Aircraft data downlink to ground team?

[Holding Pattern]

Are there circumstances where a high bandwidth downlink to a ground team vehicle might be preferable to the current satcom uplink capabilities we have to send data? I'm kicking around an idea, but I wanted to know if it is even a concern at this point that our current data uplink might not be available.

[lordmonar]

Unless the aircraft had real time imagery...I can't think of anything that need to go faster then the speed of a text or email.

[sarmed1]

Are we talking about a direct link?  Years ago as part of the FLWG recon program we talked about the need for GT's doing disaster assessment to be able to uplink data including photos to overhead ac for transmit/deleivery back to the state EOC.  The problem with using commercial comm was obviously a lack of stable infrastructure post disaster.  SAT had the issue of where CAP stands on the chain of user priority preference in same said disasters.

I have been out of that discussion for several years so I am not sure what the current capability would be.  But abstractly its something I like to keep general knowledge of.  If CAP AC could provide real time imagery to a GT in the field it would be like having drone access.  I am not sure if there is enough pay off at the individual GT side for live feed in relation to actual search objectives vs cost of asset use.

MK

[arajca]

Keep in mind, any additional radio frequency needs must be coordinated through National and the AF. Our current frequencies are not approved for data transmission.

[Holding Pattern]

Keep in mind, any additional radio frequency needs must be coordinated through National and the AF. Our current frequencies are not approved for data transmission.

I am aware of the applicable NTIA/FCC concerns and am not intending to implement anything at this point. This is purely a discussion of "would it be useful" before doing anything else.

[Eclipse]

This is purely a discussion of "would it be useful" before doing anything else.

Useful?  In some circumstances.

Feasible financially or practically?  Probably not.

Necessary?  Not generallly.

As to current SAT Com.  I'd be surprised if many wings still had the phones from SDIS, nor anything else with that capability.
I'm not aware any any wings in my AOR that ave satellite communications beyond something that is member owned or
a local anomaly. 

During "normal" searches, cellular is more then enough, and in DR incidents, the satellites are saturated and not much use anyway. BTDT.

[Holding Pattern]

Are we talking about a direct link?  Years ago as part of the FLWG recon program we talked about the need for GT's doing disaster assessment to be able to uplink data including photos to overhead ac for transmit/deleivery back to the state EOC.  The problem with using commercial comm was obviously a lack of stable infrastructure post disaster.  SAT had the issue of where CAP stands on the chain of user priority preference in same said disasters.

I have been out of that discussion for several years so I am not sure what the current capability would be.  But abstractly its something I like to keep general knowledge of.  If CAP AC could provide real time imagery to a GT in the field it would be like having drone access.  I am not sure if there is enough pay off at the individual GT side for live feed in relation to actual search objectives vs cost of asset use.

MK

It wouldn't necessarily be for GTs. EOC delivery was one of the thoughts I was thinking of for precisely the concern you mentioned about CAP sat priority.

[PHall]

CAP does not need Link 16.

[EMT-83]

Wouldn't it be nice to have the same real-time capabilities as the average 15 year old? Data, text, images, location...

[Eclipse]

Wouldn't it be nice to have the same real-time capabilities as the average 15 year old? Data, text, images, location...

We already do in 90% of the need.

The average 15 year old doesn't need to send high-resolution photos to a moving aircraft, they are usually sending
low-res selfies with a thumbprint on the lens.

[JeffDG]

Wouldn't it be nice to have the same real-time capabilities as the average 15 year old? Data, text, images, location...

Much of that capability is legally prohibited when airborne.

[Spam]

CAP does not need Link 16.

I don't think that's being proposed.

What might be in the realm of possibility is GogoBA (business aviation), which is a roughly 35K per aircraft install for 17lbs of gear and antenna, then as low as $39/hour (no monthly minimum) for access. Such an option is within fiscal reality, for a limited number of CAP aircraft; the questions would be the durability of the Gogo system in DR situations.

