MAV Study Focus Group Post

[MarkR]

Good Morning

This is the online focus group discussion topic for a Micro Air Vehicle study (protocol #L-513).

FOR ALL ARMY.CA FORUM MEMBERS

The discussion about to be undertaken in this thread is a scientific experiment, subject to all the usual stipulations on control.  For focus groups, "control" translates to only those participating in the focus group actually carrying on the discussion.  If you haven't signed up for this study, posting a comment in here could bias the opinions of participants who have.  To that end, only posts from the following Army.ca members will be responded to in this thread.

Grunt031
MJP
48Highlander
a_majoor
Allan Luomala
Pte Massecar
Andyboy

Thus, if you have not signed up for this study and emailed in your consent form, please refrain from posting until after Wed, June 29th when this thread will once again be open to anyone and everyone.

Thank you very much

Mark Rutley

* * *
For those taking part in the focus group, here are the ROE for this discussion:
1.  Rank is not a factor. 
2.  Everyone's opinion in this room counts and will be counted.
3.  Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
4.  Keep on topic.
5.  The skies the limit with respect to ideas and concepts, but try to keep them grounded in current technology or soon-to-be emerging technology (i.e.: no disintegration beams).
6.  Have fun.

Here is information concerning the Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) under discussion.

MAVs have the following goals:
- A dimensional limit of 15 cm in length, width and height
- An approximate vehicle weight of 50 g
- A useful payload weight of about 20 grams
- An endurance of 20-60 minutes
- An operating range out to 10 km
- A cruising speed between 10 and 20 m/s
- Total unit production cost of $5,000 (early) down to $1,000 (later)

Possible payloads (not all at once):
Visible light or infrared camera
NBC Sensor suite
Acoustic sensor
Munitions?
Other?

The first question is:
What specifically do you want this device to be able to do for you?  What would be your goals for this device?

 

[ZipperHead]

I would want this device to be able to see without being seen. Anything that would allow a commander to gain eyes or ears onto a given area with minimal exposure of equipment or personnel.

Personally, I am having a hard time envisioning a device that could accomplish what you/we/I would want given the parameters stated. A payload of 20 grams seems to rule out anything other than a tracking device (like they place on animals). Not being a huge fan of Star Trek type of science fiction, I can't imagine any vision equipment that is particularly useful to fall into this category. As it is now (with the kit I have exposure to), we're talking kilograms, not grams..... and the power requirements..... recording (SD style cards, tape) or transmitting?

Being a computer gaming nerd, the only thing that I can even envision with my feeble brain is the "security drones" in HalfLife2 that come after you.......

Because technology does move at a dizzying pace (it wasn't too long ago that cell phones were carried in a purse-like bag, and now worldwide cell phones with MP3 players and cameras are common and so light-weight it's easy to lose them) my above arguments will seem quaint in 30 years. But, like most everyone in this day in age, I want results NOW!!!! With what exists now (or the near future.... 12 - 24 months), what is out there that can even remotely fit the bill (without getting into OpSec issues, i.e. CIA spy gear)???? Are there things that can be bought off-the-shelf (OTS) that you have links for that could give an idea of what the present day capabilities are, to give a better reference point for those, like me, without the vision to imagine sci-fi style technology???

I am the type of person who needs to see something, I just can't wrap my head around the theory until I see it in practice. Hence, that is why I am a Crewman, and not a rocket scientist......... Once I get more clear focus, or left and right of arc, so to speak, I should be able to think more about what something will be able to do, rather than dwell on what it can't do....

Al

 

[MarkR]

Hi Allan

Here's one right here - 7 ounces and has two cameras on board...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001467.html

I've also seen research on a MAV "insect" that is about the size of a large fly - with onboard camera.  That ones still about 10 years out for practical use, but they've made a good headstart.  Pretty nifty stuff.

cheers
Mark

 

[a_majoor]

Making the assumption that the MAV is possible as described (I wonder about a 10Km range in a package that small, as well as the ability to get a clear transmission from that range), my concern is how will the section commander control it. Stopping behind a wall, unpacking a controller and TV screen etc. reduces the amount of leverage the MAV could give you (the section will not be able to follow up rapidly on any information the MAV reveals)

I wonder if it is possible to have a "helmet sight" controller:

Step 1: the section commander or UAV controller pulls a monocole sight down from his helmet and initializes the MAV

Step 2: The MAV's image is transmitted to the monocole sight, with a reticle superimposed on the image.

