A Simulator for Semi-Autonomous UAV Integration into a Combat Role

John Page; Dr. Nathan Kinkaid

The University of New South Wales j.page@unsw.edu.au

Abstract. Autonomous and semi-autonomous aerial vehicles are finding increasing roles as force multipliers in many defense contexts. Our interest lies in integrating such vehicles into combat capability alongside manned aerial assets. A number of proposals have been put forward as to how such an integrated fleet might enhance capability. These range from distributing sensors through electronic and physical shielding to weapon deployment. In order to investigate these potential capabilities we are in the process of commissioning an expanded simulation capability. For a number of years we have been conducting research using a multi-vehicle simulator, called a cluster simulator, we designed and developed within the school. This cluster has the capability of combining up to eight flight-simulation programs. The simulated vehicles can be either remote controlled or have varying degrees of autonomy and can also mimic a flying aircraft in real time simply by transmitting GPS data from the aircraft to one of the simulators. An extension of this capability which is described in this paper is the design of a two seat military training aircraft simulator without a motion platform, based on one of our advanced project designs. The front seat is occupied by a pilot while the rear seat by a mission controller. The role of the mission controller is not only to assist the pilot in achieving the objective but also to integrate the simulated UAVs generated by the cluster simulator. The mission controller will thus determine the strategy to be executed by the fleet. Along with basic plots of the combined fleet’s position the mission controller is also able to obtain visual and other data from any selected UAV to enhance mission management. The piloted vehicle can also be directed to the location of any of the UAVs should further investigation be required. Though the individual elements of the system are now in place a certain amount of further work is required to make it fully operational at which time it should be capable of simulating a number of combat scenarios and evaluating their viability.

1. INTRODUCTION The role of autonomous vehicles in defense applications is rapidly increasing. Their full potential, however, is dependent on determining how to apply these assets to achieve a given objective with maximum chance of success and with minimum costs both in economic terms and in potential harm to military personnel. Much of the work in this area, at least in the public sphere, has been directed towards war fighting while in practice any military asset must be also able to fulfill additional roles in the constabulary and diplomatic missions undertaken by a nations defense force. We have a particular interest in the integration of manned and semi-autonomous flight systems to achieve specific tasks a military force might be required to undertake. Much of the work in this area has concentrated on self organizing clusters (SO Clusters) [1-5] but we are more interested in a human organized cluster. That does not mean that the unmanned element does not have autonomy but the high level strategic decisions are made by a human mission controller. In order to investigate the appropriate strategies and assets required we are in the process of building a multi-vehicle mission simulator.

Figure 1: Cluster simulator

2. THE CLUSTER SIMULATOR This facility will form the main cornerstone of the system we are building. This is a facility we have been developing over a number of years that is capable of examining the interoperability of up to eight aerial vehicles [6]. These simulated vehicles can be autonomous, remote controlled or manually flown. We have even incorporated data from an actual flying vehicle into the cluster though this has had limited real time success to date due to air to ground data handling difficulties. The cluster simulator operates on a Linux platform using a modified FlightGear program for flight simulation. FlightGear was selected as it is open software and can thus be readily modified to suit our

requirements though it is not as easy to use as some other readily available flight simulation programs. The aim is for vehicles simulated in the cluster to be managed from the rear seat of a military style flight simulator by a mission controller. The degree of autonomy the vehicles will have and whether a swarm of identical vehicles, homogeneous, or vehicles of mixed capability, heterogonous, best meet the individual mission requirements, are just two of the many issues we hope to address when the system is fully operational. The main interest, however, we expect to revolve around the autonomous vehicles’ interface with the mission controller and the manned vehicle and mission scenario development.

3. MILITARY VEHICLE SIMULATOR For the basis of the military vehicle simulator, or mothership, we are using a training aircraft that we designed as an advanced project study in house. As we use the X-Plane flight simulation program on a Windows platform for our design support we expect some interface problems but these should not be insurmountable [7-11].

Figure 2: Projected design aircraft (mothership)

The advantage of using this theoretical vehicle is that we have a comprehensive set of design data and can thus easily modify it to meet operational objectives as they arise. The vehicle is twin engine and has a tandem configuration. The front seat will be occupied by the pilot and the rear seat by the mission controller who will integrate it within the swarm. The mission controller will be provided by data not only from the sensors on the vehicles within the cluster but also from other sources such as C4ISTAR (command, control, communications, computers), I (military intelligence), and STAR (surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) assets.

Figure 3: Pilot’s station in mothership

Figure 3 is a photograph of the front seat, the pilot’s station, at its present stage of construction. The aim is to use glass cockpit technology and generate an operating environment that is representative of a modern combat aircraft. The flight characteristics are currently tailored to an advanced trainer, and thus challenging, these will be adjusted to increase stability at the expense of high maneuverability which is not required for this type of mission. The aircraft is equipped with hard points on the wing to carry a variety of stores that will be operated by the pilot.

Figure 4: Mission controller’s station in mothership

Figure 4 is a current photograph of the rear seat, mission controllers station. From this station the mission controller is able to see over the pilots head to get an eyeball image of the simulator vision system. Beside the main work tablet consisting of a large VDU on which the mission management takes place the equipping of the rear cockpit will be kept as flexible as possible. At this stage we still have to determine the optimum method of communicating with the swarm of autonomous vehicles and what hardware will be required to manage the incoming and outgoing data streams.

4. MISSION SCENARIOS At this stage we do not wish to limit the facility by tailoring it to particular missions but rather to build a system that can investigate the viability of any mission proposed. Never-the-less, in order to design the system, some broad mission concepts are required and we have addressed this through material from the United States

Air Force Scientific Advisory Board [12] and informal brain storming with air commanders from three national air forces which resulted in the following general concepts.

