Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:39:36.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology challenges of stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2017

E. Sepulveda  and
H. Smith
E. Sepulveda*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
H. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
*
e.sepulveda@cranfield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ever-changing battlefield environment, as well as the emergence of global command and control architectures currently used by armed forces around the globe, requires the use of robust and adaptive technologies integrated into a reliable platform. Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) aim to integrate such advanced technologies while also increasing the tactical capabilities of combat aircraft. This paper provides a summary of the technical and operational design challenges specific to UCAVs, focusing on high-performance, and stealth designs. After a brief historical overview, the main technology demonstrator programmes currently under development are presented. The key technologies affecting UCAV design are identified and discussed. Finally, this paper briefly presents the main issues related to airworthiness, navigation, and ethical concerns behind UAV/UCAV operations.

Keywords

UCAVUAVstealthMDOcompositesairworthinessdrone strike
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1243 , September 2017 , pp. 1261 - 1295
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Haulman, D. U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles in combat, 1991–2003. June 2003. Available at: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA434033.Google Scholar
2. Wyatt, E.C. and Hirschberg, M.J. Transforming the future battlefield: The DARPA/Air force unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) program, AIAA 2003–2616, AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition, 14–17 July 2003, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
3. Ehrhard, T.P. Air force UAVs: The secret history. July 2010. Available at: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA525674.Google Scholar
4. Merlin, P.W. Design and development of the blackbird: Challenges and lessons learned, AIAA 2009-1522, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Orlando, 5–8 January 2009, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hirschberg, M.J. To boldly go where no unmanned aircraft has gone before: A half-century of DARPA's contributions to unmanned aircraft, AIAA 2010–158, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,. 4–7 January 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
6. Dixon, J.R. UAV employment in Kosovo: Lessons for the operational commander. Faculty of the Naval War College, Newport; February 2000.Google Scholar
7. Committee for the review of ONR's uninhabited combat air vehicles program - naval studies board. Review of ONR ’ s Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles Program, 2000, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, US.Google Scholar
8. Newcome, L. Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. 1st ed., 2004, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
9. Serle, J. and Fielding-Smith, A. The bureau of investigative journalism. Monthly Updates on the Covert War. 2015. Available at: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/09/02/monthly-drone-report-august-2015-32-us-strikes-hit-afghanistan-alone/.Google Scholar
10. Davis, L.E., McNerney, M.J., Chow, J., Hamilton, T., Harting, S. and Byman, D. Armed and dangerous? UAVs and U.S. security. Rand Corporation Research Report Series. 2014. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR449.html.Google Scholar
11. Harrison, G.J. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS): Manufacturing trends. January 2013. Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42938.pdf.Google Scholar
12. Ministry of Defence. Joint doctrine note 2/11: The UK approach to unmanned aircraft systems. March 2011. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33711/20110505JDN_211_UAS_v2U.pdf.Google Scholar
13. United States General Accounting Office. Matching resources with requirements is key to the unmanned combat air vehicle program's success, GAO-03-598. June 2003. Available at: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-598.Google Scholar
