Lesson objective to complete the example

1
Objectives
Lesson objective - to complete the example UAV
System Design
Expectations - You will better understand how to
wrap up a pre-concept design project
26-1
? 2002 LM Corporation
2
Review - surveillance UAV

• Predator follow-on type
• Land based with 3000 foot paved runway
• - Mission provide continuous day/night/all
  weather, near real time, monitoring of 200 x 200
  nm area
• - Basing within 100 nm of surveillance area
• Able to resolve range of 1 sqm moving targets to
  10m, and transmit ground moving target (GMT) data
  to base in 2 minutes
• - Able to provide positive identification of
  selected 0.5m x 0.5 m ground resolved distance
  (GRD or resolution) targets within 30 minutes
  of detection
• - Ignore survivability effects
• Minimum required trades
• - Speed
• - Operating altitude
• - Time on station

• All weather (SAR) vs. under weather (EO/IR)
• Size and numbers reqd

26-2
3
Surveillance UAV
200 nm
200 nm
100 nm
26-3
4
Requirement refinement

• Defined requirements (from the customer)
• Continuous day/night/all weather surveillance of
  200nm x 200nm operations area 100 nm from base
• Detect 1 sqm moving targets (goal 100,
  threshold 80) and transmit 10m resolution GMTI
  data in 2 min.
• Provide 0.5 m resolution visual image of spot
  targets (goal 100, threshold 80) in 15 min.
• Operate from base with 3000ft paved runway

26-4
5
Initial system baseline

• Five medium UAVs, four provide wide area search,
  a fifth provides positive target identification
• SAR range required (95km)
• Only one UAV responds to target ID requests
• No need to switch roles, simplifies ConOps
• No need for frequent climbs and descents
• Communications relay reqd,
• distance 158 - 212 nm
• Speed requirement 282 kts
• For target identification role
• Operating altitudes different
• for each role
• We will study other
• options as trades
• Payload requirement
• 707 lbm _at_ 26.55 cuft
• (including comm relay)

17 Kft
17 Kft
10 Kft
17 Kft
17 Kft
26-5
6
Initial derived requirements

• Derived requirements (from our assumptions or
  studies)
• System element
• Maintain continuous WAS/GMTI coverage at all
  times
• One target ID assignment per hour
• Uniform area distribution of targets
• Communications LOS range to airborne relay 158
  nm
• LOS range from relay to surveillance UAV 212 nm
• Air vehicle element
• Day/night/all weather operations, 90
  availability
• Turboprop power
• Takeoff and land from 3000 ft paved runway
• Cruise/loiter altitudes 10 17Kft
• Loiter location 158 nm (min) 255 nm (max)
• Loiter pattern 2 minute turn
• Dash speed 141 nm out and back _at_ 280 kts
• Dash altitude ? 10 Kft

26-6
7
Initial derived requirements

• Air vehicle element (contd)
• Payload weight and volume 707 lbm _at_ 26.55 cuft
• Payload power required 4300 W
• 18 hour WAS capability
• Cruise L/D ? 24.5
• Loiter L/D ? 25.6
• Cruise TSFC ? 0.326
• Loiter TSFC ? 0.31
• T0/W0 0.121
• W0/Sref 40 psf
• Bhp0/Weng ? 2.25
• Leng/Deng ? 2.5
• Engine density ? 22 pcf
• Clto ? 1.5
• Wlg/W0 ? 0.05
• etc.

26-7
8
Initial derived requirements

• Payload element
• Installed weight/volume/power ? 707 lbm/26.55
  cuft/4300W
• SAR/GMTI
• Range/FOR /resolution/speed 95 km/?45?/1 m/2
  mps
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 350 lbm/8
  cuft/3000W
• EO/IR
• Type/range/resolution Turret/13.3 km/0.5 m
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 100 lbm/1
  cuft/700W
• Communications
• Range/type 212nm/air vehicle and payload C2I
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 57 lbm/5.9
  cuft/300W
• Range/type 158nm/communication relay
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 57 lbm/5.9
  cuft/300W
• Control Station element
• Waypoint/flight path control
• 6 control consoles air vehicle/EO/IR (2), SAR
  (1), C3I (1), product process/dissemination(1),
  launch and recovery(1) plus provision for
  back-up/jump seat (1)
• Support element
• To be determined

26-8
9
WAS requirement resolution

• Because our weather criteria defines 10 of the
  days as unflyable, we can no longer use 80
  target area coverage to meet the 80 threshold
  requirement
• Area coverage will have to increase to 89
• WAS SAR range/target width required goes up to
  0.55 nm or WAS range 55nm (102 Km)

26-9
10
SAR sizing considerations

• A number of factors affect SAR range (minimum and
  maximum) and resolution
• Power (how much RF energy is reflected from the
  target)
• Even though transmitted power required vs. radar
  range is typically expressed as a 4th power
  relationship, our parametric data (based on total
  input power required) shows a nominal linear
  relationship
• Geometry (minimum and maximum depression angles)
• Absolute minimum angle defined by the radar
  horizon
• Typical minimum look down angle about 5 degrees
• Typical maximum look down angle about 60
  degrees
• Dwell time (how long energy stays on the target)
• Function of platform speed and/or antennae
  pointing
• Signal processing time
• To keep things simple, we resize using only the
  range-power parametric and geometry (ignoring
  curvature)

26-10
11
SAR geometry
Earth curvature effects have been ignored

• With additional power this SAR should be able to
  increase WAS and GMTI range to 226 Km
• Beyond 226 Km, higher altitude would be required

26-11
12
SAR geometry (contd)
This plot also ignores earth curvature effects

• With additional power these SARs should be able
  to increase WAS and GMTI range to 52 - 87 Km
• The 102 km WAS requirement means that we have to
  loiter at a higher altitude, 30 Kft vs. the
  previous 27.4Kft

26-12
13
ID requirement

• A different logic applies to the ID mission
• We required 100 area coverage because we operate
  at 10Kft and have ceilings ?10 Kft 20 of the
  time
• Now we have to deal with 90 availability
• Our only option to increase overall ID mission
  capability to 89 is to operate at lower altitude

• We plot ceiling altitude vs. percent occurrence
  and estimate that a 7 Kft operating altitude will
  increase overall target coverage to the required
  value of 89

26-13
14
Other ID issues

• We did not take advantage of EO/IR range to
  decrease ID mission fly out distance
• But this was offset by the fact we ignored time
  and distance to ID the target and turn back to
  base
• To ensure we have taken all ID requirements into
  account, we need to model the engagement geometry
• We assume the UAV flies directly at the target
  and upon initial detection (in the spot mode)
  turns away to intercept a point that will allow a
  45 degree lookdown
• It then turns into the target flying a constant
  radius turn and goes back to the initial
  detection location
• Essentially flying a tear drop pattern
• During this entire time, the UAV can see the
  target at a resolution equal to or better than
  the requirement
• Making it a good ID mission sensor figure of merit

26-14
15
ID geometry assessment
Turret Type I Spot slant range (SLR) for 0.5m
detection 10Km Turn radius 1.15 nm Gs
required 1.41 Total Imaging time 3.2
min Radius extension reqd 2.2 nm Turret Type
II Spot SLR for 0.5m detection 13.3 Km Turn
radius 1.15 nm Gs required 1.41 Total
Imaging time 3.94 min Radius extension reqd
2.1 nm
?
280 Kts
280 Kts
280 Kts

• Conclusions
• Even Turret Type I exceeds threshold requirements
• Minimum SLR required for ID ? 3 km
• Need to add 2 - 3 nm to required dash distance

7 Kft
?
Profile View
26-15
16
Requirement refinement

• Refined WAS SAR range 102 km at 30 Kft
• From our parametric data, for a 55 nm (102 km)
  range
• Power required 3400W Weight (uninstalled)
  370 lbm Volume (uninstalled) 9.25 cuft
• Refined ID EO/IR resolution required 0.5 m at 3
  km
• We have no EO/IR range parametrics but from
  optics, range and resolution should vary
  primarily with focal length which in turn should
  vary with turret diameter
• We estimate diameter required at ? 4 inches, well
  below the smallest sensor in our database
• Therefore, we select the smallest EO/IR sensor
  listed in our database (See Lesson 11)
• Turret diameter 9 in height 14 in Weight and
  volume (uninstalled) 40 lbm at 572 cuin Power
  required 450W
• ID radius for 100 coverage 141nm 3 nm 144nm

26-16
17
Refinement (contd)

