Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial

Transcription

NARCAP Topical Review 05
NARCAP Topical Review TOP 05, 2013
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:
Can We Tell Them Apart?
Richard F. Haines
Chief Scientist
and
Wayne Reed
Research Associate
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
Copyright
October 10, 2013
Abstract
Serious investigators of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and perhaps others need to be
able to correctly discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from unidentified aerial
phenomena (UAP) which are probably not manmade. Doing this accurately requires knowledge
about the key visual features and flight capabilities of each class of objects. This paper is an
extension of Osborn (2009) and presents photographs and selected technical information related
to one-half of this challenge – UAV - a technology that is evolving so rapidly that this snapshot
can portray only a small proportion of the many bizarre shapes, wide range of dimensions, flight
capabilities and other characteristics of UAVs at the present time. Can perceived outline shape
be used with assurance in making an accurate discrimination between UAV and UAP? Indeed,
odd shaped, apparently non-aerodynamic objects may or may not be manmade. Can any current
UAV accelerate almost instantaneously, hover silently, turn sharp corners, or leave a luminous
trail behind them? Can any currently flying UAV cause airplane compasses to deviate or other
electronic systems to malfunction when flying near an airplane? Can they keep pace with high
performance air force jets and perform corkscrew flight maneuvers around the jets or even be
visible in one moment and invisible in the next? If the answer to these questions is found to be
yes then much serious, non-instrumented UAP field research will have come to an end and
ultimately will result only in frustration. This paper explores several of these issues and includes
photographs of sixty eight current UAV with related information.
1
Introduction
American, Australian, and other allied airplane spotters on faraway Pacific islands during
WW-2 were trained to quickly and accurately identify different Japanese airplanes primarily by
their silhouette (outline) shapes. Except for situations where these airplanes were far away - with
correspondingly angularly small retinal image sizes - each airplane’s silhouette contained one or
more critical details [Haines, 2010(b)] that enabled the spotters to make a correct identification.
Such critical visual details included recognizable, i.e., familiar outline shape, vapor or other
atmospheric traces produced by the still to be identified airplanes and their flight performance
capabilities. In some cases the engine sounds they made confirmed their identity particularly in
poor visibility situations. But aviation technology has progressed very greatly since WW-2.
Making a correct discrimination between a manned and unmanned air vehicle has become far
more difficult today.
Critical Details
There are several major contributors to making an accurate visual identification of a distant
flying object. We call them “critical details” since they may serve in many cases as unique
identifiers of a UAV. Even when the object is little more than a speck in the sky without any
shape at all, for instance, its motions can be appreciated when there is a stable background
visible. If it follows smooth turns that have a finite radius it could be a manned or unmanned
airplane or a UAP. The greater the velocity and object mass the larger the radius that is required
as is illustrated by America’s SR-71 high altitude reconnaissance plane that requires about a 100
miles radius turn (at a medium bank angle) when flying at Mach 3. But if the unidentified
airplane or phenomenon makes very sharp, even instantaneous changes in its direction of flight
which, considering its forward velocity, would otherwise produce extremely high g loads on its
on-board pilot(s), then it might be a lower mass UAV (located at a much nearer distance) or a
UAP. If it seems to come to a sudden stop in mid-air from an angularly high rate of speed or
suddenly accelerates it might be a small UAV located nearer to the observer or a UAP. Clearly,
the ever increasing maneuverability of UAV make them more and more difficult to discriminate
from UAP that are reported to perform truly fantastic flight maneuvers.
Of course, there are other visual factors that contribute to this set of “critical details.” One is
outline shape. When the unidentified object has increased in size (i.e., visual angle) one may
finally see its outline (silhouette) shape but nothing else. Its shape will vary as its orientation
toward the viewer changes. As is illustrated in Figure 1, the same UAV can appear radically
different depending upon the angle from which it is seen. This factor alone can cause confusion
and uncertainty. Indeed, only a sphere is invariant at different orientations. [Haines et al.,
2010(a)]
2
The following line drawing is of an “all-wing” manned glider design from the pre-WW-II era
designed by the Horten brothers in Germany. (Myhra, Pg. 305, 1998). It must be pointed out that
several current UAV are based on the same general design principles as can be seen in the
following photographs of plane form and stealth shaped Flying Wing UAV today some seventy
years later!
Figure 1
Three Views of the Flying Wing Model HO-16
(Used by Permission: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.)
Top View
Front View
Side View
Figure 2 is an artist’s drawing of Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinal UAV, a vehicle that
looks remarkably like the earlier HO-16 flying wing.
Figure 2
Artist’s Rendering of the RQ-170 Sentinal UAV in Three Views
(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinal)
3
Additionally, the visual characteristics of military UAV in particular are designed to blend
into the surroundings and thus their external paint colors are often a light, flat, grey with hints of
light blue. Since the flat paint and color choices are carefully selected to reduce detection, they
would almost certainly eliminate such a UAV if a glint or reflection was observed from them.
Another critical detail is viewing duration. In some past cases small fighter aircraft were
misidentified as larger bombers (and vice versa) until sufficient viewing time had elapsed to
make their actual identity clear. Research by the first author on 283 reports of UAP seen from
aircraft for the period 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1952 found that the average sighting
duration was 7.3 minutes. (Haines, 1983) Such long durations contribute to being able to
examine many of the unidentified object’s critical details and eliminate most of the prosaic
explanations.
A third contributor is prior familiarity with different airplane shapes. For example, someone
who has never read about or seen a flying wing design may believe that he is not seeing a
manmade aircraft at all. Trying to classify something one has never seen before is a challenging
task indeed; the interested reader should consult [Haines, 2012(b)] for a current example of this.
The photographic array of different UAV models presented below will help to make some of
them more familiar to the reader.
Another critical detail is the noise that is or is not heard from a UAV or squadron of them.
Generally, the greater the mass that must be levitated against gravity and propelled laterally at
some velocity, the more power that is required. Generating this power produces noises of
various volumes, durations, and frequencies. While some very small UAV use quiet batterypowered electric motors driving rotors that can barely be heard nearby larger models employ
gasoline or jet engines that are unmistakably manmade UAV. Nevertheless, so-called stealth
UAV are being developed for surveillance (and other) applications that are claimed to be almost
undetectable against normal urban background noise levels. Continuing improvements in these
ultra-quiet UAV will only contribute to their being confused with UAP.
Finally, nighttime operations of UAV may or may not employ standard red - green navigation
and collision avoidance lights. These requirements are still being worked out. For stealth-related
operations many small UAVs use normally invisible infrared strobes during nighttime flights as
locating beacons. Only those wearing appropriate night vision goggles can see them. On UAV
designed for night time advertising their light sources will likely present virtually any color,
pattern, flash rate, or intensity. There are already several small hobby class model UAV made to
look like discs and saucers and that light up with flashing colored LEDs.
As has been mentioned before this paper addresses the subject of how to correctly
discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from what the authors believe is a fundamentally
different class of aerial phenomena that we call UAP, (for unidentified aerial phenomena).
4
What about UAV?
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is “any aircraft which is designed or modified not to
carry a human pilot and is operated through electronic input initiated by a remotely located flight
controller and/or by an onboard autonomous flight management control system that does not
require flight controller intervention.” (www.psi.nmsuk.edu/uav/conops/ ) So far at least all
UAV are aerodynamic in shape and operation. There are about a thousand different UAV
systems today designed and built by over three hundred firms in many countries. (Aerospace
America, 2013; Anon, 2012; Goldman, 2012; Karim, 2009; NOVA, 2012; Osborn, 2009;
Popular Science, 2010; Wiki, 2012, 2013) Appendix 1 is a partial list of the ever growing
number of names that have been given to UAV; it is clear that this technology is still in flux and
developing in various aerodynamic capability (and other) directions. By 2020 there are predicted
to be at least thirty thousand UAV flying in U. S. airspace, albeit most at lower altitudes. Today
the FAA requires a special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC-Experimental) to operate UAVs. It
will be selecting six UAV test sites by the end of 2013; the first should become operational
within six months. As Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution has pointed out,
UAV are a “game-changing technology, akin to gunpowder, the steam engine, the atomic bomb
– opening up possibilities that were fiction a generation earlier…”. (Whitehead, 2013) If this is
true for UAV today, could the same thing be said about UAP? (Footnote 1)
As more and more UAV enter America’s National Air Space (NAS) national and
international aviation agencies are working to keep airplanes with people on board from
colliding with them (Anon, 2012). Ground and airborne radar detection, transponders and
perhaps even some type(s) of Terminal Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) onboard future
UAV will likely form the backbone of such collision avoidance efforts along with modification
of the traditional see-and-be-seen principle when both vehicles are manned to see-and-avoid
when one is manned and the other isn’t. Where does the ultimate responsibility for collision
avoidance lie in this matter? With expanded use of multiple wide-angle on-board cameras the
UAV’s ground controller may possibly be able to maintain adequate situational – collision
avoidance awareness. Still, the deliberate use of stealth fuselage designs of already small UAVs
will minimize the effectiveness of their detection by primary radar. Various anticipated uses of
UAV within the NAS will probably require that transponders be carried on-board as part of their
payload. Flights of so-called hobby-class UAV are likely to rely on continuous (or at least
remote) visual contact with the vehicle from the ground. (Reynish, 2004)
What about UAP?
In spite of their controversial nature and their capability to produce a stubborn and closedminded attitude toward accepting their reality by some people today, UAP (sometimes called by
the misleading yet commonly used acronym ufo) are firmly established as a modern reality.
Whatever they are they are objectively real, having been photographed, detected by radar, infrared and multi-spectral sensors, touched, smelled, and seen by many hundreds of thousands (or
5
more) of highly qualified people over many centuries. Reviews by Catoe (1969); Clark, 1990;
Dolan (2000); Hall (2001); Vallee, (1965) and others should be consulted in this regard. The
aviation communities of the world should stop denying their reality. Research by the first author
and many others is also pointing to an unacceptably large possibility for flight safety impact by
UAP. (cf., Clark, 2003; Ferguson, 2012; Garrido and Cornejo, 2010; Guzman, 2001; Haines,
2000; Haines et al, 2007; Haines 2012(a); Randles, 1998; Sato, 2013; Shough, 2002; Smith,
1997; Weinstein, 2011). This paper will not address any details of the electromagnetic effects on
manmade technology that have been linked to nearby UAP.
It must be emphasized that UAP, like UAV, present a very wide range of silhouette shapes
with all of the attendant problems of identifying them on the basis of their shape. [Haines, 1976;
1979(a); 1979(b); 2010(b)] Having prior sightings with actual UAP also provide important clues
as to their classification as being something that is not manmade. Of course the flight
characteristics of many UAP have also been noted by many past researchers as being extremely
non-aerodynamic. Their means of propulsion have not yet been discovered. One of many
interesting facts about UAP is that the great majority of them depart from the witness’s location
by rising vertically or at a steep angle and also rapidly. This cannot be said for most UAV.
When this occurs at usual cruise speeds and altitudes of commercial jet airplanes, as it has on
many scores of occasions it eliminates UAV as the other object.
What is not Covered Here
The subject of UAV is already so vast and constantly changing that it may appear foolish to
offer even a limited snapshot of it here. The following aspects of UAV are not discussed here in
order to keep this review to a manageable length and because they are not directly relevant to the
subject at hand: means of ground-to-UAV communication and energy transfer; specific UAV
payloads unless their form factor influences their shape; on-board sensing systems; emitted
radiation; specific vehicle missions and related design drivers [cf. Goldman, 2012]; collision
avoidance issues and FAA regulations within the NAS; and certification of UAV operators.
These and other related topics are discussed elsewhere [e.g., Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International; Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Perceptions &Potential (2013)].
The following section presents several sighting reports to illustrate some of the difficulties in
telling a UAV from a UAP.
Several Unexplained Sighting Reports
A part of the motivation to prepare this report came from trying to find explanations for what
was reported by aviation personnel over many decades. Were these reported objects and lights
actually UAVs of some kind? This is a valid question that skeptics have raised many times
6
before. Consider the following three sighting reports made over fifty years ago - before there
were hardly any UAV.
Sixty one years ago on April 5, 1952 when remote control of airplanes was very limited
four U.S. Air Force personnel stationed at Kadena A.F.B., Okinawa and assigned to the 372nd
Bomb Squadron watched as an unidentified object flew an “erratic course” for about ten minutes.
The local time was 12:00 am. The white, silent object maneuvered above their base with violent
zig-zag motions, coming to a complete stop and then continuing. The airmen estimated its
altitude at about 20,000 feet. It departed out of sight by rising up and away to the west over the
ocean. This report was found in an official Air Force Project Blue Book file; the official
explanation given was “aircraft.”
The second case is also found in Project Blue Book files (case 3523) and involved two U.S.
Air Force officers who were walking across the airfield ramp at the Keflavik, Iceland airbase at
16:38 hrs. local time on May 4, 1955. They reported seeing a group of very unusual objects
flying across the sky. First seen at about ten degrees arc from directly overhead they all
disappeared behind cloud cover about thirty degrees arc above the horizon within ten or twelve
seconds! Approximately eight of the unknown objects were grouped together with two more
farther away on their right-hand side. “In position they did not move back and forth or in and out
slowly, as jet aircraft. But very rapidly and jerkily. When they were about half-way through this
50 degree arc of the sky the object in the center of the group emitted a very thin, linear smoke
trail which disappeared almost immediately. All of the objects had the same indistinct (round or
oval) shape, color, and brightness. No wings or tail could be seen; they all appeared to be
transparent or translucent like a, “glob of milk of magnesia that had been heavily cut with
water.” One witness estimated the angular size of each object as that of a penny held at arm’s
length (about 1.5 deg.), or about 60 to 70 feet across and travelling at well over 1,000 kts.
(U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book files; Olsen, 1966) The official explanation was “unidentified.”
Another sighting occurred fifty six years ago on August 27, 1957, according to official U.S.
Air Force records (case 4922). At least six airmen and control tower operators saw a round
object associated with a white light above Eglin A.F.B. in western Florida for about five minutes.
During this time its altitude was judged to be seven hundred feet and it moved vertically up and
down. It also circled the hanger at about 2,000 feet altitude showing red and white lights. The
official explanation was “aircraft.”
Less than three months later (November 7, 1957) plant guards at the Pantex Atomic Energy
Commission ordnance plant near Amarillo, Texas phoned the Texas State Highway Patrol at
19:46 hrs. concerning three bright, flashing objects that were hovering above the plant at about
fifty feet above the ground. When a patrolman arrived at 20:15 hrs. he also saw one of the
strange lights. A great many more similarly bizarre accounts could be cited. (cf. Clark, 1990;
Hynek, 1972; Olsen, 1966)
7
Could any of these unidentified objects have been some kind of UAV of that era? The highly
qualified answer is probably no because America did not then possess powered aero-vehicles of
any shape that could hover silently, fly vertically up and down [other than noisy gyrocopters and
helicopters (Leishman, 2000)], or fly in saw-tooth or jerky flight paths. Clearly, these objects
were not helicopters because of differences in reported shape, flight performance, as well as
complete silence. If any of them were balloons with lights attached at night what was their
source of electrical power and how could they fly in the manners just described? Could any have
been radio-controlled airplane models? While this is possible it is not very probable.
More Recent Aerial Encounters with Alleged UAVs.
Let us now consider several more recent sighting reports that may have been caused by
UAV. The U.S. Air Force allegedly used an unmanned jet propelled combat aerial vehicle in the
war in Afghanistan in mid April 2009 that looked “… similar to the X-45s and X-47s… built
…for the USAF and Navy.” The summary article about this event concluded by saying, “…no
one is saying what a combat UAV design is doing in Afghanistan. But there it is, operating as a
UFO (unidentified flying object).” (www.strategypage.com/htmw)
This incident involved many eye witnesses stationed at Camp Leatherneck (Marjah)
Afghanistan on or about February 7, 2010. The following narrative is quoted verbatim from the
Mutual UFO Network’s Case Management System files (http://www.mufon.org; Case 36089) .
“Here are 2 of the 6 photos that I took one night (on or about 7 Feb, 2010) while at our office
in the MLG (Marine Logistics Group) compound on Camp Leatherneck Afg. (located in Heland
Province). I know that ALL of my friends on FB that were with us saw the same thing. They
were up there long enough that people were leaving.
“They were up there for a long time without moving. They went away for a while and then
came back. They didn't move or blink or make any noise. They looked like they were really high
up but there was nothing to base that on. Pretty cool event.
“Now that I have seen it on TV it is super cool that we were able to witness it.
1. I was in my office in teh (sic) MLG Compound on Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan.
2. One of the Marines in the Company came into the office to tell us about the lights.
3. At first we thought maybe flares or weather balloons but they didn't change alt. or fade out
or fall.
4. As my attachments show there were 7 equally spaced lights in the sky that did not appear
to move or change.
5. Very interested to see the lights, so many people saw them and didn't even stop to look at
them. There was a lot going on during the day but nothing to distract us during the
8
sighting.
6. I hate to say it but after maybe 45 minutes we just went back inside to work.”
“I have 4 more pics (sic) they are sharper but since I was moving they make the light appear
as if they were moving. The two I attached are pretty clear.” (Note: These two nighttime photos
are not presented here but are available on the MUFON website in the case files section, search
UFO data base. A recently posted comment on this case, allegedly by another Marine who was
also stationed here, claimed that he saw the same formation of lights in 2009).
< http://www.examiner.com/article/series-of-lights-reported-hovering-over-u-s-marine-base- >
Were there any UAV in use in the Afghanistan war zone in early 2010 that can hover in
silence for a relatively long period of time while maintaining a précises position along a straight
line (relative to several other UAV) also having the same angular size, shape, color, and
brightness? If this sighting report can be believed one can also ask what these seven selfluminous objects were and what were they doing above the marine base?
In the following more recent sighting both flight crew members of a Citation 550 jet reported
to authorities on the ground that on January 11, 2011 at 18:45 hrs. local time, they were cruising
at FL 200 at 380 kts. true air speed heading west between New Haven, Connecticut and Buffalo,
New York when the following incident took place. The captain was the first to see a flickering
light ahead of them. He pointed it out to the First Officer because it was at their twelve o’clock
position and they knew of no other traffic in the area. In his typed report submitted to the
National UFO Reporting Center (used by permission) two days later, the captain wrote that at
first he thought it was a planet but soon realized that the unknown object was passing off to their
left side; he estimated it to be between 2 and 4 thousand feet above their altitude. He wrote, “It
had a blinking light in front and between 3 and 4 other lights on it, all white except for an
extremely faint and small green light toward the rear.” The captain radioed ATC about it when
the light reached their ten o’clock position and was told that they, “…had traffic at that position
going westbound. This craft was eastbound and not in contact with any controllers… Both my
co-pilot and myself watched it disappear behind us… While it is common to see other traffic in
the sky while flying, the fact that it was so lit up (planes are not usually that highly lit at those
altitudes) with lights that were not consistent with aircraft lights and it (sic) relatively slow
closing speed with us makes me believe that it wasn’t a aircraft as we know an aircraft to be.”
The First Officer on this flight also submitted his own report of their five minute-long
sighting. He wrote, “I found this to be peculiar considering that in my 5 years of professional
flying typically aircraft passing at this altitude pass each other very quickly because they are
operating at their cruise air speeds. The relative motion of the flashing lights just did not make
sense, just to (sic) slow… the lights that we were observing however were east bound and
moving at significantly slower speed than a jet or turbo prop aircraft typically does. In fact, I
remarked, “Is that a helicopter?”” He described the object as follows.
9
“The lights observed consisted of a large bright white strobe like light at the lowest point as
well as three to four smaller white lights that surrounded the main light. The brilliance of the
light lacked the whiteness of modern strobe instead it had a pearlescent quality and flickered
rather than flashed however with intensity. At times then (sic) main light seemed to be casting a
fluttering shadow much like a flashlight would yield if cast through a rotating fan blade…that
prompted me to question if the craft was a helicopter as previously stated. I looked intently for
the red and green navigation lights that all aircraft have conversely none were observed.”
“The flight conditions were good; visibility was excellent as the stars made a magnificent
backdrop as they typically do on night flights during the winter months. An overcast layer
existed well below our flight level that I estimate to be at 10 to 12 thousand feet. “
This sighting report made by two commercial pilots raises many interesting questions such
as, was this unidentified object a military UAV capable of flying this high and fast but without
the required night time navigation lights? Did air traffic control personnel know its identity but
did not disclose it? Was this UAP detected by ground radar since ATC personnel informed the
flight crew about it and if so was it squawking a transponder code? Why didn’t the jet’s TCAS
system signal an alarm or was it just not reported? Finally, if this was a UAV and passed this jet
as closely as was reported why wasn’t a formal near miss reported to the FAA? Or, could this
object have been a UAP?
In another recent unsettling incident, an unidentified object that looked like a “large remote
controlled aircraft” nearly collided with a private jet at 8,000 feet altitude near Denver, Colorado
on May 14, 2012 at 17:17 hrs. local time. The air-to-ground radio transmission made thirty
seconds later can be heard at: <LiveATC.net> The encounter was so brief that the flight crew
could not perceive any important critical details of the other object. Based on its description as
an aircraft it is probable that the object was a UAV of some kind.
Finally, according to a New York Office F.B.I. press release dated March 5, 2013, the flight
crew of Alitalia Flight 608 reported seeing a “small, unmanned aircraft while on approach to
John F. Kennedy International Airport” when they were about three miles from runway 31R.
The black UAV was about a yard in width with four propellers and came within 200 feet of the
jet which was at an altitude of about 1,750 feet. The critical details of this intruder vehicle,
which identified it as a UAV included its four propellers, wings, fuselage, and other airframe
details.
It is becoming ever clearer that UAV are going to pose an increasing threat to flight safety.
(Anon., 2013(c); Campbell, 2013) Investigators need to be able to discriminate them from
another class of poorly understood atmospheric phenomena that are not manmade.
10
Comparison of UAV and UAP
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a number of useful discriminating features of
UAV so that reports of alleged UAP may be compared with them and accurately identified if
possible. This section attempts such a comparison using the following eight basic features of
UAV.
Maximum Altitude. The unmanned solar powered prototype “Pathfinder Plus” UAV set a world
altitude record of 80,200 feet in 1997 which was exceeded three years later by the Helios
Prototype at 96,800 feet in 2001 (see Figure 3). It had a 247 ft. wing span but was only 12 ft.
long. Even on a clear, sunny day when seen from the side and at a distance of several miles it
probably would not have been particularly conspicuous from the ground with unaided vision due
to its small visual cross-section. Even when seen from directly below from the ground its tip-totip wing span would have subtended an angle of only 8.76 minutes arc, a mere speck, when
flying at its record breaking altitude of 96,800 feet above the ground.
As will become apparent later, the great majority of current UAV operate at much lower
altitudes in order to carry out their various missions. Maximum altitude is integrally related to
flight endurance which varies widely in today’s UAV. Internal combustion engine aircraft
endurance depends primarily on the percentage of fuel burned as a fraction of total vehicle
weight (cf., Breguet equation). Thus, endurance is actually, almost independent of aircraft size.
Solar-electric UAVs like that shown in Figure 3 hold the potential for unlimited flight.
Figure 3
AeroVironment’s Helios Sunlight-Powered UAV in Flight
(Sponsored by NASA’s Environmental Research Aircraft & Sensor Technology program)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helios_in_flight.jpg
11
Shape vs. Orientation. As the following photographic section should make clear there are
already a very large number of UAV shapes on drawing boards, in pre-flight testing, in the socalled hobby market and in civilian and military operations. Each model possesses its own set of
critical visual details with which a viewer could tell it from another UAV shape if he or she had a
basis for such a visual comparison. Unfortunately, such a comparison ”identity chart” is not yet
available. As Figure 1 and 2 have shown, the direction from which the UAV is viewed can play a
crucial role both in identifying it and even seeing it at all. Four photos of the Golden Eye 100 at
different orientations in flight are found at: < http:www.aurora.aero/media/gallery/goldenEye50.aspx.
Silent or Very Quiet Hover and Flight. There are no UAVs at this time that can hover or fly in
absolute silence. The quietest are those using one or more electric motors and fans/propellers
such as the Draganflyer and the SQ-4 UAV. Depending on their distance, ambient noise levels,
and the hearing capabilities of the witness some UAVs may not be detected or identified as such
solely on the basis of their noise output. As Hall (2001) and others have documented most UAP
are either absolutely silent or very quiet, sometimes emitting only a low hum or buzzing sound.
And so the total lack of sounds can be a useful discriminator between UAV and UAP.
Size/Distance. Current UAV range in size from the Harvard Fly measuring one inch across to
the infamous Global Hawk RQ-4B UAV with a 131 foot wing span and gross weight of about
32,250 lbs. at take off! From a ground observational point of view, an obvious fact is that larger
UAV can be seen farther away than the same shaped but smaller object. If the shape of the UAV
is not familiar and the vehicle is farther away than the observer’s binocular depth perception
limit of about forty feet, then there can be no reliable visual basis for making an accurate size or
distance judgment.
Time Aloft/Range of Flight. All current UAV have finite (limited) flight endurance although
perpetual on station UAV are on the drawing board. Considering current UAV lift and
propulsion systems time aloft/ and range of flight is determined by how much fuel or battery
power can be carried on-board. When the duration of an average ground witness UAP sighting is
considered it is far shorter than the flight endurance of almost all current UAVs. Therefore,
viewing duration is not a reliable parameter to discriminate a UAV from a UAP.
No privately operated American “hobby class” UAVs (legally) may fly beyond line of sight
distances; they tend to have limited flight durations on the order of minutes rather than hours.
By comparison, military UAVs can carry far more fuel and can be controlled either by a line-ofsight C-band link or a long-range Ku-band communications link to an orbiting satellite which
makes them remotely controllable from virtually any location on earth and for long periods of
time. As is noted in the following photographic section the Heron Machatz-1UAV can stay aloft
for 52 hours or longer.
12
Lighting at Night. Most small UAV use infrared (visible from the ground using night vision
goggles) strobing LEDs in the 740 to 850 nm wavelength range to serve as location beacons. So
far at least, the FAA requires that all such flights be operated in clear visibility (VFR) conditions.
Exterior lights on future nighttime UAV flights will probably be regulated in conformity with
FAA safety standards, or by exception. In addition, the FAA and most other U. S. government
agencies prefer “eyes-on” UAV flight control at all times within the National Airspace System.
That is, the UAV must stay within eye-shot. Thus, it is less likely that a UAV will be seen in
reduced visibility (weather) conditions and if it is its ground controller is likely to be nearer
rather than farther away.
Velocity/Acceleration/Range and Flight Characteristics. Specific UAV can travel over a wide
range of velocities as noted in the following photographic section. So can UAP (Hall, 2001). A
more discriminating question is that of vehicle acceleration. Needless to say, all UAV accelerate
at relatively low acceleration rates. In comparison U. S. Air Force radar contact with UAP has
documented extremely high acceleration rates. It should be noted that most small to medium
size UAV are primarily flown for visual surveillance purposes. As such, their typical flight
characteristics are based on slow “flat” turns with little roll in the airframe. This keeps the sensor
package nadir to the area of concern. Although stabilized gimbal mounted sensor packages are
becoming more prevalent, most smaller UAVs typically do not have such sophisticated support
hardware. Flight agility and maneuverability are not normally associated with UAV airframes.
Location of Sighting. It is probably reasonable to suggest that for the foreseeable future most
military, law enforcement agencies, and border protection units using UAV will be test flying
them either near where they are manufactured or at established testing areas such as Edwards
A.F.B., in California, Nellis A.F.B. in Nevada, or others. For example the maiden flight of an
unmanned F-16 took place on September 19, 2013 out of Tyndall A.F.B., Florida. It flew for 55
minutes at up to Mach 1.47 with loading as high as seven g.
But what about non-military developers of UAP? A recent FOIA request to the FAA
originating from the Electronic Frontier Foundation disclosed that more than fifty non-military
U. S. agencies have already applied for approval to test fly UAV. There are nearly twenty U. S.
colleagues and universities now officially linked with UAV design and development. For a
discussion of sixty three currently approved drone sites in America consult (Klimas, 2012).
Clearly, the U. S. public will be seeing an increasing number of UAV of all shapes, flight
performances, and sizes from now on.
Larger commercially developed UAV must obtain permission from the FAA in order to
conduct flight tests within pre-approved areas. (See Appendix 2 for a list of some current and
planned uses for UAV) Nearby residents may possibly see and report these aero-vehicles to be
UAP. As this class of UAV proliferates it will be seen virtually anywhere. Only through a careful
13
and systematic investigation will their true identity be discovered.
Considering small (hobby class) UAV, they will eventually appear almost anywhere in the
country and not only out of doors! It may be of interest to note that some small UAP already can
fly and hover quietly (but not silently) inside buildings. UAP (excluding ball lighting) are not
known to do this. Knowing this simple fact may help some field investigators.
When one can’t tell the difference between a UAV and a UAP the eye witness should merely
record as many of the visual and auditory details as possible for others to analyze.
Photographs and Selected Details of Various UAV Designs
This section presents photographs and related information on more than sixty current UAV
designs grouped into nine general categories. Another catalogue of UAV photographs is also
available (<http://www.theuav.com >). Some are one-of-a-kind (experimental/developmental)
models while others are in production and flying operationally. Data on their size, speed,
unusual shapes, and other characteristics are also noted (in no particular order).
Small UAV: (Nano- and Micro-Drones)
Without regard to a precise definition we will refer to small UAV as those that can be held in
one’s hand and/or hand-launched. The forms of most small UAV tend to follow their intended
function(s). So-called nano and micro-drones generally with the size and shape of insects and
small birds can hover almost silently nearby without being recognized for what they are. They
generate their own needed concealment and camouflage. They may carry a TV camera,
microphone, or other sensors along with a relatively short-range transmitter. Under some
viewing conditions these small UAV may be misidentified as larger and more common objects
(like insects or birds) farther away making their identification even more difficult. Controlled
swarms of many such small UAVs has already been demonstrated several times, e.g.,
< http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/future-drone-surveillance- swarms-cyborginsect… >
As the following photographs illustrate there is no clear boundary between the so-called
Nano-Drones that range in size from less than an inch to about an inch and the next larger class
called Micro-Drones. The number of both sizes that are now on drawing boards and have already
flown continues to grow very rapidly. Six examples are presented here to illustrate the wide
variety of shapes and means of propulsion that have been developed so far. (cf., Anderson, 2005)
In spite of their small size and payload capability they are used to carry out a variety of usually
covert surveillance missions. It can be pointed out, however, that the U.S.A.F. is developing
micro-drones that are “unobtrusive, pervasive, and lethal” according to Lennard (2013) (italics
14
ours). Further information is available at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iniature_UAV >.
Needless to say, most nano- and micro-drones don’t make very much noise. It is unlikely that
any of them would be mistaken for much larger UAP for reasons discussed above. Indeed, most
UAP are not described as looking very much like terrestrial aero-technology.
Radio controlled “hobby-class” airplanes and so-called Do-it-Yourself (DIY) drones form
another sub-division of small UAV for which there are many dozens of available models: they
are not reviewed here. Most do not incorporate global positioning satellite (GPS) navigation
capabilities or elaborate sensing and telecommunication systems as do many of the UAV
reviewed here. (cf. < http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/_437_191_planes_partsfpv_models.html > <http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/… >.
Photos of Nano- and Micro-Drones:
Two Views of the “Spy-Butterfly” Ornithopter
(Israel Aerospace Industries) Israel
8” wing span; 4 flapping wings; wt. 12 grams; color TV camera.