14. Whittenbury, J. Configuration design development of the navy UCAS-D X-47B, AIAA 2011–7041, AIAA Centennial of Naval Aviation Forum ‘100 Years of Achievement and Progress’. 21–22 September 2011, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. De Neve, A. and Wasinski, C. Looking beyond the J-UCAS's demise. Defense & Security Analysis, 2011, 27, (3), pp 237-249.Google Scholar
16. Wise, K.A. First flight of the X-45A unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), AIAA 2003–5320, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 11–14 August 2003, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Malenic, M. Debate over UCLASS capabilities increases programme risk, auditors warn. IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. May 2015; Available at: http://www.janes.com/article/51133/debate?over?uclass?capabilities?increases?programme?risk?auditors?warn.Google Scholar
18. Malenic, M. USN demonstrates autonomous aerial refuelling with X-47B. IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. April 2015; Available at: http://www.janes.com/article/50923/usn?demonstrates?autonomous?aerial?refuelling?with?x?47b.Google Scholar
19. Gertler, J. History of the Navy UCLASS Program Requirements: In Brief. Congress Research Service Report R44131, August 2015.Google Scholar
20. Carey, B. U.S. navy readies requirements for unmanned MQ25 Stingray. AINonline. March 2016.Google Scholar
21. U.S. Navy. Naval air systems command - aircraft and weapons. MQ-25 UAS. Available at: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=A1DA3766-1A6D-4AEA-B462-F91FE43181AF.Google Scholar
22. NASA. Boeing's Phantom Ray Makes First Flight. 2011. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/phantom_ray_first_flight.html#.Vyx0DIQrJpg.Google Scholar
23. Dassault Aviation. NEURON. 2013. Available at: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/neuron/introduction/.Google Scholar
24. Larrinaga, N., De Ihs, L. and Weekly, D. Neuron completes Italian flight trials. IHS Jan's Defence Weekly. London; August 2015; Available at: http://www.janes.com/article/53814/neuron?completes?italian?flight?trials.Google Scholar
25. BAE Systems. Taranis. 2016. Available at: http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis.Google Scholar
26. Beale, J. Top secret UK drone taranis makes first flight. BBC News. February 2014; Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk?26046696.Google Scholar
27. Morales, A. UK and France to Unveil $2 Billion Drone Project. Bloomberg. March 2016; Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016?03?03/u?k?france?2?billion?drone?project?to?benefit?bae?dassault.Google Scholar
28. Pubby, M. Government set to clear Rs 3,000 core plan to develop engine for India's first UCAV. The Economic Times. 2015. Available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/government-set-to-clear-rs-3000-crore-plan-to-develop-engine-for-indias-first-ucav/articleshow/49775096.cms.Google Scholar
29. Trimble, S. ALMOST GREAT: Nine legendary (but cancelled) Russian aircraft. FlightGlobal. 2015. Available at: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/almost-great-nine-legendary-but-cancelled-russian-415954/.Google Scholar
30. Hsu, B. China's ‘Sharp Sword’ UCAV is Spotted Taxiing. AINonline. May 2013; Available at: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation?news/defense/2013?05?17/chinas?sharp?sword?ucav?spotted?taxiing.Google Scholar
31. Hitzel, S.M. and Zimper, D. Model scale and ‘real’ flight of generic UCAV and advanced combat aircraft - an industrial perspective, AIAA 2014–2267, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
32. Taha, H.E. and Hajj, M.R. Effects of the stealth requirements on the aerodynamic performance of the X-47B, AIAA 2013-1674, 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. 8–11 April 2013, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
33. Brown, A. The effect of signature constraints on the F-117 configuration development, AIAA 2003–5761, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 11–14 August 2003, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Manavoǧlu, B. and Yazgan, E. Tracking of real airborne targets with multistatic passive radars in 3D, Proceedings of the 15th International Radar Symposium, 16–18 June 2014, IEEE, Gdansk, Poland.Google Scholar
35. Aviation Week Network . S-300 surface-to-air missile system. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. August 2015, pp 6-10.Google Scholar
36. Borkar, V.G., Ghosh, A., Singh, R.K. and Chourasia, N. Radar cross-section measurement techniques. Defence Science J, 2010, 60, (2), pp 204-212.Google Scholar
37. Aerospace, M.D. A review of high-frequency radar cross section analysis capabilities at McDonnell Douglas aerospace. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 1995, 37, (5), pp 33-43.Google Scholar
38. Liangliang, C., Kuizhi, Y., CuiFang, X. and Dazhao, Y. RCS numerical simulation of stealth modified three-surface aircraft. Int J Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 2016, 17, (1), pp 101-108.Google Scholar
39. MathWorks . POFACETS4.1. 2012. Available at: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/35861-pofacets4-1.Google Scholar
40. Lee, D.S., Gonzalez, L.F., Srinivas, K., Auld, D.J. and Wong, K.C. Aerodynamic/RCS shape optimisation of unmanned aerial vehicles using hierarchical asynchronous parallel evolutionary algorithms, AIAA 2006–3331, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Ufimtsev, P.Y. Comments on diffraction principles and limitations of RCS reduction techniques. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1996, 84, (12), pp 1830-1851.Google Scholar
42. Johansson, M. Propulsion integration in an UAV, AIAA 2006–2834, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
43. Shi, L. and Guo, R.W. Serpentine inlet design and analysis, AIAA 2012-0839, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 9–12 January 2012, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Zhang, J.-M., Wang, C.-F. and Lum, K.-Y. Multidisciplinary design of s-shaped intake, AIAA 2008–7060, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 18–21 August 2008, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
45. Banks, H.T., Ito, K., Kepler, G.M. and Toivanen, J.A. Material surface design to counter electromagnetic interrogation of targets. SIAM J Applied Mathematics, 2006, 66, (3), pp 1027-1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Xu, W., He, Y., Kong, P., Li, J., Xu, H., Miao, L. et al. An ultra-thin broadband active frequency selective surface absorber for ultrahigh-frequency applications. J Applied Physics, 2015, 118, 184903.Google Scholar
47. Tennant, A. and Chambers, B. Adaptive radar absorbing structure with pin diode controlled active frequency selective surface. Smart Materials and Structures, 2004, 13, pp 122-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Oh, J.H., Oh, K.S., Kim, C.G. and Hong, C.S. Design of radar absorbing structures using glass/epoxy composite containing carbon black in X-Band frequency ranges. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2004, 35, (1), pp 49-56.Google Scholar
49. Chin, W.S. and Lee, D.G. Development of the composite RAS (radar absorbing structure) for the X-Band frequency range. Composite Structures, 2007, 77, (4), pp 457-465.Google Scholar
50. Neng-Jing, L. and Yi-Ting, Z. A survey of radar ECM and ECCM. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1995, 31, (3), pp 1110-1120.Google Scholar
51. Kim, J. and Hespanha, P. Cooperative radar jamming for groups of unmanned air vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. 2004, 1, pp 632-637.Google Scholar
52. Nguyen, D., Sahin, C., Shishkin, B., Kandasamy, N. and Dandekar, K.R. A real-time and protocol-aware reactive jamming framework built on software-defined radios. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Workshop on Software Radio Implementation Forum (SRIF ’14), 15–22 August 2014, ACM New York, NY, pp 15-22.Google Scholar
53. Lichtman, M. and Reed, J.H. Analysis of reactive jamming against satellite communications. Int J Satellite Communications and Networking, 2016, 34, pp 195-210. Available at: doi:10.1002/sat.1111.Google Scholar
54. Gustafsson, K. Implementation of a digital radio frequency memory in a Xilinx virtex-4 FPGA, 2005, Linköpings University.Google Scholar
55. Sheng, X. and Yuanming, X. Simulation analysis of an active cancellation stealth system. Optik. 2014, 125, (18), pp 5273-5277.Google Scholar
56. Mahulikar, S.P., Sonawane, H.R. and Arvind Rao, G. Infrared signature studies of aerospace vehicles. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2007, 43, (7–8), pp 218-245.Google Scholar
57. Rao, G.A. and Mahulikar, S.P. New criterion for aircraft susceptibility to infrared guided missiles. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2005, 9, (8), pp 701-712.Google Scholar