• Another issue is requirement creep
• We have not strictly adhered to our threshold
  strategy
• For example, our UAVs carry SAR and EO/IR sensors
• Although operationally advantageous (one payload
  for both missions), it exceeds our threshold
  definition
• Therefore, we will size for interchangeable
  payloads
• But power and volume available must meet the most
  stringent requirements for each module
• Since the ID mission has the smallest payload but
  requires the most fuel, we assume that unused
  payload volume can be used for fuel
• We will also retract the EO/IR sensor to reduce
  drag
• Later we can do a cost effectiveness trade study
  to verify these benefits but for now it is
  intuitively obvious
• However, we will continue to assume that any WAS
  UAV can function as a communication relay
• Another intuitively obvious requirement to test
  later

26-17
18
WAS payload requirement

• WAS mission payload
• SAR weight (installed) 370lbm?1.3 481 lbm
• SAR volume (installed) 9.25?(1.253) 18 cuft
• SAR power required 3400W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Relay communication payload 22?1.3 28.6 lbm
  at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Two communication antennae 2?25?1.3 65 lbm at
  2?2?1.95 7.8 cuft
• Total WAS mission payload requirement
• Weight 603.2 lbm
• Volume 26.9 cuft
• Density 22.4 pcf
• Power required 4000W

At 5000/lbm WAS payload unit cost 3M
26-18
19
ID payload requirement

• ID EO/IR mission payload
• EO/IR weight (installed) 40lbm?1.3 52 lbm
• EO/IR volume (installed at h 14 in) 1.0 cuft
• EO/IR power required 450W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• ADT antennae 25?1.3 32.5 lbm at 2?1.95 3.9
  cuft
• ID Auxiliary fuel
• Fuel volume available 26.9cuft 5.5cuft 21.4
  cuft
• Allowable fuel weight 603.2 113.1 490lbm
• Required fuel volume (at PF 0.7) 14 cuft
• Total ID mission payload requirement
• Weight with zero fuel 113 lbm
• Weight with fuel 603 lbm
• Volume 26.9 cuft
• Power required 450 W

At 5000/lbm ID payload unit cost 0.6M
26-19
20
Modular payloads
WAS payload
ID payload

• Consolidated payload requirement
• Weight 603 lbm (max)
• Volume 26.9 cuft
• Power required 4000 W (max)

26-20
21
Assessment results

• Removing the SAR from the ID mission payload and
  adding an auxiliary fuel tank significantly
  increased ID mission capability and drastically
  reduced cost
• Much of the cost saving, however, is due to the
  reduction in ID payload cost (from 3.5M to
  0.6M)
• This occurred despite putting a second UAV plus
  payload on alert to have replacements for both
  SAR and EO/IR equipped UAVs if needed
• This increased the number of UAVs plus payloads
  required but still traded favorably at the system
  level
• Removing the EO/IR from the WAS payload had some,
  but not significant, cost and performance benefit
  
• Probably offset by the additional backup
  requirement
• The most cost effective size is now a 18hr WAS
  endurance vehicle that now can conduct 6 IDs vs.
  4 IDs with the original 18 hr baseline

26-21
22
Baseline comparisons
26-22
23
Threshold requirements

• With two exceptions, the new baseline now meets
  only threshold requirements
• 89 WAS target area coverage 90 of the time (the
  specified flyable days)
• Covers 100 ID target area for ceilings at or
  above 7Kft (for 89 coverage) 90 of the time
  (the flyable days)
• One capability that exceeds threshold is that all
  WAS UAVs can function as communication relays
• This capability trades favorably since at least 2
  UAVs need this capability for redundancy and yet
  a 3rd UAV would still have to be on standby as a
  replacement
• The other capability that exceeds threshold is
  the ability to provide simultaneous WAS and ID
  coverage
• Without this capability, the system would be of
  limited operational use (especially at one ID per
  hour)
• No capability to do WAS much (or all) of the time

26-23
24
Threshold baseline
W0 3776 lbm EW 2101 lbm AR 20 Sref 94
sqft Swet 455sqft Payload 603 lbm Fuel 1039
lbm Power 362 Bhp TBProp Max endurance 14.5
hrs Max speed 280 kts
Approximately to scale
This air vehicle can stay on station for 18 hours
at 30 Kft or perform 6 ID missions at 7Kft in 6
hours 7 WAS and 5 ID air vehicles are required
26-24
25
Goal requirements

