Retrofit Might Be The Answer

Request For Proposal; Retrofit Might Be The Answer

Roy Sandridge

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide

7.4 – Research: Unmanned Systems (UNSY 530)

Abstract

California faces numerous challenges in its ability to respond to the multitude of natural disasters affecting this great state.  The scientific community has almost assured us there will be another earthquake like the one that very nearly destroyed  San Francisco in 1906, Southern California residence are reminded daily of the critical drought while at the same time other states face floods, and the summer season is also known as “Fire Season” in The Golden State.  Responding to these challenges has not been easy.  In the face of natural disaster, every available resource must be leveraged in response, so we can minimize loss of life, or destroyed natural habitat,  and property.  One possible solution to aerial equation can be the employment of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to deliver water or other fire suppression material to aide in combating these disasters.  Developing an aircraft in its entirety might prove to be cost prohibitive.  This paper explores the potential for equipping existing manned aircraft with the equipment necessary to make them UAS.

 

Request For Proposal

 

Out of Harm’s Way

Sending humans to fight fires puts them at risk, and putting them in an aircraft to fly above and fight a fire compounds that rise exponentially.  While aircraft has been proven to be exceptional assets in fighting fires, developments in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) may provide a solution to the conundrum of putting human lives at greater risk while fighting those fires.  In this research paper I hope to explore the potential for retrofitting existing aerial assets to make the UAS capable, and functional in providing fire fighting support.

System Requirements: Current aerial assets are employed in fire fighting situations as delivery platforms, bringing water, or fire suppression chemicals directly over a fire.  The asset currently requires a “man at the stick”, but recent technological advances now make it possible to remove the human from the cockpit in nearly any aircraft in use today.  Any proposed solution must be adaptable to function with the existing inventory of aircraft.

1. Transportability: The transport of all necessary equipment to appropriate air fields in operation.
   1. [Derived Requirement]: All component parts of the retrofit, test, or support equipment shall be transportable by commercial or USPS ground, sea, or air transportation.
      1. Test Requirement: Document review of shipping standards and USPS regulations.
2. Cost: Development cost will be covered separately; after which cost per air vehicle must meet agreed upon maximums. 
   1. [Derived Requirement]: Cost shall not exceed $1M per retrofitted aircraft.
      1. Test Requirement: Reviewed cost sheets.
   2. [Derived Requirement]:  Maintenance cost shall not exceed 10% annually of the cost to retrofit each aircraft.
      1. Test Requirement: Review of cost sheets.
3. Control System Element: A sub-system of UAS
   1. [Derived Requirement]: One Ground Control Station (GCS) per region shall control multiple aerial vehicles.
      1. Test Requirement: Monitors will display symbology of multiple (real-time) aircraft in an area not less than 50 square miles.
      2. Test Requirement:  GCS shall display the health and status of all active retrofitted aircraft in the area of interest.
4. Development Schedule:  (Fielded by 2018)
   1. [Derived Requirement]: Design shall be complete NLT Dec 2016.
   2. [Derived Requirement]: Ground Station testing shall begin NLT Jun 2016.
   3. [Derived Requirement]: Flight testing shall begin NLT Aug 2016.
5. Associated Design Considerations:
6. Development Process:
   1. This effort shall follow a Spiral test and development process in order to facilitate a quick response and initial fielding of the approved system.
       

Design Rational

Retrofitting existing aircraft would likely be more cost effective in the near term for state governments rather than designing aircraft not currently in existence, where their function is to carry large/bulky payloads such as water, or fire suppression chemicals.  The military has already provided a proof of concept where existing aircraft have been retrofitted to function as UAS as discussed by Colin Dunjohn (2013).   While retrofits generally occur on site, or by flying an aircraft to a designated location, I’ve recommended all necessary design, development, and test equipment be ground transported to the aircraft’s home station, thereby minimizing the time the aircraft would be out of operation.  Cost factors are weighed giving consideration that state and local governments will not have budgets equivalent to that of the federal government.  The development schedule was somewhat arbitrary, and would likely be extended due to FAA regulatory processes.
References

Dunjohn, C., (09/27/13), Boeing Converts F-16 Fighter Jet Into an Unmanned Drone, Gizmag, Retrieved 10/26/15: http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-f16-jet-unmanned-drone/29203/

 

 

 

Running head: Unmanned Aircraft Use In Border Protection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unmanned Aircraft Use In Border Protection

Roy Sandridge

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide

6.4 – Research: UAS Mission

Abstract

The use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is on the rise across America and is gaining popularity beyond the hobbyist, and modeler.  UAS has been effectively used by the military for years, proving themselves as effective in aerial imagery, communications relay, and even weapons delivery.  The applications in commercial, law enforcement, and border protection use also continues to grow.  Closely relating to the proof of concept/employment provided by the military use, is the use by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection which has also found UAS to be ideal platforms for aerial survey, imagery, reconnaissance, intelligence, and surveillance.  This paper will look at the applications for which UAS have been employed and the benefits derived in keeping our borders safe, including but not limited to aerial survey, and drug interdiction.

Unmanned Aerial Systems in Border Protection

The Predator Choice

The MQ-9 Predator B has found itself in the inventory of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Given the political and military conflicts that have become a normal part of daily news for so long, and the prominence of unmanned aircraft used in those conflicts, it’s may not be easy for anyone without a military background to imagine a non-destructive use for an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS).  The Predator however, may be ideally suited for the role of providing the surveillance needed.

 

Design And Implementation

The Predator has proven to be reliable and fault-tolerant, engineered to exceed the reliability standards in many capacities of manned aircraft.  Engine performance and fuel efficiency are provided by the Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop engine, which has proved to be particularly efficient at low altitudes. The modular payload capability is easily reconfigured, making it capable of carrying Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) multi-mode radar, surveillance radar, and a variety of other sensors making it a highly capable platform.  Future designs will have extended wing spans of 79 feet allowing the aircraft to carry more fuel, and extending its flight time to as long as 42 hours. (General Atomics Aeronautical, n.d.).

 

Other platforms that could do the same job

1.  The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk provides the same capability, but may be cost prohibitive. (Foxtrot Alpha, n.d.)
2. MQ-8B has limited time on station making it impractical.(Northrop Grumman, n.d.)
3. Solar powered aircraft are being developed, such as the one by Boeing Aerospace (Solar Eagle) and the Zephyr High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) UAS which carries an optical camera at altitudes around seventy thousand (70,000) feet, and these platforms may stay aloft for weeks, perhaps even years but this technology is still under development. (Boeing, n.d., and Airbus Defense and Space, nd.)

 

Considerations relative to the mission and they correlate to the performance of any related mission execution tasks

The decision makers in the U.S. government have a challenging task; patrolling the skies to prevent the illegal entry of weapon of terror, interdicting illegal narcotics, and preventing the illegal entry of undocumented persons into the United States (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, n.d.).  The question, is can something that is often misunderstood by so many as being lethal, be the right choice to accomplish that task.  What the opposition should realize is that the Predator wasn’t first designed to be a weapons delivery platform.  The inventor, Abraham Karem, had no intention of designing a weapons platform, but rather a platform for surveillance (Whittle, R., 4/2013).  The employment of the Predator with CBP is much more in line with what the inventor had envisioned.

Benefits and challenges associated with performing the particular UAS mission

The idea of using a remote sensing capability for border protection began in 1998, though at that time the idea was a ground-based “fence” called Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS).  That project ultimately failed and the focus has shifted to using an aerial platform, which itself has had its share of difficulty.  About six months after the fist Predator was put into use by the CBP, the pilot of one of these aircraft belonging to CBP crashed it into a hillside after the engine was shut down in midflight.  Today, having overcome many of the initial challenges, the CBP maintains a fleet of nine Predator B UAS in three locations; Arizona, North Dakota. and Texas (Michel, A. H.,  1/7/15). 

