New Zealand's stealth unmanned attack heli

[gf0012-aust]

Telemetry information is reasonably easily encoded using schemes which the military already posses, the only reason your argument could be valid is if the uav is downed and picked up by someone else, in which case some counter measure for this could be built in.

The uav can still be used by a government if its open source they dont have to release their work unless they want to publish it, ie if they only use it internally. therefore their upgrades/telemetry/board designs/control algorythms, whatever, can remain completely secure.

AFAIK the standard military requirement is that it cannot rely on GPS, this doesn't.

Military UAV's are expensive becuase we are led to believe that this is a hard thing to do.....its not really. The're also expensive because of their reliability requirements, personel, and their engines which cost a lot.

"the whole issue of UAV's is protection of the platform from external comms hijacking"
Even encryption schemes such as "public key encryption" transmitted using frequency agile communications such as CDMA are very secure and widely used, one thing that could be used against it i guess would be jamming the entire band but its pretty difficult to jam an aircrafts transmissions. this can be implemented easily with OTS components.... not convinced go check out GPRS modems $200.

I'd have to beg to differ on this. I'm a member of the AOC and we've had numerous conferences and sessions particularly on the issue of comms sensitivity and link security. So yes, I am aware of the price of civilian comms options and how cheap they can be. A civ GPS can be hijacked within 600m of receiver. and the gear to do it costs about $10k USD. Milspeccing that GPS does blow out the cost due to redunancy issues - that can't be avoided. It's also why no single comms solution is sound and why typical redundancy is achieved through dual comms - and now tri comms.

Although it sounds simple like using a CDMA link - a CDMA link (eg) can be hijacked if you're within a specific range. Ig the UAV is not traversing a benign area - then there are any number of ways that it can be compromised. Using CDMA as an example - the Romanians , Poles and Israelis have vehicle mounted jammers on the market designed specifically to sanitise short range comms links in a battlespace area - thats to neutralise UAV's, burst comms, IED's etc...

I'm not dissing what they've done as its admirable, but to associate that capability as a panacea for the cost reduction of military UAV's is somewhat disingenuine if not an example of academic naivete.

in a netcentric battlespace thats why you have UAV's being used with Link 12 or Link 16 solutions - it's the same problem that is holding back the infusion of UCAVs and TUAVs into a combat environment.

I'd suggest reading a bit of JED or C4ISR as examples of reputable publications which don't have a commercial or technological barrow to promote. They are the 2 of the most influential publications on the market

I will be attending Unmanned Systems Asia-Pacific 2006 in Singapore and am also tagged for Unmanned Systems Europe 2006 in Berlin, Germany. I am sure that this technology will be amongst the many that are discussed every year for niche capability.

Of course a non secure type of UAV has uses for other govt work - but in a combat environment? I can assure you that no one will touch it unless they spec in approp mil redundancy - and thats a military requirement - it has nothing to do with commercial opportunism on the part of the client/vendor.

Finally - it is not difficult to jam aircraft transmissions. a $250k pod is used by most airforces to do just that.

 

[MattChave]

Firstly thanks for your time gf0012-aust, and comments, it's interesting to get the military's spin on this.

Ig the UAV is not traversing a benign area - then there are any number of ways that it can be compromised.

The real problem is that I fail to see how a proprietry control system solves these issues. Forgetting the fact that an autonomous system should really be just that, autonomous, and thus requiring no or very little human interaction.
I'll look at the journals you suggest but it really isn't my focal point for building a flight control system, since I consider the telemetry a daughter board component so that it can be swapped out/upgraded and thus the frequencies and schemes can be changed at the users discresion.

A civ GPS can be hijacked within 600m of receiver. and the gear to do it costs about $10k USD.

That really shows the militarys technology expendature, a civilian gps can be jammed for probably less than $50 NZD see: http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=60&a=13
of course with a gps antenna which is directed upward any jammer would have to be flown above the uav. Besides the magnetometer attitude control from the original link doesnt rely on gps for a solution, unlike inertial sensors it does not suffer from common drift problems.

...but to associate that capability as a panacea for the cost reduction of military UAV's is somewhat disingenuine if not an example of academic naivete.

I'm sure this is academic naivete, and I obviously havent explained this project very well. The system is not designed to be flown remotely (although you can currently, and it could be improved easily since it is open source), but rather flown by a predetermined flight path executed by the onboard controller.

I'm a member of the AOC and we've had numerous conferences and sessions particularly on the issue of comms sensitivity and link security.

What's being made is not a battlefield communications system. This is a reasonably solved problem, since it is a problem for any military communications in the battlefield land, sea or air, and since they do communicate it would suggest that they already have work arounds for such problems.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[rossfrb_1]

i prefer not to be pick up by some robot chopper when injured. machine are precise but they lack human reliability. some glitch might trigger an event, that instead of picking me up, it might release all it's weapons load on top of injured me.

If your leg has just been blown off by a landmine, then I think a robot chopper medivaccing you is the least of your worries

cheers
rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

Firstly thanks for your time gf0012-aust, and comments, it's interesting to get the military's spin on this.

Matt, I'm one of the great unwashed now. I actually have my own company and we do assessments on various technologies on behalf of "clients"

so my perspective is actually from the risk assessment/availability point of view.

re my comment on GPS jamming. What I was quoting was the distance range of jamming equipment that is available from ex eastern bloc countries.

I'm glad you haven't taken my comments badly - as its not my intent to be seen to be dismissing capability etc... I do however get to see and deal with a lot of inventors and new technologies because of my job - so hopefully what I'm saying is a reflection of what the typical procurement client is looking for when doing an appraisal.

just as a side note I've done a quick "precis" of typical obstacles and issues for UAV's. Hopefully some of it will give you a clue as to what some "clients" typically look at.

To give you an idea of the impact of bandwidth requirements over the last 6 years we can invoke a version of Moores Law from the clients perspective.
In the first Gulf war and later on in Kosova the bandwidth requirement grew from 256Kbps to 1.5Mbps. US DoD estimates are that the target for 2010+ is
25Gbps. This is seen as the minimum for a theatre placed military in order to achieve real "network centric warfare".

The primary and penultimate objective of having real digitized battlespace is to deliver communications capability via systems whereby the data is gathered by individual units, and then shunted back to the command centre in order to produce a holographic picture of the battlefield - typically referred to as the "Battlespace". This picture is sent back to the individual units for action assessment. In an ideal world the commanders thus have a clear picture of what's happening and thus their troops by association on the ground also know what's happening around them.

The simple steps above chew up significant bandwidth. Admittedly it depends on the UAV's tasking - but the move is towards general capability rather than
niche ability. At the niche level, bandwidth may not be such an issue - but at the network centric integration level, any UAV with small bandwidth is going to struggle to full duplex in a combat active area. It's no good being able to fly the UAV around the grids of interest if you're unable to send live
protected and secure video feeds at a persistent rate. We're on what is fundamentally 2nd generation UAV's and we're already finding that low bandwidth is less than useful for people on the ground - especially in a high comms area where systems like SINGCARS and JTRS are in use. Once you start sending video, then you must expect to be using up substantial bandwidth - this also cannot be at the expense of existing comms issues. Everyone needs to duplex. If you can't then you have a disjointed picture of the battlespace. If the picture is disjointed - then its tactically vulnerable and flawed.

Even existing terrestial systems are at risk on bandwidth - typically unit to unit comms are something in the region of a 1200 baud modem connection. A voice based system is seriously compromised and just can't do the tactical Internet on 1200bps. For data it's constrained to a single 25Khz voice channel, and other limitations force it into an approximately 3.5KHz available voice bandwidth. When you consider the fact that UAV's are primarily designed to send back video for real time analysis - then to be able to duplex control, and send high bandwidth intensive video in an already saturated environment means that you need to not only guarantee security, but also guarantee integrity. That means platforms grow to carry the approp hardware and power requirements needed to sustain it. The smaller the platform - the less the need and ability for platform flexibility.

Currently its possible for small units to know where they are via GPS, and to duplex their position and status to commanders via their existing comms
systems. Operational norms such as combat ident, IFF issues, and basic manouvre issues to the command centres can be done as they have sufficient comms bandwidth to deliver a fairly accurate picture of whats happening where. Saturate that battlespace with contacts and the usual excitement that accompanies an action and the comms suffers. Any bandwidth imposition beyond that and not only the unit suffers but the battlespace picture degrades to a point where people become at risk. Small UAV's with minimal comms security don't provide the required integrity. If they can't provide real time benefit, then they become an imposition - and if they're an imposition then they're not used - if they're not used then the push to embrace a real netcentric environment gets compromised.

UAV's are more than just setting waypoints on a grid and getting the UAV to do laps before returning - once there is a requirement for realtime duplexed data and handling, then they do need to be secured. Security of services and systems is paramount.

in closing, what I'm alluding to is that at a general level what has been achieved in NZ would be useful for niche level deployment - but for general netcentric deployment (which is the quantum leap already being made ahead of generic deployment) - then you could face some blockages on capability requirements.

I should add, that I like it from the small unit specwarrie perspective - but the platform has to be robust enough to be able to send back live video at a useable bandwidth and without degrading existing comms requirements. The fact that it's waypoint set means that it's useful for routine surveillance over a declared area - so it's a useful adjunt to normal perimeter protection/patrolling etc...

I'm also reading your thesis to make sure I haven't made a complete prat of myself and misunderstood what you set out to do.




cheers.
gf

 

[gf0012-aust]

Firstly thanks for your time gf0012-aust, and comments, it's interesting to get the military's spin on this......

Thanks for your interest.

After reading your thesis I probably owe you an apology. I took a very prescriptive look at capability against a UCAV requirements matrix which didn't really have much relevance to what you were trying to achieve.

what you have done is actually quite commendable - and it does raise some further questions from me.

Do you mind if I discuss what you've done with some military colleagues?

you can email me on [email protected] and I'll then forward on my main email address.

cheers.

gf

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Just read an article in a local NZ paper about TRG, and found a website for them.

http://www.tgrhelicorp.com/home.htm

An article about a derivative of the Snark able to perform very high altitude rescues beyond 9,000 meters.

"After six years research, development and building of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) TGR Helicorp in East Tamaki New Zealand, has designed and developed an unpiloted full-size alpine rescue helicopter; the Alpine Wasp, which will be able to operate safely and autonomously at altitudes up to and beyond 30,000ft (over 9000m). Most helicopters are not designed to operate above a ceiling of about 14,000ft (4,300m).

The company will be donating the Alpine Wasp to the Everest Rescue Trust. It will be capable of airlifting up to two sick or injured climbers at a time from extreme altitude, using ultra-modern composite technologies, a revolutionary diesel helicopter engine and rotor blades designed especially for maximum performance in thin air. The Alpine Wasp represents a huge leap forward in helicopter performance and technological capability."

http://www.rescueoneverest.org/page/the-alpine-wasp

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6793/

A bit of trivia, the CEO of TRG has been a MP (Minister of Parliment) in the past. One thing I am in the dark on, where is the companies funding coming from, seems to be freely available and open ended.

Brian

 

[MattChave]

thanks EnigmaNZ

 

[StingrayOZ]

Civillian GPS and GSM/CDMA are increably easy to jam. You can pick one up in holland for about 50 euro. Great if you want to protect your car from GPS tracking bugs or road side bombs etc. Honestly these should be standard fitting for every mil vechical out there. Christ if I was in a urban combat enviroment I would be wearing one.

But they are not the only sensors avalible, laser, radar, barometer altitude meters, much more powerful ground based GPS transmitters to assist in hostile areas, combined with interia sensors, visual, tracking laser coms, star/sun navigation. All this has been avalible since the 1960's. The Germans were doing it in the 40's!!

However, while US allies go after full video feeds, from every single source, ra ra ra.. You can certainly be netcentric with out such hefty requirements. It will be interesting to see the battle between monster bandwidth verse pin hole bandwidth. Real time verse near time.

 

[alexsa]

Got this off a Russian forum at
http://www.waronline.org/forum/
Military helicopter drone takes off from East Tamaki

By Mary MacKinven
[...]
TGR’s [VTOL] UAV has fully autonomous flight and mission capability, very long range, and is New Zealand designed and manufactured.

Every piece of this full size helicopter, branded a Snark – named after the elusive but courageous character in Lewis Carroll’s poem The Hunting of the Snark – has been designed and manufactured by TGR staff in Auckland.

The Snark technology claims a number of world firsts: autonomous flight, take off and landing mission capable helicopter; a fully armed/defence UAV helicopter; a diesel powered helicopter, making it compatible with military ships instead of Avgas 100 octane fuel and its associated combustibility.

Also unique, exhaust emissions are mixed with cold air inside the helicopter with a resultant very low heat signature discharge, making Snark hard to hit with a heat-seeking missile.

The aircraft can be diverted by the base station operator to uplift two injured soldiers on stretchers on its landing gear and then return to its planned computer controlled mission or to base.

It has two infrared cameras designed and built by TGR with “formidable capabilityâ€, ie, the aircraft can designate a target, transmit pictures by satellite to its ground station or defend itself against attack from long range, front or rear, and has a series of operational options, ranges and equipment specifically designed for its missions.

The Snark is quickly dismantled and loaded into its hanger, or reassembled and flight ready, in four hours, says Trevor. Snark comes with its own mobile hanger as a package.
[...]
Already in design is a bigger version of the Snark, to be called what else but the Boojum?

I know this is a little far down the discussion but... a diesel engine does not necessarily mean it will use the deisel fuel used by ships. Te latter is Marine Diesel Oil or Gas Oil and is similar to that used in heavy vehicles.

Diesel Engines in light aircraft often burn aviation turbine fuel instead of avgas and use compression for ignition (i.e a diesel engine) as instead of spark. This simplifies the engine and improves reliability as well as removing the need for the use of volitile Avgas. Have a look at the centuriion engine which is an aviation diesel engine but burns tubine fuel

http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=591&L=1

 

[Dae JoYoung]

Kind of like the American version:

A160 Hummingbird

A160 HummingbirdThe A160 Hummingbird UAV looks like a helicopter but is unlike any other helicopter. It can reach higher altitudes, hover for longer periods of time, go greater distances and operate much more quietly than current rotorcraft. With its unique optimum-speed rotor technology, the Hummingbird adjusts rotor RPM to optimize performance at different altitudes and cruise speeds.

The aircraft addresses current and emerging requirements of the U.S. armed forces, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and international military and security organizations. Missions for the A160 include reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, communications relay and precision resupply.

A Phantom Works IDeAS team called Advanced Unmanned Systems–Concept Exploration is developing the A160 with the government. The Hummingbird is designed to fly 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 kilometers) with endurance in excess of 24 hours and a payload of more than 300 pounds (136 kilograms). It is intended to fly at an estimated top speed of 140 knots (259 kilometers per hour) at ceilings above 15,000 feet (9,100 meters). Through mid-April 2005, three A160s had completed 27 test flights for 34 hours of flight time.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/june/ts_sf04.html

----------------------------------------------
A160 Hummingbird Warrior

On 04 May 2004 Boeing announced it had acquired Frontier Systems Inc., developer of the A-160 Hummingbird and Maverick unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Frontier’s platforms and technologies add to Boeing’s portfolio and capabilities in unmanned systems that include the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System X-45, ScanEagle and other concepts under development. Frontier also sells the Maverick UAV, a retrofitted commercially available helicopter, to the U.S. Special Operations Command. The Maverick UAV has also been used as a test bed for A-160 technologies.

The A-160 Hummingbird, a vertical take-off-and-landing UAV, has been designed to fly up to 2,500 plus nautical miles with 30 to 40 hour endurance. Its modular payload design can carry up to 1,000 pounds. The A-160 offers range and endurance unprecedented in the history of helicopter UAV design. It will provide reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, communication relay, precision re-supply, sensor delivery and eventually precision attack capabilities.

The A160 Hummingbird, built by DARPA and Frontier Aviation of San Diego, will exploit a hingeless, rigid rotor concept operating at the optimum rotational speed to produce a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with very low disk loading and rotor tip speeds resulting in an efficient low power loiter and high endurance system. This unique concept offers the potential for significant increases in VTOL UAV range (more than 2,000 nm) and endurance (24-48 hours). Detailed design, fabrication and testing of this vehicle is being conducted to establish its performance, reliability, and maintainability. The A160 concept is being evaluated for surveillance and targeting, communications and data relay, lethal and non-lethal weapons delivery, assured crew recovery, resupply of forces in the field, and special operations missions in support of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and other Agency needs. It is being developed as a component of the DARPA/Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program. In addition, this program will evaluate application of the optimum speed rotor concept to other systems including heavy lift and tilt rotor capabilities. The program will also develop highly efficient heavy fuel engine technologies to further advance current range and endurance projections as well as improve operational reliability and logistics compatibility.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/a160.htm