Preventive Arms Control for Small and Very Small Armed Aircraft
and Missiles
Report No. 1
Survey of the Status of Small Armed and
Unarmed Uninhabited Aircraft
Mathias Pilch, Jürgen Altmann and Dieter Suter
February 2021
Chair Experimental Physics III
TU Dortmund University
This report has been written in the research project ‘Preventive Arms Control for
Small and Very Small Armed Aircraft and Missiles’ of TU Dortmund University.
The project is being funded by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF,
https://bundesstiftung-friedensforschung.de/) in its funding line ‘New
Technologies: Risks and Chances for International Security and Peace’.
About the Authors
Mathias Pilch
Mathias Pilch, M.Sc, is a physicist and researcher at Technische Universität Dortmund,
Germany. In January 2018 he has finished his M.Sc. thesis about numerical modelling
of seismic tracked-vehicle signals for co-operative verification.
Jürgen Altmann
Jürgen Altmann, PhD, is a physicist and peace researcher at Technische Universität
Dortmund, Germany. Since 1985 he has studied scientific-technical problems of dis-
armament. Another focus is assessment of new military technologies and preventive
arms control.
Dieter Suter
Dieter Suter, Prof. Dr., is a physicist, researcher and professor at Technische Universität
Dortmund, Germany since 1995. His fields of interest are the development of advanced
magnetic resonance techniques, optically enhanced magnetic resonance, quantum in-
formation processing and medical physics applications of magnetic resonance.
(C) 2021. Except where otherwise noted, this work is available under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms 5
1 Introduction 6
2 Definitions and Classifications 9
2.1 Uninhabited Aircraft 9
2.2 Small and Very Small (Uninhabited) Aircraft 10
3 Aerodynamics 11
4 Technical Overview 17
4.1 Airframe Configurations 17
4.1.1 Fixed-wing Configurations 17
4.1.2 Rotary-wing Configurations 19
4.1.3 Hybrid Configurations 20
4.1.4 Flapping Wings 20
4.1.5 Tethering 21
4.2 Materials and Manufacturing 21
4.3 Power and Propulsion 22
4.4 Guidance and Navigation 23
4.4.1 Navigation and Autopilots 23
4.4.2 Control Stations 24
4.5 Launch and Recovery 24
4.6 Payloads 27
4.6.1 Sensor Payloads 27
4.6.2 Offensive Payloads 28
5 Research and Development Programmes in the USA 30
5.1 The DARPA Nano Air Vehicle (NAV) 30
5.2 Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile System (LMAMS) 31
5.3 Gremlins 31
5.4 Perdix 32
5.5 Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) 33
5.6 Anubis 33
3
Contents
5.7 Cluster UAS Smart Munition for Missile Deployment 33
5.8 Short Range Reconnaissance (SRR) 33
5.9 Offensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) 33
5.10 Air Launch Effects (ALE) 34
5.11 Air Force and Army MAV Programmes 34
6 UAV Swarms 36
7 UAV Countermeasures 37
8 Small and Very Small UAV Database 39
8.1 Database Properties 39
8.2 General Overview 42
8.3 Armed UAVs 46
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations 51
8.4.1 Fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs 52
8.4.2 Flapping-wing UAVs 57
9 Conclusion 59
Acknowledgements 60
Bibliography 61
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs 66
UAV Table References 78
4
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AGL Above ground level
AMSL Above mean sea level
BAV Biomimetic air vehicle
BDS BeiDou navigation satellite system
C-UAS Counter uninhabited aircraft system
COMINT Communications intelligence
COTS Commercial off-the-shelf
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
EFP Explosively formed penetrator
EO Electro-optical
GCS Ground control system
GLONASS Global navigation satellite system
GNSS Global navigation satellite system
GPS Global positioning system
HTOL Horizontal take-off and landing
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IMU Inertial measurement unit
INS Inertial navigation system
IR Infrared
ISR Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
LiDAR Light detection and ranging
LOCUST Low-cost UAV swarming technology
LWIR Long-wave infrared
MAV Micro air vehicle
MEMS Microelectromechanical systems
MTOW Maximum take-off weight
MWIR Midwave infrared
NAV Nano Air Vehicle
NIR Near infrared
PEO Program Executive Office
R&D Research and development
RF Radio frequency
RPG Rocket-propelled grenade
SCO Strategic Capabilities Office
SWIR Short-wave infrared
UA Uninhabited aircraft
UAS Uninhabited aerial system
UAV Uninhabited aerial vehicle
VTOL Vertical take-off and landing
5
1 Introduction
The project ‘Preventive Arms Control for Small and Very Small Armed Aircraft and
Missiles’, funded by the German Foundation for Peace Research DSF, is investigating
the properties to be expected of ever smaller aircraft and missiles, including their use
in swarms (https://url.tu-dortmund.de/pacsam). Small and very small aircraft
as covered here are uninhabited by their size, thus the designation uninhabited aerial
vehicle (UAV) or uninhabited aircraft (UA) applies. While the focus is on armed
systems, unarmed ones will be covered as well, since modifications for carrying or
acting as a weapon are possible. This report no. 1 covers the status of UAVs. Further
reports will deal with missiles and consider dangers and preventive arms control.
Uninhabited vehicles are increasingly being deployed and used by armed forces, with
UAVs most advanced. Since 2001 UAVs have been armed and used for attacks by a
few states, the number of countries with armed UAVs is rising dramatically. In 2017,
there were 28 (World of Drones, 2017), while in 2020 the number rose to 39 (World of
Drones, 2020). These UAVs have wingspans of many metres.
The principal possibility of small and very small armed UAVs and missiles was
mentioned early, fuelled by emerging microsystems technology and nanotechnology,
but proposals for limits or prohibitions1 have not been taken up so far. In the meantime,
the first small armed UAVs with a size of only very few metres, down to centimetres,
have arrived. Although small UAVs are far more limited in their capabilities than large
UAVs, they can be a considered a cheap alternative to larger systems that nevertheless
provides a basic level of aircraft capabilities.
A rapid increase in popularity, availability, variety and capability of commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) small UAVs over the past decade has led to an increase in usage
of these systems by non-state actors and armed groups. Usually much less sophisticated
than their military counterparts, improvised armed UAVs have been built and used by
non-state actors using commercial and hobby multicopters as well as home-built fixed-
wing UAVs. Because non-state actors are not the drivers of technology development,
their activities are mentioned only in this introduction. Activities by non-state actors
using small (here: mass < 25kg) COTS UAVs are covered in (Friese et al., 2016). The
authors conclude that historically, the use of UAVs by non-state actors has been sporadic
and rudimentary. However, recent jumps in capabilities and availability of small COTS
UAVs, including smaller size and easier piloting, are leading to an increased use of
these systems by non-state actors. Non-state actors which have used COTS small UAVs
include, among others, Syrian militants, e.g. attacking Russian air and naval bases in
Syria (MacFarquhar, 2018; Binnie, 2018), the so-called Islamic State using them as
scouts or for attacks with explosive charges (Hambling, 2016), and non-state actors
in the Ukraine (Friese et al., 2016). Criminals have used small commercial UAVs to
illicitly transport narcotics between Mexico and the USA (Friese et al., 2016), as well
1 Mainly by (Altmann, 2001; Altmann, 2006): prohibition of missiles and ‘mobile micro-robots’ below
0.2-0.5 m size.
6
1 Introduction
as weaponised modified versions for gang wars (Hambling, 2020b).
In military small armed UAs a next step could be equipping them with missiles.
Traditional missiles such as the AGM-114 Hellfire (length: 163–175 cm, mass: 45-
48 kg (FAS, 2012)) are far too large and heavy for smaller UAVs. However, smaller
missiles have been developed, too, one intent being the wish to arm smaller UAVs.
Small and very small missiles will be covered in the next report.
To assess the potential effects to be expected from small and very small armed aircraft
and missiles, including dangers to military stability and international security, as well as
options for preventive arms control, the first precondition is reliable information about
already existing systems and current trends in research and development.
Based on databases, scientific and internet publications, this report lists small armed
UAVs deployed and used worldwide, as well as systems under research and development,
with their properties. Non-armed systems are included to investigate the global usage
of small UAVs and thus overall interest in smaller systems. This comprises non-armed
systems which could be provided with or used as weapons.
In order to minimise a contribution to proliferation of these systems, only public
sources were investigated, i.e. the internet as well as publicly available databases and
catalogues. Furthermore, where information is incomplete, no estimates based on the
laws of physics or stemming from engineering expertise are given. Improvised or
modified versions of UAVs or missiles, already in use by non-state actors, are left out
for the same reason.
The results of our research are collected in two databases, one each for the UAVs
and the missiles; here the one for the UAVs is covered. As far as has been available,
their basic properties with the year of introduction are listed to allow statements on
trends of UAV capabilities in recent years. Due to the sheer number of UAV types
available today, we focused mainly on UAVs intended to fulfil military roles, such
as reconnaissance or combat. An exception are UAVs that fall under the very small
category. There, most UAVs are still in the research or development stages and not
in military service nor designed for military use. However, research and development
(R&D) of some systems had been funded originally by military institutions (sections 5.1
and 5.11). In any case, these projects are important indicators of the future potential of
these small-sized aircraft.
Similar work has been done by the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College
in the USA. In 2019, it released the Drone Databook (Gettinger, 2019) (with an update
in March 2020 (Gettinger, 2020)), evaluating the military drone capabilities of over 100
countries known to possess or operate uninhabited aircraft. It includes lists of military
UAV infrastructures and technical specifications of over 170 UAVs of all sizes.
Technical specifications of so-called loitering munitions, a special variant of UAVs
equipped with a warhead and the ability to loiter in the air for an extended amount
of time before attacking with self-destruction, were collected in (Gettinger & Michel,
2017).
An overview of countries that have conducted UAV attacks, that possess and develop
armed UAVs, including non-state-actor activities, is given in the World of Drones
7
1 Introduction
database (World of Drones, 2020).
In 2014, Cai et al. published a survey of ‘small-scale’ UAVs with a total of 132
civilian and military models (Cai et al., 2014). The UAVs collected vary in size from
less than ten metres down to centimetres. UAV properties are given only for a few
examples and far less detailed than in our database. The development of key UAV
elements, such as on-board processing units, sensors, communication modules etc. is
presented and analysed as well. Among the predictions for the near-term future (2-5
years) are an increased popularity in flapping-wing UAVs in research, as well as an
increasing demand of small-scale UAVs for military applications.
In 2015, Ward et al. presented a bibliometric review of engineering and biology
articles published between 1984 and 2014 on so-called biomimetic air vehicles (BAVs),
flapping-wing UAVs that mimic the kinematics of flying organisms (Ward, Rezadad
et al., 2015). The general focus of articles is aerodynamics, guidance and control,
mechanisms, structures and materials, and system design, with a rapid increase in
publications since 2005. Most research was done in the United States, South Korea,
Japan, the United Kingdom and China. The authors expect an increase in numbers and
variety of bio-mimicry species as technological challenges are overcome.
This article was followed by Ward et al. in 2017 with a bibilometric review on micro
air vehicles (MAVs) between the years 1998 and 2015 (Ward, Fearday et al., 2017). The
majority of research articles were written in the USA, China, UK, France and South
Korea. The authors conclude that biomimetic MAVs are most popular, rivalled by a
growing popularity of rotary-wing MAVs.
The focus of the present report is on small and very small UAVs. Before we present
the results of the data collection, we need to establish a technical background and factual
information. Chapter 2 lays a terminology basis and chapter 3 presents basic aspects
of aerodynamics. Chapter 4 gives a technical overview, with subchapters on airframe
configurations, materials and manufacturing, power and propulsion, guidance, launch
and recovery and payloads.1 Research and development in the USA are the subject of
chapter 5. Swarms and countermeasures are treated in Chapters chapter 6 and chapter 7,
respectively. Chapter 8 presents summary properties of the database which itself is
presented in the appendix A and at an internet location.2
1 Since many aspects of communication to and from UAVs apply in general and are not specific to small
UAVs, they are not discussed here; they are covered in (Gundlach, 2012, ch. 12). MAV communication
is treated in (Michelson, 2015).
2 https://url.tu-dortmund.de/pacsam for the project description and https://url.tu-dortm
und.de/pacsam-db for a description of the databases. The small and very small aircraft database is
available at https://url.tu-dortmund.de/pacsam-db-sa.
8
2 Definitions and Classifications
2.1 Uninhabited Aircraft
There exist many different definitions of a UA given by institutions, policymakers or by
individual scientists in research articles. We use the term UA and UAV synonymously
for an uninhabited aircraft, following the definitions of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) (definitions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). However, instead of the ICAO’s use
of the term ‘unmanned’ we prefer the gender-neutral and more precise ‘uninhabited’
since uninhabited aircraft that are remotely piloted can still be considered ‘manned’.
Definition 2.1.1: Aircraft
Any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the
air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface (ICAO, 2010,
p. I-1). Consequently cruise and other guided or unguided missiles count as
(uninhabited) aircraft, except ballistic missiles not using aerodynamic lift when
travelling in the atmosphere.
Definition 2.1.2: Uninhabited Aircraft
Aircraft intended to be flown without a pilot on board (ICAO, 2020).
The UA itself is part of an uninhabited aerial system (UAS), which in addition to the
aircraft includes all key elements required for a UA mission. These additional elements
are the payload, the communication data link, the launch and recovery element, the
human element and a command and control structure.
Definition 2.1.1 includes so-called ‘loitering munitions’, which can be considered
as both a UA and a guided missile. Their purpose is to attack a target in the same
manner as a missile, e.g. with an explosive warhead. However, in contrast to a missile,
a loitering munition can spend an extended amount of time in the target zone and fly
a search pattern before attacking. Therefore, as long as the loitering munition is in
flight, the attack can still be called off, with the aircraft either returning back to base or
self-destructing in a chosen area, a capability that does not exist with most missiles.
Definition 2.1.3: Loitering Munition
An uninhabited aircraft with its main purpose to attack targets with a fixed built-
in warhead (usually explosive) that leads to self-destruction of the aircraft. In
contrast to missiles, it has the ability to loiter above a designated area before
striking its target.
Loitering munitions can appear in the same configurations as other UAs, i.e. as
rotary-wing, fixed-wing or any other aircraft type. A rotary-wing example is the IAI
9
2.2 Small and Very Small (Uninhabited) Aircraft
ROTEM, the WB Group Warmate uses fixed wings (figures 2.1 and 2.2).
Figure 2.1: IAI ROTEM, exact size un- Figure 2.2: WB Group Warmate, Po-
known (public domain) (Reise Reise, land (public domain) (VoidWanderer,
2019). 2016). Wingspan: 1.4 m (WB Group,
2019).
2.2 Small and Very Small (Uninhabited) Aircraft
There is no single standard of UA classification. Manufacturers, defence agencies
and civilian organizations all use their own terminologies and classification systems.
Uninhabited aircraft can be classified e.g. by size, mass, maximum flight altitude
and range. A combination of these can be used to define a tier system. Even among
researchers, no consensus exists, thus all terms describing the size or mass of an UA are
always understood in the context of a pre-defined classification system. Comprehensive
overviews of various UA classifications are given in (Hassanalian & Abdelkefi, 2017;
Dalamagkidis, 2015).
Our classification system is based only on the size of the aircraft. The size is defined
by the length, wingspan or rotor diameter of the aircraft. For multicopters this means
the diameter over all rotors. We define every aircraft below a size of 2 m as small, and
below 0.2 m as very small (table 2.1). We choose these limits because aircraft of this
size and below are typically much more limited in endurance, range, armament and
payload mass compared to larger aircraft. Often the notion of MAV is used.
Table 2.1: Definitions of ‘small’ and ‘very small’ sizes of UAs.
Defining property ‘Small’ ‘Very small’
Aircraft Wingspan, rotor diameter and length ≤ 2 m and > 0.2m ≤ 0.2 m
10
3 Aerodynamics
Conditions of flight change as aircraft size decreases. For some understanding, this
chapter gives an elementary introduction into aerodynamics (for an in-depth introduc-
tion, see (Anderson, 1999) and (McCormick, 1979)). Non-technical readers may skip
it.
If some body moves through air – or, equivalently, if air flows in the opposite direction
toward and around the body – the body experiences a force. In case of level flight at
constant velocity (figure 3.1), the lift force L points vertically upward and is equal and
opposite to the weight force W of the aircraft. The drag force D points backward; in
order to prevent its slowing down the movement, an equal and opposite thrust force T
is needed that points in the forward direction – it is provided e.g. by a propeller or a jet
engine. If lift and weight do not balance, the aircraft climbs or descends. If thrust is not
equal to drag, the aircraft accelerates or decelerates.
Figure 3.1: Balance of forces for level flight at constant velocity: The lift force L has to
compensate the weight force W , the thrust force T has to compensate the drag force D.
If the force is referred to an axis of rotation, a moment exists around that axis (figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Resultant aerodynamic force R and moment M on the body. V∞ is the
freestream velocity.
For flight the most relevant body is the wing. The resultant force on the wing R
is the sum of the partial forces exerted on all parts of the total wing surface, and
similarly for the total moment M. Due to the wing form and the angle between the air
flow and the wing, usually overpressure develops at the bottom side of the wing and
11
3 Aerodynamics
underpressure at the upper side. Thus the force R contains a component orthogonal to
the velocity through the air, the lift L. The air flow against the wing induces friction that
exerts a force opposite to the air flow, the drag D. The free-stream velocity V∞ holds
at large distance from the wing (close to the wing, the velocity varies in magnitude
and direction). Figure 3.3 shows the splitting of the resultant force R into the lift L
perpendicular to V∞ and the drag D parallel to V∞. L and D depend on the angle of
attack α between the chord c, that is the line connecting the extreme points of the wing
profile, and V∞.
Figure 3.3: Resulting aerodynamic force R split into its components L perpendicular
to the freestream velocity V∞ and D parallel to it. The angle of attack α is measured
between the freestream velocity and the chord c of the wing.
Both forces scale linearly with the area S of the wing projection and the so-called
dynamic pressure q∞ which is one half of the air density ρ∞ times the free-stream
velocity V∞ squared. The dimensionless proportionality constants are the lift coefficient
CL and the drag coefficient CD, respectively. Thus
L = q∞SCL, (3.1)
D = q∞SCD, (3.2)
with the dynamic pressure q∞:
1
q 2∞ = ρ∞V∞, (3.3)2
and ρ∞ is the density of the freestream far ahead of the body. S is the reference wing
area defined as the planform area of the main wing including the area of the wing
extended through the fuselage (figure 3.4).
12
3 Aerodynamics
Figure 3.4: Aircraft fuselage (dashed line) and reference wing area S in red.
The coefficients CL and CD are functions of the angle of attack α , the freestream
velocity (figures 3.5a and 3.5b) and the Reynolds number. CL at first increases with
angle of attack α , but beyond a critical angle the flow separates from the upper wing
surface, severely reducing the underpressure there and thus the lift – the aircraft stalls.
CD increases with the angle of attack. The lift and drag characteristics are highly
dependent on the shape of the airfoil, the Mach number and the Reynolds number.
For very high velocities the lift and drag coefficients are no longer constant, but are
functions of the Mach number M, that is defined as the ratio of the body’s velocity to
the speed of sound a:
V
M ∞= . (3.4)
a
The other extreme is more relevant in the present context. For very low velocity
and/or small wings, lift and drag are functions of the Reynolds number Re. This number
is given by
ρ V c
Re ∞ ∞= , (3.5)
µ
where c is the length of the wing chord (figure 3.3) and µ is the dynamic viscosity of
the air, causing friction when moving past the wing.
The Reynolds number is a key parameter that represents the influence of inertial
versus viscous forces. Due to their size, very small UAs operate in a Reynolds number
regime much lower than habited aircraft. We give an example and calculate the Reynolds
number of a typical passenger jet, assuming a mean aerodynamic chord of 4.0m, a
flight altitude of 9000 m and a cruise speed of 250m/s. At an altitude of 9000 m, and
13
3 Aerodynamics
assuming an air temperature of −45 °C, the air density ρ and the viscosity µ are:1
ρ = 0.469kg/m3, µ = 1.497×10−5 Pas. (3.6)
Inserting all values into equation (3.5) yields:
Re ≈ 3.1×107. (3.7)
In contrast, a much smaller aircraft with a chord length of 5.5cm flying at the same
altitude with a flight velocity of 30 m/s yields
Resmall ≈ 5.2×104, (3.8)
which is three orders of magnitude below the previous results. However, small UAs
typically fly only several hundred metres above ground level (AGL). Assuming flight at
ground level and a temperature of 23 °C, the air density and viscosity values increase to
ρGL = 1.192kg/m3, µGL = 1.852×10−5 Pas, (3.9)
and the Reynolds number decreases to
Re 4small,GL ≈ 4.2×10 . (3.10)
Figures 3.5a and 3.5b show the lift and drag coefficients c` and cd versus the angle of
attack α for Reynolds numbers 3×107 and 5×104 for a NACA 2411 airfoil (figure 3.6).
The lower case notation of the coefficients indicates that calculations are valid only for
a purely two-dimensional shape (of theoretically infinite span) such as an airfoil.
Figure 3.5c shows the ratio c`/cd; in general, a decrease of the Reynolds number
leads to a substantial reduction in the lift to drag ratio L/D. Note however, that airfoils
are designed to operate in certain Reynolds number regimes, and that the NACA 2411
airfoil is not optimized to operate in low-Reynolds-number regimes. The lift-to-drag
ratio L/D is used as a measure of aerodynamic efficiency and creating lift efficiently
means generating as little drag as possible (Anderson, 1999, p. 105).
From figure 3.5c, we see that the maximum ratios are 164 at Re = 3×107 and 34
at Re = 5×104. However, these values only hold for wings with infinite span. Finite
wings suffer from additional drag due to strong vortices produced at the wing tips.
Furthermore, a complete aircraft shows more drag components, they stem from the
fuselage and the tail, plus other parts in the air stream. As a consequence, the maximum
lift-to-drag ratio is 13-16 for (normal-size) propeller aircraft, 17-20 for jet airliners
(Loftin, 1985, chs. 6, 13). Typically the ratio decreases with size, very small UAVs may
have ratios in the range of small birds and insects, i.e. below 10 (Mueller, 1999), e.g.
