Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial - Narcap

43 Pages·2013·1.47 MB·English

NARCAP Topical Review 05

NARCAP Topical Review TOP 05, 2013

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:
Can We Tell Them Apart?

Richard F. Haines and Wayne Reed
Chief Scientist Research Associate

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
Copyright
October 10, 2013

Abstract

Serious investigators of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and perhaps others need to be
able to correctly discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from unidentified aerial
phenomena (UAP) which are probably not manmade. Doing this accurately requires knowledge
about the key visual features and flight capabilities of each class of objects. This paper is an
extension of Osborn (2009) and presents photographs and selected technical information related
to one-half of this challenge – UAV - a technology that is evolving so rapidly that this snapshot
can portray only a small proportion of the many bizarre shapes, wide range of dimensions, flight
capabilities and other characteristics of UAVs at the present time. Can perceived outline shape
be used with assurance in making an accurate discrimination between UAV and UAP? Indeed,
odd shaped, apparently non-aerodynamic objects may or may not be manmade. Can any current
UAV accelerate almost instantaneously, hover silently, turn sharp corners, or leave a luminous
trail behind them? Can any currently flying UAV cause airplane compasses to deviate or other
electronic systems to malfunction when flying near an airplane? Can they keep pace with high
performance air force jets and perform corkscrew flight maneuvers around the jets or even be
visible in one moment and invisible in the next? If the answer to these questions is found to be
yes then much serious, non-instrumented UAP field research will have come to an end and
ultimately will result only in frustration. This paper explores several of these issues and includes
photographs of sixty eight current UAV with related information.

1
NARCAP Topical Review 05

Introduction

American, Australian, and other allied airplane spotters on faraway Pacific islands during
WW-2 were trained to quickly and accurately identify different Japanese airplanes primarily by
their silhouette (outline) shapes. Except for situations where these airplanes were far away - with
correspondingly angularly small retinal image sizes - each airplane’s silhouette contained one or
more critical details [Haines, 2010(b)] that enabled the spotters to make a correct identification.
Such critical visual details included recognizable, i.e., familiar outline shape, vapor or other
atmospheric traces produced by the still to be identified airplanes and their flight performance
capabilities. In some cases the engine sounds they made confirmed their identity particularly in
poor visibility situations. But aviation technology has progressed very greatly since WW-2.
Making a correct discrimination between a manned and unmanned air vehicle has become far
more difficult today.

Critical Details
There are several major contributors to making an accurate visual identification of a distant
flying object. We call them “critical details” since they may serve in many cases as unique
identifiers of a UAV. Even when the object is little more than a speck in the sky without any
shape at all, for instance, its motions can be appreciated when there is a stable background
visible. If it follows smooth turns that have a finite radius it could be a manned or unmanned
airplane or a UAP. The greater the velocity and object mass the larger the radius that is required
as is illustrated by America’s SR-71 high altitude reconnaissance plane that requires about a 100
miles radius turn (at a medium bank angle) when flying at Mach 3. But if the unidentified
airplane or phenomenon makes very sharp, even instantaneous changes in its direction of flight
which, considering its forward velocity, would otherwise produce extremely high g loads on its
on-board pilot(s), then it might be a lower mass UAV (located at a much nearer distance) or a
UAP. If it seems to come to a sudden stop in mid-air from an angularly high rate of speed or
suddenly accelerates it might be a small UAV located nearer to the observer or a UAP. Clearly,
the ever increasing maneuverability of UAV make them more and more difficult to discriminate
from UAP that are reported to perform truly fantastic flight maneuvers.

Of course, there are other visual factors that contribute to this set of “critical details.” One is
outline shape. When the unidentified object has increased in size (i.e., visual angle) one may
finally see its outline (silhouette) shape but nothing else. Its shape will vary as its orientation
toward the viewer changes. As is illustrated in Figure 1, the same UAV can appear radically
different depending upon the angle from which it is seen. This factor alone can cause confusion
and uncertainty. Indeed, only a sphere is invariant at different orientations. [Haines et al.,
2010(a)]
2
NARCAP Topical Review 05

The following line drawing is of an “all-wing” manned glider design from the pre-WW-II era
designed by the Horten brothers in Germany. (Myhra, Pg. 305, 1998). It must be pointed out that
several current UAV are based on the same general design principles as can be seen in the
following photographs of plane form and stealth shaped Flying Wing UAV today some seventy
years later!
Figure 1
Three Views of the Flying Wing Model HO-16
(Used by Permission: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.)
Top View

Front View

Side View

Figure 2 is an artist’s drawing of Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinal UAV, a vehicle that
looks remarkably like the earlier HO-16 flying wing.