Step 3: The commander or controller turns his head and "places" the crosshairs on the area of interest. The MAV responds by turning, climbing etc. to centre the camera on the highlighted area.

Step 4: the MAV also needs to respond to a simple set of voice commands: Forward, Back, Still, Return.

This should be standard for all MAV users, i.e. a tank commander or Engineer section commander has the same helmet sight/interface rather than separate vehicle mounted control systems. (I would support secondary "feeds" to larger on board displays on vehicles, such as the display in the section compartment of a LAV III or something similar inside an AFV or Engineer vehicle).

First cut at the idea.

 

[MarkR]

Good thoughts.  I like the helmet mounted monocle for viewing MAV camera data - very doable right now.  Turning the head to control camera direction might be difficult - most MAVs are too small to have a gimbled camera, but rather, you just turn the whole MAV and fly it toward the target.  Or have a camera mounted on the side and fly it in circles around the target (sort of like a spectre gunship without the ordnance )  Other visualization systems incorporate a PDA or laptop computer to both control the MAV and view any camera imagery it's sending back.  The one I'm building will be based on a ruggedized tablet PC design (think large PDA).

Mark

 

[a_majoor]

I wasn't expecting a gimballed camera in a package that small, the pointing of the camera controlls to direction of the MAVs flight. Sorry for not being more clear on that point.

Thinking a bit about "other" MAVs, NBC sentry, sensors or ELINT/EW vehicles could just be programmed to fly a "grid" pattern and report back to the CP. To increase the utility of the MAV (or any other sensor suite system) the data should not only go to the operator, but also to the CP for colation with the other systems. End users could have access to a stylized map display (icons for contacts, contamination, EW sources etc.), or something like ARCVIEW where the database is related to particular map grids (i.e. click on a grid and a window with relevant data opens). This is obviously for higher level users, and needs to be done in the "background", perhaps at the ISTAR CC and fed back to Combat team commanders or Pl Commanders (depending on bandwidth).

One other feature which might be nice to have on a MAV is a laser pointer, allowing the MAV to designate a target for a PGM, or just freak out the enemy when thier laser warning system "lights up".

 

[MJP]

The first question is:
What specifically do you want this device to be able to do for you?   What would be your goals for this device?

I jotted down a few quick ideas and I want to type them before I headed off for some more deck building fun.

So in no particular order;

• To be useful and flexible I think the ability to carry two types of visual sensors at a time.   The ability to flip from day camera to thermal or IR will help a the operator distinguish what he is looking at faster.   If it's low light and on the day camera he thinks he sees an enemysoldier, but isn't sure.   He flips over to hermal and voilia clear as day all he was looking at was a wierd shadow on the ground.    
  
• I think the MAV has to be able to fly pretty much on it's own.   A operator at times won't be able to direct the MAV and probably won't have the required skills sets a pilot will have in regards to flying principles.   As well there will be times where the situation will dictate that the operator has to leave the MAV controls to do other tasks and the MAV has to be able to carry on flying without direction.   This sort of ability is already found in   the Dragoneye MAV used by the USMC.http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52766,00.html
  
• Ability to lase a target to get a grid or to direct in CAS
  
• As Allan said above it would be nice that the MAV was quiet and hard to see.   However with that being said I've seen a mid sized UAV flying around overseas by Camp Julien and the thing was next to impossible to actually see evne though it was only 2-300 feet off the ground.   The only reason I clued in on it was the noise from the engine.
  
• Now delving into a bit of wishful thinking.   The ability to let the MAV fly a set pattern ahead or around a unit/patrol and look for familar shapes(tank, gun, person).   IE: While flying the pattern it sees what it knows to be the shape of a tank, it alerts the operator and from there the operator directs the UAV
  
• The control interface has to be light, fairly easy to learn, and rugged.   The user software has to be user-friendly, and easy to interpret.   The ability to send back further information t o a higher HQ through the interface would be desired.