“Harvard Fly” Robo Insect Drone
(Harvard Robotics Lab.) USA
Approx. 1” span: transparent wings
flap 120 times a second; power is
through a thin wire that trails it.
Festo Dragon Fly Drone
(BionicOpter) Germany
17” long, weighs 6 oz., aluminum
and plastic body; 4 flapping-twisting wings.
www. networkworld.com/community/ blog/future-dronesurveillance-cyborg-insect-drones)
15
Black Hornet Nano
(Prox Dynamics, AS) Norway
4” long; wt. 0.5 oz; operational in
Afghanistan today
Insect Drone
(C.I.A. Developmental) USA
1.1” long, developed in 2007
Said to carry a TV camera
(http:/ /news.yahoo.com/uk-sends-hand-held
helicopter-drones-war-zone-101428321-finance. com)
Photos of Small Airplane Shaped UAV:
Pathfinder RQ-11 Raven
(AeroVironment) USA
3’ long; 4’7” span; pusher prop;
wt. 4.2 lbs.; range 6.2 mi.; speed
56 km./hr.; endur. 60-90 min.
BirdEye 100 (4)
2’ 7” long; 2’ 9” span; wt. 1.3 kg;
range approx. 5 km; endur. 1 hr.
(www.livescience.com/16445-drones-unmannedaircraft-gallery.html )
http://www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmannedvehicles/uavdata- specifications-fact-sheets..
16
Bird Eye 400
31.5” long; span 7’ 3”; wt. 12.3 lbs.;
endur. 80 min.; range 15 km.
Searcher II
(Israel Aerospace Industries-MALAT Div.)
19’ long; 28’ span; wt. 436 kg.;
endur. 16+ hrs.; range 150 km.; alt.18,500 ft.
Orbiter 2
(Textron Corp, AIA) Israel
3’3” long; 9’10” span; speed range.
30-70 kts.; max. alt.18,000 ft.; payload
3.3 lbs.; endur. 3–4 hrs.; pusher prop.
Predator MQ-1B
(General Atomics Corp.) USA
28.7 ft. long; 48.7 ft. span; ceiling 25,000 ft.;
endur. approx. 40 hrs.; cruise speed 70 kts.;
turbo-pusher prop
http://www.uadrones.net/military/research/acrobat/0302.pdf
17
Bixler II Night Flyer
(Marcus UAV) USA
Referred to as a Do-it-Yourself drone
http://diydrones.ning.com/profile/marcusuav
Boomerang
(Bluebird Aero Systems) Israel
24’ 7” span; wt. 9 kg.; 2 kg. payload; ceiling
9,750 ft.; endur. 7.5 hr.; range 50 km.
Hermes 450
(ELBIT Systems) Israel
20’ long; 34’ 5” span; max. speed 109 mph;
ceiling 18,000 ft; endur. > 20 hrs.; pusher
prop; introd. in 1998; 2 ea. used for U.S.
border patrol tests in 2004.
18
Ursus
(Marek Rokoski) Poland
3.8’ long; 5’ 11” span; wt. 1,200 kg.;
electrically driven pusher prop;
foam parts (kit)
Cormorant (artist rendering)
(Lockheed Martin-Skunk Works) USA
Multipurpose Unmanned Air Vehicle
wt. 8,000 lbs; submarine launched,
contract cancelled in FY08
Eagle -2 (artist rendering)
(EADS Dornier with IAI) Germany/Israel
(Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV)
42’ 8” long; 85’ 4” span; alt. 45,000 ft.;
endur. 24 hrs.+; turbo-prop pusher
Zephyr 2
(Marcus UAV, Inc.) USA
54” span; wt. 4 lbs; speed 30-90 mph;
endur. 60 min.
Micro Falcon
(Innocon Ltd.) Israel
5’ 3” to 6’ 7” span; wt. 6–10 kg;
ceiling 15,000 ft; endur. < 3 hrs.;
payload 1 kg
http://www.innoconltd.com/
19
Photos of Larger Airplane Shaped UAV:
Global Hawk RQ-4B
(Northrup Grumman) USA
(131’ span; gross wt. 32,250 lbs.)
Heron (Machatz-1)
54’5” span; 27’10” long; max. speed 130 mph;
range 217 mi.; endur. 52 hrs.; ceiling 32,800 ft.
Predator C/Avenge
Anjian (Dark Sword)
(General Atomics Aeronautical Systems)
(Shenyang Aircraft Co.) China
USA 41’ long; 66' wide; wt. approx.
Concept model, Zhuhai Air Show, 2006, 2009
15,800 lbs.; speed 463 mph; ceiling 60,000 ft. http://english.people.com.cn/200705/30/eng20070530_379205.html
20
5–QF–4 Target Drone
(McDonnell Douglas Corp.) USA
63’ long; 39’ 3” span; max. speed
1,600 mph; payload >18,000 lbs.;
operational status since 1997.
Harfang 2
(EDS – IAI) Israel
30’ 6” long; 54’ 6” span; max. speed
207 km/hr.; alt. 7,500 m.; endur. 24+ hrs.;
range 1,000 km.
USAF DS-21
(Lockheed Corp.) USA
est. 19’ 6” span; mounted on top of SR-71
Multirole M-011
(Aerotekniikka) Finland
51’ long; 48’ 9” span; rotor
diam. 10.2”; speed range 15 – 100 km/hr.;
endur. 60 min; mission radius 10 km.
http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
21
Photos of Single Rotor Shaft Helicopter UAVs:
Intelli UFO II
(Manufacturer Name here)
3.5” height overall; approx. 1.6” diam. body;
5.5” diam. co-axial rotors; LOS infrared
transmitter; audible electric motor buzz.
Naval Rotary NRUAV
(IAI – Malat Division) Israel
42’ 2” long; 9’ 9” high; 36’2” main rotor;
max. speed 100 kts.; wt. 2,200 kg; payload
220 kg.; alt. 15,000 ft.; range 150 km.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RKllgCyEfQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI-HAL_NRUAV
MQ-8B Fire Scout
24’ long; 9’8” high; 27’6” rotor diam.; wt.
2,073 lbs.; payload 600 lbs.; endur. 8 hrs.
Boeing A-160 Hummingbird
(Boeing Co.) USA
35’ long; 36’ rotor diam.; wt. 2,500 lbs.;
ceiling approx. 30,000 ft.; endur. 20+ hrs.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrup_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout
www.en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-A160_Hummingbird
22
SVU-200 VTUAV
(Ewatt Technology) China
Heavy-lift multipurpose UAV
max. speed 209 km/hr.; payload 200 kg.
Elicotterro i-SPY Pro – 300
Hobby Class UAV
Different models available; battery powered;
http://defense-update.com/20130813_chinese-unmanned-helicopter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTISSTTkqMw
www.choozen.it/nav-elicotteri-telecomandat,100
Photos of Double and Triple Rotor Helicopter UAVs:
IAI Ghost Rotary Mini-UAV
4’ 9” long; 29.5” wide; wt. 9 lbs;
endur. 30 min.
OVIWUN
(Trek Aerospace Inc.) USA
12” wide; 18” tall; 2 ea. 9” diam. ducts;
outdoor vel. 44 mph.; counter-rotating
fans
www.trekaerospace.com/
23
Min-Panther (UAS)
wt. 12 kg.; 2 ea. wing-mounted tilt rotors;
1 ea. fixed rotor for hovering; endur. 2 hrs.;
ultra-quiet motors.
Draganflyer X6 Hexicopter
(Draganfly Innovations, Inc.) USA
34.3” wide; 12.6” high; wt. 2.2 lbs.;
climb 6.5 ft./sec.; turn rate 90 deg/sec.;
max. speed 30 mph; noise level @ 3m
away = 62 db.; introd. in 2008.
Photos of Quad-Rotor Helicopter UAVs:
MD4-3000 Microdrone
(Microdrones GmbH) Germany
8” long; cruise speed 16m./sec.; ceiling 4,000 m.;
flight radius 50 km.; endur. approx. 45 min.;
payload 200 g.
