find novel solutions for HMI design and its evaluation on simulators and in aircraft – i.e., to facilitate a natural and efficient interaction while reducing pilot workload – will represent a truly crucial element in the evolution of the new generation of aircraft.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in April 2024 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

103

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SENSING

104

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OVERVIEW This chapter overviews STO research activities that explore autonomous sensors and sensing capabilities as well as sensors to be placed on autonomous platforms. Consequently, these activities often intersect with other disciplinary areas such as biotechnology. One of the most significant areas of exploration in this chapter is the examination of multi‑sensor systems and the techniques available to fuse and integrate sensors. This is a critical area of research as the synergistic use of multiple sensors by autonomous machines and systems is essential for achieving more complete, accurate, and efficient geospatial applications. The unprecedented developments in sensing technologies have also precipitated research in new or improved algorithms, coordination methods, techniques, and tools to exploit the data from multi‑sensor systems and to evaluate existing methods.

Other research focused on the autonomous sensor technologies has focused on the maturity of these technologies, particularly for critical applications such as Automatic Target Recognition (ATR).

The research conducted by the STO has also highlighted the relevance of these technologies to Intelligence and Surveillance capabilities as well as the challenges posed by environmental obstacles on their performance in operations. The additional category of sensors integrated into autonomous systems has indicated the challenges of size and cost, with current systems often being unsuited to dismounted and small autonomous platform requirements.

Figure 21: Soldiers using sensing capabilities (Credit: iStock)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

105

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

106

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DISPOSABLE MULTI‑SENSOR UNATTENDED GROUND SENSORS SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING PERSONNEL (SET‑158) DURATION January 2010 – December 2012

OVERVIEW This Task Group convened to examine low cost, disposable, and multi‑sensor unattended ground sensor systems for detecting personnel.

The group accomplished several tasks beginning with a historical review of unattended ground sensors dating back to the beginning of the Southeast Asia conflict. Secondly, a significant multi‑modal, multi‑national data collection exercise was conducted on the southwest border of the US with several nations and universities participating.

OBJECTIVES The focus of the research was to develop robust signal processing and fusion algorithms using low‑cost multi‑sensor, non‑imaging, and imaging sensor nodes distributed along a remote border to detect personnel and animals.

Special emphasis was put on combining a new class of low cost (< $100) nodes. The low cost will allow the sensor nodes to be widely deployed and therefore to interact with one another to form a wide, wireless network link for force protection in open or urban operations.

APPROACH RTG SET‑158 met on numerous occasions for technical meetings, some of which were held in conjunction with data collection field trials and workshops. The committee also organised two personnel detection workshops that were held in the US. Both were in conjunction with the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL). These activities were well attended with numerous papers on personnel detection being presented. More than two dozen peer‑reviewed papers have been published because of this Task Group’s activities.

Figure 22: Choreographed data collection scenario by US ARL: people and animals walking on the trail near the deployed sensors (SET‑158 Technical Report) figure 4 (page 21 of report)

Simultaneously, physics‑based models of the micro‑Doppler motion of human and animal appendages were developed. New signal processing and fusion models were developed and applied using the field trial data. All the research accomplished has been extensively published in peer‑reviewed journals.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

FINDINGS A significant multi‑modal, multi‑national data collection exercise was conducted.

Models of human appendage motion were developed as well as new signal processing approaches that capture the physics of footsteps, voices, and the micro‑Doppler information from walking people.

Logical fusion approaches to data from multiple sensors were developed.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

107

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COORDINATION METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTED MOBILE SENSORS (SET‑199) DURATION

OBJECTIVES

January 2013 – December 2015

The objective of this Task Group is the development of methods for establishing the conditions in a partially observable environment under which specific coordination schemes are beneficial.

OVERVIEW Advances in sensor and multi‑sensor fusion techniques, in networking and multi‑agent system design, and in the robustness and endurance of robotic platforms have accelerated in recent years.

Applications for autonomous operations appear on the horizon. In parallel, the durability, agility, flexibility, and affordability of modern sensors have also greatly improved.

However, results on multi‑robot systems have shown that the functionality of a mobile sensor network is limited by the networks’ inability to use sensor information to generate coordinated actions. To understand describe, predict, and compare these limitations, the effectiveness of various coordination methods for distributed mobile sensors must be evaluated, with clear implications for autonomous sensing platforms and operations.

APPROACH •

To address this challenge, the group worked through the following programme:

•

Collected state‑of‑the‑art coordination and system design approaches.

•

Collected and developed methodologies to maintain effectiveness while optimising coordination parameters and adapting to incoming sensor information.

•

Introduced reasoning about necessary functionalities to be coordinated across agents.

•

Introduced formal methods and architectural frameworks for verification and validation.

•

Introduced a formal methodology to automatically include efficient independent Validation and Verification (EiV&V).

Figure 23: Diagram representing a formal methodology to automatically include Efficient independent Validation and Verification (EiV&V). (SET‑199 Technical Report) figure 12‑2 (page 62 of report)

108

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

FINDINGS Insight on how to automatically evaluate coordination schemes generated.

Developed a methodology to automatically include Efficient independent Validation and Verification (EiV&V).

By considering various approaches to this task in an interdisciplinary manner, an insight on how to automatically evaluate coordination schemes has been generated, suggesting ways to minimise the risk of making poor decisions.

As an exploitation of this insight, a formal methodology was introduced that builds upon the automatic inclusion of efficient evaluation in the connectivity between the system and its goal. Taking the NATO Architecture Framework Version 49 which describes all details of a coordination design, it is recommended to combine it with EiV&V. By applying the methodology, a comprehensive understanding of a given problem can be generated, enabling the distribution of autonomous sensor platforms under realistic (and therefore limited) resource conditions.

Now the team has moved into the area of Design Space Exploration for Autonomous Sensing (SET‑ET‑121). Click here to go to SET‑ET‑121.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

9 See < https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_157575.htm >.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

109

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ACOUSTIC TRANSIENT THREAT DETECTION SENSORS & SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR BATTLEFIELD SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (SET‑233) DURATION April 2016 – April 2019

OVERVIEW NATO and coalition forces from around the world are regularly threatened with hostile fire from rifles, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), mortars, rockets, artillery, and from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). There is a need for international cooperation to advance the current technology of acoustic transient threat detection, localisation, and classification in complex battlefields. Better performing systems on mobile soldiers, vehicles, and airborne platforms such as aerostats and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), as well as fixed sites, are needed to protect soldiers.

The SET‑233 team worked to advance the understanding and performance of acoustic sensors, algorithms, and distributed processing.

OBJECTIVES

RTG SET‑233 concluded a three‑year programme to advance the foundational understanding and performance of acoustic sensors, algorithms, and distributed processing. Research under SET‑233 showed improved acoustic detection range and accuracy robustness by overcoming signature and timing distortion caused by propagation through the atmosphere. It was proposed that additional R&D should investigate acoustic and seismic sensing of threats in urban environments in conjunction with heterogeneous sensing and fusion for Multi‑Domain Operations (MDO) dominance.

Through the multiple experiments undertaken, accuracy and detection range were improved by understanding the propagation channel and the atmosphere’s effects. Wind speed and direction, turbulence, reflections, ground impedance, and other influences were quantified and sometimes mitigated or exploited. Extensive data was also exchanged between test participants.

The group sought to achieve improvements in acoustic transient event detection, localisation, classification, propagation effects mitigation, and multimodal sensor fusion through joint, collaborative research, field experimentation in diverse environments, data exchange, and algorithm development.

APPROACH The team undertook multiple collaborative field experiments in the areas of detection and signal processing, including using autonomous recording devices.

FINDINGS The understanding of and performance of acoustic sensors, algorithms, and distributed processing was advanced.

Environmental effects pose a challenge for autonomous sensing and detecting capabilities.

Further research was proposed into the sensing of threats in urban environments in conjunction with heterogeneous sensing and fusion for Multi‑Domain Operations (MDO) dominance.

110

Figure 24: NATO forces are vulnerable to threats including Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which can be mitigated with improved battlefield situational awareness technology (Credit: iStock)

Regarding autonomous sensing and detecting capabilities, it was noted that challenges can be imposed by the environment. One collaborative research team between SET‑233, France, the US, and Germany undertook an experiment conducted with autonomous recording devices, finding that the performance of outdoor acoustic sensors could be affected by severe modulations in environmental conditions (including wind speed and direction), disturbing significant aspects such as detection, localisation, and classification.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The team recommended that additional resources should be invested into the evaluation of distributed, collaborative sensing in urban environments. Studies should include acoustic particle velocity sensors and arrays on moving crewed and un‑crewed air and ground vehicles, soldier‑worn sensors, and on Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS). Furthermore, acoustic particle velocity sensors and algorithms should be exploited to reduce the size of sensor systems fielded on the body, UAV/UGVs, and air/ground vehicles. Moreover, algorithm development must continue for improved, autonomous target detection, enhanced localisation, and robust classification.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

111

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SYMPOSIUMS

112

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

9TH NATO MILITARY SENSING SYMPOSIUM (SET‑241) OVERVIEW The last 25 years have seen an evolution of the nature of warfare and in military sensing needs. For instance, cheaper, smaller, and more power‑efficient sensors are required to equip various platforms or dismounted soldiers. As computers, communication, and autonomous system technologies became ubiquitous, distributed networks and smart sensors are becoming a reality. The ninth version of this symposium thus sought to explore this ongoing evolution of the nature of warfare and the resulting shift in emphasis required by military sensing.

The symposium was held in May ‒ June 2017 and aimed to bring together government and industry experts from Allied nations in military sensing.

An emphasis was placed on military sensor technology at the system and subsystem level. The aim of the meeting was to recognise new sensors, systems, and techniques and to identify their potential benefits to NATO’s military operations.

Figure 25: The last 25 years have seen an evolution in cheaper, smaller, and more power‑efficient sensors being required to equip various platforms or dismounted soldiers. (Credit: iStock)

APPROACH The event attracted experts in the field of military sensing from ten nations who presented 79 papers, five keynote addresses, and 18 posters. These presentations triggered insightful discussions among participants and exposed the contemporary trends in sensors, systems, and techniques along with their potential benefits for military operations. The subjects of the presentations included passive/active RF sensing for detection, tracking and imaging, laser technology, soldier systems, targeting systems, image processing, and interoperable systems.

