GIIEPS - CAP goes high tech

[blackrain]

As Major Lord pointed out. Real time video/imagery is pricey but I would rather use funding for something like the POP300 with fewer systems. I believe the POP300 is essentially what is on the Shadow UAV. Not as heavy/cheaper? as the Surrogate Predator Package but better IMHO for a C-182.

We can dream.

Tried to insert image but that didn't work. I guess I should call an expert. My kids should be able to help

[A.Member]

If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!

Major Lord

Agreed.   I haven't seen a real business justification for true real time video.  Is it cool technology?  Sure.  Is it truly required?  Not that I've seen.  CAP needs to keep in mind it's value proposition.

[Larry Mangum]

The actual promise of this system, is the ability to re-task the bird in flight based upon the imagery being projected to the ICP.  Obviously, you are not going to do so for an entire flight. But if you are tasked to perform a damage assessment flight, you might finds several points along your route that might warrant, a closer look and immediate transmission to the ICP.

[JeffDG]

If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!

Major Lord

I was under the impression that zombies were invisible to most modern video equipment.

[A.Member]

If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!

Major Lord

I was under the impression that zombies were invisible to most modern video equipment.

That's only for IR cameras...that or you're confusing them with vampires. 

[Ned]

Having been a "real-time television" customer in a disaster situation as a Guard task force commander (using a local news chopper that graciously allowed us access to their feed and some limited taskings by me), I found it invaluable to have real-time images so I  could say things like "OK, now give me some images about a half mile north, that's it, perfect." Or, "wait a second, could you zoom in on the freeway underpass?  Does that look passable to you?"

I needed to know the current extent of flooding at critical facilities to station my forces appropriately.  Having them take a few snaps, and then having to land and upload images before I could have useful information would not have been effective.

I remember desperately wishing that CAP had this capability.

Sometimes we don't get to tell the customer what they want or need.  If they think they need SSTV, they probably do.

Ned Lee
Retired Guard Guy

[Major Lord]

Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.

Major Lord

[blackrain]

Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.

Major Lord

How stable does the camera have to be kept to give usable imagery? Otherwise I can see potential in such a system

[Larry Mangum]

This system, uses off-the shelf components for the majority of the components. Any camcorder can be sued as long as it has a video out, same for the camera. The laptop is a tough book with an integrated gps and sprint card. 

[davidsinn]

This system, uses off-the shelf components for the majority of the components. Any camcorder can be sued as long as it has a video out, same for the camera. The laptop is a tough book with an integrated gps and sprint card.

That's where the system falls apart. It relies on the cell system.

[Larry Mangum]

Yes, it does depend upon the cell card currently. However they are looking into other means of communication as well to include sat communications and not necessarily through globalstar.  You know, the majority of the people on CAP-Talk either have not had hands on experience with the unit or only saw a pre-production unit.  How about we adopt a wait and see attitude for awhile before we tear it down? 

[Major Lord]

Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.

Major Lord

How stable does the camera have to be kept to give usable imagery? Otherwise I can see potential in such a system

The wider the view of the camera, the less noticeable the shake in the picture. (Wider shots also provide a wider depth of field and offer faster F stops for lower light)  Helicopters use gyroscopically stabilized cameras within domed pan tilt units to produce good video, but I don't think we can afford that and I don't think anyone would let us saw an 18 inch hole in the bottom of an aircraft. The more you zoom, the worse handheld video gets, but some cameras have "anti-shake" features that can smooth this out quite a bit. Hams have been building these things for years, and although we can't use video transmitters that work as well, air to ground line of sight is the optimal signal path for the transmitters we can use. Not every second of video will be perfect, but for the guy on the ground looking for a way around or to a problem, its probably good enough. Is it good enough to do damage assessment for critical incidents? Who knows. You make due with whatever info you have.

Major Lord

[SarDragon]

Depending on how much room there is in the plane, you can use Steadi-Cam technology for stabilization.

Hang a foot long mast off the bottom of the camera, with a 12 ounce weight on the end, and it will provide an amazing amount of stabilization.

(No, a Steadi-cam does not use gyroscopes.)

[c172drv]

My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology and we could field it to our repeater sites to give broad area coverage for our personnel and have a secure-ish network that we could use for our own work.  We could support it by "selling" the access to our membership and to other goverment agencies as a portable network.  Range that I've read is up to 50miles from a site on the surface.  In the air that would usually mean the entire state could be covered with highspeed access.

[A.Member]

Before moving forward with any new grandiose idea, at a minimum the following basic questions need be answered:

who are our clients? 
who is demanding this specific solution? 
does it fit within the value proposition offered by our organization?

Clients don't demand a specific technology (ex SSTV).   They have a specific need (ex. real time data).  We need to understand those needs and sometimes perhaps even help the client define what their real need is.  In doing so, we'll find that we may or may not be the right organization to meet that need.