Legal and or ethical challenges to the specific mission your are highlighting

The Federal Aviation Administration regulations allow the CBP UAV operations to exist, given that they have cognizance over the National Air Space.  At the same time, they restrict the use of UAS aircraft over populated areas.  A question for consideration might then be, if the goal of the Predator is to provide surveillance over an area where people might be trying to cross a remote area, and there is a concern that an unmanned aircraft might crash to the ground, is it ethical to put such an aircraft in that area?  In 2011 a professor at The University of Texas figured out how to intercept Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) while in flight (NPR, 7/8/15).  Given the possibility, even if it is remote, shouldn’t the FAA give consideration the danger?  Systems security should always be a factor when human lives, American or otherwise, are at risk.

A second consideration is that of privacy.  Border protection is a necessary part of our lives, given the many uncertainties in the world.  At least some consideration should be given to the capabilities presented when an UAS is flying overhead.  With the increasing use of UAS and the incredible high altitude surveillance capabilities they provide, should we all now assume that when we leave our homes, we are potentially being observed?  Have we given up any and all reasonable expectations of privacy outside our homes? 

 

References

Airbus Defense & Space, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/Aircraft/UAV/Zephyr.aspx

Boeing, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-09-16-Boeing-Wins-DARPA-Vulture-II-Program

 

 

Foxtrot Alpha, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-usafs-massive-10-billion-global-hawk-uav-was-w-1629932000

General Atomics Aeronautical, n.d., Predator B, RPA, Retrieve from http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b

Northrop Grumman, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/FireScout/Documents/pageDocuments/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout_Data_Sheet.pdf

Michel, A. H., (January 7, 2015), Center for the Study of the Drone, at Bard College, Retrived 10/19/15, http://dronecenter.bard.edu/customs-and-border-protection-drones/

NPR, 7/8/15, Hacking Drones and The Dangers It Presents, npr.org, Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.npr.org/2012/07/08/156459939/hacking-drones-and-the-dangers-it-presents

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/uas_prog_3.pdf

Whittle, R., (April, 2013), The Man Who Invented the Predator, Air & Space Magazine, Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-man-who-invented-the-predator-3970502/?no-ist

The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS

[The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS]

[R. Sandridge]

[Embry-Riddle University - Worldwide]

Abstract

 As the governing agency for the United States, responsible for safe operations of aircraft flying within the National Air Space (NAS), the FAAs mission as stated on the official website is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.  This is a  monumental task considering unmanned systems and the technology they employ has developed faster than government regulators can match as they write the laws and regulations necessary to meet their mission.  One critical component is the need to ensure the separation of air traffic given the diversity of the airframes and their current capabilities to meet that requirement.

 

The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS

  In the case of larger, more sophisticated systems such as the Global Hawk, Predator, and Reaper aircraft, there are onboard collision avoidance systems just as those that might be found in large scale commercial aircraft, but in the case of smaller aircraft where that capability does not yet exist, rules need to be written and followed to ensure the safe operation of all aircraft (manned and unmanned) flying in the National Air Space (NAS).  Recognizing this need, the FAA has proposed new rules outlined in detail in the Federal Register of the Department of Transportation, Vol. 80, Number 35 which addresses a multitude of safety considerations relating to smaller UASs and the proposed guidelines for their safe operation. In it, the FAA states the expectation that each person operating aircraft will maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid other aircraft.  The FAA also recognizes the advancement in collision avoidance technology which allow more sophisticated aircraft and Ground Control Systems (GCS) to use onboard collision avoidance systems and detect the reply signals from other aircraft.  This capability is not inherent to smaller systems today, though through component miniaturization and other advancements, it might well be in the future.  (Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 35).

            The use of radar, Collision Avoidance Systems (CAS) and beaconing, where aircraft transmit a signal received by other aircraft has been effective in reducing the number of mid-air collisions for manned systems.  These same methods can, and should be applied to UAS as well as much as they are available.  In the case of smaller systems, Line of Sight (LOS), segregated airspace, and pilot diligence must be enforced until other measures can be employed. 

 

 

References

http://www.faa.gov/about/

Retrieved 10/4/15.

Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015/Proposed Rules Retrieved From:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdf