Home

Harris Corp. to host MILCOM 2012

2012-08-29T01:07:39Z

Harris Corp. will be the industry host for MILCOM 2012, the premier international conference and exposition for military communications.

The event will run Oct. 29-Nov. 1 at the Gaylord Palms Convention Center in Orlando.

The theme is “Trusted Communications…Awareness to Action." More than 400 unclassified and classified technical presentations, tutorials and panel discussions by leading experts in defense communications are scheduled. Topics include the spectrum of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technologies.

Keynote speakers include Chris Inglis, deputy director of the National Security Agency; Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida; and Mark Kelly, an astronaut and retired U.S. Navy captain.

To learn more, visit milcom.org.

Army 2nd gen. network backbone passes Alaska cold weather test

2012-03-30T02:17:21Z

The Army's Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), Increment 2 successfully passed an overnight freeze test, successfully operating after freezing through a night of temperatures less than negative 35-degree fahrenheit.

"This was a very successful test and all of the equipment performed as we would have expected in extreme arctic conditions," said Lt. Col. Robert Collins, product manager for WIN-T Increments 2 and 3. "Whether in the desert or in adverse cold environments, WIN-T Increment 2 will provide the needed on-the-move tactical network communications for maneuver elements on the battlefield all the way down the company level."

"There are regions in the world that have these extreme cold weather environments, and it's imperative for the Soldier to know in advance some of the lessons that we have learned up in Alaska so they will be prepared for equipment set up and use when they are deployed," said Tom Franey, WIN-T Increment 2 Reliability Test Lead. "Validating the technical manual procedures in these conditions is imperative to ensure that Soldiers deployed to these extreme environments have the knowledge and information they need to operate the equipment and perform their missions successfully."

The cold weather testing included several on-the-move threads, at-the-halt deployments and storage of the communications equipment. At-the-halt tests were performed in low light conditions following a cold soak of the configuration items overnight at temperatures that measured below negative 35 degrees. The next day the operators were able to bring all of the equipment back up to its operating temperature by utilizing the Environmental Control Units, known as ECUs, inside each platform.

The equipment, much of it commercial off-the-shelf, would not normally be able to withstand such extreme temperatures. The Cisco 2800, for example, has an operating temperature range of 32° to 104°F.

This cold weather test preceeds the final three-week assessment, Initial Opeational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) which will take place in May.

Interview: Wireless Internet Service Provider Owner

2012-03-02T04:12:52Z

Ted Fry is the owner of Long Hammock Wirless, a wireless internet service provider connecting the residents of rural Florida.

What's your background in networking, what kind of experience/education/certifications do you have? How did you end up owning a WISP?

My background consists of maintaining and installing small & medium business networking equipment, computers, and cabling. A lot of it is small office networks, with a couple of regional and national multi-site installations. Most of the time, I was either the team leader, department manager, or solo on each project.

I've held HP factory warranty service tech status for 16 different HP products. Got a couple of certifications from Microsoft for neworking and windows 95, studied for my CCNA but never took the test, studied for MCSE Security but never took the tests, ended up getting my CEH. I'm certified by CommTRAIN in tower climbing safety and rescue. A lot of my knowledge I gain from first hand experience. If there is a project or problem that I'm working on, I'll research everything relavent to it, then setup a test environment at my home. I've been working with computers since I was fourteen. That was twenty-five years ago. About the same time that I started dabbling in computers, I got my Amateur Radio License, Technician class. I would play around with radios in my dad's shack, but that really didn't do it for me. I prefer to be setting up the equipment rather than using it. To me, it was more fun to put the bits together. To this day, it's extremely rare for me to use a computer to play games. I just never go into that aspect of computing.

I first started in long range wireless networking when I was a systems administrator for a local company. I was required to have secure remote access in order to manage and monitor the NOC. My problem was that I live in the middle of nowhere and didn't have access to traditional ISPs. I had DirecWAY at the time. It didn't support VPN connections because of latency issues. I researched local businesses and found that I could get wireless internet access, if I had a tower to get over the trees. So I found a local guy that could install a small tower for me. It was used, and not as high as I wanted, but it worked. The problem was that it took him 3 months to get around to installing the tower. I had it sitting in my back yard on the ground while the IT director was breathing down my neck to get it done. I had researched the ins and outs of building towers in that time and was about to start when the tower guy showed up out of the blue and installed the tower. I finally had high speed internet access!