Thoses are just some quick thoughts.... more later.

 

[MarkR]

Like the reference map idea.  And autopilot I think is pretty much a given at this scale of aircraft (no human has the reflexes to "fly" these things).  Good stuff.  Keep the brain-storming going...

Mark

 

[ZipperHead]

I know this may sound a little "strange", but I had a crazy idea for a launcher to get this thing in the air (particularly if it's noisy, little RC airplanes): a surgical tubing slingshot launcher, like those things that you would use to launch water balloons. This of course would require 2 or 3 people, but nobody should be travelling alone on the battlefield (it's dangerous out there, you know!!!!  :warstory After it gets to a certain height and/or distance, it could turn on/initialize/whatever.

The automated racetrack pattern is also going to be the only way (IMO)  a person could stay situationally/tactically aware, without becoming totally oblivious to his surroundings trying to "steer" this bad boy, when he should be looking for other areas of concern, or plotting contacts on his map. He can override as neccesary to move it to another area, then switch to autopilot.

The controller should/could have a one earpiece earphone to alert the "pilot" to contacts, moving out range alert, low "energy" (for lack of a better term, as is this thing going to be battery, fuel, fuel cell, di-lithium crystal (the only Star Trek reference I know, I swear!!!!) powered????) alarm, proximity alarm (ie to a solid object such as a tree, mountain, humanoid). A wireless (Bluetooth?) headset would be better, with a wired option as backup would avoid the inevitable entanglement issues. One earpiece would be ideal, so as not to remove the ability to remain aware of surroundings.

If feasible, GPS assist, or the ability to move to a 6 figure grid would remove a lot of the burden on the operator to maneuver the MAV. Or, if digital maps are on the controller, just select via the stylus/pointer/joystick. A touchscreen would be ideal, but apparently (based on my limited knowledge of such things) they are fragile, and it breaks, it's useless, so a backup system would be required.

A backpack, such as that found with the MSTAR equipment (Coyote surveillance), would be useful to lug this eqpt around, if it was even remotely as big as the Aerial Head Assembly (AHA.....radar dish). It would have to integrate with the Tac Vest and/or daypack system (no matter what people think about it (personally I like it MUCH better than what it replaced) it will be around for a good 15 - 20 years, so may as well think along those lines.

Has any thought been put into the maximum weight of the complete system (MAV, controller, EIS, pouches, etc)? Will it be portable by only one person (keep in mind the continually diminishing fitness standards of Generation X-box..... soon a manpack will be a 2 man lift....). And remember, It's not about the gizmo's!!!! Er, actually this study is..... I sit corrected!!!

I'm getting silly now, so I must go off and do some housework.....

Al

 

[Grunt_031]

Here are a few notes, I lost my original post.

This is such a large topic I will concentrate for now on the most common denominator the Controller interface.

I think that a head mounted interface is not the way to go. Everybody likes to add equipment to the head because they think it is convenient and a space saver. We did some trials in FT Benning with DRDC with off weigh displacement and the troops found that carrying out the job was near impossible overall during long periods. Already we have Night vision, IFF, Comms Headsets, and Ballistic Goggles. They want to add the radio itself, intergraded ear protection, laser points, and now maybe a â Å“MAV head controlâ ?. Image the neck strain! Never mind working in urban areas, vehicles, wooded areas, etc. We also trailed versions of the helmet mounted monocular for data processing and that to affect eye/hand coordination.

The most popular interface was an arm mounted PDA with touch screen. This version was field rugged (Used in Civilian Field Survey), and a

Combat versions are being used by the US ARMY in Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004622.asp

In addition, it includes a number of the options we are already discussing such as

3-D Topographical Reference Map

IFF

Stylus Operation

Data/Video interface with Higher HQ (with preformatted report and returns (Form fill and send)

Data/Video interface with UAV. (This was done with Remote controlled aircraft/hovercraft with real-time video footage. RC were loaded with a blue tooth GPS and sent Grid of a/c location through out)

With this, I would add the following;

1. 3 D Flight planning with ability to adjust flight plan (Including hover options), with touch of a stylus, during mission. We used something similar for Patrol route planning.