58. Iannarilli, F.J. and Wohlers, M.R. End-to-end scenario-generation model for IRST performance analysis. SPIE Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets, 1991, 1481, pp 187-197.Google Scholar
59. Noah, M., Krlstl, J., Schroeder, J., Corporation, O. and Sandlord, B.P. NIRATAM - NATO infrared air target model. SPIE Surveillance Technologies, 1991, 1479, pp 275-282.Google Scholar
60. Johansson, M. and Dalenbring, M. SIGGE, a prediction tool for aeronautical IR signatures, and its applications, AIAA 2006–3276, 9th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. An, C.H., Kang, D.W., Baek, S.T., Myong, R.S., Kim, W.C. and Choi, S.M. Analysis of plume infrared signatures of s-shaped nozzle configurations of aerial vehicle. J Aircr, 2016, 53, (6), pp 1768-1778.Google Scholar
62. Czarnecki, G.J. US 6267039 B1: Aircraft missile-hit survivability using infrared lamp and sacrificial support structure. United States of America; 2001. Available at: https://www.google.ch/patents/US6267039.Google Scholar
63. Siouris, S. and Qin, N. Study of the effects of wing sweep on the aerodynamic performance of a blended wing body aircraft. Proc. IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2007, 221, (October 2015), pp 47-55.Google Scholar
64. Vos, R. and Farokhi, S. Introduction to Transonic Aerodynamics, 2015, Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
65. Chester Furlon, G. and McHugh, J.G. A summary and analysis of the low-speed longitudinal characteristics of swept wings at high Reynolds number. NACA Report 1339. 1952.Google Scholar
66. Gursul, I. Review of unsteady vortex flows over slender delta wings. J Aircr, 2005, 42, (2), pp 299-319.Google Scholar
67. Delery, J.M. Aspects of vortex breakdown. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1994, 30, pp 1-59.Google Scholar
68. Gursul, I., Gordnier, R. and Visbal, M. Unsteady aerodynamics of nonslender delta wings. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2005, 41, (7), pp 515-557.Google Scholar
69. Gursul, I. Vortex flows on UAVs: Issues and challenges. Aeronautical J, 2004, 108, (1090), pp 597-610.Google Scholar
70. NATO Science and Technology Organization. RTO-TR-AVT-080 - Vortex Breakdown over Slender Delta Wings, October 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar
71. NATO Science and Technology Organization. RTO-TR-AVT-113 - Understanding and Modeling Vortical Flows to Improve the Technology Readiness Level for Military Aircraft, October 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar
72. Ghoreyshi, M., Ryszka, K., Cummings, R.M. and Lofthouse, A.J. Vortical flow prediction of the AVT-183 diamond wing, AIAA 2015-0292, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 5–9 January 2015, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
73. Cummings, R.M., Schutte, A. and Hübner, A. Overview of stability and control estimation methods from NATO STO task group AVT-201, AIAA 2013-0968, 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 7–10 January 2013, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
74. Schütte, A., Hummel, D. and Hitzel, S.M. Flow physics analyses of a generic unmanned combat aerial vehicle configuration. J Aircr, 2012, 49, (6), pp 1638-1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75. Lofthouse, A.J., Ghoreyshi, M. and Cummings, R.M. Static and dynamic simulations of a generic UCAV geometry using the kestrel flow solver, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference AIAA, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
76. Ol, M.V. Water tunnel velocimetry results for the 1303 UCAV configuration, AIAA 2006–2990, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
77. Cummings, R.M., Morton, S.A. and Siegel, S.G. Numerical prediction and wind tunnel experiment for a pitching unmanned combat air vehicle. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2008, 12, (5), pp 355-364.Google Scholar
78. McParlin, S.C., Bruce, R.J., Hepworth, A.G. and Rae, A.J. Low speed wind tunnel tests on the 1303 UCAV concept, AIAA 2006–2985, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
79. Shim, H.J. and Park, S.O. Low-speed wind-tunnel test results of a BWB-UCAV model. Procedia Engineering. 2013, 67, pp 50-58.Google Scholar
80. Liersch, C.M. and Huber, K.C. Conceptual design and aerodynamic analyses of a generic UCAV configuration, AIAA 2014-2001, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
81. Tomac, M., Rizzi, A., Nangia, R.K., Mendenhall, M.R. and Perkins, S.C. Engineering methods on the SACCON configuration - some design considerations, AIAA 2010–4398, 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 28 June–1 July 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
82. Woolvin, S.J. A conceptual design study of the 1303 UCAV configuration, AIAA 2006–2991, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5–8 June 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
83. Huber, K.C., Vicroy, D.D., Schutte, A. and Hubner, A.-R. UCAV model design and static experimental investigations to estimate control device effectiveness and stability and control capabilities, AIAA 2014-2002, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84. Stenfelt, G. and Ringertz, U. Lateral stability and control of a tailless aircraft configuration. J Aircr, 2009, 46, (6), 2161-2163.Google Scholar
85. Chung, J., Hallberg, E., Cox, S. and Plyler, M. Landing pitch control analysis for a blended wing body UCAV, AIAA 2010-1035, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4–7 January 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
86. Park, J., Jo, Y., Yi, S., Choi, J.-Y., Raj, P. and Choi, S. Variable-Fidelity multidisciplinary design optimization for innovative control surface of tailless aircraft, AIAA 2016–4038, 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 13–17 June 2016, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
87. Williams, D.R. and Seidel, J. Crossed-actuation AFC for lateral-directional control of an ICE-101/Saccon UCAV, AIAA 2016–3167, 8th AIAA Flow Control Conference, 13–17 June 2016, AIAA, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
88. Zimper, D. and Rein, M. Experimental and numerical analysis of the transonic vortical flow over a generic lambda wing configuration, AIAA 2014-2005, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference AIAA, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, USGoogle Scholar
89. Foam Matrix Inc. Foam matrix. Our Technology. 2016. Available at: http://www.foammatrix.com/tech.Google Scholar
90. GKN Aerospace. GKN produces components for X-47B Navy. Reinforced Plastics, Vol. 50 Issue 2, Page 4. Elsevier Ltd. February 2006.Google Scholar
91. McConnell, V.P. Resins for the hot zone, part I: Polyimides. Composites World, 2009. http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/resins-for-the-hot-zone-part-i-polyimides.Google Scholar
92. McConnell, V.P. Resins for the hot zone, part II: BMIs, CEs, benzoxazines and phthalonitriles. Composites World, September 2009. http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/resins-for-the-hot-zone-part-ii-bmis-ces-benzoxazines-and-phthalonitriles.Google Scholar
93. Di Sante, R. Fibre optic sensors for structural health monitoring of aircraft composite structures: Recent advances and applications. Sensors, 2015, 15, (8), pp 18666-18713.Google Scholar
94. Gagné, M. and Therriault, D. Lightning strike protection of composites. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 2014, 64, pp 1-16.Google Scholar
95. Kutlu, Z. and Chang, F.-K. Modeling compression failure of laminated composites containing multiple through-the-width delaminations. J Composite Materials, 1992, 26, (3), pp 350-387.Google Scholar
96. Riccio, A., Raimondo, A. and Scaramuzzino, F. A robust numerical approach for the simulation of skin-stringer debonding growth in stiffened composite panels under compression. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2015, 71, pp 131-142.Google Scholar
97. Riccio, A., De Luca, A., Di Felice, G. and Caputo, F. Modelling the simulation of impact induced damage onset and evolution in composites. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2014, 66, pp 340-347.Google Scholar
98. Perugini, P., Riccio, A. and Scaramuzzino, F. Influence of delamination growth and contact phenomena on the compressive behaviour of composite panels. J Composite Materials, 1999, 33, (15), pp 1433-1456.Google Scholar
99. Myhre, S.H. and Labor, J.D. Repair of advanced composite structures. J Aircr, 1981, 18, (7), pp 546-552.Google Scholar
100. Tzetzis, D. and Hogg, P.J. Infield composites repair techniques for combat aircraft: research and development perspective. Materials Technology, 2007, 22, (1), pp 2-9.Google Scholar
101. grey, J., Gursul, I. and Butler, R. Aeroelastic response of a flexible delta wing due to unsteady vortex flows, AIAA 2003-1106, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 6–9 January 2003, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, USGoogle Scholar
