Pilotless Helicopter Waterbombers for Japanese Reactors

New reports indicate that attempts to drop water on damaged Japanese reactors have been unsuccessful. The USA has a robot helicopter water-bomber which might be safe and effective.

In January 2011 U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) is reported to have successfully tested with an unmanned helicopter air-dropping a 4,400lb load. The helicopter used was a modified version of the Kaman KMax, which is also used for fire-fighting around the world (including in Australia). The aircraft can carry a water-bucket as its load and release the water under remote control.

It appears likely that the Kaman KMax aircraft could be used to drop water on a nuclear reactor. This could be done with more precision than a manned aircraft as there would be no risk to the operator and the aircraft could hover precisely over the target. The aircraft could operate for hours at a time, then needing to land for a few minutes to refuel.

Oceans 10

Greetings from CeBit Sydney I took time out to visit the conference next door, which is the IEEE Oceans'10 exhibition. This is on technology for ocean surveillance. Prominently on display are AUVs, the underwater equivalent of the robot aircraft which have come to prominence in the war in Afghanistan. The underwater equivalent is at an earlier stage of development, due to the difficulties of the marine environment and the conservatism of naval decision makers.

The first stand I visited was the US Navy's NAVSEA Undersea Warfare Centre Division. Dr. Thresea A. Baus is Head of Technology Partnership Enterprise Office. The US Navy helped Australia out with problems with the Collins Class submarine. If the Australian Government decides to build an even larger and more ambitious replacement for the Collins class, then it is likely that US Navy assistance will be critical to the venture having a chance of success.

CSIRO were displaying a Long Line Camera System used for recording data on Blue Fin Tuna. This is critical to international negations on the management of fish stocks. The camera is a commercial model housed in a very rugged waterproof housing. This is attached to the fishing line and is triggered by a bated acoustic tag. The tuna takes the bait, activating the camera. The pinger remains active in the fish for up to a year, allowing its migration habits to be tracked. This system has obvious
military applications, as well as its original civilian use.

DSTO were displaying several types of glider UAVs. These have proved popular in the last few years for research, allowing a long range sensor to be deployed which does not require frequent re-charging or refueling. The gliders change the buoyancy to "glide" up and down in the ocean. These units also have military application due to the silent running and long range.

DSTO has developed the Murula glider to be launched from the standard 21" torpedo tube of the Collins class submarine. However, it is likely the Collins replacement will have a tube specifically designed for launching and recovering UAVs as well as crewed midget submarines.

Flight Plan for Unmanned Aerial Systems for NATO

NATO released "The Joint Air Power Competence Centre Flight Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems in NATO" (version 5.4, 15 March 2007).

The plan is provided as a 71 page PDF file:

TABLE of CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Current and Projected Capabilities
3. What is Needed to Fill the Gaps
4. Problems and Recommendations
Annex A: References
Annex B: Unmanned Aircraft in NATO (Operational)
Annex C: NATO Air Command and Control Systems
Annex D: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Missions

• Combat Missions
• C4ISTAR Missions
• Combat Support Missions
  
• Combat Services Support and Civil Missions
  

Annex E: Acronyms
Annex F: Considerations regarding NATO procurement of its own UAS versus Individual Nations contributing UAS as they are willing and able

From: Flight Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems in NATO, Version 5.4, JAPCC, 15 March 2007

The Flight Plan uses the term "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (UAS), in place of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). This is done to emphasize that the vehicle is only part of an overall system. But introducing a new term is likely to cause confusion.

About half the document is taken up with a catalog of UAVs currently in NATO service. While a useful compendium, it would have been better as a separate document.


There is also a slide show presentation by Oberstlt Jens C. Fehler, from JAPCC, about the plan available online (some slides are marked: "©Univ.-Prof. Dr. habil. Marion A. Weissenberger-Eibl Department of Innovation and Technology Management). The overview covers issues such as: Force Development, Concepts of Operations, Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures, Structures, Standards. One issue raised is if the way NATO manages Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW&C) will be used as a model for UAS, or will it be left up to each nation. Can what NATO’s does become a commonly accepted standard. Flight Plans remain an issue although a working group was formed to look at it five years ago.

The overview suggests what is needed is to review the use of UAS in NATO, find deficiencies in capability. The aim is one coherent strategy for UAS and situation awareness. The US experience with UAS was used as the model. Issues include: Maintenance, Operators, Training, Payload, Groundstations, Command andControl (C2), Air Traffic Management, Mission Planning/Tasking.

The plan does not appear to address automation of UAS tasks, which would seem an obvious way to address many of the issues. It all NATO does is to take a large number of uncoordinated personnel intensive systems and produce a coordinated even more personnel intensive system, that will not be much of an improvement.

Interestingly JAPCC use a photo of an Australian Aerosonde UAV to illustrate their UAS Page.

Also related is "TRANSFORMING THE FUTURE OF WARFARE: NETWORK-ENABLED CAPABILITIES AND UNMANNED SYSTEMS", 047 STC 07 E , NATO Parliamentary Assembly 2007