High Flying Technology - A Personal Perspective

Nicholas Brown

1

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

Why?

3

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

Where were you?

5

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

Example Military Products

7

❖ Pre Cold War

❖ Cold War

❖ Post Cold War

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

Research Budget❖ Why is it important to understand the research budget for this presentation

11

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

Examples of adapted commercial equipment for the military

13

??

??

? ?

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

Importance of System Weight & Soldier Integration

26

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

What did the MOD actually buy?

35

UK Nano UAV In-Service - BBC Video

36

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

Questions?

38