• Even though our strategy is to design to
  threshold requirements to minimize cost, we still
  need to determine the cost of meeting goal
  requirements
• It might turn out to be cost effective and
  competitively smart
• Goal performance, however, will not be 100
  capability
• 10 of the days are unflyable, and 90 capability
  will be the best we can do
• Achieving goal performance is simple, we have to
  cover 100 of the WAS area and ID targets from
  1Kft
• WAS SAR range required is 71 nm (131 Km)
• From our parametric plot, SAR power and
  uninstalled weight and volume are 4000W, 450 lbm
  and 11 cuft
• Installed weight and volume, therefore, are 585
  lbm and 21.5 cuft
• And required loiter altitude increases to 37.6Kft

26-25
26
Goal WAS payload

• WAS mission payload
• SAR weight (installed) 450lbm?1.3 585 lbm
• SAR volume (installed) 11?(1.253) 21.5 cuft
• SAR power required 4000 W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Relay communication payload 22?1.3 28.6 lbm
  at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Two communication antennae 2?25?1.3 65 lbm at
  2?2?1.95 7.8 cuft
• Total WAS mission payload requirement
• Weight 707 lbm
• Volume 30.4 cuft
• Density 23.3 pcf
• Power required 4600W

At 5000/lbm WAS payload unit cost 3.5M
26-26
27
Goal ID payload

• ID EO/IR mission payload
• EO/IR weight (installed) 40lbm?1.3 52 lbm
• EO/IR volume (installed at h 14 in) 1.0 cuft
• EO/IR power required 450W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• ADT antennae 25?1.3 32.5 lbm at 2?1.95 3.9
  cuft
• ID Auxiliary fuel
• Fuel volume available 30.4 cuft 5.5cuft
  24.9 cuft
• Allowable fuel weight 707 113.1 594 lbm
• Required fuel volume (at PF 0.7) 17 cuft
• Total ID mission payload requirement
• Weight with zero fuel 113 lbm
• Weight with fuel 707 lbm
• Volume 30.4 cuft
• Power required 450 W

No change in ID payload unit cost of 0.6M
26-27
28
Goal assessment

• Increasing SAR size and WAS loiter altitude
  increased air vehicle size required
• Gross weight 3482 lbm vs. 2993 lbm for
  threshold
• Empty weight 1996 lbm vs. 1716 lbm for
  threshold
• Unit air vehicle cost 798K vs. 686K for
  threshold
• WAS payload size and cost also increased
• WAS payload 707 lbm vs. 603 lbm for threshold
• WAS payload cost 3.5M vs. 3.0M for threshold
• ID payload was unchanged at 113 lbm
• ID auxiliary fuel increased to 594 lbm vs. 490
  lbm
• The number of air vehicles required was unchanged
• The procurement cost of achieving goal (90) vs.
  threshold (80) increased by 5.9M (17)
• 87 of the increase was the paylaod
• Goal capability cost 590K per additional
  coverage vs. the threshold average of 425K per
  

26-28
29
Alternate concepts

• The alternatives are resized versions of the
  baseline
• Two (2) air vehicles consisting of 1 WAS UAV and
  1 ID UAV
• Twenty (20) air vehicles consisting of 16 WAS
  UAVs and 4 ID UAVs
• From experience, we now know what drives the
  answer
• The size and number of payloads (at 5K per
  pound)
• For 89 area coverage, alternative 1 requires one
  110 nm (204 km) WAS SAR (uninstalled cost
  6.5M)
• Power 6000 W, Weight 650 lbm, Volume 15
  cuft
• For 89 area coverage, alternative 2 requires
  sixteen 27.5 nm (51 km) WAS SAR (uninstalled cost
  19.2M)
• Power 1900 W, Weight 240 lbm, Volume 6.5
  cuft
• It is obvious from this simple comparison that
  the 2nd alternative will not be a cost effective
  solution
• We only need to evaluate alternative 1 (1 WAS, 1
  ID)

26-29
30
Alternate 1 WAS payload

• WAS mission payload
• SAR weight (installed) 650lbm?1.3 845 lbm
• SAR volume (installed) 15?(1.253) 29.3 cuft
• SAR power required 6000 W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Relay communication payload 22?1.3 28.6 lbm
  at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• Two communication antennae 2?25?1.3 65 lbm at
  2?2?1.95 7.8 cuft
• Total WAS mission payload requirement
• Weight 967 lbm
• Volume 38.2 cuft
• Density 25.3 pcf
• Power required 6600W