Figure 2
Artist’s Rendering of the RQ-170 Sentinal UAV in Three Views
(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinal)

3
NARCAP Topical Review 05

Additionally, the visual characteristics of military UAV in particular are designed to blend
into the surroundings and thus their external paint colors are often a light, flat, grey with hints of
light blue. Since the flat paint and color choices are carefully selected to reduce detection, they
would almost certainly eliminate such a UAV if a glint or reflection was observed from them.
Another critical detail is viewing duration. In some past cases small fighter aircraft were
misidentified as larger bombers (and vice versa) until sufficient viewing time had elapsed to
make their actual identity clear. Research by the first author on 283 reports of UAP seen from
aircraft for the period 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1952 found that the average sighting
duration was 7.3 minutes. (Haines, 1983) Such long durations contribute to being able to
examine many of the unidentified object’s critical details and eliminate most of the prosaic
explanations.

A third contributor is prior familiarity with different airplane shapes. For example, someone
who has never read about or seen a flying wing design may believe that he is not seeing a
manmade aircraft at all. Trying to classify something one has never seen before is a challenging
task indeed; the interested reader should consult [Haines, 2012(b)] for a current example of this.
The photographic array of different UAV models presented below will help to make some of
them more familiar to the reader.

Another critical detail is the noise that is or is not heard from a UAV or squadron of them.
Generally, the greater the mass that must be levitated against gravity and propelled laterally at
some velocity, the more power that is required. Generating this power produces noises of
various volumes, durations, and frequencies. While some very small UAV use quiet battery-
powered electric motors driving rotors that can barely be heard nearby larger models employ
gasoline or jet engines that are unmistakably manmade UAV. Nevertheless, so-called stealth
UAV are being developed for surveillance (and other) applications that are claimed to be almost
undetectable against normal urban background noise levels. Continuing improvements in these
ultra-quiet UAV will only contribute to their being confused with UAP.

Finally, nighttime operations of UAV may or may not employ standard red - green navigation
and collision avoidance lights. These requirements are still being worked out. For stealth-related
operations many small UAVs use normally invisible infrared strobes during nighttime flights as
locating beacons. Only those wearing appropriate night vision goggles can see them. On UAV
designed for night time advertising their light sources will likely present virtually any color,
pattern, flash rate, or intensity. There are already several small hobby class model UAV made to
look like discs and saucers and that light up with flashing colored LEDs.
As has been mentioned before this paper addresses the subject of how to correctly
discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from what the authors believe is a fundamentally
different class of aerial phenomena that we call UAP, (for unidentified aerial phenomena).
4
NARCAP Topical Review 05

What about UAV?
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is “any aircraft which is designed or modified not to
carry a human pilot and is operated through electronic input initiated by a remotely located flight
controller and/or by an onboard autonomous flight management control system that does not
require flight controller intervention.” (www.psi.nmsuk.edu/uav/conops/ ) So far at least all
UAV are aerodynamic in shape and operation. There are about a thousand different UAV
systems today designed and built by over three hundred firms in many countries. (Aerospace
America, 2013; Anon, 2012; Goldman, 2012; Karim, 2009; NOVA, 2012; Osborn, 2009;
Popular Science, 2010; Wiki, 2012, 2013) Appendix 1 is a partial list of the ever growing
number of names that have been given to UAV; it is clear that this technology is still in flux and
developing in various aerodynamic capability (and other) directions. By 2020 there are predicted
to be at least thirty thousand UAV flying in U. S. airspace, albeit most at lower altitudes. Today
the FAA requires a special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC-Experimental) to operate UAVs. It
will be selecting six UAV test sites by the end of 2013; the first should become operational
within six months. As Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution has pointed out,
UAV are a “game-changing technology, akin to gunpowder, the steam engine, the atomic bomb
– opening up possibilities that were fiction a generation earlier…”. (Whitehead, 2013) If this is
true for UAV today, could the same thing be said about UAP? (Footnote 1)

As more and more UAV enter America’s National Air Space (NAS) national and
international aviation agencies are working to keep airplanes with people on board from
colliding with them (Anon, 2012). Ground and airborne radar detection, transponders and
perhaps even some type(s) of Terminal Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) onboard future
UAV will likely form the backbone of such collision avoidance efforts along with modification
of the traditional see-and-be-seen principle when both vehicles are manned to see-and-avoid
when one is manned and the other isn’t. Where does the ultimate responsibility for collision
avoidance lie in this matter? With expanded use of multiple wide-angle on-board cameras the
UAV’s ground controller may possibly be able to maintain adequate situational – collision
avoidance awareness. Still, the deliberate use of stealth fuselage designs of already small UAVs
will minimize the effectiveness of their detection by primary radar. Various anticipated uses of
UAV within the NAS will probably require that transponders be carried on-board as part of their
payload. Flights of so-called hobby-class UAV are likely to rely on continuous (or at least
remote) visual contact with the vehicle from the ground. (Reynish, 2004)