MD-4 1000
(Microdrones GmbH) Germany
8” long;1.4” high; wt. 15 kg.; flt. radius
50 km.; cruise speed 16 m./sec.
Aeryon Scout
(Aeryon Labs. Inc.) Canada
Body 29” diam.; rotor diam. 29”; speed 31
mph; climb rate: 6 ft./sec.; ceiling 1,000 ft.
SQ-4
(BCB International, Ltd.) UK
9.5” x 9.5” x 4.3”; wt. 230 g.; speed 14.5
mph; range 4,900 ft.; relatively quiet.
http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeryon_Scout
24
Photos of Planform, Delta, Stealth Shaped, Flying Wing UAVs:
X-45A
(Boeing Phantom Works) USA
26’6” long; 33’10” span; 6’ 8” high;
wt. 8,000 lbs.; max. speed 571 mph;
range 1,300 nm.; ceiling 40,000 ft.
First flt: 22 May 2002 Edwards AFB, CA.
Polecat P-175
(Lockheed Martin -Skunk Works) USA
100’ long; 90’ span; wt. 9,000 lbs.;
payload 1,000 lbs.; ceiling 65,000 ft.;
endur. 4 hrs.
X-45-J UCAV
(Boeing/DARPA) USA
39’ long; 49’ span; speed 0.8 Mach;
4,500 lbs. payload; 40,000 ft. ceiling;
range 1,300 nm.
X-47-A Pegasus
(Front View above)
19’7” long; 19’6” span; 6’ 1” high;
wt. 3,836 lbs; max. speed: high subsonic
ceiling 40,000+ ft.; range 1,500 + nm.;
maiden flt. 23 Feb. 2003
www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-vehicles/uav/
25
X-47-B
(Rear View at Take-off from Aircraft Carrier )
First launch from aircraft carrier:14 May 2013.
X-47B (continued)
(Oblique View Downward-Wings folded).
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/15/navy-drones-next-test-x-47b...
X-50A
(Boeing/DARPA) USA
Canard Rotor/Wing;
17’ 8” long; 8’11” span; 12’ rotor diam.;
wt. 574 kg.; max. speed 435 mph;
payload 91 kg.
RQ-3 Darkstar
(Lockheed Martin) USA
15’ long; 69’ span; wt. 4,360 lbs.;
range 575 mi.; ceiling 45,000 ft.;
cruise speed 288 mph.; Program cancelled.
www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-vehicles/uav-da
http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ_3_DarkStar
26
RQ-3 Darkstar (continued)
Underside View from Rear.
Harpias
(Embraer SA (Brazil) & ELBIT Systems) Israel
(artist’s conception)
Pusher prop; uses aviation gas.
Taranis UAV
(BAE Systems/GE Aviation/et al.) UK
37’ 2” long; 30’ span; 13’ high;
wt. 18,000 lbs.; range intercontinental;
velocity supersonic.
Taranis UAV (continued)
(artist conception)
Designed for offensive missions
Prototype flight tests scheduled
for late 2013 at Woomera, Australia.
Gray, R., The Telegraph, 13 January 2013.
27
Phantom Ray
(Boeing-Defense, Space & Security) USA
36’ long; 50’ span; wt. 36,000 lbs.:
payload 4,500 lbs.; speed 614 mph.;
ceiling 40,000 ft.
Duct-Fan U
(artist conception).
Aviation Week & Space Technology/June 13, 2011
RQ-170 Sentinal
(Lockheed Martin) USA
65’ 7” span; 14’ 9” long; 6’ high;
wt. < 8,500 lbs.; ceiling <50,000 ft.
Ababil
(HESA Aviation Industries Organization) Iran
10’ 9” span; 45 kg payload; endur. 1.5+ hrs.;
range 150 mi.; ceiling 14,000 ft.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinal
www.unmanned.co.uk/unmanned-vehicles-news/unmanned-aerial...
nEUROn
(Dassault) France
30’ 4” span; wt. 6,000 kg; ceiling
51,000 ft; range 1,200 nmi.; endur. 3 hrs.
Harop UAV
(Israel Aerospace Industries -Malat Div.)
8’ 2” long; 9’10” span; range 625 mi.;
endur. 6 hrs.; 51 lb. (warhead) payload.
28
Harop UAV (continued)
(Side View-Nose to Right)
Expendable vehicle designed to
destroy radar systems; pusher prop.
Photos of Cylindrical Ducted Fan VTOL UAVs:
HeliSpy II VTOL
(Micro Autonomous Systems, LLC) USA
27” high; 11” diam.; wt. 4.5 lb.; speed
75 mph; endur. 30 min.; flies in
vertical orientation and at 60 deg.
tilt at high forward speed.
iSTAR UAV
(Allied Aerospace Industries, Inc.) USA
29” diam; endur. est. 1 hr.; medium freq.
noise; max. speed 60-100 kts.; current
status unknown (as of 2009).
29
Cypher II “Dragon Warrior”
(Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.) USA
6’ 2” diam.; 2’ high (body); 4’ rotor
diam.; wt. 264 lbs.; max. speed 145
mph; range 115+ mi.; endur. 2-3 hrs.
Sky Agent !
(artists drawing)
T-Hawk MAV VTOL
(Honeywell,) USA
wt. < 20 lbs. (back-packable); speed 50
mph; ceiling 10,000 ft.; endur. 46 min.
Golden Eye 100 VTOL
(Aurora Flight Sciences Corp./DARPA) USA;
5’ 6” tall; 10’ span; wt.105 lbs.; range
620 mi.; max. speed 185 m/hr.
www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomousunmanned-vehicles/uav-da...
30
CL-327 Guardian
(Canadair – U.S. Navy) Canada
6’ high; 13’1” rotor diam.; wt. 33 lbs.;
max. speed: 85 kts.; endur. 6.25 hrs.; rng.
200 105 kg payload; 1500 ft/min climb;
18,000’ ceiling; in production 1996.
GAUI 330X Quad-Flyer
(Designer: Choi Wa Fung) China
Approx. 14” diam.; 5” high;
Row of blue LEDs around circumference,
Hobby-class UAV.
(For video see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHQ4URDTTdA
No Photograph Available
Photos of Miscellaneous UAV Shapes:
Black Widow
(AeroVironment/DARPA) USA
6” wide; endur. 30 min.; wt. 3 oz.;
vel. 20m./sec.; rng. 1.8 km.; 769 ft. alt.
http://defense-update.com/products/b/black-widow.htm
BugBot (artists drawing)
(Air Vehicle Directorate, USAF) USA
Conceptual designs may crawl and fly with
autonomous guidance capabilities.
http://www.dailymail.com.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-...
31
Summary
Unless something basic has been overlooked in this overview it seems reasonable to assert
that none of the UAV that are reviewed here are able to disappear suddenly from sight, execute
instantaneous ninety degree (or other angles) turns, accelerate at extremely high speeds, hover in
complete silence or perform small, constant radius somersaults or corkscrew flight around a
single point, suddenly change shape or size (without changing their orientation or distance from
the viewer) - all of which UAP have been reported to be able to do. So far at least all UAV use
well understood aerodynamic principles. Some of the smaller UAV carry colored lights, produce
a wide range of noises from a low electric-motor hum to intense turbo-jet exhaust, and even fly
in tight and complex, varying formations with other UAV. But no UAV are yet capable of
mimicking extreme UAP flight behaviors nor can most of them outfly jet interceptors. In short,
while some of the more recent UAP sighting reports may have been caused by seeing an
unfamiliar UAV (e.g., cylindrical, ducted fan, VTOL models) it is unlikely that very many
reports have been so caused. This is bound to change in the near future. It is hoped that this
review may help keep UAV from being misidentified as UAP.
References
Aerospace America – 2013 Supplement, < http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/
AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/July-August-2013/2013 >
Anderson, G., Fundamental Physics of Micro Air Vehicles: Challenges and Opportunities.
< http://teaming.sysplan.com/NAV/presentations/ganderson.pdf > 29 September 2005.
Anon., Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Pp. 72-74, January
23/30, 2012.
Anon., < http:/ /news.yahoo.com/uk-sends-hand-held-helicopter-drpones-war-zone101428321… > 2013(a).
Anon., < swampland.time.com/2013/09/24/look-ma-no-pilot >, 2013(b).
Anon, Brazilian UFO Caused by Drone; Unmanned Aircraft Causing Rise in UFO Sightings
(VIDEO). < www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ufo-over-brazil-protest-2013
drone_n_3474842.html > June 21, 2013(c).
Anon, www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf
32
(cf. pg. 2).
Campbell, A., Brazilian UFO Caused By Drone; Unmanned Aircraft Causing Rise In UFO
Sightings (VIDEO). < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ufo-over-brazilprotest-2013-drone_n_3474842.html > 2013.
Catoe, L.E., UFOs and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography. Library of Congress,
Science and Technology Division, Washington, D.C., 1969.
Clark, J., The UFO Encyclopedia. Three volumes, Apogee Books, Detroit, MI, 1990.
Clark, J., Strange Skies: Pilot Encounters with UFOs. Citadel Press, New York, 2003.
Dolan R.M., UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941 – 1973.
Keyhole Publ. Co., 2000.
Ferguson, C.D., Encuentros entre Pilotos y OVNIs en Argentina. Editorial Dunke, Buenos
Aires, 2012.
Fulghum, D., UAS Demand is Solid. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Pp. 72-74, January
23/30, 2012.
Garrido, R.B. and J.C. Cornejo, Ufologia Aeronautica: Un Nuevo Concepto en el Estudio de
Los OVNIs. MAGO Editores, Santiago, Chile, 2010.
Goldman, M., Congress, the FAA, and the Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),
www.sgbdc.com/UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.doc.pdf, April 2012.
Guzman, C.A., and A. Salazar Mendoza, Los OVNIs y la Aviacion Mexicana: 50 Anos de
Encuentros con OVNIs en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano. Grupo Editorial Tomo, S.A.
de C.V. Mexico City, 2001.
Haines, R.F., UFO Appearance Recognition and Identification Test Procedure. UFO Phenomena, vol. 1, no. 1, Pp. 39-54, Editecs, Italy, 1976.
Haines, R.F., UFO Shapes. In Story, R.D. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of UFOs. Doubleday,
Garden City, N.Y., 1979(a).
Haines, R.F., What do UFO Drawings by Alleged Eyewitnesses and Non-Eyewitnesses Have
in Common? Chpt. 12 in Haines, R.F. (Ed.), UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral
Scientist. The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., 1979(b).
33
Haines, R.F., A Review of Selected Aerial Phenomenon Sightings from Aircraft from 1942 to
1952. Pp. 14–44, In Proceedings of the 1983 annual MUFON UFO Symposium,
Pasadena, California, July 1-3, 1983.
Haines, R.F., Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor. National Aviation
Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-1, October 2000.
Haines, R.F., K. Efishoff, D. Ledger, L. Lemke, S. Maranto, W. Puckett, T. Roe, M. Shough,
and R. Uriarte, Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006. National Aviation
Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-10, March 2007.
Haines, R.F., K. Amamya, V-J Ballester-Olmos, R. Chola, K. Efishoff, J. English, C. Guzman,
D. Lee, L. Lemke, T. Osborn, T. Roe, A. Salazar, M. Shough, R. Spalding, M. Teodorani,
and D. Weinstein, Spherical UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review. National
Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-14, April 2010(a).
Haines, R.F., Foundations for a Taxonomy of UAP Shapes. Section 5.2 In Spherical
UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review. National Aviation Reporting Center on
Anomalous Phenomena, TR-14, April 2010(b).
Haines, R.F., Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Flight Safety: There is a Relationship.
Invited lecture to Air and Space Academy, Paris, France, September 2012(a).
Haines, R.F., Jumbo Jet Encounters UAP Soon After Take-off from LAX on September 27,
1996. National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-15, July
8, 2012(b).
Hall, R.H., The UFO Evidence: A Thirty-Year Report. Vol. II, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Lanham,
Maryland, 2001.
Hynek, J.A., The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry. Ballantine Books, New York, 1972.
Karim, U. http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/34032-uavs-new-smart-weapon.html,
2009.
Klimas, L., Where Are the 63 Drone Sites Approved by the FAA in the U.S.? TheBlaze, April
24, 2012.
Leishman, J.G., A History of Helicopter Flight. < http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~leishman/Aero/
history.html > 2000.
34
Lennard, N., Micro-drones will “hide in plain sight.” Feb. 19, 2013 < http://www.salon.com/
2013/02/19/microdrones_will_hide_in_pain_sight/ >
Myhra, D., The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft. Schiffer Publ. Ltd., Atglen, PA,
1998.
NOVA, The Rise of the Drones. (52 min. documentary), < http://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=
1#inbox/13c7f5465e8a4a9f > 2012.
Olsen, T.M., The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports. UFO Information Retrieval
Center, Inc., Riderwood, MD, 1966.
Osborn, T.J., A Review of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Designs and Operational Characteristics.
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-11, 2009.
Popular Science, Aerobot Invasion. < http:// www.popsci.com/announcements/article/210-02/
march-2010-issue-aerobot-invasion. > 2010.
Popular Science, The Present and Future of Unmanned Drone Aircraft: An Illustrated Field
Guide. 7/14/2012. Lists 54 countries currently designing and/or manufacturing UAV
and model names within each country, 2012.
Randles, J., UFO! Danger in the Air. Sterling Publ. Co., New York, 1998.
Reynish, W., UAVs Entering the NAS. < w ww.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/bga/UAVsEntering-the-NAS_1139.html > 2004.
Sato, M., A True Record: UFO Close Encounters by Self-Defense Force Pilots. Kodan-sha,
Tokyo, Japan, 2013.
Shough, M., Radar Catalogue: A Review of Twenty One Ground and Airborne Radar UAP
Contact Reports Generally Related to Aviation Safety for the Period October 15, 1948
to September 19, 1976. National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena,
TR-6, 2002.
Smith, W., On Pilots and UFOs: A Collection of Interesting Cases from the Blue Book Files
and the Spanish Air Force Records. UNICAT Project, Privately published, Florida,1997.
Vallee, J., Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space – A Scientific Appraisal.
Henry Regnery Publ., Chicago, 1965.
35
Weatherington, D., Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2005-2030. < http://www.uavm.
com/images/Weatherington.pdf > 2005.
Weinstein, D. F., Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Reported by Military and Civilian Pilots from
1946 to 2010. 3rd. edition, AIRPANC Report, Paris, France, 2011.
Whitehead, J.W., Roaches, Mosquites, and Birds: The Coming Micro-Drone Revolution.
< http://original.antwar.com/jwhitehead/2013/4/17/roaches-mosquitoes…. > 2013.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_umanned_aerial_vehicles 2012.
Wikipedia, < www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_UAV> 2013.
Yale Global Forums, Greater UAVs Diversity. (Pp. 19)
http://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thread.jspa?threadID=1614, March 6, 2009.
36
Appendix 1
Names Assigned to UAV
One need only review the following long list of current UAV model names (as of late 2013)
to realize that this aero-technology market is still in a feeding frenzy of military defense (and
other government and private source) funding not only in the U.S.A. but also in scores of other
countries as well. Lists of past and present UAV are available elsewhere (Fulghum, 2012;
Popular Science, uavforum.com, 2012; Wikipedia, 2012).
Following are some of the names given to UAV: Many illustrate attempts to come up with
suitable marketing names that adequately describe the mission, shape, and/or operational
capability of the UAV.
Primary Name or Acronym
Associated/Sub-Names
___________________________________________________________________________
Aerobot
Aerostat
tethered, joint land attack elevated netted
sensor, rapid aerostat initial deployment
Aerocopter
tricopter-,
quadcopter-
Airship
Autonomous Helicopter
Blimp
Lighter-than-air craft
CUAV Clantestine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Copter
cam-, quad- (Nano-, black hornet)
Dirigible
Drone
bird-, cyborg-, dragonfly-,
hummingbird-, insect-, micro-,
microBat-, mosquito-, raven-,
roach-, roachbot-, samarai-,
spy-butterfly-, switchblade-,
37
Flying Robot(s)
flybot
HAA High Altitude Airship
HALE High Altitude/Long Endurance
J-UCAS Joint Unmanned Combat Air System
LALE
Low Altitude/Long Endurance UAV
MALE Medium Altitude/Long Endurance UAV
MALE-EP Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV – Extreme Persistance
MAV Micro (or Minature) Air Vehicle
MM/MR
Multimission/Multirole UAV
MPUAV Multi-Purpose Unmanned Air Vehicle
M/UAV
NAV
Optionally Manned or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Nano Air Vehicle
NRUAV Naval Rotary Unmanned Air Vehicle
NUAS
nano Unmanned Aerial System
OAV Organic Aerial Vehicle
Ornithopter (flapping wings)
OPV Optionally Piloted Vehicle
OUAS
Operational Unmanned Aerial System
ROA
Remotely Operated Aircraft
RPA
Remotely Piloted Aircraft
RPV
Remotely Piloted Vehicle(s)
sUAS small Unmanned Aerial System(s)
STUAS
Small Tactical Unmanned Air System
38
Sub Tac
TUAV
Sub-Tactical UAV
Tactical UAV
UCAS Unmanned Combat Air System
UCAV Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
UA Unmanned Aircraft
UAS
Unmanned Aerial System(s), Unmanned Aircraft System(s)
VTOL UAS Vertical Takeoff/Landing Unmanned Air System
ROTORWing
_______________________________________________________________________
39
Appendix 2
Partial List of Present and Planned Future UAV Missions
Weatherington, (2005) a former deputy director of the Department of Defense’s unmanned
aerial vehicle planning task force, stated that unmanned systems are well suited for “information,
surveillance and reconnaissance” missions at the tactical level. Someone else has suggested that
UAVs are fit for missions that are dirty, dangerous and dull. However one might put it, we can
note how our thinking about remotely controlled aero-vehicles has expanded and matured in the
last decade! Fully effective integrated missions of all kinds (military, civilian, and private) call
for a highly reliable aero-vehicle, command – control - communication (CCC) system, on-board
high resolution sensor systems, uninterruptable down- (and up-) link capability, ground support
personnel and operational logistics, and well trained operators (pilots). In short, UAV are
constantly changing and growing into mature aero-systems with tremendous potential for the
future. Debate continues to rage over the issue of invasion of personal privacy in America posed
by this new technology.
Table 2 presents an abbreviated list of current and future uses for UAV. This list is
expanding almost daily and so cannot be considered up to date; it emphasizes the increasing
difficulty eye witnesses on the ground and in the air will have in trying to accurately identify
them either as a man-made UAV or a UAP of some kind.
It is likely that their presence in our skies will become almost ubiguitous and eventually
accepted into our way of life as telephones and automobiles are today. At some time in the future
it may be nearly impossible to accurately discriminate a UAV from a UAP solely on the basis of
its shape; this will be more true when UAV designers mimic visual features of UAP in their
designs that have been reported for many decades. When that happens, UAP research will
become far more difficult than it now is. Hopefully by then UAP research it will have been
supplemented by more scientifically based sensing and identification means.
When UAP investigators are aware of the kinds of missions UAV are able to perform this
knowledge may help them to eliminate UAV as the cause of a sighting report.
40
Table 2
Partial List of Present and Future Planned UAV Uses
______________________________________________________________________
Primary Developer/User
(Uses)
______________________________________________________________________
Department of Defense
Antipersonnel operations (remote tagging/incapacitation) (chiefly using
so-called insect drones)
Antiradar loitering attack drone
Battlefield resupply
Cargo transfer
Communications (SIGINT) (radio link/repeater) transfer station
Convoy route clearance/surveillance
Damage assessment in war zones
GPS to target rectification
Hostage rescue support
Mapping/tactical operations planning
Minefield reconnaissance/detonation in war zone
Naval early warning detection
Obstacle field navigation (OFN)
Safe landing area determination (SLAD)
Stealth/radar detection calibration
Surveillance (at all levels of operations)
Weapons/stores aiming/delivery (target acquisition/artillery adjustment)
Federal (Civil) Government
Airport operations safety (bird density; terrorist tracking)
Biological/chemical agent detection
Border (U.S.) surveillance/tracking//control
Civil espionage/terrorist monitoring (cf. Yale Forum, 2009, pg. 9)
Coastline survey/erosion monitoring
Dangerous situation monitoring (radioactivity and heat at nuclear plants;
rock and snow slides; downed power lines)
Environmental Monitoring
Air pollutant monitoring
Crop health monitoring
Disaster planning and triage
Extreme weather damage/pre-planning/etc.
41
Geophysical surveying
Illegal crop detection/mitigation
Monitoring toxic spills/remedial (clean-up) operations
Wildlife biology (counting fish nets, nighttime anti-poaching monitoring)
Maritime/Sea life observation and protection
Protecting human life – law enforcement
Public gathering - monitoring/recording/control
Remote wildlife counting/monitoring
Smuggling detection/subsequent interdiction operations
Transportation security
Weather monitoring (hurricane (etc.) watch)
State/Local Government
Combat graffiti and other acts of vandalism
Communication nodes/GPS (for Incident Commanders, others)
Counter-drug operations
Criminal surveillance/tracking
Forest fire regional monitoring/strategic planning, post-fire damage assessment
Hostage negotiations (using microphone/speaker installation)
Law Enforcement/Public Safety Agencies/First Responders (deploying tasers,
tear gas, etc.), monitoring gang activities.
Local Fire Department activity support (people trapped inside burning buildings;
remote fire responder communications radio relay)
Traffic flow/accident monitoring
Commercial Uses/Service Providers
Advertising
Cargo transport
Crop dusting
Environmental (air) sampling (factory emissions, etc.)
Food/medicine delivery
Geophysical surveys for commercial applications
Insurance companies (pre- and post disaster/damage assessment)
Meteorological monitoring/reporting services
Movie industry filming
Pipeline inspection
Real estate research and planning (e.g., local lot topography, platting, drainage,
advertising photography)
Television news coverage
Theme park ride (virtual) imagery generation
42
Travel/transportation support (e.g., guiding university/college students around
a large campus)
Private
Civil rights organizations (monitoring police actions)
game hunting (prey sensing, position reporting)
Model/hobby/recreational airplane sport(s) (must remain below 400 ft.
AGL; FAA Advisory Circular 91-57)
Monitoring actions/behavior of public officials
Sports venue pictures
______________________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
1.
Whitehead in a 2013 article titled “Roaches, Mosquitoes, and Birds: The Coming
Micro-Drone Revolution” discusses a number of different types of micro-drones. They
include cyborg drones (a U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
concept) that would, through genetic engineering, change insects into “cyborgs” for use
in surveillance purposes. Dragonfly drones (another DARPA project) are generally in
the shape of dragonflys. A photograph of the BionicOpter model Dragon Fly Drone is
shown above. Other examples of microdrones include the Nano Hummingbird
(another DARPA project), Nano-Quadrators (University of Pennsylvania) uses four
small propellors, Black Hornet nano-drone (manufactured by Prox Dynamics AS, in
Norway) four inches long (Anon, 2013a). See photo in section above. Samarii Drone
(Lockheed Martin), fashioned after the general shape and dynamics of a maple seed. It
can fly at high speeds, move vertically, and can be launched from the ground. SpyButterfly Drone (Israel) eight inch span with four flapping wings. See two views
of this drone in the above section. Switchblade Drone
narcap_TOP-05_10-10-13.docx
43

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial

Transcription

Similar documents

UAS, Teknologi Terkini, Perkongsian Pengalaman

a pilotless project

RCMP "F" - Draganfly

Value Proposition - University of Cincinnati

Safety, Reliability and Restoration PDF

UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UAS = Unmanned

INL RADAS Brochure

MC01515L Technical Sheet

UAV Systems and Security