In the rapidly evolving field of unmanned aerial vehicle technology, fixed-wing UAV drones have demonstrated significant advantages in both military and civilian domains, particularly in terms of operational cost, endurance, payload capacity, autonomous control, and environmental adaptability. Among the critical subsystems of these UAV drones, the mission planning system (MPS) serves as the core component that replaces human decision-making in complex flight environments, handling task management, control, and planning. The origins of such systems can be traced back to the U.S. Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missile in the 1970s, later adopted by manned aircraft like the F-15, F-16, and B-52 in the 1980s. For UAV drones, the mission planning system is even more essential: since there is no onboard pilot, the pre-planned flight missions and routes become the sole and strict execution basis during operation. Therefore, the output of MPS must satisfy stringent requirements of accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Additionally, due to the dynamic and unpredictable nature of operational environments, the system must support rapid re-planning capabilities to ensure flight safety and mission efficiency. This paper presents our research on establishing verification standards for fixed-wing UAV drones mission planning systems. We analyze existing standards, identify gaps, and propose a comprehensive framework covering both general and specific verification requirements, including detailed test items, methods, and evaluation criteria. The work aims to support the development of a standardized flight test and airworthiness system for fixed-wing UAV drones.
Necessity of Standardization for UAV Drones Mission Planning System Verification
With the proliferation of domestic UAV drone models, the functionalities integrated into mission planning systems vary significantly across different platforms. To systematically regulate the verification content and methods for these systems, it is imperative to establish a unified standard. From both operational and airworthiness certification perspectives, building a complete UAV drone test and verification system is urgent. Currently, no dedicated standard exists that specifically addresses the verification of fixed-wing UAV drones mission planning systems. Our research identifies that the lack of such a standard leads to inconsistent testing practices, ambiguous acceptance criteria, and increased risks during flight trials. Therefore, developing a dedicated verification requirement standard is crucial for:
- Harmonizing test procedures across different UAV drone projects.
- Providing clear guidance for ground and flight tests.
- Facilitating the establishment of a comprehensive flight test standard system.
- Supporting airworthiness certification processes for fixed-wing UAV drones.
Review of Existing Standards and Applicability Analysis
We conducted a thorough review of current domestic and international standards related to UAV drone mission planning system verification. Although several standards touch upon related aspects, none provide complete coverage. The three most relevant standards are summarized in Table 1, along with our analysis of their applicability and shortcomings.
| Standard | Scope | Relevant MPS Content | Applicability Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| GJB 5433 “UAV System General Requirements” | Design and manufacturing general requirements for UAV systems | Section 11 “Ground Control Station” specifies map & flight path display and mission planning equipment functions (e.g., route generation, digital map, threat display). | Only provides basic functional descriptions; lacks specific verification methods, evaluation criteria, and coverage of advanced features like data loading, briefing generation, link planning, or real-time re-planning. Can only serve as a reference. |
| GJB 5434 “UAV System Flight Test General Requirements” | General flight test requirements for military fixed-wing UAV systems | Section 4.8 “Ground Control Station Flight Operation Performance Test” covers map & track display function test and track planning function test. | Similar to GJB 5433; only basic map and route planning verification is addressed. No detailed test items, methods, or pass/fail criteria are provided. The standard defers to product design specifications, making it insufficient as a standalone verification guideline. |
| NATO STANAG 4671 “UAV Systems Airworthiness Requirements (USAR)” | Airworthiness certification for fixed-wing UAV systems (150–20,000 kg) | Part 2 “Acceptable Means of Compliance” requires that automatic MPS outputs (e.g., aerodynamic predictions, maneuver commands, waypoints) be verified against UAV limits and performance capabilities. Range and type checks on crew inputs must be performed. | Focuses only on safety-critical aspects from an airworthiness perspective. Does not specify concrete test items, verification methods, or assessment criteria for full functional verification. Useful as a reference for safety-related checks but insufficient for comprehensive MPS validation. |
From Table 1, it is evident that none of the existing standards provide a complete framework for verifying fixed-wing UAV drones MPS. Our research therefore aims to fill this gap by proposing a dedicated verification requirement standard that covers both general and detailed aspects, as presented in the following sections.
General Requirements for Verification of Fixed-Wing UAV Drones Mission Planning System
Based on the characteristics of various current fixed-wing UAV drones mission planning systems, we define nine general requirement categories that must be addressed before any verification activities. These categories ensure that the verification process is systematic, repeatable, and traceable. Table 2 lists these categories with their descriptions.
| Category | Requirement Description |
|---|---|
| Test Plan | The test plan shall cover all verification items required for the MPS and shall be approved according to established procedures. |
| Test Environment | Requirements for test altitude, ground control station location, test site and runway conditions shall be specified. |
| Test Object | Status of the UAV drone and ground control station, as well as the software version and basic functions/performance of the mission planning software, shall be defined. |
| Test Instrumentation and Modifications | Requirements for additional test equipment installed on the system. |
| Support Documentation | All necessary technical support documents (e.g., software design documents, user manuals) must be provided before testing. |
| Test Personnel | Qualifications required for command staff, subject matter experts, maintenance personnel, and UAV drone operators. |
| Data Processing | General requirements for data collection, storage, and analysis methods. |
| Test Report | Requirements for test report format, content, and reference documents. |
| Quality and Safety | All tests shall comply with UAV drone operational limitations. Risks associated with MPS testing and corresponding mitigation measures shall be described. |
Detailed Verification Requirements
The detailed verification requirements for fixed-wing UAV drones mission planning systems are divided into two main categories: Ground Tests and Flight Tests. For each identified test item, we specify test conditions, parameters to be measured, verification content and methods, data processing, and result evaluation criteria. The overall verification coverage can be quantified using the following formula:
$$
\text{Verification Coverage} = \frac{\text{Number of Verified Functionalities}}{\text{Total Number of Required Functionalities}} \times 100\%
$$
We define a pass threshold of 100% for critical safety functions and at least 95% for non-critical functions. The following subsections present the ground and flight test items in detail.
3.1 Ground Tests
Ground tests are conducted prior to flight to validate the basic functionalities and performance of the MPS in a controlled environment. Table 3 summarizes the ground test items we propose, along with the verification methods and evaluation criteria.
| Test Item | Verification Content | Verification Method | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Map Operations | Overlay of flight routes on digital map, coordinate conversion, layer show/hide, information input/recording, map pan/zoom, waypoint position/distance/area/elevation queries, marking of target/no-fly/threat zones. | Execute manual operations and check system responses. | All operations must be performed correctly; no crashes or unexpected behavior. Coordinate conversion accuracy within 0.01 degrees for latitude/longitude. |
| Maximum Number of Routes | Maximum number of different flight routes that can be planned simultaneously. | Incrementally add routes until system limits are reached. | System should handle at least the number specified in the design requirement (e.g., ≥10 routes). |
| Waypoints per Route | Maximum number of waypoints supported in a single route. | Add waypoints until system limit is reached. | Must support at least the number specified in the requirement (e.g., ≥500 waypoints). |
| Route Conflict Detection | Automatic detection of conflicts based on predefined constraints (e.g., minimum distance between waypoints, altitude violations, crossing of no-fly zones). | Input intentionally conflicting routes and observe detection alerts. | All defined conflicts must be detected. Detection rate = (detected conflicts / total conflicts) × 100%, must be 100% for safety-critical constraints. |
| Mission Data Generation & Loading | Ability to generate mission data and load it via data link or mission loading card to the UAV drone’s relevant systems. | Generate a standard mission, load it onto the UAV drone (or a simulated system), and verify that the data is correctly received and interpreted. | Data integrity check using CRC or checksum; loading success rate 100%. |
| Mission Data Import/Export | Capability to import and export mission planning data in standard formats. | Export data to a removable medium, then import back into the system; compare original and imported data. | Data fidelity: no loss or corruption. Field-by-field comparison must show 100% match. |
| Flight Briefing Generation | Automatic generation of a flight briefing document (text and graphics) summarizing mission plan content. | Generate a briefing for a sample mission; check format and completeness of information (routes, times, fuel, etc.). | Briefing must contain all required sections; information must be consistent with the mission data. |
| Emergency Planning Function | Ability to pre-plan contingency routes (e.g., engine failure, lost link) that can be activated during flight. | Design emergency scenarios and plan alternate routes using the MPS; verify that these plans are stored and retrievable. | At least one emergency plan per defined contingency must be generated and stored without errors. |
3.2 Flight Tests
Flight tests are conducted to validate the MPS performance in real operational conditions. The following items are essential for comprehensive verification. Table 4 provides the details.
| Test Item | Verification Content | Test Conditions | Data Processing & Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offline Route Planning Flight | Validate the ability to plan takeoff/landing routes and flight routes offline, then execute them in flight. | UAV drone flies a pre-planned route; record actual trajectory versus planned route. | Cross-track error ≤ 10 m (or as per design). Lateral deviation standard deviation within limits. |
| Link Planning Function | Verify that the MPS can schedule data link working modes (e.g., frequency, power) at specific waypoints. | Execute flight with link mode changes as planned; monitor link status. | Link mode transitions occur at the correct waypoints within 2 seconds. No loss of link during transitions. |
| Navigation Equipment Planning | Validate that the MPS can plan usage of navigation aids (e.g., GPS, INS, VOR) at different flight phases. | Plan switching between navigation sources; compare actual navigation performance. | Position accuracy during each phase meets the specified requirement (e.g., CEP ≤ 5 m for GPS). |
| Emergency Planning Flight | Test the activation and execution of pre-planned emergency routes (e.g., lost link, engine failure). | Simulate a contingency (e.g., manual command to activate lost-link route) and observe UAV drone behavior. | UAV drone must autonomously follow the pre-planned emergency route within the tolerances defined in ground test. Activation time < 1 second. |
| Payload Planning Function | Validate that the MPS can schedule payload operation modes (e.g., camera on/off, pointing angles) at designated waypoints. | Equip UAV drone with a representative payload; execute mission with planned payload actions. | Payload state changes occur at the correct waypoints. Timing accuracy within 1 second. |
| Real-Time Route Re-planning | Verify the ability to re-plan the route in real-time (e.g., in response to a new threat or dynamic mission change). | During flight, operator initiates a re-plan request; upload new waypoints. | System must generate a valid new route within 5 seconds (or as per design). UAV drone must transition to the new route without violating safety constraints. |
| Mission Rehearsal Validation | Before flight, the MPS provides a mission rehearsal simulation. Validate that the rehearsal results (e.g., timing, fuel consumption) match actual flight data. | Simulate a mission with the MPS rehearsal tool; then fly the same mission and compare results. | Deviation in total mission time ≤ 5%; fuel consumption deviation ≤ 5%. Rehearsal must correctly predict events. |
For the flight tests, we also establish a quantitative metric to assess the overall performance of the MPS. Let \( F_i \) be the measured value of a critical parameter (e.g., cross-track error) and \( S_i \) the specified limit. The compliance ratio for parameter \( i \) is:
$$
C_i = \frac{S_i – |F_i|}{S_i} \times 100\%
$$
A test item passes if \( C_i \geq 0 \) for all critical parameters, and \( C_i \geq 80\% \) for non-critical parameters. This ensures that the MPS operates within acceptable margins.
Furthermore, during flight tests, we monitor the system’s response to dynamic re-planning requests. The re-planning algorithm’s efficiency can be characterized by the following model:
$$
T_{\text{replan}} = T_{\text{compute}} + T_{\text{upload}} + T_{\text{verify}}
$$
where \( T_{\text{compute}} \) is the time to generate a new route, \( T_{\text{upload}} \) is the transmission time, and \( T_{\text{verify}} \) is the onboard verification time. Acceptance criteria require \( T_{\text{replan}} \leq 10 \) seconds for non-emergency re-plans and \( T_{\text{replan}} \leq 3 \) seconds for emergency re-plans. We use flight data logs to compute these times and compare with requirements.
Conclusion
In this paper, we presented a comprehensive study on verification requirements for fixed-wing UAV drones mission planning systems. By reviewing existing standards from both domestic and international sources, we identified significant gaps in coverage and detail. Our proposed framework addresses these gaps by defining nine general requirement categories and a set of detailed ground and flight test items, each with specific verification contents, methods, and evaluation criteria. The use of quantitative metrics and formulas ensures objective pass/fail decisions. The resulting standard framework will contribute to the development of a unified flight test and airworthiness system for fixed-wing UAV drones in China. Future work will involve validation of these requirements through real-world testing on multiple UAV drone platforms and refinement based on feedback from industry and certification authorities. We anticipate that this standard will significantly improve the reliability and safety of UAV drones mission planning systems across various applications.