Squad Leader's Mini-UAV and PDA?

[milnews.ca]

Spotted this at Canada's public tendering site MERX:

The Department of National Defence, Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Toronto, Ontario has a requirement to develop and evaluate suitable operator interface technologies that would provide interface requirements to the Canadian Forces for controlling uninhabited vehicles.

It is anticipated that the contractor will develop a system and user manual for the complex synthetic environment in the research test-bed and for prototype interfaces on two handheld devices. The contractor will develop recommendations on the optimal platform, system structure, function allocations, and design to provide users’ needs for both types of operator interfaces.

The period of work is from date of contract award, to March 31, 2011.

More details from the Statement of Work (PDF): Canada's Department of National Defence is looking into a future where section commanders may carry a Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) or Nokia Internet Tablet to get information from their own tiny unmanned aerial vehicle.

I'm kind of split here: an extra set of eyes can always be useful, but how much more equipment does a squad/section need to take care of? Also, maybe I'm paranoid, but how tempting would it be for over-micromanaging commanders up the line to have one more set of eyes to spy on this way?

A bit more here.

[Schmedlap]

This seems like a good example of "just because you can, it doesn't mean you should."

If the squad leader needs to control his own eyes in the sky, then someone above him isn't doing their job. Why do we need so many layers of command and control and staff positions out the wazoo if, when troops hit the ground, they're flying their own UAV's? I wouldn't have wanted this even as a platoon leader.

We actually had UAVs at the company level (Ravens, if I recall correctly) and they had no use in terms of reconnaissance or surveillance. The range was inadequate, the control box and screen were not reasonable to bring along on a patrol, the picture was too shaky to see anything, and you needed a decent strip of flat ground for takeoffs and you needed someplace soft nearby to land it. We ended up just using them to buzz suspected mortar and sniper positions to see if we could get some guy to shoot at it and give away his position - which worked about one time out of a hundred attempts. It was eventually retired, boxed up, and used as a card table by my armorer. There were also other issues, but I don't know if I would be breaching OPSEC so I'll leave it at that.

[Schmedlap]

Just read over this again and I may have misunderstood the intent. If this is an idea to put a video feed into a small handheld device that a SL carries - and all of the backend work is done by the CO CP or Bn Staff, then that doesn't seem problematic. However, my question is: for what? What is the SL really going to get out of this? If there is a worthwhile use - great.

In regard to higher headquarters "micromanaging" - I never worked well with micromanagers, but a lot of what people complain about really is just enforcing standards. I've heard tales of CSMs using UAVs to check if their subordinates were wearing the proper gear on patrol. While that seems an absurd misuse of an expensive and limited asset, it's not micromanagement. It is just poor judgment. Micromanagement is getting too far into the weeds in regard to "how" to execute a mission, rather than focusing on the five W's. Enforcing standards is not micromanagement.

If you're worried about a UAV watching you because of what your superior will see, then either you are doing something wrong or you have some issues that need to be worked out with your superiors. I always relished the thought of a UAV watching me because I was sick of people living in a palace questioning what we were doing. I wanted them watch so that they would see what was actually happening. Put another way, I wanted them to get a clue. The UAV helped... a little bit.

[Cavguy]

Just read over this again and I may have misunderstood the intent. If this is an idea to put a video feed into a small handheld device that a SL carries - and all of the backend work is done by the CO CP or Bn Staff, then that doesn't seem problematic. However, my question is: for what? What is the SL really going to get out of this? If there is a worthwhile use - great.

In regard to higher headquarters "micromanaging" - I never worked well with micromanagers, but a lot of what people complain about really is just enforcing standards. I've heard tales of CSMs using UAVs to check if their subordinates were wearing the proper gear on patrol. While that seems an absurd misuse of an expensive and limited asset, it's not micromanagement. It is just poor judgment. Micromanagement is getting too far into the weeds in regard to "how" to execute a mission, rather than focusing on the five W's. Enforcing standards is not micromanagement.

If you're worried about a UAV watching you because of what your superior will see, then either you are doing something wrong or you have some issues that need to be worked out with your superiors. I always relished the thought of a UAV watching me because I was sick of people living in a palace questioning what we were doing. I wanted them watch so that they would see what was actually happening. Put another way, I wanted them to get a clue. The UAV helped... a little bit.

Whether it is a help or hindrance depends largely on the personalities in your chain of command. All leader and SOP dependent on whether it is a good or bad thing, IMO. The UAV is a tool that brings great benefits when properly employed, like all tools.

I haven't seen any UAV micromanagement in my experience. Others may vary. I will say the majority of CO's I have seen sometimes overly defer to the individual on the ground, regardless of what they see.

As far as micro UAV's, it's all good until a $50k micro UAV goes down and you have to do the report of survey/loss/recovery mission for it. Same observations re: screen and ability to use while on the run in alleys. I would support a handheld rover-like capability that would allow the guy on the ground to tune into all the various overhead feeds (Fixed Wing, UAV, JLENS, etc.) when needed. Controlling a bird while in contact is a bridge too far, IMO.