6 for the Black Widow (wingspan: 15.2 cm) (Grasmeyer & Keennon, 2001, table 5, p.
524).
1 ρ and µ were calculated using the AeroToolbox Standard Atmosphere Calculator (AeroToolbox,
2020).
14
3 Aerodynamics
Furthermore, small flyers are highly susceptible to environmental effects due to their
low mass and slower flight speed. These challenges are typically overcome by using
flapping wings and wing-tail coordination (Shyy et al., 2013, p. 40). Also, airfoil
profiles that optimize aerodynamic behaviour for a specific Reynolds number regime
are used.
2 0.10
Re = 3e7
0.08
1 Re = 5e4
0.06
0
0.04
1 Re = 3e7
0.02
Re = 5e4
2 0.00
-5.0° 0.0° 5.0° 10.0° 15.0° 20.0° -5.0° 0.0° 5.0° 10.0° 15.0° 20.0°
(a) Typical dependence of lift coefficient c` (b) Typical dependence of drag coefficient cd
with angle of attack α . C` decreases beyond with angle of attack α .
a critical angle.
100
0
Re = 3e7
100 Re = 5e4
-5.0° 0.0° 5.0° 10.0° 15.0° 20.0°
(c) Ratio c`/cd, or ratio of lift L over drag D,
versus angle of attack α .
Figure 3.5: Two-dimensional lift and drag coefficients dependent on the angle of attack
α of a NACA 2411 airfoil (shown in figure 3.6) calculated with XFOIL 6.99 (Drela,
2013) at M = 0 for Reynolds numbers of Re = 3×107 and 5×104.
15
c
c  / cd
cd
3 Aerodynamics
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 3.6: NACA 2411 airfoil generated with XFOIL 6.99 (Drela, 2013). The lengths
are normalized relative to the chord.
Aircraft with fixed/variable-geometry wings have to move with a certain velocity to
stay airborne. Their direction of movement usually is controlled by control flaps (small
additional wings) that by aerodynamic forces create a moment around the vertical axis
(rudder) or a horizontal axis in wing direction (elevator). The velocity, climbing or
descent can be controlled by varying the engine thrust.
In rotary-wing aircraft, the above considerations about lift and drag apply to each
individual blade of the rotor(s). Because the velocity through the air increases along
the blade, the blade is twisted to keep the lift distribution approximately constant. The
blade pitch can be varied during one rotation; in case of one main rotor, if the blade
pitch is increased when the blades are in the backward half circle, the craft is tilted
up at the back and some component of the total rotor force points forward, creating
forward thrust. In order to compensate for the torque, often a small tail rotor is used.
Since multiple rotors can counter-rotate, no special counter-torque mechanism is needed.
Tilting the craft in some direction for thrust does not need varying the blade pitch during
rotation, but can be achieved by varying the rotation rates among the rotors.
16
4 Technical Overview
4.1 Airframe Configurations
In general aircraft are divided into three categories (Austin, 2010, ch. 3.5):
1. horizontal take-off and landing (HTOL),
2. vertical take-off and landing (VTOL),
3. HTOL / VTOL hybrids.
The acronym HTOL designates aircraft which require a horizontal acceleration to
achieve flight speed. HTOL aircraft are typically in fixed-wing configuration, while
VTOL aircraft use rotary or flapping wings. The range of airframe configurations for
UAs is the same as for crewed aircraft. Most common for small UAVs are fixed- and
rotary-wing configurations. Very small UAVs typically use flapping wings.
4.1.1 Fixed-wing Configurations
The three fundamental types of fixed-wing aircraft are the ‘tailplane aft’, the ‘tailplane
forward’ and the ‘tailless’ configuration. Almost all UAs in our database use a pusher-
propeller configuration with the power-plant at the rear of the fuselage. This allows
payload placement in front of the aircraft and an unobstructed forward view. Payload
placement in front of the engine also prevents contamination of the payload with leaked
fluids from the forward engine exhaust (Gundlach, 2012, p. 134). A typical example is
shown in figure 4.1.
From an aerodynamic viewpoint, if a propeller is used, the induced air velocity of
the rear-mounted propeller does not increase the friction drag of the fuselage as much
as the slipstream would from a front-mounted tractor propeller (Austin, 2010, p. 34).
However, tractor propellers have clean airflow to the propeller, which leads to higher
propeller efficiency (Gundlach, 2012, p. 134). Gundlach adds that tractors can also be
quieter because there is no wake impingement upon the propeller and that tractors allow
a large tail moment arm due to the forward engine location.
Flying-wing (including delta-wing) aircraft are tailless and suffer from a reduced
effective tail arm in both pitch and yaw axes,1 although the rearward sweep of the
wing adds to directional stability (Austin, 2010, p. 36). An argument in favour of
the flying-wing configuration is that the removal of the horizontal stabiliser avoids the
additional profile drag due to that surface. However, the poorer lift distribution of the
flying wing can result in negative lift at the tip sections and result in high induced drag
(Austin, 2010, p. 36). An example of a flying-wing UAV is the Spaitech Sparrow shown
in figure 4.2.
1 An aircraft in flight can rotate around three axes with their origins at the centre of gravity. The pitch
axis is parallel to the wings of a winged aircraft, the roll axis is drawn through the aircraft’s body
from tail to nose in forward direction, and the yaw axis is directed towards the bottom of the aircraft,
perpendicular to the other two axes.
17
4.1 Airframe Configurations
Figure 4.1: Conventional fixed-wing Figure 4.2: Flying wing with tractor
configuration: IAI GreenDragon ((C) propeller: Spaitech Sparrow. Wing-
IAI, reprinted by permission) (IAI, span: 0.98 m ((C) Spaitech, reprinted
2019a). Wingspan: 1.7 m (IAI, 2019b). by permission) (Spaitech, 2019).
Another typical form is the tandem-wing configuration. It uses two wings of similar
areas with one at the front and one in the back of the aircraft. The advantage is that in
case of wing folding along the fuselage, for the same total wing area the stowage space
is reduced. The maximum wingspan is then twice the fuselage length. However, the
forward wing produces a downwash field on the rear wing, leading to a higher induced
drag, so that tandem-wing configurations usually have lower aerodynamic efficiency
than conventional configurations (Gundlach, 2012, p. 118). Tandem-wing UAVs can
easily be deployed from the stowed state, typically from tube launchers, and unfold
their wings after launch (figure 4.11). An example is the Raytheon Coyote shown in
figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Tandem-wing configura- Figure 4.4: Custom wing configura-
tion: Raytheon Coyote (public domain, tion: UVision HERO-30 (public do-
cropped) (NOAA, 2016). Wingspan: main, cropped) (Swadim, 2019). Exact
1.47 m (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018). size unknown.
An alternative to increase the wing area while still allowing a folding mechanism
is to use four primary and four secondary wings as shown on the UVision Hero-30
18
4.1 Airframe Configurations
(figure 4.4). This design allows a shorter fuselage length compared to a tandem-wing
configuration while maintaining a large wing area.
Advantages of HTOL UAs are typically a higher endurance compared to rotary-wing
aircraft, while they lack the manoeuvrability and VTOL ability of rotorcraft. A major
disadvantage is the reliance on an extended space to launch and land and the necessity
for constant forward movement to stay airborne.
4.1.2 Rotary-wing Configurations
Rotary-wing aircraft or rotorcraft use one or more main rotors to generate lift (figure 4.5).
Designs using multiple rotors are called multi-rotors, or e.g. tri- or quadrotors (-copters)
indicating the number of rotors used. In case of multiple rotors, their blades are fixed in
pitch and horizontal thrust is generated by changing the speed of rotation of each rotor,
tilting the craft in the intended direction. An example of a quadrotor is the Bitcraze
Crazyflie (figure 4.6).
Their main advantage over fixed-wing aircraft is their VTOL capability, allowing
them to access spaces unavailable to fixed-wing aircraft. Moreover their ability to
hover allows them to remain stationary which simplifies surveillance, even allowing
them to land during a mission to save fuel or battery capacity. Compared to fixed-wing
aircraft, no additional equipment such as airbags or a parachute is required for recovery.
However, rotary-wing aircraft usually have a lower endurance (Gundlach, 2012, pp.
47–50), a lower cruise speed and thus longer response time, and achieve lower altitudes
(Austin, 2010, p. 181), which makes them more suitable for short ranges.
Figure 4.5: Helicopter configuration: Figure 4.6: Quadrotor Bitcraze Crazy-
AeroVironment VAPOR35. Rotor dia- flie 2.1. Width (motor-to-motor and
meter: 1.7 m ((C) AeroVironment, re- including motor mount feet): 9.2 cm
printed by permission) (AeroViron- ((C) Bitcraze, reprinted by permission)
ment, 2019). (Bitcraze, 2020).
19
4.1 Airframe Configurations
4.1.3 Hybrid Configurations
Hybrid configurations intend to combine the capabilities of both HTOL and VTOL
aircraft. In the tilt-rotor configuration, rotors are mounted onto the front tip of the main
wing and can be rotated forward by 90° to act as propellers for cruise flight (figure 4.7).
An special combination of a tri- and tiltrotor is the Skyborne Technologies Cerberus
with one rotor at its tail and two main lift fans at the front that can tilt forward (Skyborne
Technologies, 2019).
Figure 4.7: Tilt-rotor configuration during cruise and hover flight.
4.1.4 Flapping Wings
Flapping-wing aerial vehicles use their wings to generate thrust in addition to lift. Flap-
ping wings can significantly increase the manoeuvrability of an aircraft. A combination
of flapping motion, wing deformation, body contour and tail adjustment allows a precise
trajectory control at high speeds (Shyy et al., 2013, p. 7). Flapping wings are used
almost always by UAVs of very small sizes.
Current very small flapping-wing UAVs face the challenge of relatively high design
complexity, low endurance and low payload mass.
Figure 4.8: DelFly Nimble. Wingspan: Figure 4.9: DelFly Micro. Wingspan:
33 cm (public domain) (MAVLab TU 10 cm (public domain) (de Wagter,
Delft, 2018; de Croon et al., 2016). 2008; de Croon et al., 2016).
20
4.2 Materials and Manufacturing
We divide flapping-wing UAVs into the tailless and ‘with tail’ categories, since the
former are less conventional as the tail is typically used as an important control structure.
Tailless flapping-wing UAVs have to use the same wings for lift generation as well as
control. An example of a tailless design is the DelFly Nimble (mass: 29 g) (figure 4.8)
as well as the Nano Hummingbird (figure 5.1) (mass: 19.0 g). A design with tail is the
DelFly Micro (mass: 3.07 g) (figure 4.9).
4.1.5 Tethering
Tethered UAVs are VTOL aircraft connected to a power-supply ground unit. Their radius
of action is limited for a stationary ground unit, but is much larger if the power supply is
transported on a ground vehicle. For example, the HoverMast 100 can reach an altitude
of 100 m (SCR, 2019) and operate along a moving pick-up truck (figure 4.13 below).
As long as a steady power supply is ensured, tethered configurations offer basically
limitless flight time until maintenance is required. Since the on-board battery can be
much smaller and lighter compared to non-tethered rotary-wing aircraft, the remaining
aircraft components can be much heavier, increasing overall aircraft performance.
Tethered UAVs are typically used for surveillance missions such as border control or
for guarding infrastructure.
However, a UA might simply be tethered because it would not fly or achieve a certain
flight performance with the increased weight of an on-board power supply unit. An
example is the research system RoboBee, which would otherwise not achieve flight due
to its extremely small size (mass: 80 mg) (Ma et al., 2013).
4.2 Materials and Manufacturing
Small UAs developed by professional institutions tend to use modern materials and
manufacturing methods (Gundlach, 2012, sec. 7.3). Various types of plastics, foam
and sandwich structures are used, metal only for special parts. Composite materials
provide high strength at low weight; the load is borne by fibres, sometimes woven,
often with plies of unidirectional fibre sheets in different directions. Fibres of graphite
(carbon) provide higher strength than fibres of glass or aramid. They are supported and
bonded together by a matrix material, sometimes thermoplastic, often a resin such as
epoxy that polymerises. With two components this happens at normal temperature; for
higher requirements a thermoset resin is used that has to be cured at high temperature.
Consolidation and better fit to a mould can be supported by pressure, often from the air
by a vacuum under an airtight film. Wings and fuselages can be made with integrated
ribs and from fewer pieces, requiring fewer fasteners. Tapered wings and rounded
shapes can be made easily.
Additive manufacturing (often called 3-D printing) provides much more flexibility,
moulds are not needed and complex forms, e.g. with inner cavities, can be produced.
Several methods and materials can be used to print parts or complete structures (Goh
21
4.3 Power and Propulsion
et al., 2017). Beside wings and fuselages mechanical parts have been made, e.g. in
gears.
In very lightweight UAs, special work has been done to produce the flapping wings,
often emulating insect wings. Various methods have been described how stiffeners,
membranes and links can be made and bonded, e.g. by laser cutting (Liu et al., 2017)
or microsystems technology (also called microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
technology) (Bao et al., 2011); carbon nanotubes have been added for strength (Kumar
et al., 2019). For driving, beside electrical motors with transmissions, ‘artificial muscles’
are made from piezoelectric materials, dielectric or electrostatic elastomers (Chen &
Zhang, 2019).
A special concept can make manufacture easier and allow series production, poten-
tially at low cost: producing structures in two dimensions and then folding them up,
creating a three-dimensional object, as in Japanese paper folding (origami) (Sreetharan
et al., 2012; Dufour et al., 2018). Laser cutting, lamination and microsystems techno-
logy have been used; the latter can produce integrated electronic circuits in the same
process. Rigid and flexible materials have been combined for movable elements. Actu-
ation for moving elements out of the plane can use shape-memory materials, flapping
wings can be driven by piezoelectric or dielectric elastomers. Used for mass production
such methods may enable swarms of immense numbers of disposable MAVs.
4.3 Power and Propulsion
The vast majority (89 %) of the 129 UAVs in our database uses electric power, mostly
from batteries; for one type a fuel cell is stated, the few tethered ones receive external
power. For one very small (80 mg) tethered, flapping-wing UAV, RoboBee, an upgraded
version has been equipped with solar cells (RoboBee X-Wing, 259 mg, that can fly as
long as it is under intense light.
The advantage of using electric motors is their low acoustic signature compared
to combustion and jet engines. In addition, depleted batteries may be replaced with
fully charged ones in a few seconds, so-called ‘hotswapping’. Furthermore, the UAV
mass stays constant throughout the flight, unlike with engines that use fuel, simplifying
centre-of-gravity considerations in the initial UAV design phase. The disadvantage of
using batteries is their lower energy density compared to fuel, leading to a shorter flight
time.
Nine UAVs use combustion engines, and two can use either electric or combustion
power. The eleven types with (optional) combustion have maximum take-off masses
of 2.5 to 13 kg, with the exception of the rotary-wing Comandor with 110 kg that is an
outlier in many respects.
There is one type with turbojet propulsion (Futura) with 70 kg mass, also an outlier.
Propulsion is by propeller for all others of the 65 fixed-wing UAVs, for two thirds
in the pusher arrangement (propeller in the back). Two types use tilt-rotors. The
rotary-wing UAVs have one main rotor or several rotors.
22
4.4 Guidance and Navigation
Flapping wings, with or without tail, are used with very lightweight UAVs only; the
masses of the twelve types lie between 80 mg and 29 g.
4.4 Guidance and Navigation
4.4.1 Navigation and Autopilots
Most small UASs use a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) to determine the
aircraft’s position and to navigate between waypoints. A GNSS consists of a collection
of satellites orbiting the Earth at an altitude of approximately 20000 km (Austin, 2010,
ch. 11.1). Each satellite transmits radio signals that contain the start time of the signal
and travel at the speed of light. A receiver can then calculate the range to the satellite
by using the arrival time. Determining the exact position in three dimensions, however,
requires signals from four or more satellites. The result is a sequence of discrete
aircraft positions. GNSS signals can be jammed by emitting a radio-frequency signal
strong enough so that the satellite’s signals are outweighed. To avoid the loss of the
aircraft, usually an additional, so-called dead-reckoning system, is used. It uses the
aircraft’s position at the start of the mission and time, speed and direction measurements
to calculate the current position. These calculations can be combined with the data
provided by the GNSS to receive a smoothing between calculated positions and to
continue navigation in case of a GNSS signal loss. Current GNSSs in use are the
US-owned global positioning system (GPS), the Russian global navigation satellite
system (GLONASS), the European Galileo and the Chinese BeiDou navigation satellite
system (BDS).
In addition to jamming, GNSS signals can be spoofed, i.e. the satellite’s transmissions
are mimicked and false location information is fed to the receiver. This can be used
to either completely deny the use of GNSS by feeding obviously wrong information
or by slowly directing the aircraft away from the original route. For these reasons,
navigational systems independent of external inputs, such as an inertial measurement
unit (IMU), may be used. An IMU functions independently of external signals. Using
inertial forces, accelerometers measure the change of the velocity in three dimensions.
To refer these measurement to fixed coordinate directions the rotations of the system are
measured e.g. by gyroscopes. With knowledge of the starting velocity, the acceleration
is integrated over time to yield the changed velocity. With the given start location,
integrating the velocity gives the changed location. IMUs have the disadvantage that
their estimates drift over time. For high-grade accelerometers and gyroscopes the drift
can be low, but for miniaturized systems used by small UAVs which tend to use MEMS
devices that have very high drift and can provide nonsense estimates in seconds or
minutes (Gundlach, 2012, p. 392).
An IMU and GNSS system can be combined to an inertial navigation system (INS),
where the IMU provides state estimates at a high rate, while the GNSS provides discrete
positions at a lower rate, allowing for correction of the IMU drift.
Inertial measurement systems are sometimes complemented with magnetic-field
23
4.5 Launch and Recovery
sensors for orientation in the earth magnetic field and barometric sensors for alti-
tude. Autopilots − systems for controlling the trajectory of aircraft, often including
waypoint-navigation − can integrate such systems. Miniaturization in particular of
microelectromechanical sensors has been advanced greatly by their introduction in
every-day electronics such as smart phones. One exemplary device with three-axis
accelerometer, three-axis gyroscope and three-axis magnetometer measures 3×3×3
mm3 with a mass of 0.14 g (TDK, 2021). University researchers have built autopilots
of extremely small size and extremely light weight. One example including telemetry
and remote control had 2.8 g mass on a 2×2 cm2 board (Remes et al., 2014), another
had 1.3 g including communication (Runco et al., 2019).
A different method of navigation uses optical flow, that is the apparent motion of
(parts of) a camera image as the camera moves and/or changes its view angles. This
motion can be derived from the time sequence of the pictures, e.g. by identifying
landmarks or by image correlation. In order to provide coordinates in an external
reference system, additional information is needed, e.g. the UAV attitude and its
altitude. In particular for small UAVs, optical flow can be combined with IMUs and an
altimeter (e.g. Santamaria-Navarro et al., 2018).
4.4.2 Control Stations
The control station is a human-machine interface allowing communication with the
UAV as well as its control. The control station may be based aboard ships or aboard
another aircraft (‘mothership’) or based on the ground. Almost all small and very small
UAVs in our database use a ground control system (GCS). GCSs typically consist of
ruggedized laptops or tablets, displaying the UAV’s attitude, altitude, airspeed and
position or video and camera feed from the payloads. Remote controls with joysticks
and switches may be included for manual control.
Using the GCS the UAV’s flight path can either be directly controlled, e.g. by using a
remote control and video feed, or by using a pre-progammed waypoint system that may
also be updated during flight. The UAV may also have on-board programs that allow
it to execute tasks without operator control, such as orbiting at a given speed, radius
and altitude for loitering (e.g. WB Group, 2019) or returning home automatically (IAI,
2020). These in-built functions lower the number of direct inputs necessary for flight
and thus reduce pilot workload.
4.5 Launch and Recovery
Launch methods include hand-launching the vehicle by throwing it forward, launch
from a catapult via e.g. a bungee rope, from a pneumatic tube (figure 4.10), multiple
tube launchers in quick succession (figure 4.11) or a grenade launcher (figure 4.12b).
24
4.5 Launch and Recovery
Figure 4.10: AeroVironment Figure 4.11: Raytheon Coyote launched
Switchblade (AeroVironment, 2021b) from low-cost UAV swarming techno-
((C) AeroVironment, reprinted by logy (LOCUST) launcher (public do-
permission). main, cropped) (Smalley, 2015).
A hand launch can influence the UA configuration to avoid injury of the person throwing
the UAV (Gundlach, 2012, p. 442). Tube launchers can be very compact and prepared
in a short amount of time. However, they can only be used with UAVs that can unfold
their wings and propeller after deployment. The UAVs launched from tubes usually
have a pusher propeller at the back of the aircraft, that has a small shield protecting it
from the launch and which is lost after launch (figure 4.11).
Launches from aircraft are also possible, allowing a transport of the UAVs close to
the mission area, thus increasing their mission range. An example is the Perdix UAV
deployment from a F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet (figure 4.14). The Perdix UAVs use
containers similar in size to flare canisters so that the flare ejection mechanism already
available on the aircraft can be used for a UAV launch instead. An aircraft can also be
used as a mothership with an aircraft recovery function as in the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Gremlins project ( figure 4.15). The ability to
recover UAVs removes the necessity for ground landings or UAV loss after a completed
mission.
Launch from ground vehicles, such as the autonomous Rheinmetall Mission Master
(Monroy, 2019), is also possible. UAVs can also be tethered to a moving ground vehicle
such as the SkySapience HoverMast (figure 4.13).
25
4.5 Launch and Recovery
(a) After launch, the rotor arms extract and (b) Drone-40 inserted into M320 40 mm
the UAV acts as a quadcopter. grenade launcher.
Figure 4.12: DefendTex Drone-40 rotary-wing UAV with integrated warhead, launched
from a hand-held 40 mm grenade launcher (US DoD photos, public domain) (Soldier
Systems, 2019).
Figure 4.13: Sky Sapience HoverMast tethered to power supply unit transported on a
pick-up truck ((C) SkySapience, reprinted by permission) (Sky Sapience, 2020).