26-30
31
Alternate 2 ID payload

• ID EO/IR mission payload
• EO/IR weight (installed) 40lbm?1.3 52 lbm
• EO/IR volume (installed at h 14 in) 1.0 cuft
• EO/IR power required 450W
• Basic communication payload (ADT) 22?1.3 28.6
  lbm at 500cuin?1.95 975 cuin installed at 300W
• ADT antennae 25?1.3 32.5 lbm at 2?1.95 3.9
  cuft
• ID Auxiliary fuel
• Fuel volume available 38.2 cuft 5.5cuft
  32.7 cuft
• Allowable fuel weight 967 113.1 854 lbm
• Required fuel volume (at PF 0.7) 14.9 cuft
• Total ID mission payload requirement
• Weight with zero fuel 113 lbm
• Weight with fuel 967 lbm
• Volume 38.2 cuft
• Power required 450 W

No change in ID payload unit cost of 0.6M
26-31
32
Alternate 2 mission profile

• The increased 204 km WAS SAR range requirement
  requires an increased WAS loiter operating
  altitude of 58.6 Kft (for a 5 degree look down
  angle)
• Cruise speed must also be increased to compensate
• Nominally to 280 kts (5 kts above best loiter
  speed)
• At 58.6 Kft the TBProp is no longer sized by
  takeoff
• Bhp0/W0 must be increased to 0.287 just to reach
  initial cruise altitude (see Mperf output Hdot4)
• Using a standard ceiling altitude definition of
  100 fpm
• It is also necessary to ensure excess power is
  available to meet cruise and high speed
  requirements
• See Mperf outputs Hdot4 through Hdot17
• The alternate UAV is larger and more expensive
• W0 12328 lbm EW 7344lbm Bhp0 3489 Hp
• 3 WAS, 5 ID air vehicles _at_ 2.9M ea. 3 WAS
  payloads _at_ 4.84M ea. Total cost 40.8M vs.
  34M

26-32
33
Remaining baseline tasks

• Our assessments, therefore, show that the
  baseline ConOps (1 ID and 4 WAS air vehicles)
  with the refined air vehicles and modular WAS and
  ID (with auxiliary fuel) payloads meet our
  threshold (and goal!) mission requirements at the
  lowest overall procurement cost
• This refined baseline will become our Preferred
  Baseline System Concept
• .. if it meets our risk assessment criteria
• The best overall system concept we have found
  even though conceptual design studies may find
  better solutions for the individual system
  elements to include better air vehicle designs,
  better payloads, etc.
• However, the baseline is still not completely
  defined
• We still need to (1) assess risk, (2) determine
  operations and support requirements, (3)
  determine manpower requirements and (4) estimate
  life cycle cost

26-33
34
Risk assessment
Since we have already compared our initial
baseline air vehicle against other aircraft in
our parametric database, a quick check of the new
baseline should verify that our performance is
achievable (i.e. low risk)
Wetted AR b2/Swet
Manned aircraft data LM Aero data handbook
This and the SFC data checks but we still have
risk
26-34
35
Air vehicle risk

• Our wing aspect ratio (AR) is well above that of
  any known air vehicle that has to fly at an
  equivalent air speed (EAS) of 250 Kts (280 KTAS _at_
  7Kft )
• High AR wings are susceptible to flutter at high
  speeds
• We have three options for dealing with this risk
• Assume someone can solve the problem later,
  e.g. new

• materials or active flutter suppression
• Reduce AR to max. demonstrated value (12)
• Design a fix (e.g., a quick change wing or
  removable outer wing panel for the ID mission)

26-35
36
Assessment of options

• Option 1 is viable if solutions are in work or we
  are willing to fund the required technology
  programs
• Otherwise we are simply kicking the problem down
  stream
• Option 2 is viable if we can stand the penalty
• Spreadsheet analysis shows that at AR12 we can
  achieve the same level of mission performance at
  W0 4372 lbm (596 lbm) and EW 2369 lbm
  (268lbm)
• Overall cost increases 1.3M to 35.3M
• Option 3 is viable if the design fixes cost lt
  1.3M
• Designing and testing a second wing optimized for
  the ID mission could easily exceed this cost
• A removable outer wing panel might be less
  complex but (1) attachment provisions will
  increase wing weight and (2) either more takeoff
  power or flap performance will be required to
  offset the reduced wing area
• We will use our spreadsheet model to assess
  Option 3

