FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The Army is making a second attempt at a failed joint program to create a manned aerial platform designed to provide persistent surveillance over battlefields.
The service’s aerial common sensor was scheduled to undergo an Army Review Oversight Council hearing in mid-April. An industry day to give potential vendors an update on the concept of operations, and the new requirements that go with it will follow, Col. Robert Carpenter, project manager for aerial common sensors told National Defense.
“The world has changed and so has some of the requirements,” said Carpenter.
A draft request for proposals will be circulated this summer, and a final document released by the end of this year. He anticipates an award in the second or third quarter of fiscal year 2009.
The aerial common sensor was until 2006 a joint Army-Navy program designed to replace three reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft — the Army’s airborne reconnaissance-low and Guardrail common sensor along with the Navy’s EP3 Aries fleet.
At that point, the Army cancelled the project because of weight issues. It was determined that the small business-class jet chosen for the project simply could not carry all the equipment. The Navy is now pursuing its own aircraft, dubbed the EP-X.
Everything attempted in the original program, even the failures, are now data points, he said. “We learned a lot from the previous program. We understand more about size, weight, power and cooling.”
The concept calls for four crew members to man reconnaissance and surveillance work stations aboard the aircraft. Key, he said, will be teaming the ACS with unmanned aircraft. Carpenter has been asked why it is necessary to have a manned platform at all. UAVs seem to be a success story.
The drones are looking down in a narrow field of view, he noted. “It is pretty much a soda straw.”
Human operators must control these UAVs, he added. The command and control for them can be done aboard the ACS. In one scenario, a crew member aboard the platform using eavesdropping sensors intercepts communications from an insurgent.
Another on-board operator dispatches a UAV to the area to get a closer look.
The information it gathers can be quickly shared with commanders on the ground. The UAV could potentially place a laser-designator on the target, and a weapon system such as an Apache helicopter flown in to make the kill.
“A lot of what we’re doing in theater today is driving what our future [concepts of operations] are,” he said. “It’s really about the network that provides that persistent tactical surveillance.”
The future ACS will still be required to perform tasks in a major regional conflict such as locating enemy tanks or troops.
One of the goals is to reduce the time it takes from when a target is acquired to when action can be taken against it, the so-called “sensor-to-shooter chain.”
The eventual winner of the contract will have to demonstrate a track record of integrating signals intelligence, radar and communications technologies onto one platform.
“You can’t just glue stuff onto an ACS,” Carpenter said. “You have all those size, weight and power issues.”
The system integrator will choose the airframe. It could be either a turbo-prop or business jet in the under-100,000-pound class. The airframe should last 20 years, but not necessarily the surveillance equipment on board, he said.
The ACS should be able to accommodate new technologies as they become available. The new platform won’t be deployed until 2016, so the two aircraft it is replacing, airborne reconnaissance-low and the Guardrail common sensor, are receiving $500 million worth of upgrades. These upgrades will likely be transferred to the first generation of ACS, he said.
“Those investments are increment zero for ACS,” he said. “We’re learning a lot. We’re maturing payloads. We’re investing in things that are relevant now and will be relevant through the next decade,” Carpenter said.
Please email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org