Niel

[MikeF]

is what we need. Very simple with these capabilities.

1. Rover capable so SL can see the battlefield
2. Census capable to collect pictures, DNA, fingerprints, and anthro stuff
3. Text/IM capable
4. BLUFORCE capable- to see friendlies

We can do all of this with off-the shelf technology for pennies on the dollar of creating a new system.

v/r

Mike

[Jason Port]

I always struggle with the idea of another piece of technology, and have to look at it in the context of the cost-benefit - The small UAV at my disposal would be great for looking around corners and I would think reasonably close to mid range. However, as a dismounted trooper -
- I can only cover so much ground before my UAV gathered intel rapidly becomes stale before I can cover the ground.
- I need it when I need it, so the idea of a company controlled UAV makes me just another on the list of people who need it.
- Giving me a handheld for displaying the info may turn this into the compass of 10 years ago - The navigator who uses it periodically and relies on his senses and instincts will do better than the person who stares at it while walking in circles.


As for the Uber iPod, as a defense contractor who builds systems, the iPod app is a great concept, until we actually load it with operational data (locations, report data). At this point the data should become classified, and policy makes this use impossible. (I don't entirely agree with the policy, but how do we solve the issue of the persistent terrorist with a comp sci degree from MIT hacking the application and gathering the blue data - This simply creates a nice juicy target for the next round of indirect fire. . . .

[reed11b]

So many less expensive, less carried-weight ways of doing the same thing. More importantly, is it really a need? 203 launched camera on a parachute, mortar launched disposable LTA UAV etc. If the PDA like device is allready carried, great, if not, do you NEED it? I'm a huge fan of decentrilized assets, but at some point, it becomes a little silly. What's in the middle of the compound, over the high wall may be a valid question for a SL, but do they need a UAV to find out? I do LRS, and I would not want a mini-UAV. meh.
Reed

[IntelTrooper]

I can think of a few situations where I would have loved to have this. Most of them were situations where we had set up a VPB and got reports that x number of insurgents were on the way from a couple hills over to attack us. It would have been nice to send something up that we were in control of to verify/refute the report right away. In our AO in Afghanistan, requesting and getting UAV support within a reasonable amount of time was extremely unlikely, even when we were in contact.

Schmedlap and Cavguy have pointed out some huge drawbacks, though, and unless this system could overcome those, I think it would be a huge, expensive disappointment.

[Schmedlap]

This just popped up as an ad. Why didn't we think of this?

[Chris jM]

While I have never had the ability to work directly with UAVs or their output, I have had the dubious please of being issued PDAs on operations and personally hated it...

...great idea, with each patrol being able to carry around a digitised reference to POIs in the AO, maps, photos, generic e-documents. Not so great when your S2 cell refuses further RFI's as 'you've already got electronic copies with you' (try briefing section commanders off a PDA that goes into stand-by every 20 seconds...). Additionally, I hate the idea of using laptops or any form of overt electronic device when around or meeting locals. Sometimes in may be necessary, but I saw the way a young soldier or commander would spend more time dealing with the windows menus than interacting with the local population.

That's my take on the 'ipod app' issue anyway - slightly off-topic as I don't have too much to say on UAVs, having never worked with them. As always proper training and ldrship is the key to integrating new assets, and I know that's not new information by any means.

Incidentally, I spent a fair few months lobbying my command chain for a lightweight mirror that we could use to glance around corners. I thought it was a wonderful idea but my soldiers hated it and command rubbished it... if I could make that mirror hover, cost a fair few thousand more dollars enable bluetooth on it I bet everyone would become interested!

[Firn]

I can think of a few situations where I would have loved to have this. Most of them were situations where we had set up a VPB and got reports that x number of insurgents were on the way from a couple hills over to attack us. It would have been nice to send something up that we were in control of to verify/refute the report right away. In our AO in Afghanistan, requesting and getting UAV support within a reasonable amount of time was extremely unlikely, even when we were in contact.

Schmedlap and Cavguy have pointed out some huge drawbacks, though, and unless this system could overcome those, I think it would be a huge, expensive disappointment.

Perhaps we could for now draw the line on the use of a relative simple, cheap and robust UAV at the platoon level? The squad can use more robust and simplier methods of getting an eye into the sky and a video feed or pictures are easier to carry with you.

I recon that only troops not in contact and walking up there in the mountains should support and control an UAV. Attaching it or trained men with it to the mortar squad seems to be to me the most sensible idea. This way have an integrated recon and surveillance ability within you main fire support unit and increased redundancy.

A target acquistation abilty and swappable thermal vision could be rather neat, but perfection is the enemy of good enough. If it can too much it becomes to expensive to use much because loosing it might bring hassle.

