UAS Research: Weeding Out a Solution

Considerations

The problem resulted from a miss-understand of information distributed to the team’s members. During the system design, coordination and communication between the two subsystems are the most. The customer requirements have to be satisfied. Date-times for delivery the system, and the engineers should consider the variables affecting the system performance before cost reduction is bringing to the table. Purchasing off-the-shelf hardware rather than a custom design was a bad decision. Now they have to probably re-design the system to the original performance specification (Sutherland, June 2015). The systems engineers’ director should figure out the origin of the problem, what communication could have miss-understood.  Considering that the system is at the middle stage is right after the technology prototype development and not yet at the full-scale hardware and software development, where the two sub-levels still can be modified their design, by considering  changes in operational procedures and with the option to considered technical materials modifications (University, October 2015).

Priorities

Development of the system that complied with the customer needs. Meet with the customer and to explain him/her the situation and recommending solutions, including delivery times and cost increased. The systems engineer should address the possibility to increase the gross weight capacity of the system for futures UAS projects. 

Alternatives

There are two ways to solve this problem. The first is the shift engineer should call the two sub-groups together and request to work in the initial design of the system.  The second is that the hardware to be used should reduce weight and resolving the weight problem, therefore, the good news is the two sub-systems are working and the system has not been developed yet. Corrections can be done to the delivery sub-system.  The Systems engineer director should integrate to the safety engineers on solving the problem and request them to find the way to manage the fuel more efficient while mitigating safety risk. Errors at the middle and at the end of the system development cost too much money and time-consuming, making changes and re-design. This system is already on the stage where hardware can be re-pleased or modified, to satisfied the requirements of the customer. The director Engineer should order to design the off-the-shelf hardware and resolve the weight problem. The main priority here is to correct the weight issue to satisfy the customer.

The prospects for “next generation, enhance”

The solutions of the problem are: Consider if to stay with the original design where the initial customer requirements will be satisfied, or to re-design the system and improvement the gross weight and system performance, for new UAS designs that could go to the UAS markets as a “next generation” these new vehicles with enhanced futures will be more capable than previous generations of the UAS.        

References

 

Sutherland, B. (June 2015). Safe Operational Integration of UAS Drones in national Airspace.

University, E. R. (October 2015). Global System Design Concepts, Concepts, Requirements, and Specifications Overview.

History of UAS

We are going to talk about an important UAS design during the cold war. This is the Drone antisubmarine helicopter (DASH) QH-50C. This Drone was built to destroy enemy submarines. This unmanned radio-controlled antisubmarine “helicopter with the range of up to 22-mi.armed with Mk 44 torpedo”. It was used by the United States Navy ships, to rapidly destroy submarines before they run under the water or try to shoot to the vessel. On the middle of the 1960s errors miscalculating landings limited their use to operate in not heavy seas or high wind conditions (Gault, Sep. 2010). The specification for this Drone was:

“The length was 12 feet and 11 inches. With rotor of the diameter of 20 feet, height 9 feet and 8.5 inches, empty weight was 1156 lbs., max. Takeoff weight of 2290 lbs. Engine with 300 hp. The speed of 80 knots range 71 nm and service ceilling16500 feet”.

The author said that the DASH control scheme had two controllers, one on the flight deck that handle the takeoff and landing and the other one in the combat information’s center, which flies the drone to the targets and release the weapons (Gault, Sep. 2010).  Many problems as the controller cannot see the drone and sometimes loss of “operational control or situational awareness” (Gault, Sep. 2010). Later in the program, the report states that there were successful experiments with the television camera to the drone. The report also states that more than the 80% of these drones were lost in the ocean because of the faulty wiring. By the middle of the 70s, the drone program was scrapped.

Reasons as the DASH were considered expendable using cheap off industrial electronics (Gault, Sep. 2010). The article states that “Today in 2010 a lot of the modified DASH drones continue to operate as it has done in Vietnam, gulf, and Iraqi wars” (Gault, Sep. 2010). Now the system equipped with television cameras and with autopilots controlling the system self-take off and landings (Gault, Sep. 2010), as link communication using GPS and algorithms for autonomous navigation. The system is used in reconnaissance missions by the ships. It is been reported by the author that in 2007 “small number of DASH drones are still in operation at white sands test range and use to tow targets and calibrate radars and electronic systems” (Gault, Sep. 2010). This system have been modified and actually have gave opening to new generation of drones as the MQs fire Scouts that are using high technology as the new drone with automatic the takeoff and landing and autonomous navigation systems using advanced GPS navigation and with ship stations with satellite data link allowing the system full performance and efficiency, with new UVS missions on reconnaissance, situational awareness, aerial fire support and precision targeting (Stracker, September 2007).

                                                 References

 

Gault, O. (Sep. 2010). FRAM AND DASH: COLD WAR EXPEDIENCIES.

Stracker, M. C. (September 2007). RQ-8 FIRE SCOUT VERTICAL TAKE-OFF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (VTUAV).