The conventional landing with a landing gear with wheels and a (small) airstrip is
rare for small and very small fixed-wing aircraft. They usually come without a landing
gear due to weight and volume limitations, but also because it is not needed. They
are so lightweight that simpler mechanisms can be used, such as a deep-stall or belly
landing.
During a deep-stall landing, the aircraft flies at a low altitude and its nose is pulled
up to induce a stall, so that the aircraft falls onto the ground.
A skid or belly landing is only applicable to UAV rugged enough to survive the
26
4.6 Payloads
landing or cheap enough as to be considered expendable.
In other cases where these simpler methods are not viable, a parachute or an airbag
may be used instead. The airbag acts as an energy absorbing system that reduces the
severity of ground impact. Both the parachute and the airbag have the disadvantage of
adding to the overall weight and taking additional space inside the aircraft.
Another option is a guided flight into a net, by which the UAV is captured and stopped
mid-air. However, the net has to be placed on the ground beforehand, thus limiting the
landing location to a specific area.
Figure 4.14: Swarm deployment from Figure 4.15: DARPA Gremlins pro-
three F/A-18 Super Hornets in October ject (artist’s concept, public domain)
2016 (public domain) (TIME, 2018). (DARPA, 2018).
4.6 Payloads
Austin defines payload as the part of an aircraft specifically carried to achieve a mission
or to fulfil a certain role. The aircraft should be capable of flight with the payload
removed (Austin, 2010, ch. 8, p. 127). The mission requirements determine the optimal
configuration of payload and aircraft to perform a specific role.
Payloads can be divided into two basic categories:
1. sensors, cameras, weapons, etc. which remain attached to the aircraft,
2. dispensable loads such as missiles, bombs, fluids, etc.
In the following, we give a brief overview of the sensor and offensive payloads found
in the UAV database.
4.6.1 Sensor Payloads
Payloads meant for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) purposes are
mainly cameras with variable viewing direction. They contain both electro-optical (EO)
and infrared (IR) sensors.
EO sensors operate in the visible (wavelength 0.4 µm to 0.8 µm) or near-infrared
(NIR) band, ranging from 0.7 µm to 1.0 µm (Gundlach, 2012, p. 519). Usually the
output is colour video if the camera records in the visible band, or greyscale for increased
contrast and for low light (Gundlach, 2012, p. 558). Usually there are zoom capabilities.
27
4.6 Payloads
IR sensors typically operate in three different wavelength bands: short-wave infrared
(SWIR) ranging between 1 µm to 1.7 µm, midwave infrared (MWIR) ranging between
3 µm to 6 µm and long-wave infrared (LWIR) ranging between 6 µm to 14 µm (Gundlach,
2012, p. 520). SWIR sensors have good resolution in low light conditions and do not
require cooling, but are not thermal imagers like MWIR and LWIR sensors. Their
detection relies on energy reflected by the object. MWIR sensors can detect both
reflected and emitted energy, while LWIR sensors primarily detect energy emitted by
the object, making them especially useful to detect heat signatures.
EO and IR sensor systems are usually combined to so-called EO/IR balls. These
may additionally include laser illuminators, designators and rangefinders (Gundlach,
2012, p. 557). A laser illuminator illuminates a target in the band of the night-vision
sensor, which may be seen by the EO/IR ball or external night-vision equipment. Laser
designators are used to point towards targets in the wavelength band of the detector,
similar to laser pointers but not necessarily in a visible band.
EO payloads are usually mounted in two ways:
1. Forward looking from a mounting in the nose, with the sensors mounted on
gimbals with actuators. The range can be upwards and forwards to above the
horizon or upwards and rearwards. Capabilities for a pan in azimuth and image
stabilisation may be present (Austin, 2010, p. 132).
2. A rotatable turret mounted beneath the aircraft to cover a 360° azimuth field of
view, with sensors, elevation and roll gimbals and their actuators (Austin, 2010, p.
132) (e.g. as seen in figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Positioning the EO/IR ball below or in front of the aircraft provides an unobstructed
view. Internal payloads, in contrast to external ones such as turrets, reduce aerodynamic
drag and thus increase the aircraft’s endurance, range and speed. A gimbal allows an
independent movement of the payload, the simplest are able to pan and tilt while more
advanced gimbals may include inertial stabilisation to mitigate effects of manoeuvring,
vibration and air turbulence (Friese et al., 2016).
Further non-standard non-weapon payloads used by small and very small UAs as
listed in our database are:
• gas (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 59-60) and fire detector (IAI, 2020),
• radiological detector (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 124-125), spectrometer
(Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 59-60), dosimeter (Spaitech, 2019),
• communications intelligence (COMINT) equipment (IAI, 2020),
• radar (Sky Sapience, 2019); (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 216–217),
• light detection and ranging (LiDAR) (AeroVironment, 2019),
• (radio) relay (Sky Sapience, 2019); (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 278-280),
• hyperspectral sensor (AeroVironment, 2019).
4.6.2 Offensive Payloads
Offensive payloads for small UAs include lethal and non-lethal weapons. The UA may
function as a either a weapons platform or as a guided weapon itself. A list of lethal
28
4.6 Payloads
weapons and UAV types they are carried by is given in table 4.1 (see also section 8.3).
Most prominent are warheads integrated into the aircraft’s fuselage. The UAV then
acts similar to a missile or guided munition and is destroyed by the warhead’s detonation.
These are usually designed to work against specific targets, such as fragmentation or
anti-personnel warheads, e.g. the Polish Warmate (WB Group, 2019), anti-tank (Israeli
Green Dragon (IAI, 2019b)) or a high-explosive charge (Australian Drone-40 (N.,
2019)).
Lethal weapons not destroying the aircraft during the attack are a rocket-propelled
grenade launcher, a 40 mm grenade launcher or free-falling bombs ejected from the
UAV.
Small UAVs armed with missiles or precision-guided munitions do not appear to have
been developed yet. The manufacturers of the Comandor and Cerberus mention the
possibility of using missiles (table 4.1, but have not shown or mentioned any existing
missile to be used.
Non-lethal weapons used are an (anti-UAV) net launcher (Delft Dynamics BV, 2016),
a kinetic anti-UAV tip (Soldier Systems, 2019), as well as smoke grenades (Soldier
Systems, 2019) and tear gas released from a canister mounted under the UAV (ISPRA,
2019).
Table 4.1: Offensive payloads and UAV types using them. Some types can use a variety
of weapons and are thus listed multiple times. The most prominent armament is an
integrated warhead, with a total of 20 UAV types. For references, see the UAV database
in appendix A.
Armament Types
Integrated warhead Alpagu, Alpagu Block II, CH-901, Coyote, Demon,
Drone-40, Futura, Green Dragon, HERO-20,
HERO-30, HERO-70, KYB-UAV, Kargu, ROTEM,
Spike Firefly, Switchblade, Warmate, Warmate TL,
Warmate V, ZALA LANCET-1
Shotgun Cerberus
40 mm grenade launcher Cerberus
Rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) Demon
Bombs Comandor
Missile Comandor, Cerberus
29
5 Research and Development Programmes in the
USA
As our database indicates, several countries are active in developing small and very
small UAVs; research probably is being done by a smaller number. Future possibilities
and possible trends in military technology can be assessed by considering present
activities in R&D. Because the USA spends by far the most for military R&D − its
expenses cover nearly two thirds of the world total (while its overall military expenditure
is about 40 % of the world total) − the USA is the technological leader and sets
precedents for other countries, a consequence of its permanent goal of maintaining
military-technological superiority (Altmann, 2017; Altmann, 2020). Here we present a
cursory overview about US military R&D for small and very small UAVs; this is made
easier because the USA is much more transparent about its activities than any other
country.
5.1 The DARPA Nano Air Vehicle (NAV)
In 2005 DARPA announced the Nano Air Vehicle (NAV) programme with the objective
to develop and demonstrate very small, i.e. < 7.5cm in any dimension, lightweight
(gross take-off mass: < 10grams, payload: 2 g) air vehicle systems with the potential to
perform challenging indoor and outdoor military missions (Hylton et al., 2012; Keennon
et al., 2012). The most prominent result is the AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird
tailless flapping-wing UAV biologically inspired by a hummingbird (figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird prototype with right body panel re-
moved. Total mass: 19.0 g, Flap rate: 30 Hz, wingspan: 16.5 cm, speed: from hover to
6.7 m/s, endurance: 4.0 min (Keennon et al., 2012, p. 4, fig. 11, table 2). Image source:
(AeroVironment, 2021a) ((C) AeroVironment, reprinted by permission).
30
5.2 Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile System (LMAMS)
The main technical challenges include low-Reynolds-number aerodynamic perform-
ance, navigation in complex, confined environments, radio communication through
buildings and extreme constraints on size, weight and power (Hylton et al., 2012, p. 2).
5.2 Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile System (LMAMS)
The Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile System (LMAMS) is an active programme run
by the US Army. It seeks to provide a small tactical unit with the capability to engage
threat targets beyond current line-of-sight weapons or indirect fire. Required properties
include (US Programs Executive Office Missiles and Space, 2020):
• launcher: single man-portable / operable,
• munition: small visual and thermal signature,
• modular warhead: < 0.315kg,
• weight of munition and warhead: 2.475kg,
• endurance: ≥ 15 min,
• range: ≥ 10 km,
• loitering and wave-off capability,
• automatic tracking of targets,
• assembly in two minutes.
The system currently in use by the US Army is the AeroVironment Switchblade
(AeroVironment, 2020) (figure 4.10).
5.3 Gremlins
Launched in 2016, the DARPA Gremlins programme seeks to develop technologies
enabling aircraft to launch volleys of low-cost, reusable UAS which can be launched
and recovered by manned aircraft. Dynetics first demonstrated a launch of its X-61A
Gremlins Air Vehicle (GAV) (wingspan: 3.48 m, mass: 680 kg (Dynetics, 2020c))
in November 2019 (Dynetics, 2020b). In 2020, a second flight test was conducted
to demonstrate formation flight with the Lockheed C-130 Hercules functioning as
mothership (figure 5.2). However, an airborne recovery has not been achieved yet
(Dynetics, 2020a), even in a third flight test in the same year (DARPA, 2020a). Although
the size of the UA is larger than the 2 m size of our definition of a ‘small’ UA, the
principle can be used with small UAs as well.
31
5.4 Perdix
Figure 5.2: Third flight of the Dynetics X-61A Gremlins Air Vehicle launched from a
customized Lockheed C-130 Hercules (public domain) (DARPA, 2020a).
5.4 Perdix
Perdix is a small (wingspan: 30 cm, mass: 290 g) UA intended for ISR missions, capable
of swarm flight (US SCO, 2019). It was first developed in 2012 at MIT (Tao, 2012)
and then was upgraded by the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), US Department of
Defense. Perdix was first air-launched from F-16 Fighting Falcon flare canisters in
2014. In 2016, three F/A-18 Super Hornets launched 103 Perdix UAs which then flew
in swarm formation (figures 4.14 and 5.3) (US SCO, 2019). The SCO claims that the
Perdix are not preprogrammed, synchronized individuals but instead share a distributed
brain for decision making. Each UA communicates with each other. Perdix is produced
via additive manufacturing.
Figure 5.3: SCO Perdix with swarm-flight capability (public domain) (Dyndal et al.,
2017).
32
5.5 Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST)
5.5 Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST)
The LOCUST of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is launched from a tube canister
that sends UAs into the air in rapid succession (figure 4.11) (Smalley, 2015). It was
first demonstrated in 2015. In 2016 30 ship-based autonomous swarming UAVs were
launched. The UA currently in use is the Raytheon Coyote armed with an integrated
warhead (figure 4.3).
5.6 Anubis
In 2008 the US Air Force started the research project ‘Anubis’ to develop a small
loitering munition designed to strike high-value individuals. The research phase of the
project was completed, but no information on the actual system or status of the project
is available (Hambling, 2010; Gettinger & Michel, 2017).
5.7 Cluster UAS Smart Munition for Missile Deployment
In 2016, the US Army announced a programme that seeks to develop a cluster pay-
load that is launched and deployed from a MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System
(ATACMS) surface-to-surface missile or the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System
(GMLRS). The payload should consist of multiple deployable smart quadcopters deliv-
ering small explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) to designated targets (SBIR, 2016;
Gettinger & Michel, 2017). The missile releases the quadcopter payload during flight.
The quadcopters shall be able to identify potential targets, land on them and detonate
their EFP charges. Targets include tanks and large-calibre-gun barrels, fuel storage
barrels, vehicle roofs and ammunition storage sites.
5.8 Short Range Reconnaissance (SRR)
In 2019, the US Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Aviation announced the Short
Range Reconnaissance (SRR) programme (PEO Aviation, 2019). It seeks to develop a
small, inexpensive, rucksack-portable VTOL UAV with a focus on open-source tools
for reconnaissance missions. The PEO awarded six commercial companies with $11
million to prototype new UAV capabilities (Defence Procurement International, 2020).
5.9 Offensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET)
The DARPA Offensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) programme seeks to provide
small-unit infantry forces with upwards of 250 small UAVs and/or small uninhabited
ground systems. Goals include an advanced human-swarm interface that allows direct
control of the swarm in real time and a real-time networked virtual environment to
33
5.10 Air Launch Effects (ALE)
support a swarm-tactics game which allows players to determine the best tactical swarm
approach (Chung, 2020; DARPA, 2020b).
5.10 Air Launch Effects (ALE)
The US Army’s Air Launch Effects (ALE) programme seeks to provide an autonomous
or semi-autonomous UAS working together with other UAVs as well as manned aircraft
(PEO Aviation, 2020). Its goal is to increase the aircraft’s operational reach by using
expendable, low-cost systems that are e.g. launched directly from the aircraft. In
September 2020, the US Army demonstrated the launch of an Area-I ALTIUS-600 UAV
(wingspan: 2.54 m, mass: 12.3 kg (Area-I, 2020)) from a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
(Roque, 2020) (figure 5.4). In total, six UAVs were launched simultaneously from Black
Hawks, ground-rail launchers and a truck. Again, although the ALTIUS-600 is larger
than 2 m the principle can be used with small UAs as well.
Figure 5.4: UH-60 Black Hawk launching a Area-I ALTIUS-600 UAV during flight
(public domain) (PEO Aviation, 2020).
5.11 Air Force and Army MAV Programmes
From 2007 to 2012 the Air Force Office of Scientific Research had a programme for a
‘Micro-Robotic Fly’. Carried out at Harvard University, a flapping-wing UAV of 3 cm
wingspan was built, with power supplied via wires (Callier, 2010; AFOSR, 2013, p.
73). The Harvard work was then continued under the name ‘RoboBee’ with funding
from the National Science Foundation (Ma et al., 2013) (see also section 4.1.5). Much
34
5.11 Air Force and Army MAV Programmes
of the Air-Force research had transitioned to the US Army, which had a big programme
‘Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology’ from 2008 to 2017. Here many aspects
of small autonomous systems were studied by 19 partners from industry and academia,
including wings, navigation, sensors and communications (McNally, 2017; MAST,
2016).
35
6 UAV Swarms
A UAV swarm is a group of uninhabited aircraft acting together in flight to achieve a
common goal, in a military context often attack(s). Through their potentially large num-
bers, they are intended to overwhelm their targets, while the communication between
the individual elements allows highly coordinated, multidirectional and simultaneous
attacks. A swarm can be directly controlled by a human as a whole, while its full
effectiveness is reached if the swarm is completely autonomous (e.g. Scharre, 2018).
Together with a decentralized command structure, a swarm cannot be defeated by
destroying e.g. a leader or group of leader units. Furthermore, initiative can be taken
by single units, i.e. they can take the ‘lead’ of the swarm once an opportunity arises
and give it away once another member signals a more effective way to attack. Thus, the
flat-hierarchy command structure inside the swarm makes each member expendable
for the swarm to achieve its goal. Developing algorithms for swarm behaviour and
control poses very high requirements, in particular if ‘intelligent’ reaction to changes is
intended.
The limited endurance and range of these small systems are typically overcome by
transporting the swarm to the mission area in a larger vehicle. This vehicle can either be
an aircraft or a maritime ship, a so-called ‘mothership’, or a ground vehicle as shown in
section 4.5.
A coordinated swarm flight of 20 Perdix UAs, already mentioned in section 5.4, was
demonstrated in 2015, followed by a swarm of 103 in 2016. Although no information
on the payloads used during both exercises is available, the aircraft were most likely
unarmed, since Perdix has not been advertised or described as an armed system so far.
In the same year, Raytheon announced a coordinated flight of 24 of their Coyote UAs,
which are able to perform strikes using an integrated warhead (figures 4.3 and 4.11).
In 2017, DARPA held a small-UAV swarms competition, in which teams of the US
Military, Naval and Air Force Academies competed in a game of Capture the Flag
swarm-vs-swarm matches using self-developed swarm tactics (DARPA, 2017). The
swarms consisted of a mixture of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs, with a total of up to 25
UAVs each.
Significant advances in UAV swarming outside the United States have been made in
China. In 2016, the Chinese company CETC demonstrated a swarm flight of 67 small
fixed-wing UAVs, followed by another demonstration in 2017 with 119 UAVs (Kania,
2017, p. 23).
A tube-launch system similar to LOCUST mentioned in section 5.5 has been demon-
strated by CETC in September 2020 (Hambling, 2020a). Their launcher is mounted on
a ground vehicle and consists of 48 tubes. Information on the UAVs is not given, but
pictures show that they have tandem wings and unfold after launch in the same way as
the Raytheon Coyote (figure 4.11).
36
7 UAV Countermeasures
The increasing number of small and inexpensive UAS worldwide has given states as
well as non-state actors the capability to perform airborne attacks, which was previously
restricted to states with a sophisticated aircraft programme (Michel, 2019). Thus the
demand for countermeasures that can detect, disable or destroy uninhabited aircraft has
risen as well. Current air-defence systems are designed with inhabited aircraft in mind,
with higher speeds and bigger sizes, making them ineffective in detecting, tracking and
shooting down small UAVs (Michel, 2019) as well as cost-inefficient (Schlegel, 2018).
Between 2015 and 2019, the number of counter uninhabited aircraft systems (C-
UASs) available increased from a dozen to 537 systems (Michel, 2019). A list of
detection, tracking and identification methods is given in table 7.1, a list of interdiction
methods in table 7.2 and a list of platform types in table 7.3.
Table 7.1: Detection, tracking and identification methods (Michel, 2019, p. 3).
Radar Detects the presence of small uninhabited aircraft by their
radar echo. These systems often employ algorithms to dis-
tinguish between drones and other small, low-flying objects,
such as birds.
Radio frequency (RF) Detects, locates, and in some cases identifies nearby drones
by scanning for the frequencies on which most drones are
known to operate.
EO Identifies and tracks drones based on their visual signature.
IR Identifies and tracks drones based on their heat signature.
Acoustic Detects drones by recognizing the unique sounds produced
by their motors.
Combined sensors Integration of different sensor types in order to provide a
more robust detection, tracking, and identification capability.
37
7 UAV Countermeasures
Table 7.2: Interdiction methods (Michel, 2019, p. 4).
Radio-frequency jamming Disrupts the radio-frequency link between the drone and its
operator by RF interference. With a broken RF link a drone
will usually descend to the ground or return to a specified
location.
GNSS jamming Disrupts the link to navigation satellites, such as GPS or
GLONASS. With a lost link, the drone will usually hover in
place, land, or return to home.
Spoofing Allows one to take control of or misdirect the targeted drone
by feeding it spurious communications or navigation signals.
Dazzling Employs a high-intensity light beam or laser to temporarily
‘blind’ the camera on a drone.
Laser Destroys vital segments of the drone airframe using directed
energy.
High power microwave Directs pulses of high intensity microwave energy at the
drone, disabling the aircraft’s electronic systems.
Nets Designed to entangle the targeted drone and/or its rotors.
Projectile Regular or custom-designed ammunition.
Collision drone Destroy by collision.
Combined interdiction Combination for higher interdiction likelihood. E.g. RF
elements and GNSS jamming, or an electronic system with a kinetic
backup.
Table 7.3: C-UAS platform types after (Michel, 2019, p. 4).
Ground-based: fixed Systems to be used from stationary positions or mobile on
the ground.
Ground-based: mobile Systems mounted on vehicles.
Hand-held Systems to be operated by a single individual by hand. Many
of these systems resemble rifles or other small arms.
UAV-based Systems mounted on drones.
38
8 Small and Very Small UAV Database
8.1 Database Properties
The small and very small aircraft (and missile) databases are publicly available via
https://url.tu-dortmund.de/pacsam-db as HTML tables. The tables are fully
searchable and columns can be sorted. The data can be downloaded in .csv or .JSON file
format by clicking on the CSV or JSON button. Empty cells indicate that no information
was found. A screenshot of the web page is shown in figure 8.1. The complete database
is shown in appendix A. Additionally, all data files, including the interactive HTML
file, are available under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4537704 (Pilch et al.,
2021). The printed version here was updated on 5th February 2021.
All UAV types listed have a size below or equal to 2 m.1 The UAV database contains
26 categories, listed in table 8.1. In addition to basic properties such as size, mass
and payload, we also included the category In Service, with the names of countries
whose militaries adopted the system into their service, which allows statements on the
proliferation of these systems.
As mentioned in the introduction only public sources were investigated, consisting
mainly of fact sheets published by manufacturers or catalogues such as (Streetly &
Bernadi, 2018). The focus of our investigation was mainly on systems designed to
be used in a military context. An exception are very small UAVs still in the research
or development phase. In general, these are not in military service or intended for
military use, although some systems had been funded originally by military institutions
(sections 5.1 and 5.11). We include them because they are are important indicators
for trends and future capabilities of very small UAVs. The amount of effort put into
collecting systems still in research was thus limited, and only a representative number
of systems was included in our database.
In the next section, we give a general overview of the data, with a special look
on armed UAs in section 8.3. In section 8.4 we present parameter distributions and
correlations of technical parameters.
1 There exist UAVs with wingspans slightly above that, like the Aeronautics Orbiter 1K with a wingspan
of 2.2 m (Aeronautics Defense Systems, 2019) and the Tekever AR4 with a wingspan of 2.1 m (Tekever,
2019). The Orbiter 1K was used by Azerbaijan in the war against Armenia in autumn 2020 (Frantzman,
2020). In early 2021, version 2 of the Orbiter 1K is listed with 2.9 m wingspan (Aeronautics Defense
Systems, 2021).
