Case Analysis Effectiveness

The Case Analysis tool is important for making informed decisions in a specific field of work. Combining research and analysis, it is similar to a trade study which is often completed in my line of work for different types of systems or products which may be integrated into the final product. In this way, the group or individuals working on a specific project gain a deeper understanding of what is required to complete the project.

Currently, I work at a large defense contractor that produces helicopters. Working with the United States government as a customer, we receive requests for products or capabilities that may not have been done before. In a case such as this, a trade study or case analysis would be completed to determine the availability of the technology and the feasibility of the overall effort. However, the results of the study determine if the effort will commence or if it is not contractually possible to complete (i.e., not enough funds, not enough time in the schedule, etc.). As a future Human Factors engineer, I would expect to use or conduct case studies on multiple projects or platforms to assist in decision making. This could include case studies that provide a greater depth of knowledge for interface design or multifunction display designs. Researching and understanding how the design of these displays may affect pilots’ or operators’ cognitive workload is just one example.

My recommendation for the Case Analysis would be regarding the format that is required. First, it seems like the summary that is at the beginning of the paper could be eliminated or moved to the end. In my opinion, it seems excessive or redundant to provide an abstract which briefly summarizes the key points and findings of the paper and then immediately provide a summary right after. In addition, I think that the alternative actions and recommendations sections could be combined or better thought out. I was a bit confused with these as it seems there may be some overlap between the two. If the two were to be combined, I would suggest adding a summary or conclusions section to the end to recap the important points that were discussed. 

UAVs for CSAR Missions

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) missions are extremely important to all branches of the military. However, as important as they are, it is much harder to gather the resources needed to perform these operations. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are equipped and manned to perform these missions, but have been taking on the responsibility of a CSAR mission on a case-by-case basis only (Altieri, 2003). The United States Air Force (USAF) has an aging fleet of 105 MH-60G Pave Hawks that currently perform CSAR missions, but the manpower is not up to par.

One solution to this would be to employ more unmanned aerial systems (UASs) to alleviate the strain on the CSAR missions. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be modified to assume some of the roles of CSAR missions such as to include finding, fixing, supporting and recovering isolated personnel (Altieri, 2003). This could especially be helpful when a mission requires sending in personnel or equipment into hostile enemy environments, or other environments involving nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) hazards.

Lockheed Martin proposed the idea of an “immersible” UAV (Comorant) that would be capable of launch, recovery and re-launch from a submerged submarine or surface ship ( ). This platform would be capable of various tasks which would include aiding in SOF missions.  Northrop Grumman has developed the RQ-8A/B Fire Scout, a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Tactical UAV (TUAV) for the Army and Navy. It is capable of providing reconnaissance, situational awareness and precision targeting support, all of which would be critical for supporting a CSAR mission. Early VTOL UAVs are paving the way for future platforms such as the unmanned Blackhawk helicopter being explored by Sikorsky Aircraft.

Integrating UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS)

The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest operator of aircraft in the world; this includes having the most experience in Unmanned Aircraft Systems UAS operations. Outside of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DoD is the largest regulator of pilots and aircraft, as well as manager of airspace. “There are three foundational requirements needed for any aircraft (manned or unmanned) to integrate routinely into the National Airspace System (NAS): airworthiness, pilot/operator qualification and regulatory compliance” (USAF, 2012, Slides 4- 10). UAS airworthiness criteria is a critical requirement for gaining NAS access.

Currently, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) is available in General Aviation (GA) and military manned aircraft. Research is being done to determine if an Autonomous ADS-B system is a viable technology to be used in UASs (USAF, Slide 19). This system would be used as a sense and avoid tool to help the UAS navigate through airspace and getting traffic reports from other aircraft occupying the same space (manned or unmanned). In addition to ADS-B, the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS-II) system may also be a viable option for traffic management and Detection and Avoidance (DAA).

Starting in September of 2011, NASA has been working on a plan to integrate UASs into the NAS. This project aims to reduce the difficulties and technical barriers of introducing UASs into the airspace shared with manned aircraft. The project will conduct system-level tests to address specific safety and operational challenges and concerns of NAS access for UASs. The data gathered from these tests will be provided to customers such as the FAA and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) (NASA, 2011). In addition to testing for operational and safety challenges, the project will focus on five specific areas of UAS integration: Separation Assurance, Communications, Human Systems Integration, Certification and Integrated Tests and Evaluation.

References

NASA Fact Sheet

USAF UAS Operations in the NAS

Automated Crop Dusting, A Systems Engineering Approach

As a systems engineer (SE), one would have to listen to the point of view of each department involved in the design process. First, both of the engineering teams (Guidance and Navigation and Payload) would have to explain which commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components are not performing correctly. The engineers would have to do an analysis on all of the components in their system, and use carefully constructed flow charts to make sure all of the COTS equipment is compliant to the system requirements.

Once the analysis is complete, each subsystem would need to present their findings to the systems engineering group through a PowerPoint presentation or a white paper. The SE group would have to take these findings and check them against the requirements for the system. If the components are not compliant to the system requirements, then each subsystem group would have to go back and look for compliant alternatives that satisfy the requirements. If they are all compliant, there may have to be discussions about what equipment is critical and what is not as critical to the overall design so that substitutions or deletions can be made to meet the appropriate weight requirements. Both of these systems would have to work in conjunction with the safety engineers; fuel margin takes priority and should not be touched.

In addition to working with the various engineering groups involved, systems would also have to work with procurement and purchasing to discuss possible contractual changes or budgetary changes with the customer. These discussions must take place prior to any final design decisions being executed on the program.

As a result of the findings on this program, it would be in the best decision of the contractor to look into other options for the next generation. For instance, instead of going with all COTS components, engineering could look into the amount of work and budget required to outsource development of components or software. This could save the program money and valuable weight margin, although it may require more time and resources. However, this is usually a viable option for the contractor as long as the customer is on board and contracts are agreed upon by both sides. 

UAVs Then & Now: Lockheed Martin D-21 & Northrop Grumman RQ-4

Predecessor: Lockheed Martin D-21 Drone

Successor: Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

During the Cold War, tension between the Soviet Union and the United States was high. Because of increasingly high tension and the need for a strong, vigilant military operation in the U.S. was eminent. Research and development on military systems, especially aircraft used for intelligence and reconnaissance missions, was booming. On May 1^st, 1960, Gary Powers was flying a U-2 spy plane over Russia and was shot down. Known simply as the “U-2 Incident”, the loss of this recon pilot sent a clear message to the U.S. and the Eisenhower administration. From there on, manned flights over Russia and China were banned.

Kelly Johnson, the head of Lockheed Martin’s “Skunk Works” team had already been considering the idea of drones mounted on an A-12(Blackbird)-like aircraft, the M-21 (“M” for mother) (Unmanned Aerial Systems, Blom, 2010). From here, the D-21 (“D” for daughter) drone was born. The drone would be mounted to an SR-71 Blackbird, and subsequently detach and fly at Mach 3 at 90,000 ft. It would follow a pre-determined route, gather the footage desired and eject the hatch containing the film (later to be retrieved), and then self-destruct. The Air Force successfully completed 3 launches from an SR-71, however, unfortunately on the 4^th launch the drone collided with the SR-71 and resulted in a loss of both the aircraft and the pilot. From there on out, the Air Force used B-52s for launching the D-21 (Blom, p.65). In 1971, a D-21 disappeared over China and was never recovered. Although there was no evidence that the Chinese tracked the drone, President Nixon decided to shut down the D-21 program and destroy all tooling involved in attempts to improve relations with China.

Today, Northrop Grumman has developed the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is a high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE), remotely piloted aircraft. It is capable of all-weather, day or night intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Although the D-21 could fly at altitudes of up to 100,000 feet, the RQ-4 has a max altitude of 60,000 ft (Global Hawk, USAF, 2014). Unlike the D-21’s one-way system, the RQ-4 once programmed can autonomously “taxi, take-off, fly, remain on station capturing imagery, return and land” (RQ-4 Global Hawk, Northrop Grumman, 2008). A ground-based operations crew and re-task the UAV and monitor its systems remotely. The Global Hawk provides capabilities to the warfighter that are unmatched. This amazing piece of equipment also provides these amazing capabilities on the homefront in the form of homeland security, border/coastal patrols and disaster relief missions (Northrop Grumman).

Resources:

Blom, John David. (2010). Unmanned Aerial Systems: a historical perspective. (Occasional paper; 37). Retrieved from: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/OP37.pdf

Northrop Grumman. (2008). RQ-4 Global Hawk Fact Sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/rq4block20globalhawk/documents/hale_factsheet.pdf

United States Air Force. (2014). RQ-4 Global Hawk. Retrieved from: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx