Diamond Patrol in Namibia

Student’s Name

Institution

Choice Analysis 2 Diamond Patrol in Namibia

299085056515

Introduction

Purpose of the study

Purposefully, the report aims to evaluate the best mechanism for conducting aerial patrols. The patrols are supposedly intended to facilitate thorough surveillance of particular areas for mining in order to enhance effectiveness and efficiency in the mining or excavation process. In fact, when a valuable substance like diamond is being mined, surveillance is imperative not only to identify the rich localities, but also to facilitate easy and precise mining practices (Levy, 2003). Notably, the surveillance mechanism, processes, and logistics are to be undertaken by a Company known as Namdeb Mining Corporation. On that note, the report analyzes the proposal that the company mentioned above drafted in order to provide the aerial patrols.Contextually, the surveillance process is to be provided in selected or specific diamond mining areas that are found along the Namibia’s southern coast. In particular, the mining areas to be patrolled are licensed as 43 and 44. The mines are also respectively referred to as Mining Area 1 and Bogenfels. The two areas are said to be very rich in the valuable mineral; however, their exploitations call for prior knowledge of the zones where the diamonds are found. In order to accomplish this, there is the need for thorough and reliable surveillance methods so as to foster faster and cost-effective mining processes. As a result, the report serves as a guideline or reference point that would allow the best choice to be made on the type of patrol or surveillance vehicle that is relevant for the mining process. In a nutshell, the guideline acts as the directory for ensuring that the services offered by Namdeb Mining Corporation are appropriately evaluated in order to make the right choice.Aircraft ComparisonNamdeb Mining Corporation provides their surveillance services using two main aircrafts. Noticeably, according to the contemporary monitoring services, unmanned aircrafts are valued and favored. As such, the company conforms to the modern demand for providing two different but related surveillance services using remotely controlled mechanisms (Stanley & Crump, 2011). However, the basis for making the right choice is pegged on multifaceted issues; but most importantly, time and distance. The two primary factors determine the extent to which the patrol vehicles would qualitatively and quantitatively perform their tasks. In addition, the comparison and contrast will have their basis on the capital of purchasing or procuring the patrol vehicles. The capital is not all because it is very prudent too to consider the cost of operating the aircrafts. Similarly, the choice analysis looks onto the number and cost of personnel needed to run either of the aircrafts in question.Notably, understanding the cost of procurements and operations are very essential in order to make the choice depending on the concepts of feasibility and viability. A service is termed viable or feasible if the cumulative costs do not surpass the benefits that the service (s) herald. That is; the cost of conducting the surveillance process should lead to positive outcomes that go beyond the overall costs incurred. Evidently, the three main parameters for conducting cost and benefits analysis include the initial cost or capital, costs of operations, and the number of personnel required (Masha, Kpodar & International Monetary Fund, 2009). In sum, the right choice should minimize the costs incurred and maximize the benefits. In analogy, the costs incurred are surrogate to the demands of the aircrafts and surveillance while the benefits indicate the total area surveyed in relation to time taken and distance covered.Aircraft Selection CriteriaBreakdown of the choice evaluation depended on the SWOT analysis in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the two options. By names, the Namdeb Mining Corporation offered two services namely: small unmanned aerial system (SUAS) and a medium unmanned aerial system (MUAS) (Kalyanam, Chandler, Pachter & Darbha, 2012). That is, the Eagle Security, which has the mandate and responsibility for conducting the surveillance, is faced with the task of making the right choice of system when giving the tender to Namdeb Mining Corporation. For that reason, the selection of the right aircraft will depend on the objectives of the Security body, which is inevitably qualified in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. In sum; the criteria for the selection are dependent on the nature, demands, and outcomes of either of the systems.Organization of the ReportThe report is organized into a logical sequence in order to herald consistency and ease in understanding. Evidently, the report’s sensitivity and need for public apprehension are the primary determinants of the logical organization. First, the mission requirement section evaluates the demands of Eagle Security in relation to offering the surveillance tender to Namdeb Mining Corporation. Secondly, the report provides a detailed comparison of the two systems; SUAS, and MUAS. In order to make the right choice, the report has a third section of operating concepts to evaluate how either of the patrol vehicles functions. In addition, cost comparison segment enhances the cost and benefits analysis in order to model for feasibility and viability. Also, the security is a part of the report that analyzes the choice rudiments in accordance with the safety issues. Ultimately, all the sections above provide the guideline for making appropriate recommendations.Mission RequirementsNamdeb Mining Corporation as the bidder of Eagle’s tender proposes to carry out aerial patrols or surveillance using the unmanned aircrafts on the diamond mining areas. In particular, the areas to be surveyed are mining areas licensed as 43 and 44 that