Dmitry Kuzyakin, Chief Designer of the Central Design Bureau, talks about why drones are not UAVs and how erroneous naming slows down the industry.
Unmanned vehicle technology dates back more than 100 years, but despite this venerable age, many key questions remain unanswered. Why are drones still not integrated into the general regulatory framework of air traffic, and decades-old promises of mass delivery of goods have not come true? The analysis shows that the root of the problem lies not in the technical side, but in the incorrect definition.
Attempts to integrate drones into the regulatory field around the world have led to the closure of many aviation modeling circles and dealt a severe blow to aviation modeling. As a result, there are fewer law—abiding operators and more criminal ones. This is clearly not the result that was expected.
Another example: why, in the decade since the high-profile promises in 2013, drone delivery of goods has remained the domain of commercials and news articles? It would seem that a technology with more than a century of history should have solved this problem not in 2013, but much earlier.
There is an intuitive understanding that modern drones are something else. But this "other" doesn't have a name. Naming defines discourse, and discourse defines our relationship to reality. An incorrect description of the phenomenon at the initial stage inevitably leads to incorrect conclusions and decisions. And it is impossible to get out of this vicious circle, because we have limited ourselves to an erroneous basis.
For almost the entire history of mankind, whales have been classified as fish. Today, every student knows about the enormous evolutionary difference between mammals and fish. But before, people did not immerse themselves in such subtleties: a whale lives in water, reproduces in water, looks like a fish, even smells like a fish — so a whale, a dolphin and an orca are fish.
Today we condescendingly look at the naivety of our ancestors, their misconceptions seem to us anecdotal. This is interesting, considering that right now we are being held hostage by the stereotype of modern drones, mistakenly referring them to the kingdom of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).
The unmanned industry dates back to the end of the 19th century, when Nikola Tesla demonstrated radio-controlled ships. During the First World War, submarines and destroyers had already launched self—propelled unmanned torpedo mines at the enemy. In the 20s of the last century, unmanned aircraft were actively flying, then cruise and anti-aircraft missiles appeared — full-fledged UAVs. Later, intercontinental ballistic missiles were added to them, which also, by all indications, are airborne and unmanned.
There has been little talk about drones throughout history and, as a rule, in the context of narrow tasks. For example, in the description of the feat of the commander of the K-21 submarine, Hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Lunin, who in 1942 disabled the battleship Tirpitz with a volley of torpedoes, there was no talk of using underwater unmanned drones. If this event had happened today, within the framework of modern discourse, it would certainly have been about unmanned self-propelled mines. Drones were taken for granted, and no emphasis was placed on them.
The real renaissance of unmanned technologies occurred at the beginning of the tenth years of our century. Everyone was talking about them. They appeared on store shelves, and videos taken from them flooded YouTube. Drones became visible at public events, they were talked about in the media, and government programs and funding began to be allocated for their development. They have flooded the information field.
But what if there are drones that transport their operators? There are such solutions. For example, a full—fledged Cirrus Vision aircraft-type drone is able to land independently and fly along a route with people on board. Its transponder signal even switches the label to UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle, unmanned aerial vehicle. Similar multicopter—type solutions are offered by the Chinese company EHang. The operator on board — what kind of UAV is this?
The presence or absence of a pilot does not determine the essence of a new technology. We were too hasty, "calling whales fish." We are passionate about drones, but we treat them as if they are ordinary UAVs. In the case of whales, such a mistake led to a catastrophic reduction in their numbers. The drone mistake has led us to a dead end in the development of technology and its regulation.
At the beginning of the 21st century, several technological factors emerged that combined to give rise to the third technological league. The emergence of modern drones is the result of this revolution. Multicopters, in particular quadrocopters, have become the most notable class.
To answer the question about the essence of the phenomenon and give it the right name, let's turn back to history. Attempts to create multirotor technology have been made since the early days of aviation. The invention of the skewing machine made possible the appearance of coaxial and twin-screw helicopters. However, in the entire history there has not been a single serial model of propeller—driven equipment with more than three propellers - neither quadrocopters, nor hexa, nor octocopters, neither manned nor unmanned.
The scheme with three or more rotors turned out to be unstable and could not be stabilized by the pilot or the mechanisms of the automatic skewer. Their operation required digital inertial orientation modules, electric motors with a digital collector, a flight controller controlled by special software, and a high-speed data bus connecting sensors to actuators.
From the outside, it seems that the quadcopter is "just" hanging. In fact, it adjusts its position in space tens of thousands of times per second. A quadcopter flies only because algorithms are working inside it. It literally relies on calculations.
In fact, we have received a new type of aircraft implemented on a computer architecture — a digital helicopter. A quadcopter and a modern helicopter have even less in common than a fish and a whale. The essence of a quadcopter is closer to a smartphone or laptop than to the concept of a "UAV". Yes, it is usually unmanned. But its essence is determined by total, comprehensive digitalization, where software and computing speed determine its flight characteristics.
For example, our laboratory at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology is called "Open Architecture Digital Aircraft". And this name perfectly defines the essence of the phenomenon we are facing. Our key areas of development are SDR (software—defined radio) technologies, means of ensuring the operation of digital radio channels in competitive frequency ranges, and machine vision. Note that there is not a word about "unmanned technologies" in these areas.
The MIPT Scientific Council approved an additional education course on digital helicopters, which is very popular with both civilian and military specialists. Practical developments are also underway in the laboratory. Of the completed projects, it is worth noting separately that the Doomsday Drone, created in collaboration with other MIPT teams, is a one—time device for remote sensing of the territory and air layers at altitudes up to several kilometers. Its purpose is to promptly determine the level of contamination by toxic substances or radiation. God forbid, of course, they will be needed, but it would be a crime not to create such products.
Financing the development of unmanned aircraft systems and financing digital helicopters are different budgets, tasks, competencies and deadlines for implementation. You should not focus on "unmanned" when planning a project portfolio. The drone industry is stable and unlikely to be capable of breakthrough solutions. While the digital helicopter industry is just beginning. She is full of fresh ideas, giving us FPV technology, drones for filming, guided weather balloons. Here, any direction promises breakthrough solutions and a quick return on investment.
The second unpleasant aspect of incorrect naming is regulatory activity. The legal norms for unmanned aircraft systems and for digital helicopters should be completely different. It is impossible to equalize the norms of aircraft and aircraft model crafts. The use of digital tablets needs to be simplified.
A radical point of view: every citizen should be able to launch drones wherever he wants, with the exception of closed territories — airfields, military bases, state borders. At the same time, the citizen bears all responsibility for the flight of his device independently. It's like throwing an axe at a log: it's not prohibited by law, but if you hit someone, you'll be responsible.
It has been a long time since I have seen visiting aircraft modeling circles in the vastness of our vast homeland. Previously, you could meet groups of children and teenagers with mentors launching their crafts. It's an unthinkable sight right now. I will say more: as a nation, we will come to an end if we do not stop intimidating young people who want to take drones into the air. We simply won't have anywhere to hire specialists.
It's time to call a spade a spade.
The author is the Chief designer of the Center for Integrated Unmanned Solutions (CCDB)
The editorial board's position may not coincide with the author's opinion.
