Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Fire Scout Fail: some of the background


While I still, ahem, wait for the full text - little birdies tell me some of the gritty details that led to the Fire Scout problems outlined in the post from earlier this week.

Yep, this will do it.
- Fragile data link that results in lost communication and constant launch delays. Is that what caused the Libya debacle?

- Operators can't establish data link with ground control station (GCS) before flight without "excessive troubleshooting" and "procedural workarounds," and the data link often dropped out during flight. See the National Capital Region airspace violation. That's what happened.

- Because reestablishing that data link with the air vehicle is time-consuming, it's not suitable for time-sensitive operations.

- Fire Scout completed only 54 percent of assigned missions aboard the HALYBURTON this year, and failed to complete a single mission during a pre-deployment dress rehearsal at Webster Field.
I note that all the above is in an almost sterile electronic environment.

The report does note that Fire Scout's payload does provide valuable ISR, it's just hampered by the fact that the system itself has such operational problems.

30 comments:

AW1 Tim said...

<span> I worked a lot with the Data Link system when I was with ComPatWingFive. We practiced and ran links between P-3's and the Aegis trainer in New Jersey, as well as various other platforms. When it worked, it was awesome. The key phrase is "when it worked". This was in the early 80's. It is no surprise to me that the Data Link system is still having problems. It was always the weakest link. If an enemy can disrupt it, it can nullify a large portion of our abilities.  
 
  Technology is wonderful and I am fully supportive of our developing and employing it. However, we need to pair that with an iron-sight monkey-model system as well, for when the tech is denied to us for whatever reason. The war won't stop because our tech is compromised.</span>

Guest said...

Well, when the datalink is mounted to the top of the mast, which at sea is moving at a pretty good pace in three axes, it's not hard to see how it would lose datalink, especially near the horizon. Antennas are also located in close proximity to the landing pad; I'm guessig to make sure there's a high data transfer rate close into the ship.

And that model is totally incorrect. FS sits parallel to the ground, not rocked back on it's skids.

Salty Gator said...

And in theory, Obama's economic policy will save America.  Unfortunately, all of the elements are individually wrecking it.  But hey, that doesn't mean that the policy is failed.

sid said...

Which makes one ponder how well things will work when that antenna is on a rolly-poly LCS-1 hull off the step in confused littoral seas.

Andy said...

Hmmm, going all the way back to Project Cadillac, can you tell me what the one, single most failure-prone part of 60+ years of these systems is, class? That's right, Susie, the freaking data links and attendant systems! Where do we see the most success in overcoming these issues? When there's humans in the direct link! (PBW-1, AD-5W, NTDS, Link 16, E-1, E-2, etc.) How about we mount all the working gee-whiz ISR packages on one of those icky-poo manned MH-60's and send it to sea? Betcha they'll work pretty damn well. BWTFDIK, I'm not a contractor whore, just an old
operator. 8-)

Retired Now said...

For 360 coverage LCS gets 2 of those expensive antennas. while all DDG s only need one antenna for 350 degrees of coverage. I guess those highly maneuverable LCS boats cannot be as agile as an old 10,000 ton DDG.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span><span>If an enemy can disrupt it, it can nullify a large portion of our abilities."</span></span>

That's from AW1 Tim, below. 

Phib, remember our animated bar discussion about LCS and remote platforms?  How a relatively unsophisticated enemy will look to disrupt, while a technological near-peer will try to inject false data, including critical sensor readings, into the uplink or downlink?

Yet, the Navy persists on using the term "information dominance" as if they know what it means.

Bill said...

Interesting stuff. I have a 'birds eye' view of the Fire Scout flight testing since my office window faces directly across the creek to Webster Filed and the UAV flight testing area is directly overhead. I watch that particualr birdie fly around all the time. Considering the amount of time elapsed since I saw my first Fire Scout up close and personal on the Sea Fighter (2003?), and all the testing I see to this day out of Webster, I just naturally assumed the system had to be reliable and mature by now.

Rats. There I go with that 'assuming' thing again.

Surfcaster said...

Models made from TP rolls tend to do that - sit near the a$$ end.

Eagle1 said...

DASH II?

