Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A ProjeHigh flying technologies

591 views

Published on

A project managers view on high flying technologies and the use of UAVs

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A ProjeHigh flying technologies

  1. 1. High Flying Technology - A Personal Perspective Nicholas Brown 1
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Why? 3
  4. 4. 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 away 4
  5. 5. Where were you? 5
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Example Military Products 7 ❖ Pre Cold War ❖ Cold War ❖ Post Cold War
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. Research Budget ❖ Why is it important to understand the research budget for this presentation 11
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Examples of adapted commercial equipment for the military 13 ? ? ? ? ? ?
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. What might satisfy this? ❖ Open source research conducted to understand potential market place before advertised ❖ Expected: 20
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Safety ❖ Authority - Had to work with and comply with AA direction ❖ Civilian Regulations? ❖ Reliability, Technology Readiness Level ❖ Provider Experience/Competence ❖ Worst case? 22
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. Importance of System Weight & Soldier Integration 26
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. Why were Nano UAVs now viable ❖ Consumer miniaturisation ❖ Moores Law & Cheap Manufacturing ❖ Mobile Phone cameras ❖ Mobile Phone GPS ❖ Not military driven 29
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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 Demonstrations 33
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. What did the MOD actually buy? 35
  36. 36. UK Nano UAV In-Service - BBC Video 36
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. Questions? 38

×