UNIT 1uav

Aviation History and Unmanned Flight
4
Konstantinos Dalamagkidis
Contents
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2 Precursors of Flight and Unmanned Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 1916–1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4 The Machines of the Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.5 Modern Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Abstract
Although there are many who believe that UAVs are a recent invention going
back at most two or three decades, unmanned flight has a rich history that goes
back all the way to ancient times. Of course, the first systems that can qualify
with the modern definition of UAVs are quite recent and mainly involve the
reconnaissance drones developed and deployed during the cold war. Today, UAV
systems have evolved and expanded into widely different designs like quadrotors,
ducted fan, and blimps in addition to the classic fixed-wing and helicopter
approaches. They have also acquired new roles beyond reconnaissance and have
also found applications beyond the military domain, for example, in weather
monitoring or infrastructure inspection. This chapter provides a short overview
of this history.
K. Dalamagkidis
Institut für Informatik I6, Technische Universität München, Garching bei München, Germany
e-mail: dalamagkidis@tum.de
K.P. Valavanis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (eds.), Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 57

DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1 93,
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
58 K. Dalamagkidis
4.1 Introduction
This section presents a historical perspective on unmanned flight starting from the
ancient times and reaching modern times. The purpose is not to provide a detailed
historical account of manned or unmanned aviation, but an insight on how UAVs
have evolved to be what they are today. The section is subdivided based on the
different time periods. This division is not completely arbitrary, but it reflects the
evolution of what an unmanned aircraft is, from the first ideas on flying machines
in the ancient times up to the industrial revolution, to target drones and missiles, to
airborne reconnaissance systems, and to the multirole systems of today.
4.2 Precursors of Flight and Unmanned Aircraft
In modern times, manned aviation appeared in the late 1700s, and it took another
century for heavier than air machines to take to the skies. Unmanned aircraft
followed soon after the advent of the airplane, appearing around the time of the
First World War (1916). However, the idea of building “flying machines” was first
conceived close to 2,500 years ago, in ancient Greece and China!
Pythagoras, Archimedes, and others studied the use of autonomous mechanisms
for a variety of applications. The first known autonomous flying machine has been
credited to Archytas from the city of Tarantas or Tarentum in South Italy, known as
Archytas the Tarantine. Archytas has been referred to as Leonardo da Vinci of the
Ancient World and was also the father of number one in number theory (Valavanis
et al. 2007) and the solution for doubling the cube. He was also possibly the
first engineer, designing and building various mechanisms. In 425 BC he built a
mechanical bird, which he called “the pigeon,” shown in Fig. 4.1. According to
Cornelius Gellius in his Noctes Atticae, the bird was made of wood, nicely balanced
with weights, and flew using air (most likely steam) enclosed in its stomach (Gellius
1927). It is alleged that Archytas’ pigeon flew about 200 m before falling to the
ground, once all energy was used. The pigeon could not fly again, unless the
mechanism was reset (Guedj 1998).
During the same era in a different part of the Ancient World – China – at about
400 BC, the Chinese were the first to document the idea of a vertical flight aircraft.
The earliest version of the Chinese top consisted of feathers at the end of a stick.
The stick was spun between the hands to generate enough lift before released into
free flight.
Over the years, the Chinese experimented with other types of flying machines
such as hot air balloons, rockets, or kites. It is noteworthy that although some of
these machines were used for entertainment, some of the applications were military
in nature. In fact there are historical records of a “wooden hawk” that was used for
reconnaissance around 450 BC, as well as a kite in the shape of a crow, which was
employed during the Ming Dynasty to bomb enemy positions (Yinke 2005).
4 Aviation History and Unmanned Flight 59
Fig. 4.1 An artist’s depiction of the flying pigeon, the first documented UAV in history. It is
reported that it flew for about 200 m
Several centuries later, Leonardo Da Vinci, in 1483, designed an aircraft capable

of hovering, called aerial screw or air gyroscope, shown in Fig. 4.2. It had a 5 m
diameter and the idea was to make the shaft turn, and if enough force were applied,
the machine could spun and fly. This machine is considered by some experts as
the ancestor of today’s helicopter Hiller Aviation Museum (2004). Da Vinci also
devised a mechanical bird in 1508 that would flap its wings by means of a double
crank mechanism as it descended along a cable.
The first widely recognized manned flight took place in 1783 using a hot air
balloon designed by the Montgolfier brothers and commemorated in Fig. 4.3. Soon
after, similar attempts took place in England, and for several years ballooning
dominated manned flights, until the first helicopters in the 1860s and later fixed-
wing aircraft.
Many flying machines were designed between 1860 and 1909, initially focusing
on vertical takeoff and landing aircraft because of the limitations of the steam-
powered engines that were in use at the time. As the power to weight ratio of engines
improved, these early machines were transformed to the helicopter and airplane
designs that are in use today.
The main drive behind aircraft development has always been the fast and safe
transportation of people and cargo. Nevertheless, the military soon realized the
60 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.2 Leonardo Da

Vinci’s air screw, a forerunner
of modern helicopter designs
(Public domain photo)
potential benefits of unmanned aircraft and efforts to adapt flying machines to

operate without a pilot onboard started. Such systems were initially unmanned
ordinance delivery systems, what would now be referred to as “missiles” or “smart
bombs.” Another use for such systems was to operate as “target drones” that assisted
in the training of antiaircraft gun operators. Today UAVs have been defined as
those systems that are designed to be recovered after each mission, and although
they may carry weapons, the weapon is not by itself an integral component of the
airframe (Newcome 2004). Nevertheless, in the early days of unmanned flight, these
distinctions were not that important since the technological obstacles were the same
and were even shared by manned aircraft as well.
4.3 1916–1944
In 1916, less than 15 years after the Wright brothers historical flight, the first modern
unmanned aircraft was demonstrated. It was the Hewitt–Sperry Automatic Airplane,
named after the two inventors that designed it. This aircraft could not have become a
reality without the previous work of Sperry on gyroscopic devices that were needed
to provide flight stabilization. Sperry managed to attract the interest of the U.S.
Navy resulting in the development of the Curtiss–Sperry Aerial Torpedo, while at
the same time the U.S. Army Air Force sponsored the Liberty Eagle Aerial Torpedo
of Charles Kettering shown in Fig. 4.4 (Zaloga 2008). Due to technical problems
and lack of accuracy, interest on “automatic” planes was lost, but the potential for
use of remotely operated drones for target practice was soon realized.
In Britain, experiments with unmanned aircraft took place throughout the 1920s
with the RAE 1921 Target. In 1933, the Royal Navy used the Queen Bee target
drone (Fig. 4.5) for the first time (Newcome 2004). It was a modified version of
the DeHavilland Tiger Moth biplane and was successfully employed for gunnery
practice.
Fig. 4.3 The first manned flight using a hot air balloon took place in 1783 in France (Photo Credit:
Bildarchiv Preussuscher Kulturbesitz, Berlin)
Remote operation required the perfection of radio control, a concept proposed

and demonstrated in 1895 and 1898, respectively, by Tesla (Newcome 2004). Yet
again private industry spurred developments, when actor Reginald Denny opened
his “Reginald Denny Hobby Shops” in 1934 and started selling radio-controlled
airplanes. A few years later, he demonstrated his work for the U.S. Army that lead
to the development of a very successful target drone used extensively during WWII.
4.4 The Machines of the Cold War
Soon after the end of WWII, interest in reconnaissance missions increased. The
descendants of Reginald Denny’s target drones became the basis of the first
reconnaissance drone, the SD-1 (Newcome 2004). Also known as the MQM-57
62 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.4 The USAF Liberty Eagle Aerial Torpedo, also known as the Kettering Bug after its
creator Charles Kettering (Photo Credit: National Museum of the USAF)
Falconer, it was developed in the mid-1950s, and by the end of its career, close to
1,500 had been built (National Museum of the USAF 2009). The SD-1 (Fig. 4.6)
was remotely operated, carried a camera, and after a 30 min flight returned to base
and was recovered with parachute (Zaloga 2008).
The loss of the U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union in 1960 gave a new push
towards unmanned reconnaissance drones, and the loss of a second U-2 over Cuba
2 years later helped circumvent any doubts and funding problems (Zaloga 2008).
The USAF supported the Ryan Model 147 drone that evolved into a series of models
with different capabilities. Two variations of the more than two dozen available are
shown in Figs. 4.7 and 4.8. They were also based on a drone design and were used
for reconnaissance missions by the USA over China, Vietnam, and other countries
in the 1960s and 1970s (Zaloga 2008; Newcome 2004). During this time, close to
3,500 Lightning Bugs were launched, and close to 84 % returned (Wagner 1982). It
is noteworthy that these drones were credited with kills that occurred when fighters
tried to shoot them down and one drone was given ace status after being responsible
for the loss of five North Vietnamese MIGs (Zaloga 2008).
The Ryan Model 147, which became known as the Lightning Bug, was probably
the first unmanned aircraft that can withstand today’s definition of a UAV aircraft.
Fig. 4.5 The DH.82B Queen Bee drone (Photo Credit: Adrian Pingstone)
Fig. 4.6 The SD-1, also

known as the MQM-57
Falconer, was the first
reconnaissance drone of the
US Army and remained in
service until the 1970s (Photo
Credit: National Museum of
the USAF)
In fact, modernized versions of this drone are still being built and used to carry out
missions to this day.
Meanwhile, the US Navy acquired a helicopter drone from the Gyrodine
Company called the QH-50 DASH (Fig. 4.9) (Zaloga 2008). This design was
preferred because it could be launched from smaller vessels. Its main mission was
to launch antisubmarine torpedoes; nevertheless, it was also used for surveillance,
cargo transport, and other applications. This was despite reliability issues with its
electrical system that led to large number of peacetime losses (Zaloga 2008).
64 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.7 The AQM-34Q, one of several variations of the Ryan Model 147 unmanned reconnais-
sance drone, used in the 1960s and 1970s (Photo Credit: National Museum of the USAF)
Fig. 4.8 The BGM-34C was another member of the Ryan Model 147 family. It was a multi-role
drone capable of performing reconnaissance, electronic countermeasure and strike missions (Photo
Credit: US Air Force)
In the late 1960s, the CIA was involved in its own hypersonic, long-range
reconnaissance drone, designed to be launched from another “mother” aircraft. The
D-21 Tagboard (Fig. 4.10) program was mired with technical problems, accidents,
and failed missions that led to its ultimate cancellation in the early 1970s (Zaloga
2008).
Fig. 4.9 A QH-50