Time passed and I took a job offer at a local cabinet and countertop company as their IT manager. Long story short, I quit about 2 months before the housing market crashed. I took a month off, and started my first company doing IT consulting and computer repair. During all of this, I was gaining experience in IP-PBX phone systems, and constantly fighting my internet connection for reliable signal. The signal was consistent, but with the amount of jitter and lag, it really wasn't stable enough to support VOIP and video streaming. I found another wireless provider and convinced them to bring me on as a customer. The condition was that I had to install the equipment myself. So I bought a belt and rope. I had worked with their network admin to setup a 14 mile line-of-sight shot to my tower. I spent many hours on top of my tower adjusting and trying out different equipment. My signal was better, but because of the distance, the link was susceptible to atmospheric conditions. So some days it would be great while others it was garbage. Thermal inversion was the biggest problem. There just wasn't enough signal strength to punch through at that distance. I was out of options. Then one day about a year later, I was thinking about the different ways of how to get recurring revenue when I looked into my back yard and it hit me. If I had that much of a need for high speed internet access, then surely the rest of the area had a similar need. I already had a tower, all I needed was the business. I already knew I could install the equipment, be it on the ground or in the air, so I started researching what it would take to start a WISP. I discovered that the county I lived in didn't require anything, and I discovered that the state didn't require sales tax on a service. I lived outside of the closest city, so I didn't need a business license. And I didn't have to deal with the federal government for the tower since it wasn't over 200 feet tall. I talked to my sales rep at my ISP to make sure I could resell their service and got the OK from the owner. I started researching equipment and found out that it can get VERY expensive. Calculating equipment costs per installation, ROI would have been months per install. Then I discovered Mikrotik and Ubiquiti. The price point for their equipment allowed me to have a very short ROI per installation, which to me meant a short time to generating revenue. I had what I needed to go forward with the WISP. I sold my Corvette and asked my parents to help out with the initial business expenses, and finally started Long Hammock Wireless one year after I started researching.

A year later, I switched ISP's to Brighthouse to gain bandwidth so I could support more customers. I made a deal with one of my customers to use his 40' TV tower as the backhaul to my tower. Six months after that, I started putting up my second tower. A very good friend and neighbor, and customer, had some acerage and tower (go figure, it was sitting on the ground right next door and I didn't know about it!) and was willing to help out building it. One stipulation was that the guy wires be 10 feet off the ground so that the pasture it was in could still be used for livestock. I went about designing the site and searching for suitable materials to make it happen. All the while, talking with my friend about different things we could do. We ended up running conduit to each of the guy anchors so that we could install solar panels some day, and building a cabinet that can house all of the equipment as well as batteries for the eventual solar power. The second tower is 130'. we also build a gin pole and yard arm to assist in installation of the equipment on the towers.

Could you give us an idea of what your network looks like? How many end users? How many access points? What does the backhaul to the ISP look like?

My network to me seems a bit hap-hazard, although it does work reliably. My customers rarely call with issues, and jitter and latency are very low. I have a few users that are heavy into online gaming with game consoles. From the cable POP, it's a pair of Ubiquiti Powerbridge M5's setup in transparent bridge mode to my 2^nd tower. From there it's a pair of Nanobridge M5's in transparent bridge mode to my 1^st tower. Total wireless distance between the cable POP and NOC is 4 miles, split up between the 3 towers. I use Mikrotik on an old PIII 800MHz PC with a 4 port gigabit card as the gateway for my 1^st tower. On the back side of that are a Mikrotik RB411UAHR with a Ubiquiti XR9 and 11Dbi omni antenna for 900 MHz unlicensed operation and a Ubiquiti RocketM5 with a Ubiquiti 120 sector. That 5GHz unit was originally intended to be just testing, but eventually was pressed into service to supply bandwidth to customers. The 2^nd tower has a Mikrotik RB493AH acting as the gateway, and transparent bridge between the POP and NOC. Up top are 3 RocketM2 GPS units on 120 deg. Sectors, and 3 Pac Wireless 900MHz 13dbi 120 sectors with LMR400 cable down to a Mikrotik RB600 with 3 Ubiquiti XR9's.

My NOC is a couple of server racks in my family room. It was the only place I could find with enough space and was isolated enough to house all of the noisy equipment. I also have a 2 post relay rack in the Laundry room that holds the PBX, a 100Mbit switch, the gateway server for the local tower, all of the power bricks for the tower equipment, and a couple of Axis 2401 video servers. When it comes to servers, switches and routers, I try to purchase used equipment. The cost savings is huge.

The Primary NOC currently consists of 6 servers. One primary NAS, one secondary NAS, and 4 servers configured to host virtual machines. All production servers with the exceptions of the secondary DNS server and PBX server are virtual. There's also spare capacity to host additional virtual servers. I'm planning right now to provide VPS hosting and IAAS services. I have a mix of Linux systems running everything. Fedora, Debian, CentOS and Ubuntu are the 4 main distros I use. Fedora runs my website, web hosting services, and monitoring services. Debian runs Freeside billing, Ubuntu runs FreeRadius and Xen, and CentOS runs the PBX. I have a virtual machine running XP, and my laptop has windows 7 dual booting with Linux Mint. I have to keep them around for remote support of some customers. I have primarily used MySQL for databases, but do have one PostGRE SQL database. Nowhere do I use Microsoft products for mission critical applications.

All server to server communications are gigabit, and the rest of the copper network is 100 Mbps. I use Cisco 2950's and a small Cisco/Linksys unmanaged gigabit switch. I have a few Cisco routers of different varieties, but they didn't fit into what I had designed for the network. So they are just sitting collecting dust.

Everything is on surge suppression and battery backup. I've been lucky since starting LHW in that I have only had lightning take out one switch in 2 years of operation. I have a a lot of ground rods sunk into the ground.