Firn

P.S: Reminds me a bit of the observation balloons of old belonging to the artillery.

[William F. Owen]

You have to differentiate between controlling the UAV and benefiting from it. Operational experience currently suggests that even man carried UAV's need to be "flown" from BN/Coy command posts or similar secure static locations.

Pictures from UAVs can be broadcast down to fire teams for a weight penalty of 1-2kg. - and this is in service, combat proven technology. IMO down to Platoon is good enough, and very useful.

[Fuchs]

The radio link range of these aircraft and the expected force density should help to determine the optimal theoretical distribution of such tools. Or at least the minimum distribution.

There's very little experience in regard to the full spectrum of warfare anyway - no-one knows how much these tools help an Inf Bn that's about to ambush an Armor Bn. The Israeli ops and small wars experiences with their small battles, little enemy movement and low enemy competence are no full baptism of fire for any new tool.

[William F. Owen]

There's very little experience in regard to the full spectrum of warfare anyway - no-one knows how much these tools help an Inf Bn that's about to ambush an Armor Bn.

Actually not true, at least in Terms of FTX and operational trials. Hand Held UAVs have spotted moving Tank Coys at over 20km in the Negev desert, and also done the target acquisition for fully indirect engagements with fibre-optic guided ATGM.

[Fuchs]

Count me as not impressed.

I give myself 2 minutes budget to list some reasons for why I'm not impressed:
- no enemy AD restricted UAV use
- no enemy ECM restricted datalink
- enemy tanks likely not in "careful" mode
- own Bn was most likely not under serious pressure (attack)
- enemy was most likely very dissimilar, so fratricide highly unlikely
- enemy likely not properly camouflaged

Time ran out. I could go on for VERY long.

[William F. Owen]

Count me as not impressed.

So operational trials, conducted to assess exactly the type of questions you are posing are less valid than what in contrast? Your opinion?

- no enemy AD restricted UAV use

Little operational experience, but this has been extensively trailed, including, Gun AD, Missile AD, Attack Helicopter, and Fast Jet, all hunting UVs, of every shape and size. - and done since 1974!

- no enemy ECM restricted datalink

Very little operational experience, but again this has been extensively trailed, over many, many years.

- enemy tanks likely not in "careful" mode
- own Bn was most likely not under serious pressure (attack)
- enemy was most likely very dissimilar, so fratricide highly unlikely
- enemy likely not properly camouflaged.

Really? This is merely opinion that the trial was not well conducted. Who can say that?

The assertion that people have not thought about "Big Wars" is without evidence. Some armies think about big wars a great deal and test their equipment for it's use, and spend a lot of time and money researching it - as in actually doing the field trials against true peer competitors - themselves.

[Fuchs]

Let's just agree that I have higher expectations.

There's an equivalent for every trial and thought you mentioned in the pre-WWI phase, and still WWI was a huge surprise and pre-war analysis and peacetime experiences were completely insufficient.

I don't trust fully anything that didn't prove itself in very tough, real conditions.
Therefore I stick to and emphasize the accuracy of my earlier statement:

There's very little experience in regard to the full spectrum of warfare anyway - no-one knows how much these tools help an Inf Bn that's about to ambush an Armor Bn. The Israeli ops and small wars experiences with their small battles, little enemy movement and low enemy competence are no full baptism of fire for any new tool.

[Entropy]

Well, Fuchs, there will always be (and always have been) limitations on what training and testing can do to accurately simulate an actual wartime environment.

[William F. Owen]

Let's just agree that I have higher expectations.

You maybe surprised

I don't trust fully anything that didn't prove itself in very tough, real conditions.

I concur, but you cannot say that folks far smarter and better re-sourced than you or I, have not thought about it and done all they possibly can to examine it - especially in an Army that is very short of money and one that cannot afford to loose a war against a peer competitor.

[jcustis]

Whether it is a help or hindrance depends largely on the personalities in your chain of command. All leader and SOP dependent on whether it is a good or bad thing, IMO. The UAV is a tool that brings great benefits when properly employed, like all tools.

I haven't seen any UAV micromanagement in my experience. Others may vary. I will say the majority of CO's I have seen sometimes overly defer to the individual on the ground, regardless of what they see.

As far as micro UAV's, it's all good until a $50k micro UAV goes down and you have to do the report of survey/loss/recovery mission for it. Same observations re: screen and ability to use while on the run in alleys. I would support a handheld rover-like capability that would allow the guy on the ground to tune into all the various overhead feeds (Fixed Wing, UAV, JLENS, etc.) when needed. Controlling a bird while in contact is a bridge too far, IMO.

Niel

What if, in addition to vari-tunable rover capability, one could text/IM over a bird controlled at the Co level? It doesn't resolve an issue of face-in-screen syndrome, admittedly, but I'm thinking of the capability as applied in an urban environment.