DASH-drone armed with
torpedoes over the flight deck
of the USS Hazelwood (Photo
Credit: US Navy)
Fig. 4.10 The Lockheed D-21B Tagboard (Photo Credit: National Museum of the USAF)
66 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.11 The DBR-1 also known as the Tupolev Tu-123 Yastreb (Photo Credit: Tupolev)
In parallel with US efforts, the Soviet Air Force developed its own recon-
naissance drones. The first system was the TBR-1 based on a popular target
drone, and it was soon followed by the DBR-1 (Fig. 4.11) that allowed for higher
range and capabilities (Zaloga 2008). The DBR-1 was not designed to be fully
recovered; instead when it reached the recovery area, it dumped fuel, ejected the
nose containing the sensor package, and the rest of the airframe crashed. As a
result, the DBR-1 involved high operational costs which led to its replacement in
the mid-1970s by the Tu-141/143 (Fig. 4.12), a mid- and short-range, respectively,
reconnaissance drones that were fitted with parachutes for recovery.
In Europe the unmanned system of choice of the time was funded by Canada and
the UK and was developed by Canadair (Zaloga 2008). This resulted in the CL-89
Midge (Fig. 4.13) that was also acquired by the French and German armies. It was
designed to follow a preprogrammed course, take photographs (day or night), and
return to be recovered by parachute (Zaloga 2008). A more sophisticated version,
the CL-289, that also featured better range was developed in the late 1970s with
major funding coming now from Germany (Zaloga 2008).
Another major player in the area of unmanned aircraft was the Israeli Air Force
that acquired and operated a squadron of American drones for reconnaissance
purposes during the Yom Kippur War (Zaloga 2008). Later, the Israeli Aircraft
Industries and Tadiran developed their own aircraft, the Scout (Fig. 4.14) and
Mastiff, respectively (Zaloga 2008). The Mastiff was the basis of the very popular
Pioneer system, and the Israeli designs have also influenced the construction of the
Predator and Shadow UAV (Newcome 2004).
Fig. 4.12 The Tupolev Tu-143 Reys reconnaissance drone with SPU-143 launcher at the
Ukrainian Air Force Museum (Photo Credit: George Chernilevsky)
4.5 Modern Systems
Modern systems are much more diverse than their precursors. Although one can
readily identify the heritage of the reconnaissance drones in the popular Pioneer
(Fig. 4.15) of the 1980s or the French-built SPERWER (Fig. 4.16), we have moved
towards larger, more capable, and higher endurance systems like the RQ-4 Global
Hawk (Fig. 4.17). Systems that can take multiple roles are also available like the
MQ-9 Reaper (Fig.4.18), which besides reconnaissance can also be used as a hunter-
killer, and the Neptune (Fig. 4.19) that is used for water operations.
Although some of the aforementioned UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper can be armed,
there is now an entire class of systems being developed with combat operations
as their primary mission, known as Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (UCAS).
Although many of these systems are still in experimental stages, there are several
that are already operational. Examples of UCAS include the Neuron (Fig. 4.20), the
Barracuda, the Italian Sky-X (Fig. 4.21), the MiG Skat, and the BAE Mantis.
Almost all of the aforementioned systems utilize a fixed-wing design. However,
there is a number of helicopter UAVs available, several of which are currently
operational in military and civil applications. Some examples of helicopter UAVs
68 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.13 German reconnaissance drone CL-289 (Photo Credit: Karsten Franke)
Fig. 4.14 The Israeli Aircraft Industries Scout drone. The similarity with the Pioneer UAV that
was later bought by the US Armed Forces is evident (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons User
Bukvoed)
Fig. 4.15 An RQ-2 Pioneer ready for launch during operation Desert Shield (Photo Credit: US
Marine Corps)
Fig. 4.16 The French SPERWER. It is used by the military forces of several European nations
(Photo Credit: David Monniaux)
70 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.17 The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high-altitude, long-endurance UAV. It was the first UAV to
do a transpacific crossing (Newcome 2004) (Photo Credit: US Air Force, Master Sgt. Jason Tudor)
Fig. 4.18 The MQ-9 Reaper is an updated version of the Predator UAV. It is primarily used as
a persistent hunter-killer UAV for critical time-sensitive targets and secondarily for intelligence
gathering (US Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense 2007) (Photo Credit: US
Air Force, Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson)
Fig. 4.19 The Neptune, a

reconnaissance UAV capable
of water landings (Photo
Credit: US Navy)
Fig. 4.20 The Neuron is an experimental UCAS being developed by a consortium of European
companies (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons User Tangopaso)
72 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.21 The Sky-X is an Italian UCAS built by the Finmeccanica group. It first flew in 2005
(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons User Duch.seb)
Fig. 4.22 The A-160 Hummingbird built by Boeing/Frontier. It is a demonstrator for improve-
ments in range endurance and controllability (US Department of Defense Office of the Secretary
of Defense 2005) (Photo Credit: US DoD)
Fig. 4.23 The MQ-8 Fire Scout is being developed by Northrop Grumman Corporation to support
US Army and Navy requirements (Public domain photo)
Fig. 4.24 The Aerosonde Laima was the first UAV to make a transatlantic crossing (Newcome
2004) (Public domain photo)
74 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.25 The Helios UAV developed by NASA and AeroVironment. During its second high-
altitude flight, it reached 96,863 ft, shattering the existing world altitude record for sustained level
flight for both propeller and jet-powered aircraft (Photo Credit: NASA)
include the A-160 Hummingbird (Fig. 4.22), the APID55, the Schiebel S-100, and
the MQ-8 Fire Scout (Fig. 4.23).
In recent years there is an increasing interest for long-endurance UAVs that can
fly for several days. The Aerosonde Laima (Fig. 4.24) is one such system and was
the first to do the transatlantic crossing. The record though is held by the QinetiQ
Zephyr which managed to remain airborne for a little over 2 weeks, taking into
advantage its lightweight design and solar power. A large number of long-endurance
systems are also used for civilian applications. For example, NASA employs the
Helios, Altair, and Ikhana UAVs primarily for Earth science missions (Figs. 4.25
and 4.26).
Small UAVs have also garnered significant interest, especially since they are
considered by many as entry points to the civilian market. Although their smaller
sizes invariably leads to reduced payload capacities, a large number of small and
miniature UAVs are in operation or active development. This is because they
are versatile, portable, and easy to maintain; they can be employed for the same
applications as larger UAVs on a smaller scale and at a lower cost. In fact several of
these systems are considered expendable, and no recovery is attempted especially if
there is any risk perceived (Fig. 4.26).
Examples of small UAVs include the Skylark, the Evolution, the Puma, and the
Aerocon Inspector. In the miniature category, there exist systems that weigh less
than 1–3 kg and are easily backpackable (some are even foldable). Such systems
include the Cyberbug, Raven (Fig. 4.27), WASP (Fig. 4.28), BATCAM, Nighthawk
(Fig. 4.29), and the Dragon Eye.
Fig. 4.26 The Ikhana is a Predator B UAV acquired by NASA and retrofitted for Earth science
missions (Photo Credit: NASA)
Fig. 4.27 The Raven is a

backpackable UAV for “over
the hill” and route
reconnaissance that evolved
from the Pointer UAV. In the
photo paratroopers are
training with an RQ-11 Raven
(Photo Credit: US Army,
Sgt. Amanda Jackson)
Another UAV design concerns the lighter-than-air systems or airships, a distinct

UAV category with significantly higher endurance than other systems that makes
them ideal for a variety of operations. The main advantage of such systems is
that they provide an airborne sensor platform that can be used for persistent
area surveillance. Such systems include the Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted
Sensor (Fig. 4.30), the Persistent Threat Detection System (Fig. 4.31), and the
Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment system (Fig. 4.32). The High-Altitude Airship
(Fig. 4.33) is an untethered platform concept that will be able of providing satellite-
like services to ground forces.
76 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.28 The WASP is a

MAV that can carry an EO
payload and has an endurance
of over 1 h (Photo Credit:
NIST)
Fig. 4.29 The Nighthawk is

the evolution of the
BATCAM foldable UAV
(Photo Credit: NIST)
In addition to the popular fixed-wing and helicopter systems, other designs are
also used for UAVs (Figs. 4.34 and 4.35). These include duct-fan design (e.g., the
iStar MAV, the Sikorsky Cypher, and the SELEX Galileo Spyball), counterrotating
rotors (e.g., the IT-180 and the KOAX X-240), as well as mixed designs like the
Eagle Eye (Fig. 4.36) and X-50 (Fig. 4.37) that combine some of the advantages
of fixed-wing and helicopter designs. Finally, the CyberQuad and the AirRobot
AR 100-B (Fig. 4.38) are both examples of the quad-rotor design that is especially
popular in academic environments.
Fig. 4.30 Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) by Raytheon/TCOM capable of
providing over-the-horizon surveillance (Photo Credit: US Army)
Fig. 4.31 The Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS) is equipped with a high-resolution
EO/IR payload used for surveillance (Photo Credit: US Army)
78 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.32 The Rapid