FINDINGS Trends in sensors, systems, and techniques along with their potential benefits for military operations were noted and identified.

From its discussions, the symposium noted the following: •

Detection, identification and tracking of moving targets using RF systems has become an increasing concern for NATO forces.

•

The use of multiple different sensing technologies is necessary to address the wide spectrum of threats, such as UAVs, and their interoperability is fundamental in the efficient generation of reliant intelligence.

•

Noteworthy progress was demonstrated in the field of interoperability and system integration.

•

A wide range of laser technologies have shown their ability to address the needs of countermeasure applications and range finding.

Six papers were presented discussing UAV threats, threat signature modelling, and tracking. It was noted that acoustic sensing is not the best method for detecting UAVs in urban or long‑distance scenarios. On the other hand, active imagery in the SWIR (shortwave infrared) is excessive.

Nevertheless, a network of sensors will lower the false alarm rate and was seen in two papers to raise the probability of detection. Meanwhile, a further paper from Canada studied a deep learning technique that tracked and classified military platforms in various environments using both visible and MWIR (midwave infrared) bands. This algorithm could detect a military target with a probability of higher than 95%.

The symposium noted that while major technological improvements have been highlighted during the symposium, this should not overshadow that research efforts must continue to ensure NATO’s long‑term military sensing advantage.

Therefore, the NATO SET Panel should maintain expertise in this area on the Panel and should review progress in another 2 – 3 years by holding a similar symposium.

Further technical conclusions were explained in more detail in the symposium’s Technical Evaluation Report; please consult for further detail.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

Insight shared on the threat detection and tracking of UAVs.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

113

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

114

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

AUTONOMOUS SENSING AND MULTI‑SENSOR INTEGRATION FOR ISR APPLICATIONS (SET‑176) OVERVIEW In October 2011, the SET‑176 Specialists’ Meeting met to examine autonomous sensing and multi‑sensor integration for ISR applications.

APPROACH The meeting was organised to provide NATO members with some of the state‑of‑the‑art developments in the areas of: •

Multi‑modal sensing

•

Networked sensing

•

The integration and interoperability of disparate coalition sensor assets

A total of 19 presentations and three keynote speeches were presented at the meeting, with sessions organised in three groupings: •

ISR and Persistent Surveillance

•

Acoustic Sensing and Processing

•

Personnel Detection

FINDINGS The meeting highlighted some of the work taking place among the member countries and the ongoing problems needing to be tackled in the areas of surveillance, UGS, and personnel detection.

The presentations revealed the expansive variety of applications that autonomous sensing and multi‑sensor integration hold for ISR capabilities.

This includes for counter‑insurgency scenarios, maritime surveillance (and thus port protection), urban warfare, and personnel detection in various environmental conditions. Regarding the latter, it was noted that no single system can perform well in all cases for all operational needs.

The meeting also highlighted to Allied nations some of the problems that need to be tackled through collaboration and showed the capabilities and limitations of the systems that exist today for surveillance and UGS. The keynote speeches pointed to the direction of future efforts to empower the soldier in the field. Furthermore, the importance of phenomenology and modelling to develop robust algorithms for personnel detection was noted, a detection problem which has been present since the Vietnam era. Finally, as noted by a coalition sensing exercise which took place in Germany in 2011, coalition teams have their own challenges in terms of overcoming difficulties in real world situations, including for detection scenarios.

Overall, the meeting highlighted some of the work taking place among the member countries and the ongoing problems needing to be tackled in the areas of surveillance, UGS, and personnel detection.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

115

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH LECTURE SERIES

116

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ACTIVE PASSIVE ELECTRO‑OPTIC/INFRARED (EO/IR) AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION (ATR) LECTURE SERIES (SET‑194) OVERVIEW In December 2013 and May 2014, this Lecture Series was held to provide an overview of the state‑of‑the‑art in this area. The overall objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of the status of ATR for Active and Passive Electro‑Optic/ Infrared (EO/IR) sensors as applied across a broad spectrum of targets, backgrounds, and environments (weather, obscuration, etc.).

APPROACH The Lecture Series drew on NATO representatives with expertise relevant to specific sensors, all describing their theoretical and experimental results and using a common set of tools for comparisons.

FINDINGS Insight gained and offered concerning the state‑of‑the‑art in ATR for Active and Passive Electro‑Optic/Infrared (EO/IR) sensors.

The ten lectures commenced with a presentation on the fundamentals of ATR, discussing a high‑level view of some of the current approaches, and providing an explanation of the tools used to evaluate the effectiveness of ATR systems.

Firstly, in the review of fundamentals it was noted that extensive testing is essential to measure ATR performance. It was also noted that ATR is maturing and is beginning to transition to customers including to several Army, Air Force, and Navy platforms. It was noted that some successes for ATR are speech recognition, face recognition, fingerprint recognition, and object recognition using radar, passive EO/IR, and active LADAR. Furthermore, it was noted that ATR is employed in diverse ways depending on the application and the customer. For example, ATR may be employed as an interactive decision

Figure 26: The successes for ATR include object recognition using radar (Credit: iStock)

aid (where the human and the machine work interactively) or in a fully autonomous mode where the ATR processes the input data and makes the final decision without a human in the loop.

Further perspectives were presented at the meeting. For instance, a US Army Perspective was presented, suggesting that new algorithms will be required to self‑train to address new targets and integrate new sensors in the future, recognising that ATR will include more and varied classes of sensors. Meanwhile, a further paper demonstrated how progress has been made over the last few years on the automatic detection, tracking and identification of humans to support threat detection and security applications. However, it was noted that for mobile systems where size, weight and power are important restriction, the task becomes difficult, although novel hardware is beginning to emerge that may address this future military requirement.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

117

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ACTIVE PASSIVE ELECTRO‑OPTIC/INFRARED (EO/IR) AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION (ATR) (SET‑221) OVERVIEW The objective of this Lecture Series held between 2014 and 2015 was to provide a comprehensive overview of the status of ATR for Active and Passive Electro‑Optic/Infrared (EO/IR) sensors as applied across a broad spectrum of targets, backgrounds, and environments (weather, obscuration, etc.).

APPROACH This Lecture Series drew on NATO representatives with expertise relevant to specific sensors, all describing their theoretical and experimental results and using a common set of tools for comparisons.

118

FINDINGS Insight gained and offered concerning the state‑of‑the‑art in ATR for Active and Passive Electro‑Optic/Infrared (EO/IR) sensors.

Subject matter experts familiar with a broad range of sensor modalities firstly provided a review of ATR fundamentals. Subject matter experts on individual sensor types then described the current state‑of‑the‑art, and made projections for the near, mid, and far term ATR capabilities.

For more detail, the interested reader is encouraged to review the individual presentations.

Topics covered included:

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY

•

ATR in Asymmetrical Warfare

•

LADAR

To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

•

On‑the‑move Roadway/Roadside Threat Detection Techniques

•

Human Detection, Tracking, Identification

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH EXPLORATORY TEAMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

119

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

BIOLOGY‑BASED SOLUTIONS (BIOMETRICS, BIO‑MIMETICS, BIO‑SIGNATURES) (HFM‑ET‑114)

DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION FOR AUTONOMOUS SENSING (SET‑ET‑121)

DURATION

DURATION

February 2011 – February 2012

August 2020 – February 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

There is considerable interest in technologies that will match sensors with an ability to identify a person by unique physical or behavioural characteristics. This has an obvious application for surveillance. There is also a host of possibilities coming from broad‑spectrum gene‑based therapies. Bio‑behaviour‑based autonomous identification of men/machines may provide disruptive possibilities for both Blue and Red forces.

This Exploratory Team is exploring system designs for autonomous sensing.

OBJECTIVES The main objective of this ET was to analyse the potential for this technology to be disruptive for both Blue and Red forces.

OUTCOMES No record of a follow‑on activity.

An autonomous sensing system can demonstrate a disruptive capability in terms of its impacts to military operations. Before its operational usage, however, verification is mandatory whether the system’s capabilities are available in the full range of parameters used to describe the scenarios and associated requirements. Furthermore, system designs that have not been implemented to demonstrate their disruptive capability need to also be evaluated. The process of generating and evaluating system designs is called ‘Design Space Exploration’ (DSE).

OBJECTIVES As sensing is a core operational capability, improvements in autonomous sensing affect all domains and all scenarios. This ET is identifying specific areas where (in the course of efforts in a follow‑on RTG) the details of such improvements can be elaborated.

OUTCOMES SET‑ET‑121 has already contributed to the RSM SCI‑335 (Autonomy from a System Perspective ‒ Version 2.0 ). Click here to go to SCI‑335.

120

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

121

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MULTI‑FUNCTIONAL EO/IR SENSORS FOR COUNTER‑SURVEILLANCE (SET‑266)

AUTOMATED SCENE UNDERSTANDING FOR BATTLEFIELD AWARENESS (SET‑272)

ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

RTG

DURATION

DURATION

May 2019 – May 2023

April 2019 – April 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW This Task Group has convened to examine novel sensor technologies that combine active and passive imaging functions into compact systems suitable for dismounted and small autonomous platforms.

OBJECTIVES Multi‑functional electro‑optic (MF‑EO) systems with multiple wavebands and active illumination capability are available to NATO Nations but the current systems are bulky, expensive, and constrained to operate on large platforms.

Therefore, this Task Group aims to develop and assess novel retro‑reflective sensor technologies that combine active and passive imaging functions into compact systems suitable for dismounted and small autonomous platforms by exploiting recent developments in sensors, lasers, and optics.

APPROACH The Task Group will use counter‑surveillance as the driving military requirement and the reduction of size, weight, and power as a technical aspiration.

The aim is to evaluate and demonstrate several complementary techniques and develop a roadmap as to how these components can be integrated for exploitation by the dismount or on small autonomous platforms.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in April 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

The state‑of‑the‑art in digital video information extraction and exploitation has advanced rapidly over the past decade, driven by commercial industry and academia. The successful adaptation and validation of this technology for battlefield awareness will enable NATO members to develop data processing systems that exploit all available sensor assets, and which automatically condense sensor data into actionable information with minimal operator interaction.

To transition algorithms to military systems, representative data sets will need to be developed with multi‑modal sensors, scenarios and targets that are relevant to the military. This Task Group is working together to examine this area.

OBJECTIVES •

Develop a common set of data labels, annotation methodology, and a common, multi‑modal, annotated set of military‑relevant sensor data and metadata.

•

Develop a common set of evaluation procedures and metrics for comparing algorithm performance in the areas of target detection, segmentation, tracking, classification, and activity recognition.

•

Compare the performance of artificial intelligence approaches to object detection, object segmentation and activity recognition, addressing military scenarios and operating conditions where representative training data is currently limited.

APPROACH The team will execute joint activities to develop standard, annotated data sets for training and evaluation of scene understanding algorithms as well as standard evaluation metrics to assess algorithm performance. The RTG will also perform algorithm evaluations over these standard data sets using these standard metrics.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in May 2023 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

122

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

INTEROPERABILITY, VV&A (VERIFICATION, VALIDATION, AND ACCREDITATION), STANDARDS, & ASSURANCE

123

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

123123

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OVERVIEW This chapter provides overviews of the research activities conducted across a range of fields linked to the testing and standards associated with autonomous systems. One of the clearest themes emerging from this chapter is the requirement to standardise interfaces to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of autonomous systems. In various activities, The researchers collaborating within the STO have evaluated existing protocols and standards, assessing whether they are fit for purpose given the expanding functions of the autonomous systems emerging today. There is also considerable focus on both safety and security, from the development of risk‑based assessments to systematising the range of cybersecurity challenges of multi‑domain missions conducted by autonomous vehicles.

Relatedly, several simulated trials and proof‑of‑concept demonstrations conducted

by STO scientists have been used to de‑risk the integration of autonomous systems and to ensure that security‑related aspects have been adequately evaluated. Mission assurance is the orienting objective for many of these concerns with the aim to identify and mitigate potential deficiencies in autonomous platforms. This chapter also includes research considering the ethical and legal implications of autonomous systems, considering how autonomously acting systems can be guaranteed to follow rules such as international law, doctrines, political and ethical constraints.

Figure 27: Assured autonomy research aims to develop formal safety assurances for autonomous systems (Credit: DARPA) https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2020-01-29

124

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

125

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CAPABILITY CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR FOR INTEROPERABILITY WITHIN UNMANNED GROUND SYSTEMS AND C2 (IST‑149) DURATION June 2016 – June 2019

OVERVIEW The main purpose of the group was to investigate standards for controlling UGVs from Operator Control Units (OCUs) and receiving data back, and to assess these standards in a real‑world scenario.

OBJECTIVES This Task Group aimed at planning and implementing a capability concept demonstrator (CCD) to leverage interoperability standards and validate the compatibility chain from the acquisition of ISR data on the UGV up to the end‑user terminal of a C2 system.

APPROACH The efforts of the project have been two‑fold. The Belgian contribution is work done in the EU project ICARUS. The ICARUS consortium consisted of several international partners, where Belgium was the link to this group. This project involved a team of assistive unmanned air, ground and sea vehicles for Search and Rescue, with the interoperability verified in several different experiments. The second aspect to this work was a combined effort to undertake an experiment demonstrating interoperability between the UGVs and OCUs available within the group. The group had a final demonstration in Rena, Norway, in 2018.

FINDINGS Successful demonstration of interoperability between the tested systems.

As this was a successful trial, the next step would be to test interoperability using higher level functions.

Both efforts outlined above (see ‘Approach’ section) used the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) with the Interoperability Profile (IOP) to successfully enable interoperability between the systems. The trials showed that it is possible to extend the systems quite easily and achieve compliance with parts of the standard in a relatively brief time. Two leading institutes for ICT research and advanced ground system technology respectively (Fraunhofer FKIE and TARDEC) had developed software to pass information from the IOP domain to and from the Robotic Operating System (ROS). ROS is a widely used software for developing autonomy for UGVs and other types of robots and is used widely. The software provided

by Fraunhofer FKIE and TARDEC was vital to the success of the trials undertaken.

The group’s trials in Norway in 2018 focused on the tele‑operations of the UGVs and the receiving of position and video feedback from the UGVs. As this was a successful trial, the next step would be to evaluate the system interoperability using higher level control input and feedback. For instance, sending waypoints to the UGVs and receiving maps of the environment around the system based on the system’s perception.

The resulting technical report discusses how the IOP standard can be used to define requirements for a system before procurement. The standard itself defines a set of attributes that can be specified as either mandatory or optional requirements when procuring a new system. This makes it easier for procurement offices to define the requirements and for vendors to conform to the requirements, and it also becomes clear which capabilities an OCU needs to have when connecting to a system with regards to controlling it and visualising data available from the system.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

126

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RISK‑BASED SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL AIRWORTHINESS AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RPASS (AVT‑278) DURATION January 2017 – December 2019

OVERVIEW This Task Group was tasked with identifying, recording and analysing the multitude of different processes used by NATO Member States to achieve safe and assured UAS operations. AVT‑278 identified these common‑approach elements to achieving safe UAS operations, and created the ‘9 Considerations Framework’, which, if followed by NATO Member States, would provide a methodology to gain assurance of safe and airworthy risk‑based RPAS operations, and hence operational approvals.

OBJECTIVES To develop a best‑practice approach for approving Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) operations using a risk‑ based analysis. The study was not limited to technical airworthiness but also accounted for operational, environmental, and other aspects that affect the safety of the operational domain.

APPROACH By receiving national briefs, documenting the processes of different Member States, and identifying good and poor practices, themes of related processes started to emerge.

FINDINGS Developed a valid ‘9 Considerations Framework’ to gain assurance of safe and airworthy risk‑based RPAS operations.

It became clear that NATO Member States were delivering operations by following processes aligned to common airworthiness functional pillars. AVT‑278 therefore identified these common‑approach elements for achieving safe UAS operations and created the ‘9 Considerations Framework’ to gain assurance of safe and airworthy risk‑based RPAS operations, and hence operational approvals. The ‘9 Considerations’ are described in the final technical report, considering a range of factors including operation within airworthiness frameworks, the employment of competent staff and processes, the provision of UAS documentation, and methods for independent scrutiny and analysing risk.

The ‘9 Considerations Framework’, if adopted by NATO, could provide a method for NATO Member States to assure their UAS operations in a NATO operational theatre and could also provide the method by which NATO Theatre Commanders/ Administrators can assess the robustness of a Member State’s UAS operations. The final technical report recommends that NATO JCG‑UAS now uses this work to provide implementation policies for NATO UAS operations, and to provide a software tool to enable a means of assessment against this Framework.

AVT‑278 confirmed the validity of the ‘9 Considerations Framework’ at the 43rd Technical Panel meeting in Slovakia on 22 and 23 May 2019.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

127

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH SPECIALISTS’ MEETINGS

128

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

APPROVAL OF RPAS OPERATIONS: AIRWORTHINESS, RISK‑BASED METHODS, OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS (AVT‑273) OVERVIEW This Specialists’ Meeting held in May 2017 focused on bringing together subject matter experts from civil and military organisations to share best practices for safe RPAS operations. Topics covered in the presentations given centred on regulations, risk‑based safety assessment methodologies, procedures for mitigating operational risk, novel technologies for safety devices and risk mitigation, and insurance challenges.

The meeting objective was to identify common ground and gaps at the national and international level, and to eventually deliver a common framework that will allow for the integration of unmanned aviation into the civilian airspace system, facilitating NATO missions and operational objectives. The rationale for the meeting was justified due to the lack of common rules, regulations, procedures, and roadmaps among NATO countries for the approval of RPAS operations.

This event identified common ground and gaps and registered specific recommendations towards establishing a common framework that will lead to the integration of unmanned aviation into civil airspace, thus facilitating NATO humanitarian and military missions. A roadmap and timetable with milestones to be completed by the time AVT-278 Risk‑Based Safety Assessment of Operational Airworthiness and Certification Requirements for RPASs takes place has been recommended.

Presentations given at the meeting covered RPAS regulations, risk‑based analysis, as well as the procedures, technologies, and programmes of the participating nations. Several challenges were raised, including: •

The lack of commonly accepted terminology for unmanned aviation/aircraft.

•

A lack of clear roadmaps and defined goals, even at the Member State level, thus preventing any discussion to set goals at the NATO level.

APPROACH

•

The outcome of the meeting was a roadmap to define a common framework for RPAS operations, complete with timestamps and deliverables.

There appears to be a gap among Member States when it comes to RPAS/UAS classification.

•

The challenge of understanding autonomy, i.e., Is autonomy a set of capabilities? Are these capabilities fixed or modified over time?

FINDINGS Challenges and opportunities identified on the topic of safe RPAS operations.

Following on from this activity, the developed objectives, roadmap, and proposed tentative common framework are to be developed further in activity RTG AVT‑278.

Overall, AVT‑273 successfully offered the participating nations the opportunity to find out what one another is doing in RPAS/UAS. It also allowed differences to surface, which is equally important to bridge gaps. Following on from this work, it was encouraged that Member States capitalise on the findings of AVT‑273 and continue this work in AVT‑278.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

129

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MISSION ASSURANCE FOR AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED SYSTEMS (IST‑166) OVERVIEW In October 2018, the Specialists’ Meeting IST‑166 assembled to support the then recently formed Research Task Group IST-164 Securing Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicles for Mission Assurance.

The objective of this meeting was to function as a forum to discuss the state‑of‑the‑art as well as developments, concepts, and operational solutions to gain mission assurance for the unmanned and autonomous systems of the future.

APPROACH The meeting was divided into four sessions addressing the following topics: •

Intelligence in Autonomy

•

Securing Autonomous Platforms

•

Risk Assessment for Platforms and Missions

•

Mission Concepts and Modelling

FINDINGS

Overall, the Specialists’ Meeting provided a forum to extend the knowledge of the delegates and exposed areas where more research is necessary.

The vulnerabilities, risks, and benefits of deploying and integrating autonomous systems equipped with complex learning systems was explored and discussed. It was determined that numerous risk assessment tools are available, but none appear to be optimal. While attempts to quantify the risk associated with deploying autonomous systems and integrating them into a larger operational environment requires extensive testing, evaluation, and strategic planning. Of note, it was seen that existing models are prone to diverse results with minor changes caused through interpretation of the questionnaires.

Concern was expressed with regards to the proliferation of the deep‑learning method for object identification, which is shown to be vulnerable to third parties injecting spurious pixels.

Means to improve the efficiency of some of the assessment tools were discussed.

Knowledge exchanged on the state‑of‑the‑art in mission assurance for autonomous unmanned systems and areas for further research identified.

Overall, the requirement to create an ontology with international agreement was recognised and the desire to have a quantifiable figure for risk available to commanders was identified.

Numerous risk assessment tools are available, but none are optimal.

For interested readers, the proceedings of the Specialists’ Meeting reflect the current situation in implementing assurance for unmanned vehicles and identifies areas where further research is necessary.

Identified a requirement to create an ontology with international agreement and the desire to have a quantifiable figure for risk available to commanders.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

130

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

HUMAN‑MACHINE TRUST: RISK‑BASED ASSURANCE AND LICENCING OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑313) OVERVIEW

The findings indicate the following:

In December 2018, this Specialists’ Meeting met to discuss the building of trust within a human‑machine team through a risk‑based assurance and licensing process that covers and expands the scope of allowed missions or effects. The expected achievement was to inform a standardised process that can be applied across all NATO Nations to allow human‑machine teams to operate confidently in future operating environments that are hybrid in nature and coalition in character.

•

The available autonomy assurance technologies, tools and methods are diverse, disparate, and improving but almost certainly sufficient to argue a defined human‑autonomy capability will perform well;

•

A defined, bounded, human‑autonomy capability appears practicable and could be proposed in a form of a scoped licence that could hide sensitive technologies, support confidence, yet also enable an understanding of feasible operational use and overall evaluation;

•

A suitable autonomy authority, supported by domain, systems, and autonomy specialists, could evaluate and endorse the underpinning technical coherence of the evidence and arguments supporting a proposed licenced capability in a similar way to that of a weapons board or weapons regulator;

•

The licenced human‑autonomy capability should afford commanders/authorities confidence in the assurance process and define clear operational bounds within military and civil domains.

APPROACH The meeting brought together NATO specialists to review the current and emergent assurance technologies. The specialists investigated a substantive subset of high, low‑level, and low methods, tools, and techniques that potentially support the assurance of human‑autonomy capabilities. The evidence was workshopped from the perspective of licensing a human‑autonomy capability for use in military and civil contexts.

FINDINGS Autonomy assurance technologies are maturing.

Human‑autonomy licensing appears practicable, supported by a specialist evaluation authority.

Bounded trust is important, supported by the licensing process to support clear operational bounds.

It is recommended, based on the evaluation of SCI‑313, that the Nations’ trial the use of a specialist autonomy board.

It is recommended, based on the evaluation of SCI‑313, that the Nations’ trial the use of a specialist autonomy board that evaluates the proposed autonomy technologies and licences the human element to operate the system as a Human‑Machine Team within defined boundaries.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

Figure 28: The building of trust within a human‑machine team is a crucial component within autonomous capabilities (Credit: iStock)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

131

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH WORKSHOPS

132

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS (SCI‑274) OVERVIEW Valid and reliable Verification and Validation (V&V) methodologies must be applied to autonomous systems to ensure that the performance and the use of these systems are efficient, predictable, reliable, and safe. This is particularly relevant for coalition operations involving combinations of crewed and un‑crewed systems reliant on operational networks for communication, command, and control. However, V&V has traditionally been a very time consuming and expensive process tailored to each individual system.

This workshop was held in June 2014 to inform NATO and PfP Nations of the key V&V issues for autonomous systems, to discuss potential requirements and methods for V&V tools, and to explore the potential impacts of failing to address V&V for autonomous systems.

However, several challenges must be overcome as AxS remain a nascent technology compared to traditional military assets. Additionally, the lack of AxS standards and guidance impedes the development and interoperability of these systems.

Challenges include: •

Developing analytic approaches that can predict the behaviour of complex AxS

•

Need for benchmark problems

•

Need for common standards and metrics

•

Modelling AxS with Human‑In‑The‑Loop (HITL) Architectures

•

Need for V&V to address cooperative behaviour in a System of Systems (SoS)

Presentations were given and discussions followed on the challenges to V&V, including on:

The workshop concluded that a coalition of nations within NATO will be required for the comprehensive, strategic integration of AxS and – necessarily – for the formation of accepted standards and regulations with specific regard to autonomy.

•

Relevant methodologies, tools, and standards.

•

•

Establishing commonality in the methods used and data relevant to establishing predictable performance from the AxS.

The SCI‑274 workshop concluded by summarising the following recommendations for the NATO STB:

•

Support a follow‑on workshop to encourage the communication of these issues.

•

Explore collaborative AxS V&V opportunities.

•

Form a panel consisting of experts from various nations, engineering, V&V, and other associated disciplines.

•

Focus initially on V&V research.

•

Draft AxS and AxS V&V standards and regulations.

•

Support the development of timely and specific AxS V&V requirements.

•

Break these regulations into domain‑specific documents.

•

Benchmark problem sets.

•

Encourage a multidisciplinary approach to V&V for AxS.

•

Define which components of the architecture are to be standardised at specific milestones in the lifecycle.

•

Encourage companies, developers, and industry that the V&V of AxS is needed.

APPROACH

FINDINGS Consensus that AxS are ideal for a wide range of situations, but several challenges must be overcome.

The lack of AxS standards and guidance impedes the development and interoperability of these systems.

Recommendations drafted for consideration by the NATO STB. There was general agreement during the workshop that AxS are ideal for a wide range of situations, including use in unfamiliar, hazardous, and austere environments such as nuclear disasters, collapsed buildings, and subterranean structures. These systems can also operate with greater endurance and on timescales faster than human perception and decision making. Because they are often remotely crewed or un‑crewed, AxS can operate with reduced risk to coalition lives in high intensity anti‑access area‑denial environments where command linking is not possible. Accordingly, AxS provide a much‑needed solution to the demands of future operations.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

133

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH LECTURE SERIES

134

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COMMAND AND REPORTING STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT TOOLS FOR UXS (SCI‑271) OVERVIEW This Lecture Series held in 2015 focused on the problem of the standardisation of interfaces for small‑unmanned vehicles. A particular focus was placed on multi‑robot network‑centred operations, where teams of unmanned air, ground and sea vehicles collaborate and operate in synergy as a coordinated, integrated team.

APPROACH Topics covered: •

The need for standards to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of unmanned systems;

•

Overviewed existing interoperability standards and frameworks including STANAG 4586, JAUS, MOOS and ROS;

•

Open‑source tools that can be used in the development of standard compliant unmanned vehicles;

•

Organised hands‑on tutorials.

FINDINGS Knowledge gained and shared in the use of common standards for interoperability and software frameworks.

Functionality gaps identified in the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems.

NATO STANAGs are a crucial step for advancing interoperability and provide a roadmap for future developments, yet have some limitations (e.g., how they are constrained to NATO Member States).

The existing initiatives for the interoperability of unmanned platforms were critically appraised, including various NATO STANAGs (Standardisation Agreements) and the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS). One paper presented identified functionality gaps in the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS).10 This international standard establishes a common set of message formats and communication protocols for supporting interoperability within and between uncrewed vehicles and ground control stations. A further lecture examined the well‑established NATO STANAG 4586, which addresses the standardisation of control of UAVs.11 This is a message‑based standard that was originally developed to meet the requirements of long endurance UAVs. The lecture concluded that although not providing a complete solution for interoperability, STANAG 4586 is a crucial step and provides a roadmap for future developments.

However, in the presentations it was noted that as STANAGs are constrained to NATO Member States, this may become a limitation for intervention in non‑NATO countries. For instance, STANAG 4586 is NATO Unclassified. This could become a barrier to many global suppliers and non‑traditional innovators from non‑NATO countries.

Furthermore, robotics software architectures, frameworks, and operating systems were also examined. A special focus was placed on multi‑robot operations, where a team of unmanned air, ground and sea vehicles collaborate as a coordinated, seamlessly integrated team and the small platforms that were not the focus of existing NATO standards related to interoperability.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

10 ‘ Introduction to JAUS for Unmanned Systems Interoperability’ lecture by Daniel Serrano: STO Lecture Series SCI‑271.

11 STANAG 4586 –Standard Interfaces of UAV Control System (UCS) for NATO UAV Interoperability’ lecture by Mário Monteiro Marques: STO Lecture Series SCI‑271.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

135

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES: TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES, CONCEPTS OF OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY ISSUES (AVT‑274) OVERVIEW This Lecture Series held in 2017 focused on the various challenges and regulatory issues arising from the use of UAVs and UAS.

APPROACH Various lectures were presented on UAVs and UAS from different participating nations.

The overall objectives of the Lecture Series were: •

To provide an overview on the design of UAVs including multidisciplinary aspects such as aerodynamics, propulsion, composite airframes, and flight control systems;

•

To assess the technological challenges for the widespread adoption of UAVs into existing air space;

•

To understand the human‑system interface; and

•

To identify regulatory issues related to the integration and operation of UAVs in existing airspace.

Various lectures were presented on UAVs and UAS from different participating nations concerning technological challenges, concepts of operation, and regulatory issues.

Several technologies need to be addressed and resolved before UAS are incorporated routinely in NATO defence capabilities. A long but not exhaustive list includes sense and avoid; bandwidth regulation; lost link procedures; flight termination system and return to home; autonomous operations; and AI. Some key findings from the lectures included: •

New requirements in terms of green aviation and mission objectives have led to challenging design issues in shape design, optimisation, and the integration of electric and hybrid propulsion systems.

•

The presentation of safety and field operation requirements and procedures that are necessary to ensure a safe and successful flight operation campaign.

•

Incorporating a Human Systems integration programme during the defence material acquisition process will ensure that human performance considerations are satisfactorily accounted for and can be better addressed early during the acquisition lifecycle.

FINDINGS Knowledge gained and shared in the technological challenges and regulatory issues faced regarding UAVs and UAS. New requirements in terms of green aviation and mission objectives have led to challenging design issues in shape design, optimisation, and integration of electric and hybrid propulsion systems.

Presentation of safety and field operation requirements and procedures that are necessary to ensure a safe and successful flight operation campaign.

Incorporating a Human Systems integration programme during the defence material acquisition process ensures human performance considerations are satisfactorily accounted for and can be better addressed early during the acquisition lifecycle.

136

Finally, the key challenges facing UAS development were noted to include: •

Airspace Integration

•

Human Systems Integration

•

Interoperability

•

Safe flight operations

•

Design optimisation

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH EXPLORATORY TEAMS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

137

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR AUTONOMOUS MANEUVERING OF WEAPON SYSTEMS (IST‑ET‑067) DURATION

OBJECTIVES

March 2012 – December 2012

The objectives of this ET were to initiate guidance among researchers and developers in line with military end user requirements and to initiate standardisation and harmonisation in the development of autonomous intelligent battlefield agents with Machine Learning capabilities. Special attention planned to be paid to the alignment of terminology with related activities within other STO panels.

OVERVIEW Often, automated intelligent behaviour relies heavily on the use of predefined scripts. For successfully creating autonomous intelligent battlefield agents, the underlying AI techniques need to be defined. A focus on Machine Learning techniques provides the means to establish autonomous intelligent behaviour of battlefield agents that goes beyond scripted behaviour.

This exploratory team sought to examine machine‑learning techniques for the autonomous manoeuvring of weapon systems.

OUTCOMES There was no outcome of this activity, which ended in 2012. It was followed by another related activity, on Machine Learning Techniques for Autonomous Computer Generated Entities (RTG IST‑121), which was disbanded.

Figure 29: Machine Learning (Credit: iStock)

138

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

139

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SECURING UNMANNED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES FOR MISSION ASSURANCE (IST‑164) ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RTG

RTG

DURATION March 2018 – October 2021 (extension requested)

DURATION November 2019 – November 2022

OVERVIEW This RTG is examining how to enhance interoperability between unmanned vehicles through a unified approach to security and aid a deeper understanding of the security risks specific to autonomous vehicles.

OBJECTIVES This team aims to meet the following objectives: •

Systematise the range of cyber security challenges of multi‑domain missions conducted by unmanned and autonomous vehicles (given a set of scenarios), taking into account risk factors.

•

Propose a preliminary reference architecture or guidelines for the cyber security of unmanned and autonomous vehicles that can be extended and refined as more applications and vehicles are defined.

•

INTEROPERABILITY FOR SEMI‑AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES (IST‑179)

Promote the adoption of the recommendations through interaction with relevant bodies such as the Multi‑Domain Control Systems (MDCS) STANAG Working Group, the NIAG, and the NATO Office of Security (NOS).

APPROACH The team hope to achieve the formation of a reference model for security, either in the form of guidelines or as an architecture. This will consider the specific risks and security challenges that characterise unmanned and autonomous vehicles.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in October 2021 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

OVERVIEW This Task Group was formed to investigate interoperability issues for semi‑autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs).

This RTG will ease the integration of this technology by identifying and testing standards so that the technological basis for interoperability is ready when the UGV technology is mature enough for operational use. It will also contribute to NATO interoperability and standardisation activities by identifying and testing standards for UGV interoperability and possibly contribute to updated standards.

OBJECTIVES The RTG will investigate standards to facilitate interoperability between UGVs and their C2 systems. This includes open standards/ middle‑ware solutions such as the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) and Robotic Operating Systems (ROS), where the latter is the de facto standard in civilian robotics research. The investigation will also include military standards such as Battlefield Management Language (BML) and Interoperability Profiles (IOP), as well as relevant STANAGs.

APPROACH After the team agrees on a subset of standards and the use case, a joint experiment will be conducted to verify that systems can communicate through them. Each participating nation will implement the agreed subset of standards on their UGV and C2 system, and the interoperability between the systems will be validated through the experiment. The main achievement will be a Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT) at a field trial, where technology for interoperability will be shown to provide experience in using the standards in real‑life conditions.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in November 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

140

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

SYNTHETIC LEGAL ADVISER ‒ AI‑BASED DECISION MAKING IN HYPERWAR (IST‑HFM‑182) ACTIVITY TYPE RTG

ACTIVITY TYPE

DURATION

RTC (Technical course)

September 2020 – September 2023

DURATION

OVERVIEW This Task Group is studying how AI‑based autonomously acting systems can be guaranteed to follow rules such as international law, doctrines, as well as political and ethical constraints. It is also exploring the implications of these systems’ decision‑making capabilities for the future battlefield in ‘hyperwar’ scenarios.

OBJECTIVES Laws, doctrines, and international regulations are not in all cases clear‑cut and suffer various contradictions. This RTG intends to try to answer questions such as: •

Do such rules exist for all kinds of scenarios in a Hyperwar context?

•

Is it possible to implement laws in AI‑based systems that give the base for autonomous systems?

January 2021 – December 2021

OVERVIEW The RTC will address the use of Command and Control‑Simulation Interoperation (C2SIM) for the execution of military scenarios. In its first year, it will be presented virtually; additional years might involve a mix of virtual and on‑site presentation, in coordination with the NATO MSCO.

OBJECTIVES C2SIM provides an unambiguous language used to command and control forces and systems in the conduct of military enterprise activities. C2SIM is being developed as an extension of standardised representations. It digitises command & control information such as orders and plans to be understandable for military personnel, simulated forces, autonomous forces, and robotic forces.

This Technical Course will provide information about using C2SIM to support C2 to Simulation Interoperability (including the C2 of autonomous and robotic forces).

APPROACH This team hopes to: •

EMPLOYING THE C2‑SIMULATION INTEROPERATION (C2SIM) STANDARD FOR COALITION MILITARY OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES (MSG‑194)

Gain clarity of thoughts for the application of autonomously derived decisions in the tactical domain.

•

Advise guidelines for the realisation of future AI systems.

•

Identify the kind of military decisions for which ‘electronic legal advisers’ are possible (e.g., self‑defence at the tactical level, cyber space etc.).

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in September 2023 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

APPROACH Exploitation will be achieved indirectly, through the impact of lectures on attendees and their participation in national activities employing C2SIM. The first half‑day of the lectures will provide an overview of C2SIM for all, including military commanders and industry leaders. The second half‑day of lectures will be focused on military and industry technical staff and will aim to provide detailed technical information on C2SIM and its application.

FINDINGS This course and its preparations are due to conclude in December 2021.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

141

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ENABLING FEDERATED, COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMY (SCI‑343) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

This study aims to proceed with the following objectives:

DURATION February 2021 – February 2024

OVERVIEW Following on from RTG SCI-288 Autonomy in Communications‑Limited Environments, this RTG will continue to study and develop an interoperability approach for building federated coalitions of autonomous systems. In the preceding activity, an implementation of such an approach demonstrated promise, while highlighting areas for refinement and further study.

OBJECTIVES This study is outlining a data model and messaging approach that promotes interoperability directly between autonomous systems.

The preceding activity resulted in a proof‑of‑concept virtual demonstration, proving the overall concept, but without sufficient technical depth to prove broader flexibility. From a technological view, this follow‑up should culminate in the implementation of the newest insights into an updated reference architecture, which can be used by panel members and nations to validate in usage with their own frameworks.

142

•

Formally define an abstract, extensible data model to be used for messages and tasks.

•

Define an architecture for encoding of messages for specific transmission methods.

•

Demonstrate the portability of approach between applications.

•

Advise and develop security‑related aspects for federated military operations.

•

Depending on progress and commitment of contributors, this may result in a Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT). Already, this has been highlighted as an ambition of some participants.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in February 2024 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

143

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CAMELOT UNMANNED SEARCH AND RESCUE (FP7 PROJECT) DURATION 2017 ‒ 2021

OBJECTIVES This completed EU project sought to develop the ability of commanding and controlling multiple UxVs as well as other sensors and delivering complex services (such automatic asset tasking, mission planning and re‑planning or 3D representation of threats to name a few) using the same systems and environments (to rationalise costs and improve efficiency).

OPEN COOPERATION FOR EUROPEAN MARITIME AWARENESS (A PROJECT WITH THE EU PREPARATORY ACTION ON DEFENCE RESEARCH) DURATION 2018 – Present

OBJECTIVES •

Enhance situational awareness in a maritime environment through the deployment and integration of Unmanned Systems;

•

Examine how to meet the challenges in Persistent Wide Area Surveillance and Maritime Interdiction;

•

Examine how to accomplish a project of substantial complexity in a demanding timescale through EU wide cooperation of End Users, large industries, research institutes and Small/Medium Enterprises.

The CAMELOT platform architecture is based on a distributed system that will offer: •

Scalability;

•

Availability; and

•

Security capabilities, as required by the end‑users.

OUTCOMES

OUTCOMES In line with recent NATO efforts, this project sought to implement a standardised Multi‑Service Multi‑Domain Command and Control architecture.

CMRE has contributed to the system architecture and data model and has developed an interoperable acoustic localisation service for Underwater Vehicles.

144

•

Demonstration of EU‑funded research for defence applications;

•

Enhancement of maritime situational awareness, through command‑and‑control capability, secured data exchange and real time/near real time transmission of information;

•

Improved interoperability with existing, multilateral EU defence systems and infrastructures, naval platforms, and mission systems;

•

Improved interoperability between crewed and un‑crewed systems.

