logo

SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, Volume 49, Issue 5: 538-554(2019) https://doi.org/10.1360/N112019-00008

Key scientific problems in cooperation control of unmanned-manned aircraft systems

More info
  • ReceivedJan 11, 2019
  • AcceptedMar 10, 2019
  • PublishedMay 14, 2019

Abstract

Cooperation of unmanned-manned aircraft systems can accelerate technology adaptability, enhance the combat capabilities in adversary conditions, achieve complementary advantages, and form new and efficient combat systems, which are important for guaranteeing arms control. The key to obtaining the “$1+1>2$” combat effectiveness is cooperative control, i.e., autonomous cooperation of unmanned and manned aircraft with the minimum supervision of a pilot. This study provides a survey of the development of unmanned-manned cooperation and a systematic review of the technology system based on the “Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action” (OODA) loop. Our study focuses on multi-aircraft autonomous cooperation in the loop and human-robot intelligent cooperation outside the loop. Finally, we summarize the research focus in the future.


Funded by

国家自然科学基金(61876187)


References

[1] United States Air Force. RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) Vector: Vision and Enabling Concepts 2013-2038. Report, 2014. Google Scholar

[2] Chen J, Xin B. Key scientific problems in the autonomous cooperation of manned-unmanned systems. SciSin Inform, 2018, 48: 1270-1274 CrossRef Google Scholar

[3] Shen L C, Niu Y F, Zhu H Y. Theories and Methods of Autonomous Cooperative Control for Multiple UAVs. 2 ed. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2018. Google Scholar

[4] Mansur M H, Center A, Frye M, et al. Rapid prototyping and evaluation of control system designs for manned and unmanned applications. In: Proceedings of the 56th Forum and Technology Display, Virginia Beach, 2000. Google Scholar

[5] Levulis S J, Kim S Y, DeLucia P R. Effects of touch, voice, and multimodal input on multiple-UAV monitoring during simulated manned-unmanned teaming in a military helicopter. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2016. 60: 132--132. Google Scholar

[6] Lim Y X, Alessandro G, Roberto S, et al. Avionics human-machine interfaces and interactions formanned and unmanned aircraft. J Intell Robot Syst, 2018, 91: 755--774. Google Scholar

[7] Cummings M L, Guerlain S. Human performance issues in supervisory control of autonomous airborne vehicles. In: Proceedings of AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America Conference, 2004. Google Scholar

[8] Bertuccelli L F, Cummings M L. Operator Choice Modeling for Collaborative UAV Visual Search Tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A, 2012, 42: 1088-1099 CrossRef Google Scholar

[9] Schmitt F, Schulte A. Mixed-Initiative Mission Planning Using Planning Strategy Models in Military Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2015. 1391--1396. Google Scholar

[10] Bevacqua G, Cacace J. Mixed-initiative planning and execution for multiple drones in search and rescue missions. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 2015. Google Scholar

[11] North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Supervisory Control of Multiple Uninhabited Systems- Methodologies and Enabling Human-Robot Interface Technologies. Report, 2012. Google Scholar

[12] United States Air Force. Autonomous Horizons---System Autonomy in the Air Force ---A Path to the Future. Report, 2015. Google Scholar

[13] Ruf C, Stütz P. Model-driven sensor operation assistance for a transport helicopter crew in manned-unmanned teaming missions: selecting the automation level by machine decision-making. In: Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, 2017. 253--265. Google Scholar

[14] Yang J H, Kapolka M, Chung T H. Autonomy balancing in a manned-unmanned teaming (MUT) swarm attack. In: Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications 2012. Berlin: Springer, 2013. 208: 561--569. Google Scholar

[15] United States Department of Defense. Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038. Report, 2013. Google Scholar

[16] United States Air Force. Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) Flight Plan: 2016-2036. Report, 2016. Google Scholar

[17] United States Air Force Research Laboratory. Cooperative Airspace Operations(CAO). Report, 2008. Google Scholar

[18] Lummus R. Mission battle management system fighter engagement manager concept. In: Proceedings of AIAA International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Years, Dayton, 2003. Google Scholar

[19] Onken R, Schulte A. System-Ergonomic Design of Cognitive Automation: Dual-Mode Cognitive Design of Vehicle Guidance and Control Work Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Google Scholar

[20] Serrano D. Key Initiatives for Interoperability through Standardization-Applicability to Small Unmanned Vehicles. NATO Report, 2015. Google Scholar

[21] Gourley S R. Airborne manned/umanned system technology. Army Magazine, 2000, 50: 50. Google Scholar

[22] Wilkins D. Manned/unmanned common architecture program (MCAP): a review. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2003. 6.B.4/1-7. Google Scholar

[23] U.S. Air Force. Lockheed Martin Demonstrate Manned/Unmanned Teaming. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-04-10-U-S-Air-Force-Lockheed-Martin-Demonstrate-Manned-Unmanned-Teaming. Google Scholar

[24] DARPA Tactical Technology Office. Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) Program. Report. 2014. Google Scholar

[25] Defense Science Board, United States Department of Defense. The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Report, 2012. Google Scholar

[26] United States Department of Defense. Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2017-2042. Report, 2018. Google Scholar

[27] Wang Y C, Liu J G. Evaluation methods for the autonomy of unmanned systems. Chin Sci Bull, 2012, 57: 1290--1299. Google Scholar

[28] Jameson S, Franke J, Szczerba R, et al. Collaborative autonomy for manned/unmanned teams. In: Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 61th Annual Forum, Grapevine, 2005. Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    (Color online) Human-on-the-loop supervisory control system of UAVs

  • Figure 2

    (Color online) The unmanned-manned teaming roadmap of USA

  • Figure 3

    (Color online) The technological system of unmanned-manned aircraft system cooperative control

  • Figure 4

    (Color online) The capability complemented autonomous cooperative control framework of unmanned-manned aircraft systems

  • Figure 5

    (Color online) The dynamical function transfer of unmanned-manned aircraft systems

  • Figure 6

    (Color online) The cooperative target perception process of unmanned-manned aircraft systems

  • Figure 7

    (Color online) The inner data link of unmanned-manned aircraft systems

  • Figure 8

    (Color online) The typical emergency events faced by unmanned-manned aircraft systems

  • Figure 9

    (Color online) Self-synchronizing and self-learning of multi-platform cooperative behaviors

  • Table 1   The cooperation differences between manned aircraft team and unmanned-manned aircraft team
    Item Cooperation of manned Autonomous cooperation of
    aircraft team unmanned-manned aircraft team
    Command and control The pilot needs only control own aircraft The pilot controls own aircraft while
    supervises multiple UAVs at the same time
    Information sharing Less information to share More information links,
    higher bandwidth requirements
    Situation understanding The pilot understands situation, Vehicles understand situation
    the computer makes aiding decision and make mission decision
    Cooperation strategy Relying mainly on preplan while Preplan + real-time inter-vehicle
    ground command subsidiary coordination
    Contingency response Alternative plan (event handling guidelines) Cooperative contingency response
    from both human and vehicles

Copyright 2019 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备18024590号-1