• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Do section cdrs want/need a PDA with info from their own mini-UAV?

This may seem off topic but it isn't (at least I don't think so).  The Bn Gp deployed to Huntsville for the G8 conducted essentially a defensive op.  That being said, one of the tools in the tool bag that would have been incredibly useful would have been the mini UAV.  Given the nature of the terrain, the threat, and the tasks assigned, the mini-UAV feeding directly back to Coy, Pl and even sect locations would have certainly enabled the force.

 
We tried this very concept in 2004/2005 in Fort Benning with 3VP. We utilized and number of experimental PDA configurations and used micro UAV (remote control planes hooked into a WIFI network) It was pretty crude but an intresting concept.  The picture was very rough and bumpy and the Micro UAV was pushed around by wind and heat currents.  Better footage came from the predator footage that was recorded and transmitte to the PDA.

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc48/p524752.pdf

http://www.summitconnects.com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/200510_02.pdf
 
And as I've said before, the section has enough to worry about. A  mini UAV doesn't belong in a section. The section commander has troops to worry about, enemy to worry about plus numerous other things.
Besides, who will carry all this kit?
 
I'm personally a fan of the use of a rover feed in an advance CP setting, with the Section communicating where they want observation. Worked well enough for us when we were out and about and wanted eyes on something.

Jim Seggie said:
Haha....yes good idea!!

I have an answer for this, but it's innappropriate of me to offer suggestions on what to do to your hat on this public forum. I don't want to have to carry that extra **** !!  ;D

BTW, Jimmy says to say hi to Drummy.
 
Beadwindow 7 said:
I'm personally a fan of the use of a rover feed in an advance CP setting, with the Section communicating where they want observation. Worked well enough for us when we were out and about and wanted eyes on something.

I have an answer for this, but it's innappropriate of me to offer suggestions on what to do to your hat on this public forum. I don't want to have to carry that extra **** !!  ;D

BTW, Jimmy says to say hi to Drummy.

I'll pass that along. No doubt he'll say hello back!! as for my hat......LOL ;D
 
A slight variation on the mUAV theme:  how do we make a tiny UAV chopper easier to fly (even fly on its own for a bit) so it's easier to use as an extra set of eyes for dismounted troops?  This, from MERX:
.... Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) - Suffield, Medicine Hat, Alberta, requires a contract to develop navigation and control algorithms enabling a small commercial off-the-shelf rotorcraft UAV (Draganfly X8) to execute simple autonomous behaviours thereby reducing the operator's control burden. To this end, an 'autonomy package' that will subsume and build upon the sensing and control functions provided by the UAV's existing autopilot will be developed. The integration of the autonomy package with the autopilot will enable the provision of additional capabilities required for autonomous operation ....

Here's the Draganfly X8
x8-rendered.jpg
.

More in the Statement of Work attached.
 
Sprinting Thistle said:
This may seem off topic but it isn't (at least I don't think so).  The Bn Gp deployed to Huntsville for the G8 conducted essentially a defensive op.  That being said, one of the tools in the tool bag that would have been incredibly useful would have been the mini UAV.  Given the nature of the terrain, the threat, and the tasks assigned, the mini-UAV feeding directly back to Coy, Pl and even sect locations would have certainly enabled the force.

I know i am late responding to this one but, the last thing that the G8/G20 airspace needed was a MUAV. The AO was saturated with airborne ISR assets and the feeds from those aircraft was available to the HQ/TACP/RCMP and could be made available to any unit of the ground with a ROVER. There were also many legal issues that we, CF ISR aircraft, faced, that would have cause any FMV feeds to be unavailable to troops on the ground. I was on one of those assets beaming FMV.
 
The feeds only came into the CP so were not so useful to the Sect Comd on the ground.  Also, no Rovers were offered to us.  The TACP did a great job for the Bn Gp HQ but that's were the FMV stopped.  The terrain for the Sect Comd was complex.  Dense woods, terrain changes, close country, large expanses to cover, multiple routes into the AO.  Further, movement on the ground was restricted.  Patrols could only move with LEA if they were available.  So, had the Sect Comds, Pl Comds or Coy Comds had access to their own feeds, observation coverage would have been more complete.  I was one of those assets on the ground.

