A question for the professionals

[MikeD]

If small UAVs/UAS could safely be flown in a DR situation and share the airspace with existing assets, in what situations would they do any good?  I'm thinking of various situations including wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes/storm damage. 

Thanks,
Mike

[TACP]

Any UAV/UAS with Full Motion Video can be a valuable asset, as it generally has a longer loiter time, no pilot fatigue, and the benefit of not putting the crew in danger.

I'm sure some pilot will suckerpunch me for that, but it's true.

[PHall]

Any UAV/UAS with Full Motion Video can be a valuable asset, as it generally has a longer loiter time, no pilot fatigue, and the benefit of not putting the crew in danger.

I'm sure some pilot will suckerpunch me for that, but it's true.

Actually it will be an Observer (me) who will deliver the punch!

Anybody have any kind of "hard" numbers on what a UAV/UAS with video capability costs? Including the required ground station.

How does it compare with a C-182T?

When the costs for a UAV/UAS drop below what a C-182T costs then we may have to start worrying.

[Hawk200]

Anybody have any kind of "hard" numbers on what a UAV/UAS with video capability costs? Including the required ground station.

How does it compare with a C-182T?

When the costs for a UAV/UAS drop below what a C-182T costs then we may have to start worrying.

Well, you can start by looking at some of the Radio Control Modeler magazines, a lot of the modern small UAV's that I think TACP is thinking of aren't a whole lot different. I imagine a rig could be put together for only a few grand, operational costs for dozens of sorties might eventually equal that of a 182.

A "Pilot" and a "sensor operator" (to use grandiose terms) wouldn't have to have super extensive training to work it. As long as you're not flying hundreds of miles, they'd do the job quite effectively. Many RC models already have video capture and storage or transmission equipment on board. Many of the ideas started out with the hobbyists.

"UAV" does not necessarily equal Predator, Reaper or Prowler.

[PHall]

Yeah, a radio control airplane model would "kinda" work, but how good is the camera? In this game, the quality of the sensors is what determines how good the system is.
Actually the systems that the Army and Navy use would probably be the most useful. They're big enough to haul around a "good" camera.
And good means a gryo-stabilized camera.

[JoeTomasone]

They've got a small R/C one flying around the base here periodically that appears (from the quick glances I've gotten) to be pretty darned small - like a large R/C plane, perhaps.   The first time I heard it flying overhead I thought it WAS an R/C plane (forgetting momentarily where I was) based on the sound alone.

[Hawk200]

Yeah, a radio control airplane model would "kinda" work, but how good is the camera? In this game, the quality of the sensors is what determines how good the system is.
Actually the systems that the Army and Navy use would probably be the most useful. They're big enough to haul around a "good" camera.
And good means a gryo-stabilized camera.

That's all UAVs are: remote control airplanes. They may call them fancy names, but that's the reality.

Cameras aren't a real issue, UAVs can do low flight, and higher end cameras are readily available. Even something gyro stabilized can probably be had for a few grand. So your homebuilt UAV costs 15G with all the trimmings. Still cheaper than a 182.

Of course, the hypothetical excercise fails when it comes to the reality that UAVs aren't allowed to fly without major restrictions in US airspace.

The concept is nowhere near impossible, unless someone just wants it to be.

[lordmonar]

Any UAV/UAS with Full Motion Video can be a valuable asset, as it generally has a longer loiter time, no pilot fatigue, and the benefit of not putting the crew in danger.

I'm sure some pilot will suckerpunch me for that, but it's true.

Actually it will be an Observer (me) who will deliver the punch!

Anybody have any kind of "hard" numbers on what a UAV/UAS with video capability costs? Including the required ground station.

How does it compare with a C-182T?

When the costs for a UAV/UAS drop below what a C-182T costs then we may have to start worrying.

A lot of that depends on what sort of gizmos and add ons that go with it.

An MQ-1 costs about $20M for a basic "CAP" of 4 aircraft, ground control station and the satellite and LOS links.

That is giving you a lot of bang for your buck.

