Download - A ProjeHigh flying technologies
Introduction
• Nick Brown - Engineering Project Manager
• High Flying Technology - why do we need to do things differently?
• Importance of Experimentation
• De-risking
• Stakeholders
• System In-Service
2
CONTENTS❖ Why
❖ Cold War
❖ Technology Invention vs Exploitation
❖ Implementation & Requirements
❖ How - Personal Example
❖ Technology Experimentation
❖ Assessment Methodology
❖ UAVs
❖ Stakeholder Engagement
❖ What
❖ What was actually procured
❖ Points to take away4
The Cold War❖ Bigger or Better Defences❖ Cold War Defence drove invention
and innovation especially in electronics world❖ Only Budget to afford it
❖ Military to Civilian Transition
6
Moores Law❖ "Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of
computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
8
Cheap Manufacturing❖ During 1980’s China changed, a lot less insular
❖ Attracted western manufacturing in large quantity
❖ Drove down consumer prices and increased competition
9
Moores Law & Cheap Manufacturing❖ Cost reasonable and highly useable
devices to the masses
❖ Consumer market size massively increased
❖ Consumer drive for miniaturisation
❖ 2005 - Top Ten world commercial R&D budgets equated to ~ $70Bn
❖ 2014 - Apple $6Bn in R&D alone
10
What does this mean for Defence?❖ Defence driven technology invention is mostly history
❖ New Defence Capability
❖ Cold War = ‘innovate and invent’
❖ Post Cold War = ‘react, adapt & exploit’
❖ Technology Push Vs Requirements Pull
❖ Niche defence areas still exist
12
Implementation & Requirements❖ How do we actually implement the
react, adapt and exploit philosophy❖ Understand the market
technologies❖ Identify how technologies may
be utilised in a military environment
❖ Need to have product agnostic requirements to meet competition laws
❖ Work out when best to actually try and procure technologies based on development cycle not in our control 14
Experimentation❖ To develop and set realistic and achievable requirements in a world where
you mostly don’t drive the innovation and invention you must experiment
❖ Virtual/Simulation
❖ Live
❖ Measured
❖ Technological Risk Reduction
❖ Experimentation Issues
❖ Solution driven requirements
❖ Not prejudicing competitions
15
Experimentation within MOD
❖ Exercise Urban Warrior
❖ Land Open Systems Architecture (LOSA) Research, Experimentation and Development (RED)
❖ Rotary Wing Unmanned Air System (RWUAS) capability concept demonstrator (CCD)
16
Personal Example❖ Using UAVs as an example of reacting and adapting
and exploiting non defence development
❖ No specific UAV experimentation requirement
❖ Experimentation Steps Taken
❖ Management of Key Risks
❖ Stakeholder Management
❖ The End Result
17
Dismounted Experimentation Assessment ❖ Utilised an Iterative Live Trialling and Experimentation Process
for new technologies
❖ Level A - Bench Test
❖ Level B - Field and user Test
❖ Level C - Integrated user testing with other equipment
18
Experimentation Themes
❖ A range of themes where we wanted to develop our understanding of technology not in service
❖ Tactical Situational Awareness
❖ “To provide adequate data resolution and communications to enable mission success within a complex environment. Information collection and timely provision at the tactical level.”
19
What might satisfy this?❖ Open source research conducted to understand
potential market place before advertised
❖ Expected:
20
Assessment Methodology❖ Apart from UAVs well defined methods existed in
dismounted arena, UAVs were going to be much more complex
❖ How would I initiate safe assessment of UAVs but still get technology understanding answers we required?
❖ Safety?
❖ Operation?
❖ Training?
21
Safety❖ Authority - Had to work with and comply with AA direction
❖ Civilian Regulations?
❖ Reliability, Technology Readiness Level
❖ Provider Experience/Competence
❖ Worst case?
22
Operation❖ How could it be operated in a trial e.g. Overflight, exclusion zones,
potential functions
❖ What scenarios might it actually be useful for?
❖ What key attributes might we want to focus on?
❖ Response action plans?
23
Training❖ Who could actually operate it on experiment operators/
pilotsWhat was the training burden?
❖ Achievable in trial time scales?
❖ What training existed already?
❖ Mitigations
24
Experimentation Risk Reduction❖ How many UAVs to approve?
❖ Transferring the approval risk
❖ Non MOD experimentation
❖ System reliability
❖ Company competence
❖ Regulatory Compliance
❖ Multiple capability assessment
❖ Robust Safety Case Development
25
Potential UAVs❖ Classifications
❖ Mini (2-7kg) - Already had in service as UOR- DH3
❖ Micro (<2kg) - Significant development in commercial and military world
❖ Various capabilities dependant on size and type
❖ Many in-service around the world
27
Nano UAVs❖ Not Expected❖ None in-service that I was aware of
anywhere❖ Toys?
❖ Can’t possibly provide a defence benefit?
❖ Surely impossible to have all these quoted capabilities
❖ Classification❖ <200g, <60g
❖ What regulations might apply?
28
Why were Nano UAVs now viable❖ Consumer miniaturisation
❖ Moores Law & Cheap Manufacturing
❖ Mobile Phone cameras
❖ Mobile Phone GPS
❖ Not military driven
29
A different experimentation process for Nano?❖ No - not a fair comparison, technology agnostic, capability
driven
❖ Identical Assessors
❖ Identical scenerios
❖ Identical user groups
❖ Experimentation Location
❖ Meteorological Events
❖ Impact on our safety constraints?
30
The Actual Experimentation❖ Level A’s - Understanding and verifying the technology
❖ Assessment Team , Locations, Key Scenarios, Safety, Operation, Training
❖ Level B&C’s - Designed scenarios based on Level A findings
❖ Three week window (mitigate British weather)
❖ Image Quality
❖ Time to feed back information
❖ Usefulness of information in scenarios
❖ System Range
❖ Method of control (flown vs directed)
❖ In built safety measures
31
Translating Experimentation Results❖ Utility of UAV as an organic dismounted asset
❖ The Overall System
❖ Dismounted Integration was easier as the system weight decreased
❖ Current unit structure
❖ What was the minimum level of utility
❖ Micro?
❖ Nano?
32
Stakeholder Management❖ General Perception
❖ Toys
❖ Totally unknown within military UAV world
❖ A research curiosity
❖ Operator Perception
❖ Capability Understanding
❖ Complementary Integration
❖ Robust Evidence Gathering
❖ Stakeholder demonstration
❖ Comparative Class Benefits & Disadvantages
❖ Product Output Demonstrations33
The Competition
❖ The experimentation allowed MOD to define achievable and realistic technical requirements for a NUAS system.
❖ Aircraft weight <200g, System Weight <1.7kg
❖ >20 minute flight time, >300m range
❖ Following much more internal review into many other non technical aspects, MOD decided to run a competition for a NUAV.
http://www.publictenders.net/tender/1456421
34
Thoughts to take away❖ My belief is that in any technology projects or programmes in the
future will have to cater for unexpected technology advances
❖ Project managers will need to have robust plans to cope with rampant technology development - Obsolescence
❖ Experimentation is key in understanding how a new technology may benefit you
❖ In government - experimentation must not lead to requirements that define a product and not a technology as the solution
❖ Stakeholders are wary of new or unknown technology - must build in time and engagement sessions to your plans if you cross into the unknown
37