Aerostat Initial Deployment
(RAID) is a smaller version
of the JLENS, used in
missions of area surveillance
and force protection against
small arms, mortar, and
rocket attacks (Photo Credit:
US Army)
Fig. 4.33 High-Altitude Airship (HAA) developed by Lockheed Martin. It is a solar-powered, un-
tethered, long-endurance, high-altitude demonstrator (Photo Credit: US Missile Defense Agency)
Fig. 4.34 The iSTAR MAV

duct-fan aircraft built by
Allied Aerospace (Photo
Credit: US Navy)
Fig. 4.35 The Sikorksy

Cypher uses a shrouded
twin-rotor design (Photo
Credit: US Navy)
80 K. Dalamagkidis
Fig. 4.36 The Eagle Eye is a tilt-rotor UAV developed by Bell Helicopter. It was selected by the
US Coast Guard for its Deepwater program but was put on hold in 2007 (Photo Credit: US Coast
Guard)
Fig. 4.37 The X-50 aircraft built by Boeing Corp. It is a technology demonstrator for the
Canard Rotor Wing (CRW) configuration which combines hovering capabilities with high cruise
speeds (US Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense 2005) (Photo Credit: US
DoD)
Fig. 4.38 The AirRobot AR

100-B features autonomous
landing when it is out of
range or when the battery is
low (Public domain photo)
References
C. Gellius, Attic nights. Book 10 (Trans. by Rolfe, J. C.) (1927), http://penelope.uchicago.edu/
Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/10*.html
D. Guedj, Le Theoreme du Perroquet (Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1998)
Hiller Aviation Museum, History of helicopters (2004). Online, http://www.hiller.org/
National Museum of the USAF, Radioplane/northrop MQM-57 falconer factsheet (2009), http://
www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7684. Retrieved Oct 2009
L. Newcome, Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of UAV’s (American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Reston, 2004)
US Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense, Unmanned aircraft systems
roadmap 2005-2030. Report (2005)
US Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense, Unmanned systems roadmap 2007-
2032. Report (2007)
K.P. Valavanis, G.J. Vachtsevanos, P.J. Antsaklis, Technology and autonomous mechanisms in the
Mediterranean: from ancient Greece to Byzantium, in Proceedings of the European Control
Conference (ECC2007), Kos, 2007, pp. 263–270
W. Wagner, Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones (Aero Publishers, Fallbrook, 1982)
D. Yinke, Ancient Chinese Inventions (China Intercontinental Press, Beijing, 2005)
S.J. Zaloga, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Robotic Air Warfare 1917–2007. No. 144 in New
Vanguard (Osprey, Oxford/New York, 2008)
Classification of UAVs
5
Konstantinos Dalamagkidis
Contents
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1.1 Classification Based on MTOW and Ground Impact Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.1.2 Classification Based on Operational Altitude and Midair Collision Risk . . . . . . . . . 85
5.1.3 Classification Based on Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1.4 Military Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.1.5 Classification Based on Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Abstract
Different UAV classification schemes have been proposed to help differentiate
existing systems based on their operational characteristics and their capabilities.
Several of these schemes are also of regulatory importance since the metrics used
directly correlate with risk from ground impact or midair collision accidents. This
chapter provides characteristic UAV classifications from a variety of sources,
both civilian and military.
5.1 Introduction
This section aims to present different UAV classification schemes that have been
proposed and/or are currently in use. UAV classification is not only used to help
differentiate existing systems but has regulatory importance. This is because it
is unlikely that rules will be developed that can fit all UAVs and as a result
different requirements may be imposed on different UAV categories based on their
K. Dalamagkidis
Institut für Informatik I6, Technische Universität München, Garching bei München, Germany
e-mail: dalamagkidis@tum.de
K.P. Valavanis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (eds.), Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 83

DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1 94,
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
84 K. Dalamagkidis
characteristics. This is also true in manned aviation where, for example, AC 23.1309
already divides FAR Part 23 aircraft into four classes based on MTOW and engine
type with different target levels of safety for each one.
There is a large number of metrics that have been used for UAV classification,
including mean takeoff weight (MTOW), size, operating conditions, capabilities, or
any combination of these and other characteristics. It should be noted that while
some of these metrics have minimal effect on the safety performance requirements
of the system, they are still important from an operational, commercial, legal,
and possibly other points of view. Rather than an exhaustive list which would be
of little value, this section presents characteristic examples of different types of
classifications from the literature.
A comprehensive classification of UAV demonstrating both the wide variety of
UAV systems and capabilities as well as the multiple dimensions of differentiation
is presented in Table 5.1.
5.1.1 Classification Based on MTOW and Ground Impact Risk
MTOW is a good metric to classify aircraft for regulatory purposes since it correlates
well with the expected kinetic energy imparted at impact, which in turn is considered
to be the primary factor affecting safety of operations, as discussed in Weibel and
Hansman (2004), Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council (2007, 1999),
Haddon and Whittaker (2002), Joint JAA/Eurocontrol Initiative on UAVs (2004),
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (2005), and Dalamagkidis et al. (2012).
Of course the broad categories defined in AC 23.1309, do not cover the full spectrum
of UAVs that extends down to just a few grams.
In Dalamagkidis et al. (2012), a model was used to estimate the expected number
of fatalities after a ground impact. The model was based on the kinetic energy, which
was in turn estimated from the MTOW of the UAV. Based on a requirement to
maintain an expected number of fatalities of less than 10!7 h!1 , the classification
presented in Table 5.2 was derived. It should be noted that the reliability targets
in Table 5.2 were derived based on certain assumptions like a standard population
density of 200 ppl/km2. For operation over metropolitan areas, this number can be
significantly higher and even prohibitive for large systems. On the other hand, the
Micro and Mini class UAV, as defined in Table 5.2, are so light that it is almost
impossible for a fatality or serious injury to occur after a ground impact. They are
also unlikely to cause problems to other aviation, provided that they operate with
sufficient clearance from airports, due to their typically low operating altitudes.
A similar classification, but directly based on the kinetic energy, is shown
in Table 5.3. In this case the proposed classification scheme directly correlates each
UAV class with certification requirements for the aircraft, its pilot, and its operator.
Another simple classification scheme based on MTOW is presented in
Table 5.4. This scheme also shows the expected range and maximum operating
altitude of the UAVs of each class which are also a function of MTOW.
5 Classification of UAVs 85
Table 5.1 UAV categorization for differentiation of existing systems (Source: van Blyenburgh
(2006))
Mass (kg) Range (km) Flight alt. (m) Endurance (h)
Micro <5 <10 250 1
Mini <20/25/30/150a <10 150/250/300 <2
Tactical
Close range (CR) 25–150 10–30 3,000 2–4
Short range (SR) 50–250 30–70 3,000 3–6
Medium 150–500 70–200 5,000 6–10
range (MR)
MR endurance 500–1,500 >500 8,000 10–18
(MRE)
Low altitude deep 250–2,500 >250 50–9,000 0.5–1
penetration (LADP)
Low altitude long 15–25 >500 3,000 >24
endurance (LALE)
Medium altitude 1,000–1,500 >500 3,000 24–48
long endurance
(MALE)
Strategic
High altitude long 2,500–5,000 >2,000 20,000 24–48
endurance (HALE)
Stratospheric >2,500 >2,000 >20,000 >48
(Strato)
Exo-stratospheric TBD TBD >30,500 TBD
(EXO)
Special task
Unmanned combat >1,000 1,500 12,000 2
AV (UCAV)
Lethal (LET) TBD 300 4,000 3–4
Decoys (DEC) 150–250 0–500 50–5,000 <4
a
Varies with national legal restrictions
5.1.2 Classification Based on Operational Altitude and Midair

Collision Risk
Although MTOW provides a good basis to classify aircraft based on the risk
they present to people and property after a ground impact, UAV classes based
on altitude may also be of interest since they will dictate to a degree collision
avoidance requirements (see Zeitlin 2009). A simple classification was proposed
in Dalamagkidis et al. (2012) and is outlined below and presented in Table 5.5:
1. Very low altitude (VLA/LOS) operating in Class G airspace and typically in
altitudes less than 400–500 ft with the operator always in visual contact with
the aircraft
2. Very low altitude (VLA/BLOS) as above but with the possibility that the aircraft
is flown beyond the line of sight of the operator
86 K. Dalamagkidis
Table 5.2 Proposed UAV classification based on MTOW and ground impact risk. TGI is the
minimum time between ground impact accidents (Source: Dalamagkidis et al. (2012))
Category
Number TGI MTOW Name Notes
0 102 Less than 1 kg Micro Most countries donot regulate this
category since these vehicles pose
minimal threat to human life or
property
1 103 Up to 1 kg Mini These two categories roughly
correspond to R/C model aircraft
2 104 Up to 13.5 kg Small
3 105 Up to 242 kg Light/ultralight Airworthiness certification for this
category may be based either on
ultralights (FAR Part 103), LSA
(Order 8130), or even normal
aircraft (FAR Part 23)
4 106 Up to 4,332 kg Normal Based on MTOW these vehicles
correspond to normal aircraft (FAR
Part 23)
5 107 Over 4,332 kg Large These vehicles best correspond to
the transport category (FAR
Part 25)
Table 5.3 Proposed classification of UAVs based on MTOW by the CAA of New Zealand
(Source: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (2007))
Maximum Requirements
Class energy UAV Operator UAV pilot
1 Up to 10 kJ No certification Regulated by UAV Must have pilot license
requirement association when flying beyond line of
sight or in controlled
airspace
2 Up to 1 MJ Flight permit Certificated Pilot license, type rating
required by CAA and in some cases
instrument rating
3 Over 1 MJ Type and Certificated Pilot license, type rating
airworthiness by CAA and in some cases
certificates, instrument rating
maintenance
release and
continuing
airworthiness
3. Medium altitude (MA) operating in Class A through E airspace

