Congress has expressed a great deal of interest in using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to surveil the United States' international land border. This report examines the strengths and limitations of deploying UAVs along the borders and related issues for Congress

Bolkcom, Christopher

Nuñez-Neto, Blas

UNT Digital Library

Order Code RS21698Updated May 13, 2008Homeland Security: Unmanned  Aerial Vehicles and Border SurveillanceChristopher BolkcomForeign Affairs, Defense, and Trade DivisionBlas Nuñez-NetoDomestic and Social Policy DivisionSummaryCongress has expressed a great deal of interest in using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles(UAVs) to surveil the United States’ international land border.  This report examines thestrengths and limitations of  deploying UAVs along the borders and related issues forCongress.  This report will be updated as events warrant.BackgroundWithin the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and BorderProtection (CBP) is the lead agency charged with securing our nation’s borders.  WhileCBP is charged with overall border enforcement, within the bureau a distinction is madeconcerning border enforcement at and between ports of entry (POE).  At POE, CBPofficers are responsible for conducting immigrations, customs, and agriculturalinspections on individuals presenting themselves for entry into the United States.Between POE, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) is charged with detecting andpreventing the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and unauthorized aliensinto the country, and interdicting drug smugglers and other criminals. The USBP utilizes advanced technology to augment its agents’ ability to patrol theborder.  The technologies used include, but are not limited to, sensors, light towers,mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listeningdevices, various database systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).  These so-called “force multipliers” allow the USBP to deploy fewer agents in a specific area whilemaintaining the ability to detect and counter intrusions and are increasingly becoming apart of the USBP’s day-to-day operations.  Increasingly, DHS has explored the use ofUAVs to augment USBP agents’ ability to patrol the border.  There are two different typesof UAVs: drones and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs).  Both drones and RPVs arepilotless, but drones are programmed for autonomous flight.  RPVs are actively flown —remotely — by a ground control operator.  UAVs are defined as a powered aerial vehiclethat does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide lift, can flyautonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carryCRS-21 United States Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, JointPublication 1-02, April 12, 2001, p. 557.2 See CRS Report RL31872, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress,by Harlan Greer and Christopher Bolkom.3 Hugh McDaid, Smart Weapons (New York: Barnes and Nobles Books, 1997), p. 9.4 Jefferson Morris, “GoldenEye UAV to perform flight demo for DOE,” Aerospace Daily,December 5, 2003.5 P.L. 108-458, sec. 5101-5104 and sec. 5201.6 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations for the Department ofHomeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and for Other Purposes,109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-699,  p. 131.lethal or nonlethal payloads.1 UAVs have played key roles in recent conflicts.2Historically, UAVs have been used in various military settings outside of U.S. borders.UAVs have provided reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, search and rescue,and battle damage assessments.  In the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, UAVs havebeen used for surveillance purposes and to attack enemies. The Predator UAV, forexample, was armed with anti-tank weapons to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda members.UAVs have also been used in domestic settings.  The NASA-sponsoredEnvironmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program has producedcivilian UAVs to monitor pollution and measure ozone levels.  The MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) is involved in developing Global Positioning Systems(GPS) and video camera guidance for using UAVs to locate and identify toxicsubstances.3  Lastly, the Department of Energy recently announced that it will test UAVsoutfitted with radiation sensors to detect potential nuclear reactor accidents.4Congressional Mandates for the Use of UAVsCongress has directed DHS to study the feasibility of using UAVs and to implementthe technology to surveil the border on numerous occasions.  In the 108th Congress, theIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) included provisionscalling for a pilot program to study the use of these technologies, including UAVs, alongthe northern border.  The law also required DHS to present a plan within six months ofenactment to comprehensively monitor the southwest border with UAVs, and toimplement the plan as a pilot program as soon as funds are appropriated for that purpose.5The 2003 DOD Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) required the President to issue a report“on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for support of homeland security missions.”  Inthe 109th Congress, the conference report to the FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L.109-295) urged DHS to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) toimplement a pilot program for the use of UAVs to surveil the northern border.6 The FY2006 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-90) provided $35.2 million toestablish a Northern Border airwing and tasked the DHS Under Secretary of Border andTransportation Security to devise a report outlining operational plans by which the Airand Marine Operations Center (AMOC) would eliminate surveillance gaps affecting thenorthern border and western United States.   The act also provided $10 million for the useCRS-37 Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Arizona Border Control Initiative,” availableat [http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0520.shtm].8 Alan Levin, “Crash Stirs Debate on Drone Safety,” USA Today, August 7, 2006.9 Peter Hardin, “Eyes in the Skies,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, October 30, 2003, p. F1.of UAVs.  P.L. 108-334, the FY2006 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, providedanother $10 million for UAVs in border security.  P.L. 109-295 provided $20 million inFY2007 for DHS’s use of UAVs.  In response to these congressional mandates, DHS hastested the use of UAVs to surveil the U.S.-Mexican border since June 2004.  The UAVdemonstrations conducted by various commercial companies at Fort Huachuca and GilaBend, Arizona, on behalf of CBP have prompted various questions regarding theirpotential use within the United States that will be addressed subsequently.  One UAVmodel, the Predator B, was used as part of the Arizona Border Control Initiative, amulti-disciplinary initiative that seeks to coordinate federal, state, and local authorities tocontrol the Arizona border,7 until it was destroyed in a crash on April 25, 2006.8Congress required DHS to report on its findings related to this crash and other UAVmishaps by January 23, 2007, in the conference report to P.L. 109-295.  The FY2008Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) directed DHS to explore the use ofUAVs in the marine environment in addition to the border, and appropriated $15 millionfor DHS’s UAV program.  Additionally, the DHS conference report to the FY2008 Actdirected DHS to work with other federal agencies, including the FAA, to “evaluate theappropriateness of an FAA exemption for small scale” UAV technology.Benefits and Limitations of UAVsBenefits.  One potential benefit of UAVs is that they could fill a gap in currentborder surveillance by improving coverage along remote sections of the U.S. borders.Electro-Optical (EO) sensors (cameras) can identify an object the size of a milk cartonfrom an altitude of 60,000 feet.9  UAVs also can provide precise and real-time imageryto a ground control operator, who would then disseminate that information so thatinformed decisions regarding the deployment of border patrol agents can be made quickly.Additionally, the Predator B used along the southern border can fly for more than 30hours without having to refuel, compared with a helicopter’s average flight time of justover 2 hours.  The ability of UAVs to loiter for prolonged periods of time has importantoperational advantages over manned aircraft.  The longer flight times of UAVs means thatsustained coverage over a previously exposed area may improve border security.The range of UAVs is a significant asset when compared to border agents on patrolor stationery surveillance equipment.  If an illegal border entrant attempts to transitthrough dense woods or mountainous terrain, UAVs would have a greater chance oftracking the violator with thermal detection sensors than the stationary video equipmentwhich is often used on the borders.  It is important to note, however, that rough terrain anddense foliage can degrade the images produced by a UAV’s sensory equipment and  thuslimit their effectiveness at the borders.  The extended range and endurance of UAVs maylessen the burdens on human resources at the borders. Also, UAV accidents do not riskthe lives of pilots, as do the helicopters that currently patrol U.S. borders.CRS-410 Ibid.11 Amy Butler, “ACC Officials To Suggest Service Establish Five Predator Squadrons,” Insidethe Air Force, June 7, 2002.12 For more information about Synthetic Aperture Radar, see [http://www.sandia.gov/radar/whatis.html].  The Predator’s SAR can provide images of up to four-inch resolution at amaximum altitude of 40 kilometers in fair weather.13 Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of RemoteSurveillance Technology Along U.S. Land Borders, OIG-16-15, December 2005.14 CRS Report RL31872, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:  Background and Issues for Congress.15 Paul Jackson, Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 2003-2004, pp. 721-722.Limitations.  Despite potential benefits of using UAVs for homeland security,various problems encountered in the past may hinder UAV implementation on the border.There are concerns regarding the high accident rate of UAVs, which is currently 100 timeshigher than that of manned aircraft.10  Because UAV technology is still evolving, there isless redundancy built into the operating system of UAVs than of manned aircraft and untilredundant systems are perfected mishap rates are expected to remain high.  Additionally,if control systems fail in a manned aircraft, a well-trained pilot is better positioned to findthe source of the problem because of his/her physical proximity.  If a UAV encountereda similar system failure, or if a UAV landing was attempted during difficult weatherconditions, the ground control pilot would be at a disadvantage because  he or she isremoved from the event.  Unlike a manned pilot, the remote pilot would not be able toassess important sensory information such as wind speed.11Inclement weather conditions can also impinge on a UAV’s surveillance capability,especially UAVs equipped with only an E-O camera and Forward Looking Infrared Radar(FLIR), because cloudy conditions and high humidity climates can distort the imageryproduced by EO and FLIR equipment.  Although the Predator B is operating in the low-humidity environment of the Southwest, the effects of extreme climatic or atmosphericconditions on its sensors reportedly can be mitigated if DHS decides to outfit the PredatorB with a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system12 and a moving target indicator (MTI)radar.  Adding SAR and MTI to the Predator B’s platform could significantly enhance itsoperational capability for border missions.  However, adding SAR and MTI to the UAVplatform would increase the costs associated with using UAVs on the border. According to the CBP Inspector General, the costs of operating a UAV are more thandouble the costs of operating a manned aircraft.  This is because UAVs require asignificant amount of logistical support and specialized operator and maintenancetraining. Operating one UAV requires a crew of up to 20 support personnel.  Additionally,the use of UAVs has resulted in fewer alien apprehensions per flight hour than the use ofmanned aircraft.13  The high comparative costs of operating a UAV may be offsetsomewhat by their comparatively lower unit costs.  The unit cost of UAVs varies widely,from $350,000 for the Shadow UAV to $4.5 million for the Predator.14  In contrast, theunit cost for manned aircrafts used along the border vary from $8.6 million for the CBPBlackhawk helicopters to $36 million for Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s P-3manned aircraft.  However, the benefit of the Blackhawk’s relative low unit cost is offsetby its lack of endurance, given its maximum flight time of 2 hours and 18 minutes.15CRS-516 From a CRS site visit to the Air and Marine Operations Center, August 2005.17 Testimony of Major General Michael Kostelnik, House Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, March 29, 2006.18 In November 2003, the FAA, DOD, NASA, and six companies launched a five-year programto address the safety and technical concerns associated with using UAVs in national airspace.Other Concerns.  Lastly, how UAVs could be integrated into civilian airspacewithin the United States is a fundamental question that would need to be addressed by theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) and DHS.  Integrating UAVs into civilianairspace so that they could operate safely would require not only the creation of regulatoryguidelines by the FAA but also technical developments.  The FAA requires that allaircraft operating in U.S. airspace have the ability to detect and avoid other aircraft.  ForUAVs, this has meant that an operator at AMOC must be dedicated to each UAV that isflying.16  Additionally, the FAA has required that UAV operators be licensed pilots.  TheFAA currently is working on guidelines for integrating UAVs into the national air space(NAS) and has deployed a representative to AMOC to liaise with DHS on a variety ofissues, including the use of UAVs.17 Although there are no guidelines or regulations forincorporating UAVs into the NAS, the FAA has worked closely with government usersof UAV technology in developing a certificate of authority (COA) so NAS can be blockedoff for exploratory development or operational testing.  A primary concern of the FAAis whether UAVs can operate in already crowded airspace.  Before UAVs can beintroduced into national airspace, the FAA, DHS, and other relevant users will need toaddress collision-avoidance, communication, and weather avoidance issues.18Issues for CongressWhile Congress has demonstrated consistent support for the concept of using UAVsin border security, many questions remain regarding their practical employment. Costs vs. Benefits.  