4.1 War fighting There are a number of tasks that it was felt could be carried out or enhanced by the use of a cluster of mainly unmanned aerial vehicles. The provision of blended data from a larger area than that from one vehicle was seen as significant, in particular the ability to migrate active sensors away from the manned vehicle reducing its footprint. The ability of the autonomous vehicles to provide ground fire suppression both by engaging ground defenses and electronic interference was also indicated as attractive along with the ability to deliver weapon systems of a variety of type to diverse locations both static and mobile. The shielding of the manned vehicle from both electronic and thermal detection was also regarded as significant. We do not at this stage envisage any air to air combat capability though the manned vehicle does have a limited self defense capability.

4.2 Constabulary There were a number of potential missions within this military role that it was felt a swarm of vehicle could assist. The primary one was of course border and marine protection against both economic and terrorist threats using the swarm to spread the sensor capability and diversity. Others included natural disaster response and the search element of search and rescue [13-15].

4.3 Diplomatic Air forces often have a considerably reduced role in this area compared to that of ground and marine forces but there are still some contributions that could be made. An obvious one is in providing other nations and international bodies with data to assist in search and disaster management [16]. Assistance in protecting off-shore economic assets was seen as very significant in our local area. Less obvious but regarded as significant is putting pressure on irregular forces, such a pirates or drug smugglers, often operating in un-policed or international waters. Other uses of the autonomous vehicles that spread across the areas of military activity were aerial refueling either as a buddy system or using specifically designed aerial tankers and communications relay.

5. FUTURE WORK The current effort is directed towards completing the manned simulator element of the system and its integration into the cluster simulator. At the same time we will carry out an advanced project design study to determine the properties required by the unmanned vehicles. In the first instance this will be to design a standard, homogeneous, vehicle but later we expect to

also design vehicles for specialist applications, heterogeneous. We also intend to start to formalize our relationships with air commanders and other strategists in order to develop realistic mission scenarios. We also intend using the human resources of the university, in particular the number of aircrew from various countries who study here, to fly simulated missions.

6. CONCLUSION There seems no doubt that robotic systems will play an increasing role in defense forces into the future. There are of course inherent dangers associated with such systems particularly when they have the capacity to deliver lethal force and operate in a self organizing clusters. We believe having a human not only in the loop but imbedded in the system substantially reduces the risks and extends the potential. Not only does the mission controller have all the available information to determine whether the target warrants an attack and the inherent risks associated with the mode of attack, if in doubt he can send the pilot to the location for an eyeball scan. The roles of these systems and how they can be made to operate economically, as a force multiplier is yet to be determined and it is to investigate this uncertainty that we have embarked on the design and development of this simulator.

REFERENCES 1. Nowak, D. (2008) “Exploitation of Self Organization

in UAV Swarms for Optimization in Combat Environments,” M.S. Thesis: Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

2. Butler, P. & Kelly, R. “Control of Heterogeneous Combat Swarms,” Proceedings of 39th Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, 2007, 4-6 March, Macon, GA, pp. 90-94.

3. Jaszlics, I., Jazlics, J. & Jones, S. (1994) “Automated Battlefield Simulation Command and Control Using Artificial Neural Networks,” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on AI, Simulation, and Planning in High Autonomy Systems, 7-9 December, Gainesville, FL, pp. 100- 105.

4. Chung, C., Furukawa, T. & Haydar Goktogan, A. (2006) “Coordinated Control for Capturing a Highly Manouverable Evader Using Forward Reachable Sets” 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1336-1341, Orlando, May 14-18.

5. Peculis, R., Rogers, D., & Campbell, P. (2008) “An Agent Based Framework for Simulating Socio Organisational Design of Large Projects”, Proceedings of SimTecT, Melbourne,12-15 May, Australia, pp 291-296.

6. Sammons, P. & Page, J. (2009) “Experimental Validation of Vehicle Cluster Simulator Using NetLogo,” Proceedings of SimTecT 2009, 15-19 June, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 65-69.

7. Page, J. & Ahmed, N. (2009) “Simulation - An Answer to the Aerospace Advanced Project

Designer’s Dilemma?” Proceedings of SimTecT 2009, 15-19 June, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 373-376.

8. Ahmed, N. & Page, J. (2007) “Flight Simulation as an Aid to Advanced Project Design” Proceedings of SimTecT 2007, Brisbane,4-7 June, pp477-480.

9. Page J., Jones I (2006)“Flight Simulation as an Aid to Light Aircraft Design”, Proceedings of SimTecT 2006, 29 May-1 June, Melbourne 2006, pp57-60.

10. Vulovic, Z., Page, J. & van Voorthuysen, E. (2007), “Integrating simulation into education”, Proceedings of SimTecT, Brisbane, 4-7 June, Australia, pp 521-526.

11. Page, J. (1998),” Aerospace Future Project Design in a Changing Industrial Environment’, Proceedings of The Australian Aeronautical Conference Melbourne 1998

12. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. (1996) “UAV Technologies and Combat Operations,” SAF/PA 96-1204.

13. Koopman, B., (1946) Search and Screening, Operations Evaluation Group Report, No. 56, Center for Naval Analysis, Alexandria, VA.

14. Dobbie, J., (1968) A Survey of Search Theory, Operations Research, 29, 309-323.

15. Stone, L., (1989) Theory of Optimal Search, Arlington, VA: Operations Research Society of America, ORSA Books.

16. Furukawa, T., Bourgault, F., Lavis, B. & Durrant-Whyte, H. (2006) “Bayesian Search and Tracking Using Coordinated UAVs for Lost Targets,” 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, May 14-18, pp. 2521-2526.