CPE on 2.4GHz is a mix of Ubituiti gear. LOCO M2, Nanostation M2, Nanobridge M2 and Airgrid M2. Some are installed in the customers home, while others are installed either on a j-mount or on a TV antenna tower.

It seems like there's a big market for WISP's at the moment, especially factoring in developing countries, but what do you see as the biggest threat to your business? Advances in satellite communications? User operated mesh networks? Big ISP's expanding their reach?

Big ISP's are secondary competition. They don't want to spend the money to reach the lower population densities. For them, a buildout is potentially millions of dollars spent to reach only a few hundred potential customers. It doesn't make financial sense. For a WISP, the cost to bring service to the same area can be as little as a few thousand dollars. In higher population density areas, having a 3^rd option (Cable, DSL and WISP) only helps. There are customers from traditional ISP that just aren't satisfied with either the service or price, or the fact that the big companies aren't a “local” - some people want to know who they are dealing with.

Satellite internet access for residential and most businesses is dead in my book. It can't support the speed necessary for the majority of websites and services, and it has high latency. I'm not saying that it needs to die - there are situations that only satellite can provide. But for residential and small to medium businesses, it's not an option anymore.

LH Wireless Service plans from lhwireless.netThe biggest threat that I see is the cellular companies. With faster speeds and tethering coming out, it gives people another, albeit pricey, option to get online. And because of the pervasive advertising that cellular companies are constantly spewing out, it brainwashes the average person into thinking there is no other choice when it comes to wireless. I actually had someone call asking for a particular cell phone! I apologized and explained that I provide internet access only.

And then there are the games that cellular companies play with data rates and caps. It's just plain bullshit. Sorry, but it’s a hot button for me. Data caps had a purpose before the backbone was built, but now they are just a gimmick used to suck more money out of the consumer. It's just plain greed. I provide the bandwidth, and don't care how much data runs through it. I have an analogy that's probably used by quite a few, when describing my services, “I provide the garden hose, and don't care how much water you run through it,” and people get it.

User, or community mesh networks, where no payment for services are required, are run by people like me, but they don't want the extra complexity of the business model, or believe that the Internet should be free. What I believe is that it should at least pay for itself. Either way, I'm good with it. From a WISP standpoint, it only widens the knowledge of wireless networking, and puts more momentum behind the wireless movement. When a person using a mesh network gets tired of the saturated link, they will search out a service and pay for it. Or they may use it for some things, and have a paid service for others. I've looked into OpenMESH, and I like what it offers. I could even use it myself in a paid model. The opportunity just hasn't presented itself yet.

Would the average net admin working in a corporate environment have the technical skills to start a WISP? What would they need to learn?

I'm not quite sure I can say with certainty that the “average” net admin would have the understanding of RF communications, or the intestinal fortitude to hang themselves a couple hundred feet in the air from a rope. My background with Amateur Radio helped a lot in understanding how microwave communications behave over long distances. But for the actual networking aspect of the business, they would have that knowledge. It's basic subnetting, firewalls, and NAT. Yeah, I'm oversimplifying it, but that's really all that's needed. Everything else is to manage those three. IPv6 is happening, and that will play into the knowledge base, but I have to wait for Ubiquiti to get off their asses and build support into their equipment for IPv6. Everything else in my network supports it now. They are the holdup.

What were some of the biggest challenges you faced when starting out that you had not anticipated at all?

I had a good understanding of RF before I started this thing, then I discovered trees. Damn trees all over the place! With the majority of my footprint being in the country, you can imagine how covered some homes and businesses are with trees. Foliage attenuation has killed many a site survey. So in order to get service to some places I have to install additional equipment. Mostly small towers and push up poles. The additional cost can be a deal breaker for some people. Just getting service to some areas is a huge challenge.

The biggest challenge I face is money. I had barely enough to start the business. Two years later, it's paying for itself, but not providing much more. I'm always looking for investors. I have plans for getting on commercial towers that can't go forward until I get the financial backing. Know anyone with some extra cash?

Some of the problem is the economy today. People aren't taking as many chances with their money as before. More of the problem is lack of knowledge. People hear about WISP’s and don't understand that it's a real thing. Much less that it can be a solid investment with a relatively short ROI, given the right amount invested. I've had people call asking if it was legal, or if it was a cellular service. When they see the starting monthly price, they can't believe that it's legitimate. I believe it's because of the advertising and billing from the big ISPs and cellular companies making them believe that every advertised price has extras tacked on after the fact. I have a setup fee, and 5 different plans. The advertised price is what the customer sees on the invoice. Nothing extra, unless they ask for it.

The only other thing I hadn't anticipated was my electric bill going up by over 150%. That really sucked at first.

Harris Corporation Introduces New Tactical Tablet

2012-02-21T03:20:46Z

The Harris Corporation today introduced the Harris Ruggedized Tablet, bringing "smartphone-like" capabilities to military personnel and first responders. The Harris RF-3590 is a 7-inch ruggedized Android tablet including the following features:

Integrates seamlessly to the most advanced military and public safety communications platforms, including Harris Falcon III^® wideband tactical radio networks and 3G and 4G LTE Solutions;
Supports emerging requirements for video, monitoring position locations, accessing secure databases and other crucial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks;
Delivers targeted suites of mission-critical software applications to users on the battlefield and in first responder roles;
Rated as a ruggedized device to provide reliable operation in heat, cold and other extreme environments.

"The new Harris tablet builds on our leadership in mission-critical communications to provide a powerful device for processing mission-critical information," said Dana Mehnert, group president, Harris RF Communications. "This tablet was fully designed for the tactical and public safety environment with optimized features for reading in sunlight and size, weight and power. As an Android device, the tablet also is fully upgradeable for emerging applications."

From the Harris press release:

For the warfighter, the RF-3590 leverages the military's emerging wideband tactical radio networks and enables real-time sharing of mission-critical information across the battlespace. Harris is the leading provider of wideband communications through its Falcon III AN/PRC-117G manpack and Falcon III AN/PRC-152A handheld radios. The new Harris tablet extends this proven capability to the network edge, putting a rugged, Android-based device with extensive interface capability in the hands of users on the frontlines. The Harris tablet is also designed to integrate with the Harris Falcon Networking System, an end-to-end system for connecting individual warfighters to the tactical cloud.

For the first responder, the RF-3590 provides a unique ruggedized device capable of delivering on-scene, real-time critical data to law enforcement, fire service or federal agency users who are connected via both public and private cellular networks. Leveraging Harris' deep understanding of public safety communications, the RF-3590 delivers mission critical voice, data, and video to first responders, using built-in 3G or 4G technology via an integrated network module.

In addition to serving as a network peripheral, the RF-3590 also offers stand-alone computing power. It comes with built-in cameras, an accelerometer, digital compass, pressure and temperature gauges, gyroscope, proximity/ambient light sensors and more. Harris' RF-3590 includes standard USB and Ethernet data interfaces and expansion capabilities. The RF-3590 is built around a dual-core 1.5 GHz processor and supports up to 128 GB of internal non-volatile memory.

US Military Unmanned Aircraft Systems

2012-02-15T14:57:30Z

In 2011 the US Air Force trained more UAV pilots than both figher and bomber pilots combined, a trend that shows no signs of abating as more and more missions are flown by unmaned vehicles. At first the drones were used to provide intellligence and reconnaissance, but increasingly the vehicles are taking on roles including providing platforms for electronic warfare, delivering small payloads to forward deployed troops and even providing attack capabilities.

The media has focused on the Predator drone, frequently used in attacks on insurgents across the Pakistani border with Afghanistan, but the US fleet is more diverse than the Predator. Here is a run down of the current US military fleet of UAV systems.

Northup Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

The RQ-4 Global Hawk is used by the US Navy and Air Force as a high-altitude platform for surveillance and security. The US has fielded the RQ-4 in both the Afghanistan and Iraq theatres.

The Global Hawk carries the Hughes Integrated Surveillance & Reconnaissance (HISAR) sensor system. HISAR integrates a Synthetic Aperture Radar-Moving Target Indication (SAR-MTI) system which allows the system to discriminate a target against clutter, as well as optical and infrared sensors. All three sensors are controlled by a common processor which transmits sensor data at rates of up to 50 Mbit/s to a ground station in real time, either directly or through a communications satellite link.

The SAR-MTI system operates in the X-band and provides a number of operational modes:

The wide-area MTI mode can detect moving targets within a radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers).
The combined SAR-MTI strip mode provides 20 foot (6 meter) resolution over a swath 23 miles (37 kilometers) wide at ranges from 12.4 to 68 miles (20 to 110 kilometers).
The SAR spot mode can provide 6 foot (1.8 meter) resolution over 3.8 square miles (10 square kilometers), as well as provide a sea-surveillance function.

The Air Force has explored fitting the RQ-4 with a highly sensitive SIGINT processor known as the Advanced Signals Intelligence Payload. Testing has also begun on a new specialty radar system, the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program, or MP-RTIP, onboard the Scaled Composites Proteus. These new features emphasize surveillance over reconnaissance.

General Atomics MQ-1 Predator

The MQ-1 Predator, in use since 1995, has been fielded primarily by the US Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency. Originally intended for use in forward reconnaissance missions, the Predator's camera and senor equipment have been augmented with two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles for missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.

The Air Craft uses the Predator as part of a Tier II MALE UAS (medium-altitude, long endurance unmanned aircraft system). Each UAS consists of four aircraft, a ground control station and a primary satllite link communication suite.

Direct radio signals from a operations van manned by the pilot and payload specialist control the drone's takeoff and landing. After leaving range of the van on the airstrip, communications migrate to a military satellite network. Pilots note several seconds of delay between manipulating the joystick control and the drone's response due to latency on the satllite link. When deployed by the US Air Force, the JSTARS system has enabled the control of drones from remote locations, obviating the need for close radio control during takeoff and landing.

The aircraft is equipped with the AN/AAS-52 Multi-spectral Targeting System, a color nose camera and variable aperture day-TV and infrared cameras. The cameras produce full motion video and the synthetic aperture radar produces still frame radar images. Later model predators are also equipped with a laser designator for target identification for targeting the onboard Hellfire missiles or missiles from other manned or unmanned aircraft.

Unarmed versions of the Predator - known as the ALTUS - are in use for research purposes by NASA and the Naval Postgraduate School.

IAI RQ-5 Hunter

The Hunter is a short range UAV system that has been in use with the US Army since 1996, deployed to both Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. The Hunter is based on the Hunter UAV developed by Israel Aircraft Industries.

Production of the aircraft was canelled in 1996 and the systems in use by the Army today are largely dedicated to doctrine development and exercise and contingency support, but has seen increased operational use in Iraq and other military operations after being upgraded with Viper Strike munitions.

The unarmed version of the Hunter was used in 2004 by the US Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection Bureau during a UAV border patrol trial program, during which the Hunter flew 329 flight hours, resulting in 556 detections.

General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper

The MQ-9 is the first hunter-killer UAV designed for long-endurance, high-altitude surveillance, used by the US Air Force, US Navy, CIA, US Customs and Border Protection as well as the Royal Air Force and Italian Air Force. The MQ-9 is larger and more powerful than its predecessor, the MQ-1, capable of carrying 15 times more ordnance and cruising at 3 times the speed. The emergence of the Reaper and its formidable ability to engage targets marked a transition from UAVs being primarily a tool for gathering intelligence and surveillance to a true hunter-killer role.

The MQ-9 is capable of both remote controlled and autonomous flight - flying pre-programmed surveillance routes or being flown by a ground crew from the same ground control stations used with the MQ-1.

The MQ-9 carries a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, and recently, the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition). Tests are underway to allow for the addition of the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile.

The Repear is equipped with the Raytheon AN/AAS-52 multi-spectral targeting sensor suite, which includes a color/monochrome daylight TV, infrared, and image-intensified TV with laser rangefinder/target designator to designate targets for laser guided munitions. The synthetic aperture system enables GBU-38 JDAM targeting, is capable of very fine resolution in both spotlight and strip modes, and has ground moving target indicator capability.

Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout

The Fire Scout was developed by Northrop Grumman as an unmanned autonomous helicopter originally designed to be operated from US Navy carriers.

After the Navy cut funding for the program in 2001, the US Army picked it up and awarded Northrop Grumman a contract for seven MQ-8B model drones in late 2003.

The MQ-8B is being modified to permit rapid swap out of payload configurations. The current sensor configuration of a day/night turret with a laser target designator will remain an option. Alternate sensor payloads in consideration include a TSAR with Moving Target Indicator (MTI) capability, a multispectral sensor, a SIGINT module, the Target Acquisition Minefield Detection System (ASTAMIDS), and the Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL). The Army wants the Fire Scout to operate as an element of an integrated ground sensor network as well.

In January 2010, the Army terminated its interest in the Fire Scout program, citing the RQ-7 Shadow's ability to meet the Army's current needs. The Naval Air Systems Command has renewed Navy's interest in the system and are currently expecting an operational system to be available in 2013.

AAI RQ-7 Shadow

The RQ-7 Shadow is used by the US Army and Marine Corps, as well as the Australian and Swedish armies. Launched from a trailer-mounted pneumatic catapult, it is recovered with the aid of arresting gear similar to jets on an aircraft carrier. Its gimbal-mounted, digitally-stabilized, liquid nitrogen-cooled electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) camera relays video in real time via a C-bandline-of-sight data link to the ground control station (GCS).

The system includes two Humvee-mounted Ground Control Stations (GCS) which control the aircraft in flight. Each GCS has an associated Ground Data Terminal (GDT). The GDT takes commands generated by the GCS and modulates them into radio waves which are received by the aircraft in flight. The GDT also receives video imagery from the payload as well as telemetry from the aircraft and sends them to the GCS. Each GDT is stored for shipping on a trailer which also houses a 10 kW Tactical Quiet Generator which powers its associated GCS. Each trailer is towed by a M1165 GCS Support Vehicle. Each system also contains one Portable Ground Control Station (PGCS) and Portable Ground Data Terminal (PGDT). The PGCS and PGDT are stripped-down versions of the GCS and GDT and are designed to be used as a backup to the two GCSs. A fielded Shadow 200 system requires 22 soldiers to operate it.

General Atomics MQ-1C Grey Eagle

The Grey Eagle - also known as the Warrior - is an Extended-Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) UAV designed to replace the RQ-5 Hunter, developed by General Atomics for the US Army.

The Army intends to procure eleven systems which include 12 UAVs and 5 GCSs each. The aircraft's nose fairing has been enlarged to house a Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR-GMTI) system, and targeting is also provided with an AN/AAS-52 Multi-spectral Targeting System (MTS) under the nose. The aircraft can carry a payload of 800 pounds (360 kg) and can be armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and GBU-44/B Viper Strike guided bombs

AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven

The RQ-11 Raven is a hand-launched remote-controlled UAV developed to give infantry units immediate access to an "eye in the sky" during combat operations. The Raven can fly up to 6.2 miles at 150m above ground level at flying speeds of 28-60 mph. The Raven won the US Army's Small UAV contract program in 2005 and was adopted by Special Operations Command, US Air Force and the US Marines shortly after.

The Raven can be launched by hand in minutes and is equipped to provide live video streaming of potential hotspots to forward deployed units without having to commit soldiers. Standard mission payloads include CCD color video cameras and an infrared night vision camera.

The Raven lands itself by auto-piloting to a pre-defined landing point and then performing a 45° slope (1 foot down for every 1 foot forward) controlled "Autoland" descent.

Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel

Details on the Sentinel are not widely available, but it is understood to be a stealth aircraft operated by the US Air Force and CIA. The Sentinel has seen action in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom and Pakistan. The batwinged UAV also became the object of international news in December 2011 when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard displayed a captured Sentinel that had either crash landed or - as the Iranians claimed - was forced to land through their own electronic intervention. The fact that the Sentinel paraded around by the Iranians was perfectly in tact seem to support the latter.

It is speculated that the Sentinel was on a mission to gather intelligence and images of Iran's nuclear sites.

Sentinel on display in IranThe Sentinel was also used to provide footage of the attack on Osama Bin Laden's compound which was streamed live to the White House. The RQ-170 also monitored Pakistani military radio transmissions in the area to provide warning of the response to the attack.

On the basis of the few publicly-available photographs of the RQ-170, aviation expert Bill Sweetman has assessed that the UAV is equipped with an electro-optical/infrared sensor and possibly an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar mounted in its belly fairing. He has also speculated that the two undercarriage fairings over the UAV's wings may house datalinks and that the belly fairing could be designed for modular payloads, allowing the UAV to be used for strike missions and/or electronic warfare.

MMIST CQ-10 Snowgoose

The Snowgoose is a cargo delivery vehicle produced by Canadian company Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology. The vehicle uses MMIST's Sherpa autonomous GPS-guided parafoil delivery system to deliver small cargo items - ammunition, food, equipment - to ground troops with pinpoint accuracy.

The Snowgoose consists of a central fuselage which houses the payload and fuel and can be either air-dropped or launched from the ground from a modified Humvee. Once in the air it follows pre-programmed flight plan to deliver its payload through either a paradrop or by landing at the designated GPS location. The vehicle can deliver a payload of up to 600lbs.

The Snowgoose has a range of up to 93 miles from a central base, placing the load within 100 ft of a predesignated point and then performing a near-vertical takeoff.

The system reached initial operational capability in 2005 with the first delivery of 15 vehicles.

More information about the Snowgoose's capabilities can be found ont the manufacturers website here:

MMIST

Boeing ScanEagle

The ScanEagle was originally designed by Boeing to assist fishermen in the location of schools of tuna and as a remote sensor for collecting weather data, but has been deployed in a military capacity since August 2004 in Iraq.

ScanEagle carries a stabilized electro-optical and/or infrared camera on a light-weight inertial stabilized turret system integrated with communications range over 100 km. ScanEagle needs no airfield for deployment. Instead, it is launched using a pneumatic launcher patented by Insitu as the "SuperWedge" launcher. It is recovered using the "SkyHook" retrieval system, which uses a hook on the end of the wingtip to catch a rope hanging from a 30 to 50-foot (15 m) pole. This is made possible by a high-quality differential GPS units mounted on the top of the pole and UAV. The rope is attached to a shock cord to reduce stress on the airframe imposed by the abrupt stop.

Nano Quadrotors Swarms

2012-02-01T13:49:16Z

Experiments performed with a team of nano quadrotors at the GRASP Lab, University of Pennsylvania. Vehicles developed by KMel Robotics.

May have some interesting applications in the tactical, surveillance and disaster response fields.

Currently the quadrators are controlled by a remote system that includes a network of cameras that locate the quadrators position and compute the velocity and trajectory etc required to maneuveur through or around the various environmental obstacles.

Future iterations of the platform may include onboard cameras so that the swarm itself can identify the location of its components and make decisions independent of a remote system. Or perhaps the drones could be controlled by a mobile mothership equipped with the monitoring and command system.

Here is the paper from UPenn describing the trajectory and controller generation for the quadrators: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~dmel/mellingerISER2010.pdf

Wireless Networking in the Developing World Project

2012-01-31T17:29:29Z

Just a quick post with some interesting links from the Wireless Networking in the Developing World Project (WNDW Project).

The goal of the WNDW Project is to help everyone get the resources they need to build wireless networks that solve real communication problems.

