ARCHER Costs and Benefits

Turk · May 04, 2011, 01:43:06 AM

If memory serves, CAP invested in sixteen or so ARCHER systems, and a like number of Gippslands to hang 'em in. So, at about $750K for each ARCHER-equipped aircraft, that came to a nice chunk of change.

It's been a few years since rollout. We know the cost; what has the mission benefit been? Can someone provide a big picture of what adoption of this technology has accomplished for CAP?

This is not the leading question of a sneering skeptic. I'm asking this with an open mind.

arajca · May 04, 2011, 01:47:36 AM

Of the sixteen, six or so are still operational. All sixteen aircraft are operational. The problem is they were prototype systems, not production and getting some parts is impossible.

As for a benefit, I've heard of some benefits, but I haven't personally seen it.

JC004 · May 04, 2011, 02:30:30 AM

troooooublemaker!

arajca · May 04, 2011, 02:33:08 AM

Quote from: JC004 on May 04, 2011, 02:30:30 AM
troooooublemaker!

Who? Me?

The first line is fact. One cable in particular was made by one company and they quit making it. They also won't allow anyone else to make it.

smj58501 · May 04, 2011, 03:35:34 AM

We used them with great success in the 2010 floods. The demand for high Res imagery is growing too. The oblique stuff we do is still great, but the customer base also wants overhead imagery that is GISable and can be effectively used for change detection.

Whatever the problem is, the organization needs to solve it so CAP does not get pushed out of the market

JC004 · May 04, 2011, 11:33:38 AM

Quote from: arajca on May 04, 2011, 02:33:08 AM
Quote from: JC004 on May 04, 2011, 02:30:30 AM
troooooublemaker!
Who? Me?

The first line is fact. One cable in particular was made by one company and they quit making it. They also won't allow anyone else to make it.

I don't dispute any of it. The whole thing is a mess at this point. I've seen it used but it was not effective when I saw it used. One instance was a missing aircraft mission. The aircraft was found by people. The sons of the pilot, actually, while CAP was continuing in the search.

EmergencyManager6 · May 04, 2011, 01:07:24 PM

im curious how its 'GISable'.

I spent over 6 hours on the phone with the 'Archer engineers' and my Agency GIS Dept during Deep water to try to figure out how to import the data into our GIS system.

no body was able to tell us what format, the data was in.

It left a very sour taste in our mouths over CAP and Archer, as we were not able to use it as advertised.

The only thing that the engineers came up with is giving us a JPG screen capture of the console...

HUGE waste of money!

RiverAux · May 04, 2011, 02:00:15 PM

All I know about it is a missing aircraft mission where the aircraft was found by traditional means but the ARCHER crew tried to take credit for it.

I despair of CAP ever taking the time to really evaluate any of our programs in any sort of rigorous fashion. Writing reports for their own sake is a waste of time, but you would think that something we've spent millions on would be worth a few dozen sheets of paper.

EmergencyManager6 · May 04, 2011, 02:06:53 PM

Was said mission in FL?

RiverAux · May 04, 2011, 02:13:37 PM

Nope

EmergencyManager6 · May 04, 2011, 02:17:04 PM

There was one in FL, same outcome.

coudano · May 04, 2011, 04:10:42 PM

ARCHER has been used in Missouri on this flood mission.
The state DNR batch converted the data to GIS format (i don't know how but they do)

I have heard complaints in the past about the poor resolution of the sensors
(i'm not talking about visual quality of the photos i'm talking about probability of detection of given spec sigs that are very small on the ground)

I don't think that most people (maybe even not trained people) are REALLY aware of the system's true capabilities and limits. I think that leads to the system not meeting expectations in some cases, and not being used to what it is fully capable of in others. And I think that it was largely over-sold to clients when it came out.

I do think that CAP should improve its aerial imagery capabilities,
ARCHER2 with higher res, and better processing could be useful
FLIR systems could be useful
Higher Res still photography and video (and MUCH better training on operators) could be useful
Getting the camera outside the airplane by hook or by crook I would consider *essential* (either knock out a window or install a camera pod or something)(several years ago i saw in use, a camera PORT in the floorboard, pull out the back seats and a panel and shoot straight down)(talk about barf)

Spaceman3750 · May 04, 2011, 04:40:39 PM

Apparently hyperspectral imaging was used to get a good idea of the OBL compound, but one news site is reporting that hyperspectral imaging (what ARCHER does I think) looks for chemical signatures. I thought it looked for color signatures, or does it vary by platform?

bosshawk · May 04, 2011, 04:46:50 PM

ARCHER reputedly cost the AF around $20 million, including the aircraft. This subject was beaten into submission at an earlier time on this blog, so there is little new to talk about.

None of the responders so far have tackled the OPs questions.

I PMd him about my experiences with ARCHER.

sardak · May 04, 2011, 04:57:35 PM

I'm not a proponent of ARCHER. The money could have been better spent. CAP has struggled to find a mission for ARCHER and as mentioned, the 16 systems are being consolidated into six.

There are members still working on getting what's left of ARCHER usable. However, the enthusiasm for putting more money into ARCHER isn't there at the national level.

ARCHER imagery can be made GIS friendly. There are two software packages produced by the ARCHER software company, Space Computer Corporation, that post-process the ARCHER imagery into GIS usable formats.

Copied from an unreleased CAP report:
GeoSharpen and GeoReg are software programs that enhance the resolution of ARCHER imagery and convert it to a GeoTIFF format so it can be used by GIS systems. Basically, GeoSharpen takes the high resolution panchromatic (B&W) imagery and adds the color from the hyperspectral imagery. The operator selects the resolution desired and three of the hyperspectral bands of color that are desired. GeoReg works much the same as GeoSharpen except it retains all 52 bands of the hyperspectral imagery. Thus, the user can work with different hyperspectral bands to find the one that meets the signature requirements.

The resulting imagery is also geo-registered, that is, each pixel has the correct, real-world latitude and longitude coordinates.

The resultant files are very large, often three or four times (or more) of the initial ARCHER imagery. Processing with the ARCHER ground station computer is extremely slow, sometimes up to an hour per minute of original imagery. Newer computers running GeoReg can process the imagery in six to seven minutes.
---------
I've seen the real world results from an ARCHER flight in which post-processed, geo-registered, 6-inch resolution "true" color (3-band) imagery was created and loaded into the GIS software (ArcGIS) of a local agency. It matched up perfectly with the agency's other GIS layers. The problem is that it took a couple of days to process the data from a 2.5 hour ARCHER flight. That isn't acceptable in a happening now event. It could be useful for pre-planning and post-disaster. 12-inch resolution, which would have sufficed for the customer's needs, would have taken much less time to process.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) sees some use for ARCHER. Here is a USGS website with some of its projects and reports involving ARCHER and several wings. http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/awg/addinfo.shtml

There is also an article in the April 11, 2011 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine about the increasing use of hyperspectral imaging from space. There is a brief discussion about ARCHER and CAP and how one of the space based systems "grew out of the Air Force's experience with ARCHER."

Mike

bosshawk · May 04, 2011, 05:57:19 PM

Perhaps CAP should donate the remaining operational ARCHER systems to the USGS, then sell the airplanes.

EmergencyManager6 · May 04, 2011, 06:04:25 PM

a GeoTiff is not GIS Data. Its just a georectified image...

davidsinn · May 04, 2011, 06:08:19 PM

Quote from: bosshawk on May 04, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
Perhaps CAP should donate the remaining operational ARCHER systems to the USGS, then sell the airplanes.

Naw, keep the airvans. They would be awesome for o-rides. I ran the numbers and the per cadet cost is a fair bit lower than a 172 if you have all the seats installed and filled. Also they are great training platforms for scanners. I was on a sortie with 3 scanner trainees in the back and I think we could have loaded one or two more before we hit max gross.

coudano · May 04, 2011, 06:34:55 PM

Quote from: coudano on May 04, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
I do think that CAP should improve its aerial imagery capabilities,
ARCHER2 with higher res, and better processing could be useful
FLIR systems could be useful
Higher Res still photography and video (and MUCH better training on operators) could be useful
Getting the camera outside the airplane by hook or by crook I would consider *essential* (either knock out a window or install a camera pod or something)(several years ago i saw in use, a camera PORT in the floorboard, pull out the back seats and a panel and shoot straight down)(talk about barf)

Oh and (for crying out loud) live air to ground transmission that actually works.
Of very high res stills and HD quality video.
As far as i'm concerned, sat and cell options for this are bust.
News helicopters have been doing this for YEARS, we shouldn't be re-inventing the wheel...

Directional short range trans to a ground station, and then re-trans it back to your mission base possibly over wired infrastructure.

Demand for cheap, professional, ISR is out there.
We should be cornering that market, before someone else does.

lordmonar · May 04, 2011, 06:51:37 PM

We are working that issue. But the thread keeps getting killed.

sardak · May 04, 2011, 06:53:03 PM

Quotea GeoTiff is not GIS Data. Its just a georectified image...

A GeoTiff with its corresponding TFW world file is a GIS ready image. The software produces the GeoTiff and the world file.

Mike

EmergencyManager6 · May 04, 2011, 07:08:26 PM

image vs Data is a diffrent story.

The engineers claim that they can give is a Shapefile for each type of spectral signature.

GIS folks have better image data than CAP can give them, we dont care about the picture. But the hyperspectral data is what counts.

...still waiting for a shapefile from deepwater....

JC004 · May 05, 2011, 12:05:43 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on May 04, 2011, 06:08:19 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on May 04, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
Perhaps CAP should donate the remaining operational ARCHER systems to the USGS, then sell the airplanes.

Naw, keep the airvans. They would be awesome for o-rides. I ran the numbers and the per cadet cost is a fair bit lower than a 172 if you have all the seats installed and filled. Also they are great training platforms for scanners. I was on a sortie with 3 scanner trainees in the back and I think we could have loaded one or two more before we hit max gross.

Also, the benefit of being able to transport enough donuts for an entire large mission's personnel.

SarDragon · May 05, 2011, 07:00:59 AM

Quote from: JC004 on May 05, 2011, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on May 04, 2011, 06:08:19 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on May 04, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
Perhaps CAP should donate the remaining operational ARCHER systems to the USGS, then sell the airplanes.

Naw, keep the airvans. They would be awesome for o-rides. I ran the numbers and the per cadet cost is a fair bit lower than a 172 if you have all the seats installed and filled. Also they are great training platforms for scanners. I was on a sortie with 3 scanner trainees in the back and I think we could have loaded one or two more before we hit max gross.

Also, the benefit of being able to transport enough donuts for an entire large mission's personnel.

Are you sure about that?