Next-Gen Ground Control: Raytheon vs. AAI

There is a turf war brewing over ground control for unmanned systems. Raytheon and AAI have each released press in the last week with regard to their next-generation offerings, here's a bit of background:

AAI's One System GCS is the standard for Army and Marine Corps systems (Shadow/Raven), and it's OSRVT (remote video terminal) has been fielded in conjunction, to allow forward deployed soldiers access to UAS collected imagery. AAI is likely the most-used GCS by units fielded...

Raytheon may be the revenue leader in GCS, given it's role on the Global Hawk program (bigger systems = bigger paycheck).

Raytheon's press this week focused on an unsolicited offering to replace the Predator GCS (which has proven man-power intensive and not user-friendly... read: crashes and operator fatigue). If RTN could provide Predator/Reaper ground stations it would consolidate their position as the USAF vendor of choice for GCS. There is a caveat, is they need 12 months, and funding, to produce the system... but if the cost savings below hold true, they have a shot...

" Raytheon predicts that during the next 10 years, it can save the Air Force more than $500 million. The five cost savings benefits are: Reduce manpower requirements by 20 percent, Reduce ground control segment requirements by 20 percent, Reduce training time and costs by 30 percent, Reduce aircraft losses by 50 percent".

Speaking with a General Atomics executive at AUVSI, I learned it has also been developing a next-generation GCS for the Predator/Reaper force structure. I haven't seen any press yet...

AAI's press focuses more on the Army and Navy. It appears they have been funded, and working with program offices within both services to develop a new system. Not only will the system control existing UAS, but also UGV (ground vehicles) and USV (surface vessels), too.

Now, I'm not sure why RTN neglected to release press on their own Navy activities... they had been funded to design TCS (tactical control system), toward similar goals as the new AAI system. Is this program dead.

In other news the USAF and USN will collaborate on BAMS / Global Hawk logistics. That means the USN would probably train their BAMS operators through existing USAF channels... making cross-Navy GCS commonality less important for BAMS than for Tier II.

Also, the Navy has already been operating AAI's Shadow, and contributing to AAI's next-gen GCS development. Operators must already be somewhat familiar with the system.

Those are not great signs for Raytheon. Perhaps why they haven't released anything recently about Navy potential...

Boeing's military aircraft slip

Boeing issued a subtle reminder to the Pentagon recently... essentially, "if you don't choose our birds now, we won't be able to stay competitive for the long-term."

So I have to ask why? Why hasn't Boeing been winning these competitions?

To tie into the last posting, on potential JSF shortcomings. Has the bar been set too high for anyone to achieve without some program "turbulence"? Could Boeing have avoided these JSF issues?

What are the differentiators between a LM proposal and a Boeing proposal on manned fighter aircraft? Why has LM been stealing the show?

With regard to the unmanned programs recently lost by Boeing, I think it's poor positioning of their solution. For BAMS they elected (with Raytheon) to reconfigure a manned Gulfstream for unmanned ops, that's poor judgement. The government was looking for unmanned-specific platforms, not a engineering project with square pegs and round holes (a perception, justified or not, of this type of reconfig).

Whether anyone beside Northrop Grumman could have won BAMS is a legitimate debate. The requirements were pretty much tailored to the Global Hawk: the GH Maritime Demonstrator was a funded Navy proof-of-concept leading to BAMS, and the GH is a proven platform (the worlds most advanced). Pretty stiff competition.

Tough luck on UCAS too... Boeing and Northrop competed head-to-head, each with development funding. The USAF has put its UCAV plans on hold (perhaps a next-gen Reaper by 2011-15), leaving the Navy as the first mover. You don't need a doctorate in naval strategy to know Northrop Grumman had the edge... as one of the two major shipbuilders, they are much better equipped to troubleshoot shipboard operations (a very harsh environment for electronics, not the weather, the EM interferences).

CSAR-X would be a good win for Boeing, but theprogram has been put on hold, after initially being won by... Boeing. I am interested to see how this plays out. Boeing has advanced unmanned capabilities that could supplement or replace manned CSAR at some point in the future, will those play a role in a new CSAR-X competition?

What does Boeing need to do to win a competition?? Pricing, technology?

F-35 a failure for US contractors?

Ouch. Aussies send a poor review of Joint Strike Fighter.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/151m-planes-a-disaster/2008/09/13/1220857899066.html

This one could be bad news for the F-35 team. Can you think of a program that is more important to our international reputation right now? Allies are expecting to be tied to eachother through this common, high-value asset.

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore and Turkey, Israel... these are all countries that have been linked to an expected 3000 unit production run... but are they all married to the program? Probably not, if Russia's latest Sukhoi is really beating the pants off JSF in computer simulations!

I am curious though. How did team F-35 manage to fly a bird that is "too fast for it's tactical targeting," but also "overweight and underpowered", "lacking manueverability", and "too delicate to withstand ground fire". Wow.

Here's a thought. The targeting systems meant for US versions aren't exportable , and the one's spec'd for the Aussie's haven't gotten the right amount of testing/evaluation, yes?

More concerning than the targeting (that should get dialied in), is the weight problem. If team F-35 has managed to build it both heavy and thin skinned... that's a fundamental design issue, no?

Is this just a new tactic to negotiate on price? Odd way to conduct a healthy long-term relationship with your friendly neighborhood Lock-Mart.

What to do? Probably hustle if you're on team F-35, this looks bad for everyone involved.

Other perceptions: This program is still in the testing phase, a few issues or kinks are normal.

ASC enabling next-gen robotics?

it’s a potentially game-changing partnership. “We get our robot mad scientists together with the laser mad scientists…I believe its going to be transformational for the robot field,”

... and if Helen Greiner is excited, so am I.

She's the Chairman and Co-founder of iRobot, not the Will Smith adventure movie, the Burlington, MA based robotics firm supplying our Armed Forces with hundreds, and probably thousands, of bomb-disposal robots over the next several years.

The "game-changing" partnership is with Advanced Scientific Concepts (ASC) of Santa Barbara, CA. ASC makes a laser camera that will allow robots to "see" more effectively, mapping areas with a single laser flash.

Greiner and iRobot believe this will enable robots to make navigation decisions in near-real-time and facilitate much more advanced applications (she's picturing unmanned HUMVEEs, tanks... NYC cabs... you get the point)

"they're not on robots yet"... and I guess that's the sticky point, because you've still got to design the Artificial Intelligence, the "brain" that enables a bunch of nuts and bolts to utilize this great set of "eyes".

At least with all the money the Army is spending to procure the iRobot FCS SUGV, the company should be able to fund a bunch more R&D. We're looking forward.

http://www.xconomy.com/2008/01/22/irobot-strikes-transformational-deal-to-enable-next-generation-laser-guided-bots/

Cheap commercial counter-MANPAD solution?

Let me extend a premature congrats to Northrop Grumman on "exceeding expectations" in live-fire testing, and "topping reliability goals" for their Guardian counter-MANPADS system.

The system is a DIRCM (Directed InfraRed Counter-Measure) solution being tested by DHS, alonside a BAE product, JETEYE, for commercial use in protecting aircraft from shoulder-fired rockets. Basically, it uses laser energy to disrupt an incoming rocket, and causes ito to hit something other than the plane. Hopefully not small children elsewhere, or air traffic control...

I am especially curious about the price quoted in the article. According to a Northrop Grumman executive... "Pledger said modification of the sixteen jetliners would cost between $300,000 and $400,000, a modest amount well worth spending."

I think he's been misinterpreted, or perhaps we're being purposely led astray. The critical word they've left out is "each". $300K-$400K per aircraft. Right? Also, how many units produced would achieve that price point? Certainly not 16! Previous price quotes all dealt in terms of the "thousandth unit produced", so the quote seems misleading in a few ways....

Not surprising, coming from TradingMarkets.com... let's all put a "Strong Buy" on NOC and its bargain basement C-MANPADS solution :-/

Well, even if the price quoted is supposed to be per aircraft, it's still much cheaper than the $1m per aircraft price point the DHS hoped industry could fall below. It's even cheaper than previous Northrop Grumman quotes, if I recall correctly, were $500K and above at the 1000th unit.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1014287/

Shadow UAV goes Hyperspectral

Exciting news for the Army and BAE systems who just recently completed a transaction for 5 hyperspectral sensors, to be mounted on the Shadow tactical-sized UAS.

The commitment had been agreed upon in October 2006, and it's not entirely clear that the objective requirements are all met. In the original release BAE expected aircraft with usuable payload as low as 15 pounds to carry the sensors... in the current release BAE indicates it will be limited to aircraft with usable payloads of at least 35 pounds. Of course, development is an on-going process...

The technology is expected to reduce burden on the warfighter in asset-locating, targeting, search & rescue operations, etc. The "latest and greatest" ISR tool.

Hyperspectrals analyze refracted light from everything within their field of view, across a much broader spectrum than the visible bands (about 15-18 times as many, as I understand) and use this information to identify particular points of interest (without having to rely human eyes). Hyperspectrals use three methods of analysis:

• Identify anomalies within a particular field-of-view
  
• Identify a pre-programmed signature
  
• Identify change, in comparison to a previous analysis of the same field-0f-view (the system is outfitted with GPS)

I am curious. The usefulness of the second two functions seem dependent on either knowing what composition you are searching for, or, having a previously mapped record to compare with.

How many pre-programmed signatures can you utilize at once? How many does the Army need?

How can you effectively utilize the change detection function (we have to pre-map all the areas we think Iraqis and Afghanis are going to hide weapons? Or all the places we think our sailors or airmen will go missing?)

Someone please clarify.

SBInet Update. Is Telephonics Ripe?

Telephonics Corporation was contracted by the CBP in early January, to provide a Mobile Surveillance System that is supposed to support a more complete Common Operating Picture for SBInet.

From the Telephonics release:

"its Eletronic Systems Division was awarded a $14.5M contract from the U.S. General Services Administration on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection MSS provides, for the first time, a fully integrated system including Ground Surveillance Radar, EO/IR sensors, accurate GPS location data along with a Common Operating Picture"

Boeing is noticeably absent in the press on this award. Did DHS bypass Boeing to award this to Telephonics, or is that a mispeception?

Telephonics is owned by Griffon Corp, and appear to have been part of Boeing's SBInet plan for some time; they were one of four companies Boeing lists as contractors for short/long-range ground surveillance radar (Boeing website)

Griffon's Electronic Systems business has truly taken off over the past three years. Profits expanded from ~$18M in 2005 to nearly $46M in 2007.

It is apparent the technology is near the top of the market. Telephonics radar, electronics, and expertise have also been bought recently by the Navy (MH-60R helicopter), the Coast Guard, and the Missile Defense Agency.

Telephonics and Syracuse Research Corp have also been working together on Counter-IED technologies, adding to the company's credibility. Syracuse Research is another hot up-comer in radar and electronics.

I expect Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman are all eyeing Telephonics very closely. It appears to offer a level of technology that is facilitating net-centric operations across several different markets, and competeing for business historically owned by those larger, more traditional, radar & electronics names

Griffon (the parent company) is likely best known for it's Telephonics business. Other ventures include: "plastic films used in the baby diaper, feminine napkin, adult incontinent, surgical and patient care markets...garage doors sold to professional installing dealers and major home center retail chains"

haha, prepare to see Lockheed Martin or Raytheon logos on feminine products and garages near you!