Army Building an Airport Just For Drones 48
schwit1 writes The Army's ever-growing use of unmanned aerial systems has gotten to the point where two of the most commonly used UAS are getting their own airport. The service's Corps of Engineers at Fort Worth, Texas, has awarded a $33 million contract to SGS to build a 150-acre unmanned aircraft launch and recovery complex at Fort Bliss for Grey Eagle and Shadow UAS.
In related news, the FAA has just cleared 4 companies (Trimble Navigation Limited, VDOS Global, Clayco Inc. and Woolpert Inc.) to use drones commercially, for purposes such as site inspection and aerial surveys. (A lot of drones are already in use, of course, but the FAA doesn't like it.)
Re:too expensive (Score:5, Informative)
That and "associated maintenance shops, administrative space, storage space, 5-ton bridge crane, oil/water separator, aircraft container and forklift storage, UAV runway, taxiway, access apron, oil and hazardous waste storage buildings, vehicle storage facilities, organizational vehicle parking, and overhead protection/canopy"
Re:too expensive (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think it will really only cost $33 million, do you?
By the time they pad out the budget, get some money for black projects, pay $10K for a hammer ... this should easily hit a few hundred million.
Re:too expensive (Score:4, Informative)
By the time they pad out the budget, get some money for black projects, pay $10K for a hammer ... this should easily hit a few hundred million.
I think there's a common misconception that this "pad out" occurs on purpose. Most of the military officers involved in procurement are still wet behind the ears, and fresh out of college. Requirements come extremely poorly written, and any long term project often ends up with those officers being replaced as the originals move on to their next duty assignment. That means that the next guy in charge frequently changes the whole project.
Don't get me wrong, these aren't the only reasons for high expense on military projects, but they are a huge factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes it is. In fact, for an airport, support facilities, hangar and maintenance facilities, and proper air traffic control and infrastructure, you'd be hard pressed to get a commercial project for significantly less with the same specifications.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure this is something you could crack off from a kmart parking lot.
http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/ae5d20f/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fd3%2Fdd56dff8b3364db93f0786ba87db6b%2F43931widemodern_drone_070213.jpg
http://img.rt.com/files/news/1f/be/20/00/an-x-47b-drone.si.jpg
These are medium sized ones.
They also many times reuse old F-XX type craft and turn them into drones. Never mind most kmart parking lots are located in residential type areas and the noise of jet aircraft tak
Re:too expensive (Score:5, Informative)
When you hear "drone" you probably are picturing civilian quad copters. While some military drones are that small, others are substantial aircraft. The Air Force's Global Hawk weighs over ten tons and requires a runway 3700 feet long to take off.
Obviously some military drones can be hand launched, but the MQ-1Cs mentioned in the article weigh 2200 lbs fully loaded and requires a minimum runway of 2000 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First result:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226688/wireless/drone-crashes-into-triathlete--operator-blames--hacker---victim.html [networkworld.com]
Drone crashes into triathlete; operator blames 'hacker,' victim
'My hair was completely red with blood'
Network World | Apr 7, 2014 11:39 AM PT
Re: (Score:2)
I am proof, by way of scientific anecdote.
Back when Moby Dick was a minnow, I bought a remote control airplane and took it out to a pasture and fired that puppy up and immediately crashed it into a tree, resulting in an unanticipated rapid disassemble.
That experiment will be reproduced by 98.78% of the other scientific dipwads out there, so fuck a bunch of remote control aircraft, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the over use of drones but RC aircraft do fall out of the sky.
What people don't get is that RC aircraft can be pretty big and dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
People already fly jet RC aircraft that fly at well over 100 mph and mass over 50lbs.
Yes they can kill people which is why they have rules.
You are right that most "drones" are not large or fast but they can be. Maybe a rule of under 5 lbs and under 20 mph for unregulated drones is in order.
And knowing is half the battle (Score:1)
I guess now we know who pushes those "news stories" about all the near-catastrophic near-misses with all of the non-(Trimble Navigation Limited, VDOS Global, Clayco Inc. and Woolpert Inc.) drones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess now we know who pushes those "news stories" about all the near-catastrophic near-misses
The FAA is an example of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]. It is run by aviators for the interest of pilots and aviation companies, who see drones as a threat to their businesses and jobs. So they push the stories that fit the narrative that drones are an evil threat. The FAAs regulations have become so draconian, that it is technically illegal to toss a frisbee.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is an example of regulatory capture. It is run by aviators for the interest of pilots and aviation companies
I guess you've never heard that very old GA joke, "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you..."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thought. As a pilot, when you get an unexpected call, mail or visit from the FAA, you treat it like a cop showing up at your door unexpectedly. And often, you consult with AOPA, and an attorney first. Otherwise, you're likely to be grounded w/o due process.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess now we know who pushes those "news stories" about all the near-catastrophic near-misses
The FAA is an example of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]. It is run by aviators for the interest of pilots and aviation companies, who see drones as a threat to their businesses and jobs. So they push the stories that fit the narrative that drones are an evil threat. The FAAs regulations have become so draconian, that it is technically illegal to toss a frisbee.
