ASCI 637 Unmanned Aero Sys Ops and Payloads (Strengths and Weakness of Unmanned Aircraft Systems)

The unmanned aircraft system (UAS) I am reviewing for this blog entry is the ScanEagle by Boeing Insitu. “ScanEagle provides persistent daytime and nighttime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) in some of the most extreme environments in the world.” (Insitu, n.d., para 1)

This platform has its presence in the ISR environment and has been used as such since 2004. More recently this platform has been developed to survey crops because of the payloads it has available. It is a system that is flexible and can go from keeping an eye on enemies to informing farmers what crops need more pesticide (precision agriculture). Another unique ability this UAS has is that it doesn’t require a runway for takeoff, as it is launched via a Mark 4 launcher, additionally it can be recovered without a runway or the use of nets via a hook type system called SkyHook.  This ability allows it the UAS to be operated virtually anywhere, and in a variety of environments. It also allows the UAS to have an assortment of mission sets whether they are required for combat, search and rescue, or precision agriculture, it is a system that delivers. From their website http://www.insitu.com/images/uploads/product-cards/Scaneagle_OptionsAndCapabilities_ProductCard_PR041615_1.pdf  the sensor options for this particular UAS are as follows:

§  Electro-optic imager: For high-resolution daytime imagery.

o     1.1°–25° field of view

§  36x continuous zoom

§  EO900 turret: Picture-in-picture daytime imagery from two imagers, allowing operators to focus on and maintain positive identity for objects of interest.

o     .3°–48.7° field of view

§   170x continuous zoom from one high-resolution imager

§   MWIR camera: For quality thermal imaging for nighttime and low-visibility operations.

o    2°–25° field of view

o   12.5x continuous zoom

§   Dual Imager turret: Includes an EO (Electro-Optical) and MWIR (Midwave Infared) camera and laser marker for easy transition from daytime to nighttime missions.

o   MWIR  2°–25° field of view

§  12.5x continuous zoom

o   EO      1.1°–25° field of view

§  36x continuous zoom

Strengths of the ScanEagle :

•        The size of the system (the UAS, and the Launch and recovery system) and the crew is smaller and more mobile than in the case of High altitude long endurance (HALE) and Medium altitude long endurance UAS such as the Predator or Global Hawk who fulfill many of the same ISR requirements 
• The aircraft can be launched and recovered in any terrain, including naval ships. 
•   Due to lower operational altitude, the camera’s field of view 1.1°- 25° (Insitu-Capabilities, n.d.) has smaller footprint than one MALE and HALE UAS and therefor offers more details than sensors mounted on bigger platforms

Weaknesses of the ScanEagle:

• ·       The military uses ScanEagle for the EO/IR cameras specifically, which limits the system’s remote sensing capabilities to visible light spectrum
• ·       Because the maximum payload weight is 7.5 lb. (Institu-Capabilities,n.d.) payload options become limited and therefore restricted to sensors that are smaller and lightweight

Overall this platform provides a great option for civilians and military alike, and with newer technology being developed like LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), this system will see continued success. To mitigate the issues of payload weight it is suggested increase the systems overall payload capacity, or research alternatives to payloads to meet customer demands. It has been suggested that the new ScanEagle version 2 allows for greater power to be used for payloads (60 watts upgraded to 100 watts and 150 watts) but will come at a cost of lessened endurance (24+ hours, down to less than 16) (Cavas, 2013, para 5-7) which could pose some problems if the system was originally designed for long endurance type missions.

References

Cavas, C. (2014, October 31). Insitu Launches New ScanEagle 2 UAS. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141031/DEFREG01/310310034/Insitu-Launches-New-ScanEagle-2-UAS

Insitu. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle

Insitu-Product Capabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.insitu.com/images/uploads/product-cards/Scaneagle_OptionsAndCapabilities_ProductCard_PR041615_1.pdf

Case Analysis effectiveness

               For the last assignment in my course ASCI 530 at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University we were tasked with doing a case analysis of an issue as it relates to unmanned aircraft. I chose to do a piece on integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. The case analysis approach appears to be an effective means in researching a perceived problem and has a very step by step approach. First we need to create an issue statement, which is a general overview of the perceived issue. The next step was to identify how significant that issue was, which is in essence the heart and soul of the analysis. The next step was to create alternative actions, this is an area where we are allowed to be creative and are encouraged to do so, and come up with solutions that could eliminate the perceived issues. The final step was suggesting a recommendation based on our analysis of the issue. Overall I felt that this was an effective means of arriving at a solution. Recently an area where this I could see as applicable in the field would be our current runway shutdown that NAS Jacksonville has been attempting to complete for years. The case analysis I would chose to do would be issues regarding when the runway opens back up and what that means to the controllers who have not controlled aircraft in over a year essentially. I think utilizing the case analysis approach in this regard would be extremely useful in detailing out all the perceived issues with the lack of proficiency training that most of the air traffic controllers I work with are used to.  Another area where a case analysis could be useful would be in looking at a very specific technology, such as sense-and-avoid technology for unmanned aircraft. I think doing this would help to address issues after doing a request for proposal, or vise-versa.

               In the future I think that a case analysis could be more effective as a team concept, groups of two or three people doing a project of this magnitude can become overwhelming and in the aviation industry it almost always seems that groups are the norm. This would be a more effective use of the case analysis as people can be extremely focused on one detail of the project (issue, alternative actions, etc.) rather than try to do all of the pieces together. I think establishing this line of communication would lead to better outcomes on future project proposals. Even moving forward in a career, I think having small teams focus on doing a particular project would be the most effective means to come up with an ideal solution. As the old adage goes “two minds are greater than one.” For utilizing this in a university setting I would recommend having a list of perceived problems for specific coursework. Unmanned systems is something I am not yet familiar with, but am trying to “master” those concepts, which is where I think having the industry experts that are teaching that coursework would certainly have a better idea of perceived problems that could be researched further. Overall it is an  effective means to researching a project, and is applicable in both a university setting and a work related setting, the context that would change would be how that project is setup, ultimately I see a project being better suited for a small group.