39
8.1 Database Properties
Table 8.1: The 26 categories used in the small and very small aircraft database.
Category Description
Name Name of the UAV
Manufacturer Name of the UAV’s manufacturer
Origin Manufacturer’s origin country
Intro Year aircraft is first mentioned in media
Status Includes commercial availability, development, military deployment
or already ordered by a nation for service, legacy (no longer produced
by manufacturer), advertised by manufacturer, research stage and
unclear if status information is missing or outdated
In service Nations with military usage
Configuration Aircraft configuration
Armament Type of weaponry with mass (if available)
Maximum Maximum take-off weight (mass) in kilograms
take-off weight
(MTOW)
Wingspan or Given in metres. In case of a fixed-wing or flying-wing UAV, the
rotor diameter wingspan is given. For rotary-wing aircraft, the diameter of the main
rotor is given instead. For multicopters, the overall diameter is used.
Aircraft with ducted fans are actually larger, because of the shroud or
duct that contains the propeller
Length Aircraft length in metres
Endurance Maximum flight time in minutes
Range Flight range in kilometres
Speed Aircraft speed as given by the manufacturer. Can be a range of values
or cruise, dive and maximum speed, in km/h
Cruise speed Speed of normal cruise once the aircraft has reached its cruise altitude
in km/h
Maximum speed Includes the maximum speed achieved through diving in km/h
Altitude AGL Maximum altitude above ground level in metres
Altitude above Maximum altitude above mean sea level in metres
mean sea level
(AMSL)
Power Form of power supply
Propulsion Method of thrust generation
Guidance Navigation systems
Targeting Targeting capabilities, e.g. object tracking, detection, classification
Payload Payload type with mass in kilograms
Launch Launch methods
Recovery Recovery methods
References Data sources
40
8.1 Database Properties
41
Figure 8.1: Screenshot of the small and very small aircraft database available at https://url.tu-dortmund.de/pacsam-db-sa.
8.2 General Overview
8.2 General Overview
A general overview is given in figure 8.2. Here, we see that the majority of UAVs is
either of fixed- or rotary-wing configuration. Out of all 129 UAVs types produced in 27
different countries, only 25 are armed and produced in ten countries.
UAVs total 129
Manufacturers 75
Countries of origin 27
Fixed-wing UAVs 60
Rotary-wing UAVs 46
Armed UAVs 25
Armed-UAV manufacturers 16
Armed-UAV countries of origin 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Count
Figure 8.2: General database properties.
All of the diagrams shown in this and the following sections present data on all UAVs
listed in our database. This does not necessarily mean that these systems are currently
in use, especially for systems that were developed in the early 2000s. Figure 8.3 shows
the UAV status distribution.
42
8.2 General Overview
On offer 54
Deployed 28
Unclear 20
Commercially available 5
Research 11
Research finished 5
Development 3
Ordered 2
Legacy 1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Count
Figure 8.3: Status of small and very small UAV types.
Figure 8.4 shows the number of small and very small UAV types introduced per year,
beginning in 2000. Between the years 2000 and 2011, the average number of UAVs
introduced is 2.5, between 2011 and 2019 this number nearly quadrupled to 9.9 per
year. The highest number of newly introduced systems was reached in 2014 with 17. In
the following years, the numbers per year decreased to single digits. In general, we see
a great increase of small and very small systems in the last decade.
In figure 8.5 we present the number of UAVs types for each country of origin. Out of
the 129 systems collected, the USA produced the highest number of types with a total
of 30, followed by Israel with 15. In all other countries the UAV-type count is in the
single digits. As expected, the USA is leading in numbers, however, only two out of 30
are armed (AeroVironment Switchblade and Raytheon Coyote).
Figure 8.6 shows the number of UAV types in the different configurations, with the
fixed-wing category leading with 60 UAVs followed by rotary-wing aircraft with 46.
Tethered types are counted in their own categories, since their movement radius is
restricted and thus can only fulfil a specific role such as area protection or surveillance.
In table 8.2 we list the countries exporting and importing small and very small UAVs.
The USA is leading by far in the number of countries it exports to, followed by Norway.
For a much more detailed analysis of import and export of UAVs in general we refer to
(World of Drones, 2020).
43
Status
8.2 General Overview
2000 3
2001 1
2002 2
2003 3
2004 1
2005 1
2006 4
2007 3
2008 1
2010 4
2011 4
2012 8
2013 10
2014 17
2015 8
2016 6
2017 9
2018 7
2019 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Count
Figure 8.4: Number of small and very small UAV types introduced per year. Here, the
total number is 101 out of 129, since in some cases it was not possible to determine a
year of introduction.
Table 8.2: List of countries exporting small and very small UAVs based on our database.
The total number of recipient countries is 39.
Origin Exports to
Germany South Africa, USA
Israel Peru
Italy Brazil
Norway Australia, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland,
Spain, Turkey, USA, United Kingdom
Poland Peru, Ukraine
Taiwan China
Turkey Qatar
USA Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Colombia, Czechia,
Estonia, Hungary, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain,
Sweden, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan
44
Intro
8.2 General Overview
USA 30
Israel 15
Ukraine 8
Italy 7
Poland 6
Netherlands 5
Pakistan 5
Turkey 5
China 5
Estonia 5
France 4
Russia 4
Portugal 4
India 3
South Korea 3
Taiwan 3
Germany 3
Australia 2
Denmark 2
Norway 2
Malaysia 2
United Kingdom 1
Sweden 1
Indonesia 1
Belarus 1
Slovenia 1
Spain 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Count
Figure 8.5: Number of small and very small UAV types per country of origin. The total
number of countries is 27.
Fixed wing 60
Flying wing 5
Tiltrotor 2
Rotary wing 46
Tethered rotary wing 3
Rotary wing, optionally tethered 1
Flapping wing, with tail 6
Flapping wing, tailless 5
Tethered flapping wing, tailless 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Count
Figure 8.6: Number of small and very small UAV configurations. Here, flying-wing
UAVs are counted separately.
45
Configuration Origin
8.3 Armed UAVs
8.3 Armed UAVs
A shortened overview of technical properties of armed UAVs is presented in table 8.5.
The full data are given in the database in appendix A. Except for the Cerberus, which is
a tiltrotor aircraft, all armed UAVs are of either rotary-wing or fixed-wing configuration.
For armed UAVs, we see from figure 8.7 that the first armed small system was introduced
in 2000, but a general trend towards small armed systems started in 2015.
Armed small and very small UAVs
2000 1
2007 1
2010 1
2015 4
2016 4
2017 5
2018 3
2019 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Count
Figure 8.7: Number of small and very small armed UAV types introduced per year.
Here, we list all 24 armed UAV types.
Figure 8.8 shows the count of armed UAV types per country. Here, we see that Israel
is leading with seven systems. At the second and third place with three systems each are
Turkey (STM’s Alpagu series and Kargu) and Poland (WB Group’s Warmate series), all
loitering-munition systems.
46
Intro
8.3 Armed UAVs
Armed small and very small UAVs
Israel 7
Turkey 3
Poland 3
Ukraine 2
Russia 2
USA 2
Australia 2
France 1
China 1
Netherlands 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Count
Figure 8.8: Number of armed small and very small UAV types per country of origin.
The total number is 24 from 16 different manufacturers and ten countries.
As already discussed in section 4.6.2, most armed UAVs use integrated warheads.
The relationship between warhead mass and MTOW is shown in figure 8.9. Table 8.3
lists the data points used in figure 8.9 as well as the percentage of the warhead mass
relative to the MTOW. On average, warhead mass equals 19 % of the MTOW.
Table 8.3: List of UAV types with integrated warheads for which the warhead mass and
MTOW were stated by the manufacturer (10 out of 20 armed with a warhead).
Name Type Wingspan or rotor diameter / m Warhead mass / kg MTOW / kg Warhead mass/MTOW
Hero-20 Fixed wing 0.2 1.8 0.11
Spike Firefly Rotary wing <0.35 3 0.12
Hero-30 Fixed wing 0.5 3 0.17
Coyote Fixed wing 1.47 <0.9 6.4 0.14
Hero-70 Fixed wing 1.2 7 0.17
ROTEM Rotary wing 1.2 5.8 0.21
Warmate Fixed wing 1.4 <1.4 5.3 0.26
Warmate TL Fixed wing 1.7 1.4 4.5 0.31
Warmate V Rotary wing 1.6 7.0 0.23
Green Dragon Fixed wing 1.7 2.5 15 0.17
47
Origin
8.3 Armed UAVs
Fixed wing: 7 out of 14 armed, rotary wing: 3 out of 9 armed
2.5 Fixed wing
Rotary wing
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MTOW / kg
Figure 8.9: Warhead mass versus MTOW of armed fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs. Other
types of UAVs do not carry any warheads. In case only an upper limit of the warhead
mass is given by the manufacturer, we choose this value.
Of the very small UAs (i.e. < 0.2m wingspan or rotor diameter) in our database none
have been armed. The heaviest among them is the flying-wing Black Widow with 0.15 m
wingspan, it has 0.80 kg mass. Assuming that a similar armed system could carry a
warhead of 11 to 31 % of the total UA mass as in table 8.3, the warhead mass could be
between 0.08 and 0.25 kg. This is in the range of anti-personnel mines (ICRC, 1996, p.
10), and the latter value is similar to the one of the most lightweight small armed UAs of
table 8.3. Thus, very small UAs near 0.2 m size could be used for attacking personnel
and light vehicles. Much smaller UAs could still kill humans; in order to check whether
the attacks in the fictitious video ‘Slaugherbots’ (Russell, 2017) would be feasible, the
Swiss Federal Office for Defence Procurement built a shape charge of 3 g of explosive
and conical copper foil that penetrated a skull simulant (Drapela, 2018). An unspecified
attack against a human sniper by an MAV of centimetres size had already been shown
in 2009 in a video animation by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (US AFRL,
2009). Of course, chemical or biological agents could kill with a mass much below 1 g.
A description of the methods for targeting is only given in few cases, but in general
targets can be tracked in real-time. ‘Autonomous tracking’ or ‘autonomous targeting’
is mentioned for Alpagu Block II and Kargu. The actual degree of autonomy in target
selection and engagement in these and the other armed UAVs is unclear. A list of armed
UAVs in the database that potentially target autonomously is given in table 8.4.
48
Warhead mass / kg
8.3 Armed UAVs
Table 8.4: List of armed UAVs in the database that potentially target autonomously.
Type Targeting
Alpagu Embedded and real-time object tracking, detection and classification
Alpagu Block II Autonomous, real-time object tracking, detection and classification
Kargu Autonomous targeting
Patriot R2 Real-time air vehicle location tracking
Sparrow Automatic tracking of moving targets, target aiming and artillery fire correction
Warmate R Automatic target lock
Warmate TL Automated videotracker even under communication loss
ZALA 421-08M Active target tracking unit
49
8.3 Armed UAVs
50
Table 8.5: Excerpt of the UAV database listing only armed types and 12 out of 26 categories, with a focus on technical properties. For
a complete list and references see the UAV database in appendix A.
Name Type Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or rotor Endurance / min Range / km Speed / km/h Cruise Max. Targeting
diameter / m speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Alpagu Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 1.9 10 5 93 120 Embedded and real-time object
tracking, detection and classification
Alpagu Block II Fixed wing <1.3 kg or <1.5 kg or <5.0 10-20 5-10 Autonomous, real-time object
kg warhead tracking, detection and classification
CH-901 Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 9 120 15 64-113
Cerberus Tiltrotor 40 mm grenade launcher or 6.0 22 (3 x 40mm 5 60-80
12-gauge shotgun or micro Grenades), 28-32 (no
munitions or net launcher payload)
Comandor Rotary wing Anti-tank missile or free-fall 110 1.5 210 200 60
bombs
Coyote Fixed wing <0.9 kg warhead 6.4 1.47 90 37 111 157
Cyclone Rotary wing Tear gas 1.5
Demon Rotary wing RPG-22/26 or RPG-7 or 5 10-20
kg bomb or 7 kg
high-explosive
fragmentation warhead
Drone-40 Rotary wing Kinetic anti-UAV or 10 72
high-explosive warhead or
anti-armour warhead or
smoke grenade
DroneCatcher Rotary wing Net launcher <6 30 72
Futura Fixed wing Fragmentation warhead 70.0 2 70 400 130 (loitering) 341 359
(mass unknown)
Green Dragon Fixed wing 2.5 kg warhead: 15 1.7 75 40 120-157 (loitering) 370
anti-personnel or anti-tank
or both combined
HERO-20 Fixed wing 0.2 kg anti-personnel 1.8 20 10
warhead
HERO-30 Fixed wing 0.5 kg anti-personnel 3 30 5-10-40
warhead
HERO-70 Fixed wing 1.2 kg anti-light-vehicle 7 45 40 185
warhead
KYB-UAV Fixed wing <3 kg warhead 1.21 30 80-130
Kargu Rotary wing Multiple warhead Autonomous targeting
configurations (mass
unknown)
ROTEM Rotary wing 1.2 kg warhead, <1 m strike 5.8 30 10 102-157 370 Strike precision <1 m
precision
Spike Firefly Rotary wing <0.35 kg omnidirectional 3 15 5-10 70 (diving) 60 70 Proximity sensors, tracker designed
fragmentation warhead for agile targets
Switchblade Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 2.5 0.61 >15 10-45 101 161 Target selection by operator
Warmate Fixed wing <1.4 kg fragmentation or 5.3 1.4 50 10
shaped fragmentation
warhead
Warmate TL Fixed wing 1.4 kg warhead 4.5 1.7 40 10 75 120 Automated videotracker even under
communication loss
Warmate V Rotary wing 1.6 kg warhead 7 30 12 27
ZALA LANCET-1 Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 5 30 40 80-110
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
In this section we present distributions of important parameters singly as well as one
versus another, first for fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs, then for flapping-wing ones.
Since flying-wing UAVs are technically also fixed-wing UAVs, we include them in
the fixed-wing category in the diagrams. Altitude is not presented here since the data
acquired are poor: in many cases, only the maximum flight altitude is given but not the
typical one for cruising. In other cases, altitude ranges were given or it was not clear
whether altitude was given as measured from ground or mean sea level.
In general, note that because of missing data, the number of data points in the
diagrams is lower than the total of UAV types. The actual number is given in the title of
each diagram.
A detailed analysis is beyond this report, but the general tendency fits to what
one would expect: bigger UAVs are heavier, can carry higher payloads, have longer
endurances and ranges. Rotary-wing UAVs tend to have lower speeds and smaller ranges.
Flapping wings are exclusively used with very small aircraft with correspondingly lower
take-off masses and shorter endurances.
Of all UAVs listed in the database, two exhibit properties far beyond all other UAVs.
These are the Alcore Futura and the Matrix UAV Comandor. The Futura is the only
small UAV with a turbojet engine, allowing a cruise speed of 341 km/h and a range
of 400 km at an MTOW of 70 kg (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, p. 73). The rotary-wing
Comandor UAV uses either 12 electric or 2 piston engines, with an MTOW of 110 kg, an
endurance of 210 min and a range of 200 km (Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 216–217).
However the status of both the Futura and the Comandor is unclear. For the other UAV
types, a typical value for the MTOW is < 15kg as can be seen from figure 8.12.
51
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
8.4.1 Fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs
Fixed wing: 42 out of 65 Rotary wing: 33 out of 46
22 22
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125
Range / km Range / km
(a) Fixed-wing UAVs. (b) Rotary-wing UAVs.
Figure 8.10: Range distribution of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs. The bin width is 5 km,
and curves represent a Gaussian kernel density estimation. Not included: Futura (range:
400 km), Comandor (range: 200 km).
Fixed wing: 48 out of 65 Rotary wing: 35 out of 46
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Endurance / min Endurance / min
(a) Fixed-wing UAVs. (b) Rotary-wing UAVs.
Figure 8.11: Endurance distribution of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs. The bin width is
10 min, and curves represent a Gaussian kernel density estimation.
52
Count Count
Count Count
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
Fixed wing: 59 out of 65 Rotary wing: 39 out of 46
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
MTOW / kg MTOW / kg
(a) Fixed-wing UAVs. (b) Rotary-wing UAVs.
Figure 8.12: MTOW distribution of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs. The bin width is
0.5 kg, and curves represent a Gaussian kernel density estimation. Not included: Futura
(MTOW: 70 kg), Comandor (MTOW: 110 kg).
Fixed wing: 36 out of 65, rotary wing: 7 out of 46
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Range / km
Figure 8.13: Wingspan or rotor diameter versus range of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs.
Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points. Not included: Futura (range:
400 km, wingspan: 2 m), Comandor (range: 200 km, rotor diameter: 1.5 m).
53
Count
Wingspan or rotor diameter / m
Count
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
Fixed-wing: 50 out of 65, rotary wing: 8 out of 46
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
MTOW / kg
Figure 8.14: Wingspan or rotor diameter versus MTOW of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs.
Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points. Not included: Futura (MTOW:
70 kg, wingspan: 2 m), Comandor (MTOW: 110 kg, rotor diameter: 1.5 m).
Fixed wing: 44 out of 65, rotary wing: 8 out of 46
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Length / m
Figure 8.15: Wingspan or rotor diameter versus length of fixed- and rotary-wing UAVs.
Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points.
54
Wingspan or rotor diameter / m Wingspan or rotor diameter / m
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
Fixed wing: 36 out of 65, rotary wing: 7 out of 46
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
0.0
0 50 100 150 200
Endurance / min
Figure 8.16: Wingspan or rotor diameter versus endurance of fixed- and rotary-wing
UAVs. Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points.
Fixed wing: 35 out of 65, rotary wing: 26 out of 46
250
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Range / km
Figure 8.17: Endurance versus range of fixed-wing (blue) and rotary-wing (orange)
UAVs. Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points. Not included: Futura
(range: 400 km, endurance: 70 min), Comandor (range: 200 km, endurance: 210 min).
55
Endurance / min Wingspan or rotor diameter / m
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
Fixed wing: 31 out of 65, rotary wing: 14 out of 46
Fixed wing
12 Rotary wing
10
8
6
4
2
20 40 60 80 100
Cruise speed / km/h
Figure 8.18: MTOW versus cruise speed of fixed-wing (blue) and rotary-wing (orange)
UAVs. Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points. Not included: Futura
(cruise speed: 341 km/h).
Fixed wing: 30 out of 65, rotary wing: 1 out of 46
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75 Fixed wing
Rotary wing
0.50
20 40 60 80 100
Cruise speed / km/h
Figure 8.19: Wingspan versus cruise speed of fixed-wing (blue) and rotary-wing (or-
ange) UAVs. Deeper shades of colour indicate multiple data points. Not included:
Futura (cruise speed: 341 km/h).
56
Wingspan or rotor diameter / m MTOW / kg
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
8.4.2 Flapping-wing UAVs
Flapping wing: 11 out of 12 Flapping wing: 6 out of 12
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
MTOW / kg Endurance / min
(a) MTOW distribution of flapping-wing (b) Endurance distribution of flapping-wing
UAVs. The bin width is 3 g. UAVs. The bin width is 1 min.
Figure 8.20: MTOW and endurance distributions of flapping-wing UAVs. Here we
count all flapping-wing configurations, including tethered ones. Curves represent a
Gaussian kernel density estimation.
Flapping wing: 6 out of 12
10 Tailless
With tail
8
6
4
2
0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
MTOW / kg
Figure 8.21: Endurance versus MTOW of flapping-wing UAVs. No data pair was
available for tethered UAVs.
57
Count
Endurance / min
Count
8.4 Parameter Distributions and Correlations
Flapping wing: 10 out of 12
Tailless
0.30 With tail
Tethered
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
MTOW / kg
Figure 8.22: Wingspan versus MTOW of flapping-wing UAVs.
58
Wingspan / m
9 Conclusion
While hobbyists have built and used model aircraft since many decades, small and
very small uninhabited aircraft started to play a role in military research and development
about 20 years ago. Since then the number of types has increased greatly; our database
− that excludes hobby multicopters − has 129 entries. At the same time the number
of countries researching, developing or building small and very small UAs in or for a
military context has increased to at least 27, exports went to at least 39 countries.
Various configurations are being used, mostly fixed wings and rotary wings. Most of
them have take-off masses of 2 to 10 kg and sizes between 0.5 and 2 m. Propeller power
is usually provided by a battery. Typical endurances are tens of minutes and typical
ranges 5 to 40 km.
Flapping wings are only used by very small aircraft all of which are at the research
stage. Their mass is below 30 g, with a few minutes of endurance at most. Some types
are extremely light-weight (below 1 g or even below 0.1 g).
Armed forces use small UAs mainly for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,
they carry various types of sensors. But ten countries have built UAs with offensive
payloads. In most cases, a warhead is integrated so that the UAs self-destruct in
operation. These armed UAs can fly for tens of minutes above a target area and thus
can function as loitering munitions. The warhead mass is between 0.2 and 2.5 kg, with
11 to 31 % of the total UA mass.
The degree of autonomous targeting is unclear. Specific missiles or precision-guided
munitions for re-usable small armed UAs seem to not have been developed yet.
Very small UAs (i.e. < 0.2m wingspan or rotor diameter) have not yet been armed.
The heaviest in our database has 0.80 kg mass. Assuming a similar percentage, such
UAs could carry a warhead of 0.08 to 0.25 kg, in the range of anti-personnel mines. But
lethal action against a human is possible with only a few grams of explosive, a chemical
or biological agent could function with a much smaller mass.
Whether flapping-wing UAs will be deployed by armed forces remains to be seen;
one possible application is inside buildings where wind gusts to not present a problem.
In the near future, small UAs will be made more capable. In particular the number of
armed types will likely increase. Research and development will continue to increase
autonomy.
Concerning small-UA swarms, first demonstrations of unarmed systems have oc-
curred, with some autonomy. One can expect more efforts in this direction, and towards
armament.
The military capabilities of small and very small UAs will remain limited for several
reasons: the payload is small, the cruise speed is low, the endurance and range are
limited. Thus, the qualitative arms race in (armed) UAs will mostly take place in bigger
systems. Nevertheless, relevant countries probably will continue to compete in small
armed UAs, with a particular focus on swarms. If the former could be built at low cost,
swarms of high numbers could become formidable tools for applying military force.