4. Very high altitude (VHA) operating in Class E airspace above FL600
Another proposed classification that can be considered to be indirectly correlated
with the midair collision risk is presented in Table 5.6. This classification uses the
maximum deviation from the commanded flight path and its duration as the key
Table 5.4 Classification of Typical max

UAVs based on MTOW
Class MTOW (kg) Range category altitude (ft)
(Source: Industrieanlagen-
Betriebsgesellschaft mbH 0 "25 Close range 1,000 ft
(2001)) 1 25–500 Short range 15,000 ft
2 501–2,000 Medium range 30,000 ft
3 >2;000 Long range Above 30,000 ft
Table 5.5 Proposed classification based on class of airspace used

Class Airspace class S&A Transponder 2-way ATC communication
VLA/LOS Class G Not required Not required Not requireda
VLA/BLOS Class G Requiredb Requiredb Not requireda
MA Class A–E Required Required Required
MA/A Class A Requiredb Required Required
VHA Above Fl600 Requiredb Required Requiredb
a
Communication with ATC before operation may still be required
b
May be waived for certain types of operations or under certain conditions
Table 5.6 Source: Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (2001)

Grade of deviation from
Category planned/required flight path Explanation/definition
I No deviations
II Minor deviations Deviations in altitude of not more than 100 ft.
Lateral deviations of not more than a nautical
mile. UAV is able to correct deviation
within 10 s.
III Remarkable/considerable Deviations in altitude of not more than 500 ft.
deviations Lateral deviations of not more than one nautical
mile. UAV is able to correct deviation within
30 s.
IV Extreme deviations Deviations in altitude of more than 500 ft. Lateral
deviations of more than one nautical mile. UAV
is not able to correct deviation within 30 s.
differentiation parameters. Of course, the different categories presented can also

impose different requirements on pilot certification, onboard control systems, etc.
5.1.3 Classification Based on Autonomy
Another way to categorize UAVs that is also of interest for certification purposes is
based on their level of autonomy. Already UAVs are exhibiting autonomy in certain
functions, and this trend is expected to increase, especially if one pilot is to control
88 K. Dalamagkidis
Table 5.7 Autonomous ACL Level descriptor

control levels
(Source: Clough (2002a)) 0 Remotely piloted vehicle
1 Execute preplanned mission
2 Changeable mission
3 Robust response to real-time faults/events
4 Fault/event adaptive vehicle
5 Real-time multi-vehicle coordination
6 Real-time multi-vehicle cooperation
7 Battlespace knowledge
8 Battlespace cognizance
9 Battlespace swarm cognizance
10 Fully autonomous
more than one aircraft at the same time, a possibility discussed in Protti and Barzan
(2007). In 2005 the autonomous control levels (ACL) were proposed to measure
autonomy. More specifically, ten (10) such levels were proposed in Clough (2002a)
that were based on requirements like situational awareness, analysis, coordination,
decision making, and operational capability. A list of the ACL is presented in
Table 5.7.
Each ACL is based on three aspects characterizing autonomy, namely, the level
of independence from human involvement, the complexity of the mission, and the
complexity of the environment (Huang 2007). Of course, some of the distinctions
between the ACL defined in Table 5.7 may not be of value for regulatory purposes,
and some of them are not applicable for civil UAV. A simpler classification that
takes into account only the level of human involvement and is compatible with the
four operational modes proposed in Federal Agencies Ad Hoc Autonomy Levels for
Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Working Group (WG) (2004) is provided below:
• Remotely piloted: A certified pilot remotely controls the system either within
LOS or with feedback from the UA sensors.
• Remotely operated (semiautonomous): The UA is given high-level commands
(waypoints, objects to track, etc.), and its performance is monitored by a trained
operator. In this case the flying is performed by the UA itself, but all the decision
making is delegated to a human.
• Fully autonomous: The UA is given general tasks and is capable of determining
how to accomplish them, even at the face of unforeseen events. It can also
monitor its health and take remedial action after the occurrence of faults.
It should be noted that as autonomy increases, new regulatory issues will arise.
For example, Clough (2002b) and Protti and Barzan (2007) mention that highly
autonomous systems may exhibit non-deterministic behavior, something that will
be likely prohibited based on current regulatory approaches. It is also evident that
issues of liability for highly autonomous systems may also pose questions that will
need to be addressed.
Table 5.8 NATO UAV classification guide from the Sep. 2009 JCGUAV meeting (Source:
The Joint Air Force Competence Centre (2010))
Normal Example
operating Normal mission platforms
Class Category altitude radius
Class I (less than Small >20 kg Up to 5,000 ft 50 km (LOS) Luna, Hermes 90
150 kg) AGL
Mini 2–20 kg Up to 3,000 ft 25 km (LOS) Scan Eagle,
AGL Skylark, Raven,
DH3, Aladin,
Strix
Micro < 2 kg Up to 200 ft 5 km (LOS) Black Widow
AGL
Class II Tactical Up to 10,000 ft 200 km (LOS) Sperwer, Iview
(150–600 kg) AGL 250, Hermes
450, Aerostar,
Ranger
Class III Strike combat Up to 65,000 ft Unlimited
(>600 kg) AGL (BLOS)
HALE Up to 65,000 ft Unlimited Global Hawk
AGL (BLOS)
MALE Up to 45,000 ft Unlimited Predator B,
AGL (BLOS) Predator A,
Heron, Heron TP,
Hermes 900
5.1.4 Military Classifications
There are several military UAV classifications in use. The NATO JCGUAV pre-
sented in September of 2009 a classification guide based on MTOW; see Table 5.8.
All UAVs are divided into three classes: Class I for those weighing less than
150 kg, Class II for those in the range 150–600 kg, and Class III for those over
600 kg. More information can be found in The Joint Air Force Competence
Centre (2010). Class I is subdivided into small (20–150 kg), mini (2–20 kg),
and micro. Class III is also subdivided but based on the operational role of
the UAV.
The JUAV CoE has defined its own categories that depend on the operational
characteristics and other UAV attributes. These categories include tactical, oper-
ational, and strategic UAV that have different scope and operate under different
commands (U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense 2007).
Also defined are six levels of domestic use as shown in Table 5.9. A different
categorization based on airworthiness requirements is shown in Table 5.10. For all
categories, airworthiness and operator qualifications will need to be demonstrated.
In addition to that, Cat I aircraft is limited to LOS operations.
90 K. Dalamagkidis
Table 5.9 Domestic use Operating

