Identifying and Implementing an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

Operational Requirement

Border Control 2011, 8-9 March, Gallagher Estate, Midrand

James P. MaseyUAS Business Development Director – MEAAAI Corporation

Cell: +1 443 690 3269

E-mail: masey-fn@aai.textron.com

www.aaicorp.com

UAS as a part of the Overall Situational Awareness Network

 UAS Categories

 Notional Platform Comparison

 Example of a UAS Configuration

 The “One System” Approach to UAS – GCS and RVT

 Aspects of UAS Missions and Operations• Tactical Operational Lessons Learnt• Fixed-wing vs. VTOL

 Business Models and Indicative Costings• Cost Implications

 Summary: Primary Points for Consideration

______________________________________________________________________________Contents

As part of an overall Situational Awareness (SA) network, the benefits of an integrated Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) programme – military, civil and commercial, demonstrate their value and versatility in the persistent and constant monitoring of land and marine environments, primarily, and the activities therein.

UAS: Part of the Overall Situational Awareness Network______________________________________________________________________________

UAS are just one part of a complex blending of manned and unmanned aerial systems across Services and across Nations.

This concept of employment will focus on several scenarios where UAS can reduce risk, increase confidence and enable mission success. The growing number of UAS potential mission sets and scenarios demand their comprehensive integration into present and future combined and joint operations.

It is essential to seamlessly integrate UAS with manned operations in a joint environment.

-- Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC):“Strategic Concept of Employment for UAS in NATO”http://www.japcc.de

Three fundamental aspects to providing ‘Situational Awareness’:

Gathering and making sense of data / information.

Sorting and displaying the information in a way that is readily understandable and relevant to the needs of the decision making entity(ies) .

Timely disseminating of the information to the field operatives.

Example of a Tiered approach to persistent Situational Awareness

Tier 4: SpaceTier 3:

Strategic

Tier 2:Tactical

Tier 1:Urban / Short range

Notional Platform Comparison

Platform Range/ Time

Operating Altitude

Data Link Payload Infrastructure

Raven 10 km1.5 hr

100 m AGL Local radio 2 kg; single camera

Man-carried & launched2-man team

Aerosonde Mk4.7

80 – 2000 km10 – 20 hr

300 – 700 m AGL LOS DL or Sat-phone relay

5 kg; single payload + comms relay

Auto launch / recovery on rough field; 8 man team for 24/7

Shadow 200 120+ km 6+ hr

2000 – 3000 m AGL

LOS DL 25 kg; single payload + comms relay

Auto launch / recovery on smooth field; 27 man team for 24/7

Falco 140 km10+ hrs

5000m LOS DL 70 kg; single payload + comms relay

Runway / fixed or deployable shelters; 30 – 60 man team

Predator 7500 km30+ hrs

5000 – 7000 m AGL

Satellite or LOS DL 250 kg; multi-payload

Runway / fixed or deployable shelters; 120 man team

Global Hawk

22,000 km 36 hrs

>18,000 m Satellite 1300 kg; multi-payload

Runway / fixed shelters; 120+ man team

______________________________________________________________________________

Example of a UAS Configuration

Remote Video Terminals

Trailer or car-top mounted Launch and Recovery System (options)

Expeditionary Ground Control Station and Data Terminal

Air Vehicle and Maintenance Transport

Personnel and Equipment Transport Equipment

Trailer(s)

• Ground Support Equipment (1 Set)• Training (8-12 Weeks) – 1 Lot• Operator and Maintenance Manuals (10 sets –

English)• On-Site Support (1 man / 3 months) – 1 Lot

• Acceptance Testing• Spares (300 flight hours - 1 Year)• Warranty (1 Year)• 15 Yrs. Guaranteed Support

INTEGRATED LOGISTIC SUPPORT

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and 2x payloads( EO/IR)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data contained throughout is not permitted without written permission from James P. Masey

The One UAS Approach

EGCS & Data TerminalContact Teams

Ground Data Terminal

TALS

Air VehiclesLauncher

Payloads

One System GCSsoftware serves as the

basis for othercontrol stations

Personnel

Note: Aerosonde System in red outline

OSRVT

______________________________________________________________________________

Mini Launcher and recovery net

Remote Video Terminal (RVT)