26-36
37
Option 3 assessment

• Optimized ID mission wing will not be cost
  effective
• ID mission performance essentially will be
  unchanged but development program will involve
  design and test of second wing on one additional
  flight test vehicle
• Vehicle cost alone ? 3M
• Removable wing panel may also not be cost
  effective
• Assuming 5 wing weight penalty for non-optimum
  wing but no increase in Clto, Bhp0/Sref 0.142
  (vs. 0.121), W0 4081 lbm (305 lbm), EW 2325
  lbm (224 lbm) and overall mission cost 35.1M
  (1.1M)
• With 23 increase in Clto (and additional 5 wing
  weight penalty), W0 3929 lbm (153 lbm), EW
  2216 lbm (115 lbm) and overall mission cost
  34.6M (0.6M)
• Assuming development cost proportional to weight
  of additional wing, development goes up 15
  (?13M)
• Unless increased OS cost offsets development,
  the most cost effective option will be a AR 12
  wing design

26-37
38
Risk abatement plan

• We identify the issue of high-speed vs. high-AR
  as high risk and document a requirement for a
  conceptual design trade study to determine the
  best option
• We select the AR12 concept as our preferred
  baseline to ensure margin on our air vehicle
  cost estimates to cover the projected unit cost
  increase
• We will also increase our development cost
  estimate to cover the cost of additional design,
  test and evaluation required by removable wing
  panels
• We put an upper limit on development cost of 2M
• If it is higher, a better option would simply be
  to decrease AR to 12
• Otherwise, we see no more high-medium risk issues
  
• Although others could develop as the concept
  matures

26-38
39
RMSS requirements

• Reliability, maintainability, safety and support
  (RMSS) covers a range of operational and
  technical issues that must be considered from the
  beginning of a project
• See Lesson 12
• The key RMSS issues for our system concept are
• The level of redundancy required and
• (2) The training, maintenance and support concept
• RMSS issues drive operations and support costs,
  the single largest element of Life Cycle Cost
  (LCC)
• Unfortunately, history is replete with programs
  that presumed that consideration of these key
  issues could be put off until later in the
  program
• This is a potentially fatal mistake that always
  increases downstream cost and risk and sometimes
  results in program cancellation

26-39
40
Redundancy

• Two issues drive redundancy requirements
• Flight and operational safety
• Operations in manned airspace
• Safety fundamentally drives operational utility
  and cost
• No user wants to operate a UAV system if there is
  even a moderate risk of a crash in or around the
  operating area
• Not only because they endanger personnel, crashes
  are also very expensive
• If we plan to operate our UAV in or through civil
  airspace anytime during its operational life,
  flight critical systems probably need to be a
  minimum of fail safe
• Backup systems allow the UAV to safely return to
  base after a failure (including engine systems,
  but not engines)
• Fail operational is a higher cost option
  allowing the UAV to continue a mission, albeit
  with degraded performance
• A redundant See and avoid sensor and
  communications capability will probably also be
  required

26-40
41
Training and support

• Although other options should be considered
  later, we will assume that maintenance and
  support is organic
• I.e., the using organization is responsible for
  maintenance
• We will use parametric data to estimate the
  number of maintenance personnel required
• Another option is contractor maintenance which
  probably requires a conceptual design trade study
  to evaluate
• We also assume the user is responsible for
  proficiency training but that primary training
  and qualification is done by a separate
  organization
• The number of training systems need to be
  included in the procurement estimates
• Similarly, primary and proficiency training hours
  need to be included in operations and support
  costs
• These requirements will be documented and
  included in cost estimates to follow

26-41
42
Manpower requirements

• Manpower estimates include
• Operators (air vehicle, payload, communications
  and product analysis and dissemination)
• Maintainers (responsible for all system elements)
• Headquarters staff (management, mission planners,
  etc.)
• Indirect personnel (support personnel, etc)
• We already identified a requirement for 7
  operators
• One WAS one payload operator (for 4 air
  vehicles)
• One ID air vehicle and payload operator
• One payload product analyst and dissemination
  operator
• One launch and recovery operator
• One C3I operator (primarily focused on
  communications)
• One back-up operator
• For 24 hour, 7 day a week coverage by crews
  working 40 hours per week at a 125 staffing
  ratio we require 5.3 crews (which we round up to
  6)
• Or 42 full time UAV, payload, system, etc.
  operators

26-42
43
Maintenance personnel

• Parametric data based on historical manned
  aircraft experience is used to estimate
  maintenance manpower required
• Note that Global Hawk fits the manned aircraft
  data
• Predator does not which may reflect its Advanced
  Technology Demonstration (ATD) development
  history which did not emphasize the importance of
  maintainability

• From this parametric we estimate the number of
  personnel required
• 2.7 maintenance personnel per baseline air
  vehicle plus payload or 33 maintainers per 12 air
  vehicle squadron
• On average, 6-7 maintainers per 8 hr. shift

26-43
44
Other personnel

• Headquarters personnel including
• Commanders (minimum of 1 per shift)
• Mission planners (minimum of 1 per shift)
• Supply and logistics (minimum of 2 per shift)
• IT (minimum of 1 per shift)
• ..for a total of 5?1.25 7 additional personnel
  (minimum)
• Indirect personnel including.
• Guards, Medical personnel, Clerical staff, Etc.
• are typically estimated at an additional 25
• Therefore, the total squadron manpower estimate
  is
• (42 operators 33 maintainers 7 staff)?1.25
  103 heads

This may be an optimistic estimate for the number
of people required to keep 5 air vehicles on
station 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but unless
we can identify the missing tasks, we should
stick with this estimate
26-44
45
Life cycle cost

• Development cost
• The cost of developing a system
• Considered a non-recurring cost
• Occurs only once (hopefully)

• Procurement cost
• The cost to buy a system once it is developed
• Includes a lot of recurring cost
• Costs incurred every time a system is produced

• Operations and support cost (QS)
• The cost to maintain and operate a system after
  purchase
• Includes the cost of maintaining crew proficiency
• Excludes the cost of combat operations

Development procurement OS ? Life cycle
cost See Course Review 5.2 (Life Cycle Cost)
26-45
46
Life cycle cost
Cost methods - review

• Airframe
• Development - Equations 24.1 - 24.4
• Procurement - Equations 24.5 - 24.10
• Propulsion (procurement) - Eq 24.11
• Ground Station communications
• Development - 70 air vehicle development
• Procurement 1 air vehicle sensor payload
• Payload (procurement) - 5000/lb
• Operations and support
• Air vehicle payload operators - estimate number
• Maintenance personnel - chart 12-30
• Other personnel - add 25
• Air vehicle operating costs (inc. engine) - chart
  24-27
• Ground station communications - 8
  procurement/yr
• Payload - 8 procurement/yr

26-46
47
Program cost

• Development (assuming 3 test aircraft) 138M
• - Airframe (from CERs) 2M 81M
• - Propulsion (off the shelf)
• - Control station comms (_at_70 airframe) 57M
• - RF and EO/IR payload (off the shelf)
• Procurement (assuming 20 aircraft, 12 WAS
  payloads and 8 ID payloads) 65.3M
• - Airframe (from CERs) 1.0M each
• - Propulsion (1000/lbm) 200K each
• ID payload (5K/lb) 665K each
• WAS payload (5K/lb) 3M each
• 3 Control stations comms 3(1 airframe 1
  payload) 14M
• Average air vehicle payload cost 3.3M

26-47
48
OS summary

• One UAV squadron consists of 12 air vehicles and
  2 ground control stations (1 as back up)
• - 10 aircraft assigned to operational missions, 1
  in reserve, undergoing maintenance
• 6 flight crews are required (rounded up from 5.5)
• At 2000 hours per person per year
• We assume the squadron performs two (2) 30 day
  surveillance missions per year
• Each 30 day mission requires 5459 flight hours
• 160 WAS missions of 25.8 hrs each
• 121 ID missions of 14 hrs each
• During the other 10 months per year, the squadron
  trains primarily on simulators, each UAVs flies 1
  hr per week for an average of 208 hours per month
• Total annual squadron flight hours 12998

