Cruelbreed
05-07-2009, 12:03 AM
This is cool as hell, and will probably be the same thing done with fighter jets and UCAV(Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles)
Armed scouts
U.S. Army plans to give Apache crews control of UAVs
By Keith Button
April 30, 2009
When Apache Longbow crews climb into the next version of the U.S. attack helicopter, some will have the ability to control a UAV and fire its weapons — a fact that poses operational and training questions for the Army, UAV experts said.
About a third of the Army’s forthcoming 634 Block III AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters would be equipped with a communications system called the Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA), the Army said. The UTA’s antenna would be fitted inside a dome over the aircraft rotor blades in place of a radar on some Apaches. With the UTA antenna and modem, an Apache copilot-gunner would be able to control a UAV, steer its sensors and order it to fire weapons. UAV ground controllers would continue to direct takeoffs and landings.
The copilot-gunner, rather than the pilot, would be the primary UAV operator on the Apaches.
Deploying the UTA in Afghanistan and Iraq would be the next step in the Army’s long-range vision to link the Apaches to UAVs, something that would keep the Apache crews kilometers away from potential ground fire and improve ISR coverage. The UTA would extend the vision and targeting reach of Apache crews to 40 kilometers. The Army plans to begin flight testing the new link in November at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., followed by possible approval in April 2010 to begin production of the first UTA units.
In December, the Army and Lockheed Martin took a first step toward this vision when they rushed a stop-gap communications link onto some Apaches in Afghanistan and Iraq to stream UAV full-motion video into their cockpits. Unlike UTA, the Video from UAS for Interoperability Teaming Level 2 (VUIT-2) data link is a one-way system. The copilot-gunner cannot use it to steer the UAV. And because VUIT-2 is not connected to the Apache’s weapons and other sensors, the Apache crews must hand-enter target coordinates.
The UTA link developed by Longbow LLC, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop, would be a technical improvement, but some analysts worry that it could overwhelm Apache crews with tasks. Advocates said UTA, in fact, would make life easier because crews no longer would have to hand-enter target coordinates or engage in chatter with UAV ground controllers about where to steer the UAV or its camera.
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/images/adtab_h.gif
“You don’t have to go tell the controller, ‘Go point at the third house down the road here,’ and then you have to argue back and forth about which one is the third house based on his perspective,” said Boeing’s Paul Rannik, a senior manager in the company’s systems integration unit, which is testing the mostly-Lockheed Martin-developed UTA on the Apaches. Boeing is in charge of supplying the Block 3 fuselages, which will be a mix of remanufactured and new airframes. The Army has a separate contract with Longbow LLC to develop the UTA. “You actually can take control of the UAV, point it at the target that you’re looking at, acquire your data, do whatever you need to, and then hand it back to the ground station,” Rannik added.
The idea of Apache gunners firing weapons from UAVs flying many kilometers away has produced skeptics in other corners of the U.S. military.
“If an Apache took a shot [from a UAV] within five years, I’d be amazed,” said an Air Force official who spoke on condition that he not be named.
Army Lt. Col. Jeff Hager, product manager for the new Apaches, said the Army is confident about its approach. Last year, Hager turned to the Army Test and Evaluation Command for an independent look at how the UTA would affect Apache crews, including how the crews would perform with the UTA compared with the fire-control radars that will continue to fly on about a third of the Apaches. Specifically, nine helicopters in each 25-aircraft battalion would have the UTA; nine would have fire control radars; and the remainder would have neither system, Hager said.
The Army conducted the Apache UTA tests on a simulator at Huntsville, Ala., during July and August. Apache crews in the simulator were sent out to locate, identify and engage simulated targets, with and without the UTA. One Apache crew would watch one set of targets while a crew operating a UTA-equipped helicopter would monitor an additional target set — a building or road intersection, for example. The test results reassured Hager. “It’s less workload on pilots to do a UTA mission than a [radar] fire-control mission,” he said. “It was good to see that.”