102. Attar, P., Gordnier, R. and Visbal, M. Numerical simulation of the buffet of a full span delta wing at high angle of attack, AIAA 2006–2075. 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1–4 May 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
103. Voβ, A. and Klimmek, T. Design and sizing of a parametric structural model for a UCAV configuration for loads and aeroelastic analysis, 2015, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress Göttingen, Germany: DLR – German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aeroelasticity.Google Scholar
104. Voss, G., Cumnuantip, S. and Neumann, J. A steady aeroelastic analysis of an unmanned combat aircraft vehicle conceptual design, AIAA 2011–3020, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 27–30 June 2011, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
105. Voss, A. and Klimmek, T. Maneuver loads calculation with enhanced aerodynamics for a UCAV configuration, AIAA 2016–3838, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 13–17 June 2016, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
106. Chapman, R.E. Unmanned combat aerial vehicles: Dawn of a new age? Air and Space Power J, 2002, 16, (2), pp 60-73.Google Scholar
107. Levy, A., Katz, M., Katzuni, O., Konevsky, A., Frumkin, J., Buium, T. et al. Final Report Project 7–8: Team Cerberus – UCAV, 2009, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
108. Aerospaceweb . Team decepticon storm shadow. 2001. Available at: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/ucav/main.shtml.Google Scholar
109. Pocock, C. Study contracts for Anglo-French UCAV signed. AINonline. August 2012; Available at: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2012-08-03/study-contracts-anglo-french-ucav-signed.Google Scholar
110. Chaplin, R. and Birch, T. The aero-acoustic environment within the weapons bay of a generic UCAV, AIAA 2012–3338, 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 25–28 June 2012, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
111. Kulfan, B.M. Universal parametric geometry representation method. J Aircr, 2008, 45, (1), pp 142-158.Google Scholar
112. Morris, C., Allison, D., Schetz, J. and Kapania, R. Parametric geometry model for multidisciplinary design optimization of tailless supersonic aircraft. J Aircr, 2014, 51, (5). pp 1455-1466.Google Scholar
113. Okonkwo, P. and Smith, H. Packaging in a multivariate conceptual design synthesis of a BWB aircraft. Int J Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 2014, 8, (6), pp 1063-1072.Google Scholar
114. Straathof, M.H., Van Tooren, M.J.L., Voskuijl, M. and Vos, R. Development and implementation of a novel parametrization technique for multidisciplinary design initialization, AIAA 2010—3004, 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Orlando, Florida 12–15 April 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, USGoogle Scholar
115. Woolvin, S.J. UCAV configuration & performance trade-offs, AIAA 2006-1264, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 9–12 January 2006, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
116. Jeon, K., Lee, J., Byun, Y. and Yu, Y.H. Multidisciplinary UCAV system design and optimization using repetitive response surface enhancement technique, AIAA 2007-1972, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 20047, AIAA, Honolulu, Hawaii, US.Google Scholar
117. Sathe, A. and Pant, R.S. Conceptual design studies of an unmanned combat aerial vehicle, AIAA 2010–9306, 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, 13–15 September 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
118. Nguyen, N.-V., Choi, S.-M., Kim, W.-S., Jeon, K.-S., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H. Multidisciplinary UCAV design using variable complexity modeling, AIAA 2009–7093, 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO), 21–23 September 2009, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
119. Nguyen, N.-V., Tyan, M., Choi, S.-M., Lee, J.-W., Kim, S. and Byun, Y.-H. Multidisciplinary regional jet aircraft design optimization using advanced variable complexity techniques, AIAA 2010–9192, 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, 13–15 September 2010, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
