Developing, testing--and ranges to do that: unveiled without much fanfare in mid-2006, the Polecat drone (also code-named P-175) was nevertheless given the <<2006 Best for What's New>> award by Popular Science. The design may look unusual for an unmanned vehicle, but the pattern is quite logical.

In hindsight it now seems perfectly logical that something looking like the B-2 bomber was bound to one day be developed into an unmanned aircraft, because it is quite clear that any sensible aircraft configuration can be turned into a drone. It started with all variations of classical fixed-wing designs (single and multiple engines, twin booms, shoulder wings, T-tails, V-tails and so forth), then through rotary-wings, swing-wings (although both the manned and unmanned versions have provided mixed results), gliders, to parafoils and blimps. Still missing, however, is an unmanned version of the Harrier. All manned categories of these have been armed, and it is perfectly logical that their unmanned counterparts should jump into their wake. And that process had already started a while ago.

Aerial Refuelling 

Before turning to the latest example of 'weaponisation', it is interesting to note that flying methods are now also being transposed to the drone world--or at least investigated. While Qinetiq has announced that it had started exploring the possibilities of formation flights, Boeing has completed a series of tests to demonstrate the ability of an unmanned aircraft to refuel behind a tanker. But in this particular case, the term unmanned is both applicable and also non-applicable: unmanned because the aircraft used to <<hook-up,, in the trail of the KC-135 was a normal manned aircraft (a Learjet), except that it was actually manned, not only <<just in case,,, but also to fly the aircraft into place and bring it back to base. Upon reaching the desired position, <<the aircraft's flight control system was then engaged and it autonomously held the contact position for 23 minutes while the tanker flew two full air refuelling orbits, or holding patterns>> explained David Riley, Boeing Phantom Works Automated Air Refuelling programme. Next stages, to be performed in 2007, will include testing the ability of the aircraft to autonomously manoeuvre around the tanker aircraft and thus put the flight control computer--the station keeping control laws developed by the Phantom Works--through their paces.

Weapons

Aircraft of the manned variety have long been able to not only drop bombs or missiles but also self-guided weapon dispensers so to keep out of harm's way as much as possible. This capability is now reaching under the wings of the drone. Textron, for example, has developed a GPS-guided Universal Aerial Delivery Dispenser, which was recently tested in conjunction with a US Army RQ-5 Hunter. During the test conducted over the US Army Electronic Proving Ground in Arizona, the dispenser was released by the Hunter at an altitude of about 13,000 feet from where it guided itself to the required point above the ground before ejecting its inert payload.

Coming from Textron, the dispenser is of course ideally suited for top-attack weapons like the BLU-108, but could also be used to place all manner of remote sensing devices. The dispenser may also be used as a cargo delivery system, in which case instead of ejecting its contents, it would deploy a parachute to soft-land supplies to commandos or emergency goods to stranded soldiers.

Test Ranges

While the United States enjoys vast expanses of uninhabited areas (to the extent that foreign friendly forces are invited to train there), airspace availability is far more critical in Europe. While Wales and Sweden offer test facilities, Finland has also entered the scene but in a much larger scale, as the area that could potentially be made available would compare with the entire Belgian airspace. In conjunction with the town of Kemjarvi in Lapland, Robonic, a Finnish designer and manufacturer of drone launchers, has initiated a study to evaluate the potential that such a test range--called Ratufc for Robonic Artic Test Uav Centre--could offer both nationally and internationally as a training centre. The author has asked Robonic's Juha Moisio to clarify a few points:

EHB: Who actually owns the site?

JM: The airfield is owned by Kemijarvi Town.

EHB: Who would then be the running authority? Ratufc?

JM: Yes, Ratufc, although not as an authority but as an operator, with a long lease agreement with Kemijarvi town.

Kemijarvi town will still be responsible for the infrastructure and the condition of the airfield.

EHB: What would be the flight restrictions, especially in terms of altitude?

JM: Altitudes follow the Finnish VFR flight rules: minimum altitude 1000 feet above towns etc, otherwise 500 feet. No weather or day/night restrictions from Finnish authorities. IFF is preferred but not compulsory.

EHB: Will the aircraft be requested to have remote control back-up?

JM: Not necessarily. The whole system just has to be so safe that Finnish civil aviation authorities (FCAA) would deliver the flight permit. The FCAA has so far done it on a case-by-case basis. We anticipate that this will be eased over time when we all gain more experience about UAV test flying.

EHB: Lapland also has nomad populations. What are the safety considerations in this respect?

JM: In the range area the population density is less than two persons per square kilometre. If we count out the towns and villages (about ten of them all together), the result is less than 0.5 per square kilometre. With so-called nomads (who are nowadays a few reindeer farmers in their daily job or normal people picking berries in autumn or skiing in winter) there are no special restrictions.

EHB: Presumably, the site will also need to be equipped with a number of tracking radars for safety reasons. How many of these would be required to cover such a wide area? On the other hand, some companies might want to test the stealthiness of their aircraft. How then can this be conciliated with tracking radars (onboard beacon perhaps)?

JM: There are a couple military PSR/SSR radars and a couple civil (FCAA-owned) SSR-radars covering the range. So far Ratufc does not have a Rap-display or a display of a single radar. However, the co-operation agreements with the North Finland air authorities and Lapland Air Command guarantee full co-operation and help in case of emergency.

Ratufc have not yet started discussions of utilising any military radar for instance in order to offer possibilities to investigate stealthiness.

EHB: Regarding eavesdropping, is a security system planned to guarantee the privacy of certain training/testing operations?

JM: Yes.

EHB: Would the centre provide ad hoc 'targets' for the various onboard sensors heated/non-heated vehicles of various types, barracks and buildings?

JM: Yes, if needed and planned beforehand. Ad-hoc targets do not exist at the range. It is again a question of the demand that will arise.

EHB: While the site would provide unique cold winter conditions, and size apart, isn't the site in Wales pursuing the same goals in terms of obtaining an internationally approved license?

JM: Yes, Wales and Ratufc are both pursuing the possibility to provide UAV test facilities. The requirement to have locations where air vehicles and equipment can be tested is growing and the demand is there for both of the ranges, as is for Neat. Our big advantage is that the airfield, with a 1400 x 23 runway, is within the range boundaries and the airfield is practically dedicated to this purpose--we share it with the local flying club that flies only some 50-100 hours a year. Effectively we operate Europe's largest private UAV test range.