Surveillance: Tactical UAV - the quest continues | ADM May 2010
Shaking off the disappointment (and cost) of JP129's earlier failure to deliver what in effect was a high risk, if highly capable, developmental system, the ADF is again seeking a Tier 3 Tactical UAV system; this time with proven in-service capabilities.
Tom Muir | Canberra
Under Phase 2 of JP129 Tactical UAV (TUAV) Capability, the ADF intends to acquire a TUAV system to enhance the reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities of deployed forces for both land operations and selected maritime operations, by overcoming the limitations of mobility, terrain and range experienced by current capabilities.
The system would also fill capability gaps identified in the Army's Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) architecture by providing:
• a near real time (NRT) reconnaissance capability for a deployed Joint Task Force;
• an integral, responsive and accurate target acquisition system capable of providing a NRT sensor-to-decider-to-response asset link; and
• a battle damage assessment (BDA) capability.
The RFT for the Phase 2 requirement was released in July 2004 and in December 2006 Boeing Australia, teamed with Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI), was awarded a $145 million contract for the TUAV capability provided by the IAI medium level I-View 250A system.
This Israeli development exceeded the ADF's requirements in a number of respects leading to its selection over other in-service systems proposed by ADI Limited (Elbit Hermes 450) and BAE Systems Australia (AAI Shadow 200).
That it failed the ‘in-service' test but was chosen nevertheless with Australia as launch customer was a tribute to I-View 250's advanced capabilities which appeared to have blinded Defence to the cost and schedule risks of introducing what was an advanced developmental solution.
Follow-on reports indicated that the combination of sensor flexibility, integration with Australia's C4ISR systems via Boeing, and risk reduction at landing where many UAVs are lost, were instrumental in I-View 250 winning the contract.
It was seen as an advanced tactical medium range UAV system for operation with high tactical echelon levels (Battalion/Division).
Due to extensive delays with the JP129 program-negotiating the contract took more than one year-an interim TUAV capability was introduced by the fielding of two systems, the manportable Elbit Skylark system and the Boeing-Insitu ScanEagle, both of which have since seen considerable and useful service with the ADF land force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But program delays continued, due in part to seemingly insurmountable technical difficulties, believed to have included ITAR intransigence over the transfer and integration of US TCDL (Tactical Command Data Link) technology supplied by Cubic Systems, into an Israeli system.
The TCDL was to provide critical wideband data for situational awareness and sensor and targeting data for tactical commanders.
Surprisingly the ITAR problems over the integration of the TCDL appeared not to have been foreseen by either Boeing or Cubic.
When the technical difficulties with introducing the I-View 250 system proved irreconcilable, the contract for that phase of the program was cancelled in September 2008.
In his announcement, the then Defence Minister said that the DMO and Boeing Australia had agreed to terminate the contract on what were said to be mutually acceptable terms.
He then went on to say that this ‘decisive action' would enable Defence to focus on the earliest acquisition of an alternative TUAV to meet the JP129 requirement, noting that the Army would continue to use the Boeing-Insitu ScanEagle in the MEAO.
A further contract for ScanEagle services was subsequently signed with Boeing.
TUAV quest
Since the cancellation of the JP129 Phase 2, Tier 3 TUAV capability, Defence has sent teams overseas to survey the TUAV market and ADF personnel have studied TUAV systems and operations of its allies in Afghanistan as part of the process of identifying potential capability solutions for the ADF.
Defence's focus has been on an off-the-shelf TUAV fielded system that meets the ADF's updated capability requirements, is proven in operations with a strong record of airworthiness, and can be readily introduced into service.
It also needs to be sustainable for the system's expected life of type.
Potential solutions for this Tier 3 capability are believed to include renewed offerings from Thales Australia and BAE Systems Australia, with the Elbit Hermes 450 and the AAI Shadow 200 respectively.
Six years later, both systems have gained considerable operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan since originally proposed for JP129.
And it comes as no surprise that Defence has sought configuration, cost and schedule information from the US Army on the AAI Shadow 200 system which is in service with both the US Army and the US Marine Corps.
Defence has been quoted as saying that this information will inform Defence advice to government on the way forward for JP129.
AAI Corporation has long been a supplier of its Shadow TUAV to the US military.
The Shadow 200B air vehicle is intended to provide coverage of a brigade area of interest for up to six hours, at 50 kilometers from the launch and recovery site.
The maximum range is 125 km (datalink line of sight limit), and operations are generally conducted to 10,000 ft AGL by day and 8,000 ft at night.
The air vehicle is controlled using AAI's ‘One System' Ground Control Station (GCS), which also incorporates the TCDL enabling direct transfer of imagery and telemetry data to the US Army and Marine Corps' (and the ADF's) AFATDS.
Each Shadow system includes four aircraft, two ground control stations and ground data terminals, four remote video terminals, a portable ground control station and associated components and support equipment.
An entire system can be loaded into a single C-130 Hercules but for an extended deployment the entire system, including personnel, spares, vehicles and GCS shelters, can be transported in three C-130s.
Under JP129 Phase 2, Defence plans to buy two complete TUAV systems, each consisting of four air vehicles, two ground stations and launcher and recovery system.
In its US Army configuration the Shadow may well be the logical choice for JP129's Tier 3 capability possibly through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) acquisition.
