Imagine you're playing a first-person racing game where the track isn't fixed — it's another car, swerving unpredictably, and your job is to collide with it. You can't slow down, you can't hover, and the only sensor feeding your brain is a single forward-facing camera. That's the control problem this thesis solves: a fixed-wing drone that must ram another fixed-wing drone using only monocular vision and a neural network mapping pixels to aileron and elevator commands. The committed claim: a reinforcement-learning policy trained entirely in simulation, using Proximal Policy Optimization, can be zero-shot transferred onto a real fixed-wing platform and successfully intercept maneuvering aerial targets. This is not the first RL-controlled drone, and not the first intercept demonstration, but it is — as far as the authors document — the first time a learned end-to-end policy (camera pixels → actuators) has achieved real-world fixed-wing-on-fixed-wing interception without a human in the loop. The distinction from quadcopter intercept work (which is battle-proven in Ukraine) is structural: fixed-wing platforms can't hover, have faster closing speeds, and offer far greater range and endurance, but demand a fundamentally different control regime. The architecture is clean and legible. A custom Python simulation environment models 6-DOF fixed-wing dynamics, target kinematics, and a synthetic camera feed. The policy network receives filtered visual observations — essentially the angular position and size of the target in the camera frame — and outputs continuous aileron and elevator deflections. Training uses PPO with domain randomization over wind, target maneuvers, and initial geometry. Two classical baselines are implemented: a proportional navigation (PN) controller and a pursuit-guidance variant, both standard in missile-guidance textbooks. In simulation, the RL policy outperforms both classical controllers under most initial conditions, particularly in scenarios with high angular offset or aggressive target maneuvers. The classical controllers' failure modes are predictable — they lose track or overshoot when the geometry gets adversarial. Integrity is the interesting question. This is an MSc thesis, not a peer-reviewed journal paper, and the real-flight validation is necessarily limited: a small number of intercept attempts against cooperative (human-piloted) target drones at a test field. The sim-to-real gap is acknowledged but not rigorously quantified — we see that it works, not a statistical characterization of how often or under what failure modes. The simulation comparisons against PN and pursuit guidance are fair and well-constructed, but the real-world baselines are absent: we don't know how a skilled human pilot or a classical autopilot would have performed in the same physical scenarios. The 24-page format with 29 figures is thorough for a thesis but leaves open questions about robustness, wind sensitivity, and adversarial target behavior that a full journal treatment would address. The milestone framing matters because the operational gap is enormous. Quadcopter interceptors (Fortem DroneHunter, various Ukrainian field systems) work today at ranges under 1 km against slow-moving targets. Shahed-type drones cruise at 150-180 km/h at altitudes up to several thousand meters, requiring interceptors with 10-50 km range and matching speed. This thesis demonstrates the control principle on small, slow platforms. The next concrete milestone is demonstrating the same RL-based interception at closing speeds above 100 km/h and ranges above 5 km — where aerodynamic modeling fidelity, sensor latency, and wind disturbances all scale nonlinearly. The obvious experiment not run: head-on or high-crossing-angle intercepts at realistic military closing speeds. The honest read is (a) — compute and hardware budget. This is a single MSc student at TU Delft with hobby-grade fixed-wing platforms, not a defense lab with high-speed targets and instrumented ranges. The policy architecture itself should scale, but the sim environment would need substantially higher-fidelity aerodynamics and the hardware would need faster actuators and better onboard compute. The gap between 'thesis demo' and 'fieldable system' is exactly where defense primes and well-funded labs will now compete. What makes this worth reading is not the scale of the result but the clarity of the pipeline: custom sim → PPO training → domain randomization → zero-shot real-world transfer → successful intercept. Every step is documented. The classical baselines give you a calibration point. For anyone building sim-to-real RL systems for agile robotics, this is a clean worked example of the full stack, with honest acknowledgment of where the gaps are.