If you start down grading it to a simpler mission......i.e. no laser disgnator, no laser spotter, simpler optics, simpler IR camera.  Reduce airfame costs at the cost of loiter time (the MQ-1 is 90%+ carbon fiber).  Reduce the number of spare planes, simplifiy the ground control station and satellite link (both of these are over engineered to be more MILSPEC) and you can bring the unit cost way down.

UAVs are not cheap.....but the cost saveings is not always dollars and cents.  Loiter time is a big plus.  22+ hour missions on a single aircraft....with crews swapping in and out of the GCS at will.....is a major cost savings.  You would have to have 5-6 C-182's to do the same loitering (assuming 1 hour to and from grid 4 hours in the grid....hope your bladder holds out).

As for what it can do?  It can do anything and more then the mark one eyeball and a digital camera can do.

What it can't do very well is to look out the window and see that other yahoo on a closing course.

[♠SARKID♠]

On the small side of things, check this puppy out.


http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x6/

The base model is fifteen grand if I remember correctly so a grant or something similar would definitely be in order.  I would love to have one of these.  MikeD asked where something like this would be useful: cost effective, ground team operated SDIS.  It has options for HD stills, video, low lux b/w, and FLIR.

[Flying Pig]

Customs and Border Protection operates them.  I wonder what it would take to re-direct one to a disaster?  Also, when something happens the Air Guard uses their C-26 that has the same sensor ball.  The CHP also has a Cessna 206 with the MX15.

[ol'fido]

OK. Not a pilot or an RCer. Think the technology is a side issue. I'd be more worried about volume of traffic in a disaster area. UAV with limited front or lateral vision vs. air evac on a bee line to a hospital doesn't seem like a good mix to me.

[bosshawk]

Randy: in the case of the UAVs used by the AF, traffic isn't a problem.  Not too many medevac guys at 40, 000 ft.  The smaller UAVs, yes could be an issue.

[TACP]

The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

[MikeD]

As far as SUAS, I was thinking more of like a Raven or Wasp system.  I used to work for that company, and worked/flew both.  The net total of hand-launched scale UAS deployed is in the thousands.  These have a crew of two, "vehicle operator" (we weren't allowed to refer to them as pilots) and a sensor/system operator akin to a mix of scanner/observer.  The cost for a system is probably cheaper then a C-182, or at least comparable, and flight time is about an hour and a half, per the fact sheet.  Turn-around time between flights is minutes if you have another set of charged batteries handy. 

I forgot to put the point of this in my first post (Bad Mike!), but NASA has been given the vague mission of "make UAS work in the NAS".  Right now it's an open book as far as proposals.  Trying to get SUAS operating safely, at least under some conditions, in the NAS seems like an interesting "hard" problem to tackle.  What I don't know is if it's something that would actually be useful.

[Flying Pig]

The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

.....And this is where you come in right?  I call it "CAPTAC"  YEEEEEEES!!!  Say it with me..  I can only imagine what that ribbon and badge might look like.  Should we start a new thread?

[lordmonar]

The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

.....And this is where you come in right?  I call it "CAPTAC"  YEEEEEEES!!!  Say it with me..  I can only imagine what that ribbon and badge might look like.  Should we start a new thread?

Flying Pig.......hold on tight.....CAP guys ARE getting JFAC training!

[TACP]

The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

.....And this is where you come in right?  I call it "CAPTAC"  YEEEEEEES!!!  Say it with me..  I can only imagine what that ribbon and badge might look like.  Should we start a new thread?

Flying Pig.......hold on tight.....CAP guys ARE getting JFAC training!

I need a source for that... I'm not going to say it's impossible, but that would be a training and FAA regulation nightmare.

[NavLT]

As a guy who has played both sides of the field from aircrew and military recon to working with UAVs the issue is not just price.  As with all technology it should not be accept or reject but determine how to work it into our capabilities.  We got Archer, how often do we use it and how many people even can?  But we have the resource when needed.

As far as UAV goes, it is a crewless mission so no risk of death in marginal flying conditions (just $ for the toy).  It has a camera that ususally transmits to a ground station, most CAP flights still take digital stills that require landing to download. Think of the flexibility if the IC wanted a different look at a target just to tell the remote to move north as opposed to the Aircrew landing handing the pictures to the IC who has them re launch.....

There are restrictions on UAV use in certain Classes of Airspace (Class C prohibits it).

I welcome the capabilities and think it is not as expensive as many would think, if the platform is 1/3 the cost of a C182-T and can put $ into a high quality camera system (video) and downlink then we could see some real value

V/R
LT J.

[Short Field]

SUAVs sound sexy and cheap.  The main issues will be operational range (how much need is there for recon within 10 miles of the operator?), maintenance, and operator training/proficiency.  The rest is just money and airspace control. 

[Senior]

This is an interesting topic.  I thought a large R/C plane could be built
from a kit for SAR use.  I envisioned using  OTS digital video cameras
installed in a gimbal mount.  I know what a downlink is but I don't
how to build one or how much one would cost.  I also thought using
a UAV as an airborne repeater.  These were just ideas.  :clap:

[Short Field]

How do you control it?  Visually and line of sight for the radios?  Out of visual range with telemetry? I really don't know the specs of the new SUAVs.

[MikeD]

How do you control it?  Visually and line of sight for the radios?  Out of visual range with telemetry? I really don't know the specs of the new SUAVs.

The small ones have a radio uplink/downlink plus video, with a few mile range, and also can use a GPS-based autopilot plus nifty things like a loss of link mode (go here, or go here and land if you loose radio contact).

I'm going to try a slight course correction/cat herding attempt here.  I don't see this as something CAP would see for a long time, and it's not something even an agency like FEMA could (legally) use right now. I'm just curious, from the point of view of our members who work for responder agencies as a day job, if it would be useful if they could be flown legally. 

Now the idea of an RC airplane set of eyes in the sky for ground team members sounds like a different but also fun topic... 

[Short Field]

I tend to be very cynical about the "easy" fixes or "cheap" tech advances due to years and years of contractors trying to sell us "new and improved" products.  Once you got past the sunshine being blown up your posterior, most tended to have real problems using them operationally.  It is all about the details at the nuts and bolts level.

[MikeD]

I tend to be very cynical about the "easy" fixes or "cheap" tech advances due to years and years of contractors trying to sell us "new and improved" products.  Once you got past the sunshine being blown up your posterior, most tended to have real problems using them operationally.  It is all about the details at the nuts and bolts level.

Hey, you can trust us.  We're the gov'met and we're here to help 

[Major Lord]

I like the idea of a low cost R/C aircraft that carries an ELT direction finder with downlinked telemetry. A ground team could carry it in their vehicle or even in a pack and improve their detection range dramatically.

Major Lord

[raivo]

Might be slightly off-topic, but a lot of the concern I hear when it comes to domestic UAV/UAS use by government agencies has to do with fear of Big Brother-type worst case scenarios.

[TACP]

I like the idea of a low cost R/C aircraft that carries an ELT direction finder with downlinked telemetry. A ground team could carry it in their vehicle or even in a pack and improve their detection range dramatically.

Now I completely agree with this. If we could cost effectively develop a UAV direction finder it would be fantastic. With the small hand-launched units the only issue would be weight ratio.

[Flying Pig]

The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

.....And this is where you come in right?  I call it "CAPTAC"  YEEEEEEES!!!  Say it with me..  I can only imagine what that ribbon and badge might look like.  Should we start a new thread?

Flying Pig.......hold on tight.....CAP guys ARE getting JFAC training!

I need a source for that... I'm not going to say it's impossible, but that would be a training and FAA regulation nightmare.

Where are we getting JTAC Training??  I was a Forward Observer in the Marines myself, hardly a anything close to a JTAC, but I had worked with a few JATCs TACP's or whatever they were.  They were Air Force guys.  All I knew is that I was a Marine and they were inferior!   Actually, it was a pretty darn impressive use of multiple radios and map work.  I think those guys must have had a couple extra hands I didnt see.  We were training on calling in A-10's, AV-8s and AH-1's and coordinating that with mortars and Arty.  So exactly who getting the training and where?  I am signed up for the Predator program, and nobody has said anything about that type of training.  And Im sure its not going to be an online course.