As is becoming increasingly the case for all the services, the Marines also are looking for platforms capable of meeting multiple requirements, sometimes on the same mission. The problem then becomes how to allocate limited resources to meet multiple combat needs.

“Looking at it in terms of phases of an operation, in the first phases you might need more ISR versus logistics, while in phase three you might have a strike requirement and combat logistics, then in phase four you would be looking at the requirements to resupply and stabilize,” Beach said. “Right now we recognize there is a large demand for ISR on the battlefield. But if we are focused, in this assessment, on logistics in order to get trucks off the road and the platforms instead are used for ISR, then we would be taking them away from the mission or capability we’re trying to provide.

“Adding capability also adds mission weight. But I do see these platforms delivering a fuel bladder to a combat outpost, then bringing back an empty one or parts or whatever else needs to be recovered from the outpost. So just like any aircraft that might go into that kind of location, they would utilize their capabilities to the extent possible to take things both in and out.”

Just how important UAVs have become to the Marine Corps is demonstrated by the Force Structure Review (FSR), currently undergoing final assessment in preparation for implementation of the future course recommended by a select panel of Marine Corps officers and senior civilians. While the FSR recommended a 15,000 man reduction in the total force, it also called for creation of a fifth VMU squadron and increased funding for hardware, operations, and support.

Although the review does not specifically deal with the newest category of UAV – the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV), such as the Navy’s current UCAS-D demonstrator or proposed future Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) platform – Thomas and Beach agree such a capability may well have a place in the Corps within the next 20 years.

“If a UCAV is something with similar range, endurance, and speed as our manned platforms, I would say it is not a stretch [to expect] we will have something like that in 20 or 30 years. But we see that as complementary to the manned platform, designed as a system – manned/unmanned,” Beach said. “So while I do see the potential for that for the Corps, the caveat is not as a replacement for manned aircraft. We have to get to the point where it is complementary before it could become a replacement – and we’re at least a couple of steps away from that now.”

For Thomas, a Marine UCAV would need to be just that – a system specifically designed to meet the expeditionary needs of the Corps in whatever environment they may need to operate after Afghanistan.

“I think there is great potential for UCAVs and, presumably, there would be significant savings, but it’s still too early to determine what the limits of that capability might be,” he said. “We need persistence and ISR and fires and it all needs to be expeditionary. So I can see a requirement for the types of capabilities those systems would provide, but it may have to be something that can take off and land in a shorter area and be able to operate in an austere environment.

“For UAS capability writ large, I think there will be a requirement for that type of system, with greater persistence and fire, which are very important to us. But we have to balance that capability with the threats we might face across the range of military operations. In a higher threat environment, with a surface-to-air threat, for example, the requirements change. So I wouldn’t say what either the Navy or Air Force currently is working on would meet our needs.”

 

Unmanned Systems on the Ground

The Corps has been an enthusiastic user of ground robotics, as well, from small devices designed to check under cars for explosives and provide a first look inside a room or cave to still-in-development robotic pack mules to take some of the load off individual Marines on the move.

For the moment, however, the focus on UGVs is almost entirely directed to counter-IED systems – essentially, robots used to locate and even help disable what has become the weapon of choice for insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan – according to Kevin McConnell, director of the Fires and Maneuver Integration Division at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC).

“UGVs are kind of like GPS was – it was built and then everything came to rely on it. We’ve worked on unmanned ground systems for quite awhile, starting years ago with Gladiator, a developmental program that was our first foray into UGVs,” he explained. “But ultimately it was felt it did not fit a mission and was too expensive to continue. Gladiator was canceled shortly after OIF-1 and after that, ground robots became a non-topic in the Marine Corps.

“But as IEDs became more prevalent, some of the small robots that supported our EOD [explosive ordnance disposal] detachments and engineers started to surface. Those, basically, were commercially available from vendors who had been watching the threat develop and had developed a lot of small robots to help us initially in the IED role.

“As we move into the future, we have two focuses. First, continue to evolve the IED small robots, to migrate those beyond the EOD and engineering units to other elements of the Marine Corps. And second, to make use of systems we already have, whether it is Humvees or medium tactical trucks or, potentially, even heavy trucks and how to make those systems semi- or even fully autonomous.”