This document discusses how defense technology development has shifted from being driven by military needs during the Cold War to now relying more on adapting commercial technologies. It uses unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as a case study of this transition. The author conducted experiments with various sized UAVs, including very small "nano" drones weighing under 200g, to understand their capabilities and how they could support soldiers. The experiments assessed factors like image quality, control methods, and safety. They helped the defense department define requirements for a nano UAV system to procure. In the end, they purchased a small British-made nano drone that could provide soldiers with reconnaissance from the air.

1. High Flying Technology
- A Personal Perspective
Nicholas Brown
1

2. Introduction
• Nick Brown - Engineering
Project Manager
• High Flying Technology - why
do we need to do things
differently?
• Importance of Experimentation
• De-risking
• Stakeholders
• System In-Service
2

3. Why?
3

4. CONTENTS
❖ Why
❖ Cold War
❖ Technology Invention vs Exploitation
❖ Implementation & Requirements
❖ How - Personal Example
❖ Technology Experimentation
❖ Assessment Methodology
❖ UAVs
❖ Stakeholder Engagement
❖ What
❖ What was actually procured
❖ Points to take away
4

5. Where were you?
5

6. The Cold War
❖ Bigger or Better Defences
❖ Cold War Defence drove invention
and innovation especially in
electronics world
❖ Only Budget to afford it
❖ Military to Civilian Transition
6

7. Example Military Products
7
❖ Pre Cold War
❖ Cold War
❖ Post Cold War

8. Moores Law
❖ "Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of
computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense
integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
8

9. Cheap Manufacturing
❖ During 1980’s China changed, a lot less insular
❖ Attracted western manufacturing in large quantity
❖ Drove down consumer prices and increased competition
9

10. Moores Law & Cheap Manufacturing
❖ Cost reasonable and highly useable
devices to the masses
❖ Consumer market size massively
increased
❖ Consumer drive for miniaturisation
❖ 2005 - Top Ten world commercial R&D
budgets equated to ~ $70Bn
❖ 2014 - Apple $6Bn in R&D alone
10

11. Research Budget
❖ Why is it important to understand the research budget for this presentation
11

12. What does this mean for Defence?
❖ Defence driven technology invention is mostly history
❖ New Defence Capability
❖ Cold War = ‘innovate and invent’
❖ Post Cold War = ‘react, adapt & exploit’
❖ Technology Push Vs Requirements Pull
❖ Niche defence areas still exist
12

13. Examples of adapted commercial equipment for the military
13
?
?
?
?
? ?

14. Implementation & Requirements
❖ How do we actually implement the
react, adapt and exploit philosophy
❖ Understand the market
technologies
❖ Identify how technologies may
be utilised in a military
environment
❖ Need to have product agnostic
requirements to meet
competition laws
❖ Work out when best to actually
try and procure technologies
based on development cycle not
in our control 14

15. Experimentation
❖ To develop and set realistic and achievable requirements in a world where
you mostly don’t drive the innovation and invention you must experiment
❖ Virtual/Simulation
❖ Live
❖ Measured
❖ Technological Risk Reduction
❖ Experimentation Issues
❖ Solution driven requirements
❖ Not prejudicing competitions
15

16. Experimentation within MOD
❖ Exercise Urban Warrior
❖ Land Open Systems
Architecture (LOSA)
Research, Experimentation
and Development (RED)
❖ Rotary Wing Unmanned Air
System (RWUAS) capability
concept demonstrator (CCD)
16

17. Personal Example
❖ Using UAVs as an example of reacting and adapting
and exploiting non defence development
❖ No specific UAV experimentation requirement
❖ Experimentation Steps Taken
❖ Management of Key Risks
❖ Stakeholder Management
❖ The End Result
17

18. Dismounted Experimentation Assessment
❖ Utilised an Iterative Live Trialling and Experimentation Process
for new technologies
❖ Level A - Bench Test
❖ Level B - Field and user Test
❖ Level C - Integrated user testing with other equipment
18

19. Experimentation Themes
❖ A range of themes where we wanted to develop our
understanding of technology not in service
❖ Tactical Situational Awareness
❖ “To provide adequate data resolution and
communications to enable mission success within a
complex environment. Information collection and
timely provision at the tactical level.”
19

20. What might satisfy this?
❖ Open source research conducted to understand
potential market place before advertised
❖ Expected:
20

21. Assessment Methodology
❖ Apart from UAVs well defined methods existed in
dismounted arena, UAVs were going to be much more
complex
❖ How would I initiate safe assessment of UAVs but still
get technology understanding answers we required?
❖ Safety?
❖ Operation?
❖ Training?
21

22. Safety
❖ Authority - Had to work with and comply with AA direction
❖ Civilian Regulations?
❖ Reliability, Technology Readiness Level
❖ Provider Experience/Competence
❖ Worst case?
22

23. Operation
❖ How could it be operated in a trial e.g. Overflight, exclusion zones,
potential functions
❖ What scenarios might it actually be useful for?
❖ What key attributes might we want to focus on?
❖ Response action plans?
23

24. Training
❖ Who could actually operate it on experiment operators/
pilotsWhat was the training burden?
❖ Achievable in trial time scales?
❖ What training existed already?
❖ Mitigations
24

25. Experimentation Risk Reduction
❖ How many UAVs to approve?
❖ Transferring the approval risk
❖ Non MOD experimentation
❖ System reliability
❖ Company competence
❖ Regulatory Compliance
❖ Multiple capability
assessment
❖ Robust Safety Case Development
25

26. Importance of System Weight & Soldier Integration
26

27. Potential UAVs
❖ Classifications
❖ Mini (2-7kg) - Already had
in service as UOR- DH3
❖ Micro (<2kg) - Significant
development in
commercial and military
world
❖ Various capabilities
dependant on size and type
❖ Many in-service around the
world
27

28. Nano UAVs
❖ Not Expected
❖ None in-service that I was aware of
anywhere
❖ Toys?
❖ Can’t possibly provide a defence
benefit?
❖ Surely impossible to have all these
quoted capabilities
❖ Classification
❖ <200g, <60g
❖ What regulations might apply?
28

29. Why were Nano UAVs now viable
❖ Consumer miniaturisation
❖ Moores Law & Cheap Manufacturing
❖ Mobile Phone cameras
❖ Mobile Phone GPS
❖ Not military driven
29

30. A different experimentation process for Nano?
❖ No - not a fair comparison, technology agnostic, capability
driven
❖ Identical Assessors
❖ Identical scenerios
❖ Identical user groups
❖ Experimentation Location
❖ Meteorological Events
❖ Impact on our safety constraints?
30

31. The Actual Experimentation
❖ Level A’s - Understanding and verifying the technology
❖ Assessment Team , Locations, Key Scenarios, Safety, Operation, Training
❖ Level B&C’s - Designed scenarios based on Level A findings
❖ Three week window (mitigate British weather)
❖ Image Quality
❖ Time to feed back information
❖ Usefulness of information in scenarios
❖ System Range
❖ Method of control (flown vs directed)
❖ In built safety measures
31

32. Translating Experimentation Results
❖ Utility of UAV as an organic dismounted asset
❖ The Overall System
❖ Dismounted Integration was easier as the system weight decreased
❖ Current unit structure
❖ What was the minimum level of utility
❖ Micro?
❖ Nano?
32

33. Stakeholder Management
❖ General Perception
❖ Toys
❖ Totally unknown within military
UAV world
❖ A research curiosity
❖ Operator Perception
❖ Capability Understanding
❖ Complementary Integration
❖ Robust Evidence Gathering
❖ Stakeholder demonstration
❖ Comparative Class Benefits &
Disadvantages
❖ Product Output Demonstrations
33

34. The Competition
❖ The experimentation allowed MOD to define achievable
and realistic technical requirements for a NUAS system.
❖ Aircraft weight <200g, System Weight <1.7kg
❖ >20 minute flight time, >300m range
❖ Following much more internal review into many other
non technical aspects, MOD decided to run a
competition for a NUAV.
http://www.publictenders.net/tender/1456421
34

35. What did the MOD actually buy?
35

36. UK Nano UAV In-Service - BBC Video
36

37. Thoughts to take away
❖ My belief is that in any technology projects or programmes in the
future will have to cater for unexpected technology advances
❖ Project managers will need to have robust plans to cope with
rampant technology development - Obsolescence
❖ Experimentation is key in understanding how a new technology
may benefit you
❖ In government - experimentation must not lead to requirements
that define a product and not a technology as the solution
❖ Stakeholders are wary of new or unknown technology - must
build in time and engagement sessions to your plans if you cross
into the unknown
37

38. Questions?
38