120. Nguyen, N.-V., Choi, S.-M., Kim, W.-S., Lee, J.-W., Kim, S., Neufeld, D. et al. Multidisciplinary unmanned combat air vehicle system design using multi-fidelity model. Aerospace Science and Technology 2013, 26, (1), pp 200-210.Google Scholar
121. Ganglin, W. Key parameters and conceptual configuration of unmanned combat aerial vehicle concept. Chinese J Aeronautics, 2009, 22, (4), pp 393-400.Google Scholar
122. Anderson, R.P. UCAV backwards engine configuration, Advances in Aviation Safety Conference and Exposition, 13–15 April 1999, SAE International, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
123. Mavris, D.N., Soban, D.S. and Largent, M.C. An application of a technology impact forecasting (TIF) method to an uninhabited combat aerial vehicle, 1999 World Aviation Conference, 19–21 October 1999, SAE International, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
124. Ahn, J., Lee, S. and Kim, J. A robust approach to pre-concept design of UCAV considering survivability, AIAA 2002–5605, 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 2002, AIAA, Atlanta, Georgia, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
125. Lee, D.S., Gonzalez, L.F., Srinivas, K. and Periaux, J. Robust evolutionary algorithms for UAV/UCAV aerodynamic and RCS design optimisation. Computers and Fluids, 2008, 37, (5), pp 547-564.Google Scholar
126. FAA. Integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace system (NAS) roadmap. 2013. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_Roadmap_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
127. Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K.P. and Piegl, L.A. On unmanned aircraft systems issues, challenges and operational restrictions preventing integration into the national airspace system. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44, (7–8), pp 503-519.Google Scholar
128. Federal Aviation Administration . Aircraft certification. Special Airworthiness Certificate. 2015. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/.Google Scholar
129. Federal Aviation Administration . Order 8130.34C. 2013.Google Scholar
130. U.S. Department of Transportation . Federal aviation administration. Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA). 2016. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/Coa/.Google Scholar
131. ASTRAEA. ASTRAEA. 2015. Available at: http://astraea.aero/.Google Scholar
132. The European Parliament and the Council . Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European parliament and of the council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC. Official J European Union, 2008.Google Scholar
133. Nato Standardization Agency . STANAG 4671 - unmammed aerial vehicle systems airworthiness requirements (USAR), September 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar
134. China Daily Information. CHINADAILY Europe. Blue-sky thinking colors China's drone industry. 2014. Available at: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2014-08/18/content_18436980.htm.Google Scholar
135. Johnson, M., Mueller, E.R. and Santiago, C. Characteristics of a well clear definition and alerting criteria for encounters between UAS and manned aircraft in class E airspace, 11th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2015) Lisbon, Portugal, 2015. ATM Seminar (publisher)Google Scholar
136. Murphy, J.R., Williams-Hayes, P.S., Kim, S.K., Bridges, W. and Marston, M. Flight test overview for UAS integration in the NAS project, AIAA 2016-1756, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 4–8 January 2016, Reston, Virginia, USGoogle Scholar
137. Jenie, Y.I., Van Kampen, E.-J., Ellerbroek, J. and Hoekstra, J.M. Safety assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle operations in an integrated airspace, AIAA 2016-1000, AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, 4–8 January 2016, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
138. Prevot, T., Rios, J., Kopardekar, P., Robinson, J.E. III, Johnson, M. and Jung, J. UAS traffic management (UTM) concept of operations to safely enable low altitude flight operations, 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 13–17 June 2016, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
139. Prevot, T., Homola, J. and Mercer, J. From rural to Urban environments: Human/Systems simulation research for low altitude UAS traffic management (UTM), 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. 13–17 June 2016, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
