ARCHER

[Hoser]

I'd like to know what these limitations are and what qualifies you to decide these limitations. Do you have training in remote sensing analysis?

[A.Member]

I'd like to know what these limitations are and what qualifies you to decide these limitations.

What are the limitations?  I shouldn't have to explain that to an operator.  First off, HSI was really developed and is best suited for geology and agricultural use, not SAR.   As you eluded to in an earlier post, ARCHER is essentially a solution in search of a problem.  That's not a very practical approach.  What's more, is that I didn't decide anything; much of it's stated right here. 

But, off the cuff...

• ARCHER can be used during daytime only.
• Good weather only.
• Cannot see through water or snow.
• Must fly at higher altitude (over 2x) and speed than 172/182, thus signifcantly reducing POD for any other observers on board the aircraft.

• Significantly smaller scanned area per pass/track = ~0.1 mile

In other words, ARCHER does nothing to expand our current operations. 

• Cost for the imaging equipment alone is in excess of $200K/per unit (total cost is in excess of $5M!).
• Previous figure does not include the cost of the platform (GA-8) which is another ~$450K/per aircraft (~16 total units implemented). 
• Significantly higher training/proficency costs.

And that doesn't even address the maintenance costs.  Again, ARCHER does nothing to measurably enhance/expand our current operations.  At the same time, it significantly increases our overall costs of operation.

Given this, with any objective cost benefit analysis, one is hard pressed to justify this system. 

Money would be better allocated to systems that enhance our safety and mission capabilities/effectiveness.  As an example of some ideas:

• All 172s and 182s should be equipped with Micro-VGs.  Given the type of flying we do this a long overdue no-brainer.
• For about the same price as ARCHER, perhaps a little less based on the NG Bureau's purchase price, FLIR systems could've been installed on over 25 existing 172s/182s.  If we factor in the savings from not needing to purchase the GA-8s, we could've equipped another 40 aircraft with these systems.  That means every Wing could have at least one advanced technology aircraft, and for larger Wings even two.  Such a system would allow for expanding missions into nighttime and lower-visibility conditions.   
• A few AMS or similarly equipped aircraft might also enhance HLS mission opportunities.
• The money spent on ARCHER could also have gone a long way in getting a lot more people Form 5'd. 

The point is that the money is better spent elsewhere. 

What qualifies me to say these things?  Probably about the same things as you.  I've read the material on ARCHER.  Also done subsequent reading on imaging systems.  I'm a pilot and aircrew qualified.  I've participated in SARs.  I've seen ARCHER demonstrated. 

Any more questions?

[Major Lord]

At the National Conference in St. Louis awhile back, I attended a seminar on ARCHER, in which it was implied that it had been used by CAP in a variety of actual missions, the nature of which were too secret to divulge ( BS meter pinning hard!) I came home and took the one-time-only test and passed with flying colors. Basic 7th grade science stuff. I never heard back form anyone on additional training, and I have not met any ARCHER qual'd people face-to-face since then, but it seems that it had designed-in limitations. Most critically, it lacked thermal, or IR ( as opposed to near IR ) imagery. Thermal imagery could actually help us spot warm things, like people, fires, and warm engines on the ground. I was told that it had been considered but that the powers that be decided it had law-enforcement applications (god forbid!) and we would violate Posse Comitatus! (Sweet mother of Buddha! Do these people live on our planet?) I am not aware that it has ever been credited with a real life find, let alone a save, but it does have potential if they can get the C-Squareds to quit demanding limitations. ( thats CAP, we are all about our limitations!)

Major Lord

[wingnut]

I am in partial agreement with Hoser since I am both a remote sensing analysts and a photogrammetrists, and I am CAP trained by the MFG at a CAP class to operate the spectrometer and have  been Authorized to operate the Archer without the School. I see several problems.

1. ICs have not a clue on how to use the Archer resource.
2. CAP and the Air Force are going through a review and possible upgrade recommendation to the Archer system.
3. Remote sensing training in addition to the Archer data analysis training is highly useful.
4. I am extremely excited and hopeful for the Archer potential uses, in both SAR, and environmental services.

The UC and CAL State systems utilize DOD assets all the time for Research, once Archer is fixed think of the possibilities, it will be a boon for CAP to fly missions for the national Forrest service, park Service, land Management. In 2000 we paid 4000 for one U2 hyperpsectral image, remember CAP has a history of providing service to the comunity far beyond sar

[A.Member]

1. ICs have not a clue on how to use the Archer resource.

This is not really an IC issue.  It has more to do with our mission orientation.  The simple fact is that ARCHER is just not a great SAR tool.  If it were, every other SAR outfit, including the US military and other agencies (foreign and domestic) would utilize it as such.  They don't.  Instead they use FLIR systems and such.   

It's too bad that NASA placed the development of SAR2 on perma-hold, that looked interesting - even if it initially may not have had direct applications for CAP.

As far as I can tell, the ROI on ARCHER just isn't there.

[Hoser]

First I have NEVER said ARCHER is a good SAR tool. In fact unless one gets lucky, it is in my estimation, of little value with a life threat. Second POD is an overused term, I don't care much about it, I am concerned with POS, which granted is influenced by POD. I don't give a rip if your POD is 100% if your POC is 2% your POS is 2%. Bottom line. Thirdly, the snafus with SDIS makes real time analysis at mission base an exercise in futility. ARCHER's value is in change detect and environmental anomaly match and detect. Why can't people get that through their thick skulls? I have used Thermal imaging and understand how it works and its value and its limitations and for SAR, a much preferable technology.
As to limitations, my guess is they are in the software, not the HSI CCD.
ARCHER is more valuable as a data gathering and analysis tool than a SAR tool, although it has made finds, I had one of them. Once people understand it is for more than SAR the utility will become apparent. As wingnut said CAP provides more services to the community than SAR. It seems in the multitude of posts wondering about how our missions may change or that they may dry up, I think having a technology that will support and even generate new missions is a good thing. Come on folks, GET PAST the ideas that, 1: ARCHER is a good SAR tool, 2: that it was billed as a silver bullet and they were wrong, and 3: that it is a worthless technology. They said the same thing about the airplane and pushing that technology got Billy Mitchell court martialed.
The comment that ARCHER doesn't expand our current operations is myopic and limiting. It NEEDS to expand our operations into new areas. Get past your obsolescent paradigm.

[A.Member]

Come on folks, GET PAST the ideas that, 1: ARCHER is a good SAR tool

Yet, that's exactly what it why it was developed and purchased, using HLS funds.  From the manufacturer's site:

Although primarily intended for enhanced search and rescue capabilities, CAP has found many additional uses for ARCHER, including missions for homeland security, disaster assessment, and drug interdiction.

Hmmm.

3: that it is a worthless technology.

I never said it was a worthless technology.  What I did say, however, is that the ROI is such that the money is much better spent elsewhere.   The fact that cost benefit is not a consideration in the discussion is the only thing I consider myopic.  This is the basis of the argument which you are ignoring.

[Hoser]

The cost -benefit is what it is right now as ARCHER hasn't been exploited to develop new missions for the system which will generate funds. Yes we do charge clients for both the system and the airplane

[A.Member]

And therein lies the problem.  $12 - $13M, probably more, was wasted purchasing a system that has no defined mission for effective use.   

Rather than performing our due diligence by outlining issues that we want/need to address, defining the requirements needed to address them, and then looking at products that meet those requirements, we simply purchased a product with the thought that we could somehow find a use for it. 

Now, a couple years later, we're still trying to find an effective use for it.  We don't know who our customers might be for this system nor do we know what their needs really might be.  It may even be that the market is extremely limited and/or that it doesn't fit well within the scope of our organization's missions/goals.  Regardless, the result is that we're not really charging anybody anything right now.  That is a foolish approach.

[Hoser]

You have made the perfect arguement for my position that we need to stop poking sticks at ARCHER and collectively try and find applications for it.

[A.Member]

You have made the perfect arguement for my position that we need to stop poking sticks at ARCHER and collectively try and find applications for it.

  Ah, no. 

I understand that you've put some time into training and don't want to think it was for nothing but what's being said is probably much closer to: "Cut our loses now.  Get rid of the thing for as much as we can.  Do a proper needs assessment and allocate the funds appropriately based upon the results of the assessment." 

Do you ever wonder why so few people are volunteering to train with the GA-8 and ARCHER?  Sitting around trying to dream up missions for the thing is a further waste of resources.  This whole thing was rather half-baked, IMO.

Looks like we're obviously going to have to just agree to disagree on this issue, and that's fine.

[Hoser]

If it turns out the time and effort invested in training is for nothing, it won't be the first time and probably not the last. As to volunteering for ARCHER and Ga8 duty, it's kind of difficult as there are only 16 of them. Personally I don't pay attention to who is or isn't wanting to be involved with the program, that's not my concern, that's National's. I ind it funny that the agencies that are interested in tasking ARCHER are outside of what CAP's "normal" mission profile. I still think that the hyperbole that preceeded it did more disservice than it's present lack of tasking

[Dragoon]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the ARCHER money was a congressional "plus up" - meaning if we hadn't done ARCHER, we wouldn't have gotten at least some of those millions.

[Ricochet13]

You have made the perfect argument for my position that we need to stop poking sticks at ARCHER and collectively try and find applications for it.

Don't get discouraged here.  New concepts, new ideas, are always confronted by the "old guard".   And, of course, ARCHER participation is not available to all so there is the issue of selectivity and that encourages negative views. 

Keep working hard to demonstrate the abilities of the system.  The role and missions of ARCHER are an on-going process and there are many good examples of innovations meeting resistance.  Whatever became of the ideas of Billy Mitchell?  Even the court-martial didn't stop his ideas. 

Maybe ARCHER doesn't pan out, maybe it does, but at least someone tried something.     I can support that.