Stare Point & Footprint

Your Location

Aircraft Location

10.4 inch Touch Screen

DisplayVideo Antenna

Video Antenna

GPS Antenna

MDIB (RF

Equipment)

Ruggedized Brick Computer

• Range – 10-90KM (modular)• Weight – 15 lbs• Modular, Mobile, Miniature, Multiband and

MANPACK

The One System RVT (OSRVT TM) is a modular video and data system that enables war-fighters to remotely downlink live surveillance images and critical geo-spatial data directly from joint operations tactical UAS and from manned platforms.

OSRVT Screen Display

Aircraft Location

Intuitive presentation for best grasp of SA – both a map and video Icons on the map for Geospatial Awareness Real time video with parameters

Your Location

Stare Point & Footprint

Aircraft Location and Parameters

Aircraft Heading and FOV Angles

Target Coordinates and Parameters

________________________________________________________________________________

More on Display

• Mark Target Function places Target or Friendly Icons on the Map • JPEG Image with Embedded Metadata Stores Target Information for Use

• Ability to Refer Back to Individual Targets for Information

Target Offset Utility

Target Information Displayed

_______________________________________________________________________

Military, Civil & Commercial UAS Mission Types

Border Surveillance

Forest Fires

Artillery Adjustment

Reconnaissance

Observation

Infrastructure Surveillance

Illegal Fishing

Battle Damage AssessmentAnti-Poaching /

Smuggling

Anti-Smuggling - water

Pollution

Man-made Disasters

Defining Concepts of Operation (CONOPS)_____________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data contained throughout is not permitted without written permission from James P. Masey

What UAS is selected may dictate actual method of use. The planned method of use may dictate which UAS is selected. Three notional requirements:

• Long and / or short range surveillanceo International air space / waters or covert surveillance inside another’s air space?o Range of data links / availability of space based relay.o Sensitivity to an international incident in case of:

- Loss of UAV and subsequent recovery / exploitation by third party- Collision / near-miss with third party airborne equipment

• Continuous border surveillanceo How long is the border?o How far away is adequate infrastructure for launch, recovery, and control station.o What other sensors are in inventory?

- Where? What are their strengths & weaknesses?- Is surveillance control heavily centralized or are decisions made at a local unit

level?

• Tactical support of troopso Is this a high priority mission?o Where is the theatre with respect to current force deployments?o How will UAS enter a theatre of operations?o How will information get to the troops in contact? What will be shared?

CONOP options:

Long Range, No Satellite (Manned/Unmanned Teaming)

200 km

Limit of Launch S

tation Datalink

Remote Launch Site

Command Center

Border

of

Interest

CONOP options: Long Range, No Satellite (Deployable)

Command Center

Remote Launch Site

Border

of

Interest

Dynamic Range Extension

Available Comms Relay Payload can Provide Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) Capability

Available Comms Relay Payload can Provide Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) Capability

SPOI• Does not require SATCOM bandwidth($)

• Provides BLOS Full Motion Video

LOS Data Link

LOS Data Link

____________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data contained throughout is not permitted without written permission from James P. Masey

EGCS

X

XCGS

RVT

II

RVT

IIX

Manned Platform

50 Kms

II

RVT

.

Launch & Recovery Area

PGCS

Multi-Unit/Site OPS Engagement

Launch & Recovery Area

PGCS

GCS

RVT

TOC

GCS

______________________________________________________________________________

.

X1st C-130System Deployment

2nd C-130

* Maintenance Support Team for Sustained Operations

3rd C-130*

L/R from unprepared surface,soccer field sized area

OPTEMPOCrew Size and # of Air Vehicles to meet OTEMPO requirements:

• 12 hours of operations in a 24 hour period

• Surge to 18 hours in 24 hour day for a period of three days

OPTEMPOCrew Size and # of Air Vehicles to meet OTEMPO requirements:

• 12 hours of operations in a 24 hour period

• Surge to 18 hours in 24 hour day for a period of three days

Potential Challenges to Civil & Commercial CONOPS_______________________________________________________________________________

Integration into Civil Airspace One, if not the biggest, challenge facing civil and commercial use of UAS is the integration of this technology type into non-segregated airspace.