UAV levels and Level Airspeed (KIAS) Weight (kg) altitude (ft)
corresponding system
0 "250 "0:9 "1,200
attributes as defined by the
JUAV CoE (Source: U.S. 1 "250 0.9–9 "3,000
Department of Defense, 2 "250 10–594 "18,000
Office of the Secretary of 3 "250 595–5,625 "18,000
Defense (2007)) 4 #250 "5,625 "18,000
5 Any #5,625 #18,000
Table 5.10 Military UAV categories and relevant UAV regulations (Source: U.S. Department of
Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (2007))
Airspeed
Category FAA regulation Airspace usage limit (KIAS)
Cat I – R/C model aircraft None (AC 91-57) Class G 100a
Cat II – Nonstandard aircraft FAR Parts 91, Class E,G, and 250a
101, and 103 non-joint-use D
Cat III – Certified aircraft FAR Part 91 All None
a
Proposed
5.1.5 Classification Based on Ownership
Finally UAVs – like other aircrafts – can be categorized based on their ownership
as public or state when they are owned and operated by public entities like federal
agencies or local law enforcement and civil when they are owned by industry or
private parties; see Hempe (2006).
References
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Unmanned aerial vehicles. Wellington, New Zealand,
2007
B. Clough, Metrics, schmetrics! How do you track a UAV’s autonomy? in Proceedings of the AIAA
1st Technical Conference and Workshop on Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles, Portsmouth, 2002a
B.T. Clough, Unmanned aerial vehicles: autonomous control challenges, a researcher’s perspective,
in Cooperative Control and Optimization, chap. 3, ed. by R. Murphey, P.M. Pardalos (Kluwer,
Dordrecht/Boston, 2002b), pp. 35–53
K. Dalamagkidis, K. Valavanis, L. Piegl, On Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the
National Airspace System: Issues, Challenges, Operational Restrictions, Certification, and
Recommendations, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering,
vol. 36, 2nd edn. (Springer, Dordrecht/New York, 2012)
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), A-NPA, No. 16/2005, policy for unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) certification, Köln, Germany, 2005
Federal Agencies Ad Hoc Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Working Group
(WG), Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework – Version 1.1. NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2004
D.R. Haddon, C.J. Whittaker, Aircraft airworthiness certification standards for civil UAVs. UK
Civil Aviation Authority, 2002
D. Hempe, Unmanned aircraft systems in the United States. Presented to the US/Europe interna-
tional safety conference, Vienna, 2006
H.M. Huang, Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework: safety and application
issues, in: Proceedings of the Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems (PerMIS) Workshop,
Gaithersburg, 2007, pp. 48–53
Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, CARE innovative action – preliminary study on
integration of unmanned aerial vehicles into future air traffic management. Final report, 2001
Joint JAA/Eurocontrol Initiative on UAVs, A concept for European regulations for civil unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV). Final report, 2004
M. Protti, R. Barzan, UAV autonomy – which level is desirable? – which level is acceptable?
Alenia aeronautica viewpoint, in Platform Innovations and System Integration for Unmanned
Air, Land and Sea Vehicles (AVT-SCI Joint Symposium), Florence, 2007, pp. 12–1–12–12
Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Range safety criteria for unmanned air
vehicles – rationale and methodology supplement. Supplement to document 323-99, 1999
Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Common risk criteria standards for national
test ranges: supplement. Supplement to document 321–07, 2007
The Joint Air force Competence Centre, Strategic concept of employment for unmanned aircraft
systems in NATO, Kalkar, Germany, 2010
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Unmanned systems roadmap
2007–2032. Report, 2007
P. van Blyenburgh, UAV systems: global review. Presented at the Avionics’06 conference,
Amsterdam, 2006
R.E. Weibel, R.J. Hansman, Safety considerations for operation of different classes of UAVs in the
NAS, in Proceedings of the AIAA 4th Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Forum
and AIAA 3rd Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, Chicago,
2004
A. Zeitlin, UAS S&A standards: challenges and progress, in UAS Yearbook 2009/2010
(UVS International, Paris, France, 2009), pp. 134–136
UNIT – I
INTRODUCTION TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
1.1 Introduction
The development and entry into service of unmanned air vehicle systems has a long, drawn-out history.
Unfortunately, the vision of engineers and scientists is seldom matched by that of administrators, regulators
or financiers. The availability of UAV systems has also often depended upon maturation of the requisite
technology.
The systematic nature of UAV systems is achieved through the combination of many elements and their
supporting disciplines. Although the aircraft element is but one part of the coordinated system, it is almost
certainly the element which drives the requirements of the other system elements to the greatest extent. An
over-simplistic view of an unmanned aircraft is that it is an aircraft with its aircrew removed and replaced
by a computer system and a radio-link. In reality it is more complex than that, and the aircraft must be
properly designed, from the beginning, without aircrew and their accommodation, etc. The aircraft is merely
part, albeit an important part, of a total system.
The aircraft itself will have much in common with manned aircraft, but also several differences which are
explained. These differences often result from the differences in operational requirements compared with
manned aircraft, for example the need to take off from remote, short, unprepared airstrips or to fly for long
periods at very high altitudes. The performance of the aircraft is often enhanced by not having to carry the
weight of equipment and structure required to accommodate aircrew, and having a lower aerodynamic drag
for the same reason. The UAV also often benefits from advantageous scale effects associated with a smaller
aircraft.
1.1.1 What are UAS?
An unmanned aircraft system is just that – a system. It must always be considered as such. The system
comprises a number of sub-systems which include the aircraft (often referred to as a UAV or unmanned air
vehicle), its payloads, the control station(s) (and, often, other remote stations), aircraft launch and recovery
sub-systems where applicable, support sub-systems, communication sub-systems, transport sub-systems, etc.
It must also be considered as part of a local or global air transport/aviation environment with its rules,
regulations and disciplines.
UAS usually have the same elements as systems based upon manned aircraft, but with the airborne element,
i.e. the aircraft being designed from its conception to be operated without an aircrew aboard. The aircrew (as
a sub-system), with its interfaces with the aircraft controls and its habitation is replaced by an electronic
intelligence and control subsystem.
The other elements, i.e. launch, landing, recovery, communication, support, etc. have their equivalents in
both manned and unmanned systems.
Unmanned Air Vehicles Page | 2
Reg Austin, ― Unmanned Aircraft Systems @ 2010 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Unmanned aircraft must not be confused with model aircraft or with ‘drones’, a radio-controlled model (RC
Model) aircraft is used only for sport and must remain within sight of the operator. The operator is usually
limited to instructing the aircraft to climb or descend and to turn to the left or to the right.
A drone aircraft will be required to fly out of sight of the operator, but has zero intelligence, merely being
launched into a pre-programmed mission on a pre-programmed course and a return to base. It does not
communicate and the results of the mission, e.g. photographs, are usually not obtained from it until it is
recovered at base.
A UAV, on the other hand, will have some greater or lesser degree of ‘automatic intelligence’. It will be able
to communicate with its controller and to return payload data such as electro-optic or thermal TV images,
together with its primary state information – position, airspeed, heading and altitude. It will also transmit
information as to its condition, which is often referred to as ‘housekeeping data’, covering aspects such as
the amount of fuel it has, temperatures of components, e.g. engines or electronics.
If a fault occurs in any of the sub-systems or components, the UAV may be designed automatically to take
corrective action and/or alert its operator to the event. In the event, for example, that the radio communication
between the operator and the UAV is broken, then the UAV may be programmed to search for the radio
beam and re-establish contact or to switch to a different radio frequency band if the radio-link is duplexed.
A more ‘intelligent’ UAV may have further programmes which enable it to respond in an ‘if that happens,
do this’ manner. For some systems, attempts are being made to implement on-board decision-making
capability using artificial intelligence in order to provide it with an autonomy of operation, as distinct from
automatic decision making.
1.1.2 Categories of Systems Based upon Air Vehicle Types
Although all UAV systems have many elements other than the air vehicle, they are usually categorized by
the capability or size of the air vehicle that is required to carry out the mission.
They are as follows:
(i) HALE – High altitude long endurance. Over 15 000 m altitude and 24+ hr endurance. (ii)
MALE– Medium altitude long endurance. 5000–15 000 m altitude and 24 hr endurance.
(iii)TUAV – Medium Range or Tactical UAV with range of order between 100 and 300 km.
(iv) Close-Range UAV used by mobile army battle groups, for other military/naval operations and for
diverse civilian purposes. They usually operate at ranges of up to about 100 km.
(v) MUAV or Mini UAV– relates to UAV of below a certain mass probably below 20 kg, but not as small
as the MAV, capable of being hand-launched and operating at ranges of up to about 30 km.
(vi) Micro UAV or MAV. The MAV was originally defined as a UAV having a wing-span no greater than
150 mm.
(vii) NAV – Nano Air Vehicles. These are proposed to be of the size of sycamore seeds and used in swarms
for purposes such as radar confusion or conceivably, if camera, propulsion and control sub-systems can
be made small enough, for ultra-short range surveillance.
(viii) RPH, remotely piloted helicopter or VTUAV, vertical take-off UAV. If an air vehicle is capable
of vertical take-off it will usually be capable also of a vertical landing, and what can be sometimes of
even greater operational importance, hover flight during a mission.
(ix) UCAV and UCAR. Development is also proceeding towards specialist armed fixed-wing UAV which
may launch weapons or even take part in air-to-air combat. These are given the initials UCAV for
unmanned combat air vehicle. Armed rotorcraft are also in development and these are known as UCAR
for Unmanned Combat Rotorcraft.
1.1.3 Why Unmanned Aircraft?
Unmanned aircraft will only exist if they offer advantage compared with manned aircraft. An aircraft system
is designed from the outset to perform a particular role or roles. The designer must decide the type of aircraft
most suited to perform the role(s) and, in particular, whether the role(s) may be better achieved with a manned
or unmanned solution. In other words it is impossible to conclude that UAVs always have an advantage or
disadvantage compared with manned aircraft systems. It depends vitally on what the task is. An old military
adage (which also applies to civilian use) links the use of UAVs to roles which are dull, dirty or dangerous
(DDD). There is much truth in that but it does not go far enough. To DDD add covert, diplomatic, research
and environmentally critical roles. In addition, the economics of operation are often to the advantage of the
UAV.
(i) Dull Roles
Military and civilian applications such as extended surveillance can be a dulling experience for aircrew, with
many hours spent on watch without relief, and can lead to a loss of concentration and therefore loss of
mission effectiveness. The UAV, with high resolution colour video, low light level TV, thermal imaging
cameras or radar scanning, can be more effective as well as cheaper to operate in such roles. The ground-
based operators can be readily relieved in a shift-work pattern.
(ii) Dirty Roles
Monitoring the environment for nuclear or chemical contamination puts aircrew unnecessarily at risk.
Subsequent detoxification of the aircraft is easier in the case of the UAV.
Crop-spraying with toxic chemicals is another dirty role which now is conducted very successfully by UAV.
(iii) Dangerous Roles
For military roles, where the reconnaissance of heavily defended areas is necessary, the attrition rate of a
manned aircraft is likely to exceed that of a UAV. Due to its smaller size and greater stealth, the UAV is
more difficult for an enemy air defense system to detect and more difficult to strike with anti-aircraft fire or
missiles. Also, in such operations the concentration of aircrew upon the task may be compromised by the
threat of attack. The UAV operators are under no personal threat and can concentrate specifically and
therefore more effectively, on the task in hand. The UAV therefore offers a greater probability of mission
success without the risk of loss of aircrew resource.
(iv) Covert Roles
In both military and civilian policing operations there are roles where it is imperative not to alert the ‘enemy’
(other armed forces or criminals) to the fact that they have been detected. Again, the lower detectable
signatures of the UAV make this type of role more readily achievable.
(v) Research Roles
UAVs are being used in research and development work in the aeronautical field. For test purposes, the use
of UAV as small-scale replicas of projected civil or military designs of manned aircraft enables airborne
testing to be carried out, under realistic conditions, more cheaply and with less hazard.
(vi) Environmentally Critical Roles
This aspect relates predominantly to civilian roles. A UAV will usually cause less environmental disturbance
or pollution than a manned aircraft pursuing the same task. It will usually be smaller, of lower mass and
consume less power, so producing lower levels of emission and noise.
(vii) Economic Reasons
Typically, the UAV is smaller than a manned aircraft used in the same role, and is usually considerably
cheaper in first cost. Operating costs are less since maintenance costs, fuel costs and hangarage costs are all
less. The labour costs of operators are usually lower and insurance may be cheaper, though this is dependent
upon individual circumstances.
1.2 The Systemic Basis of UAS
Technically, a UAV system comprises a number of elements, or sub-systems, of which the aircraft is but
one. It is always most important to view each sub-system of the UAV system as an integral part of that
system. No one sub-system is more important than another, though some, usually the aircraft, have a greater
impact upon the design of the other subsystems in the system than do others. The technical functional
structure of a typical system is shown in Figure 1.1.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 6 of 20
Figure 4. Representation of the 3-ray radio propagation.
4. System Prototype Architecture