V/R
Spam

(edit - removed pointless Link 16 engineer joke)

[FW]

"We" were experimenting with realtime photo downlink/uplink via VHF about 15 years ago. Even with airborne repeaters, it didn't work well enough to persue further study. Any reliance on commercial providers is problematic, especially in DR situations....just my $.02

[Spam]

I'd tend to agree. I remember when we were doing slow scan video (er, VERY slooooowwwww scan, like 4 frames per minute, as I recall). I remember sending from the right seat, and receiving on the ground, and it was useful, as long as customer expectations were managed.

In the 93 Midwest floods, we used then-conventional VHS cameras at dawn on a target list, and drove the tapes into the EOC - and they were ecstatic. Yet, in those days CAP still had an active packet radio net, and sent emails via the VHS net that would not go down in an earthquake or hurricane.

As I say, I tend to agree... if you search and check out the Gogo system for example, it looks great, but it depends on earth based stations similar to cell towers. In the aftermath of hurricane Andrew, I seem to recall all the cell towers worked well for a few hours, until the massive public surge to check on loved ones drained their batteries quickly. We'd need to do a failure modes and effects analysis of any datalink candidates to bounce their gear against all our CONOPS to ensure it would work against our intended missions and use cases.

V/R
Spam

[Spam]

Wouldn't it be nice to have the same real-time capabilities as the average 15 year old? Data, text, images, location...

Much of that capability is legally prohibited when airborne.

Yes with "regular" cell phones (if you view FCC regs as law) but not when you're using an approved in flight service. I texted my wife and kids from my phone via in flight wifi from a commercial jet last FRI as the flight tracker showed we were going to overfly the house. My 11 year old loved it.

Could we implement a low cost, low end version of that for our aircraft? Possibly. Issues are, recurring monthly and per-use cost and NRE to integrate, weight and cg of equipment, training, type certification if C-182s and -172s aren't already approved to fly it, and then you start getting into if any support gear on the earth side will be available in disasters.  Then, if the proposed data link trunks from existing commercial lines, (notwithstanding the issue of broadcast systems going down) how will our Ground Teams pick it up?

The VHF based systems which rely only on our already-existing equipment seem a better bet, if we could get a plug and play app on both the air and ground team end. And, as mentioned, we have some corporate experience with it, with slow scan. How great it would be if the digital revolution caught up with our needs...

Imagine an iPad tool, which plugged into a handheld on the GT side, and into the aircraft radio on the air side. GTLs and MOs could trade pics and text up and down (and perhaps VOIP) at will, even if the infrastructure was dead or slow...

... so, would the "Easy Digi" products being hawked on eBay work? I see packet text at least, for under 20 bucks per unit.

V/R
Spam

[Larry Mangum]

But we have that capability with GIIEP, oh whoops, sorry must stay within 2500 AGL or lower and be near a major city or freeway. Okay, so maybe we have that capability in a limited fashion.

[Spam]

I don't think its the same capability we're discussing, but rather one that's strongly centralized in management, and as I understand it, our ROVER systems were specifically designed not to be two way links between CAP assets at all (aircraft/GT/GT/aircraft).

The AFNORTH brief points out their CONOPS, and highlights its limitation on (a) cell phones, (b) satcom, and (c) the internet:

"The GIIEP system has organic 3G cellular communications (primary) and satellite telephone
communications (iridium, secondary). The GIIEP system transmits FMV and/or still images via
the internet to the primary server farm located at the USGS in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and a
redundant server farm in Huntsville, AL. All authorized users who have a username and
password can access FMV and still images from these server farms making the system
completely interoperable throughout the interagency spectrum".

Then, see the CONOPS diagram on Attachment 2... zero tactical linkage between our aircraft and our GTs. Everything has to go through the servers, and all field teams need internet access to get to the products, which cant be assured in a disaster.

To me, the hallmark of their design is that it seems to treat CAP aircraft as "manned UAVs" (provide annotated imagery for adults to use, one way) rather than to provide a two way tactical data link that can enable an effective air/ground teaming. Not like we're looking to send and receive nine line CAS messages, but...

How many CAP Wings are actually using GIIEP regularly, are training with it, and have developed TTPs, per the plan, I wonder? Have any CAP ground teams been equipped with the ROVER ground side units, and how do we plan to use them with dead cell towers after a disaster - are we training on them with sitcom? In GAWG, my unit has usually been one of the ones the most frequently used to test new tech, and we actually lost our issued satcom a couple of years ago, much less got new gear to interface with GIIEP. If the stuff is sitting in Wing lockers somewhere, it is not a deployed, trained, capability.


V/R
Spam

[A.Member]

I have yet to see a demonstrated need for real time data that aligns with our capabilities.

We are not first responders and we're not plucking people off rooftops with helos.  We need to be realistic about our missions.  We have radios for real time requests.  Any imaging efforts we have are more than adequately fulfilled with the minor delay to imaging (a few hours max).  So, what specifically is the need?

[Larry Mangum]

I don't think its the same capability we're discussing, but rather one that's strongly centralized in management, and as I understand it, our ROVER systems were specifically designed not to be two way links between CAP assets at all (aircraft/GT/GT/aircraft).

The AFNORTH brief points out their CONOPS, and highlights its limitation on (a) cell phones, (b) satcom, and (c) the internet:

"The GIIEP system has organic 3G cellular communications (primary) and satellite telephone
communications (iridium, secondary). The GIIEP system transmits FMV and/or still images via
the internet to the primary server farm located at the USGS in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and a
redundant server farm in Huntsville, AL. All authorized users who have a username and
password can access FMV and still images from these server farms making the system
completely interoperable throughout the interagency spectrum".

Then, see the CONOPS diagram on Attachment 2... zero tactical linkage between our aircraft and our GTs. Everything has to go through the servers, and all field teams need internet access to get to the products, which cant be assured in a disaster.

To me, the hallmark of their design is that it seems to treat CAP aircraft as "manned UAVs" (provide annotated imagery for adults to use, one way) rather than to provide a two way tactical data link that can enable an effective air/ground teaming. Not like we're looking to send and receive nine line CAS messages, but...

How many CAP Wings are actually using GIIEP regularly, are training with it, and have developed TTPs, per the plan, I wonder? Have any CAP ground teams been equipped with the ROVER ground side units, and how do we plan to use them with dead cell towers after a disaster - are we training on them with sitcom? In GAWG, my unit has usually been one of the ones the most frequently used to test new tech, and we actually lost our issued satcom a couple of years ago, much less got new gear to interface with GIIEP. If the stuff is sitting in Wing lockers somewhere, it is not a deployed, trained, capability.


V/R
Spam

Actually, GIIEP when working allows mission base to retask the aircrew in flight and through real time IM, when it is working.  Nothing says you cannot put a tough book with a ground team, it is not limited to the aircaraft.

[RogueLeader]

How hard is it for you to retask aircrews in-flight?  I've never had any issues with it.

[Spam]

I don't think its the same capability we're discussing, but rather one that's strongly centralized in management, and as I understand it, our ROVER systems were specifically designed not to be two way links between CAP assets at all (aircraft/GT/GT/aircraft).
<snip>
V/R
Spam

Actually, GIIEP when working allows mission base to retask the aircrew in flight and through real time IM, when it is working.  Nothing says you cannot put a tough book with a ground team, it is not limited to the aircaraft.

Ah, if it were only a Toughbook. It isn't, according to the brief... the ROVER ground side config appears to also require a vehicle mounted LRU and peripherals suitable for mounting in a Humvee. Am I incorrect there, or does this rule out dismounted use?  Keeping in mind that the CAP earth side configs seem to be specifically defined as rx only, too.

Also, to respond to Rogue Leader, no, I've never had any real issues either, retasking an aircraft when I was an IC, so I'm not sure what capability growth that adds, but it would seem hard to do so using a CAP receive only ground side ROVER station!

V/R
Spam

[Larry Mangum]

How hard is it for you to retask aircrews in-flight?  I've never had any issues with it.

When GIIEP is working, you can get real time video or stills, examine them, and while they are still over the target ahve them take additional photos or reshoot the one they took.

[JeffDG]

Even sitting on the ground, with line of sight to the cell tower, I've never gotten more that 1/2 frame per second video with GIIEP.  Stills on the other hand work quite well on the ground and in the air.

CAP has never had ROVER capability, those have classified elements that the NG uses if I recall my training correctly.

[Larry Mangum]

Even sitting on the ground, with line of sight to the cell tower, I've never gotten more that 1/2 frame per second video with GIIEP.  Stills on the other hand work quite well on the ground and in the air.

CAP has never had ROVER capability, those have classified elements that the NG uses if I recall my training correctly.

Jeff is correct, GIIEP does not require a ROVER.  BTW, ROVER's can be used in a matter that requires classified elements, however all SP aircraft use ROVERS when we are supporting the JTAC's and the use does not require a security clearance as they are not used to transmit classified information.

[Chaplaindon]

Back in the early 90s, we (Texas Wing) tried using 1.2 GHz (analog) Amateur "Ham" Television (ATV) from CAP aircraft for use, particularly, in DR settings (such as the then-recent Brazos River flood).

I was actively involved in the experiment.

It worked (sort of) but was operationally unsuccessful/impractical, then, for several reasons.

Primarily it was due to issues with analog television (and antennae polarization) from a maneuvering aircraft. Also the commercially procured ATV hardware (the best then available, no less) was of poor quality.

That said, as (then) a SAR/DR IC, I saw the utility of such real-time video downlink capability, IF the technology had been up to the task.

Granted, the use of amateur hardware and frequencies has been prohibited for quite some time (AFTER the TXWG experiment, of course).

It seems to me that if we can routinely "Facetime" with someone around the world via our smartphone, we SHOULD be able to find a practical way to stream aerial imagery live from our aircraft (ground teams too) in support of our operations.

As a now-retired IC, I can still envision its utility.

[Brad]

Keep in mind, any additional radio frequency needs must be coordinated through National and the AF. Our current frequencies are not approved for data transmission.

Correction on that. Per CAPR 100-1 para. 8.6.6

8.6.6. Data via radio. NHQ/DOK may select and authorize systems for transmission of data via HF or VHF radio, such as computer files or position reporting. All other proposals for transmission of data via CAP radio systems must be fully coordinated and have potential for use across the country. Because CAP frequency assignments may not all be authorized for digital data modes, all experimentation must be coordinated in advance with NHQ/DOKE.

For what it's worth I've seen HF data in-person, or at least the program we're getting that will interface with the HF modems that the Micoms will be receiving. Looks just like an email program, and from my understanding that is when we'll start getting actual Whiskey messages, instead of the training Whiskey Tango messages. These messages will contain encoded instructions for WMIRS and who knows what else.

[etodd]

I have yet to see a demonstrated need for real time data that aligns with our capabilities.

We are not first responders and we're not plucking people off rooftops with helos.  We need to be realistic about our missions.  We have radios for real time requests.  Any imaging efforts we have are more than adequately fulfilled with the minor delay to imaging (a few hours max).  So, what specifically is the need?

Bingo. And now its even less than a few hours. As soon as the plane returns the AP can pull out the laptop and start uploading files directly to the FEMA website.

Actually, GIIEP when working allows mission base to retask the aircrew in flight and through real time IM, when it is working.

Yes, I'm sure some folks in charge at Mission Base would enjoy seeing the view, but trusting the trained flight crew to know what they are seeing and accurately reporting it via radio is not a problem and is much easier with less technology to have to worry about.