Standards Airworthiness norms Certification norms ATM regulations

Urban and/or Industrial Areas Consideration must be given to the implications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being flown over populated areas (e.g. political and social).

Liability If a UAV does experience a catastrophic (non-recoverable) system failure and crashes, what are the ramifications of being held liable? Who is ultimately responsible?

Insurance The UAS industry forms a small, but ever increasing part, of the overall global aviation industry, and it is therefore still at the starting point regarding gaining straightforward access to the necessary insurance requirements which the remainder of the aviation industry already has.

Critical Issues: Sense and Avoid

Spectrum and Bandwidth

CONOPS: Always More to Discuss… Prioritization of missions is essential

• Remembering the cautionary maxim that “we are always preparing to re-fight the last war”

Integration with the greater C4ISR network is expected

• What standards / open architectures are in place and which ones are needed?

What missions did we miss?

• Maritime from shore or ship?• Highly urban surveillance• Non-military uses (environmental monitoring, fires / floods?)

_____________________________________________________________

Tactical Operational Lessons Learnt

• A typical tactical mission is between 4-5 hours duration – a timeframe seldom exceeded.

Occasionally require 24 hour surveillance over a target, even less frequently 40-50 hours is needed

• Ground troops primarily require a laser-pointer and secondarily a laser designator to accomplish missions.

Payloads in order of tactical operational utility are:EO/IRLaser-pointerLaser designatorSynthetic Aperture Radar

•The OS Remote Video Terminal is the most requested element of the Shadow 200 UAS.

As of January 11, >3000 OSRVTs units in Iraq/Afghanistan theatre Estimated that >5000 units are required to fulfil future tactical missions

Currently developing a modular antennae (vehicle mounted) with a 90km range

____________________________________________________________________

Fixed-Wing vs. VTOL Operational Comparisons

Advantages

• Entire SUAS cost = <$5M approx, with 4x a/c per system etc.

• Compact Launch and Recovery Equipment Required (Land-based and Shipboard)

• Lower acquisition and operating costs –long term, and more UA per UAS

• Lower maintenance hours

• Safety: small shielded propeller

• Higher reliability

• Lower risk through greater operational experience

• STANAG 4586 compliant

• A/c / payload recoverable in case of [catastrophic] system failure

• Existing connectivity / interoperability with allied and coalition forces.

• Small operational footprint

• Longer endurance and extendable operational range

Disadvantages

• No final emergency aid (i.e. parachute) for last opportunity recovery in or catastrophic] system failure. BUT can glide.

Advantages

• Limited Launch and Recovery Equipment Required

• Possibility of more capable payload (increased cost)

Disadvantages

• 30% larger radar cross section

• Limited ‘stealth’ capability – audible and visual

• Higher maintenance hours required (increased cost)

• Higher skilled / trained technicians required (increased cost)

• Limited in-field maintenance / repair possible due to a/c complexity, leading to withdrawal of a/c from operations, which affects mission continuity.

• Larger operational footprint

• Safety: exposed tail / main rotor blades

• Lower reliability (increased cost)

• Longer training program requiring a certified pilot / operator (increased cost)

• Environment: additional filtration device required is sandy conditions (increased cost)

• Unlikely to recover a/c/ payload after [catastrophic] system failure

• Greater possibility and increased number of deaths, and infrastructure damage on ground due to emergency landing or [catastrophic] system failure over urban area – S-100: MTOW 440lbs.

• No final emergency aid (i.e. parachute) for last opportunity recovery in or catastrophic] system failure

Fixed-Wing (Aerosonde Mk 4.7) VTOL (S-100)

Use or disclosure of data contained throughout is not permitted without written permission from James P. Masey

Variety of Business Models Fee for Service (FfS)

• OEM provides equipment, people, operations, support• Monthly “lease” payment

- Provides Flexibility to Begin Operations Immediately- Priced by negotiated customer flight hour requirements

- Total “Turnkey” operation – Pricing includes: o OEM provided system hardwareo OEM provided spareso OEM trained operators/maintainers o End-user data ownershipo End-user provided services (housing, transportation,

fuel, etc) to be negotiated

Try Before Buy• Start as FfS• Transition via in-the-field training to client operation / ownership

Purchase / Service Operation• Client procures system; AAI operates / maintains system

[Government Owned Company Operated (GOCO)]

Purchase [Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) or Foreign Military Sale (FMS )]• Full training, incl. on-site maintenance if desired• OEM provides depot support• Field Service Representative (FSR) option available & recommended at least for first year

____________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data contained throughout is not permitted without written permission from James P. Masey

In order for an OEM to consider initiating an indicative UAS Costing / Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) discussion the following fundamental questions should be answered:

- Will this be an Foreign Military Sale (FMS) or Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) contract? - Which UAS is to be purchased? - What are the numbers of flight hours per year? - What is the hardware configuration (number of AVs, GCS, RVT, etc)? - What is the transportation required (HMMWVs, trucks, ship on)? - What type(s) of payload(s) are required, and in what quantity(ies)? - What type of on-site support required (number of people/number of months)? - What type warranty is required? - Will the technical manuals need translating? - What special training requirements will be needed (e.g. where is the training to be conducted, etc.)? - Is an offset going to be needed? If so, what is its value? - What is the time-line for the procurement programme (i.e. negotiations, delivery dates, initial operating capability dates, etc.)?  - At what stage is the procurement process currently [i.e. has a Request for Information (RFI) and/or Request for Proposal (RFP) been released]?

- What funds/budgets have been allocated to this TUAV procurement programme?

______________________________________________________________________________UAS: Indicative Costing / ROM

Cost Implications

• Cost vs Coverage is a function of requirements for range, continuity, and associated infrastructure requirements

• For example: Budget = $$$$, Requirement = 24 Hour Surveillance

Platform Cost Number of Systems / AV

24 Hr Coverage @ km Notes

Raven $ for system w/ 4 air vehicles

400 systems1600 AV

Not applicable (can do day or night, but 1.5 hr endurance …)

(Not intended for 24 hr continuous ISR – provided for comparison)

Aerosonde Mk4.7

$$ for system w/ 4 air vehicles

20 systems80 AV

20+ spots @ 80 km or serial route surveillance

Large number of AVs provides significant tactical flexibility; operating team cost 1X

Shadow 200 $$$ for system w/ 4 air vehicles

5 systems20 AV

5 spots @ 120 km 95% reliability & decreasing mishap rates = high probability of continuous surveillance; operating team cost of 3X

Falco $$$$ for 4 air vehicles

1 system5 – 6 AV

2 spots @ 140 km Assumes remaining funds buy additional AV; ITAR free; operating team cost of 4X – 6X

Predator $$$$ for 2 air vehicles

1 system2 – 3 AV

Either 1 spot @ significant range or 2 spots @ 140 km

Must have high reliability; no room for mishaps; export issues; operating team cost >10X

Global Hawk $$$$$ for single air vehicle

1 system1 AV

No; ‘every other day 24 hrs’ (Provided for comparison – unlikely to be exportable)

______________________________________________________________________________

All material used in this presentation, the views expressed, comments and suggestions made, cannot be attributed to Textron Inc. or any of its subsidiaries, most notably AAI Corporation

Summary: Primary Points for Consideration

Define Concept of Operations (CONOPS) – operational requirement(s) / flight profiles.

Have an approximation of the average monthly / annual flight hours – training and operational.

Have a realistic budget – UAS are not as inexpensive as you might think.

Issuing of an RFI or RFP is fundamental in order to complete Firm Fixed Price to purchase.

Ensure that the final price given has no hidden increments over time (e.g. Maintenance,

support, spare-parts, training, manuals etc).

All prices will increase with delay in signing a contract.

In parallel with CONOPS be certain to establish the criteria needed to fly in non-segregated / manned airspace – communicate with your National Civil Aviation Authority. .