To enable LOS and relay communication modes, the communication modules of all
three platforms (USV, GC, and UAV) must be equipped with long-range high-throughput
transceivers. The long-range aspect can be enabled with dynamic steering of directional an-
tennas. Each module combines various mechanical, networking, and electrical components to
enable the antenna steering capability. The USV, GC, and UAV have communication modules
with different architecture designs that are better depicted in Figures 5–7, respectively.
The USV consists of a single-board computer, a motion sensor, two servo motors, and
a servo controller installed on the compound plate together with the directional antenna.
These two servo motors are responsible for the vertical and horizontal steering of the
antenna. For horizontal beam-steering of the USV antenna, the positioning data (i.e.,
position and orientation) is collected from a Global Positioning System (GPS) compass
module by the USV main computer using Robot Operating System (ROS). Subsequently,
the data from the GPS compass is sent to the single-board computer via Ethernet. By
assuming that the location of the GC is fixed, this computer calculates the steering angle
by using the positions of the vessel and the GC, then sends a control signal in the ROS
format to the servo controller. The controller then activates a servo motor to rotate the USV
antenna towards the GC. When the transceivers on both sides are connected through a
Wi-Fi link, the USV’s GPS coordinates are sent to the ground system and collected by the
controller board in GC. The GC steering system also includes a DC motor, a motor driver,
and a servo motor. The DC motor steers the antenna horizontally to the direction of the
autonomous vessel.
External
power source
Power
Motion Sensor
Regulator
GPS module
I2C
Servo Motor
(Azimuth)
USV Central Ethernet Single-board Serial Servo
Computer computer controller
Servo Motor
(Elevation)
Ethernet Ethernet
Power line
USV Omni-directional
Data line USV Directional Antenna
Antenna
Control line
Figure 5. Architecture design for the USV.
The antenna systems on both the USV and GC are capable of vertical rotation. Since
the vessel is floating on water, the tilting angle of the antenna may vary. To solve this,
a 6-axis sensor is utilized to estimate the compensated vertical angle. The embedded
computer controls the other servo to rotate the antenna in order to keep it stable against
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 7 of 20
the waves. The servo motor in the GC system steers the antenna toward the flying UAV in
the case when the system works in relay communication mode.
External
power source
Power Servo Motor

regulator (Elevation)
GPS module
Rotary
Encoder
USV Central Single-board
Computer computer
DC Motor DC Motor
Driver (Azimuth)
Ethernet
Power line
Data line GC Directional Antenna
Control line
Figure 6. Architecture design for the GC.
In NLOS scenarios, a UAV can be deployed to establish a relay link. The UAV steering
system includes an embedded computer and a servo motor. The computer receives GPS
coordinates of the UAV, including latitude, longitude, and altitude, to calculate the tilting
angle. Then, it controls the servo to steer the antenna vertically. For horizontal rotation,
the yaw-control capabilities of the drone are used to keep the antenna constantly directed
toward the GC. All the subsystems have a separate power regulator to provide a suitable
power supply to each component.
UAV’s
Batteries
Power
GPS module
regulator
UAV Ethernet
Omni-Directional Single-board Servo Motor
Antenna computer (Elevation)
USB
Ethernet
Power line
Data line UAV Directional Antenna
Control line
Figure 7. Architecture design for the UAV.
5. System Prototype Implementation

The mechanical structure for the communication part of the USV and GC was designed
in our previous work [4]. The design of the antenna rotation mechanism for the USV is
described in detail in [28]. In this work, the USV communication system was modified by
using more rigid materials and more precise steering parts to improve the resistance against
the wind and to increase the precision of rotation, as shown in Figure 8a. Two aluminum
brackets were used to hold the antenna. This prevents the antenna from swinging when
the wind is strong or when the autonomous vessel is moving at high speed. Two gears
were placed on the bracket for the vertical rotation. One was connected to the servo motor
through a shaft and the other was installed on the shaft of the antenna. A belt linked
those two gears to transmit the rotary motion from the servo motor to the antenna. In this
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 8 of 20
frame version, two ROBOTIS Dynamixel MX-28 servo motors were used for horizontal and
vertical rotation of the vessel antenna. The MX-28 servo features the tracking capabilities
of its speed, temperature, shaft position, voltage, and load. The shaft position can be
maintained and modified accordingly for each individual servo with the control algorithm
on the AX-12 actuator. It allows controlling the motor’s response in terms of speed and
strength. The servo’s built-in microcontroller manages the control of sensors and antennas.
The servo produces a high stall torque of 1.5 Nm and high no-load speed of 60 RPM, which
are suitable for beam-steering rotation.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Final mechanical design of both antennas on the USV and UAV. (a) Mechanical platform for
the directional antenna on the USV; (b) Mounting platform for the directional antenna of the UAV.
The directional antenna on the UAV was attached to a carbon-fiber platform. The de-
sign of this frame followed the structure of the UAV so that it could be mounted onto it,
as demonstrated in Figure 8b. This mounting platform consists of several plates and has
enough space to place other electrical devices on it. The brackets holding the antenna
and the gears were 3D printed. The servo motor shaft was connected to one gear and the
antenna was installed to the adjacent gear, which enabled the vertical rotation.
5.1. Single-Board Computers and Microcontrollers

The USV and GC are both controlled by the Beaglebone Green single-board computers.
They are responsible for exchanging GPS messages, running beam-steering algorithms and
executing measurement scripts. Table 1 shows the hardware specification of the Beaglebone
Green board.
Table 1. Hardware specifications of the Beaglebone Green board.
Feature Value
Processor AM335x 1 GHz ARMR Cortex-A8
RAM 512 MB DDR3
On-board storage 4 GB eMMC
Accelerator support NEON floating-point and 3D graphics accelerator
Micro USB 1, for Powering and data communication
USB 1, for Hosting
GPIO 2 ∗ 46 pin headers
Networking 1 Ethernet port
Operating temperature 0 to 75 °C
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 9 of 20
The UAV system is controlled by the Udoo X86 ULTRA version single-board computer.
One task of the controller on the UAV is forwarding the network packets in the relay
communication mode. The Mikrotik SXT AC antenna and the Wi-Fi USB dongle were,
respectively, connected to the Ethernet and USB ports of this board. Udoo X86 was selected
due to its Gigabit Ethernet network interface and USB 3.0 to provide a high data-transfer
rate. In addition, the chosen embedded board is compatible with Arduino 101 platform
so that it can control the servo motor using Arduino software. Besides, this board has
powerful hardware that can be utilized in other autonomous tasks such as video processing.
The technical specifications of the Udoo X86 board are presented in Table 2.
Another controller used in the system was the Arbotix-M Robocontroller. This robot
controller is an advanced solution for Dynamixel servos and other high-accuracy robotic
actuators. It incorporates a robust AVR microcontroller, a wireless interface, dual motor
drivers, and 3-pin headers for hobby servos with digital and analog I/O. The Arbotix-M
Robocontroller is for controlling the two, newly installed Dynamixel MX-28 servo motors.
Table 2. Hardware specifications of the Udoo X86 board (Arezzo, Italy).
Feature Value
CPU Intel® Pentium N3710 up to 2.56 GHz
GPU Intel® HD Graphics
RAM 8 GB DDR3L Dual Channe
Video interfaces 1∗ HDMI 1.4 (CEC), 2∗ Mini DisplayPort ++
On-board storage 32 GB eMMC soldered on-board
1∗ Gigabit Ethernet LAN interface
Networking
1∗ M.2 Key E slot for optional Wireless Module
HD Audio Codec ALC283CG
Audio interfaces Microphone + Headphone Combo Connector (TRRS)
Preamplified stereo speaker output, S/PDIF output
USB 3∗ USB 3.0 type-A sockets
2∗ HSUART ports, 2∗ I2C interface, 1∗ SDIO interface
Other interfaces
1∗ LPC interface
Arduino™ 101-Compatible through standard Arduino™
Platform compability
Pins layout, compatible with Arduino™ shields
5.2. Power Management

The power supply input varies for all the devices of the system. Thus, it is necessary
to install different power regulators for each specific device. For the USV system, power
was supplied by the ship accumulator and connected to the voltage regulators in the
communication module of the moving vessel. The components on the UAV were provided
with the power from the UAV’s battery. In order to show the power demands of utilized
equipment, an overview on the input power requirements of each component is presented
in Table 3. The GC and USV power supply systems have not changed from the previous
design except for the installation of AX-12 servos and the Arbotix-M Robocontroller,
as shown in Figure 8a. The final electrical design of the UAV is presented in Figure 9.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 10 of 20
Table 3. List of the components used in the system and their input voltages.
Category Item Model Quantity Supply Voltage [V]

GC Servo motor HS-805BB 1 4.6–6.0
Mechanical components UAV Servo motor TGY 306G-HV 1 4.8/6.0/7.2
USV Servo motor Dynamixel MX-28 2 12
Directional antenna MikroTik DynaDish 5 2 11–60
Compact Directional antenna MikroTik SXT 5ac 1 15–60
Networking components
Omnidirectional antenna MikroTik GrooveA 52 1 9–30
Router MikroTik hEX PoE 1 12–57
USV and GC controller Beaglebone Green 2 5
UAV controller Udoo X86 1 12
Electrical components Servo controller Arbotix-M 1 11–12
DC motor driver POLOLU-713 1 2.7–5.5
Motion sensor Adafruit LSM9DS0 1 2.4–3.6
Figure 9. Location of components in the UAV communication system.
5.3. Networking Implementation