 
Sprinting Thistle said:
  So, had the Sect Comds, Pl Comds or Coy Comds had access to their own feeds, observation coverage would have been more complete.

I understand that. The point was that the product was available but for whatever reason it was not pushed down at the lower levels. A dedicated section level MUAV would simply have added to what i consider to be an airspace deconfliction headache due to the large number of air assets operating there already. The legal issues surrounding CF-provided ISR would also have limited the utility of such an assets the way it limited other CF aircraft. If you are interested, i can PM you about those legalities.
 
CDN Aviator said:
I understand that. The point was that the product was available but for whatever reason it was not pushed down at the lower levels. A dedicated section level MUAV would simply have added to what i consider to be an airspace deconfliction headache due to the large number of air assets operating there already. The legal issues surrounding CF-provided ISR would also have limited the utility of such an assets the way it limited other CF aircraft. If you are interested, i can PM you about those legalities.

Geez, you wouldn't want a MCpl accessing the same information as a General or you'd have the troops starting to think and act above their 'station', eh wot?  ;)
 
Layered for altitude is the quick and maybe incomplete answer but, I do believe the BG needs an MUAV/SUAV.  As for the MUAV,  unless the Army is prepared to beef up the the Btln Hvy Wpns/support, the Inf couldn't manage this equipment (minimum 30 pers for a Btln UAV Plt).  Further, after seeing testing of the mini equipment available, it's probably not quite what they're looking for anyway.  Mini airframe and the locating devices they can carry are not quite there yet.

Back to the BG.  The MUAV can carry some valuable sensors and normally it would need to be cut down to the Coy.  I understand what Aviator has said about higher info being available but, the timeliness of that info tho the troops on the ground is not good.

The immediate problem with low level UAVs is deconflicting Helos and Arty, which is why we have a TACP and FACs on the ground.

In summary, a Sect Cmdr UAV (MUAV) is not feasible nor valuable ATT but,  BG and even Coy UAV (SUAV) is very valuable in my mind.

 
These micro-machines we speak are certainly in development and absolutely deserve attention but, reality will always kick you in the face.  At some point a decision will be made.  Do we want rifleman or human activated sensors?

Rifleman is my answer and I will go out on a limb, and say that most Btln Comds will say the same.

My world, the Artillery takes this very seriously and will continue to develop this topic.

This maybe better suited for Bde/BG Recce, SOF or Coy Hvy Wpns Team but, as for the 30-40 minimum that would have to be properly trained within a Btln, IMO this is not achievable in any of our futures.
 
How does that battle drill thing go again? Reaction to effective enemy fire, locate the enemy etc etc etc

In New Military, Data Overload Can Be Deadly

When military investigators looked into an attack by American helicopters last February that left 23 Afghan civilians dead, they found that the operator of a Predator drone had failed to pass along crucial information about the makeup of a gathering crowd of villagers.

But Air Force and Army officials now say there was also an underlying cause for that mistake: information overload.
At an Air Force base in Nevada, the drone operator and his team struggled to work out what was happening in the village, where a convoy was forming. They had to monitor the drone’s video feeds while participating in dozens of instant-message and radio exchanges with intelligence analysts and troops on the ground.

There were solid reports that the group included children, but the team did not adequately focus on them amid the swirl of data — much like a cubicle worker who loses track of an important e-mail under the mounting pile. The team was under intense pressure to protect American forces nearby, and in the end it determined, incorrectly, that the villagers’ convoy posed an imminent threat, resulting in one of the worst losses of civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan.

“Information overload — an accurate description,” said one senior military officer, who was briefed on the inquiry and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case might yet result in a court martial. The deaths would have been prevented, he said, “if we had just slowed things down and thought deliberately.”

Data is among the most potent weapons of the 21st century. Unprecedented amounts of raw information help the military determine what targets to hit and what to avoid. And drone-based sensors have given rise to a new class of wired warriors who must filter the information sea. But sometimes they are drowning.

Research shows that the kind of intense multitasking required in such situations can make it hard to tell good information from bad. The military faces a balancing act: how to help soldiers exploit masses of data without succumbing to overload.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/technology/17brain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
 
Back
Top