As for the hardware, in January, Boeing began conducting UTA test flights from its helicopter facility in Mesa, Ariz. Crews inside two Block 3 Apache prototypes demonstrated controlling an optionally manned Little Bird helicopter as a surrogate for a Predator-derived Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ERMP) SV-1 Warrior UAV, now in development by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. The Army plans to team up the ERMP aircraft with Block 3 Apaches. The Little Bird carried the same Raytheon electro-optical video camera that the ERMPs will carry. In the flight tests, a pilot aboard the Little Bird must steer the craft off the ground and land it.
“Having a pilot in there to take over should something act up as part of the development process allows us to operate in civil airspace without having to go to dedicated military airspace, and the added expenses that would be involved in that,” Boeing’s Rannik said.
Rannik said engineers are tweaking bugs after each the flight and working toward a full demonstration of what UAV developers call “level of interoperability 4,” meaning the Apache crews would control the Little Bird’s flight path and its sensor. If those flights succeed, Army Apache pilots then would begin “limited user tests” in November.
Before the Block 3 Apaches are fielded, the Army will develop additional training procedures for the helicopter crews, to teach them how to control the flight path and weapons of the UAV, Hager said. In certain circumstances, for example, “we would like to manipulate the route of flight or tell it to stay in the right area,” he added.
Experts unaffiliated with the Army program said one key would be to build in very simple boundaries for how many factors are controlled on the UAV by the Apache operator. For example, the Apache operator might be limited to designating a point-to-point flight path for the UAV, to minimize the number of possible errors, instead of having to control altitude, air speed and heading. In theory, said an official who works on Army and Air Force UAV systems, “shooting a Hellfire with a UAV should be the same as shooting a Hellfire from the Apache.”
It also would be important to build in software to cover certain contingencies with the UAVs, this official said, such as “lost-link” mission programs that would tell the aircraft to loiter in an area and then fly back to base if communications were cut off.
The Army probably would want to keep it simple because of the costs of training. “You don’t want to incur a big training burden, and have to send all of the Apache guys to Sky Warrior training,” the official said.
Michael “Batman” Keaton, an F-16 pilot and former Predator UAV squadron commander who now works at Raytheon, said adding the ability to control a UAV to the Apache reminded him of the F-16’s history. At first, the planes carried air-to-air weapons, and then the Air Force added air-to-ground weapons, and systems to spot the enemy’s surface-to-air weapons.
With each advance, the pilot had to be fully trained, and the cockpit had to be set up properly to make sure the operator could be fully engaged, Keaton said. As the workload and stress increased, testing was necessary to assure the Air Force that pilots could maintain awareness of the situation, he said. The same is likely to be true of the Army with its Apache-UAV teaming.
In the case of UAV operations, training also must ensure that the UAV operator is knowledgeable about air traffic issues, the battle plan and rules of engagement for the mission, and how weather and a long list of other factors could have an impact on the flight of the unmanned aircraft, Keaton said.
Keaton recalled flying an F-16 mission that required him to fly a low-altitude approach, and then keep a laser precisely on a target to designate it for a missile. That experience, he said, was the upper level of multitasking he could handle, and that was only after the flight plan and other aspects of the mission had been safely mapped out in detail beforehand.
“You can only focus on really one thing,” Keaton said.
When Keaton led an Air Force Predator squadron,operators found it difficult to stay mentally in tune with the aircraft, Keaton said. Part of the solution was to visually immerse the operator with 270-degree screen views and the ability to swing those views in 360 degrees.
Simulator tests have shown that operators can handle up to four unmanned aircraft in relatively unchallenging situations, such as flying out to take over for another UAV or to take video of a single target. But when UAVs with weapons are involved, because lives are at stake, there has to be a “one mind, one mission” focus, Keaton said. “You need to be focused on one target, and cover every possible ‘what if.’”
“I’ve never been on a mission — a combat mission or even a training mission — that went exactly as planned,” he said.
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3985190
Armed scouts
U.S. Army plans to give Apache crews control of UAVs
By Keith Button
April 30, 2009
When Apache Longbow crews climb into the next version of the U.S. attack helicopter, some will have the ability to control a UAV and fire its weapons — a fact that poses operational and training questions for the Army, UAV experts said.
About a third of the Army’s forthcoming 634 Block III AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters would be equipped with a communications system called the Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA), the Army said. The UTA’s antenna would be fitted inside a dome over the aircraft rotor blades in place of a radar on some Apaches. With the UTA antenna and modem, an Apache copilot-gunner would be able to control a UAV, steer its sensors and order it to fire weapons. UAV ground controllers would continue to direct takeoffs and landings.
The copilot-gunner, rather than the pilot, would be the primary UAV operator on the Apaches.
Deploying the UTA in Afghanistan and Iraq would be the next step in the Army’s long-range vision to link the Apaches to UAVs, something that would keep the Apache crews kilometers away from potential ground fire and improve ISR coverage. The UTA would extend the vision and targeting reach of Apache crews to 40 kilometers. The Army plans to begin flight testing the new link in November at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., followed by possible approval in April 2010 to begin production of the first UTA units.
In December, the Army and Lockheed Martin took a first step toward this vision when they rushed a stop-gap communications link onto some Apaches in Afghanistan and Iraq to stream UAV full-motion video into their cockpits. Unlike UTA, the Video from UAS for Interoperability Teaming Level 2 (VUIT-2) data link is a one-way system. The copilot-gunner cannot use it to steer the UAV. And because VUIT-2 is not connected to the Apache’s weapons and other sensors, the Apache crews must hand-enter target coordinates.
The UTA link developed by Longbow LLC, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop, would be a technical improvement, but some analysts worry that it could overwhelm Apache crews with tasks. Advocates said UTA, in fact, would make life easier because crews no longer would have to hand-enter target coordinates or engage in chatter with UAV ground controllers about where to steer the UAV or its camera.
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/images/adtab_h.gif
“You don’t have to go tell the controller, ‘Go point at the third house down the road here,’ and then you have to argue back and forth about which one is the third house based on his perspective,” said Boeing’s Paul Rannik, a senior manager in the company’s systems integration unit, which is testing the mostly-Lockheed Martin-developed UTA on the Apaches. Boeing is in charge of supplying the Block 3 fuselages, which will be a mix of remanufactured and new airframes. The Army has a separate contract with Longbow LLC to develop the UTA. “You actually can take control of the UAV, point it at the target that you’re looking at, acquire your data, do whatever you need to, and then hand it back to the ground station,” Rannik added.
The idea of Apache gunners firing weapons from UAVs flying many kilometers away has produced skeptics in other corners of the U.S. military.
“If an Apache took a shot [from a UAV] within five years, I’d be amazed,” said an Air Force official who spoke on condition that he not be named.
Army Lt. Col. Jeff Hager, product manager for the new Apaches, said the Army is confident about its approach. Last year, Hager turned to the Army Test and Evaluation Command for an independent look at how the UTA would affect Apache crews, including how the crews would perform with the UTA compared with the fire-control radars that will continue to fly on about a third of the Apaches. Specifically, nine helicopters in each 25-aircraft battalion would have the UTA; nine would have fire control radars; and the remainder would have neither system, Hager said.
The Army conducted the Apache UTA tests on a simulator at Huntsville, Ala., during July and August. Apache crews in the simulator were sent out to locate, identify and engage simulated targets, with and without the UTA. One Apache crew would watch one set of targets while a crew operating a UTA-equipped helicopter would monitor an additional target set — a building or road intersection, for example. The test results reassured Hager. “It’s less workload on pilots to do a UTA mission than a [radar] fire-control mission,” he said. “It was good to see that.”
