Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Army Building an Airport Just For Drones

Posted by timothy on from the first-part-of-the-plan dept.

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.)

48 comments

  1. too expensive by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    $33 million?! Just buy an abandoned KMart parking lot for $10,000 and resurface it then build a radio hut tower thing.

    1. Re:too expensive by AaronLS · · 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"

    2. Re:too expensive by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need shelter for the aircraft (hangars), storage for fuel and other consumables (ammunition, film/data storage, etc), repair facilities and their associated storage requirements, facilities for the personnel assigned to the base (at the very least breakrooms and bathrooms, not to mention workspaces and command/control facilities, and probably housing as well-which comes with its own needs), a control tower with both visual and equipment navigation, and of course security personnel and the related infrastructure needed to secure and patrol a secure-access facility. I don't think 10 grand and an old KMart would be able to supply all of those things.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:too expensive by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Isn't a military airbase for $33M actually sort of cheap?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · 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 taking off and landing seems to upset people... (go figure...)

      You may be thinking of those little toy rc aircraft people have been playing with that have a camera on them. Then yeah you could do that. But the military basically lives by 'go big or go home'. They do that because they want to land 500-2000lb bombs on buildings and obliterate them. Your little ac craft from amazon probably will not pull that off...

      tl;dr These are full out aircraft they are messing with. Not small rc model planes. You need an airstrip for that.

    5. Re:too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only because we've been conditioned to accept outrageous levels of spending in the name of "national security".

    6. Re:too expensive by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:too expensive by hey! · · 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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:too expensive by dcw3 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It's fun to watch how this myth grows and grows over time. The $435 hammer is just a misunderstand of a budget, yet people keep bringing it up over and over. And wow, it's no longer $435, but $10K! Go anti-government superheros! Go!

    10. Re:too expensive by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    11. Re:too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It kind of diminishes the value of drones if they have to spend as much as they would for manned helicopters.

      Typical bureaucratic escapade. They get an inexpensive solution to a problem and by the time it goes up and down the bureaucracy, it costs more and is no better than the thing they tried to improve over.

      Time to get the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the General Accounting Office in the act.

  2. no thank you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would say that anybody flying a drone today is at great risk of injuring someone else or worse. why take that liability? i say, I'm not going to pilot drones until there is no liability and the price comes down.

    1. Re:no thank you sir! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Most "drones" available to the average civilian have about as much functionality as an RC place with a GoPro attached. You aren't going to have flocks of the things suddenly falling out of the sky landing on peoples heads and cars.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:no thank you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any proof of this claim?

    3. Re:no thank you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of results when you search google for drone drops from sky onto passerbys head.

    4. Re:no thank you sir! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      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?...
      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.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:no thank you sir! by passwd · · Score: 2

      First result:

      http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226688/wireless/drone-crashes-into-triathlete--operator-blames--hacker---victim.html

      Drone crashes into triathlete; operator blames 'hacker,' victim
      'My hair was completely red with blood'

      Network World | Apr 7, 2014 11:39 AM PT

    6. Re:no thank you sir! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. And knowing is half the battle by rot26 · · Score: 1

    In related news, the FAA has just cleared 4 companies (Trimble Navigation Limited, VDOS Global, Clayco Inc. and Woolpert Inc.) to use drones commercially

    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.

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    1. Re:And knowing is half the battle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, 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. 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.

    2. Re:And knowing is half the battle by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      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..."

    3. Re:And knowing is half the battle by jeffmeden · · Score: 0

      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. 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.

    4. Re:And knowing is half the battle by koan · · Score: 1

      Bingo, I'm glad to see others can poke through the propaganda.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:And knowing is half the battle by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re:And knowing is half the battle by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:And knowing is half the battle by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      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..."

    8. Re:And knowing is half the battle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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. Some of their regulations for manned aircraft specify the 700 feet threshold, but that is not a jurisdictional boundary.

  4. War is changing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the future, all conflicts will be unmanned battles interspersed with high-casualty WMD attacks on civilian populations.

    1. Re:War is changing. by xmousex · · Score: 1

      ... paid for by Sony and other mega corps against small communist regimes.

    2. Re:War is changing. by koan · · 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.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  5. Southwest Airlines by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Southwest already has a bid in on space. There will be a 30% discount on flights that don't require pilots.

    1. Re:Southwest Airlines by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Southwest Airlines by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Southwest Airlines by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:Southwest Airlines by Garfong · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Southwest Airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you put a flight path inside of a rigid tube, you would have the same problems. I don't get 700+ft of "oops" space when I fall asleep at the wheel. You pilots can be as sloppy as you want and you aren't going to wrap yourself around a tree unless you REALLY fuck up.

  6. just use area 51 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or the aliens wont allowed it?

  7. Terminator / Star Wars future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The drones are coming ... it's only a matter of time.

    1. Re:Terminator / Star Wars future by koan · · Score: 2

      They are already here.

      No wonder you post anonymous.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of those abandoned parking lots would be in heavily populated areas, I don't know about you but at least for the time being larger drones (especially military ones) should be kept WELL away from any inhabited areas. That said 33 Million does sound pretty high, unless this is being built as an ultra hardened facility (dense/thick concrete, EMP shielded/hardened, defenses, etc) there are most likely some kickbacks taking place.

  9. Isn't that a bit overkill? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It's already bad enough that they feel entitled to their own flights, but do we really need extra airports for politicians?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Airport ?! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    surely the proper nomenclature would be aerial drone aerodrome .
    or at the very least, robot roost

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  11. Interesting by koan · · 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.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  12. A society of drones by hessian · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's nothing, democracy built a society of drones.

    Oh! You mean the robot planes. Sorry, my bad.

    --
    Futurist Traditionalism
    1. Re:A society of drones by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, oligarchy built a society of drones.

      Oh! You mean the robot planes. Sorry, my bad.

      FTFY

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  13. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · 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 current aviation safety standards, drones will be unaffordable for almost every use case. It turns out that system engineering and redundancy are expensive, and that the magic of drones goes away when they have to meet safety standards.