As noted, the cost comparison between UAVs and mannedaircraft is complicated.  UAVs are less expensive to procure than manned aircraft but maycost more to operate. Thus, the life cycle cost of UAVs could actually be greater than thelife cycle cost of manned aircraft.  The disparity in operating may be offset by the fact thatUAVs can remain in the air more than 10 times longer than the helicopters currently beingused by CBP to support the USBP.  Further, UAV command and control systems arebeing developed that can control multiple UAVs simultaneously.  When fielded, thesenew capabilities may change the cost comparison to favor UAVs over manned aircraft.UAV Effectiveness.  The DHS Inspector General noted that UAVs were lesseffective, in their limited tests, than manned aircraft in supporting the apprehension ofunauthorized aliens.  In addition, the UAVs were used to assist in the apprehensions ofaliens who had already been detected by other means.  However, ability of UAVs tomaintain position for over 20 hours represents a significant advantage over mannedaircraft; in the future, they may be used to actually detect unauthorized entries as opposedto merely supporting apprehensions of aliens already detected.  An issue for Congresscould entail whether UAVs are an effective tool for securing the border.CRS-619 “Robots, Jets Could Share Airspace By 2008,” Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2004. Rich Tuttle,“Meeting on UAVs in NAS gets good industry, FAA reviews,” Aerospace Daily, November 24,2003.20 Statement of Christopher Bolkcom, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Subcommitteeon International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, June 11, 2002. 21 Tom Kongton, “Italy Could Fly UAVs in Civil Air by Year End,” ISR Journal, June 14, 2004.Lack of Information.  Testing  UAVs along the border has been limited.  A robustprogram to test multiple UAVs on the borders might ascertain where, how and whetherUAVs should be deployed.  Larger scale testing would provide an opportunity to evaluatewhether limitations of UAVs would hinder their utility on the border. In the past, multipleUAVs piloted in close proximity have experienced interference and loss of controlbetween the UAV and the remote pilot.  In many cases, interference led to accidents.  Apossible issue for Congress could include whether testing should be expanded before anydecisions are made regarding the wide-scale use of UAVs along the border.Coordination with USBP Agents.  While UAVs may, in the future, be used todetect unauthorized entries, the fact remains that USBP agents must be deployed toapprehend any aliens thus identified.  A possible issue for Congress could entail whetherthere are enough border patrol resources to investigate all UAV identified targets. Safety Concerns.  The technical capabilities of the UAVs have been tested in amilitary context, but serious safety and technical issues need to be addressed if theprogram is to be expanded domestically.  Chief among these issues is the FAA’s concernsabout the NAS and whether UAVs can be safely incorporated into the nation’s crowdedskies.  It is noted that UAVs suffer accident rates up to 100s of time higher than mannedaircraft. However, in an effort to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, DOD fieldedUAVs such as Predator and Global Hawk before their development programs werecomplete. Thus, the UAV accident rate might be lower if these systems had been allowedto mature under the full development program.Implementation Schedule.  Currently, the regular use of UAVs in U.S. airspaceappears to be slated for the year 2008, in part due to the FAA concerns outlined above.19However, other countries, such as Japan and South Korea have, for many years, usedUAVs in a variety of civil roles.20  Italy could fly civil UAVs by the end of 2002.21 Apossible issue for Congress could involve whether U.S. aviation authorities should pursuea more aggressive implementation plan for the use of UAVs.Possible Alternatives.  A possible issue for Congress could include whether thereare potential alternatives to using UAVs to surveil the border.  Tethered Aerostat Systems(TARS), helium-filled blimps tethered to the ground with a cable that provides power,may offer one alternative. TARS are unmanned and can loiter for much longer periods oftime than UAVs.  If UAVs are deemed attractive because of low cost, elevated sensorcapabilities, and long loiter times, TARS may be studied as a platform that might offeradvantages in all three of these areas.  However, TARS do not have capability to moveand thus could not be used for pursuit purposes.

Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10601/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21698_2008May13.pdf

Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library