The WDNW Project publishes a free book that is available in half a dozen languages - here is the link for the English version:

http://wndw.net/download.html

The WDNW project photo pool has some interesting shots of homemade antennas being tested out in workshops:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21507027@N02/5435670848/in/pool-656402@N21/

The WNDW organization partners with WirelessU.org, who provide free online training. They have a wide range of courses from Basic Radio Theory to WiFi Networking Architecture. Courses can be found here:

http://wirelessu.org/units/list

Transoceanic Communications Cables

2012-01-13T14:09:24Z

Map of undersea cabling (Photo: cablemap.info)

If the idea of laying cables thousands of miles long at the bottom of the deepest oceans on the planet in order to transmit data around the globe at near the speed of light sounds like science fiction, you may be surprised to learn that this feat was first achieved by Samuel Morse back in 1842. Morse's proof of concept project involved transmitting a signal across the New York Harbor through a wire insulated with tarred hemp and India rubber.

The first commercial line was run across the English Channel in 1850 by the Anglo-French Telegraph Company and over the next fifty years the British dominated submarine cabling industry built an impressive network spanning the globe - including the first trans-Pacific line linking the mainland USA with Hawaii laid in 1902.

While the mere feat of laying undersea cable spanning the Pacific in 1902 is impressive, the engineers of the day faced huge challenges in managing the flow of electricity across the huge lengths of cables without the use of repeaters and other modern technologies. The electrical resistance associated with the length of the cable diminshed the bandwidth and limited the data rate to 10-12 words per minute.

Underseas Cabling in Modern Times

Today over 99% of transoceanic data communication is conducted via the network of undersea cables (the rest being transmitted via less reliable and lower bandwidth satellite connections). The multi-terabit per second, highly redundant system is highly reliable but laying the cables is an extremely expensive undertaking - several hundreds of millions per transoceanic cable typically.

During the 1980's and 90's projects were often undertaken by consortia of international carriers to limit the outlay by individual corporations. TAT-8 for example - the first undersea cable to use fiber optics - was built in 1988 by a consortium of 35 companies led by AT&T, France Telecom and British Telecom and cost $335m to construct.

TAT-8 comprised two working pairs of optical fibers with a third reserved as a redundant pair. The signal on each optical fiber was modulated at 295.6 Mbits/s that was capable of carrying 40,000 circuits (simultaneous phone calls) (this was before the internet).

Since the TAT-8 used fiber as opposed to coaxial, the electrical interference shielding from the high voltage supply lines that powered the repeaters was removed. Electrical interference has no affect on fiber signal - which is transmitted by light as opposed to electrical pulses - but it did happen to have an affect on passing sharks. Highly sensitive to electric fields, sharks would be whipped into a feeding frenzy and would attack the line until the voltage killed them.

Due to the numerous prolonged outages, shark shielding was deployed alongside subsequent trans-Atlantic cables.

Operation Ivy Bells - Wiretapping Soviet Undersea Cables

During the early 1970's the United States learnt of the existence of an undersea cable spanning the Soviet controlled Sea of Okhotsk, linking two major Soviet naval bases.

The cable was protected by sound detectors on the sea bed designed to detect intruders and the sea was heavily trafficked by Soviet vessels, but the United States Navy managed to submarine in some divers who attached a 20ft long device around the cable - without piercing the casing or leaving any evidence of tampering. The device was also designed to detach if the cable was ever raised for repair.

The divers would then retrieve and replace tapes each month, which the NSA and other agencies would then process for intelligence. Apparently the Soviet's were so confident that the cable was secure that the data transmitted across the wire was unencrypted.

Later in the conflict the United States tapped other cables with more advanced nuclear powered devices that could store up to a year's worth of data.

Transoceanic Cabling FAQ's

My guest today is a 25 year veteran in the networking world with extensive experience building packet and transport infrastructure for the large carriers and large enterprises. He currently works for a major vendor planning the next generation core packet-optical devices. In a previous role he was involved in designing a transatlantic system for a major carrier. He agreed to answer a few questions on the condition of anonymity.

Are the cables just laying on the seabed, buried, suspended?

In the open ocean, the cable is allowed to settle directly on the ocean floor. Near the coast (where damage is likely due to anchors, fishing, and construction) the cable is buried under the ocean floor (via pneumatically powered underwater trenching machines).

TE SubCom animation depicting use of submersible plow to bury cable:

How are cable breaks handled? What causes them? How can you tell which section of the line is affected?

Cable breaks occur several times a year (there are hundreds of active cables around the world). Typically a cable is cut due to anchors (large ships), earthquakes, fishing equipment, or construction (such as dredging).

A device called an OTDR (Optical Time Domain Reflectometer) allows the operator to pin-point the break. It basically sends an optical pulse along the fiber and times the reflection that occurs at the break. Knowing the speed of light in fiber (roughly .67c) and the time the pulse travels to the break and back, allows calculation of the distance.

TE SubCom animation depicting cable repair process:

How does reflection occur at a break?

The break in cable usually breaks the fiber as a near perpendicular cleave (perpendicular the the axis of the core of the fiber). This creates a face on the end of the fiber. The angle of incidence of the light propagating down the fiber is nearly 90 degrees to the face of the break in the fiber. Since the index of refraction of the fiber is significantly different from the outside medium (air or seawater), the internal face of the fiber at the break acts like a mirror.

How are the repeaters powered?