2. Tgt ID Software with ability to immediately disseminate tgt info to FSCC

3. Veh Status

4. Optional Manual Control of surveillance packages, such as pivoting cameras, zooming, etc

5. Control Transfer protocols to other PDA's



No bigger than a small portable DVD Player or the New PS video system.

 

[MarkR]

The new PSP video game system would be the target size of the controller (and is what DARPA uses to control the WASP - looks like a big Gameboy).  That and the MAV (and launcher if the surgical tubing idea isn't used) shouldn't be more weight than your average filled canteen.  According to the PSP website, the weight of the unit (with battery) is 250 g.  With a vehicle weight of 50 g (including payload and fuel) that means less than 1/3 of a kg for the entire package.  And would fit in a pocket in the load bearing vest.

Just for my eductation (if I attempt to simulate the "moving map" display/overlay) - is there a standardized set of map icons that the you use during patrol or planning offensive/defensive engagements to indicate placements of friendly/enemy positions?

Mark

 

[Grunt_031]

(if I attempt to simulate the "moving map" display/overlay) - is there a standardized set of map icons that the you use during patrol or planning offensive/defensive engagements to indicate placements of friendly/enemy positions

For us, it was color coded symbols (Blue=Fr, Red=En, Green=Obs, etc), such as circles, squares, trianlges, etc and when you taped on the symbol a data window (with description, Grid, Speed etc) poped up. 

 

[a_majoor]

There is a NATO standard set of map marking icons (updated from the old standards we learned in the Jurassic era) which are designed to be computer friendly as well as to contain more data (friendly, enemy, neutral, unknown, for example), I don't have the reference here, but it should be easy to find.

A few thoughts on "support" issues:

1. The MAV launcher and control unit should not be obvious to outside observers. The MAV launcher/carrier should resemble something a soldier would normally carry, like an M-72 tube. The helmet sight should resemble a set of NVGs if used, or the wrist display/controller idea should be as small and thin as possible, maybe with a CADADT cover and some means of reducing "glint" from the screen. (Operating at night might present a problem, the glowing screen could attract unwanted attention from enemy snipers). Obviously we do not want to call attention to the MAV or the operator, since they provide a large amount of leverage to the section. As a bonus, the MAV could be larger and more capable if "M-72" sized.

2. Logistically, it might be simpler to make MAVs disposable, rather than try to have troops recover them, repair and refuel them etc. If they are mass produced, a new ones could be delivered each day with the DP on a "push" system. Think of MAVs as more like "Air Hog" toys with the expensive part being the camera/transmitter. (This could also be applied to making the MAV a weapons system: Launch, acquire a target and dive on it, delivering a grenade sized warhead).

3. From previous research, I found the biggest flaw to UAVs was the narrow field of view. Any MAV sensor should be able to "flip" between a wide angle view (default mode, so you don't miss anything), and a "zoom" view for precise target identification.

4. This is way outside my area of expertise, but how are the bandwidthand frequency allocation issues going to be delt with? Would it be possible to have a "burst" transmitter in the MAV rather than having it send a constant stream of information?

 

[MarkR]

Bandwidth is very much a problem that is holding these things back right now. A few agencies are working on multi-frequency transmitter/receivers - able to transmit data on several freq's at once.  That will overcome a lot of bandwidth issues.  But as more and more sensors/higher definition sensors go on the MAV platform, more and more bandwidth will be required.

Let's change tack slightly - instead of talking about what would be good on a UAV, how about what would be bad?  What can you see causing you grief in the field with this?  Light was already mentioned, and weight/bulk is a given. 

Mark

 

[a_majoor]

Bad:

1. Complicated user interface (ideal: point and click)

2. Cumbersome launch and retrieval procedures (ideal: fire and forget)

3. Overly complex data sets: the MAV should do one or at most two things only

4. Overly ambitious mission profiles. A section/Platoon MAV should have about a 2 Km range, being in line with the GPMG or Javelin/Spike missile range. Armoured or Engineer MAVs "could" go farther, but by then you start overlapping with TUAVs and higher level systems. The MAV should be clearly designed for "around the corner/next bound".

5. A MAV weapons system might be more problem than it is worth (imagine looking for "dud" rounds, or not spotting a target after launch)

6. Very bad: attempting to use high energy fuels to increase range/performance. This stuff is toxic and difficult to handle, what does the soldier do when he sees fuel leaking from the launch container?

 

[ZipperHead]

I just got around to looking at the Wasp (I'm Mr Mom this week, with 3 young 'uns, plus I justy bought Battlefield2, for "research purposes"..... yeah, research)

Anyway, now that I have an idea what is out there already, I think I can see where you want to go. It didn't indicate how loud this thing is, but I imagine not particularly if it's using a Li-ion battery.

How difficult would it be to have this thing become a helicopter-style of craft, as opposed to the flying wing? That would allow the hover ability that I think most people seem to want, especially if we are talking about shorter range (up to 2 km) for the around the corner/over the hill aspect of what the average combat arms user would need. I'm thinking that 2km is actually TOO far, and 400-500m should be what most people would want. As mentioned earlier, there are other types of UAV's for looking further out.

I'm specifically thinking about built up areas, or more urban style areas, than the traditional open plains.

I don't know how practical this would be, but could you have a common controller and paraphenelia, but a variety of different MAV's for different applications? Longer range (distance and/or flight time) version, IR and day camera version, weapons platform version, laser designator, etc, etc. Maybe even mix and match, or plug and play, to use a computer analogy..... I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach is the best, but may end up being the most practical (read as: cheaper and easier to train with, and support).

Al

 

[a_majoor]

I agree with Allen that the most common use of the MAV will be close in, but giving it the ability to "spot" for the pl support weapons is a huge bonus, especially if you are trying to arrange an indirect shoot, or observe the effects of a cratering charge from a safe distance (for engineers), or check out the woodline ahead in the next mounted bound. (2000m will put you in the effective range of the MGS gun and coax as well).

I can see the MAV doing a "racetrack" orbit for 80% of the time, helping the troops look a short bound ahead or around the corner, but that 20% when you need to take a long look/long bound will make a 2 Km range well worth the extra expense.

 

[48Highlander]

Instead of speculating on what features you'd want on the MAV, how about first defining what role(s) they'd be filling?  It makes much more sense to debate the specific requirements and then figure out how theMAV could best fill them.  Also, who says we need to stick to one type of MAV?  Close observation of a point target would probably be best carried out by a helicopter-type MAV, whereas searching a grid square would be more effective with the flying wing design.  For providing advance warning during patrolls, you'd need a MAV capable of indeffinite flight time - so possibly an extended-wing glider type design with a small engine and solar panels on the wings.  So, like I said, we should define the specific roles in which MAV's could be used, and exactly how they would be utilized to support the misson.  Then, for each role discuss what body-type and instruments would be most suitable.

 

[MarkR]

48Highlander - excellent idea, and was ultimately my goal (was going to move into that starting Mon or Tues ) but since you brought it up now how about we go there?

Everyone else, what do you think?  AndyBoy?  Pte_Massecar?

Thanks
MarkR

 

[ZipperHead]

48th has a good point, IRT to the types of flying that should be done. I was toying with an idea, but I suspect it would be too complicated for a simple machine (KISS is a good rule to follow...): fixed AND rotary wing flight, not unlike the US Osprey. Props forward for fast movement forward, props up for hover, slow movement, rearward movement, lateral.......

Don't know how feasible, but it's a thought.

BTW guys, I gotta depart this study now, as I have to deploy to the field (Sunday night to friday night for the next 3 weeks). I will try to check in on the weekends, but as I have a family to deal with, computer time becomes low priority.......

Lot's of great ideas coming, and hopefully when I'm and RSM (retired service member), I will read about it in action in the latest hot spot, and be able to say "I had input into that thing!!!!" Yeah, right Grandpa!!!!!

Al