As previously noted, the Shadow system is in wide US military service, has just about all the operational features the ADF needs, is likely to cost considerably less than the original contract with Boeing for the I-View 250, and will also be available by the manufacturer on a full fee-for-service arrangement if desired.
JP129 Phase 4
While Defence mulls over the choice of system for the Tier 3 UAS requirement, JP129 Phase 4 has now emerged.
This phase is intended to provide organic ISR support, primarily for land force operations through the acquisition of small Tier 1 UAS as well as provision of a system that can be operated from or within confined areas (such as in urban environments).
The small UAS are intended to provide units with enhanced situational awareness and increased force protection.
The 2009 Defence Capability Plan (DCP) notes that Army currently operates the Elbit Skylark UAS, acquired as an interim solution and not intended to provide an ongoing capability.
Now the intention is to acquire non-developmental systems based on proven designs with a service life of 10 years.
While acquiring a replacement for the Skylark makes sense if a better UAS can be found, it is highly unlikely that such a system could soldier on, even for five years, without the need for system improvements just to keep pace with advances in sensor and system miniturisation.
Skylark was withdrawn from all operational roles in 2008 to enable increased training of operators and replacement of the entire fleet with digital versions to overcome problems of link loss during deployments.
The datalink frequency was also upgraded to overcome recurrent problems, the implementation of which cost nearly half a million dollars.
So what are the choices?
Two of the most popular hand-launched Tier 1 systems would have to be the Elbit Skylark and the AeroVironment Raven, small, short-range hand-launched systems, which have been very successful in providing rudimentary ISR capability to smaller military units.
Elbit Skylark
The ADF has been operating the Skylark 1 system since 2005, when six systems were procured and deployed to southern Iraq.
In 2008 Elbit Systems announced that it had been awarded a third contract to supply the Australian Army with more Skylark systems for an estimated value of several million dollars.
The original Skylark I used a miniature gyro-stabilised payload weighing only 500gr.
The payload was developed by Elbit Systems specifically for small UAS applications and consists of a daylight colour CCD.
When fitted with night-camera, the payload's weight doubles to one kilogram.
Payload-vehicle integration enables simple and intuitive operation in holding position, as the payload ‘looks' at a designated point while the UAV circles above to maintain a continuous cover, and camera guide.
Here the user designates a target or route to be followed by the payload and aircraft.
Images obtained by the camera are overlaid on the integrated map situational display.
The new Skylark 1LE configuration offers many enhancements over the original.
These include a 50 per cent increased endurance (three hours), an operational ceiling of 15,000 ft and extended mission radius of up to 15 km, which is a 50 - 100 per cent increase over the original model.
While the small UAV is simple to operate, as it is guided autonomously throughout the mission (even in GPS denied terrain) Elbit Systems is offering an optional integrated video simulator to improve training, enabling operators to better understand and plan a mission, based on realistic views of the expected target.
Other optional enhancements include an auxiliary operating console, to be operated at the battalion command team.
AeroVironment Raven
The Raven UAV weighs about 1.9 kg and is launched by hand, requiring one pilot and a second person to monitor the incoming information.
Each Raven system includes three battery-powered airplanes, a ground control station and a remote video terminal.
Raven has a flight endurance of 80 minutes and an effective operational radius of about 10 km.
Flying speed is 45-95 km/h at typical operating altitude between 100 ft and 1,000 ft.
The air vehicles can be either remotely controlled from the ground station or fly completely autonomous missions using GPS waypoint navigation.
The UAV can be ordered to immediately return to its launch point simply by pressing a single command button.
Standard mission payloads include CCD color video and an infrared camera.
Although the system can use disposable batteries, the majority of missions are flown with a lithium ion battery pack that can be recharged through a variety of sources.
Depending on the battery used, mission time can range from 60 to 90 minutes.
There are three interchangeable cameras, nose-mounted optical and infrared, and sidemounted IR cameras.
The camera does not have a zoom and is unable to lock on a target but provides enough resolution to show someone carrying a weapon.
Recent digital upgrades enable more Ravens with improved capabilities to operate in a given area by using L-band spectrum more efficiently.
Up to 16 Ravens can be flown in a specific geographical area.
The digital upgrade also includes greater communication security through signal encryption.
The analog Ravens have come under scrutiny because they send unencrypted video signals that could be intercepted by insurgents equipped with a laptop computer, according to various newspaper and other reports.
Comment
It would appear contracted UAS services, other than for Tier 1 systems, run by adaptable and experienced providers, on an ‘as and when required' basis are almost de rigueur among our coalition allies deployed in the MEAO.
Such services, provided under performance contracts which specify flight endurance, rate of effort, data link bandwidth levels and so on, have to be compatible with the customer's forward observer, targeting and other data management equipment.
If a Tier 3 capability is now required for tactical ISR in Afghanistan would it not be best to acquire the preferred system on a partial fee for service arrangement based on a contractor provided and supported system, but operated by the Army's 20th Surveillance and Target Acquisition Regiment as is currently the case with ScanEagle?
Nor should the concept of contracted services for broad area high altitude surveillance be discounted too readily.
Hiring such a capability could well be a most useful precursor to the subsequent introduction into service of a fully fledged capability.