The Navy and Marines have a
tendency to latch onto pieces of equipment with little or no data to base such
enthusiasm on other than manufacturer’s claims.
They then attempt to rush the equipment into service and do everything
they can to either minimize testing or conduct unrealistic, simplistic testing
in an effort to produce data supporting their equipment choice. Unfortunately, all too often, when more
rigorous testing is eventually conducted, the equipment is found to be badly
flawed. At this point, the Navy and
Marines are faced with the choice of either admitting they chose a flawed piece
of equipment or pouring ridiculous sums of money into frantic attempts to fix
the equipment.
An example of such a story is
the RQ-21 Blackjack small UAV, manufactured by Insitu Inc. The story is detailed in the 2015 DOT&E
Annual Report.
From the DOT&E report,
the RQ-21 will be used to provide Marine Corps commanders and units ashore with
a dedicated battlefield Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
capability that will reduce their dependence on higher headquarters for ISR
support.
RQ-21 Blackjack |
As a reminder, the RQ-21 is
a UAV system consisting of five small RQ-21 Blackjack UAVs, ground control
stations, launch and recovery equipment, datalinks, and multi-mission payloads
From the DOT&E report, the
Marine Corps intends the RQ-21A system to have:
- The reliability to support an operating tempo of 12
hours on station per day at a sustained rate for 30 days and the capability for
one surge of 24 hours on-station coverage per day for a 10-day period during
any 30-day cycle
- An aircraft with 10 hours endurance, airspeed up to
80 nautical miles per hour, a service ceiling of 15,000 feet density altitude,
and an operating radius of 50 nautical miles
- An electro-optical sensor capable of providing the
ground control station operator team sufficient visual resolution to support
classification of a 1-meter linear sized object from 3,000 feet altitude …
- An infrared
sensor capable of classifying a 3-meter sized linear object from 3,000 feet
OK. All of that sounds good. So what’s the problem? Well, here is DOT&E’s assessment of the
RQ-21 performance.
- The detachment equipped with RQ-21A is not
effective in supporting the ground commander’s mission because of an inability
to have an unmanned aircraft arrive on station at the designated time and
remain on station for the duration of the tasked period. During the
IOT&E, the RQ-21A-equipped unit provided coverage during 68 percent of
the tasked on-station hours (83.8 of 122.7 hours).
- The electro-optical/infrared sensor provides
accurate target locations. While the Capabilities Production Document does
not specify a threshold value for sensor point of interest accuracy,
Marine Corps guidance indicates that 100 meter accuracy is sufficient to
support tactical operations. RQ-21A provides a 90-percent circular error
probable target location error of 43.8 meters. Such accuracy is sufficient
to support targeting in a conventional linear battlefield, but does not support
targeting in a dense urban environment that requires more accurate target
locations.
- The RQ-21A sensor does not meet one of the two
target classification Key Performance
Parameters (KPPs) established in the Capabilities Production Document. The
electro-optical sensor does not provide a 50 percent probability of
correct classification for 1-meter linear objects (weapons or tools). The
infrared sensor does meet the 50 percent threshold probability for
correctly classifying 3-meter objects (vehicle chassis type) by
demonstrating 100 percent correct classification.
- The communications relay payload limits the
commanders’ tactical flexibility and mission accomplishment. It is constrained
to a single frequency in each of the two radios that are set before launch.
Once airborne, operators cannot change frequencies. …
- The recessed, nose-mounted
electro-optical/infrared payload requires circular orbits over the top of
the target to maintain continuous coverage and positive target
identification. The use of offset orbits results in the fuselage blocking
the payload field of view for significant periods of time. These offset orbits
resulted in auto-track break locks and loss of positive identification of
high-value targets. There are orbit shapes that would allow RQ-21A
operators to maintain continuous coverage of a target, but the current
RQ-21A operating system limits operators to circular orbits.
- The
RQ-21A is not operationally suitable. The RQ-21A demonstrated a Mean Flight Hour Between Abort for the System
of 15.2 hours versus the 50-hour requirement. Because of aircraft
reliability, overall system availability did not meet the 80 percent KPP
threshold (demonstrated value equals 66.9 percent). [Emphasis added]
- The average time between overhaul of the
propulsion modules was 48.9 hours, which does not meet the manufacturer’s
stated 100-hour capability.
- The RQ-21A Naval Air Training and Operations Standardization
manual is missing important information regarding mission computer logic.
This lack of information is especially critical during emergencies where
operators are unaware of which conditions enable/disable various aspects of
aircraft functionality. This lack of system operations information
contributed to the loss of an aircraft during the first IOT&E flight.
- Extended logistics delay times and production
quality control issues contributed to the system’s poor reliability and
availability. In six instances, aircraft spent time in a non-mission
capable status while awaiting spare parts. Incorrectly assembled/configured
components received from the manufacturer increase the maintenance time to
repair or replace components, resulting in reduced mission availability.
- The system has exploitable cybersecurity
vulnerabilities.
You caught the part about
the RQ-21 being not operationally suitable?
Overall, that’s a pretty poor assessment for a piece of equipment that
has reached the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) stage.
IOT&E should be the
final, almost rubber stamp, demonstration for a system that has gone through
extensive development and had all the bugs worked out of it. Instead, the RQ-21 doesn’t even come remotely
close to being what was desired. How
does this happen?
The military latched onto
this without demanding proof of performance.
That’s bad but they made it worse by programming it into the force
structure, untested. Essentially, the
military is buying equipment sight unseen, based on nothing more than sales
brochures. We’ve witnessed this
phenomenon play out with the LCS. The
Navy committed to 55 LCS before the first was even designed, let alone tested
in the form of a prototype and we’ve seen the results.
The RQ-21 might, someday,
with enough work, become the system that it’s advertised to be. At that point, it might make sense to acquire
it – but not before. Worse, the military
is pouring money into testing and fixing the system. Here’s a shocker – that’s the manufacturer’s
job!!! If the manufacturer wants to sell
a small UAV then the onus is on them to build a working prototype and
thoroughly test it so as to be able to provide actual performance data to the
military, not made up sales brochure numbers.
There is no need for the military to fund the manufacturer’s development
effort. Do you have any idea how many
small UAV companies and products are available?
If the manufacturer can’t or won’t offer a proven, tested, fully
developed prototype then the Navy can simply move on to the next
manufacturer. This idea that the
military has to pay for manufacturer’s development programs is insane. None of us would pay for a manufacturer to
develop a toaster. We’d simply buy one
that already works from some other company.
This is yet another example
of a procurement system that is badly broken.
It’s one thing (though still unacceptable) when you’re talking about a
carrier and there is no alternative source but for a small UAV that is offered
by dozens of manufacturers, why are we jumping on the first thing we see, with
no proof of performance, and paying the manufacturer to do their own job?
Come on, Navy/Marines, show
us just a little bit of common sense.
Why not modify the RQ-7 shadow to obtain that level of endurance? Besides endurance, I can find nothing that would support fielding a new UAV platform with the same or worse capabilities when we already have multiple platforms already.
ReplyDeleteThis a waste of resources during a period when we cannot afford to waste resources.
What is it with DoD and poor engine/power reliability?
ReplyDeleteThe Remote Minehunting System is Diesel based and was so terrible the program is about to get restructured.
The RQ-21 propulsion module was 50% low.
Geez if we don't know by now that the engine is usually on of the most important parts of a system, then don't people read history anymore?
Guderian said it was the second most important part of a Tank after the Gun.
The P-51 was lousy until the Rolls Royce was added.
The F-14 engine was a big problem.
Those who don't ready history are doomed to repeat it - SIGH.
Very good point!
DeleteIf it can't meet the specs, and the military green lights it anyway, either they have a spec problem or a authorization problem.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like this isn't even close.
Are the people making the specs different than the people saying 'yes please!'
the thing is this , unless you have cheap disposable drone swarm controlled by AI (with human operator controling the swarm instead of individual UAV) , the whole unmanned thing wont advance beyond today's usage pattern.
ReplyDeletelaunch and recovery of UAVs should reach a point of simplicity , maybe VLS launched UAVs and recovery by another means ?
and then we got the possible scenario of UAV swarm against enemy's UAV swarm.. what to do if they encountered each other ? shoot lasers to blind sensors ?
Why blind a UAV when you can kill it. Back in 2008 during the south Ossetia war, a Georgian drone fired a sidewinder at a Russian su-27.
ReplyDeleteI think this is very disapointing. The blackjack look like a good platform. An upgraded scaneagle. I get that obviously it a different roll for USMC. But it looks rather underspeced as the scaneagle is getting a SAR radar among other upgrades.
ReplyDelete