59
Acknowledgements
This project is being funded by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF)
in its funding line ‘New Technologies: Risks and Chances for International Security
and Peace’. We want to thank the Foundation for this support. We thank Robin Geiß
(University of Glasgow) for helpful comments. Additional thanks go to the institutions
who have allowed reprinting their pictures.
60
Bibliography
Aeronautics Defense Systems (2021). Orbiter 1K Loitering Munition UAS. URL: https://aeronautics-sys.com/wp-conten
t/themes/aeronautics/pdf/orbiter_1k_v2.pdf (visited on 07/02/2020).
— (2019). Orbiter 1K. URL: https://aeronautics-sys.com/home-page/page-systems/page-systems-orbiter-1k
-muas/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
AeroToolbox (2020). Standard Atmosphere Calculator. URL: https://aerotoolbox.net/atmcalc/ (visited on 31/03/2020).
AeroVironment (2020). United States Army awards AeroVironment $146 Million Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile Systems (LMAMS)
Contract funded at $76 Million for first Year of Switchblade Systems Procurement. URL: https://www.avinc.com/resourc
es/press-releases/view/united-states-army-awards-aerovironment-146-million-lethal-miniature-a
erial (visited on 01/09/2020).
— (2021a). Nano Air Vehicle (Hand). URL: https://www.avinc.com/images/uploads/media_assets/744/nano_inhan
d.jpg (visited on 27/01/2021).
— (2021b). Switchblade 300 Launch. URL: https://www.avinc.com/images/uploads/media_assets/1813/switchbla
de_launch.jpg (visited on 27/01/2021).
— (2019). VAPOR All-electric Helicopter UAS. URL: https://www.avinc.com/uas/view/vapor- vtol (visited on
27/11/2019).
Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) (2013). Air Force Office of Scientific Research - 1951-Present - Turning Scientific
Discovery into Air Force Opportunity. URL: https://www.afrl.af.mil/Portals/90/Documents/AFOSR/AFOSR%2060
th%20Monograph.pdf?ver=2020-08-24-144422-047 (visited on 19/01/2020).
Altmann, Jürgen (2001). Military Uses of Microsystem Technologies – Dangers and Preventive Arms Control. Münster: agenda.
— (2006). Military Nanotechnology – Potential applications and preventive arms control. London, New York: Routledge.
— (2017). In: Altmann, Jürgen, Ute Bernhardt, Kathryn Nixdorff et al. Naturwissenschaft — Rüstung — Frieden. Basiswissen für
die Friedensforschung (Science – Armament – Peace – Basic Knowledge for Peace Research). 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Chap. Militärische Forschung und Entwicklung (Military Research and Development).
— (2020). Technology, Arms Control and World Order: Fundamental Change Needed. Toda Peace Institute Policy Brief No. 89.
URL: https://toda.org/assets/files/resources/policy-briefs/t-pb-89_jurgen-altmann.pdf.
Anderson, John (1999). Aircraft Performance and Design. Boston: WCB / McGraw-Hill.
Area-I (2020). Altius-600 fact sheet. URL: https://areai.com/wp-content/uploads/Slick-600-V1.pdf (visited on
28/12/2020).
Austin, Reg (2010). Unmanned Air Systems: UAV Design, Development and Deployment. Chichester: Wiley.
Bao, X.Q., Alexandre Bontemps, Sébastien Grondel et al. (2011). ‘Design and fabrication of insect-inspired composite wings
for MAV application using MEMS technology’. In: Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 21, 125020 (12). DOI:
10.1088/0960-1317/21/12/125020.
Binnie, J. (2018). Russians reveal details of UAV swarm attacks on Syrian bases. URL: http://www.janes.com/article/7701
3/russians-reveal-details-of-uav-swarm-%20attacks-on-syrian-bases (visited on 23/01/2018).
Bitcraze (2020). Crazyflie 2.1. URL: https://store.bitcraze.io/products/crazyflie-2-1 (visited on 12/11/2020).
Cai, Guowei, Jorge Dias & Lakmal Seneviratne (2014). ‘A Survey of Small-Scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Recent Advances
and Future Development Trends’. In: Unmanned Systems 2.2, pp. 175–199. DOI: 10.1142/S2301385014300017.
Callier, Maria (2010). Tiny MAVs May Someday Explore and Detect Environmental Hazards. URL: https://www.wpafb.af.mil
/News/Article-Display/Article/400057/tiny-mavs-may-someday-explore-and-detect-environmental-h
azards/ (visited on 19/01/2020).
Chen, Chen & Tianyu Zhang (Feb. 2019). ‘A Review of Design and Fabrication of the Bionic Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicles’.
In: Micromachines 10, 144. DOI: 10.3390/mi10020144.
Chung, Timothy (2020). OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET). URL: https://www.darpa.mil/program/offensive
-swarm-enabled-tactics (visited on 02/09/2020).
Dalamagkidis, Konstantinos (2015). ‘Classification of UAVs’. In: Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Ed. by Kimon P.
Valavanis & George J. Vachtsevanos. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 83–91. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-970
7-1_94.
DARPA (2017). Service Academies Swarm Challenge Live-Fly Competition Begins. URL: https://www.darpa.mil/news-eve
nts/2017-04-23 (visited on 30/12/2020).
— (2018). Gremlins: Airborne Launch & Recovery of Unmanned Aerial Systems. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=Bvf9v4EHovY (visited on 30/11/2019).
— (2020a). DARPA Gremlins Project Completes Third Flight Test Deployment. Next capture attempts scheduled to occur in spring
of 2021. URL: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2020-12-10 (visited on 08/02/2020).
61
Bibliography
DARPA (2020b). OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET). URL: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/offensive
-swarm-enabled-tactics (visited on 02/09/2020).
De Croon, G.C.H.E., M. Perçin B.D.W. Remes, R. Ruijsink et al. (2016). The DelFly. Design, Aerodynamics, and Artificial
Intelligence of a Flapping Wing Robot. Dordrecht: Springer.
Defence Procurement International (2020). US Army Short Range Surveillance Drones. Six companies awarded $11 million to
develop prototypes for a short range surveillance drone for the US Army. URL: https://www.defenceprocurementinter
national.com/news/air/us-army-short-range-surveillance-drones (visited on 02/09/2020).
Delft Dynamics BV (2016). DroneCatcher. URL: https://dronecatcher.nl/ (visited on 21/08/2020).
De Wagter, C. (2008). DelFly Micro, a 3.07 gram camera equipped flapping wing MAV. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
ki/DelFly#/media/File:DelFly_Micro_2008_V1.jpg (visited on 08/02/2020).
Drapela, Philippe (2018). Fake news? Lethal effect of micro drones. Federal Office for Defence Procurement - armasuisse. URL:
https://www.ar.admin.ch/en/armasuisse-wissenschaft-und-technologie-w-t/home.detail.news.html
/ar-internet/news-2018/news-w-t/lethalmicrodrones.html (visited on 03/02/2021).
Drela, Mark (2013). XFOIL Subsonic Airfoil Development System. URL: https://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/
(visited on 19/07/2020).
Dufour, L., K. Owen, S. Mintchev et al. (2018). ‘A Drone with Insect-Inspired Folding Wings’. In: International Conference On
Intelligent Robots And Systems (IROS 2016). New York: IEEE, pp. 1576–1581. URL: https://infoscience.epfl.ch/rec
ord/221316/files/IROS_2016.pdf (visited on 28/01/2018).
Dyndal, G. Lage, T. Arne Berntsen & S. Redse-Johansen (2017). Autonomous military drones: no longer science fiction. URL:
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2017/07/28/autonomous-military-drones-no-longer-sci
ence-fiction/index.html (visited on 21/01/2020).
Dynetics (2020a). Dynetics Flies Second X-61A Gremlins Air Vehicle. URL: https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/news/2
020/dynetics-flies-second-x-61a-gremlins-air-vehicle (visited on 01/09/2020).
— (2020b). Dynetics’ X-61A Gremlins air vehicle performs its maiden flight. URL: https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/n
ews/2020/dynetics-x-61a-gremlins-air-vehicle-performs-its-maiden-flight (visited on 01/09/2020).
— (2020c). Gremlins fact sheet. URL: https://www.dynetics.com/_files/fact-sheets/pdf/K170437_Gremlins-Fac
t-Sheetv2.pdf (visited on 01/09/2020).
FAS (Federation of American Scientists) (2012). HELLFIRE Family of Missiles. URL: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/l
and/wsh2012/132.pdf (visited on 23/01/2018).
Frantzman, Seth J. (2020). Israeli drones in Azerbaijan raise questions on use in the battlefield. URL: https://www.jpost.c
om/middle-east/israeli-drones-in-azerbaijan-raise-questions-on-use-in-the-battlefied-644161
(visited on 09/02/2020).
Friese, Larry, N. R. Jenzen-Jones & Michael Smallwood (2016). Emerging Unmanned Threats: The use of commercially-available
UAVs by armed non-state actors. Perth, Utrecht: ARES, PAX. URL: http://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploa
ds/2016/02/ARES-Special-Report-No.-2-Emerging-Unmanned-Threats.pdf (visited on 27/07/2020).
Gettinger, Dan (2019). The Drone Databook. URL: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/projects/drone-proliferation/d
atabook/ (visited on 24/07/2020).
— (2020). Drone Databook Update: March 2020. URL: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/projects/drone-proliferati
on/drone-databook-update-march-2020/ (visited on 24/07/2020).
Gettinger, Dan & Arthur Holland Michel (2017). Loitering Munitions in Focus. URL: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/loite
ring-munitions-in-focus/ (visited on 24/07/2020).
Goh, G.D., S. Agarwala, G.L. Goh et al. (2017). ‘Additive manufacturing in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): Challenges and
potential’. In: Aerospace Science and Technology 63, pp. 140–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.019.
Grasmeyer, Joel & Matthew Keennon (2001). ‘Development of the Black Widow Micro Air Vehicle’. In: Fixed and Flapping Wing
Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle Applications. Ed. by Thomas J. Mueller. Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, pp. 519–535.
Gundlach, Jay (2012). Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Hambling, David (2010). Air Force Completes Killer Micro-Drone Project. URL: https://www.wired.com/2010/01/killer-
micro-drone/ (visited on 01/09/2020).
— (2016). How Islamic State is using consumer drones. URL: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161208-how-is-is
-using-consumer-drones (visited on 25/01/2018).
— (2020a). ‘China Releases Video Of New Barrage Swarm Drone Launcher’. In: URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites
/davidhambling/2020/10/14/china-releases-video-of-new-barrage-swarm-drone-launcher/ (visited on
03/12/2020).
— (2020b). Mexican Drug Cartel Carries Out ’Drone Strikes’ In Gang War. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/da
vidhambling/2020/08/24/mexican-drug-cartel-carries-out-drone-strikes-in-gang-war/ (visited on
02/09/2020).
62
Bibliography
Hassanalian, M. & A. Abdelkefi (2017). ‘Classifications, applications, and design challenges of drones: A review’. In: Progress in
Aerospace Sciences 91, pp. 99–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.04.003.
Hylton, Todd, Christopher Martin, Richmon Tun et al. (2012). ‘The DARPA nano air vehicle program’. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. 2012-0583. Nashville, Tennessee, USA. DOI:
10.2514/6.2012-583.
IAI (2019a). Green Dragon Compact Tactical Loitering Munition. URL: https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/default
/files/2019-05/Green%20Dragon%20Brochure.pdf (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Green Dragon Mini Loitering Munition System. URL: https://www.iai.co.il/p/green-dragon (visited on
14/10/2019).
— (2020). ROTEM Loitering Munition based on a Light Multi-Rotor Platform. URL: https://www.iai.co.il/p/rotem
(visited on 12/08/2020).
ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) (2010). Airworthiness of Aircraft - Annex 8 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation. 11th ed. Montréal: International Civil Aviation Organization.
— (2020). Frequently Used Terms. URL: https://www.icao.int/safety/UA/UASToolkit/Pages/Frequently-Used-Te
rms.aspx (visited on 03/08/2020).
ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (1996). Anti-personnel Landmines - Friend or Foe? A study of the military use
and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. URL: https://shop.icrc.or
g/download/ebook?sku=0654/002-ebook (visited on 03/02/2021).
ISPRA (2019). Riot Control Drone System. URL: http://www.ispraltd.com/Riot%2DControl%2DDrone%2DSystem.html
(visited on 25/10/2019).
Kania, Elsa B. (2017). Battlefield Singularity. Artificial Intelligence, Military Revolution, and China’s Future Military Power. URL:
https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/battlefield-singularity-artificial-intelligence-mil
itary-revolution-and-chinas-future-military-power (visited on 28/12/2020).
Keennon, Matthew, Karl Klingebiel & Henry Won (2012). ‘Development of the Nano Hummingbird: A Tailless Flapping Wing
Micro Air Vehicle’. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.
DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-588.
Kumar, David, Preetamkumar Mohite & Sudhir Kamle (2019). ‘Dragonfly Inspired Nanocomposite Flapping Wing for Micro Air
Vehicles’. In: Journal of Bionic Engineering 16, pp. 894–903. DOI: 10.1007/s42235-019-0104-6.
Liu, Zhiwei, Xiaojun Yan, Mingjing Qi et al. (2017). ‘Artificial insect wings with biomimetic wing morphology and mechanical
properties’. In: Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 12, 056007 (5).
Loftin, Laurence K. (1985). Quest for Performance. The Evolution of Modern Aircraft. Washington D.C.: US Government Printing
Office.
Ma, Kevin Y., Pakpong Chirarattananon, Sawyer B. Fuller et al. (2013). ‘Controlled Flight of a Biologically Inspired, Insect-Scale
Robot’. In: Science 340.6132, pp. 603–607. DOI: 10.1126/science.1231806.
MacFarquhar, Neil (2018). Russia Says Its Syria Bases Beat Back an Attack by 13 Drones. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2
018/01/08/world/middleeast/syria-russia-drones.html (visited on 25/01/2018).
MAST (2016). MAST (Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology). URL: https://alliance.seas.upenn.edu/~mastwiki
/wiki/index.php?n=Main.HomePage (visited on 19/01/2020).
MAVLab TU Delft (2018). DelFly Nimble Photo Gallery. URL: https://surfdrive.surf.nl/files/index.php/s/q9uo1
na7ldYlVzv#/files_mediaviewer/dsc_0483-2.jpg (visited on 08/02/2020).
McCormick, Barnes W. (1979). Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
McNally, David (2017). Army completes autonomous micro-robotics research program. URL: https://www.army.mil/articl
e/192947/army_completes_autonomous_micro_robotics_research_program (visited on 19/01/2020).
Michel, Arthur Holland (2019). Counter-Drone Systems. URL: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/projects/counter-dron
e-systems-project/counter-drone-systems-2nd-edition/ (visited on 24/07/2020).
Michelson, Christian (2015). ‘Issues Surrounding Communications with Micro Air Vehicles’. In: Handbook of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles. Ed. by Kimon P. Valavanis & George J. Vachtsevanos. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1415–1439. URL: https://doi.org
/10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1_12.
Monroy, Matthias (2019). Rheinmetall zeigt Drohnenpanzer mit Kamikazedrohne. URL: https://netzpolitik.org/2019/rhe
inmetall-zeigt-drohnenpanzer-mit-kamikazedrohne/ (visited on 07/09/2019).
Mueller, Thomas J. (1999). ‘Aerodynamic Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers for Fixed Wing Micro-Air Vehicles’. In: RTO
AVT Course on Development and Operation of UAVs for Military and Civil Applications, pp. 8.1–8.32.
N., Leigh (2019). DefendTex Drone-40 — The Australian UAV That Can Be Fired From a 40mm Grenade Launcher. URL:
https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/06/07/defendtex-drone-40-the-australian-uav-that-can-be-fir
ed-from-a-40mm-grenade-launcher (visited on 18/11/2019).
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2016). NOAA flew the unmanned Coyote on January 7, 2016
to successfully test improvements made to the system. (NOAA). URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Co
63
Bibliography
yote#/media/File:Coyote_UAS_in_flight_over_Avon_Park_FL_(cropped)_credit-_NOAA.jpg (visited on
08/02/2020).
PEO Aviation (2019). U.S. Army Partners with Defense Innovation Unit to Leverage Commercial Drone Companies for Short Ran.
URL: https://www.army.mil/article/221053/u_s_army_partners_with_defense_innovation_unit_to_leve
rage_commercial_drone_companies_for_short_ran (visited on 02/09/2020).
— (2020). Air Launched Effects (ALE). URL: https://www.army.mil/article/238407 (visited on 28/12/2020).
Pilch, Mathias, Jürgen Altmann & Dieter Suter (2021). Databases of Small and Very Small UAVs and Missiles. Version v1.0.
Zenodo. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4537704.
Reise Reise (2019). Rotem L, IDET/PYROS/ISET 2019, Brno. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Rotem_L#/med
ia/File:Rotem_L_(2).jpg (visited on 08/02/2020).
Remes, B.D.W., P. Esden-Tempski, F. van Tienen et al. (2014). ‘Lisa-S 2.8g autopilot for GPS-based flight of MAVs’. In: IMAV
2014: International Micro Air Vehicle Conference and Competition. Delft, The Netherlands. DOI: 10.4233/uuid:29e5367f-
6c16-43e1-989e-d51cf8b51f7d.
Roque, Ashley (2020). Unmanned-Unmanned teaming: US Army demos Area-I’s Altius-600 air-launched effects. URL: https:
//www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/unmanned-unmanned-teaming-us-army-demos-area-is-alti
us-600-air-launched-effects (visited on 28/12/2020).
Runco, Carl C., David Coleman & Moble Benedict (2019). ‘Design and Development of a 30 g Cyclocopter’. In: Journal of the
American Helicopter Society 64, 012008 (1).
Russell, S. (2017). Slaughterbots. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA (visited on 25/01/2018).
Santamaria-Navarro, Angel, Giuseppe Loianno, Joan Sola et al. (2018). ‘Autonomous navigation of micro aerial vehicles using
high-rate and low-cost sensors’. In: Autonomous Robots 42 (6), pp. 1263–1280.
SBIR (2016). Cluster UAS Smart Munition for Missile Deployment. URL: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/120
7935 (visited on 01/09/2020).
Scharre, Paul (2018). Army of None. Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York, London: W. W. Norton.
Schlegel, Linda (2018). Interview: Rising drone capabilities of non-state actors. URL: https://globalriskinsights.com/20
18/04/interview-risk-non-state-actor-drone-capabilities/ (visited on 03/09/2020).
SCR (2019). Aster-T data sheet. URL: https://scrdrones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FOLLETO-ASTER-T-
CAUTIVO-EN.pdf (visited on 13/12/2019).
Shyy, Wei, Hikaru Aono, Chang-kwon Kang et al. (2013). An Introduction to Flapping Wing Aerodynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sky Sapience (2020). Gallery | Sky Sapience. URL: https://skysapience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/image.j
pg (visited on 26/08/2020).
— (2019). HoverMast 100. URL: https://www.skysapience.com/defense-products/drone/hovermast-100 (visited
on 25/10/2019).
Skyborne Technologies (2019). Cerberus GL. URL: https://skybornetech.com/cerberus-gl (visited on 26/11/2019).
Smalley, David (2015). LOCUST: Autonomous, swarming UAVs fly into the future. URL: https://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-
Center/Press-Releases/2015/LOCUST-low-cost-UAV-swarm-ONR.aspx (visited on 18/01/2018).
Soldier Systems (2019). SOFIC 19 – DefendTex Drone-40. URL: http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/24/sofic-19-de
fendtex-drone-40/ (visited on 18/11/2019).
Spaitech (2019). Sparrow Brochure. URL: https://spaitech.net/sparrow_eng.pdf (visited on 04/12/2019).
Sreetharan, P. S., J. P. Whitney, M. D. Strauss et al. (2012). ‘Monolithic fabrication of millimeter-scale machines’. In: Journal of
Micromechanics and Microengineering 22.5, 055027. URL: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0960-13
17/22/5/055027/meta.
Streetly, Martin & Beatrice Bernadi (2018). Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft - Unmanned Yearbook 2018-2019. Coulsdon: IHS
Markit.
Swadim (2019). Loitering Munitions HERO (UVision Air Ltd, Israel), DSEI 2019, London. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Loitering_munition#/media/File:HERO_DSEI_IMG_6905.jpg (visited on 08/02/2020).
Tao, Tony S. (2012). Design and Development of a High-Altitude, In-Flight-Deployable Micro-UAV. MSc Thesis. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, USA. URL: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/76168 (visited on 30/03/2020).
TDK (2021). IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) MPU-9250. URL: https://product.tdk.com/en/search/sensor/mortion
-inertial/imu/info?part_no=MPU-9250 (visited on 26/01/2020).
Tekever (2019). Tekever AR4. URL: http://airray.tekever.com/ar4-evo/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
TIME (2018). Perdix Swarm Demo. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOajJMm01lw (visited on 01/12/2019).
US AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory) (2009). US Air Force Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicle. URL: http://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4 (visited on 03/02/2021).
64
Bibliography
US Programs Executive Office Missiles and Space (2020). Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System (LMAMS) Product Description.
URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20181226183136/https://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Briefings
/CCWS/LMAMS%20PEO%20Website%20Brief.pdf (visited on 01/09/2020).
US Strategic Capabilities Office (2019). Perdix Fact Sheet. URL: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs
/Perdix%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?ver=2017-01-09-101520-643 (visited on 25/10/2019).
VoidWanderer (2016). Warmate UAV (Poland/Ukraine). URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WB_Electronics_Warmat
e#/media/File:Warmate_UAV_01.jpg (visited on 08/02/2020).
Ward, Thomas A., Christopher J. Fearday, Erfan Salami et al. (2017). ‘A bibliometric review of progress in micro air vehicle
research’. In: International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 9.2, pp. 146–165. DOI: 10.1177/1756829316670671.
Ward, Thomas A., M. Rezadad, Christopher J. Fearday et al. (2015). ‘A Review of Biomimetic Air Vehicle Research: 1984-2014’.
In: International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 7.3, pp. 375–394. URL: https://doi.org/10.1260/1756-8293.7.3.375.
WB Group (2019). WARMATE loitering munitions. URL: https://www.wbgroup.pl/en/produkt/warmate-loitering-mu
nnitions/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
World of Drones (2017). Who Has What: Countries with Armed Drones. URL: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/wo
rld-of-drones/3-who-has-what-countries-armed-drones/ (visited on 25/01/2018).
— (2020). Who Has What: Countries with Armed Drones. URL: https://www.newamerica.org/international-securit
y/reports/world-drones/who-has-what-countries-with-armed-drones (visited on 23/11/2020).
65
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
On the following pages, the complete UAV database is presented in table format. We
recommend using the interactive online version available at https://url.tu-dortm
und.de/pacsam-db-sa instead, which allows searching and sorting. Additionally, all
data files, including the interactive HTML file, are available under https://doi.org/
10.5281/zenodo.4537704 (Pilch et al., 2021). The printed version here was updated
on 5th February 2021.
66
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
67
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
A1-S Furia SPE Athlon Avia Ukraine Unclear Fixed wing None 1.95 0.65 120
AL-4 Aeroland Taiwan 2010 Unclear Fixed wing None 4.2 2.00 1.40 60 24
ALADIN EMT Germany 2003 Deployed Germany Fixed wing None <4 1.46 1.57 >60 15
ALUDRA SR-08 UST Malaysia On offer Fixed wing None 2.1 0.81 0.43 100 15
AR1 Blue Ray Tekever Portugal 2013 On offer Fixed wing None 5.0 1.80 1.40 120-180 20
AR4 Light Ray Tekever Portugal 2012 Deployed Portugal Fixed wing None 2 1.10 0.90 45 5
Compact
AR4 Light Ray Tekever Portugal 2014 Deployed Portugal Fixed wing None 2 1.10 0.90 45 5
Evolution
ATLAS C4EYE / C-ASTRAL Slovenia On offer Fixed wing None 2.4 1.55 0.82 59 15
ppx
AiD-MC8 AiDrones Germany On offer Rotary wing None 8 0.90 30 3
Alpagu STM Turkey 2017 On offer Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 1.9 10 5
Alpagu Block II STM Turkey 2017 On offer Fixed wing <1.3 kg or <1.5 kg or <5.0 kg 10-20 5-10
warhead
Aster-T SCR & Everis Spain 2019 On offer Tethered rotary None 14 0.65
wing
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
A1-S Furia 65 100.0 80 (minimum, Electric Pusher GPS, autopilot, automatic take-off and Day/night vision module Catapult Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
cruising), 2500 propeller landing, manual, semi-automatic and 2018, p. 219
(ceiling) automatic flight modes, GCS
AL-4 56 100.0 3000 (ceiling) Brushless electric Pusher GPS, IMU, autopilot, truck-mounted 1.0 kg total, 0.4 kg batteries, TV Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi,
motor propeller GCS camera 2018, p. 206; Aeroland
UAV, 2019
ALADIN 40-70 30 (minimum), Electric Tractor Automatic and manual flight mode, 4 CCD cameras, IR Hand or bungee EMT Penzberg, 2019a
100-300 propeller autopilot, GCS rope
(typical), 4500
(ceiling)
ALUDRA SR-08 65 130.0 4000 (ceiling) Electric Tractor GPS, GLONASS, autonomous and semi- Video, IR Hand Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller autonomous flight modes, GCS 2018, p. 146
AR1 Blue Ray 55 Electric Pusher Semi- and fully autonomous, laptop and 1.5 kg payload Hand, catapult Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller tablet GCS 2018, p. 168
AR4 Light Ray 57 Electric Pusher GPS, IMU, autopilot, autonomous, EO/IR Hand Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
Compact propeller laptop and tablet GCS 2018, pp. 169–170
AR4 Light Ray 57 80.0 Electric Pusher GPS, IMU, autopilot, autonomous, GCS EO/IR Hand Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
Evolution propeller 2018, pp. 169–170
ATLAS C4EYE / 54 108.0 5000 (ASL) Brushless electric Tractor GCS 0.3 kg EO/IR Hand Parachute C-Astral, 2019a;
ppx propeller C-Astral, 2019b
AiD-MC8 40.0 4000 Electric 6 rotor GPS, autonomous flight, waypoint 5 kg total, camera, thermal VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades navigation, GCS 2018, pp. 69–70;
AiDrones, 2020
Alpagu 93 120.0 122 Electric Pusher Autonomous, GCS Embedded and real-time object EO/IR Tube STM, 2019a
propeller tracking, detection and
classification
Alpagu Block II 250-400 2000-3500 Electric Pusher Autonomous or manually via GCS Autonomous, real-time object 1.3 or 1.5 or 5.0 kg Tube, single or STM, 2019b; Army
propeller tracking, detection and multi-launcher Recognition, 2019
classification
Aster-T 70-100 Electric ground Rotor blades GCS 4 kg total, EO/IR VTOL VTOL SCR, 2019a; SCR,
supply unit and 2019b
on-board battery
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
68
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Bat Bot (B2) Coordinated USA 2017 Research None Flapping wing, None 0.0093
Science Laboratory, tailless
Urbana; University
of Illinois,
California Institute
of Technology
Bayraktar Mini Baykar Turkey 2005 Deployed Turkey, Qatar Fixed wing None 9.9 2.000 1.200 60-80 15
Black Hornet PRS FLIR Systems Norway 2013 Deployed Australia, France, United Kingdom, Rotary wing None 0.033 0.123 0.168 25 2
Germany, India, Norway, USA, Poland,
Spain, Turkey, Netherlands
Black Widow AeroVironment USA 2000 Research None Flying wing None 0.80 0.152 30 1.8
finished
Blackstart Blue Bear Systems United 2010 On offer Fixed wing None 5 1.500 0.980 60 7
Research Kingdom
Blackwing AeroVironment USA 2013 Deployed USA Fixed wing 1.814 0.686 0.495
CEUAV UAV Solutions USA 2018 On offer Fixed wing None 0.483 40-60 >10
CH-901 China Aerospace China 2016 Unclear Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 9 1.200 120 15
Science and
Technology
Corporation
COLIBRI TU Delft Netherlands 2017 Research None Flapping wing, None 0.022 0.210 0.25-0.3
tailless
CREX-B Leonardo Airborne Italy Unclear Fixed wing None 2.1 1.700 0.450 75 10
& Space Systems
Cardinal II NCSIST Taiwan 2014 Deployed China Fixed wing None 5.5 1.900 60
Casper 200 Top I Vision Israel 2004 Unclear Fixed wing None 2.3 2.000 1.300 140
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed / AMSL / m
km/h km/h
Bat Bot (B2) 20 Electric coreless 2 morphing Autonomous flight manoeuvers None Hand Ramezani et al., 2017
DC motor wings (zero-path flight, banking turn, diving)
Bayraktar Mini 56 1000 Electric Pusher Automatic take-off and cruise, return 2 axis day/night Hand Automatic Baykar, 2019b; Army Technology,
propeller home and landing, GCS camera body or 2019b; Baykar, 2019a
parachute
landing
Black Hornet PRS 22.0 Electric Rotor blades GCS, GPS and in GPS denied areas, EO/IR, video HD VTOL VTOL FLIR, 2019b; Army Recognition,
BLOS navigation, auto and manual snapshot, thermal 2018; FLIR, 2019a; Army Technology,
hover and stare, route and user 2019a; Asia Pacific Defence News,
selectable waypoint actions, automatic 2019; Military.com, 2016; DroningON,
return, lost link navigation 2017
Black Widow 234 (max.) Electric 10 W DC Tractor 3 g radio control system, GCS None Colour video system Pneumatic Shkarayev et al., 2007
motor propeller and transmitter
Blackstart 120.0 Brushless electric Tractor Autopilot, fully autonomous flight, EO/IR Hand, catapult Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 232–233
propeller point-and-click loiter/waypoint control,
GCS
Blackwing Electric Pusher EO/IR Underwater-to- Naval Drones, 2019b; AeroVironment,
propeller Air delivery 2017b; LaGrone, 2016
canister, tube,
multipack
launcher
CEUAV Electric Pusher EO/IR Tube UAV Solutions, 2019
propeller
CH-901 64-113 Electric Pusher Tube IHS Jane’s 360, 2017
propeller
COLIBRI Electric 2 flapping None VTOL VTOL Roshanbin et al., 2017
EPS8-brushed DC wings
motor, Nanotech
LiPo 160 mAh 25
C
CREX-B 36 110.0 30 (operating), 3100 Electric Tractor Waypoint navigation, automatic landing, EO/IR Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, p. 130;
500 (max.) (ceiling) propeller autonomous/semi-autonomous flight Leonardo, 2019
modes, return home, portable GCS
Cardinal II 55 Brushless electric Tractor Hand Parachute Air Force Technology, 2019
motor propeller
Casper 200 83 70 Electric Tractor GPS, pre-programmed, portable or TV camera, thermal, Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi, 2018, pp. 124–125
propeller vehicle-mounted GCS radiological
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
69
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Cerberus Skyborne Australia 2018 Development Tiltrotor 40 mm grenade launcher or 6.0 0.820 22 (3 x 40mm 5
12-gauge shotgun or micro Grenades), 28-32
munitions or net launcher (no payload)
Comandor Matrix UAV Ukraine 2016 Unclear Rotary wing Anti-tank missile or free-fall 110 1.500 1.500 210 200
bombs
Coyote Raytheon USA 2007 Ordered Fixed wing <0.9 kg warhead 6.4 1.470 0.790 90 37
Crazyflie 2.1 bitcraze Sweden >2014 Commercially None Rotary wing None 0.027 0.045 0.092 7 1
available
Cyclone ISPRA Israel 2015 Deployed Israel Rotary wing Tear gas 1.5
Cygnus A10 Asteria India 2015 On offer Fixed wing None 3.6 1.600 90 15
Da-Vinci Flying Production/ Israel 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 5.6 90 10
Elbit Systems
DelFly Explorer MAVLab TU Delft Netherlands 2014 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.020 0.280 10
tail
DelFly Micro MAVLab TU Delft Netherlands 2008 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.00307 0.100 3 0.050
tail
DelFly Nimble MAVLab TU Delft Netherlands 2018 Research None Flapping wing, None 0.029 0.330 5 >1
tailless
Demon Matrix UAV Ukraine 2018 Development Rotary wing RPG-22/26 or RPG-7 or 5 kg 10-20
bomb or 7 kg high-explosive
fragmentation warhead
Desert Hawk Integrated Pakistan On offer Fixed wing None 4.5 1.500 0.900 >60 10-15
Dynamics
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Cerberus 60-80 <400 Electric Trirotor GCS 1.5 kg total, grenade launchers, VTOL VTOL Skyborne
micro munitions, shotguns or Technologies, 2019
cameras
Comandor 60.0 5-1500 12 electric or 2 12 rotor GPS, autopilot, manual, semi-automatic 50 kg total, civil and military VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
(operating), piston engines blades and automatic flight modes, GCS cargo, fire suppressants, 2018, pp. 216–217
2000 (ceiling) anti-tank missiles, free-fall
bombs, video, radar, laser
scanners, nuclear/explosives
detectors
Coyote 111 157.0 150-365 Electric Pusher GCS 1.4 kg maximum Tube, canister None Raytheon, 2019;
(operating), propeller Streetly & Bernadi,
6095 (ceiling) 2018, pp. 340–341
Crazyflie 2.1 5 x 7 mm electric 4 rotor IMU None 15 g maximum VTOL VTOL Bitcraze, 2020;
DC coreless motor, blades Ben-Moshe et al.,
240 mAh LiPo 2018
battery
Cyclone Electric 6 rotor GCS VTOL VTOL ISPRA, 2019; Amity
blades Underground, 2018
Cygnus A10 50 85.0 300-1000 2-cylinder, Pusher Fully autonomous and EO/IR Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi,
2-stroke engine propeller pre-programmable, 2-person GCS 2018, pp. 81–82
Da-Vinci 35 45.0 610 Electric 6 rotor Autonomous take-off and landing, GPS assisted point-to-target EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades programmed flight patterns, waypoint function, target management 2018, pp. 105–106
navigation, "click and fly", return home, modes
GCS
DelFly Explorer Brushless electric 2 pairs of 4.0 g stereo vision system, autonomous, None 4.0 g stereo vision system Hand de Croon et al., 2016
motor, 180 mAh flapping barometer, IMU, autopilot, GCS
LiPo battery wings
DelFly Micro Electric, 1 g 20 2 flapping Radio GCS None 0.4 g camera and transmitter, 0.2 Hand de Croon et al., 2016;
mAh LiPo battery wings g receiver MAVLab TU Delft,
2019b
DelFly Nimble 10.8-25.2 10.8- Brushless DC 2 pairs of Onboard 2.8 g autopilot, GCS None 4.0 g total Hand Karásek et al., 2018;
(forward), 25.2 motor, battery flapping MAVLab TU Delft,
14.4 wings 2019a
(sideways)
Demon Electric 4 rotor 5-7 kg total, video, weaponry VTOL VTOL Kasyanov, 2019
blades
Desert Hawk 30-100 100.0 Electric Tractor GPS, autonomous, telemetry, laptop 0.5 kg daylight/IR Hand Belly-/deep- Integrated Dynamics,
propeller GCS stall landing 2019a
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
70
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Desert Hawk IV Lockheed Martin USA 2014 On offer Fixed wing None 3.69 1.500 150
Drone-40 DefendTex Australia 2017 On offer Rotary wing Kinetic anti-UAV or 10
high-explosive warhead or
anti-armour warhead or smoke
grenade
DroneCatcher Delft Dynamics Netherlands 2015 On offer Rotary wing Net launcher <6 0.75 30
FanCopter EMT Germany 2006 Deployed Germany, USA, South Africa Rotary wing None 1.5 0.600 0.60 25 1
FlyFast IDS Italy On offer Fixed wing None 1.2 1.100 0.58 15
Futura Alcore France 2000 Unclear Fixed wing Fragmentation warhead (mass 70.0 2.000 2.00 70 400
unknown)
Golden Snitch Tamkang University, Taiwan 2012 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.008 0.200
Taipei tail
Green Dragon Israel Aerospace Israel 2016 On offer Fixed wing 2.5 kg warhead: anti-personnel 15 1.700 1.60 75 40
Industries or anti-tank or both combined
H2 Bird Univ. of California, USA 2013 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.013 0.265 10
Berkeley; Carnegie tail
Mellon University
HERO-20 UVision Israel 2019 On offer Fixed wing 0.2 kg anti-personnel warhead 1.8 20 10
HERO-30 UVision Israel 2015 On offer Fixed wing 0.5 kg anti-personnel warhead 3 30 5-10-40
HERO-70 UVision Israel 2015 On offer Fixed wing 1.2 kg anti-light-vehicle 7 45 40
warhead
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Desert Hawk IV 46 102.0 Electric Tractor GCS 0.9 kg Hand Deep-stall Lockheed Martin,
propeller landing 2019a; Jane’s 360,
2019
Drone-40 72 Electric Rotor blades GCS Camera Grenade launcher, VTOL Australian Defence
VTOL Magazine, 2019; N.,
2019; Soldier Systems,
2019
DroneCatcher 72.0 Electric 4 rotor EO VTOL VTOL Delft Dynamics BV,
blades 2015; Delft Dynamics
BV, 2016
FanCopter Electric 2 coaxial Portable GCS EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
rotor blades, 2018; EMT Penzberg,
3 steering 2019b
rotor blades
FlyFast Electric Pusher GPS, IMU, waypoint navigation, 0.3 kg modular Hand Parachute IDS, 2019a
propeller man-portable GCS
Futura 130 341 359.0 200-1000-4000 Turbojet Turbojet Automatic flight control, EO/IR Catapult Skid landing Streetly & Bernadi,
(loitering) pre-programmed, GCS 2018, p. 73
Golden Snitch Electric motor, 2 flapping None None Hand Hsiao et al., 2012
battery wings
Green Dragon 120-157 370.0 304-912 Electric Pusher Canister IAI, 2019; Army
(loitering) propeller Technology, 2019c
H2 Bird 4 Electric, 90 mAh 2 flapping GCS None 2.8 g VGA camera Hand Julian et al., 2013
LiPo battery wings
HERO-20 Electric Pusher EO Canister UVision, 2019a
propeller
HERO-30 Electric Pusher EO/IR Canister UVision, 2019b
propeller
HERO-70 185.0 Electric Pusher EO Canister UVision, 2019c
propeller
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
71
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
HORUS Leonardo Airborne Italy 2012 Deployed Brazil Fixed wing None 2.3 1.800 0.900 60 5-10
& Space Systems
Heidrun V1 Sky-Watch Denmark On offer Fixed wing None 2.2 1.650 1.070 24
Hornet AeroVironment USA 2003 Research None Flying wing None 0.170 0.381 6
finished
HoverMast 100 Sky Sapience Israel 2013 Deployed Israel Tethered rotary None
wing
Huginn X1D Sky-Watch Denmark 2012 Unclear Rotary wing None 1.59 0.630 25 2
I-Bird Univ. of California, USA 2010 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.012 0.280 0.210
Berkeley tail
IA-12 Stark IDS Italy 2014 Unclear Rotary wing None 12 1.500 120 10
IA-17 Manta IDS Italy 2014 On offer Flying wing None 5.0 1.800 1.150 240 10
IA-3 Colibri IDS Italy 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 5-7 50
IBIS Leonardo Airborne Italy 2013 On offer Rotary wing None 12 1.700 35 5-10
& Space Systems
INTISAR 100 UST Malaysia On offer Rotary wing None 13 1.520 1.340 60 2
Indago Lockheed Martin USA 2015 Deployed USA Rotary wing None 2.3 0.813 50 2-10
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
HORUS 58 72.0 300 (operating), Electric Tractor GPS, autopilot, waypoint navigation, Automatic, hand, Conventional Streetly & Bernadi,
3500 (max.) propeller semi-autonomous loitering, autonomous catapult, landing, 2018, pp. 136–137;
take-off and landing, GCS pneumatic parachute Army Technology,
2019d
Heidrun V1 57 107.0 30-175 Electric Tractor Fully autonomous, tracking antenna, EO/IR Hand Deep-stall Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller compact GCS landing 2018, p. 43
Hornet Hydrogen fuel cell Tractor GCS None Shkarayev et al., 2007
propeller
HoverMast 100 50-150 Electric power Rotor blades Autonomous, GCS 11-8 kg (Alt. AGL / m: 50/150 VTOL VTOL Sky Sapience, 2019;
supply from m), CCD/IR, radar, relay, Eshel, 2013
ground vehicle cellular antennas, hyperspectral
sensors
Huginn X1D 22 22.0 0.4-200 Electric Rotor blades GCS EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
2018, p. 44
I-Bird Electric, 1.6 g DC 4 flapping None IR camera, bluetooth module Hand Baek & Fearing, 2010
motor, 1.6 g 60 wings
mAh LiPo battery
IA-12 Stark 100.0 Petrol engine Main and tail Vehicle-mounted or portable GCS, EO/IR, thermal VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
rotors mission planning, real time mission 2018, pp. 128–129
management
IA-17 Manta 200.0 4500 2-stroke petrol Pusher Pre-programmed mission, real-time EO/IR Catapult Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
engine propeller mission management with portable GCS 2018, p. 129
IA-3 Colibri Electric 4 rotor GPS/IMU, person-portable GCS, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades auto-stabilisation, pre-programmed 2018, p. 128; IDS,
navigation 2019b
IBIS 90.0 Electric Main rotor Fully autonomous mode, autopilot, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades, tail waypoint navigation, loitering, take-off 2018, p. 137
rotor and landing, GCS
INTISAR 100 80 245 Petrol engine Main and tail GPS, GLONASS, automatic take-off Digital stills, HD Video VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
rotor and landing, GCS 2018, p. 147
Indago 3-91 Electric 4 rotor GCS Multiple, hot-swappable, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Lockheed Martin,
blades 2019b; Lockheed
Martin, 2017
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
72
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
InstantEye Mk-3 InstantEye Robotics USA 2019 On offer Rotary wing None 1.361 0.309 45 4
GEN4-D1(ISR)
InstantEye Mk-3 InstantEye Robotics USA 2018 On offer Rotary wing None <0.255 0.330 27 1.5
GEN5-D1/D2
Irkut-3 Irkut Engineering Russia 2011 Unclear Fixed wing None 3.0 2.000 0.900 75 15
KX4-Interceptor Threod Estonia On offer Rotary wing None 6 0.850 >30 5
KX4-LE Titan Threod Estonia Deployed Estonia Rotary wing None 11 1.180 45 5
KYB-UAV Zala Aero Group Russia 2019 On offer Fixed wing <3 kg warhead 1.210 0.950 30
Kargu STM Turkey 2017 Deployed Turkey Rotary wing Multiple warhead configurations
(mass unknown)
Koliber ITWL Poland Unclear Rotary wing None 3.1 0.870 25 3
Leleka-100 DeViRo Ukraine Unclear Fixed wing None 5.0 1.980 1.140 120-150 100
MAGNI Elbit Systems Israel On offer Rotary wing None 2.5 30 3
MITE 2 U.S. Naval USA 2001 Research None Fixed wing None 0.213 0.368 20
(Configuration B) Research finished
Laboratory
Malazgirt Baykar Turkey 2006 Unclear Turkey Rotary wing None 12 1.800 1.200 35-90 15
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
InstantEye Mk-3 56.0 3658 (MSL, Electric 4 rotor Operator-controlled waypoint 0.454 g total, EO/IR VTOL VTOL InstantEye Robotics,
GEN4-D1(ISR) ceiling) blades navigation, GCS 2019; Air Force
Technology, 2018
InstantEye Mk-3 32.0 3658 (MSL, Electric 4 rotor Operator-controlled waypoint EO/IR VTOL VTOL InstantEye Robotics,
GEN5-D1/D2 ceiling) blades navigation, GCS 2019; Air Force
Technology, 2018
Irkut-3 59 89.0 100-500 Piston engine Pusher Radio link, GCS 0.5 kg total, TV/IR, stills camera Hand Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
(operating), propeller 2018, p. 172
3000 (ceiling)
KX4-Interceptor 29 400 Electric 4 rotor Fully autonomous or fly-by-camera Dual EO/IR VTOL VTOL Threod, 2019a
blades flight mode, remote video terminal, GCS
KX4-LE Titan 29 400 Electric 4 rotor GCS Dual EO/IR VTOL VTOL Threod, 2019b;
blades Threod, 2019c
KYB-UAV 80-130 Electric Pusher GCS 3 kg max. Hand ZALA Aero, 2019a
propeller
Kargu Rotor blades Autonomous targeting EO/IR VTOL VTOL STM, 2019c; Jane’s
360, 2017
Koliber 60 Electric 4 rotor GPS, autopilot, fully automatic, manual, Camera VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades pre-programmed, imagery exploitation 2018, p. 164
package, GCS
Leleka-100 60-70 120.0 1500 (max.) Electric Pusher Autopilot, anti-GPS spoofing/jamming, None Daylight camera Hand, catapult Parachute, Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller inertial navigation, autonomous belly landing 2018, pp. 214–215
functionality, pre-programmed routes,
GCS
MAGNI 40 13123 (ASL) Electric 4 rotor GCS Coordinate tracking capabilities EO VTOL VTOL Elbit Systems, 2020;
blades Elbit Systems, 2019a
MITE 2 32 2 x 7 W coreless, 2 tractor Remote, Range / km-based vision for None Colour video system Hand Shkarayev et al., 2007;
(Configuration B) geared electric, 45 propellers object recognition and pose estimation, Christopher et al.,
g 12 V LiSO2 monocular vision for navigation and 2001; Kellogg et al.,
primary (CR2) collision avoidance 2002
Malazgirt 1095 Petrol or electric Main and tail GPS, INS, autonomous cruise, waypoint CCD, thermal VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
(operating), engine rotor blades navigation, automatic take-off, landing 2018, p. 210
3660 (ceiling) and hover, return home, GCS
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
73
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Mavic Mini DJI China 2019 Commercially Rotary wing None 0.249 0.245 30
available
Mavic Pro DJI China 2006 Commercially Rotary wing None 0.734 0.200 21-27 13
available
Maya Alcore France 2002 Unclear Rotary wing None 2.5 0.320 30 50
MicroB BlueBird Aero Israel 2018 On offer Fixed wing None 2.2 1.700 120 10
Systems
MicroFalcon LP Innocon Israel 2011 Deployed Peru Fixed wing None 6 1.800 120 40
Microbat California Institute USA 2000 Research None Flapping wing, with None 0.0125 0.229 0.7
of Technology, tail
Pasadena;
University of
California, Los
Angeles;
AeroVironment Inc.
MultiRotor Uconsystem South Korea 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 8 1.530 30 1
Multirotor ELIX ELi Estonia 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 2.5 0.760 30 5
Multirotor ELIX ELi Estonia 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 4.7 1.100 45 5
XL
Multirotor ELIX ELi Estonia 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 5.5 1.160 50 5
XXL
NOX Elbit Systems Israel On offer Rotary wing None 5 55 4
NX110m Novadem France Deployed France Rotary wing None 1.7 1.100 20 1
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Mavic Mini 47.0 3000 (ASL) Electric 4 rotor GPS, GLONASS, remote control via None Image/Video VTOL VTOL DJI, 2019b; O’Kane,
blades smartphone 2019
Mavic Pro 65.0 5000 (AMS) Electric 4 rotor GPS, GLONASS, GCS None EO VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades 2018, p. 33; DJI,
2019a
Maya 54 104.0 50-1000 Rotary piston Ducted fan GPS, autopilot, GCS CCD/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
engine 2018, pp. 57–58
MicroB 1000-4000 Electric Pusher GCS 0.3 kg EO/IR Hand-held BlueBird Aero
propeller launcher Systems, 2020
MicroFalcon LP 65 120.0 4570 Electric Tractor Fully autonomous flight control, EO/IR Bungee catapult Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller including launch and recovery, 1-person 2018, pp. 119–120
GCS
Microbat Electric, DC 2 flapping Remote control None Hand Pornsin-Sirirak et al.,
motor, 3 g Sanyo wings 2001
Ni-Cad 50 mAh
battery
MultiRotor 30 150 (operating), Electric Rotor blades Autonomous navigation, 1-person GCS EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
500 (max.) 2018, p. 143
Multirotor ELIX 58.0 500 Electric 4 rotor GPS, GCS, compass avionics, waypoint EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades navigation, autonomous flight control 2018, pp. 45–46
and mission execution, return home,
emergency modes, pre-programmed
flight patterns
Multirotor ELIX 43.0 500 Electric 4 rotor GPS, GCS, compass avionics, waypoint EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
XL blades navigation, autonomous flight control 2018, pp. 45–46
and mission execution, return home,
emergency modes, pre-programmed
flight patterns
Multirotor ELIX 43.0 500 Electric 4 rotor GPS, GCS, waypoint navigation, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
XXL blades autonomous flight control and mission 2018, pp. 56–57
execution, return home, emergency
modes, pre-programmed flight patterns,
GCS
NOX 40 50.0 3-457 Electric 3 rotor Fully autonomous, GCS 0.7 kg total, EO VTOL VTOL Elbit Systems, 2019b
blades
NX110m 36.0 2200 Electric 4 rotor GPS, waypoint, go-to, return home, CCD/IR, gas detection, radiation VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades emergency mode, autopilot, altimeter, monitoring, spectrometer 2018, pp. 59–60
GCS
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
74
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
NX70 Novadem France 2016 Deployed France Rotary wing, None 1 0.510 45 1-5
optionally tethered
Nano AeroVironment USA 2012 Research None Flapping wing, None 0.019 0.165 4
Hummingbird finished tailless
PC-1 Ukrspecsystems Ukraine Deployed Ukraine Rotary wing None 5.2 0.560 38 5
Patriot R2 ITEC Ukraine Unclear Fixed wing None 3.6 1.500 0.650 120 100
Perdix Strategic USA 2013 Development Fixed wing None 0.290 0.300 0.165 20
Capabilities Office,
US DoD
Phoenix 30 UAV Solutions USA 2014 Deployed Romania, Bulgaria Rotary wing None 4.54 0.500 25-30 3
Pigeon Sparkle Tech China 2017 Commercially Fixed wing None 1.9 1.200 0.520 60-90
available
Pride Integrated Pakistan On offer Fixed wing None 4.5 1.610 1.450 30-45 3-5
Dynamics
Pszczoła ITWL Poland Unclear Fixed wing None 0.8 0.500 20 5
REMOEYE-002B UCONSYSTEM South Korea 2015 Deployed South Korea Fixed wing None 3.4 1.800 1.440 60 10
ROTEM Israel Aerospace Israel 2016 On offer Rotary wing 1.2 kg warhead, <1 m strike 5.8 30 10
Industries precision
RQ-11B Raven AeroVironment USA 2006 Deployed USA, Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, Fixed wing None 1.9 1.400 0.900 60-90 10
Uzbekistan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia,
Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania,
Spain, Colombia, Iraq, Lebanon, Canada,
Kenya, Uganda, Burundi
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
NX70 Electric 4 rotor GCS Dual EO/IR VTOL VTOL Novadem, 2019; sUAS
blades News, 2019a
Nano DC brushed 2 flapping Remote None 0.61 g camera and transmitter VTOL VTOL Keennon et al., 2012
Hummingbird electric motor, wings
LiPo battery pack
PC-1 36 1000 (ceiling) Electric 4 twin rotors Automatic take-off and landing, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Ukrspecsystems, 2020
programmable flight route, GCS
Patriot R2 65 100 (operating, Electric Pusher Pre-programmed, GPS/GLONNAS, Real-time air vehicle location Video/Photo Catapult Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
minimum), propeller inertial navigation, GCS tracking 2018, p. 215
2000 (ceiling)
Perdix 74-111 111.0 Electric Pusher Autonomous Airborne, US SCO, 2019
propeller, 6.6 ground-based or
cm diameter shipboard
launchers
Phoenix 30 15 (typical), Electric 4 rotor Fully autonomous, laptop GCS EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
150 (max.) blades 2018, p. 360
Pigeon 70 100.0 1000 Electric Pusher Autopilot, inertia, GPS, GCS 0.5 kg EO Hand, catapult Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller 2018, p. 36
Pride 30 100.0 Brushless electric Tractor GPS, GCS EO/IR Hand Deep-stall Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller landing 2018, pp. 156–157
Pszczoła 10 100.0 50-300 Pusher GCS Camera Hand Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller 2018, p. 165
REMOEYE-002B 80.0 Electric Pusher Autopilot, pre-programmed flight, EO/IR Hand Automatic Uconsystem, 2019a;
propeller automatic return home, GCS air-bag Air Recognition, 2019
recovery
ROTEM 102- 370.0 1524 Electric 4 rotor Obstacle avoidance, autonomous modes: Strike precision <1 m EO/IR, COMINT, fire detection VTOL VTOL IAI, 2020; Eshel, 2016
157 blades emergency return home; nav-to-route, sensors
observation, attack, abort and ATOL
(auto takeoff and landing), GCS
RQ-11B Raven 32-81 81.0 30-152 Electric Pusher GPS, manually with GCS, programmed EO/IR Hand Deep-stall AeroVironment,
propeller for autonomous flight landing 2019a; Gettinger, 2019
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
75
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
RoboBee Harvard University USA 2013 Research None Tethered flapping None 0.000080 0.030
wing, tailless
RoboBee X-Wing Harvard University USA 2013 Research None Flapping wing, None 0.000259 0.035 0.065
tailless
Rover Mk I Integrated Pakistan 2007 On offer Fixed wing None 2.0 1.500 0.900 20-45 2-4
Dynamics
SIS A-3 Remez SIS Ukraine Deployed Ukraine Fixed wing None 10.0 2.000 0.780 120 20
STORM Blackbar USA On offer Fixed wing None 2.5 1.680 1.220 60-80 6-10
Engineering
Scout GIDS Pakistan On offer Fixed wing None 4.5 2.000 1.200 60 10
Skimmer Mk I Swallow Systems India 2011 Unclear Fixed wing None 2.5 1.700 1.200 60 5
Sky.Spider INDELA Belarus Legacy Rotary wing None 7.2 1.580 20-40 15
SkyRanger R60 FLIR Systems Norway 2013 Deployed USA, New Zealand Rotary wing None 30-50 3-10
Skycam Integrated Pakistan On offer Fixed wing None 4.5 1.980 1.500 30 5
Dynamics
Skywalker X6 Skywalker China 2016 Commercially China Fixed wing None 1.8-2.0 1.500 0.650 25
available
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
RoboBee External electric 2 flapping External active flight controller None None VTOL VTOL Ma et al., 2013
power source wire wings
tether
RoboBee X-Wing 23-28 Electric, six-cell 4 flapping None 70 mg total Hand Jafferis et al., 2019
photovoltaic array wings
Rover Mk I 30 100.0 1000 Electric Pusher GPS, telemetry with GCS EO/IR Hand Belly or Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller deep-stall 2018, p. 157;
landing Integrated Dynamics,
2019b
SIS A-3 Remez 58 105.0 Piston engine Shrouded GPS, GCS (laptop) 3.0 kg total, 2 TV cameras Wheeled take-off, Parachute Streetly & Bernadi,
pusher catapult 2018, p. 217–218
propeller
STORM 610 Electric Tractor GCS EO/IR Hand Skid or stall Blackbar Engineering,
propeller landing 2019
Scout 455 (operating) Brushless electric Pusher GPS, waypoint navigation, autonomous, EO or IR Hand Skid landing Streetly & Bernadi,
motor propeller semi-autonomous, GCS 2018, p. 153; Global
Industries & Defence
Solutions, 2019
Skimmer Mk I 95.0 300 Electric Pusher Waypoint navigation, return home, TV camera, low-light TV Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller manual override, 2-person GCS camera, thermal 2018, p. 83–84
Sky.Spider 40 Electric 4 rotor 2-screen GCS, auto-positioning antenna EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades system 2018, p. 83–84
SkyRanger R60 50 Electric 4 rotor Automated flight planning, EO/IR VTOL VTOL FLIR, 2020; Pointon,
blades touchscreen-controlled GCS 2018; sUAS News,
2018
Skycam 30 100.0 305 (operating) Combustion Pusher Autopilot, telemetry, laptop GCS Daylight TV and still camera Hand Belly Streetly & Bernadi,
engine propeller landing, net 2018, p. 157
capture
Skywalker X6 40 200 Electric Pusher None Hand, catapult Glide down, Skywalker, 2019;
propeller parachute HobbyKing, 2019
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
76
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Snipe Nano UAS AeroVironment USA 2017 Unclear Rotary wing None 0.140 15 >1
Sparrow Spaitech Ukraine On offer Flying wing None 3.3 0.98 60 20
Spike Firefly Rafael Israel 2018 Ordered Israel Rotary wing <0.35 kg omnidirectional 3 15 5-10
fragmentation warhead
Switchblade AeroVironment USA 2010 Deployed USA Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 2.5 0.61 0.36 >15 10-45
T-Hawk RQ-16A Honeywell USA 2003 Unclear USA, United Kingdom, Poland Rotary wing None 7.8 0.33 50
T-Rotor Uconsystem South Korea 2014 On offer Tethered rotary None 20 1.80 >1440
wing
THOR Flying Production/ Israel Deployed Rotary wing None 3 75 10
Elbit Systems
Tactical UAV IPCD Indonesia 2012 Deployed Indonesia Fixed wing None 2 1.60 1.00 40 10
Urban View Aurora Integrated India 2011 On offer Fixed wing None 2.0 1.50 0.80 60 15
Systems
VR1 Colibri Tekever Portugal 2015 Unclear Rotary wing None 2.8 0.50 30 2
Vapor 35 AeroVironment USA 2012 On offer Rotary wing None 14.5 1.70 1.94 45-60 56
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Snipe Nano UAS 35 Electric 4 rotor GPS waypoint navigation, GCS EO/IR VTOL VTOL AeroVironment,
blades 2017a; Digital Trends,
2017
Sparrow 60-120 300-700-2000 Electric Tractor IMU, GNSS, GCS Automatic tracking of moving EO/IR or dosimeter or photo Catapult Parachute Spaitech, 2019
propeller targets, target aiming and camera
artillery fire correction
Spike Firefly 70 60 70.0 Electric Coaxial twin Electro-optical / man-in-the-loop, Proximity sensors, tracker <0.35 kg EO, IR, CMOS, VTOL VTOL Rafael, 2019; IHS
(diving) rotor autonomous: fly-by waypoints, fly-by designed for agile targets proximity sensor Jane’s 360, 2019;
video, GCS Ahronheim, 2020
Switchblade 101 161.0 Electric Pusher GPS, automated waypoint navigation, Target selection by operator EO/IR Tube launch, air None AeroVironment,
propeller GCS and ground 2019b; Streetly &
vehicle, water Bernadi, 2018, pp.
craft 252–253; Bledsoe,
2015
T-Hawk RQ-16A 93.0 0-150 3200 (ceiling) Piston engine Ducted fan GPS, INS, pre-planned waypoints, EO or IR, radio relays, data VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
retasking and manual intervention, GCS links, radiation sensors 2018, pp. 278–280
T-Rotor 100 (operating) Electric 8 rotor Fully autonomous flight, waypoint EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
blades navigation, real-time flight path 2018, p. 145;
modification, GCS Uconsystem, 2019b
THOR 40 65.0 5-610 Electric Four rotor Automatic takeoff and landing, 3 kg total, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Elbit Systems, 2019c;
blades autonomous mission flight, GCS Streetly & Bernadi,
2018, p. 106;
Frantzman, 2019
Tactical UAV 40 80.0 100-500 Electric Pusher GCS HD camera Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller 2018, pp. 84–85
Urban View 59.0 90-305 Electric Pusher Fully autonomous, pre-set flight patterns, EO/IR Hand Belly landing Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller GCS 2018, pp. 82–83
VR1 Colibri 250 (max.) Electric Rotor blades Fully autonomous take-off and landing, EO/IR VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
mobile GCS 2018, p. 128
Vapor 35 54.0 0-12000 Electric Main and tail Fully automatic flight operation without 2.27 kg total, EO/IR, LiDAR, VTOL VTOL AeroVironment, 2019c
rotor operator intervention, post-processed hyperspectral sensors
kinematic (PPK) mapping, GCS
A Table of Small and Very Small UAVs
77
Name Manufacturer Origin Intro Status In service Configuration Armament MTOW / kg Wingspan or Length / m Endurance / min Range / km
rotor
diameter / m
Vector Hawk Lockheed Martin USA 2014 On offer Rotary wing None 2.27 1.100 0.60 45 15
(VTOL)
Vector Hawk Lockheed Martin USA 2014 On offer Fixed wing None 1.81 1.100 0.60 90 15
(fixed wing)
Vector Hawk Lockheed Martin USA 2014 On offer Tiltrotor None 2.27 1.100 0.60 80 15
(tiltrotor)
Warmate WB Electronics Poland 2017 Deployed Poland, Ukraine, Peru Fixed wing <1.4 kg fragmentation or shaped 5.3 1.400 1.10 50 10
fragmentation warhead
Warmate R WB Electronics Poland 2019 On offer Fixed wing None 5.2 80 15
Warmate TL WB Electronics Poland 2019 On offer Fixed wing 1.4 kg warhead 4.5 1.700 1.10 40 10
Warmate V WB Electronics Poland 2019 On offer Rotary wing 1.6 kg warhead 7 30 12
Wasp AeroVironment USA 2002 Research None Flying wing None 0.181 0.366 30 4
finished
Wasp AE RQ-12A AeroVironment USA 2012 Deployed Australia, Czechia, Spain, Netherlands, Fixed wing None 1.3 1.020 0.76 50 >5
Sweden, USA
ZALA 421-08M Zala Aero Group Russia 2007 On offer Fixed wing None 2.5 0.810 0.43 80 15-25
ZALA LANCET-1 Zala Aero Group Russia 2019 On offer Fixed wing Warhead (mass unknown) 5 30 40
Name Speed / Cruise Max. Alt. AGL / m Alt. AMSL / m Power Propulsion Guidance Targeting Payload Launch Recovery References
km/h speed / speed /
km/h km/h
Vector Hawk 130.0 3050 (ceiling) Electric 4 rotor Autopilot, autonomous GPS, flight and EO/IR, laser illuminator VTOL VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
(VTOL) blades landing, virtual cockpit GCS 2018, pp. 302–303
Vector Hawk 56 130.0 5180 (ceiling) Electric Tractor Autopilot, autonomous GPS, flight and EO/IR, laser illuminator Hand Inverted skid, Streetly & Bernadi,
(fixed wing) propeller, 2 landing, virtual cockpit GCS deep stall 2018, pp. 302–303
rotor blades landing
Vector Hawk 56 93.0 5180 (ceiling) Electric Tractor Autopilot, autonomous GPS, flight and EO/IR, laser illuminator Hand VTOL Streetly & Bernadi,
(tiltrotor) propeller, 2 landing, virtual cockpit GCS 2018, pp. 302–303
rotor blades
Warmate Electric Pusher GCS 1.4 kg total, warhead Canister None WB Group, 2019b;
propeller Gettinger, 2019
Warmate R 500 (ceiling) Electric Pusher GCS Automatic target lock EO/IR, laser illuminator Parachute WB Group, 2019c
propeller
Warmate TL 75 120.0 3000 (ASL, Electric Pusher Pre-programmed waypoints, automatic Automated videotracker even EO/IR Tube None WB Group, 2019a
ceiling) propeller loitering mode, fly-to-coordinate, cruise, under communication loss
i. e. flying into the direction the camera
is facing, GCS
Warmate V 27 100 (operating), 2000 (ceiling) Electric Trirotor GCS Observation (1.6 kg) or warhead VTOL VTOL WB Group, 2019d
300 (max.) payload
Wasp 40-48 91 (max.) 10 W DC electric Tractor Autopilot None Colour video camera and Hand Shkarayev et al., 2007
motor propeller transmitter
Wasp AE RQ-12A 37 83.0 152 Electric Tractor Autonomous, GCS EO/IR Hand Deep-stall AeroVironment,
propeller landing 2019d; Naval Drones,
2019a; Business Wire,
2016; Eshel, 2012;
Armadni Noviny,
2017; Stevenson, 2017;
ECD Confidencial
Digital, 2013;
Unmanned Systems
Technology, 2016
ZALA 421-08M 65 130.0 3600 (ceiling) Electric Tractor GPS, GLONASS, autopilot, telemetry, Active target tracking unit 0.3 kg total, EO, thermal, stills Hand or catapult Parachute or Streetly & Bernadi,
propeller magnetometer, GCS and video net capture 2018, pp. 180–181
ZALA LANCET-1 80-110 Electric Pusher GCS EO/IR ZALA Aero, 2019b;
propeller sUAS News, 2019b
UAV Table References
Aeroland UAV (2019). AL-4. URL: https://aerolanduav1.blogspot.com/2010/11/aeroland-al-4.html (visited on
26/11/2019).
AeroVironment (2017a). Snipe Nano UAS fact sheet. URL: https://avinc.com/images/uploads/product_docs/Snipe
_Datasheet_2017_web_rv1.3.pdf (visited on 09/09/2019).
— (2017b). U.S. Navy Awards AeroVironment $2.5 Million Contract for Continuation and Expansion of Blackwing UAS Program.
URL: https://www.avinc.com/resources/press-releases//view//u.s.-navy-awards-aerovironment-2.5-
million-contract-for-continuation-and-ex/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
— (2019a). Raven RQ-11B data sheet. URL: https://www.avinc.com/images/uploads/product_docs/Raven_Datashe
et_2019_v1.pdf (visited on 05/09/2019).
— (2019b). Switchblade. URL: https://www.avinc.com/uas/view//switchblade/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
— (2019c). VAPOR All-electric Helicopter UAS. URL: https://www.avinc.com/uas/view/vapor- vtol (visited on
27/11/2019).
— (2019d). Wasp AE RQ-12A. URL: https://www.avinc.com/uas/view//wasp/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
Ahronheim, Anna (2020). Defense Ministry orders Firefly loitering munition for IDF ground forces. URL: https://www.jpost.c
om/israel-news/defense-ministry-order-firefly-loitering-munition-for-idf-ground-forces-626843
(visited on 12/12/2020).
AiDrones (2020). AiD-MC8 - Electrical Coaxial Octocopter Drone. URL: https://www.aidrones.de/english/drone-syst
ems/octocopter-mc8/ (visited on 21/08/2020).
Air Force Technology (2018). InstantEye Robotics unveils new InstantEye Mk-3 small UAS. URL: https://www.airforce-tec
hnology.com/news/instanteye-mk-3-uas/ (visited on 17/10/2019).
— (2019). Cardinal II Unmanned Aircraft System. URL: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/cardinal-
ii-unmanned-aircraft-system/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
Air Recognition (2019). ADEX 2017: Uconsystem’s RemoEye-002B delivered to Korean Army. URL: https://www.airrecogni
tion.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-def
ence-industry/defense-security-exhibitions-news/air-show-2017/adex-2017-news-coverage-report
/3809-adex-2017-uconsystem-s-remoeye-002b-delivered-to-ukrainian-army.html (visited on 25/10/2019).
Amity Underground (2018). Israel experiment with unmanned drones as crowd control instruments, dropping tear gas on Palestinian
demonstrators. URL: https://amityunderground.com/israel-experiment-with-unmanned-drones-as-crowd-
control-instruments-dropping-tear-gas-on-palestinian-demonstrators-drone-uav-riot-control-is
pra-cyclone/ (visited on 24/10/2019).
Armadni Noviny (2017). Robotické a autonomní systémy v Armádě ČR. URL: https://www.armadninoviny.cz/roboti-v-a
rmade-cr.html (visited on 25/10/2019).
Army Recognition (2018). Black Hornet micro-drones for Netherlands army scouts and marines. URL: https://www.armyreco
gnition.com/may_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/black_hornet_micro-drones_for
_netherlands_army_scouts_and_marines.html (visited on 11/10/2019).
— (2019). Expodefensa 2017: STM unveils Alpagu 2 tactical attack UAV. URL: https://armyrecognition.com/expodefen
sa_2017_news_online_show_daily (visited on 14/10/2019).
Army Technology (2019a). French DGA to procure FLIR Black Hornet 3 nano UAV and PRS. URL: https://www.army-techno
logy.com/news/french-dga-flir-black-hornet-3-uav-prs/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
— (2019b). Bayraktar Mini Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. URL: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/bayraktar-
uav/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019c). Green Dragon Tactical Loitering Missile. URL: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/green-drago
n-tactical-loitering-missile/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019d). Horus FT-100 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). URL: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/horus-
ft-100-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-uav/ (visited on 02/12/2019).
Asia Pacific Defence News (2019). India acquires Black Hornet Nano – world’s smallest spy cam UAV. URL: https://asiapaci
ficdefencenews.com/index.php/2018/11/03/india-acquires-black-hornet-nano-worlds-smallest-spy-
cam-uav/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
Australian Defence Magazine (2019). Industry pitches novel weapons and effects at Army’s AID17. URL: https://www.austral
iandefence.com.au/event-reporting/industry-pitches-novel-weapons-and-effects-at-army-s-aid17
(visited on 18/11/2019).
Baek, Stanley & Ronald Fearing (2010). ‘Flight Forces and Altitude Regulation of 12 gram I-Bird’. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. New York: IEEE, pp. 454–460. DOI:
10.1109/BIOROB.2010.5626347.
78
UAV Table References
Baykar (2019a). Baykar product catalogue. URL: https://www.baykarsavunma.com/upload/ingilizce/Baykar_catalo
g_eng.pdf (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Bayraktar Mini İHA. URL: https://www.baykarsavunma.com/iha-16.html (visited on 14/10/2019).
Ben-Moshe, Boaz, Yael Landau, Revital Marbel et al. (2018). ‘Bio-Inspired Micro Drones’. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference
on the Science of Electrical Engineering in Israel (ICSEE), pp. 1–5. DOI: 10.1109/ICSEE.2018.8645997.
Bitcraze (2020). Crazyflie 2.1. URL: https://store.bitcraze.io/products/crazyflie-2-1 (visited on 12/11/2020).
Blackbar Engineering (2019). STORM. URL: https://www.blackbarengineering.com/storm (visited on 26/11/2019).
Bledsoe, Sofia (2015). PEO workers receive Army acquisition awards. URL: https://www.army.mil/article/148323/peo
_workers_receive_army_acquisition_awards (visited on 25/10/2019).
BlueBird Aero Systems (2020). MicroB. URL: http://www.bluebird-uav.com/microb/ (visited on 13/08/2020).
Business Wire (2016). The Netherlands Ministry of Defence Awards AeroVironment Contract for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
and Upgrades Valued at $10.3 Million. URL: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161031005408/en/Net
herlands-Ministry-Defence-Awards-AeroVironment-Contract-Small (visited on 25/10/2019).
C-Astral (2019a). Atlas ppX. URL: https://www.c- astral.com/en/unmanned- systems/atlas- ppx (visited on
14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Micro UAS ATLAS C4EYE in benchmark trials with NATO forces. URL: https://www.c-astral.com/en/newsro
om/56/micro-uas-atlas-c4eye-in-benchmark-trials-with-nato-forces (visited on 14/10/2019).
Christopher, James Kellogg, Christopher Bovais, Jill Dahlburg et al. (2001). ‘The NRL MITE Air Vehicle’. In: Proceedings of the
Bristol RPV/AUV Systems Conference. Bristol: University of Bristol.
De Croon, G.C.H.E., M. Perçin B.D.W. Remes, R. Ruijsink et al. (2016). The DelFly. Design, Aerodynamics, and Artificial
Intelligence of a Flapping Wing Robot. Dordrecht: Springer.
Delft Dynamics BV (2015). DroneCatcher. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBWWrSLOz5Q (visited on 21/08/2020).
— (2016). DroneCatcher. URL: https://dronecatcher.nl/ (visited on 21/08/2020).
Digital Trends (2017). AeroVironment’s Snipe Nano Quadrotor is a Pocket-Sized Personal Drone. URL: https://www.digitalt
rends.com/cool-tech/snipe-nano-drone-solider/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
DJI (2019a). DJI Mavic Pro – Spezifikationen, FAQ, Tutorials und Guides. URL: https://www.dji.com/de/mavic/info
(visited on 03/10/2019).
— (2019b). Mavic Mini - Technische Daten. URL: https://www.dji.com/de/mavic-mini/specs (visited on 22/11/2019).
DroningON (2017). The $40,000 Nano Drone Used By British, German and Norwegian Army. URL: https://www.droningon
.co/2017/06/01/flir-pd-100-40k-nano-reconnaissance-drone/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
ECD Confidencial Digital (2013). Dos mini UAV de última tecnología para la unidad de élite del Ejército del Aire. URL:
https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/defensa/UAV-tecnologia-unidad-Ejercito-Aire/20
131224120418071323.html (visited on 25/10/2019).
Elbit Systems (2019a). Elbit Systems Introduces MAGNI, a Vehicle-Launched Multi-Rotor Micro-Drone. URL: https://elbits
ystems.com/pr-new/elbit-systems-introduces-magni-a-vehicle-launched-multi-rotor-micro-drone/
(visited on 03/12/2019).
— (2019b). NOX. URL: https://elbitsystems.com/product/nox/ (visited on 03/12/2019).
— (2019c). THOR. URL: https://elbitsystems.com/product/thor/ (visited on 22/11/2019).
— (2020). MAGNI. URL: https://elbitsystems.com/product/magni/ (visited on 13/01/2020).
EMT Penzberg (2019a). ALADIN UAV System. URL: https://www.emt-penzberg.de/en/produkte/aladin/aladin.html
(visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). FanCopter data sheet. URL: https://www.emt-penzberg.de/uploads/media/FANCOPTER_de_01.pdf
(visited on 03/12/2019).
Eshel, T. (2012). Sweden, Denmark Opt for PUMA AE, Wasp Mini-UAVs. URL: https://defense-update.com/20120612_sw
eden-denmark-puma-wasp.html (visited on 25/10/2019).
— (2013). Sky Sapience Delivers the First Pre-Production Hovermast to the IDF. URL: https://defense-update.com/2013
0902_idf_receivehovermast.html (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2016). IAI Introduces New Loitering Weapons for Anti-Radiation, Precision strike. URL: https://defense-update.com/2
0160215_loitering-weapons.html (visited on 14/10/2019).
FLIR (2019a). FLIR Systems Awarded $1.8 Million British Army Contract for Black Hornet 3 Personal Reconnaissance Systems.
URL: https://www.flir.com/news-center/military/flir-systems-awarded-$1.8-million-british-army-
contract-for-black-hornet-3-personal-reconnaissance-systems/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
— (2019b). Black Hornet. URL: https://www.flir.com/products/black-hornet-prs/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
— (2020). SkyRanger R60. URL: https://www.flir.com/support/products/skyranger-r60#Resources (visited on
24/08/2020).
79
UAV Table References
Frantzman, S. (2019). Israel’s Elbit sells over 1,000 mini-drones to Southeast Asian country. URL: https://www.defensenews.c
om/unmanned/2019/10/09/israels-elbit-sells-over-1000-mini-drones-to-southeast-asian-country/
(visited on 03/12/2019).
Gettinger, Dan (2019). The Drone Databook. URL: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/projects/drone-proliferation/d
atabook/ (visited on 24/07/2020).
Global Industries & Defence Solutions (2019). Scout data sheet. URL: http://www.gids.com.pk/UAV.pdf (visited on
02/12/2019).
HobbyKing (2019). Skywalker X-6 FPV Wing EPO 1500mm (Kit). URL: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/skywalker-x-6-f
pv-wing-epo-1500mm-kit.html?___store=en_us (visited on 24/10/2019).
Hsiao, F.-Y., L.-J. Yang, S.-H. Lin et al. (2012). ‘Autopilots for Ultra Lightweight Robotic Birds: Automatic Altitude Control and
System Integration of a Sub-10 g Weight Flapping-Wing Micro Air Vehicle’. In: Control Systems, IEEE 32 (5), pp. 35–48. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2012.2205475.
IAI (2019). Green Dragon Mini Loitering Munition System. URL: https://www.iai.co.il/p/green-dragon (visited on
14/10/2019).
— (2020). ROTEM Loitering Munition based on a Light Multi-Rotor Platform. URL: https://www.iai.co.il/p/rotem
(visited on 12/08/2020).
IDS (2019a). FlyFast 2.0 lightweight fixed wing UAV. URL: https://www.idscorporation.com/pf/flyfast-2-0/ (visited
on 02/12/2019).
— (2019b). IA-3 Colibrì UAV. URL: https://www.idscorporation.com/pf/ia-3-colibri/ (visited on 22/11/2019).
IHS Jane’s 360 (2017). DSA 2016: China details CH-901 UAV and loitering munition. URL: https://web.archive.org/web
/20170413114223/http://www.janes.com:80/article/59623/dsa-2016-china-details-ch-901-uav-and-l
oitering-munition (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019). Smart weapons for the battlefield [ES18D1]. URL: https://www.janes.com/article/80783/smart-weapons-
for-the-battlefield-es18d1 (visited on 14/10/2019).
InstantEye Robotics (2019). InstantEye Mk-3 Systems. URL: https://instanteyerobotics.com/products/gen3/ (visited
on 17/10/2019).
Integrated Dynamics (2019a). Desert Hawk. URL: http://idaerospace.com/desert-hawk/ (visited on 22/11/2019).
— (2019b). Rover Mk I. URL: http://idaerospace.com/rover-mk-i/ (visited on 05/12/2019).
ISPRA (2019). Riot Control Drone System. URL: http://www.ispraltd.com/Riot%2DControl%2DDrone%2DSystem.html
(visited on 25/10/2019).
Jafferis, Noah T., E. Farrell Helbling, Michael Karpelson et al. (2019). ‘Untethered Flight of an Insect-Sized Flapping-Wing
Microscale Aerial Vehicle’. In: Nature 570.7762, pp. 491–495. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1322-0.
Jane’s 360 (2017). STM begins serial production of loitering munitions. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/201710232
10739/https://www.janes.com/article/75140/stm-begins-serial-production-of-loitering-munitions
(visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019). Desert Hawk baby arrives. URL: https://www.janes.com/article/54619/desert-hawk-baby-arrives-ds
ei15-d4 (visited on 14/11/2019).
Julian, R.C., C.J. Rose, H. Hu et al. (2013). ‘Cooperative control and modeling for narrow passage traversal with an ornithopter
MAV and lightweight ground station’. In: 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 2013,
AAMAS 2013 1, pp. 103–110.
Karásek, Matěj, Florian T. Muijres, Christophe De Wagter et al. (2018). ‘A tailless aerial robotic flapper reveals that flies use torque
coupling in rapid banked turns’. In: Science 361.6407, pp. 1089–1094. DOI: 10.1126/science.aat0350.
Kasyanov, Yuriy (2019). Facebook post. URL: https://www.facebook.com/brtcomua/posts/1884605578266754 (visited
on 26/11/2019).
Keennon, Matthew, Karl Klingebiel & Henry Won (2012). ‘Development of the Nano Hummingbird: A Tailless Flapping Wing
Micro Air Vehicle’. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.
DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-588.
Kellogg, J., C. Bovais, R. Foch et al. (2002). ‘The NRL micro tactical expendable (MITE) air vehicle’. In: The Aeronautical Journal
106.1062, pp. 431–442. DOI: 10.1017/S000192400009223X.
LaGrone, Sam (2016). UPDATED: AeroVironment to Supply Blackwing Mini UAVs for Navy Attack, Guided Missile Submarines.
URL: https://news.usni.org/2016/05/16/aerovironment-to-supply-blackwing-mini-uavs-for-navy-att
ack-guided-missile-submarines (visited on 11/10/2019).
Leonardo (2019). CREX-B. URL: https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/products/crex-b (visited on 22/11/2019).
Lockheed Martin (2017). Law Enforcement Pioneer Use of Lockheed Martin Indago Unmanned Aerial System with Project
Lifesaver International. URL: https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-05-10-Law-Enforcement-Pioneer-Use
-of-Lockheed-Martin-Indago-Unmanned-Aerial-System-with-Project-Lifesaver-International (visited
on 14/10/2019).
80
UAV Table References
Lockheed Martin (2019a). Desert Hawk Brochure. URL: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-mar
tin/rms/documents/desert-hawk/Desert_Hawk_Brochure.pdf (visited on 25/11/2019).
— (2019b). Indago Brochure. URL: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/photo
/procerus/Indago-brochure.pdf (visited on 25/10/2019).
Ma, Kevin Y., Pakpong Chirarattananon, Sawyer B. Fuller et al. (2013). ‘Controlled Flight of a Biologically Inspired, Insect-Scale
Robot’. In: Science 340.6132, pp. 603–607. DOI: 10.1126/science.1231806.
MAVLab TU Delft (2019a). DelFly. URL: http://www.delfly.nl/ (visited on 18/12/2019).
— (2019b). DelFly Micro. URL: http://www.delfly.nl/micro/ (visited on 18/12/2019).
Military.com (2016). Marines Testing Out World’s Smallest Drone. URL: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2016/0
9/27/marines-are-testing-out-the-worlds-smallest-drone (visited on 11/10/2019).
N., Leigh (2019). DefendTex Drone-40 — The Australian UAV That Can Be Fired From a 40mm Grenade Launcher. URL:
https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/06/07/defendtex-drone-40-the-australian-uav-that-can-be-fir
ed-from-a-40mm-grenade-launcher (visited on 18/11/2019).
Naval Drones (2019a). RQ-12A Wasp AE UAV. URL: http://www.navaldrones.com/Aqua- Wasp.html (visited on
11/10/2019).
— (2019b). Blackwing. URL: http://www.navaldrones.com/Blackwing.html (visited on 11/10/2019).
Novadem (2019). NX70. URL: https://novadem.online/en/nx70-defense-en/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
O’Kane, S. (2019). The Mavic Mini is DJI’s first drone that doesn’t need FAA registration. URL: https://www.theverge.com
/2019/10/30/20938530/dji-mavic-mini-price-specs-faa-ultra-light-combo-pack (visited on 22/11/2019).
Pointon, J. M. (2018). Integration of NZDF Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) into New Zealand Civil Airspace. URL:
https://www.dta.mil.nz/assets/publication/a2a9062112/Report430.pdf (visited on 03/02/2021).
Pornsin-Sirirak, T., Yu-Chong Tai, Chih-Ming Ho et al. (2001). ‘Microbat: A Palm-Sized Electrically Powered Ornithopter’. In:
Proceedings of NASA/JPL Workshop on Biomorphic Robotics.
Rafael (2019). Spike Firefly brochure. URL: https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FIREFLY.pdf
(visited on 14/10/2019).
Ramezani, A., S.-J. Chung & S. Hutchinson (2017). ‘A biomimetic robotic platform to study flight specializations of bats’. In:
Science Robotics 2 (3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aal2505.
Raytheon (2019). Coyote UAS. URL: https : / / www . raytheon . com / capabilities / products / coyote (visited on
25/10/2019).
Roshanbin, A., H. Altartouri, M. Karásek et al. (2017). ‘COLIBRI: A hovering flapping twin-wing robot’. In: International Journal
of Micro Air Vehicles 9.4, pp. 270–282. DOI: 10.1177/1756829317695563.
SCR (2019a). Aster-T data sheet. URL: https://scrdrones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FOLLETO-ASTER-T-
CAUTIVO-EN.pdf (visited on 13/12/2019).
— (2019b). SCR and Everis ADS present the ASTER-T at the UME. URL: http://scrdrones.com/en/scr-everis-ads-tr
ial-aster-t-to-ume/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
Shkarayev, Sergey V., Peter G. Ifju, James C. Kellogg et al. (2007). Introduction to the Design of Fixed-Wing Micro Air Vehicles.
Including Three Case Studies. Reston, Virgina: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: https://doi.org
/10.2514/4.862106.
Sky Sapience (2019). HoverMast 100. URL: https://www.skysapience.com/defense-products/drone/hovermast-100
(visited on 25/10/2019).
Skyborne Technologies (2019). Cerberus GL. URL: https://skybornetech.com/cerberus-gl (visited on 26/11/2019).
Skywalker (2019). Skywalker X6. URL: http://skywalkermodel.com/en/79.html (visited on 24/10/2019).
Soldier Systems (2019). SOFIC 19 – DefendTex Drone-40. URL: http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/24/sofic-19-de
fendtex-drone-40/ (visited on 18/11/2019).
Spaitech (2019). Sparrow Brochure. URL: https://spaitech.net/sparrow_eng.pdf (visited on 04/12/2019).
Stevenson, B. (2017). UAV Insect Repellent. URL: https://armadainternational.com/2017/09/uav-insect-repellen
t/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
STM (2019a). Alpagu. URL: https://www.stm.com.tr/en/products/alpagu (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Alpagu Blok II. URL: https://www.stm.com.tr/en/products/alpagu-blok-ii (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019c). Kargu. URL: https://www.stm.com.tr/en/products/kargu (visited on 14/10/2019).
Streetly, Martin & Beatrice Bernadi (2018). Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft - Unmanned Yearbook 2018-2019. Coulsdon: IHS
Markit.
sUAS News (2018). The Next-Generation Aeryon SkyRanger R80. URL: https://www.suasnews.com/2018/05/the-next-g
eneration-aeryon-skyRanger-r80/ (visited on 24/08/2020).
81
UAV Table References
sUAS News (2019a). Novadem NX70 micro-UAVs have arrived in operations. URL: https://www.suasnews.com/2019/09/no
vadem-nx70-micro-uavs-have-arrived-in-operations/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Zala Lancet loitering munition. URL: https://www.suasnews.com/2019/06/zala-lancet-loitering-muni
tion/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
Threod (2019a). KX-4 Interceptor. URL: https://threod.com/product/kx-4-interceptor/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
— (2019b). Titan. URL: https://threod.com/product/kx-4-le-titan/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
— (2019c). Titan UAV and THeMIS UGV deployed in Mali, Africa. URL: https://threod.com/titan-and-themis-deploy
ed-in-mali/ (visited on 11/10/2019).
UAV Solutions (2019). Compact Expendable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (CEUAV). URL: https://uav-solutions.com/unman
nedaircraft/ceuav/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
Uconsystem (2019a). REMOEYE-002B. URL: http://www.uconsystem.com/eng/products/military/remoeye-002b.a
sp (visited on 25/10/2019).
— (2019b). T-Rotor. URL: http://www.uconsystem.com/eng/products/military/trotor.asp (visited on 23/11/2019).
Ukrspecsystems (2020). PC-1 Multirotor drone data sheet. URL: http://www.ukrspecsystems.com/pc-1/ (visited on
22/08/2020).
Unmanned Systems Technology (2016). Australian Armed Forces to Adopt AeroVironment’s Wasp AE sUAS. URL: https://www
.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2016/09/australian-armed-forces-to-adopt-aerovironments-wasp-a
e-suas/ (visited on 25/10/2019).
US Strategic Capabilities Office (2019). Perdix Fact Sheet. URL: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs
/Perdix%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?ver=2017-01-09-101520-643 (visited on 25/10/2019).
UVision (2019a). Hero-20. URL: https://uvisionuav.com/portfolio-view/hero-20/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Hero-30, Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile System (LMAMS). URL: https://uvisionuav.com/portfolio-view
/hero-30/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019c). Hero-70, Loitering Weapon Systems. URL: https://uvisionuav.com/portfolio-view/hero-70/ (visited on
14/10/2019).
WB Group (2019a). Amunicja krążąca WARMATE TL. URL: https://www.wbgroup.pl/produkt/warmate-tube-launch/
(visited on 24/10/2019).
— (2019b). WARMATE loitering munitions. URL: https://www.wbgroup.pl/en/produkt/warmate-loitering-munniti
ons/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019c). Warmate R. URL: https://www.wbgroup.pl/en/produkt/warmate-r/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019d). WARMATE V loitering munitions. URL: https://www.wbgroup.pl/en/produkt/warmate-v-loitering-mun
itions-system/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
ZALA Aero (2019a). Loitering munition ‘KYB-UAV’. URL: https://zala-aero.com/en/production/bvs/kyb-uav/
(visited on 14/10/2019).
— (2019b). Unmanned aerial vehicle ZALA LANCET-1. URL: https://zala-aero.com/en/production/bvs/zala-lance
t-1/ (visited on 14/10/2019).
82