ON-SHIP LANDING AND TAKEOFF OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’s)

Bhargav I. Gajjar 1, Janusz Zalewski 2

1
Space Robotics Corporation
10860 East Oakwood Drive
Tucson, AZ 85749, USA
bgajjar@space-robotics.com
2
Computer Science
Florida Gulf Coast University
Fort Myers, FL 33928, USA
zalewski@fgcu.edu

Abstract. US Navy is replacing some of its reconnaissance fleet of aircraft with

unmanned remotely piloted versions. The problem of take off and landing of UAV on
aircraft carrier is a challenging one and is unique compared to UAV’s used by Air Force
and Army. While strategic advantages are available from ground and air in the fields of
reconnaissance and surveillance without significant endangerment to human life, the
landing and take off of UAV’s aboard an aircraft carrier demands smooth technology
transition while using available technology and policies. This paper addresses the problem
of designing efficient enforcement of sensory systems teaming with novel algorithmic
strategies for control of such UAV platforms for automated take off and landing on aircraft
carrier. The central role of this process is to incorporate intelligent robotic control for a
UAV with development of a new type of sensor package, which can be strapped onto any
existing UAV to taxi on the aircraft carrier and also automatically land and take off in all
weather conditions. The research has investigated a commercially feasible control
technology that combines queuing algorithms and function approximators, to achieve
greater computational efficiency and real-time performance for landing, take-off and taxing
control of an UAV.

works very differently, due to its smaller size.

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The US Navy uses a variety of small and large
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) for different
purposes. The currently used and fleet-accepted
UAV’s include (US DOD, 2002) Pioneer, Global
Hawk, UCAV, etc. While these UAV systems are
relatively small in size, they still have to face the
dynamic and changing environment aboard the US
Navy aircraft carriers before they are airborne or
right before they have to land. The usual policy of
landing a manned aircraft consists of a complex
process involving the pilot, the deck director and
the personnel who guide the plane to its stop
An aircraft carrier flight deck is one of the most
exhilarating and dangerous work environments in
the world (not to mention one of the loudest). The
deck may look like an ordinary land runway, but it
When the crew is in full swing, planes are landing
and taking off at a furious rate in a limited space.
One careless moment, and a fighter jet engine
could suck somebody in or blast somebody off the
edge of the deck into the ocean. But as dangerous
as the flight deck is for the deck crew, they have it
pretty easy compared to the pilots. The flight deck
isn't nearly long enough for most military planes to
make ordinary landings or takeoffs, so they have
to head out and come in with some extraordinary
machine assistance. This involves man-in-the-
loop process repeatedly. To maintain man in the
loop signaling and other services, to direct a UAV
on the deck and landing it autonomously, becomes
a real challenge but incorporates a smooth
technology transition (US JFC, 2002).
The motion of any robotic vehicle can be classified
into Global, Regional and Local spaces. While

1
some hover type UAV might have manipulators,
which move in Local spaces, the overall
movement of a robotic UAV can be classified into
a Global space. Global movement involves travel
along distances that exceed the total length of the
UAV itself. The overall global motion of a UAV
on an aircraft carrier can be broken down into an
on deck 2D maneuver through cluttered
environment consisting of personnel, planes, and
miscellaneous on board hardware like hatches,
opening, ducts, piping, electrical housing, motors
etc.
Besides the 2D taxi before the take off and after
landing operation to the service hangar the UAV
will have to do a 3D approach right before landing
where it needs to precisely sense the landing path
and the obstacles and also take off smoothly.
Small UAV’s with vertical take off and landing
don’t pose a great deal of problem in
transportation on deck and landing and take off.
However for larger UAV’s closer to the size of
real planes this poses a challenge, which must be
handled suitably by some novel sensor technology.
The Global 3D motion of the UAV includes take
off, landing, hovering and cruise mode.
Figure 1. UAV encircling a US aircraft carrier.
During take off involving manual control the
following steps are followed:
1. Flight crew deck moves planes in position at
the rear of the catapult and attaches the tow
bar, hold bar and the JBD (Jet Blast Deflector)
on the nose gear.
2. Catapult officer (shooter) gets the catapults
ready from the control pod.
3. Charged catapults are launched to get the
aircraft off the deck.
For a UAV with size approximately similar to a
larger plane the process of catapulting it to provide
lift in short space will be required hence it must
autonomously guide itself to the catapult launching
pod. During landing the following steps are
followed:
1. Arresting wires are stretched on the deck
manually.
2. Carrier Air Traffic Controls monitors the fuel
level in each of the approaching planes to
select the ones for immediate landing.
3. The plane hooks its tail hook in the arresting
wires at right angle and lands abruptly
following landing signals.
The landing process is guided and monitored by
LSO (Landing Signal Officers). LSO’s help guide
the plane in, through radio communication as well
as a collection of lights on the deck. If the plane is
coming in okay, the LSO’s will illuminate green
lights to tell the pilot everything is okay. If the
plane is off course, the LSO’s can illuminate other
lights to correct him or "wave him off" (send him
around for another attempt). In addition to the
LSO’s, pilots look to the Fresnel Lens Optical
Landing System, commonly referred to as the lens,
for landing guidance (Fig. 2). The lens consists of
a series of lights and Fresnel lenses mounted to a
gyroscopically stabilized platform. The lenses
focus the light into narrow beams that are directed
into the sky at various angles.
Figure 2. Fresnel landing signals.
2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Since UAV has no human pilot, the process of
detecting light signals to land along with on board
obstacle navigation on the deck of the aircraft
carrier must be automated. The overall objective
is to develop complete sensory suite to allow fully
autonomous landing, take-off and on-deck
maneuvering of a UAV with smooth technology
transition.
2
The specific long-term research objectives are
enumerated as follows:
1. Investigate the feasibility of developing a
COTS sensor system capable of autonomous
landing and take off of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle from a CV.
2. Interface a commercial UAV guidance,
navigation and control system to SRC strap-
on sensor package to control Carrier Approach
Variables (CAVs).
3. Develop sensor system such that minimum
changes on the CV deck are required for
automated landing and take off.
4. Utilize commercial and off-the-shelf
components to develop our sensor system to
automatically capture existing signals from
LSO’s and landing lights, minimizing the
intervention of human LSO’s.
5. Develop robust and efficient method for UAV
to CV identification, attitude estimation and
recursive sensor calibration along with
automatic feature extraction and remote
triangulation.
6. Off-line simulation of the process in Phase I
developing non-holonomic constraints based
model in closed form employing polynomial
inputs.
7. Develop algorithms using cooperative
imaging technology, where modulating
actively controlled beacons, landing signals
are captured in real time using CCD’s with a
rise time of few microseconds and compared
as error signals with GPS and radar data.
2.1 Current Approach
Currently manned aircrafts land on aircraft carriers
using IFOLS (Improved Fresnel Optical Landing
System). Man-in-the-loop is used as LSO’s
(Landing Signal Officers) and Air Traffic Control
Center to communicate with pilots to guide the
plane.
The pilot will see different lights depending on the
plane's angle of approach (Fig. 3). If the plane is
right on target, the pilot will see an amber light,
dubbed the "meatball", in line with a row of green
lights. If the amber light appears above the green
lights, the plane is coming in too high; if the amber
light appears below the green lights, the plane is
coming in too low. If the plane is coming in way
too low, the pilot will see red lights.
We plan to develop a unique sensor package to
strap on existing UAV systems and provide 2D
obstacle avoidance and 3D signal capture and
implementation of landing and take-off algorithms.
Most of the on-board available hardware on the
aircraft carrier, to send out angular information to
an approaching UAV, will be utilized. The UAV
control system will then translate these signals
(commonly optical) to navigational commands
using our strap-on-sensor package and control its
attitude for a smooth descent.
The ACLS (Automatic Carrier Landing System)
has been a feature of aircraft-carrier landing
systems since 1960’s and uses the shipboard based
AN/SPN-46 ACLS precision tracking radar, a
general purpose computer (GPC) and a data link
transmitter. The “most” automated mode of ACLS
is the only one, which comes close to our
approach, in which radar tracking of a beacon
system in the aircraft establishes aircraft position.
Computer software, containing necessary control
logic generates aircraft vertical rate (pitch) and
bank. Commands are sent to the aircraft via UHF
link. In our system this information (existing) will
be used as a reference signal to compare UAV’s
imaging sensor based control and actuator turn rate
for satisfactory guidance and centerline judgment
to match drop light, Flight Deck Indicators and
Meatball lighting.
Figure 3. Landing Meatballs on carrier deck
2.2 Kinematics of an Approaching UAV
Roll-Pitch-Yaw based kinematics used to model an
approaching UAV (landing/takeoff mode) and
planar mobile car-like kinematics are used for
modeling UAV movements on the deck before
takeoff and after landing. For approach, we
adopted the global motion (translational and
rotational) of a single UAV (Dogan and Kabamba,
2000; Venkataramanan and Dogan, 2003). The
generalized solution for a single UAV can be
extended to multiple UAV’s. The Center of Mass
(CM) of a UAV is defined with respect to the
inertial reference frame (Fig. 4) affixed to the hull
of the aircraft carrier (ignoring small motions of
the boat) and after landing the kinematics are
3
switched to car like configuration with a non-
holonomic constraint of pure rolling without
slipping.
Figure 4. Reference frames.
The translation rate of change is rB and
correct approach. Steady approach conditions are
given by X 0 , Y0 , Z 0 ,  0 , 0 ,  0 , about which
small perturbations x, y , z and  ,  , are
defined. The corresponding perturbation velocities
in the wind frame are u , v, w and p, q, r , about
steady flight values U 0 ,V0 ,W0 , P0 , Q0 , R0 .
During landing or take off, a linear stabilization is
required with zero roll and yaw velocities
  0 ). Furthermore
 
(
V0   0   0  0
for a symmetric flight. Translational and rotational
dynamics are given by Newton-Euler equations,
for mass m and moments of inertia I and for
trimmed flight state P0  Q0  R0  0 (McLean
1990; Blakelock 1991).

rB  Vair / inertial  VUAV / air (1)   u  W0 q   cos  0     Fx 

    
where VUAV / air is the translation velocity of the m   v   U 0 r   g  cos  0      Fy  (7)

UAV CM with respect to air flow at sea, and  
  w  U 0 q   sin  0     Fz 
Vair / inertial is the velocity of air relative to the
inertial frame. Thus, equation (1) gives
translational kinematics of an approaching UAV in  I xx 0 0   p   x 
vector matrix form. Let 0 I yy 0    q    y  (8)

Vair / inertial   I  R W 
T T
BI (2)  0 0 I zz   r   z 
where
Wx  These equations represent a 6-DOF UAV model
W  Wy 
for trim approach conditions. The conversion of
(3) body coordinate angular velocities p, q, r into
Wz  earth axis angular velocities , , is obtained
are the wind velocity components acting on the
using Euler angles  0 , 0 ,  0 (McLean, 1990)
UAV CM.
  q
Vx    p  r tan  0  (9)
VUAV / air  W 
T V  (4)
 y   r / cos  0 
Vz 
Using equation (2) and (4) in equation (1) we have Fx is the resultant of lift and the weight of the
the kinematics defined as:
UAV, Fz is the resultant of propulsion and drag
 x B 
rB   y B    I  R BI W   W  V  (5) forces. The moments  x , y , z and lateral force
T T T

 z B  Fy must be stabilized for a smooth landing. Thus

converting to a state space format (Pachter and
The rotational motion of an approaching UAV is Houpis 1996) we have:
described using the body frame attached to the
UAV. The rotational kinematics is given by   Ax  Bu
X
  R (6)
R BI BI Y  Cx  Du
Dynamics for an approaching UAV are defined by
motion of CM and perturbations along the line of
4
where x  u , w, q,  , v, p, r ,  , 
 T is the state
vector and the output y   E , T , A, R  where E
T
is elevator deflection, T - change in thrust value, A
- Aileron rotation, and R - rudder rate.
Figure 5. State control system.
3. SIMULATION RESULTS
A simulation of the dynamics of the UAV model
was written using MATLAB. This simulation
models the velocity, altitude, flight path angle,
range, pitch, and angle of attack of the UAV.
Preliminary work has been completed on a flight
path angle autopilot. The autopilot controls the
flight path angle by using the angle of the elevator
and the magnitude of thrust. The transfer function
 ( s)
of was computed (Fig. 5), and a PID
 e( s )
controller was then used to stabilize the system.
The response time to a 1.0 deg step input of the
elevator is shown in Figure 6. It takes about 4
seconds for the system to stabilize.
1.6
1.4
Flight Path Angle (deg)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (s)
Figure 6. Response of the flight path angle of
UAV approaching aircraft carrier
A full 6-DOF simulation is written in MATLAB as
well. This simulation includes an altitude hold,
velocity control, and instrument landing system
(ILS) approach autopilots, which would enable
complete and autonomous control of the UAV.
4. CONCLUSION
Initial simulation confirms that the autonomous
take off and landing of a UAV from aircraft
carriers seems feasible with a 6 DOF flight path
controller. This controller, when implemented, will
take inputs from the Inertial Measurement Unit
(IMU) and GPS. Choice of sensors to guide the
UAV into the carrier needs to be determined.
They may vary from radio systems to vision
systems. Future work will also involve study on
applying the previously developed parallel version
of a Kalman filter (Sasiadek et al. 2000) to speed
up the computations.
REFERENCES
Blakelock, J. H. (1991). Automatic Control of
Aircraft and Missiles, John Wiley and Sons.
Dogan, A., P.T. Kabamba (2000). “Escaping a
microburst with turbulence: Altitude, dive and
pitch guidance strategies”, J. Aircraft, Vol. 37,
No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 417-26
McLean, D. (1990). Automatic Flight Control
Systems, Prentice Hall.
Pachter, M., C.H. Houpis (1996). Flight Control of
Piloted Aircraft, In: The Control Handbook,
W. Levine (Ed.), CRC Press, Chapter 75.1,
pp. 1287-1303.
Sasiadek J., Q. Wang, R. Johnson, L. Sun, J.
Zalewski (2000). UAV Navigation Based on
Parallel Extended Kalman Filter, Proc. AIAA
Guidance, Navigation and Control
Conference, Denver, Colorado, August 14-17,
2000, Paper AIAA-2000-4165
US DOD (2000) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Roadmap, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
http://www.acq.osd.mil/usd/uav_roadmap.pdf
US JFC (2002). Swarming Entities - The
Operational Utilities of Establishing Humans-
on-the-Loop, Rapid Assessment Process
Report #02-04, US Joint Forces Command, 3
June 2002
Venkataramanan S., A. Dogan (2003). “Nonlinear
8 9 10
Control for Reconfiguration of UAV
Formation”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, August 11-14, 2003,
Austin, Tex.