The wireless interfaces on the USV and GC were based on MikroTik DynaDish 5 de-
vices, which support the IEEE 802.11a/n/ac (5 GHz) standard. This product is typically
designed to establish a reliable point-to-point connection. Regarding the UAV system, the
preferences were on lightweight devices, such as the compact MikroTik SXT 5 ac—which
utilizes the same communication standard as DynaDish 5. However, the SXT 5 model
comes in a small size of 140 × 140 × 56 mm and a weight of 265 g. All the chosen MikroTik
devices offer Gigabit Ethernet and are compatible with Power over Ethernet (PoE).
In addition, MikroTik GrooveA 52 ac omnidirectional antennas were installed in the
system. The interfaces use the same standard for wireless communication as the aforemen-
tioned equipment, and come with a Dual Band 2.4/5 GHz omnidirectional antenna with
a gain of 6 dBi for 2.4 GHz and 8 dBi for 5 GHz. The interface installed on the UAV side
was based on TECHKEY USB 3.0 Wi-Fi Dongle. It is a compact device with a 5 dBi antenna,
which can offer up to 867 Mbps in Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11ac. It uses USB 3.0 as an interface to
the controller board on the UAV.
Two routers were utilized on each side to interconnect all the devices on the USV
and GC sides. The core requirements for the routers are to provide Gigabit Ethernet and
support PoE for connected devices. The MikroTik hEX PoE router was installed and tested
during previous stages of this work and it proved to serve well for these purposes.
5.4. Method for Tilt Compensation of the USV Antenna

To detect the tilting of the directional antenna on the vessel caused by waves, the
Adafruit LSM9DS0 sensor was installed on the USV. This component incorporates a
Sensors 2021, 21, 3871 11 of 20
3-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer. The Beaglebone board calculates the
tilting angle, based on data collected by the LSM9DS0 sensor, and then rotates the antenna
vertically to compensate the tilting. The appropriate tilt compensation software was written
in Python. The Numpy and LSM9DS0 libraries were used for mathematical functions and
sensor data recording, respectively. The input parameter was the current horizontal angle
of the antenna. The pitch and roll values of the vessel were read from the LSM9DS0 sensor
and used to define the plane in which the antenna was positioned. After that, a vector from
the rotation angle values of the antenna was formed. Finally, it was possible to calculate
the pointing direction of the antenna in the xyz-plane. The tilting angle was the angle
between that vector and the defined plane in the xyz coordinates. After the horizontal
angle is calculated, the antenna is steered vertically against the calculated angle above to
compensate the vessel plane tilting.
5.5. GPS and Control Message Exchange Methods

The single-board computer on each vehicle is responsible for running the beam-
steering algorithms. It requires the location data to calculate the rotation angle and then
sends commands to specific motors. Hence, a method for transferring GPS coordinates
and controlling messages among the devices in the system was designed. The diagram in
Figure 10 depicts the data and control message exchange steps between USV and GC.
USV side GC side
USV GPS USV USV USV GC GC GC

Compass Servo Controller Antenna Antenna Controller DC motor
USV GPS data
Rotation
command
USV GPS data USV GPS data

ROS messages USV GPS data
UDP messages Rotation

command
Analog signal
Figure 10. Signaling message exchange steps between the USV and GC.
Since the GC was placed at a fixed location, its GPS coordinates were assumed to be
known on the USV side. Before the vessel departed, the single-board computer on the USV
obtained its current location from the GPS compass through ROS. The controller calculated
the rotation angle from the coordinates of the vessel and the GC; then, it sent the command
to the servo motor so that the USV directional antenna was pointing towards the GC.
As the two antennas became aligned, the USV controller transferred the location data of
the vessel to the GC side. These two embedded computers used two antennas to exchange
these messages through User Datagram Protocol (UDP). When the GC controller acquired
the GPS data of the vessel, it calculated and sent a rotation command as a pulse-width
modulated signal to the DC motor. These steps were repeated as the USV was traveling
along its route.
6. Experimental Results and Performance Evaluation

This section presents the results of measurement campaigns on the two communication
modes, previously described in Section 3: LOS communication mode (GC–USV link) and
Figure 1.1: UAV system – functional structure
1.3 System Composition
1.3.1 Control Station (CS)
Usually based on the ground (GCS- Ground control station), or aboard ship (SCS- Shipboard control station),
though possibly airborne in a ‘parent’ aircraft (ACS- Airborne control station), the control station is the
control centre of the operation and the man–machine interface. It is also usually, but not always, the centre
in which the UAV mission is pre-planned, in which case it may be known as the mission planning and control
station (MPCS).
From the CS, the operators ‘speak’ to the aircraft via the communications system up-link in order to direct
its flight profile and to operate the various types of mission ‘payload’ that it carries.
Similarly, via the communications down-link, the aircraft returns information and images to the operators.
The information may include data from the payloads, status information on the aircraft’s sub-systems
(housekeeping data), and position information. The launching and recovery of the aircraft may be controlled
from the main CS or from a satellite (subsidiary) CS.
The CS will usually also house the systems for communication with other external systems. These may
include means of acquiring weather data, transfer of information from and to other systems in the network,
tasking from higher authority and the reporting of information back to that or other authorities.
Figure 1.2: Ground based control station
1.3.2 The Payload
The type and performance of the payloads is driven by the needs of the operational task. These can range
from:
(a) relatively simple sub-systems consisting of an unstabilised video camera with a fixed lens having a mass
as little as 200 g
(b) a video system with a greater range capability, employing a longer focal length lens with zoom facility,
gyro-stabilised and with pan and tilt function with a mass of probably 3–4 kg
(c) a high-power radar having a mass, with its power supplies, of possibly up to 1000 kg. Some, more
sophisticated,
UAV carry a combination of different types of sensors, within a payload module or within a series of
modules.
Figure 1.3: High-level architecture of a UAV system
1.3.3 The Air Vehicle
The type and performance of the air vehicle/aircraft is principally determined by the needs of the operational
mission. The task of the aircraft is primarily to carry the mission payload to its point of application, but it
also has to carry the subsystems necessary for it to operate. These sub-systems include the communications
link, stabilization and control equipment, power plant and fuel, electrical power supplies; and basic airframe
structure and mechanisms needed for the aircraft to be launched, to carry out its mission, and to be recovered.
Other significant determinants in the design of the aircraft configuration are the operational range, airspeed
and endurance demanded of it by the mission requirement. The endurance and range requirement will
determine the fuel load to be carried. Achievement of a small fuel load and maximized performance will
require an efficient propulsion system and optimum airframe aerodynamics.
The speed requirement will determine more fundamentally whether a lighter-than-air aircraft, or a heavier-
than-air fixed-wing, rotary-wing, or convertible aircraft configuration, is used. A long endurance and long
range mission for military surveillance will predominately require a high-aspect ratio fixed-wing aircraft
operating at high altitude. It will be necessary for it to take off from a long paved runway to achieve the high
lift-off speed demanded by the high wing-loading required for low aerodynamic drag.
Figure 1.4: Different air vehicles of UAS
1.3.4 Navigation Systems
It is necessary for the operators to know, on demand, where the aircraft is at any moment in time. It may also
be necessary for the aircraft to ‘know’ where it is if autonomous flight is required of it at any time during
the flight. For fully autonomous operation, i.e. without any communication between the CS and the air
vehicle, sufficient navigation equipment must be carried in the aircraft.
In the past, this meant that the aircraft had to carry a sophisticated, complex, expensive and heavy inertial
navigation system (INS), or a less sophisticated INS at lower cost, etc., but which required a frequent
positional update from the CS via the communications link.
Nowadays, the availability of a global positioning system (GPS) which accesses positional information from
a system of earth-satellites, has eased this problem. The GPSs now available are extremely light in weight,
compact and quite cheap, and give continuous positional update so that only a very simple form of INS is
now normally needed.
For non-autonomous operation, i.e. where communication between aircraft and CS is virtually continuous,
or where there is a risk of the GPS system being blocked, other means of navigation are possible fallback
options. These methods include:
(a) Radar tracking. Here the aircraft is fitted with a transponder which responds to a radar scanner emitting
from the CS, so that the aircraft position is seen on the CS radar display in bearing and range.
(b) Radio tracking. Here the radio signal carrying data from the aircraft to the CS is tracked in bearing from
the CS, whilst its range is determined from the time taken for a coded signal to travel between the aircraft
and the CS.
(c) Direct reckoning. Here, with the computer-integration of velocity vectors and time elapsed, the aircraft
position may be calculated. If the mission is over land and the aircraft carries a TV camera surveying the
ground, its position can be confirmed by relating visible geographical features with their known position on
a map.
1.3.5 Launch, Recovery and Retrieval Equipment
(a) Launch equipment: This will be required for those air vehicles which do not have a vertical flight
capability, nor have access to a runway of suitable surface and length. This usually takes the form of a ramp
along which the aircraft is accelerated on a trolley, propelled by a system of rubber bungees, by compressed
air or by rocket, until the aircraft has reached an airspeed at which it can sustain airborne flight.
(b) Recovery equipment: This also will usually be required for aircraft without a vertical flight capability,
unless they can be brought down onto terrain which will allow a wheeled or skid-borne run-on landing. It
usually takes the form of a parachute, installed within the aircraft, and which is deployed at a suitable altitude
over the landing zone. In addition, a means of absorbing the impact energy is needed, usually comprising
airbags or replaceable frangible material. An alternative form of recovery equipment, sometimes used, is a
large net or, alternatively, a carousel apparatus into which the aircraft is flown and caught.
(c) Retrieval equipment: Unless the aircraft is lightweight enough to be man-portable, a means is required
of transporting the aircraft back to its launcher.
Figure 1.5: Catapult take-off
Figure 1.6: Hydraulic –rail launcher
Figure 1.7: Pneumatic launcher
Figure 1.8: Different recovery methods
1.3.6 Communications
The principal, and probably the most demanding, requirement for the communications system is to provide
the data links (up and down) between the CS and the aircraft. The transmission medium is most usually at
radio frequency, but possible alternatives may be by light in the form of a laser beam or via optical fibers.
The tasks of the data links are usually as follows:
(a) Uplink (i.e. from the CS to the aircraft):
i) Transmit flight path tasking which is then stored in the aircraft automatic flight control system (AFCS).
ii) Transmit real-time flight control commands to the AFCS when man-in-the-loop flight is needed.
iii) Transmit control commands to the aircraft-mounted payloads and ancillaries.
iv) Transmit updated positional information to the aircraft INS/AFCS where relevant.
(b) Downlink (i.e. from the aircraft to the CS):
i) Transmit aircraft positional data to the CS where relevant.

ii) Transmit payload imagery and/or data to the CS.
iii) Transmit aircraft housekeeping data, e.g. fuel state, engine temperature, etc. to the CS.
The level of electrical power, complexity of the processing and the antennae design and therefore the
complexity, weight and cost of the radio communications will be determined by:
i) the range of operation of the air vehicle from the transmitting station;
ii) the sophistication demanded by transmission-down of the payload and housekeeping data;
iii) the need for security.
1.3.7 Interfaces
All these elements, or sub-systems, work together to achieve the performance of the total system. Although
some of them may be able to operate as ‘stand-alone’ systems in other uses, within the type of system
described, as sub-systems they must be able to operate together, and so great attention must be paid to the
correct functioning of their interfaces.
For example, although the communications radio sub-system itself forms an interface between the CS and
the air vehicle, the elements of it installed in both the CS and air vehicle must operate to the same protocols
and each interface with their respective parent sub-systems in a compatible manner.
It is likely that the UAV system may be operated by the services (both military and civilian) in different
countries which may require different radio frequencies or security coding. Therefore it should be made
possible for different front-end modules to be fitted into the same type of CS and air vehicle when the UAV
system is acquired by various different operators. This requires the definition of the common interfaces to
be made.
1.3.8 Interfacing with Other Systems
A UAV system exists in order to carry out a task. It is unlikely that the task may ‘standalone’. That is, it may
require tasking from a source external to the system and report back to that or other external source. This
network may include information coming from and/or being required by other elements of the military, such
as ground-, sea-, or air-based units and space-satellites, or indeed, other UAV systems. The whole then
becomes what is known as a ‘system of systems’ and is known as network centric operation.
A UAV system (UAS) operating alone is usually known as a ‘stove-pipe system’. A representative
architecture of a ‘system of systems’ which may include not only other UASs of similar or different types,
but also include other operational elements such as naval vessels, mobile ground units or manned aircraft
that provide information or mount attack missions is shown in Figure 1.2.Similarly, in civilian operations
such as fire patrol, the operators in the CS may be tasked from Fire Brigade Headquarters to move the air
vehicle to new locations. It will be necessary therefore to provide, probably within the CS, the equipment
required to communicate with the external sources and record/display data received and sent.
Figure 1.9: Network-centric architecture (Boeing)
1.3.9 Support Equipment
Support equipment is one area which can often be underestimated when a UAV system is specified. It ranges
from operating and maintenance manuals, through tools and spares to special test equipment and power
supplies.
Figure 1.10: Supporting equipment
1.3.10 Transportation
A UAV system is often required to be mobile. Therefore transport means must be provided for all the sub-
systems discussed above. This may vary from one vehicle required to contain and transport a UAV system
using a small, lightweight vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft which needs no launch, recovery or
retrieval equipment and is operated by say, two crew, to a system using a large and heavier ramp-launched
aircraft which needs all the sub-systems listed, may have to be dismantled and reassembled between flights,
and may require, say, ten crew and six large transport vehicles. Even UAV systems operating from fixed
bases may have specific transport requirements.
1.3.11 System Environmental Capability
From the initiation of the concept of the system, it is important to recognise the impact that the environment
in which it is to operate will have on the design of all elements of the system, including the provision of an
acceptable working environment for the operating and support members of the crew. A system which has
been designed with only low-altitude, temperate conditions in mind, will fail in more extreme conditions of
altitude, temperature, solar radiation, precipitation and humidity.
It is also necessary to recognise the impact that the UAV system may have on the environment. This can be
very significant, though with different accent, in both civilian and military roles. It is therefore necessary to
consider all of these aspects carefully at the outset of the system design.
1.4 Introduction to Design and Selection of the System
The design of most aircraft-based systems will usually be considered to begin in three phases:
a) the conceptual phase,

b) the preliminary design phase,
c) the detail design phase.
Other phases follow after initial manufacture. These include the design of modifications during development
and subsequent modifications or improvements whilst the system is in service.
1.5 Some Applications of UAS
Before looking into UAS in more detail, it is appropriate to list some of the uses to which they are, or
may be, put. They are very many, the most obvious being the following:
1.5.1 Civilian uses

Aerial photography Film, video, still, etc.
Agriculture Crop monitoring and spraying; herd monitoring and driving
Coastguard Search and rescue, coastline and sea-lane monitoring
Conservation Pollution and land monitoring
Customs and Excise Surveillance for illegal imports
Electricity companies Powerline inspection
Fire Services and Forestry Fire detection, incident control
Fisheries Fisheries protection
Gas and oil supply companies Land survey and pipeline security
Information services News information and pictures, feature pictures, e.g. wildlife
Lifeboat Institutions Incident investigation, guidance and control
Local Authorities Survey, disaster control
Meteorological services Sampling and analysis of atmosphere for forecasting, etc.
Traffic agencies Monitoring and control of road traffic
Oil companies Pipeline security
Ordnance Survey Aerial photography for mapping
Police Authorities Search for missing persons, security and incident surveillance
Rivers Authorities Water course and level monitoring, flood and pollution control
Survey organisations Geographical, geological and archaeological survey
Water Boards Reservoir and pipeline monitoring
1.5.2 Military roles
1.5.2.1 Navy
Shadowing enemy fleets

Decoying missiles by the emission of artificial signatures
Electronic intelligence
Relaying radio signals
Protection of ports from offshore attack
Placement and monitoring of sonar buoys and possibly other forms of anti-submarine
Warfare
1.5.2.2 Army
Reconnaissance
Surveillance of enemy activity
Monitoring of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) contamination
Target designation and monitoring
Location and destruction of land mines
1.5.2.3 Air Force
Long-range, high-altitude surveillance

Radar system jamming and destruction
Airfield base security
Airfield damage assessment
Elimination of unexploded bombs

UNIT 1uav

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

UNIT 1uav

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 1uav

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation History and Unmanned Flight

K.P. Valavanis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (eds.), Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 57

4.2 Precursors of Flight and Unmanned Aircraft

Several centuries later, Leonardo Da Vinci, in 1483, designed an aircraft capable

Fig. 4.2 Leonardo Da

potential benefits of unmanned aircraft and efforts to adapt flying machines to

Remote operation required the perfection of radio control, a concept proposed

4.4 The Machines of the Cold War

Fig. 4.6 The SD-1, also

Fig. 4.9 A QH-50

4.5 Modern Systems

Fig. 4.19 The Neptune, a

Fig. 4.27 The Raven is a

Another UAV design concerns the lighter-than-air systems or airships, a distinct

Fig. 4.28 The WASP is a

Fig. 4.29 The Nighthawk is

Fig. 4.32 The Rapid

Fig. 4.34 The iSTAR MAV

Fig. 4.35 The Sikorksy

Fig. 4.38 The AirRobot AR

K.P. Valavanis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (eds.), Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 83

5.1.1 Classification Based on MTOW and Ground Impact Risk

5.1.2 Classification Based on Operational Altitude and Midair

3. Medium altitude (MA) operating in Class A through E airspace

Table 5.4 Classification of Typical max

Table 5.5 Proposed classification based on class of airspace used

Table 5.6 Source: Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (2001)

differentiation parameters. Of course, the different categories presented can also

5.1.3 Classification Based on Autonomy

Table 5.7 Autonomous ACL Level descriptor

5.1.4 Military Classifications

Table 5.9 Domestic use Operating

5.1.5 Classification Based on Ownership

INTRODUCTION TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

1.1.1 What are UAS?

Unmanned Air Vehicles Page | 2

1.1.2 Categories of Systems Based upon Air Vehicle Types

They are as follows:

Unmanned Air Vehicles Page | 3

1.1.3 Why Unmanned Aircraft?

(i) Dull Roles

(ii) Dirty Roles

(iii) Dangerous Roles

Unmanned Air Vehicles Page | 4

(v) Research Roles

(vi) Environmentally Critical Roles

(vii) Economic Reasons

1.2 The Systemic Basis of UAS

Unmanned Air Vehicles Page | 5

Figure 4. Representation of the 3-ray radio propagation.

4. System Prototype Architecture

Figure 5. Architecture design for the USV.

Power Servo Motor

Figure 6. Architecture design for the GC.

Figure 7. Architecture design for the UAV.

5. System Prototype Implementation

5.1. Single-Board Computers and Microcontrollers