•

Distributed interoperable simulated trials for integration of, de‑risking and complementing the live trials.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

145

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NTEROPERABILITY, STANDARDS AND SECURITY FOR MARITIME UNMANNED SYSTEMS (A PROJECT IN THE CMRE MUSE PROGRAMME) DURATION

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION (ACT) INNOVATION HUB PROJECT DURATION 2021 – Present

OBJECTIVES

2019 – Present

OBJECTIVES This ongoing project aims to examine the C2, standardisation of security approaches, and V&V frameworks for maritime Unmanned Systems.

OUTCOMES Ongoing project but has already contributed to the following: to STANAG 4817; to the establishment of a V&V Framework for maritime Unmanned Systems; and to the establishment of a mission assurance framework for maritime Unmanned Systems. Furthermore, this research has contributed to reports on rules and regulations for maritime Unmanned Systems.

This project sees CMRE undertake work for the ACT Innovation Hub according to a series of objectives gained from the Disruptive Technology Assessment Exercises (DTEX) event on Trust and Autonomous Systems: •

To identify solutions that set the correct level of trust humans have in autonomous systems, enabling their successful adoption;

•

To identify the conceptual models (mechanisms) that each solution uses to set the correct level of trust;

•

To develop and demonstrate a synthetic environment to support DTEX events.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR MARITIME ROBOTIC EXPLOITATION (C3MRE) DURATION 2021 – Present

OBJECTIVES This ongoing CMRE cross‑programme activity seeks to develop an exemplar implementation of a STANAG 4817 compliant multi‑domain Control Station.

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

146

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COUNTERMEASURES

147

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

147 147

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

OVERVIEW This chapter details the research both undertaken and underway on countermeasures to adversary uses of autonomous systems, primarily unmanned vehicles. The overwhelming focus of this research in this area is on the problems associated with the detection and classification of UAVs and the development of methods to counter these. The properties of UAVs that make these platforms difficult to detect include their low radar cross‑section, flight at low‑altitude, and unpredictable trajectories. This has resulted in a range of research activities exploring the use

of radar signatures, RF‑based detection, and countering methods, as well as the modelling of suspicious behaviours and relevant signatures.

Indeed, modelling and simulation of the threat has emerged as an important focus in this area, including planned field trials to test different sensor systems. Beyond activities in the field of detection and classification, research on countermeasures is overall relatively limited. This is a product of the level of classification needed to conduct significant research in this area.

Figure 30: The wide‑ranging use of UxVs and swarming on the battlefield will require additional force protection assets with explicit counter‑UxV and counter‑counter‑UxV capabilities (Credit: iStock)

148

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH RESEARCH TASK GROUPS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

149

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANALYSIS AND RECOGNITION OF RADAR SIGNATURES FOR NON‑COOPERATIVE IDENTIFICATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (SET‑180) DURATION

APPROACH

June 2011 – December 2015

Firstly, the study will determine the capabilities of the existing techniques for Non‑Cooperative Target Identification (NCTI) applied to small airborne targets. This will include the identification of unique features in the radar signatures of UAVs differing from those present in larger aircraft.

Secondly, the existing methods for classification will be adapted to the findings or novel approaches will be developed.

OVERVIEW This Task Group worked to study the ability to detect Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with radar, including identifying differences in target signatures from crewed aircraft and identifying features unique to UAVs.

OBJECTIVES Knowledge of type and/or the identity of all objects in the battle space is mandatory for the theatre commanders of today and affect every aspect of command, control, and weapon system application. In future conflicts, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will become increasingly used.

As such, it is important to be able to classify and identify these targets.

The main objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using radar signatures for the classification and identification of small airborne targets such as UAVs.

Another important topic is to study how well these targets are detected by radar. The group will conduct field trials with new mobile radar systems at an early stage of the investigation, expanding the existing aircraft signature database with more UAV signatures.

FINDINGS Report published at ‘NATO SECRET’ level; access available on a need‑to‑know basis.

Subsequent RTG SET-245 (Radar Based Non‑Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) in the Low Airspace and Complex Surface Environments) built on the database and classifications approaches produced.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

150

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RADIO FREQUENCY DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS IN TACTICAL SCENARIOS (SCI‑250) DURATION January 2012 – December 2014

OVERVIEW This Task Group worked to study the impact of radio frequency directed energy weapons against military hardware.

OBJECTIVES The activity aimed to address the use of high‑power microwave (HPM) and Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons (RFDEW) against military infrastructure and electronic equipment. Issues related to the defence against terrorism were also planned for consideration.

APPROACH This RTG aimed to carry laboratory testing and analyses from previous research groups into realistic scenarios. The conduct of a joint trial will make it possible to generate the required data without a need for the release of nationally sensitive data.

FINDINGS Developed a NATO susceptibility test procedure recommendation against RFW threats.

During the trials, effects were demonstrated on a variety of configurations including C4I military infrastructure, UAVs, and limited engine stopping.

At the time this group assembled, there was no NATO test procedure and standard concerning requirement and verification methods to evaluate electronic equipment, systems, and platforms against the Radio Frequency Weapon (RFW) threat. To achieve this objective, RTG SCI‑250 decided to develop a NATO susceptibility test procedure recommendation against RFW threats.

This recommendation could be taken into consideration by NATO standardisation groups for the future development of test standards.

During the trials, effects were demonstrated on a variety of configurations including C4I military infrastructure, UAVs, and limited engine stopping. The output of this Task Group included a final report, a demonstration video, and a recommendation to produce a NATO RFDEW Test Standard, which will inform senior stakeholders about the use and the potential that RFDEW capabilities can offer to military operations.

The final report produced provides general RFW test procedures including requirements and testing methods that can be the base for future Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) testing and to be considered as input for future NATO RFW test and evaluation standards. It is recommended that future work of the STO should evaluate the test procedure in SCI DEW science programmes and improve the test parameters related to the technology of RFW sources.

Moreover, a Lecture Series on Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons (SCI‑249) was organised in parallel to the SCI‑250 Task Group.

This built on the experience and expertise from previous Task Group activities as an educational effort to support the dissemination of knowledge and awareness of RFDEW within NATO.

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

151

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RADAR BASED NON‑COOPERATIVE TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) IN THE LOW AIRSPACE AND COMPLEX SURFACE ENVIRONMENTS (SET‑245) DURATION

FINDINGS

November 2016 – November 2020

Insight gained on the classification process in the complex low‑airspace region and measures on to how to perform classification were provided. The team used its collected data to evaluate the availability and exploitability of radar‑based features for the purpose of detecting, tracking, and identifying small UAVs, as well as for training identification algorithms.

OVERVIEW The proliferation of drones for civilian and military usage represents a significant challenge to airspace surveillance radars. A considerable number of UAS have properties (such as low radar cross‑section, low altitude, and unpredictable trajectories) that make them hard to detect and identify. Furthermore, because of their low cost and ease of access/configurability, the increasing use of UAVs in battlefields has been observed.

This Task Group studied and evaluated the ability to classify and identify air and surface targets with radar systems by reviewing and developing algorithms that allow for recognition in challenging clutter regions near the ground and surface, especially of small and micro‑UAVs.

OBJECTIVES This effort will build on the RTG SET-180 (Analysis and Recognition of Radar Signatures for Non‑Cooperative Identification of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) database and development in classification approaches to study the increased situational awareness of the low airspace and ground environment.

APPROACH The SET‑245 team conducted a data collection campaign consisting of several trials to provide information that would enable the team to characterise radar features for a representative set of small unmanned aerial systems. The campaign, conducted in multiple locations under a variety of conditions from 2017 through to 2020, collected data on a variety of targets, including birds and an assortment of fixed‑wing and rotary small UAVs. Trials included controlled collections in both clean and cluttered environments.

The most relevant challenges for counter‑UAV radars were identified.

The major aim of obtaining knowledge on the classification process in the complex low‑airspace region and providing measures on to how to perform classification was achieved.

However, there are still problems to be addressed regarding the performance of classification methods. The most relevant challenges for counter‑UAV radars were identified as follows: •

Moving toward radar with target classification, recognition, and intent assessment capabilities.

•

Addressing a wider range of low observable targets.

•

Analysing radar techniques for managing multiple targets and swarms.

•

Improving radar target detection, tracking and recognition in complex environments.

•

Investigating new radar architectures.

•

Assessing potential performance improvements associated with multi‑modal systems.

•

Understanding new UAV capabilities.

Subsequently, the team used the collected data to gain further insights into the radar‑based characteristics that could be used to positively identify small UAVs. Some of these characteristics were then implemented into several recognition algorithms.

Figure 31: The proliferation of drones for civilian and military usage represents a significant challenge to airspace surveillance radars (Credit: iStock)

152

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

The group have recommended the continuation of the evaluation of techniques for radar‑based detection, tracking, classification, and recognition of UAVs in complex (urban) environments with a special focus on the following topics:

In particular, SET‑245 generated the follow‑on activity RTG SET‑307, which is examining new techniques for the radar‑based detection, tracking, classification, and recognition of Class I UAS in complex environments.

•

ACCESS THIS ACTIVITY

Special radar system concepts for the robust detection, tracking, classification, and recognition of UAVs.

•

Radar‑based AI methods for the classification and recognition of UAVs (including swarms and formations), for rejection of so‑called ‘confusers’ and for clutter mitigation.

•

Assessment of operationally relevant information for the threat assessment of UAVs and foreseen developments of the malicious use of (improvised) UAVs, e.g., by consultation of a subject‑matter expert from the military domain.

To read more on the findings from this activity, please click here for access information.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

153

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

LOW SLOW SMALL (LSS) THREATS MODELLING AND SIMULATION (MSG‑154) DURATION

FINDINGS

May 2017 – July 2021

OVERVIEW Low, Slow and Small (LSS) aerial vehicles (commonly identified as ‘drones’) are recognised as posing a significant threat to NATO Member nations and to deployed coalition forces as they can be easily acquired and transported and can be almost undetectable when they fly due to having an extremely low signature. The primary LSS threat come from three classes of UAV ‒ Micro, Mini, and Small. Their use was initially conceived for reconnaissance and surveillance operations, but slowly their use is becoming focused more on offensive and combat operations.

This RTG was formed to meet the need to model and simulate the threat presented by LSS aerial vehicles.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study is to develop models for commercially available LSS aerial vehicles and make these models available for the analysis and design of counter‑LSS systems, both for detection and neutralisation.

APPROACH The LSS can be modelled with respect to:

154

•

The behaviour during flight, including the available manoeuvres and the impact of meteorological conditions (wind, rain, etc.).

•

The signature against different type of detectors.

•

The threat itself, in order to model suspicious behaviours that could help in the identification of an adversary object.

Insight shared on the M&S of LSS threats, including on the difficulties of defining a model for drones suitable to be used in a simulation system.

M&S encounters some unique challenges and opportunities when it comes to considering drones within the context of threat vectors. An analytical model describing the flight dynamics of a drone should be mathematically sound since mission capabilities strongly depend on vehicle configuration and behaviour. When it comes to detecting drones, several phenomena must be considered, such as reflectance on and outside the visible wave range, radio frequency, acoustics, and related technologies such as passive and active imaging and detection.

Unfortunately, due to this complexity the objectives of RTG MSG‑154 were not successfully achieved. It was found that a clear modelling of the drone signature with respect to its characteristics appears to not be easily feasible due to the complexity and variability of the drones on the market and their continuous enhancements.

Moreover, the complexity and variability of the characteristics of drones makes it difficult to accomplish the task of defining a model suitable to be used in a simulation system. This is due to both the several parameters that characterise the drone itself, and the complexity of the flight dynamics equations required to take into consideration all the drone’s manoeuvrability capabilities and features. Furthermore, the complexity and variability of the characteristics of small UAS do not permit the defining of a model for assessing the relevant signatures.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CPoW RESEARCH ONGOING RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

155

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH OF EFFECTS OF RF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ON ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED VEHICLES, VESSELS AND UAVS (SCI‑294) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

The main thrust of the group’s effort will be vehicle and vessel stopping to assess the effectiveness of RFDEW.

DURATION April 2016 – December 2022

OVERVIEW RFDEW have the potential to non‑lethally stop vehicles and vessels to provide an additional option in the escalation of force and assist in determining the intent of potential threats.

This Task Group is studying the impact of radio frequency directed energy weapons against military hardware.

OBJECTIVES The main aim is to conduct testing and analysis of Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons (RFDEW) effects on electronically controlled vehicles, vessels, and UAVs. This will provide NATO allies with an appreciation of the potential capability of RFDEW for this non‑lethal weapon application.

156

To facilitate the ability of stakeholders to assess the operational effectiveness of RFDEW capabilities, consistent test procedures must be used in the various trials that are conducted during this and future task groups. Therefore, this group will also be responsible for developing a NATO RFDEW Test Standard to support testing and the evaluation in this area.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in December 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DEFEAT OF LOW SLOW AND SMALL (LSS) AIR THREATS (SCI‑301) ACTIVITY TYPE

APPROACH

RTG

This Task Group will be a ‘living programme’ that will seek existing far‑sighted scientific contributions from the military, industrial, and academic communities to support second generation C‑UAS networked systems that are:

DURATION June 2017 – June 2022

OVERVIEW

•

Less man‑power intensive than current systems;

•

Capable of rapid sense and warn of emerging and future LSS air targets at militarily significant ranges with a low false alarm rate;

While conventional threats from the air by fighters, bombers, attack helicopters, and cruise missiles remain of concern to NATO, challenges posed by unconventional LSS air threats are of increasing and vital concern. The deployment of UAS has provided one of the most significant military capability enhancements of recent years, as well as a significant set of challenges. As UAS capability proliferates over the coming years, it would be naïve to assume that these effects could not be targeted against NATO interests.

•

Able to cue and employ a range of effectors;

•

Able to work against targets fitted with countermeasures;

•

Cost effective and easily assimilated into existing force protection infrastructures;

•

Minimise EM and physical interference, fratricide, and collateral damage on neighbouring systems.

This Task Group aims to meet regularly to identify, coordinate, and if necessary, instigate analysis, research, and demonstration work across NATO Nations that clarifies:

This study is due to conclude in December 2021 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

This Task Group is studying the challenge of unconventional Low Slow and Small (LSS) air threats.

OBJECTIVES

•

The future threat posed by LSS air systems to NATO interests, singly, networked, and/or in a swarm.

•

The probability of encounter and the potential impact of these threats.

•

Future UAS detect and mitigation options across the complete kill chain.

FINDINGS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

157

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ASSESSMENT OF EO/IR DRONE DETECTABILITY: TECHNOLOGIES FOR DETECTION MODELLING THE RELEVANT OF SMALL UAVS IN AN URBAN SIGNATURE (MSG‑SET‑183) ENVIRONMENT (SET‑260) ACTIVITY TYPE

ACTIVITY TYPE

RSM

RTG

DURATION September 2019 – November 2021

DURATION March 2018 – March 2022

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

This Specialists’ Meeting was formed to help meet the challenge of Low, Slow and Small (LSS) flying platforms.

This RTG aims at bringing together experts in EO/IR detection among the NATO community to share knowledge and data on different EO/ IR technologies for the detection of mini and micro‑UAVs in an urban environment.

OBJECTIVES This RTG aims to organise a joint measurement campaign to collect UAV signatures, which will bring together NATO EO/IR experts to share knowledge and data on different EO/IR technologies for the purposes of detection. The signatures will be shared among the participating nations to be further exploited to compare the performances of the different technologies and for the development and evaluation of detection and tracking algorithms.

OBJECTIVES The proliferation of small UAS platforms flying singularly or in large formation (e.g., swarm of drones), brings with it a rapidly evolving threat for national defence and security agencies. Thus, next generation defence systems must be designed to face such threats. A proper system design should start from an adequate modelling of the context and simulation of the system behaviour.

The objectives of this Specialist Meeting are to facilitate the information exchange on Low, Slow and Small (LSS) platform signature characterisation and related modelling.

APPROACH Leaders, contributors and representatives from the military, government, academia, and industry will come together to address current and emerging methodologies to define LSS signatures to be applied in counter‑UAS systems. The outcome of this Specialists’ Meeting should improve current studies on the subject and suggest further areas for NATO research activities and will reinforce links with military bodies.

FINDINGS Figure 32: Drone flying in an urban environment (Credit: iStock)

This meeting is due to take place in April 2021 and a final report will subsequently be published.

APPROACH A joint field trial will be conducted with different sensor systems and UAVs where measurements and background signatures will be taken. The RTG will also define a data format, minimum metadata, and calibration data to be saved prior to the trials to ensure that the shared data among the participating nations will be exploitable for further development of algorithms and models.

FINDINGS This study is due to conclude in March 2022 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

158

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

REALISATION AND EVALUATION OF ROBOTIC MULTISPECTRAL DECOYS FOR LAND EQUIPMENT (SCI‑324) ACTIVITY TYPE

RF FINGER PRINTING OF DRONES (IST‑ET‑120) ACTIVITY TYPE ET

DURATION

RWS

October 2021 – April 2022

DURATION

OVERVIEW

January 2020 – December 2022

OVERVIEW This Workshop aims to help raise awareness and foster collaboration in terms of the benefits and challenges associated with new advanced robotic and autonomy deceptive systems and technologies.

This ET intends to produce and develop a common architecture of the physical and logical interfaces for RF database development, as well as a list of frameworks for RF detection, classification, and feature extraction, and a framework to benchmark the developed detection and classification techniques.

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVES This workshop is formed to investigate and examine the impact of: •

Interactions between robotic decoy technical characteristics and potential tactical or operational requirements.

•

Potential consequences of the use of robotic decoys on military operations and doctrine.

•

Possibilities of polarimetric and/or hyperspectral sensors and their technical characteristics against modern decoys.

APPROACH The information presented at the workshop will support ongoing industrial development and research activities within NATO countries.

The workshop will serve to inform the military community on the benefits and challenges associated with new advanced robotic and autonomy deceptive systems and technologies.

Finally, it will serve to promote interoperability within NATO, foster mutual reliance for future development activities, and enhance the quality of future military equipment in this area.

As drones are becoming cheaper, smaller, and more equipped with sensors, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are posing alarming threats to military installations, national security, and private sectors. An RF‑based detection and tracking system is independent of the radar cross‑section (RCS) of a UAV and can detect and tracking a drone from several kilometres away. IST‑ET‑120 aims at bringing together RF research engineers among the NATO community to: •

Evaluate the significance of a drone RF database;

•

Identify promising RF detection, classification, and localisation techniques based on spectral information (including AI‑based approaches);

•

Identify jamming techniques for soft neutralisation; and

•

Define test scenarios for drone detection, classification, and localisation in diverse environments (e.g., rural, urban, and industrial environments).

OUTCOMES Ongoing.

FINDINGS This workshop is due to take place and a final report will subsequently be published.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

159

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ADVANCED RADAR TECHNIQUES FOR ROBUST SITUATION AWARENESS AND THREAT ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING CLASS I UAS IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS (SET‑307) ACTIVITY TYPE

techniques, the existing set of measurements acquired within the framework of RTGs SET‑180 and SET‑245 will be expanded with new measurements of relevant targets and ‘confusers’ in representative complex environments.

RTG

DURATION October 2021 – October 2024

OVERVIEW Following on from the work undertaken by RTGs SET‑245 and SET‑180 , this Task Group seeks to improve methods for the radar‑based detection, recognition, and classification of Class I UAS in complex environments.

OBJECTIVES The group plans to investigate and evaluate new techniques for the radar‑based detection, tracking, classification and recognition of Class I UAS in complex environments. Targets of special interest will be swarms and formations of UAS, small improvised (fixed‑wing) drones and so‑called ‘confusers’ such as birds, wind turbines, and fans (etc.). In support of the evaluation of these new

160

In support of this, the group aims to organise at least one measurement campaign with several radar systems (both operational systems and prototypes) to obtain new measurements of relevant scenarios in a realistic environment.

If possible, measurements will be planned in cooperation with other SET Panel Task Groups to simultaneously acquire data of different sensor modalities. Moreover, interactions with the NATO C‑UAS Technical Standardisation community are foreseen.

OUTCOMES This study is due to conclude in October 2024 and a final technical report will subsequently be published.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CMRE RESEARCH

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED

161

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CUAXS COUNTERING UNMANNED AUTONOMOUS X‑DOMAIN SYSTEMS: A PROJECT LED BY ACT WITH THE MULTINATIONAL CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT CAMPAIGN (MCDC) DURATION

OUTCOMES

2015 ‒ 2016

OBJECTIVES This concept study aimed to deliver a capstone concept for the future implementation of countermeasures against unmanned autonomous systems, taking into consideration the integration with other existing capabilities. Implementation of the concept aims to achieve the following objectives and which CMRE was contracted to provide expertise on:

162

•

Provide a commonly agreed definition of autonomous systems.

•

Provide a stratification matrix based on criteria defining the level of autonomy of a system.

•

Determine the threats linked to UAxS.

•

Address the impact of the concept across the DOTMLPFI spectrum, taking into consideration the integration with existing capabilities.

•

Provide some suggestions for legal acceptance of the utilisation of AxS countermeasures based on the stratification matrix.

•

Suggest a way ahead for the future implementation of a CUAxS capability.

The project has produced reports describing future evolving technologies and operational implications and opportunities for multi‑domain unmanned autonomous systems, a Future Capstone Concept on Counter Unmanned Autonomous Systems (CUAxS ‒ DOTMLPFI), and a review of National Practices in this field.

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CONCLUSION

163

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

163 163

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CONCLUSION This NATO Chief Scientist Research Report provides a review of the extensive research on robotics and autonomous systems conducted over the course of the past decade by the NATO STO. It has drawn upon the published findings of research activities in the broad field of autonomous technologies undertaken in the STO’s network of over 5,000 active scientists, analysts, and researchers drawn from Alliance and Partner nations.

The report seeks to enable a more evidenced based and nuanced understanding amongst a wide range of military and civilian stakeholders. This is especially important as autonomous technologies mature and become more relevant for future NATO operations.

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH GAPS While the STO’s research on RAS is extensive, relevant research may also be found in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, which are not covered here. Nonetheless, research gaps do remain and STO researchers have recognised that several issues merit (further) attention going forward12: •

Trust is essential to human‑machine collaboration. STO research needs to assess further trust calibration in the human‑machine relationship and the calibration of trust in autonomous systems.

Continued gaps in this area risk nullifying the advances promised by autonomous technologies in speed, coordination, and endurance.

•

In the same way, STO research needs to address the doctrine and policy of human‑machine teams, including its application in advanced Command and Control (C2) functions. Tactics and technologies will need to evolve symbiotically to achieve advantage through human‑machine teams. Consequently, the STO should assess the advantages of supporting the development of human‑machine teaming doctrine.

•

Swarming technologies are emerging as one of the central focus areas in the field of military autonomous technology. Controlling a homogeneous or non‑homogeneous swarm is complicated and difficult to operate in practice. In addition to research already conducted, STO research therefore needs to address swarm concepts and control and the integration of swarms in a C2 chain.

•

Automation in logistics promises to distribute resources to combatants more quickly, replace forces in the field, and help to drive productivity and cost efficiencies. STO researchers have identified gaps in the current and completed programme of work in this area, identifying the need for further research on the independence for autonomous logistics support forces.

•

One of the dominant discussions in the field of military autonomy is the ethical, legal, and moral (ELM) implications of deployed autonomous technologies. STO research should support the evidence base for these discussions, including the ELM implications of autonomous sensors that may have evaded the same kinds of scrutiny and publicity as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS).

•

The threat of adversary autonomous systems will be present in all phases of conflict and across all domains. STO research must dedicate more attention to countering autonomous technologies in order to fully realise the nature of the threat and develop technological solutions and strategies to mitigate it.

•

Autonomous technologies will present challenges and opportunities in all domains of operation.

While STO research has primarily focused on the three “traditional” domains: land, sea, and air, further work should explore the application of autonomous technologies in the domains of cyber and space.

12 These gaps are based on discussions at the STO’s 2021 Plans and Programmes Workshop. For more information on this event and results see AC/323‑CS(2021)0001 ‒ 2021 STO Plans & Programmes Workshop (PPW): Outcomes and Suggest Way Forward..

164

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

APPENDICES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NATO

EMPLOYMENT & INTEGRATION

165

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

APPENDIX A – ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

166

3D

3‑Dimensional

A‑ASW

Autonomous Anti‑Submarine Warfare

ACT

NATO Allied Command Transformation

AFC

Active Flow Control

AG

AGARDograph

AGARDograph

Advanced Guidance for Alliance Research and Development Publication

AI

Artificial Intelligence

AMS

Autonomous Military System

AS

Autonomous Systems

ASV

Autonomous Surface Vehicle

ASW

Anti‑Submarine Warfare

ATR

Automatic Target Recognition

AUV

Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

AVT

Applied Vehicle Technology Panel

AWSE

Air Wake Surfing for Efficiency

AxS

Autonomous Systems

BLOS

Beyond Line of Sight

C2

Command and Control

C2SIM

Command and Control‑Simulation Interoperation

C4I

Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence

C4ISR

Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

C5

Command, Control, Computers, Communications, and Cyber

C5ISR

Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

CASEVAC

Evacuation of Casualties

CCD

Capability Concept Demonstrator

CDAG

Concept Development Assessment Game

CDT

Cooperative Demonstration of Technology

CMRE

STO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation

CMRE PoW

STO‑CMRE Programme of Work

COI

Community of Interest

CONOPs

Concepts of Operation

CPoW

Collaborative Programme of Work

CSO

Collaboration Support Office

CUAxS

Counter Unmanned Autonomous Systems

DOTMLPFI

Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Interoperability

DSE

Design Space Exploration

EDT

Emerging and/or Disruptive Technology

EiV&V

Efficient Independent Validation and Verification

EKOE

Environmental Knowledge and Operational Effectiveness

EM

Electromagnetic

EO/IR

Electro‑Optic/Infrared

EOD

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

ET

Exploratory Team

EU

European Union

FOE

Future Operational Environment

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

HART

Human‑Agent‑Robot Teamwork

HAT

Human‑Autonomy Teaming

HFM

Human Factors and Medicine Panel

HHT

Human‑Human Teaming

HITL

Human‑In‑The‑Loop

HM

Human‑Machine

HPM

High‑Power Microwave

IAs

Intelligent Agents

ICT

Information and Communications Technology

ID

Identification

IED

Improvised Explosive Device

ISR

Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance

IST

Information Systems Technology

IT

Information Technology

JAUS

Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems

JCG‑UAS

NATO Joint Capability Group for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

KPIs

Key Performance Indicators

LADAR or LIDAR

Light Detection and Ranging

LSS

Low Slow and Small

LWIR

Long Wave Infrared

M&S

Modelling & Simulation

MDC2‑H

Multi‑Domain C2‑Harmonisation Arrangements

MDCS

Multi‑Domain Control Systems

MDO

Multi‑Domain Operations

MF‑EO

Multi‑functional Electro‑Optic systems

MHC

Meaningful Human Control

MPP

Mission Performance Potential

MS

Military Search

MSG

Modelling and Simulation Group

MUSE

Maritime Unmanned Systems Enablers

MWIR

Mid‑Wave Infrared

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATO MSCO

NATO Modelling & Simulation Centre of Excellence

NCTI

Non‑Cooperative Target Identification

NIAG

NATO Industrial Advisory Group

NMCM

Naval Mine Countermeasures

NOS

NATO Office of Security

OCS

Office of the NATO Chief Scientist

OCU

Operator Control Unit

OR&A

Operational Research and Analysis

PARC

Persistent Autonomous Reconfigurable Capability

PfP

NATO Partnership for Peace Nations

PoWs

STO Programmes of Work

R&D

Research and Development

RASEVAC

Evacuation of casualties using robotic, autonomous, and/or unmanned air, ground, or maritime platforms

RF

Radio Frequency

RFDEW

Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons

RLS

Research Lecture Series

ROS

Robotic Operating Systems

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

167

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

168

RPAS

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems

RPGs

Rocket Propelled Grenades

RSM or SM

Research Specialists’ Meeting

RSY

Research Symposium

RTC

Research Technical Course

RTG

Research Task Group

RWS

Research Workshop

S&T

Science & Technology

SA

Situation Awareness

SA3C

Modelling and Simulation of Autonomous ASW capable vehicles to Augment surface and maritime air Capabilities

SAR

Synthetic Aperture Radar

SAR

Search and Rescue

SAS

System Analysis and Studies Panel

SCI

Systems Concepts and Integration Panel

SET

Sensors and Electronics Technology Panel

SME

Subject Matter Expert

ST

Specialist Team

STANAG

Standardisation Agreement

STB

NATO Science & Technology Board

STO

NATO Science & Technology Organization

sUAS

Small UAS platforms

SWIR

Short Wave Infrared

System of Systems

SoS

TA

Technical Activity

TD

Technology Demonstration

TER

Technical Evaluation Report

TEVV/ TEV&V

Testing & Evaluation

TRL

Technology Readiness Level

TRS

Trust Rescue Systems

TTPs

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

TW

Technology Watch Card

UAS

Unmanned Aircraft Systems

UAS

Unmanned Aerial Systems

UAV

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UAxS

Unmanned Autonomous Systems

UCAV

Military Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles

UGS

Unattended/Unmanned Ground Sensor(s) or System(s)

UGV

Unmanned Ground Vehicle

UMS

Unmanned Systems

US ARL

US Army Research Laboratory

US or USA

United States of America

UUV

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

UV

Unmanned or Uninhabited Vehicle

UxV

Unmanned Vehicle

V&V

Validation & Verification

VR/AR

Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality

VV&A

Verification, Validation, and Accreditation

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

169

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

170

AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGIES

NATO UNCLASSIFIED NATO UNCLASSIFIED