You must have a hell of an arm, because the FAA is only responsible for airspace above 700 feet AGL unless you happen to be on or very close to an airport, plus FAA typically only cares when it's a powered craft being used for commercial purposes. And, until there is a standard frozen-drone-through-the-inlet test on jet engines to prove that a strike would be survivable for the aircraft, they do have a duty to take action to prevent a mid-air collision that could kill many tens or hundreds of people.
Re: (Score:2)
plus FAA typically only cares when it's a powered craft being used for commercial purposes.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but this part isn't accurate, otherwise GA wouldn't even need a license.
Re: (Score:2)
plus FAA typically only cares when it's a powered craft being used for commercial purposes.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but this part isn't accurate, otherwise GA wouldn't even need a license.
The FAA has only pursued "drone" (R/C) pilots who stay below 700' AGL when they fly for commercial purposes (aka as a business). Plus, you can fly manned ultralights without a license; the FAA steps in with licensing when the craft is above a certain size or carries more than 1 passenger. So, yes and no. I should have said "The FAA typically only cares about unmanned flight when..."
Re: (Score:2)
You must have a hell of an arm, because the FAA is only responsible for airspace above 700 feet AGL
No, this is wrong. The FAA has jurisdiction over any untethered flying object [vice.com]. Some of their regulations for manned aircraft specify the 700 feet threshold, but that is not a jurisdictional boundary.
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
As a pilot, in the drone industry ... bullshit. The FAA's job is to enhance the safety of aviation. The fewer people who can afford to fly, the safer. On the drone side of things, I've yet to work with anyone in the FAA, govt employee or contractor, who is a pilot or has any interests in flying beyond a means to get somewhere. On the other hand, they have a laser focus on safety, and aren't going to push out half-assed bullshit safety regulations to make the nascent drone industry happy. Simply put, to meet
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo, I'm glad to see others can poke through the propaganda.
War is changing. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... paid for by Sony and other mega corps against small communist regimes.
Re: (Score:1)
To some degree, I think it will be more like things we see in William Gibson's novels (Mona Lisa Overdrive in particular) where corporations wage wars against each other.
Though not too many civilian causalities.
Southwest Airlines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As they're finding out, the military drones are actually better at landing themselves, instead of letting the pilots land them remotely. Under ideal conditions it's very likely that a computer will be better than humans when taking off and landing. Computers can read and process sensor data a lot more efficiently than a human's eyes and ears. We're just made out of meat, after-all.
Re: (Score:2)
As they're finding out, the military drones are actually better at landing themselves, instead of letting the pilots land them remotely.
Most commercial flights already do this with Cat 3 ILS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that in 3D space (with aircraft) this works well, but it's taking much longer to do the same in 2D (land vehicles).
Re: (Score:2)
Airspace is mostly empty, and air traffic flows along well regulated routes, with many electronic aids/sensors (radar, glide slope & localizing beams for landings, etc.)
The challenge of land vehicles are (1) the unpredictable, dense, environment, and (2) the signalling is mostly visual (lines, stop lights, etc.) which is hard for computers to interpret.
Re: (Score:2)
They are already here.
No wonder you post anonymous.
Isn't that a bit overkill? (Score:2)
It's already bad enough that they feel entitled to their own flights, but do we really need extra airports for politicians?
Airport ?! (Score:2)
or at the very least, robot roost
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
A full on drone base ont heborder.
Grey Eagle
Maximum speed: 150 knots (170 mph; 280 km/h)
Endurance: 30 hours
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,840 m)
Shadow UAS
Maximum speed: 127 mph; 204 km/h (110 kn)
Cruising speed: 81 mph; 130 km/h (70 kn)
Range: 68 mi (59 nmi; 109 km)
Endurance: 6 h/ 9 h Increased Endurance
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,572 m) ELOS (Electronic Line Of Sight)
Border operations? I wonder what else.
A society of drones (Score:5, Funny)
That's nothing, democracy built a society of drones.
Oh! You mean the robot planes. Sorry, my bad.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing, oligarchy built a society of drones.
Oh! You mean the robot planes. Sorry, my bad.
FTFY