are found on the Southern Coast of Namibia. Operationally, the surveillance process is to be conducted in coordination with the company that provides patrols. As a result, the Eagle Security would opt to choose either Namdeb’s MUAS or SUAS.The target or mission of the surveillance can be cumulatively termed as effectiveness and efficiency. The two concepts should touch on better operation and favorable costs of the services. For instance, the sensors of the aircrafts should enhance focus and the detectable targets need to be of human-size or larger. Also, the objects detected should be larger from distances that are not less than three kilometers. Further, the streaming of images or data should be on the appropriate ground stations in exact or real time.Considerably, the system selected must directly support six Namdeb vehicles that patrol each day. Each of the patrols should take about 8-10 hours on a random and staggered schedule in order to ensure that at least two surveys or patrols are done in the diamond areas at all times. As a result, to support mutual operations, the patrols shall function within a time span of 6-10 kilometers of each other. Every patrol always consists of three 4 by 4 vehicles and seven Namdeb police officers. The company personnel shall provide continuous and consistent support for the patrols. The SUAS team will be operated by a group of company employees that accompany the Namdeb team while the MUAS shall provide both quick response and over-watch to the patrols simultaneously. The AircraftsNAMDEB Company shall provide the surveillance programs using the two aircrafts; SUAS and MUAS. The former aircraft should have a weight less than twenty pounds and transportable in the 4 by 4 vehicles of the company, each of which must be attached to a police patrol from the company. Even though there is a possibility of covering simultaneous patrols with the SUAS aircraft, Namdeb indicates that an aircraft and flight crew need to accompany each patrol in the initial year of operation (Kalyanam, Chandler, Pachter & Darbha, 2012). In addition, the SUAS aircraft has to be launched in the first 10 minutes of the commander’s request and operate up to five kilometers. The fight speed should be thirty kilometers per hour and maintain flying for at least 30 minutes before landing for battery charging and refueling.On the other hand, MUAS aircraft shall function from the Oranjemund Airport (FYOG). Appropriate systems shall be provided to ensure that the surveillance is done on a 24/7/365 basis. The case’s operational scheme would be aimed at maintaining MUAS on continuous patrol all the times. Inevitably, this system will ensure effective over-watch and responsive surveillance services for the patrols done simultaneously.Operating ConceptAs mentioned above, the schedule of the two systems shall vary in time, distance, and accompaniment of the flight personnel. Qualitatively, according to the operations; particularly for the first year, MUAS has the provision of simultaneous functions. On the contrary, SUAS aircrafts do not operate over-watch and reactive/responsive surveillance simultaneously. From the notions, the former aircraft entails multitasking and requires lesser time. Conversely, a one on one operation of SUAS requires longer time and many personnel. CostsSince SUAS is small and simple; its upfront cost is correspondingly low compared to that of MUAS. Again, many SUAS aircrafts will be needed to accomplish the same task as MUAS, which means that the latter is more expensive. Quantitatively, the operation cost of SUAS would be 90k times 7 people times at least 8 hours, which is done twice at a time. The cost would be 10080K per day/aircraft. However, 6 aircrafts are needed, which leads to 60,480K.If the assignment of patrol officers remains constant and because MUAS works all times, the operation cost would be 7 people by 1 by 24hours with each operator earning 90K. Therefore the cost would be 15,120 per day/aircraft. But, MUAS doubles the work, which would require at least 3 aircrafts that result to around 45, 360K. Many SUAS would be demanded; hence, the overall cost will be high when SUAS is used. SecurityThe safety of the aircraft is pegged on the tasks assigned and the period of operations. SUAS works on each task at a time; that is, it conducts over-watch and response activities differently. As such, there is a high chance that the system is much safer compared to the counterpart. On the contrary, MUAS operates on a 24/7/365 basis, which means it works all the times. Again, the medium system functions as over-watch and monitory responses simultaneously. It is, therefore, inevitable that MUAS is less safe due to the long time operations and integration of different roles.RecommendationFrom the rudiments of the study, it can be concluded that SUAS has cheaper initial capital, but expensive cumulatively if the operation costs are incorporated in a matter of time. On the other hand, MUAS enhances faster and complete all time surveillance, but the system is less safe and requires higher capital.Therefore, it is commendable for Eagle Security to offer the tender to Namdeb’s MUAS aircraft in order to minimize the operation costs and maximize on complete and all time surveillance.

References

Kalyanam, K., Chandler, P., Pachter, M., & Darbha, S. (2012). Optimization of Perimeter Patrol Operations Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 35(2), 434-441.

Levy, A. V. (2003). Diamonds and conflict: Problems and solutions. Hauppauge, N.Y: Novinka Books.

Masha, I., Kpodar, K., & International Monetary Fund. (2009). Namibia: Selected issues paper. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

Stanley, J., & Crump, C. (2011, December). Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from HYPERLINK “https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf” https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf