Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MF Land Mine Detection Web
MF Land Mine Detection Web
MF Land Mine Detection Web
What is it?
Neural network classifier GPR signal pre-processing and posprocessing Neural network training method
Potential Benefits
Improved probability of detection Reduced rate of false positive Increase rate of clearance Optimize software for particular environmental conditions
UF Technology Status
Next Steps
Technology must be tested in real demining environments. Train software to recognize mines in field conditions.
Field Testing
Next Steps
NN Training
Incorporate Feedback
Incorporate feedback from personnel in the field to aid product adoption.
Productize Technology
Code must be converted
Filename/RPS Number
Geopolitical
Landmines kill and maim long after the war is over 90% of those killed are civilians It costs ~$3 to place a mine It costs $300 to $1000 to detect it and remove it ~20,000 people are killed each year
The Future
Despite global political movements and treaties the global landmine and UXO threat is increasing Child standing next to a mine. Colombia
Technology Hurdles
High cost of clearance
Traditional technology is low cost but labor intensive 100% detection is required to declare an area clear Slow process
Maturity
IR
Available
GPR
Field test technology with common GPRs Determine technological advantages Quantify performance in varied field conditions Ensure technology meets landmine detection GPR requirements Develop compatible and flexible software Test software integrated to commercial GPR
Productize
Sell
License
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
Built on mature GPR platform Allows for faster detection of mines Allows for significant reduction in false positives Allows for smaller demining teams resulting in net savings since the largest expense utilizing current metal detection technologies is the cost of labor.
Weakness
Remains untested in field Out of over 750 different types of mines, currently only recognizes approx. 200 types
Opportunities
A true understanding of field conditions can be gained from visiting mined areas allowing for field testing and adaptation based on user input. DOD is already funding GPR as a viable technology
Threats
Loss of political will to continue funding GPR may not be approved by UN GPR may not be adopted by commercial contractors or local demining teams Another technology may become dominate in the market in the time it takes to field test and refine the product. Trend in the market is moving towards multisensor systems
Financial Analysis
Strategy and Time Horizon Assumptions Drawn from Prior Research
2006 Geneva International Centres Guidebook on Detection Technologies 2002 European Union Cost-Benefits Study Market Share Price Capital Structure Units Sold Development Costs Labor
Basic Assumptions:
Product Lifecycle
Sales Volume vs. Profits 55 5 , 5 55 5 , 5 55 5 , 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 Year 5 5 5 Unit Sales Net Profits
50
10
10
229
804
531
494
471
Sources of Cash:
$ (2,891)
$ 2,000
$ 2,891
109
Grants Subtotal
500 $ 2,500 $
500 500 $
500 500 $
109 $
1,920
(480)
(1,440)
1,440 $ (144)
$ (144)
$ (144)
$ (144)
$ (144)
3,303 3,303
(2,206) $ 2,265 59 $
1,962 59 2,021
Development Phase
+$1,470k
t0
Year 1
Year 2
+$1,492k
Year 1
Year 2
t0
+$1,097k +$785k
+$1,377k
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
($2,000k)
Capital Contributions -$3.0 million Initial Buyout
Discussion