Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stuart J. Woolvin*
Defence Science & Technology Laboratory, Farnborough, GU14 0LX, UK
This paper presents a study of UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle) configuration
and performance trade-offs. UCAVs may form part of the future UK strike capability,
because they offer the potential for increased survivability in high-threat environments and
reduced through-life costs. This study was undertaken by Dstl in order to improve MODs
understanding of the UCAV design space, and inform the requirements definition process.
The vehicles in this study are tail-less flying-wings with a highly-integrated propulsion
system incorporating a single unreheated turbofan. Three wing planform shapes have been
assessed, with leading edge sweep angles of 30, 47 and 60deg, and planform Aspect Ratios of
6.7, 3.8 and 2.0 respectively. Families of UCAVs were optimally-sized for minimum Basic
Mass Empty using Dstls air vehicle Conceptual Design and Optimisation methodology,
which estimates the aerodynamics, mass and propulsive performance as the vehicle is being
sized. A validation process was undertaken to ensure that the aerodynamic and mass
methods could be used with reasonable confidence for the configurations studied. Families
of UCAVs were sized for a range of mission radius requirements extending from a value
typical of current UK strike aircraft, through to approximately three times as far. Key
performance requirements, such as mission radius and take-off distance, were seen to drive
the UCAV designs in conjunction with packaging requirements. The sensitivity of vehicle
mass to two separate performance requirements was investigated. The study concludes that
UCAV size can be highly sensitive to performance requirements and that well-balanced
requirements are essential in order to realise the benefits of planforms having greater
aerodynamic efficiency.
I. Abbreviations
BME
CDO
CFD
Dstl
ISA
MOD
SEP
TTCP
UCAV
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
II. Nomenclature
CD
CL
D
K1,K2
M
TN
VT
W
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Copyright 2006 by British Crown. Published with the permission of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on behalf of the Controller of HMSO. Published by the American Institute
III. Introduction
his paper presents an investigation of UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle) configuration and performance
trade-offs. UCAVs may form part of the future UK deep strike capability, and are expected to have several
advantages compared to alternative manned combat aircraft, including an ability to operate in highly-threatened
environments without risk to life, and reduced through-life costs. This work is part of a wider UCAV trade-off
study, which has been undertaken by Dstl (the UK MODs Defence Science & Technology Laboratory), that will
contribute to MODs understanding of the design space and key performance requirements for UCAVs. In broad
terms this study has assumed a common UCAV conceptual layout, and examined the impact of different wing
planform shapes and sensitivity to performance requirements. This study is one of a series of conceptual design
studies being undertaken by Dstl, and future studies may well address other UCAV layout options.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Planform
Sweep Angles ()
Leading
Trailing
Edge
edge
30deg
+30
+/-30
6.7
47deg
+47
+/-30, -47
3.8
60deg
+60
+/-40
2.0
Gross
Planform
Aspect Ratio
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Inputs
Change values
of Design
Variables
No
= Optimiser
(RQPMIN)
Yes
Design summary of solution vehicle,
and performance capability.
Final values of Design Variables
= Design
synthesis routines
Outputs
Fluid Dynamics) studies and apply corrections where appropriate, for example from the 1303 wind-tunnel data [8].
The CDO program estimates lift-curve-slope (and hence lift coefficient) as a function of wing geometry utilising a
detailed curve fit obtained from CFD analysis. The drag of the vehicle is considered to be the sum of drag at zerolift (i.e. notionally zero incidence), CD0, and lift-dependent drag, CDi. The lift dependent drag is based around the
assumption of a K1, K2 relationship with lift, as illustrated in Figure 4 below:
Total Drag
Coefficient, CD
slope = K2
slope = K1
CLCLcrit : CDi=K1CL2
Equation (1)
Equation (2)
CDi
CD0
CLcrit
2
(Lift Coefficient) ,
CLmax
CL2
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1.0
30deg
0.9
0.8
0.7
47deg
0.6
0.5
60deg
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Lift Coefficient, CL
Figure 5: Variation of lift/drag ratio with lift coefficient for three wing planforms, comparing Dstl semiempirical estimates with wind-tunnel/CFD data.
B. Mass validation
The CDO program contains first-order methods capable of predicting the structural mass of the wing and body of
the UCAV, and systems masses, such as electrics, hydraulics and flight controls.
The structural mass estimation methods are supplied by UK Industry, and take conventional aluminium structure
as the baseline, to which technology factors can be applied to account for alternative materials. Compared with the
aerodynamic validation process, where a significant quantity of reliable lift and drag data was available, data for
UCAV structural and systems masses is very sparse indeed. The three families of UCAV configuration in this study
have essentially very similar centre-body layouts (packaging the propulsion system, weapons bays, undercarriage
and other systems). Therefore to a first-order it was considered that the significant structural mass differences
would in the main arise from the differing masses of the wing structural boxes for the three planforms. As
mentioned above, the existing semi-empirical wing mass prediction methods were not directly applicable to the class
of cranked-wing planforms considered in this study, and in fact, as an interim measure it was necessary to define
an equivalent uncranked wing for mass estimation purposes. To take account of the wing crank that is present in
each of the three planforms considered here, further calculations were made to assess the likely mass difference
between equivalent and cranked wings, and this provided the basis for a correction to the existing wing mass
prediction formulae.
In respect of systems masses, there was also little validation data available. The CDO program contains methods
for estimating systems masses; however these methods are based on a database that is centred on UK combat aircraft
of the 1970/80s-era. Compared with these types, a UCAV is expected to employ significantly more electrical
actuation, and with much reduced dependence on hydraulics. In this study these existing methods were not used,
and instead the values of systems mass were fixed at values derived from more recent Industry design studies. From
this discussion it can be seen that the level of validation that was possible for structural and systems mass was less
than for the aerodynamics. Therefore improved mass estimation is a key priority for UK defence research.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A. Technology Assumptions
The validation process outlined above applied to the aerodynamic and mass estimates produced by the program
provided parameters and settings to enable the methods to be applied to each of the three UCAV planforms
adopted in this study. Notwithstanding the limitations outlined above, it was considered that the aerodynamic and
mass methods could be used with confidence for first-order conceptual design trade-off studies. As well as the
aerodynamic and mass parameters outlined above, there is provision within the methods to account for further
benefits due to assumed technology enhancements. In respect of the structural mass, it was assumed that the wing
and fuselage structure would make significant use of composites, and would therefore be ~15% lighter than an allaluminium structure. With the aerodynamics it was decided not to assume benefits from use of advanced dragreducing technology, such as that arising from significant amounts of wing laminar flow.
B. Propulsion Assumptions
As mentioned above, the CDO program uses a propulsion dataset which provides the program with installed
thrust and fuel flow as a function of flight Mach, altitude and throttle setting at a Reference scale. The engine cycle
used is fixed, but the engine is fully-scalable, and may be scaled up or down according to the needs of the
optimiser. As engine scale is varied, the physical size and mass of the engine and propulsion installation change
accordingly. An engine of moderate Bypass Ratio was assumed, together with cycle temperatures that
approximate a current state-of-the-art level of technology consistent with that employed in UK combat aircraft
expected to be in-service by 2020. In general the UCAV configurations that are represented in this study tend to
have propulsion systems that are highly-integrated within the vehicle body, and they are also rather long and heavy.
The CDO program itself does not model the propulsion system in detail, but represents its size, mass and
performance. The minimum length of the propulsion system is constrained to be a minimum number of engine-face
diameters, and the overall length scales appropriately as the engine itself scales.
C. Performance Requirements
The CDO program allows a range of air vehicle performance requirements to be input, covering mission
performance (e.g. mission radius of action), point performance (e.g. turn rate capability) and field performance (e.g.
maximum take-off distance).
Mission Performance
The design mission is a deep strike ground-attack mission, flown at optimum cruise conditions to and from the
target, together with appropriate fuel allowances for launch, recovery and a small combat allowance, and is shown in
Figure 6. The range of mission radius requirements considered extends from a value typical of the capabilities of
current UK combat aircraft, up to a value just over three times as far. All the vehicles in this study must carry
enough fuel to fly the design mission requirement, plus specified reserves, with no other excess. The CDO program
estimates the required internal fuel volume, and ensures that there is sufficient space available in the wings and
fuselage. Optimised vehicles are allowed to have unused internal volume if the wing/fuselage turn out to be bigger
than the minimum required to contain the mission fuel.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Cruise at optimum
conditions
Recovery
fuel
Start, Taxi,
Checks,
Take-off
Cruise at optimum
conditions
Accelerate
and climb
Climb to
Opt
Release
weapons, plus
small
manoeuvring
fuel allowance
Mission Radius
Figure 6: High-level design mission profile
Point Performance
The point performance requirements for the UCAVs in this study are modest compared with those achieved by
current combat aircraft, and are sufficient for the UCAV to perform its mission, while being sensibly compatible
with the selection of an un-reheated engine. Point performance requirements in this study were specified in terms of
Specific Excess Power (SEP), and sustained & instantaneous rates of turn. The latter two are significant, but do not
feature subsequently in this paper, and are therefore not elaborated upon. SEP is a measure of the excess thrust
available to an air vehicle in straight and level (1g) flight, giving it the capability to climb or accelerate. The
formula for SEP is given below:
SEP =
TN D
.VT
W
Equation (3)
The two key SEP requirements were, firstly, the ability to sustain at least 2.5m/s (~500ft/min) SEP at the start of
the outbound cruise leg (i.e. at ~M0.8 and high altitude) and, secondly, the ability to sustain a rate of climb at lowlevel near the target that is comparable to a modern UK fast jet in max dry thrust (~M0.8 and Sea-Level).
Field Performance
The main field performance requirement specified was that vehicles in the study needed to be able to take-off
and clear a 50ft screen height within a distance of 8000ft (at ISA conditions and Sea-Level). This requirement
includes the UK DEF STAN single-engine airworthiness safety factor of 1.25 [10]. The CDO program estimates
take-off distance by considering it in three phases:(a)
Acceleration from stand-still to rotation
(b)
Rotation up to lift-off incidence
(c)
Fly-away up to the 50ft screen
One key issue determining the take-off distance is the speed that the vehicle has to reach before rotation is
possible. The program estimates the rotation speed by considering it to be the maximum of three possible speeds:(1)
Minimum speed at which lift-off is possible at the lift-off incidence
(2)
Minimum speed at which the pitch control surfaces can rotate the nose
(3)
1.1minimum stall speed, as required by UK single-engine airworthiness regulations [10]
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The CDO program was used to optimally-size families of UCAVs having three different wing planforms for
minimum Basic Mass Empty. This paper avoids specifying estimates of vehicle mass directly instead the mass
estimates are normalised against the mass of a reference UCAV from within the study, which was chosen to be the
47deg configuration flying a typical UK combat aircraft mission radius, as mentioned above. Figure 7 shows this
reference vehicle. In this case the vehicle design is driven by the requirement that the vehicle contain enough
fuel to fly mission radius, and also the maximum take-off distance of 8000ft. The minimum propulsion system
length has forced the CDO program to size a rather over-sized wing, with the consequence that the vehicle is
estimated to use only around 50% of the total volume assumed to be available for fuel (although, if any extra fuel
were carried then the take-off performance would be worsened, violating this performance constraint).
Figure 7: Reference UCAV from the study (with the 47deg planform)
Fuselage Stations
along Vehicle
Length:from nose to
intake aperture:
from intake
aperture to
engine front face:
Figure 8: Fuselage stations along vehicle length of the reference study UCAV
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 8 shows fuselage cross-section stations at various points along the length of the reference UCAV.
These station sections illustrate how the optimiser varies the shape and size of individual fuselage stations consistent
with an overall minimum airframe mass, whilst still packaging the required contents, such as the engine and its
required clearances, weapons bays, undercarriage, systems and fuel.
1.75
47deg
1.50
60deg
1.25
Symbols:
Filled = driven by take-off distance
Empty = driven by Sea-Level SEP
1.00
'Reference'
UCAV
0.75
0.67
1.00
1.33
1.67
2.00
2.33
2.66
3.00
3.33
3.66
Figure 9: Variation of BME with mission radius for UCAVs having three different planform shapes
As expected, BME increases as the mission radius requirement is increased because of the increased fuel load
they are forced to carry, which requires a more powerful and bigger engine in order to maintain the same minimum
levels of air vehicle performance. In turn the larger engine causes an increase in vehicle length, size and mass. In
the case of the 30deg and 47deg UCAVs, solutions could be found up to the maximum value of mission radius
considered, but with 60deg there was an earlier curtailment of solutions. The vehicles are driven by a combination
of performance requirements and packaging constraints. In all the above cases the mission radius is a design driver,
because the vehicles have to carry enough fuel to fly the design mission with no excess. Two other key performance
requirements that were found to drive the size of the vehicles were the maximum take-off distance (to reach a 50ft
screen height) of 8000ft, and the ability to achieve the minimum SEP requirement at ~M0.8/Sea-Level mentioned
above (as denoted by the symbols in Figure 9).