26-48
49
OS and LCC

• Annual personnel costs are 5.15M
• 103 _at_ 50K/yr (est.)
• Annual air vehicle direct operating costs are
  2.46M
• - See LCC Review Chart 20 _at_ EW 2101lb and
  Direct operating cost per flight hour (DOCFH)
  0.09EW ? 189/FH _at_ 12998 FH/yr
• Annual ground station communications operating
  costs are 528K
• - 2 stations?0.08?3.3M
• Annual average payload operating costs are 2.2M
• - 0.08?12 ?2.3M
• Annual OS costs 10.34M

20 year Life cycle costs 410M
26-49
50
Final derived requirements

• Derived requirements (from our assumptions or
  studies)
• System element
• Maintain continuous WAS/GMTI coverage at all
  times
• One target ID assignment per hour
• Uniform area distribution of targets
• Communications LOS range to airborne relay 158
  nm
• LOS range from relay to surveillance UAV 212 nm
• Air vehicle element
• Day/night/all weather operations, 90
  availability
• Turboprop power
• Takeoff and land from 3000 ft paved runway
• ID/WAS altitudes 7 30Kft
• Operational loiter location 158 nm (min) 255
  nm (max)
• Operational loiter endurance 18 hrs
• Loiter pattern 2 minute turn
• Dash speed 280 kts
• Dash distance ? 860 nm
• Dash altitude ? 7 Kft

26-50
51
Final derived requirements

• Air vehicle element (contd)
• Accommodate 603 lbm, 20 cuft modular payload
• Provide fuel interface for auxiliary payload fuel
  tank
• Provide 4000 W power for payloads
• Cruise L/D ? 24.6 at 30 Kft and ? 191 KTAS
• Loiter L/D ? 24.7 at 7 kft at ? 141 KTAS at
• Cruise TSFC ? 0.34
• Loiter TSFC ? 0.34
• Bhp0 ? 457
• W0/Sref 40 psf
• Weng ? 208 lbm
• Clto ? 1.5
• Wlg ? 189 lbm
• Removable wing panel to reduce ID mission
  aircraft aspect ratio to ? 12
• Etc.
• Etc.

26-51
52
Final derived requirements

• Payload element
• Modular WAS and ID payloads
• Common weight/volume/power ? 603 lbm/26.9
  cuft/4000W
• WAS Payload module
• SAR/GMTI
• Range/FOR /resolution/speed 102 km/?45?/1 m/2
  mps
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 370 lbm/9.25
  cuft/3400W
• Communications
• Range/type 212nm/air vehicle and payload C2I
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 57 lbm/5.9
  cuft/300W
• Range/type 158nm/communication relay
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 57 lbm/5.9
  cuft/300W
• Communications antennae (2 each)
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 25 lbm/2
  cuft/TBD W
• ID Payload module
• EO/IR
• Type/range/resolution Turret/3 km/0.5 m
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 40 lbm/1
  cuft/450W

26-52
53
Final derived requirements

• Payload element (continued)
• ID Payload module (continued)
• Communications (including antennae)
• Range/type 212nm/air vehicle and payload C2I
• Uninstalled weight/volume/power ? 77 lbm/7.9
  cuft/300W
• Auxiliary fuel
• Fuel weight/installed volume ? 490 lbm/ ? 14 cuft
  
• Control Station element
• Provide waypoint/flight path control
• 6 control consoles air vehicle/EO/IR (2), SAR
  (1), C3I (1), product process/dissemination(1),
  launch and recovery(1)
• Provision for back-up/jump seat (1)
• Back-up power for X hours operation off grid
• Etc.
• Support element
• Provide organic maintenance for 12 air vehicles
  operating 24/7 for 30 days
• Provide proficiency training for crew members
• Provide ..
• Etc.

26-53
54
Pre-concept design - remarks

• Lessons 14, 24 and 25 are examples of the design
  considerations and thought processes used in
  pre-concept design
• - Use them as a process guide, not a cook book
• Make sure that you review the spreadsheet
  calculations and ensure that lift coefficients
  are always below stall (use Clmax 1.2 and a
  stall speed margin of 25)
• Also make sure that you have sufficient thrust at
  all points in the mission (and enough volume for
  fuel, etc)
• Inadequate thrust shows up as a negative rate of
  climb and thrust-drag
• Finally, make sure you do cost effectiveness
  trades to select your preferred concepts

26-54
55
Questions?
26-55