Anonymous said...

go dig up the early test results on hawklink...  bet it performed perfectly when it made it to the fleet (rolling eyes emoticon)

Mike said...

Don't believe everything you read, especially when it comes to OT reports. Recent deployment stats tell a different story.

Squidly said...

System has to have some sort of autonomous functionality in order to survive the electronic battlefield.  And needs to have more utility than just being a glorified UAV.  Which would you rather have for SSC?  A Seahawk with 3 sets of eyes plus FLIR and the APS, or a soda straw?  Ok, so it can go where LAMPS cannot, and maybe it's LO, but then again we're not trying to replicate the mission of a Pioneer flying off the fantail of the Wisconsin to do NGFS north of Khafji either. 

Maybe if LCS had some weaponry of note.  Haly certainly doesn't need it for the OTO pop gun.

I'm not ever sure why we are putting tactical UAVs on small boys aside from the Navy wanting to stay in the game with the other services.  

When the HCS community gets replaced with drones for CSAR, then we can talk.

Retired Now said...

So the very best we can hope for is : Failure ??

So program failure and projects being finally cancelled is now the best hoped for outcome !?!

So we now relieved when failures are eventually announced ?

Is this George Orwell's 1984 ? ....just wondering....

leesea said...

I am no electronics type but won't there be similar problems with the wizbang "Battle Network"?

On a tangental track, is there a need for smaller manned gunships for smaller warships?

leesea said...

I am no electronics type but won't there be similar problems with the wizbang "Battle Network"?

On a tangental track, is there a need for smaller manned gunships for smaller warships?

sid said...

Nuthin like the a P-3 TACCO in Sigonella unable to get up on the link...Blaring out for God, Gaia, and everybody else to hear on clear HF how he can't synch up using the US key...So now he is gonna try unencrypted...Nope. Didn't work either...So he's gonna try the NATO keylist....

Beadwindow Facepalm.

Bubba Bob said...

<span> </span>Let’s not be so negative.  DASH was a nifty idea.  I’m sure DASH 2 was way better.  Actually using the gear is the only way to find out if it works as designed.  We learned lessons.   Take the lessons learned and make the next bird better.

<span> </span>Unmanned aircraft will be part of the mix, they are now.  A cruse missile is just a Kamikaze with a computer in the pilot’s seat.  
<p> 
<span> </span>A little unmanned helicopter with a sensor package and a line-of-sight optical data link could be a very useful tool. Heck, make ‘em cheap and small and give each ship 50 of them.   


</p><p> 
</p><p><span> </span>When gear don't work, fix it. 

</p>

PERMDUINS said...

<span>If you haven’t read “Wired for War” by P. W. Singer, you really ought to.  It’s been out for few years now and is a great primer on the issues we will face as systems become more autonomous.  To me, Fire Scout is a truly impressive piece of engineering.  And if wars were won at a DARPA fly-off with dedicated airspace, pre-tested communications infrastructure, evacuated crash danger zones and a not insignificant expectation of failure, we should buy a couple.  Sadly, they are not. 
</span>

<span>UAVs have proliferated for a great many reasons in the last decade.  They are certainly cheaper, with the caveat that “cheaper” in English means “less expensive”, but in PM language means “not from my pot of money”.  I believe that even if you capture the true costs, though, UAVs still are cheaper in the English sense.  They are also not accompanied in flight by aircrew.  When UAVs crash, people scream and shout and gnash their teeth, but nobody gets into a government vehicle in their Dress Blues to look into the eyes of someone who knows exactly why they’re there.  That is worth quite a lot. 

Unfortunately, the expectation that UAVs are THE answer, rather than PART of the answer, can lead to some foolish thinking that puts people (usually occupying another part of the system of systems) at risk.  Although we should know better, it’s easy to point to the string of UAV successes as proof of concept.  Every history buff out there should have alarm bells going off right now because we’ve read this story and although we don’t always know how it ends, we do know what the next chapter looks like.  The truth is, we have yet to employ these systems with only expeditionary-level support, in a denied or contested environment against an adversary who studies both us and the electromagnetic spectrum. 