140. Yu, X. and Zhang, Y. Sense and avoid technologies with applications to unmanned aircraft systems: Review and prospects. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2015, 74, pp 152-166.Google Scholar
141. Harder, R., Hill, R. and Moore, J. A java universal vehicle router for routing unmanned aerial vehicles. Int Transactions in Operational Research, 2004, 11, (3), pp 259-275.Google Scholar
142. Shetty, V.K., Sudit, M. and Nagi, R. Priority-based assignment and routing of a fleet of unmanned combat aerial vehicles. Computers and Operations Research, 2008, 35, (6), pp 1813-1828.Google Scholar
143. Zhang, Y., Chen, J. and Shen, L. Real-time trajectory planning for UCAV air-to-surface attack using inverse dynamics optimization method and receding horizon control. Chinese J Aeronautics. 2013, 26, (4), pp 1038-1056.Google Scholar
144. Boskovic, J.D., Mehra, R.K. and Li, S.-M. Semi-globally stable formation flight control design in three dimensions, Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.01CH37228), 2001, IEEE, Orlando, Florida, US, pp 1059–1064.Google Scholar
145. Kang, S.-M., Park, M.-C., Lee, B.-H., Ahn, H.-S. and Graph, A. Distance-based formation control with a single moving leader, 2014 American Control Conference, 4–6 June 2014, AACC, Portland, Oregon, US.Google Scholar
146. Zhu, X., Liu, Z. and Yang, J. Model of collaborative UAV swarm toward coordination and control mechanisms study. Procedia Computer Science, 2015, 51, pp 493-502.Google Scholar
147. Parunak, H.V, Purcell, M. and O'Connell, R. Digital pheromones for autonomous coordination of swarming UAV's, AIAA 2002–3446, 1st Technical Conference and Workshop on Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles. 20–23 May 2002, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
148. Stansbury, R.S., Vyas, M.A. and Wilson, T.A. A technology survey and regulatory gap analysis of UAS technologies for C3, IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 7–14 March, 2009, Big Sky Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
149. Nato Standardization Agency . STANAG 4586 - standard interfaces of UAV control system (UCS) for NATO UAV interoperability. STANAG 4586 (Edition 3). November 2012, Brussels.Google Scholar
150. White, A.D. The human-machine partnership in UCAV operations. Aeronautical J, 2003, (February), pp 111-116.Google Scholar
151. Cummings, M., Bruni, S., Mercier, S. and Mitchell, P. Automation architecture for single operator, multiple UAV command and control. Int C2 J, 2007, 1, (2), pp 1-24.Google Scholar
152. Finn, R.L. and Wright, D. Unmanned aircraft systems: surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law and Security Review, 2012, 28, (2), pp 184-194.Google Scholar
153. Clothier, R.A., Greer, D.A., Greer, D.G. and Mehta, A.M. Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Analysis, 2015, 35, (6), pp 1167-1183.Google Scholar
154. Haider, A. Remotely piloted aircraft systems in contested environments: a vulnerability analysis. Report to The Joint Air Power Competence Centre, September 2014, Kalkar, Germany.Google Scholar
155. US DoD. Defense advanced research projects agency. Target Recognition and Adaption in Contested Environments (TRACE). 2016. Available at: http://www.darpa.mil/program/trace.Google Scholar
156. Ministry of Defence. Joint doctrine publication 0–30. UK Air and Space doctrine. July 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223495/jdp_0_30_uk_air_and_space_dOctoberrine.pdf.Google Scholar
157. Sparrow, R. Killer robots: Ethical issues in the design of unmanned systems for military applications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2009, 15, (2), pp 169-187.Google Scholar
158. Martin, C. A means-methods paradox and the legality of drone strikes in armed conflict. Int J Human Rights, 2015, 19 (2), pp 142-175.Google Scholar
159. Bachman, J. The New York Times and The Washington Post . Journalism Studies, 2015, doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1073118.Google Scholar
160. Taj, F. The year of the drone misinformation. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2010, 21, (3), pp 529-535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
161. Plaw, A. Sudden justice, 7th Annual Conference on War and Peace. 1 May 2010, Prague.Google Scholar
162. Strawser, B.J. Moral predators: The duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles. J Military Ethics, 2010, 9, (4), pp 2943-2964.Google Scholar