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Take-Off Mass
Figure 9 above shows the mission radius trade-off with BME for the three families of UCAVs. For comparison
purposes it is also worth looking briefly at take-off mass for the same set of vehicle designs (although as mentioned
in Section V, BME is the figure of merit that is minimised in the optimisation). Figure 10 below shows UCAV
take-off mass alongside the empty masses from Figure 9. Take-off mass is the sum of BME, fuel, payload and
operational items.
4.00
Lines:
Solid = Basic Mass Empty
Dashed = take-off mass
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
The 60deg and 47deg families of vehicles are driven by the take-off distance requirement, because these
planforms are assumed to have a lower value of take-off lift coefficient, necessitating a relatively high value of
rotation speed on the take-off run. Whereas, the 30deg planform has a higher take-off lift coefficient, and the
vehicles themselves turn out to have very large wing areas, so take-off is estimated to be possible well within the
8000ft limit. The key design driver with 30deg is the SEP requirement at ~M0.8/Sea-Level. It is noticeable from
Figure 9 that the 30deg configurations are generally much heavier than the other two families, by around 40-50% at
lower mission radii. The 30deg configuration has the most aerodynamically efficient planform (in terms of peak
Lift/Drag ratio), so the fuel burn, and overall vehicle size might be expected to be lower. However these results
demonstrate that the assumed packaging requirements tend to result in over-sized airframes which are heavier and
have more drag. The two key packaging issues are the fixed planform shape, and the constraint that demands the
integrated propulsion system, and hence the centreline length, be a minimum number of engine face diameters. The
weight and drag penalties both particularly affect SEP (as can be seen from Equation (3)), as well as reducing cruise
fuel efficiency. 30deg is driven by the Sea-Level SEP requirement, but also the 2.5m/s top of climb requirement
is met with less to spare than for 47deg and 60deg. It is also observed that for these 30deg configurations there is
significant under-utilisation of the available fuel volume, with the lower mission radius 30deg cases using only
~40% of the estimated available volume. Although the 30deg planform might have been expected to be suitable for
a long-range deep strike vehicle, these results suggest that, for a single-engine configuration designed with these
assumptions and requirements, this particular planform shape is not ideally suited to these requirements.
2.75
2.50
2.25
30deg
2.00
1.75
1.50
60deg
47deg
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.67
1.00
1.33
1.67
2.00
2.33
2.66
3.00
3.33
3.66
Figure 10: Variation of take-off mass with mission radius for UCAVs having three different planform shapes
Figure 10 above shows that BME is a high proportion of take-off mass, and for the vehicles shown the fuel
fraction (fuel mass / take-off mass) varies between 20-40%, with the higher values only attained for the longer-range
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
cases. In principle flying wings have the potential to have relatively high fuel fractions compared with conventional
tailed aircraft due to their structurally efficient wing shapes, combined with large internal volume and lack of tail
surfaces. However, the combination of packaging constraints and performance requirements imposed in this study
appears to have negated some of these benefits.
2.00
Normalised UCAV Basic Mass Empty
30deg
1.75
47deg
1.50
60deg
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.67
Symbols:
Filled = driven by take-off distance
Empty = driven by Sea-Level SEP
1.00
1.33
1.67
2.00
2.33
2.66
3.00
3.33
3.66
Figure 11: Impact of relaxing max take-off distance requirement from 8000ft to 9000ft
Specific Excess Power
All of the 30deg cases shown in Figure 9 are driven by the requirement that the vehicles have a minimum SEP at
M0.8/Sea-Level that is broadly similar to that achieved by current UK combat aircraft in max dry thrust; although
whether this level of performance would need to be attained by a UCAV is uncertain. The results above showed that
12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2.25
Lines:
Solid = 'baseline' Sea-Level min SEP reqt.
Dashed = 'halved' Sea-Level min SEP reqt.
2.00
Normalised UCAV Basic Mass Empty
this is a key design driver for the 30deg configuration, and therefore it was decided to investigate relaxing this
requirement by reducing the level of SEP to half the previous value, at the same flight conditions. The impact of
halving the SEP requirement on all three families of UCAVs is shown in Figure 12. It can be seen that it has no
impact on the design of 47deg and 60deg UCAVs, because these UCAVs are still driven by the take-off distance
requirement of 8000ft, not SEP. The 30deg family undergo a significant reduction in mass when the SEP
requirement is halved, BME falling by 35-55% depending on the mission radius. This occurs because the reduced
SEP requirement has lowered the thrust required (according to Equation (3)), allowing a smaller engine, which has
resulted in a shorter integrated propulsion system length, and hence reduced airframe size and mass. It is also shown
that at the higher values of mission radius, the driving performance constraint switches from SEP to take-off
distance. This suggests that the performance requirements are better balanced, because driving performance
requirements are tending to overlap. Now 30deg begins to appear to be suitable for long-range mission
requirements, perhaps at a cost advantage to 60deg or 47deg. However it appears to be essential to find an
acceptable balance of performance requirements, or address the planform design constraints or propulsion packaging
issues.
30deg
1.75
47deg
1.50
60deg
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.67
Symbols:
Filled = driven by take-off distance
Empty = driven by Sea-Level SEP
1.00
1.33
1.67
2.00
2.33
2.66
3.00
3.33
3.66
X. Conclusions
This paper has discussed configuration and performance trade-offs for three cranked UCAV planforms having
leading-edge wing sweep angles of 30deg, 47deg and 60deg, and planform Aspect Ratios of 6.7, 3.8 and 2.0
respectively. A mission radius trade-off has been assessed, and sensitivity to performance requirements
investigated. Conclusions are as follows:1. The semi-empirical aerodynamic and mass estimation methods used by the Conceptual Design &
Optimisation program have been validated for use in first-order design studies. The aerodynamic validation has
been supported by high-quality performance data, but the mass validation is more limited due to the amount of mass
estimation work carried out to date.
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2. A mission radius trade-off has been assessed, and this has demonstrated the extent to which vehicle empty
mass increases with the mission radius requirement. Imposing the initial set of design assumptions and performance
requirements showed that 47deg and 60deg appeared significantly lighter than 30deg (although 60deg showed an
upper limit to its mission radius capability). 30deg was found to be excessively driven by performance
requirements, effectively sizing the engine, together with design constraints imposed by the planform and vehicle
packaging.
3. The benefits of the greater aerodynamic efficiency of the 30deg planform (in terms of Lift/Drag ratio) were
only realised once one of the point performance requirements, a low-level minimum climb rate, was relaxed. This
allowed the engine thrust requirement to fall, resulting in a direct reduction in the propulsion system length, and
airframe size and mass. This resulted in a better balance of performance requirements, enabling longer mission
radii requirements to be attained within a reasonable vehicle configuration.
4. Future Dstl conceptual design studies will address the issue of how to combine greater aerodynamic
efficiency with the required propulsion system length. This work will investigate revised planforms incorporating
leading-edge cranks and the possibility of using twin-engines.
XI. Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was funded by the Ministry of Defence under Output 3e of the research
programme.
XII. References
1. The Impact of Advanced Engine Technology on Combat Aircraft Performance, AGARD-CP-572, S Hodder, S Simm,
June 1996.
2. Conceptual Design and Optimisation of Modern Combat Aircraft, C Crawford, S Simm, NATO RTO Proceedings,
Meeting 35, Ottawa, October 1999.
3. The Impact of Engine Technology Advancements on the Range v Performance Trade-Off for a Future Combat Aircraft ,C
Crawford, Journal of Defence Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1999.
4. Recent Advances in Air Vehicle Design Synthesis and Optimisation, D Lovell, C Crawford, K Restrick, ICAS 2004
5. The Constrained Optimization Program RQPMIN v4.1, User Guide, Numeral Software Limited. 3 July 2000.
6. Recent Combat Aircraft Life Cycle Costing Developments within DERA, RTO-MP-37-AC/323(AVT)TP/16, Dr S
Woodford, Ottawa 1999.
7. High L/D Extended Range/Payload Fighter Aircraft TechnologyFinal Report, AFRL-VA-TR-99-3084 (Chapter 4
Excerpt for Public Release), G Billman, B Osborne, November 1998.
8. Low Speed Wind Tunnel Tests on the 1303 UCAV Concept QinetiQ/FST/TR025502/1.0, Dr R Bruce, March 2003.
9. The Application of Multivariate Optimisation to Combat Aircraft Design RAE TR 88003, D Lovell, January 1988.
10. MOD Defence Standard 00-970 Part 1 Section 7 Design & Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft Issue 3
October 2003
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics