UAS Missions

• Select three platforms capable of performing the mission and obtain an appropriate reference citation for each • Discuss any considerations relative to the mission and if they correlate to the performance of any related mission execution tasks • Identify the benefits and challenges associated with performing the particular UAS mission you are highlighting • Identify and discuss at least two legal and or ethical challenges to the specific mission you are highlighting The use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) has grown worldwide over the past decade and is expected to continue growing at astronomical rates. Presently, there are more military than civilian uses for UAS and this is mainly due to the military’s early adoption of UAS, funding and ease with regulation and certification that is not as available to civilian development (Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, 2014). Unmanned systems are also being used more and more for commercial applications to include: remote inspection of pipelines and hydroelectric installations, surveillance of forest fires, observation of critical natural resources, and assessing natural disasters (Fire Chief, 2014). Drones equipped with both cameras and sensor payloads have been utilized by both military and border control agencies for years now, in attempts to improve situational awareness. The commercialization of drone technology has made UAS in the firefighting and emergency response career fields more accessible. An August 2013 CNN Money article discusses how drones can revolutionize the fight against wildfires. Fighting wildfires with UAS actually assists firefighters in gathering information, at the benefit of not putting anyone directly into danger –comparable to the benefit derived from their use in a combat zone (Lobosco, 2013). A March 2014 Fire Chief article lists five drone technologies with a potential to be used for firefighting – ELIMCO’s E300, L-3 Communication’s Viking 400-S, Information Processing Systems’ MCV, Sensefly’s eBee, and Kaman’s Unmanned Aerial Truck (UAT) or UAS (Fire Chief, 2014). For this short paper, I will be discussing L-3 Communication’s Viking 400-S, the K-MAX UAS and ELIMCO’s E300. L-3 Communication’s Viking 400-S was developed with Autonomous Take-Off and Landing (ATOL) technology enabled by L-3 Unmanned Systems’ flightTEK system. Missions are accomplished through the utilization of GPS waypoint navigation capable of being changed during flight. Some of its’ key features include 8-to-12 hour flight mission endurance, a 75-100 lb payload capacity, and a 75+ nautical mile (nmi) range (L-3 Unmanned Systems, 2014). Future application of the Viking 400-S could include carrying chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) detectors for hazmat emergencies. A first responder could send the Viking to first collect information from a hazmat site, and send it back; allowing the first responder team to adequately plan before reacting and exposing the team to any unnecessary harm on chemical exposure. The K-MAX UAS is a multi-mission helicopter is capable of autonomously or remotely carrying 6,000 pounds of payload, enabling remote delivery of food, water and fuel to individuals on the ground. Its primary mission is battlefield cargo resupply for the United States Military and it does so flying higher altitudes than competitor rotary-wing UAS (Lockheed Martin, 2014). The K-MAX UAS could potentially be used to drop off supplies to firefighters and emergency responders on the ground – at the benefit of not endangering any additional personnel. ELIMCO’s E300 is classified as a “light aerial surveillance system,” capable of operating in both day and night time missions through electric propulsion. Some of its specifications include a 2-4 kg payload, a max endurance of 2 hours, a operational range of 45 km and a maximum altitude of 5,000 feet. The system is presently used in the Andalusia region of Spain to assist in wildfire tracking at night. This system could easily be used in the United States for wildfire tracking as well; its sturdy and light construction allow for instantaneous and immediate use. With regards to considerations relative to the mission, the biggest ones are intended use and operation as well as cost and these are directly tied to the execution of mission-related tasks. The three frames listed above all have different intended purposes/usage in the firefighting realm and the acquisition of one or all three by a firefighting department would all depend on the particular mission and any cost constraints. For example, ELIMCO’s E300 is relatively lightweight, portable and likely inexpensive to produce because of these attributes. However, it can only realistically be used for fire surveillance. If the intent or mission is supply delivery, a firefighting agency would need the financial resources to purchase a UAS like the K-MAX UAS, which is capable of carrying a 6,000 lb payload – conversely, this acquisition would cost the agency considerably more than if it were to buy the E-300. There are several benefits and challenges to utilizing UAS in aerial firefighting/firefighting support functions. The biggest benefit that this concept provides is safety – remotely surveying a fire beforehand enables emergency response forces to first gather intelligence on a situation before acting. Furthermore, the use of UAS in dropping supplies off to firefighters on the ground instantly mitigates the threat to the pilot who traditionally would fly the helicopter into the fire area to drop off supplies. Some challenges to utilizing UAS in firefighting include issues with airspace. This is a constant battle between proponents for widespread UAS usage and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Potential collisions between UAS and UAS or UAS and manned airframes are of great concern to the FAA and adequate planning still needs to be done on the airspace end before UAS can even be considered for 1.) widespread commercial use 2.) use in firefighting. Regarding legal or ethical challenges to UAS use in firefighting, I cannot particularly think of any ethical challenges at the moment. For UAS use in a military sense, I could definitely see some ethical issues – is it really right to have the capability to take out enemies without putting oneself in direct risk? What are the boundaries for use – will Predator and Reaper munitions be dropped with more discretion due to the fact that they are being remotely operated? The intent of this short paper is not to answer these questions, they are just simply a surface level guess at some of the ethical concerns with UAS usage in a military sense – I cannot think of any that would arise in a firefighting sense. Legally, the biggest challenges I see are just the issues with the Federal Aviation Administration and airspace – a battle that is still being fought between proponents for commercial UAS usage and the FAA. Additionally, I foresee issues arising from any potential mid-air collisions between firefighting UAS and piloted airframes and firefighting UAS and other UAS. Or potential issues if a firefighting UAS crashes into an individuals’ home and causes damage, injury or death. References CAE (2014). UAS Mission Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.cae.com/defence-and-security/simulation-products-solutions/uas-mission-training-systems/ ELIMCO (2014). Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – E300: Light Aerial Surveillance System. Retrieved from http://www.elimco.com/eng/p_UAV-E300_24.html Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (2014). ASCI 530 Module 6 Presentation – Civilian and Military Mission – Specific Systems. Retrieved from http://ernie.erau.edu. Fire Chief (2014). 5 Drone Technologies for Firefighting. Retrieved from http://www.firechief.com/2014/03/20/5-drone-technologies-firefighting/ KAMAN (2014). Unmanned Aerial Systems. Retrieved from http://www.kaman.com/aerospace/aerosystems/air-vehicles-mro/products-services/unmanned-aerial-systems/ Lockheed Martin (2014). KMAX. Retrieved from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/kmax.html L-3 Unmanned Systems (2014). Viking 400-S. Retrieved from http://www2.l-3com.com/uas/products/r_viking_400.htm Lobosco, K. (2013). “Drones can change the fight against wildfires.” CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/19/technology/innovation/fire-fighting-drones/