“Unmanned aircraft are unmanned only in name” is becoming the mantra of operators as they wrestle with the increasing demands on today’s unmanned systems. That could change with new U.S. acquisition rules designed to encourage competition and innovation in the manpower-intensive ground segment.

The ground segment is a key element of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), particularly for the U.S. Air Force as it operates deployed air vehicles remotely from the U.S. via satellite links. But the combat use of unmanned aircraft has underlined the limitations of current ground control stations (GCS).

“The purpose of an unmanned system is to allow a human being to project their senses and their ability to affect things into the battlespace,” says Mark Bigham, director of business development for GCS supplier Raytheon. “That’s the difference between a UAV and a cruise missile. The operator interface is a critical element, and it’s next big area of improvement.”

In February, an acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) from then-Pentagon acquisition chief John Young directed the services to initiate a joint effort to develop and demonstrate a common, open and scalable GCS architecture supporting Group 2-5 UASs from Fire Scout to Global Hawk. They were also directed to separate GCS development and procurement into a subprogram within each UAS program.

The ADM effectively ends the “package deals” under which the Pentagon procures both UAS and GCS from the prime contractor, and the interface between air vehicle and ground station remains largely proprietary and closed. While requiring an open architecture to allow competition, the ADM provides an incentive by identifying the money available for GCSs.

“When we look back, the Young ADM will be seen as a watershed event,” says Bigham. “The fact that he forced everyone to use an open interface control document is the most important thing to happen in unmanned systems.”

Proponents believe the competition made possible by open and modular interface standards will increase ground-station functionality, adding new applications and tools, allowing software reuse across systems, easing integration of new payloads and accelerating automation of unmanned aircraft.

The move to an open GCS architecture will not happen overnight, and it will not result in a common ground station across all systems and services. The tri-service UAS control segment working group is defining an architecture, and not developing a common ground station, hardware or software, or human-machine graphical user interface. The individual services will be responsible for implementing the new architecture program-by-program.

“Effectively transitioning from where we are today to where we need to be in the future will take time,” says Dyke Weatherington, Defense Dept. deputy director for unmanned warfare. “Our strategy is to develop goals for the future architecture, then migrate legacy systems toward that architecture as they evolve. ‘New’ systems would be required to adopt the new, common architecture.”

The point of departure is NATO Stanag 4586, which defines UAS command-and-control (C2) interfaces. “Stanag 4586 standardizes the basic framework for the platform and sensor control functions, and it does it with open interfaces in a modular kind of way,” says Bigham. “It’s a good starting point, but now we’re firing weapons and controlling more than just electro-optical/infrared cameras, and we’ve got all these new sensors that Stanag 4586 doesn’t do.”