What about UAP?
In spite of their controversial nature and their capability to produce a stubborn and closed-
minded attitude toward accepting their reality by some people today, UAP (sometimes called by
the misleading yet commonly used acronym ufo) are firmly established as a modern reality.
Whatever they are they are objectively real, having been photographed, detected by radar, infra-
red and multi-spectral sensors, touched, smelled, and seen by many hundreds of thousands (or
5
NARCAP Topical Review 05

more) of highly qualified people over many centuries. Reviews by Catoe (1969); Clark, 1990;
Dolan (2000); Hall (2001); Vallee, (1965) and others should be consulted in this regard. The
aviation communities of the world should stop denying their reality. Research by the first author
and many others is also pointing to an unacceptably large possibility for flight safety impact by
UAP. (cf., Clark, 2003; Ferguson, 2012; Garrido and Cornejo, 2010; Guzman, 2001; Haines,
2000; Haines et al, 2007; Haines 2012(a); Randles, 1998; Sato, 2013; Shough, 2002; Smith,
1997; Weinstein, 2011). This paper will not address any details of the electromagnetic effects on
manmade technology that have been linked to nearby UAP.

It must be emphasized that UAP, like UAV, present a very wide range of silhouette shapes
with all of the attendant problems of identifying them on the basis of their shape. [Haines, 1976;
1979(a); 1979(b); 2010(b)] Having prior sightings with actual UAP also provide important clues
as to their classification as being something that is not manmade. Of course the flight
characteristics of many UAP have also been noted by many past researchers as being extremely
non-aerodynamic. Their means of propulsion have not yet been discovered. One of many
interesting facts about UAP is that the great majority of them depart from the witness’s location
by rising vertically or at a steep angle and also rapidly. This cannot be said for most UAV.
When this occurs at usual cruise speeds and altitudes of commercial jet airplanes, as it has on
many scores of occasions it eliminates UAV as the other object.

What is not Covered Here
The subject of UAV is already so vast and constantly changing that it may appear foolish to
offer even a limited snapshot of it here. The following aspects of UAV are not discussed here in
order to keep this review to a manageable length and because they are not directly relevant to the
subject at hand: means of ground-to-UAV communication and energy transfer; specific UAV
payloads unless their form factor influences their shape; on-board sensing systems; emitted
radiation; specific vehicle missions and related design drivers [cf. Goldman, 2012]; collision
avoidance issues and FAA regulations within the NAS; and certification of UAV operators.
These and other related topics are discussed elsewhere [e.g., Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International; Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Perceptions &Potential (2013)].

The following section presents several sighting reports to illustrate some of the difficulties in
telling a UAV from a UAP.
Several Unexplained Sighting Reports

A part of the motivation to prepare this report came from trying to find explanations for what
was reported by aviation personnel over many decades. Were these reported objects and lights
actually UAVs of some kind? This is a valid question that skeptics have raised many times
6
NARCAP Topical Review 05

before. Consider the following three sighting reports made over fifty years ago - before there
were hardly any UAV.

Sixty one years ago on April 5, 1952 when remote control of airplanes was very limited
four U.S. Air Force personnel stationed at Kadena A.F.B., Okinawa and assigned to the 372nd
Bomb Squadron watched as an unidentified object flew an “erratic course” for about ten minutes.
The local time was 12:00 am. The white, silent object maneuvered above their base with violent
zig-zag motions, coming to a complete stop and then continuing. The airmen estimated its
altitude at about 20,000 feet. It departed out of sight by rising up and away to the west over the
ocean. This report was found in an official Air Force Project Blue Book file; the official
explanation given was “aircraft.”