As for the hardware, in January, Boeing began conducting UTA test flights from its helicopter facility in Mesa, Ariz. Crews inside two Block 3 Apache prototypes demonstrated controlling an optionally manned Little Bird helicopter as a surrogate for a Predator-derived Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ERMP) SV-1 Warrior UAV, now in development by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. The Army plans to team up the ERMP aircraft with Block 3 Apaches. The Little Bird carried the same Raytheon electro-optical video camera that the ERMPs will carry. In the flight tests, a pilot aboard the Little Bird must steer the craft off the ground and land it.
“Having a pilot in there to take over should something act up as part of the development process allows us to operate in civil airspace without having to go to dedicated military airspace, and the added expenses that would be involved in that,” Boeing’s Rannik said.
Rannik said engineers are tweaking bugs after each the flight and working toward a full demonstration of what UAV developers call “level of interoperability 4,” meaning the Apache crews would control the Little Bird’s flight path and its sensor. If those flights succeed, Army Apache pilots then would begin “limited user tests” in November.
Before the Block 3 Apaches are fielded, the Army will develop additional training procedures for the helicopter crews, to teach them how to control the flight path and weapons of the UAV, Hager said. In certain circumstances, for example, “we would like to manipulate the route of flight or tell it to stay in the right area,” he added.
Experts unaffiliated with the Army program said one key would be to build in very simple boundaries for how many factors are controlled on the UAV by the Apache operator. For example, the Apache operator might be limited to designating a point-to-point flight path for the UAV, to minimize the number of possible errors, instead of having to control altitude, air speed and heading. In theory, said an official who works on Army and Air Force UAV systems, “shooting a Hellfire with a UAV should be the same as shooting a Hellfire from the Apache.”
It also would be important to build in software to cover certain contingencies with the UAVs, this official said, such as “lost-link” mission programs that would tell the aircraft to loiter in an area and then fly back to base if communications were cut off.
The Army probably would want to keep it simple because of the costs of training. “You don’t want to incur a big training burden, and have to send all of the Apache guys to Sky Warrior training,” the official said.
Michael “Batman” Keaton, an F-16 pilot and former Predator UAV squadron commander who now works at Raytheon, said adding the ability to control a UAV to the Apache reminded him of the F-16’s history. At first, the planes carried air-to-air weapons, and then the Air Force added air-to-ground weapons, and systems to spot the enemy’s surface-to-air weapons.
With each advance, the pilot had to be fully trained, and the cockpit had to be set up properly to make sure the operator could be fully engaged, Keaton said. As the workload and stress increased, testing was necessary to assure the Air Force that pilots could maintain awareness of the situation, he said. The same is likely to be true of the Army with its Apache-UAV teaming.
In the case of UAV operations, training also must ensure that the UAV operator is knowledgeable about air traffic issues, the battle plan and rules of engagement for the mission, and how weather and a long list of other factors could have an impact on the flight of the unmanned aircraft, Keaton said.
Keaton recalled flying an F-16 mission that required him to fly a low-altitude approach, and then keep a laser precisely on a target to designate it for a missile. That experience, he said, was the upper level of multitasking he could handle, and that was only after the flight plan and other aspects of the mission had been safely mapped out in detail beforehand.
“You can only focus on really one thing,” Keaton said.
When Keaton led an Air Force Predator squadron,operators found it difficult to stay mentally in tune with the aircraft, Keaton said. Part of the solution was to visually immerse the operator with 270-degree screen views and the ability to swing those views in 360 degrees.
Simulator tests have shown that operators can handle up to four unmanned aircraft in relatively unchallenging situations, such as flying out to take over for another UAV or to take video of a single target. But when UAVs with weapons are involved, because lives are at stake, there has to be a “one mind, one mission” focus, Keaton said. “You need to be focused on one target, and cover every possible ‘what if.’”
“I’ve never been on a mission — a combat mission or even a training mission — that went exactly as planned,” he said.
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3985190