What about how that information – whether from a human analyst or a computer system – is presented to the human end-user?

There are a lot of ways to display that information, depending on who and where the user is. Generically, you will see a greater presentation of information in a more readily accessible and easily understood format.

In the future, you will see display systems being built with translators such that proprietary data from individual systems can be fed into it, then it displays a picture or information that is much more intuitive for the users. We have to move in that direction because you don’t have time for the operator to interpret raw data.

Do these future developments in ISR require DARPA-level R&D? Or can high-level capabilities be assembled from commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components, given the proper level of expertise and training?

It’s a combination of both. Some technologies will require the kind of intense and advanced capabilities resident in organizations such as DARPA. But having the capability to rapidly capitalize on readily available COTS is something that is very, very attractive as we move into an era where there is a much quicker turnover than before in terms of capabilities.

And a lot of that points to how our acquisition process needs to change, which is why rapid acquisition programs are so attractive. We cannot tolerate the slow, plodding, bureaucratic processes put in place in the last century to acquire major systems. Commercial refresh rates are on the order of 12 to 18 months, so working with commercially available systems lends itself to that kind of adaptability.

What impact will the drawdown in Southwest Asia have on advanced ISR requirements and programs?

Very little. ISR requirements will not go away in those places and you could make the case they will go up. As you reduce manpower, where every person is a sensor to some degree, you still want to maintain a level of situational awareness that existed when you had boots on the ground. So I expect to see a continuing growth in ISR requirements, especially as we shift to areas of greater scope, such as Asia/Pacific.

How might an anticipated decade of massive defense budget cuts affect R&D, acquisition, and fielding for ISR?

ISR is moving, in terms of sensor and processing capabilities and host platforms, to much more cost-effective means. So, if anything, the kinds of developments occurring in ISR will lead to achieving the same or greater capability at less cost.

What we cannot afford to do is just buy less of what we’re already buying. What we need to be capitalizing on in a future, even more constrained fiscal environment are more creative and innovative ideas relying more on technological advances than we have in the past. We need to put more – rather than less – effort into R&D and rapidly transitioning technological capability into output.

You were the first specifically assigned Air Force ISR chief, midway through the current conflict. Why so late in giving ISR that level of emphasis?

Actually, the other services still don’t have an ISR senior officer. They have intel chiefs, but there’s a big difference between intelligence and ISR, which is one of the concepts I continue to try to get people to understand. We need to move toward greater integration of ISR as operational elements to accomplish our security objectives.

But organizational change is very, very difficult. We must continue in the vein of integrating ISR as opposed to keeping those elements segregated. But there are people who want to keep those as segregated functions, which is an anachronistic way of doing business.

What is Mav6 doing in all this?

We are building the world’s largest LTA ISR aircraft. The tenets we have embraced and the Air Force has supported are those of open architectures, service-oriented horizontal information exchange, a modular payload. So instead of hard-wired systems, you can rapidly change out ISR payloads and the architecture is designed to accept, adapt, and rapidly integrate different sensors from different modalities.

Blue Devil II, our ISR airship, has gone from a piece of paper to first flight in just over a year, which is pretty quick for a developmental program. The tenets of capitalizing on a previous concept – LTA aircraft, conventional design, but mated with new technologies, sensor-to-sensor integration, enabled by high-speed, high-capability computing, carried on board – is new.

Do you see an international market or will you face International Traffic in Arms Regulations restrictions?

That’s an interesting question and really depends upon what is carried in the sensor package. Quite frankly, I don’t see the airship with the payload compartment itself being overly restricted. It has enormous applications outside just the security environment – an entire panoply of mission potential in commercial and other government operations.

And we are just in the early stages of people recognizing that capability. Today, LTA lSR aircraft are where Predator was in the early to mid-’90s. People see it as different, wondering if it can be afforded, etc. But they aren’t looking at the full capability and solutions to the kinds of cost-effective challenges we face in a resource-constrained environment.

The kinds of sensors the military will put on this are state-of-the-art, advanced DARPA-developed sensors, which the U.S. government is not going to sell. But because of the modular design of the airship, there are many nations building a variety of different sensors that could be put on the aircraft.

This interview was first published in Defense: Spring 2012 Edition.