[SARJunkie]

My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology and we could field it to our repeater sites to give broad area coverage for our personnel and have a secure-ish network that we could use for our own work.  We could support it by "selling" the access to our membership and to other goverment agencies as a portable network.  Range that I've read is up to 50miles from a site on the surface.  In the air that would usually mean the entire state could be covered with highspeed access.

We could NEVER afford the license from the FCC to make this happen, or the equipment.  a single site LTE (4G) system is  just under 1 million dollars!

[Major Lord]

Before moving forward with any new grandiose idea, at a minimum the following basic questions need be answered:

who are our clients? 
who is demanding this specific solution? 
does it fit within the value proposition offered by our organization?

Clients don't demand a specific technology (ex SSTV).   They have a specific need (ex. real time data).  We need to understand those needs and sometimes perhaps even help the client define what their real need is.  In doing so, we'll find that we may or may not be the right organization to meet that need.

Those are good points, but one wonders if this is a cart-before- the- horse situation or a chicken-before-the egg scenario.  What does CAP offer? Clearly, we are not a disaster first responder. Most of our members are too young or too old to wade through rivers of death and destruction. We don't have the infrastructure to support any significant deployment.  We are not ideally suited for "recovery" operations for the same reasons, and the fact that our airplanes can't retrieve victims terribly well. This leaves two major services: Airborne taxi, and Information Services (Surveillance)  The thread starts off telling us that USAF has given us com gear of next generation capability, and one might suppose that this is an area within which USAF expects us to deliver service. ( Or, maybe we just bribed someone) For our other clients, my guess is if they can find the funding to do something, they would rather do it themselves than use CAP: Every organization (especially governmental organizations) has a pathological desire to grow out of hand.

Developing capabilities in advance instead of waiting passively for someone to hand it to us would be the wise thing to do. Remember Billy Mitchell?  ( May he live forever in the halls of Vahalla!) He dragged the U.S. into developing capabilities no one in military or government  thought we needed, and it short order, his services created the groundwork for winning a major war. (Yes, they 2b'd him for it, but all is forgiven!) Arguing for passivity in CAP's development is an argument for increasing irrelevancy.

Major Lord

[JoeTomasone]

My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology

We could NEVER afford the license from the FCC to make this happen, or the equipment.  a single site LTE (4G) system is  just under 1 million dollars!

WiMAX is available on license-free spectrum as well.   The equipment is affordable, but you're not going to get 50 miles out of it with a mobile client.   That kind of range is only fixed-location to fixed-location with high gain directional antennas.    Introduce something along the lines of a USB WiMAX stick and you're down to single digits.

[RADIOMAN015]

I know that my wing was proactive with the National Guard and actually was testing this equipment provided by the NG before National HQ even got these units to send when needed to regions/wings.   I would suspect that many if not most states have this equipment and it's just a matter of wings' being very proactive with the NG.

At least in our wing the ES future primarily lies with airborne recon type missions with a small support staff on the ground (e.g. radio comms, IC, air ops).
RM

[tsrup]

Currently SDWNG is flying DR missions for the state for our current flooding here, and today's sortie we flew with the GIIEPS equipment.

My reactions:
Our mission scanner had just previously attended the training session this past weekend for use of the equipment, so he was fresh and excited to use it, as I was excited to see it in action, however we were severely disappointed with it's capabilities.
First, the data connection was extremely spotty.  The GIIEPS uses a sprint air card to secure it's data connection, which may work just fine in more populated areas, but Sprint coverage here in South Dakota is limited to a very small area, and not really present at all in the rural areas where we were taking photo's. 
When taking video (when we had connection to stream) we noticed that unless you have a monopod or something to stabalize the camera, the camera shakes and vibrates too much as a result of just being in the aircraft for any useful video to be taken at altitude.  While an overall picture (read:un-zoomed) can turn out fine, once you are zoomed in on an objective or target, the camera shake becomes a hinderance.  So for future reference for any other aircrews who may use the system, it would be wise to bring along something to counteract that.
Second is really the most useful function we found was the chat function, as we could log in and sms with mission base.  Albeit a pretty useless function in the presence of working radios, but there you go.

The still picture camera we got along with it was essentially useless for Aerial photography, the resolution was 8mp, but only with a limited digital zoom.  It did have it's own data logger however the reading on the photos left out the minutes and seconds of the lat/long.  Now whether or not it imbedded the rest of the information as a header file, or it could be changed in the settings was something we didn't play with.  The camera is also waterproof at least...

Overall we were pretty disappointed with it's usefulness for our purposes, however I could see how the system would come into it's own on certain CD or Homeland Security missions (in areas of adequate coverage) where you have specific personnel available to make use of the live video.  The lack of coverage though, was the biggest issue we encountered, as when you don't have a connection, the whole system becomes nothing more than ballast.