So, PM’s—trust but verify (which doesn’t mean ask the guy sitting next to the guy who just briefed you).  Resource Sponsors—buy for the field and the fleet with the assumption that support is too far away and sanctuary bandwidth is the biggest limiting factor (because they are).  COCOMs—Gentlemen you are all handsome, brilliant and hilarious.  COCOM staffs—less is more.  Create a competitive environment where only the products that perform under stress in the field succeed.  Check back from time to time.  Industry—be ready to deliver those products.  I assure you, the margins are there. 
</span>

Anonymous said...

Yes, and to plan a thoroughly considered scale all the way up and down the tech ladder. 

pk said...

and all of those flight decks that we put on frammed' destroyers which were way to small for honest to god helicopters turned into wonderful sunbathing spots.

and the guys played all kinds of pingpong in the abandoned hangers.

C

pk said...

urr: are you saying that if a person takes the wire off of the #1 sparkplug in whatever they are driving and lets it arc to ground in the area where these birds are working they will see something interesting???

C

pk said...

if they ever put this thing in the fleet perhaps they might learn a couple of lessons from the old dasy (learned by the mk1 mod 1 eyeball method).

don't put the really expensive stuff for the controls up on the flight deck. fortify it to some degree.

the first lesson is that there was no place for the operator to jump (not even room to get over the side) it took a really brave man (after they ran out of ensigns fresh out of dash school) to launch and land those things from the flight deck.

second lesson is: charlie figured out that the control consol was pretty important and took pot shots at them (got at least two that i know of). 

c

CAPTJAPRET (deceased?) said...

At lest few of the links you mention are transmitted and received via satellite.  As you probably know a satellite tx/rx doesn't care that much about the sea state or other things. However the LOS links do, as you state. it makes one wonder why they picked a LOS link for a UAV going over the horizon.  That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

p.s. I work with satellites and links and networks daily as a contractor.

CAPTJAPRET (deceased?) said...

At lest few of the links you mention are transmitted and received via satellite.  As you probably know a satellite tx/rx doesn't care that much about the sea state or other things. However the LOS links do, as you state. it makes one wonder why they picked a LOS link for a UAV going over the horizon.  That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

p.s. I work with satellites and links and networks daily as a contractor.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

With the amount of people who have handled our source code for encrypting uplinks and downlinks, someone sophisticated can find a way to get in.  Those who can't, can interrupt.

AW1 Tim said...

<span>My greatest fear for the AF (and other) UAV operators is not that the enemy finds a way to disrupt the link or video feed, or even a way to counter the systems.  In this case, the weakest link is the operators, and I fear that an enemy will find out where they and their families live, and attack that portion of the system.  
 
  Seriously, it is insanely easy to game an attack whereby an enemy infiltrates teams over a period of years into this country, and sets them up for an assault onto and into the area where the UAV's are controlled, as well as attacking the pilots as they leave their homes for work.  
 
  We have too loose security in some of these areas, and it wouldn't take much at all to take down the human side of the UAV systems ( on land, anyway) if an enemy was determined enough to do so.  
 
   V/R</span>

Salty Gator said...

you are assuming that they haven't figured it out already.

MR T's Haircut said...

usually these operate on a C band UHF data link.  this gives line of site to about 100 miles plus or minus 30 or so.. the issue is the system needs to maintain constant LOS and this presents altitude operating issues.  Once airborne they should have hand-off to a Satcomm system.. Ku Band.. the issue becomes large disk and constant pointing of azimuth for Satcomm dish.. hard to do on a moving ship so that means the disk has to move to compensate... this is a problem land based SATCOMM doesnt have.   in other words the vehicle is sound but the conectivity is the issue.. not suprised when their are even fewer prime vendors for SATCOMM then their are for LCS!

MR T's Haircut said...

for SSC I would prefer a MALE UAV with a ground station located in the AOR.  Cheaper then a FFG/DDG and Lamps det.. and the coverage is superb.  Do it based on the Predator airframe with an MPR radar and an EO/IR payload.  this works and can easily replace the P-3 and the LAMPS Sea control missions.... (they cannot do ASW)

I have seen all in action and I became a UAV convert for MDA as soon as I started operating and seeing with my own eyes..

VERY cost effective and capable.. the problem comes when the Navy tries to use it and sends a P-3 LT to emply it ...