The second case is also found in Project Blue Book files (case 3523) and involved two U.S.
Air Force officers who were walking across the airfield ramp at the Keflavik, Iceland airbase at
16:38 hrs. local time on May 4, 1955. They reported seeing a group of very unusual objects
flying across the sky. First seen at about ten degrees arc from directly overhead they all
disappeared behind cloud cover about thirty degrees arc above the horizon within ten or twelve
seconds! Approximately eight of the unknown objects were grouped together with two more
farther away on their right-hand side. “In position they did not move back and forth or in and out
slowly, as jet aircraft. But very rapidly and jerkily. When they were about half-way through this
50 degree arc of the sky the object in the center of the group emitted a very thin, linear smoke
trail which disappeared almost immediately. All of the objects had the same indistinct (round or
oval) shape, color, and brightness. No wings or tail could be seen; they all appeared to be
transparent or translucent like a, “glob of milk of magnesia that had been heavily cut with
water.” One witness estimated the angular size of each object as that of a penny held at arm’s
length (about 1.5 deg.), or about 60 to 70 feet across and travelling at well over 1,000 kts.
(U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book files; Olsen, 1966) The official explanation was “unidentified.”

Another sighting occurred fifty six years ago on August 27, 1957, according to official U.S.
Air Force records (case 4922). At least six airmen and control tower operators saw a round
object associated with a white light above Eglin A.F.B. in western Florida for about five minutes.
During this time its altitude was judged to be seven hundred feet and it moved vertically up and
down. It also circled the hanger at about 2,000 feet altitude showing red and white lights. The
official explanation was “aircraft.”
Less than three months later (November 7, 1957) plant guards at the Pantex Atomic Energy
Commission ordnance plant near Amarillo, Texas phoned the Texas State Highway Patrol at
19:46 hrs. concerning three bright, flashing objects that were hovering above the plant at about
fifty feet above the ground. When a patrolman arrived at 20:15 hrs. he also saw one of the
strange lights. A great many more similarly bizarre accounts could be cited. (cf. Clark, 1990;
Hynek, 1972; Olsen, 1966)
7
NARCAP Topical Review 05

Could any of these unidentified objects have been some kind of UAV of that era? The highly
qualified answer is probably no because America did not then possess powered aero-vehicles of
any shape that could hover silently, fly vertically up and down [other than noisy gyrocopters and
helicopters (Leishman, 2000)], or fly in saw-tooth or jerky flight paths. Clearly, these objects
were not helicopters because of differences in reported shape, flight performance, as well as
complete silence. If any of them were balloons with lights attached at night what was their
source of electrical power and how could they fly in the manners just described? Could any have
been radio-controlled airplane models? While this is possible it is not very probable.

More Recent Aerial Encounters with Alleged UAVs.

Let us now consider several more recent sighting reports that may have been caused by
UAV. The U.S. Air Force allegedly used an unmanned jet propelled combat aerial vehicle in the
war in Afghanistan in mid April 2009 that looked “… similar to the X-45s and X-47s… built
…for the USAF and Navy.” The summary article about this event concluded by saying, “…no
one is saying what a combat UAV design is doing in Afghanistan. But there it is, operating as a
UFO (unidentified flying object).” (www.strategypage.com/htmw)

This incident involved many eye witnesses stationed at Camp Leatherneck (Marjah)
Afghanistan on or about February 7, 2010. The following narrative is quoted verbatim from the
Mutual UFO Network’s Case Management System files (http://www.mufon.org; Case 36089) .

“Here are 2 of the 6 photos that I took one night (on or about 7 Feb, 2010) while at our office
in the MLG (Marine Logistics Group) compound on Camp Leatherneck Afg. (located in Heland
Province). I know that ALL of my friends on FB that were with us saw the same thing. They
were up there long enough that people were leaving.
“They were up there for a long time without moving. They went away for a while and then
came back. They didn't move or blink or make any noise. They looked like they were really high
up but there was nothing to base that on. Pretty cool event.
“Now that I have seen it on TV it is super cool that we were able to witness it.
1. I was in my office in teh (sic) MLG Compound on Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan.
2. One of the Marines in the Company came into the office to tell us about the lights.
3. At first we thought maybe flares or weather balloons but they didn't change alt. or fade out
or fall.
4. As my attachments show there were 7 equally spaced lights in the sky that did not appear
to move or change.
5. Very interested to see the lights, so many people saw them and didn't even stop to look at
them. There was a lot going on during the day but nothing to distract us during the
8
NARCAP Topical Review 05

sighting.
6. I hate to say it but after maybe 45 minutes we just went back inside to work.”
“I have 4 more pics (sic) they are sharper but since I was moving they make the light appear
as if they were moving. The two I attached are pretty clear.” (Note: These two nighttime photos
are not presented here but are available on the MUFON website in the case files section, search
UFO data base. A recently posted comment on this case, allegedly by another Marine who was
also stationed here, claimed that he saw the same formation of lights in 2009).
< http://www.examiner.com/article/series-of-lights-reported-hovering-over-u-s-marine-base- >
Were there any UAV in use in the Afghanistan war zone in early 2010 that can hover in
silence for a relatively long period of time while maintaining a précises position along a straight
line (relative to several other UAV) also having the same angular size, shape, color, and
brightness? If this sighting report can be believed one can also ask what these seven self-
luminous objects were and what were they doing above the marine base?
In the following more recent sighting both flight crew members of a Citation 550 jet reported
to authorities on the ground that on January 11, 2011 at 18:45 hrs. local time, they were cruising
at FL 200 at 380 kts. true air speed heading west between New Haven, Connecticut and Buffalo,
New York when the following incident took place. The captain was the first to see a flickering
light ahead of them. He pointed it out to the First Officer because it was at their twelve o’clock
position and they knew of no other traffic in the area. In his typed report submitted to the
National UFO Reporting Center (used by permission) two days later, the captain wrote that at
first he thought it was a planet but soon realized that the unknown object was passing off to their
left side; he estimated it to be between 2 and 4 thousand feet above their altitude. He wrote, “It
had a blinking light in front and between 3 and 4 other lights on it, all white except for an
extremely faint and small green light toward the rear.” The captain radioed ATC about it when
the light reached their ten o’clock position and was told that they, “…had traffic at that position
going westbound. This craft was eastbound and not in contact with any controllers… Both my
co-pilot and myself watched it disappear behind us… While it is common to see other traffic in
the sky while flying, the fact that it was so lit up (planes are not usually that highly lit at those
altitudes) with lights that were not consistent with aircraft lights and it (sic) relatively slow
closing speed with us makes me believe that it wasn’t a aircraft as we know an aircraft to be.”

The First Officer on this flight also submitted his own report of their five minute-long
sighting. He wrote, “I found this to be peculiar considering that in my 5 years of professional
flying typically aircraft passing at this altitude pass each other very quickly because they are
operating at their cruise air speeds. The relative motion of the flashing lights just did not make
sense, just to (sic) slow… the lights that we were observing however were east bound and
moving at significantly slower speed than a jet or turbo prop aircraft typically does. In fact, I
remarked, “Is that a helicopter?”” He described the object as follows.

9
NARCAP Topical Review 05

“The lights observed consisted of a large bright white strobe like light at the lowest point as
well as three to four smaller white lights that surrounded the main light. The brilliance of the
light lacked the whiteness of modern strobe instead it had a pearlescent quality and flickered
rather than flashed however with intensity. At times then (sic) main light seemed to be casting a
fluttering shadow much like a flashlight would yield if cast through a rotating fan blade…that
prompted me to question if the craft was a helicopter as previously stated. I looked intently for
the red and green navigation lights that all aircraft have conversely none were observed.”

“The flight conditions were good; visibility was excellent as the stars made a magnificent
backdrop as they typically do on night flights during the winter months. An overcast layer
existed well below our flight level that I estimate to be at 10 to 12 thousand feet. “

This sighting report made by two commercial pilots raises many interesting questions such
as, was this unidentified object a military UAV capable of flying this high and fast but without
the required night time navigation lights? Did air traffic control personnel know its identity but
did not disclose it? Was this UAP detected by ground radar since ATC personnel informed the
flight crew about it and if so was it squawking a transponder code? Why didn’t the jet’s TCAS
system signal an alarm or was it just not reported? Finally, if this was a UAV and passed this jet
as closely as was reported why wasn’t a formal near miss reported to the FAA? Or, could this
object have been a UAP?
In another recent unsettling incident, an unidentified object that looked like a “large remote
controlled aircraft” nearly collided with a private jet at 8,000 feet altitude near Denver, Colorado
on May 14, 2012 at 17:17 hrs. local time. The air-to-ground radio transmission made thirty
seconds later can be heard at: <LiveATC.net> The encounter was so brief that the flight crew
could not perceive any important critical details of the other object. Based on its description as
an aircraft it is probable that the object was a UAV of some kind.
Finally, according to a New York Office F.B.I. press release dated March 5, 2013, the flight
crew of Alitalia Flight 608 reported seeing a “small, unmanned aircraft while on approach to
John F. Kennedy International Airport” when they were about three miles from runway 31R.
The black UAV was about a yard in width with four propellers and came within 200 feet of the
jet which was at an altitude of about 1,750 feet. The critical details of this intruder vehicle,
which identified it as a UAV included its four propellers, wings, fuselage, and other airframe
details.

It is becoming ever clearer that UAV are going to pose an increasing threat to flight safety.
(Anon., 2013(c); Campbell, 2013) Investigators need to be able to discriminate them from
another class of poorly understood atmospheric phenomena that are not manmade.

10