The amplifiers (not really repeaters) are placed every 40 to 60 km (depending on cable design). Inside the sealed case are amplifier modules (typically EDFAs)- one for each fiber. The pump lasers and control electronics receive power through a copper conductor in the cable. This power is supplied by the landing stations as high voltage DC (can be 10,000s V- depending on the length of cable).

Is there a NOC specifically for monitoring the submarine system?

There is not necessarily a special NOC for the submarine systems. For the carrier I worked for, monitoring the submarine cable was little different than terrestrial optical systems. For the most part, the systems are self-monitoring and notify the NOC operators when a fault occurs or some parameter exceeds a threshold. If there is truly a fault, the NOC personnel are generally not capable of "fixing" the system - as in most cases, something serious has happened such as a fiber cut or amplifier failure. These types of outages require dispatching a repair crew.

How secure are the repeaters against wire tapping? I believe I read somewhere that it happened during the Cold War, has any new technology been employed to secure the data crossing transoceanic lines?

I have heard of the cold-war events - but do not know if they are true. Theoretically, you can "tap" any of the existing fiber systems whether terrestrial or submarine. In fact, most equipment actually has "tap ports" on it to allow diagnostic equipment to analyze the light signals. In any event, there is nothing magical about securing data across any network - it must be strongly encrypted at the end-points. If you are worried about security, then you must assume that your data will be intercepted - no matter what the intervening technology.

What's the average depth of the line? Are they purposely routed across the most shallow points?

The cables follow the undersea topology, there is little attempt to restrict the depth. It is more important to minimize the length of the cable.

What advice would you give to an engineer sitting in an enterprise NOC if he or she wanted to get involved in a project like this?

There are many aspects to designing, installing, operating and maintaining optical networks. Depending on specifically what an individual is interested in doing, they might want to focus on specific things.

For example, if the person is interested in the actual cable construction, you would need to work for a vendor as the cable construction is done at the vendor's facility (Alcatel is a big one). The construction of the cable is a custom job for every cable system built and requires people of many different skill sets - everything from optical engineers, to mechanical engineers, to electrical engineers, etc. Most of the people involved in the cable design are experienced engineers - many of them have PhD.

If you were interested in the installation or maintenance aspect of a submarine cable (maybe you fancy being a pirate on the high seas), then getting experience in the maritime trades via the navy, coast guard, or shipping fleets might be a good start. I suppose the ships are sometimes looking for basic "grunts" and "deck hands". However, submarine cable laying is not a large industry and the work is probably not continuous. There just are not that many submarine cables being built at any given time.

If you want to be involved in the architecture part, you would need to be in the architecture group in a service provider that was planning on paying for a new submarine cable. Being a network architect usually takes many years of experience in designing and running many types of networks before you can acquire the broad skills necessary to do architectural work. The architects and designers in carriers contract with the vendors to build and install the submarine cable systems.

Network architecture is the type of work I have been doing for many years.

Further Reading

Map of Undersea Cabling

Interactive Cable Map

PPC-1 Build Blog

Hivemind Interview with Darknet Plan Forum

2012-01-09T18:47:25Z

The Darknet Plan - or Meshnet - is a movement that originated on a sub-forum of reddit.com, with the objective of creating a parallel internet. The Darknet would be independent of the traditional infrastructure owned and operated by corporations potentially subject to legislative meddling (see SOPA/PIPA). By decentralizing the infrastructure and eliminating "chokepoints" such as large ISP's, the idea is that the darknet will be immune to censorship and government control.

How do they plan to accomplish this? Who are the key players of this movement? Is the Darknet Plan an amorphous dream or a feasible project that would revolutionize the flow of information?

I decided to track down some answers, but given the distributed nature - both in spirit and in practice - of the Darknet Plan, there doesn't seem to be a spokesperson for the movement qualified to comment on behalf of the organization.

So I went to reddit, where I interviewed the forum - posting questions and allowing any of the 21,000 readers to answer. Below are the questions and a composite of the answers provided on the forum.

The Darknet Plan - What's the elevator pitch?

We're trying to create a network where everyone potentially serves as gateway (or ISP) for everyone else. Each individual serves as a connection point. Through obsfucation and encryption, we create a private and secure internet free from censorship by its nature.

Describe some of the current technical solutions being discussed in the community. Is there a leading contender thus far?

It's pretty much decided that were going to be using mesh technology.

As for full mesh, or partial mesh, that's still up in the air.

The hardware is going to be strictly off the shelf's for the average user, but we may decide to get some custom stuff for core services

Is there some kind of hierarchy or organization of responsibility within the movement?

It was proposed by one project contributor that we form a meshnet committee. The committee was proposed to be 9 people elected by anyone who feels like voting. Its purpose would be to decide on a protocol for everyone to use, to ensure that everything can talk to the parts of the mesh that are nearby.

Sadly, I'm not sure if the committee will ever actually be formed. Right now, the project wiki and forums are being run by one guy who didn't like the committee idea and took down the page about it. Obviously, there does not need to be one centralized organization that plans the meshnet. If the committee isn't formed, the we could still get to a working mesh, but with nobody to choose the "official" protocol (so it will be a bit less organized in development stages).

The beauty of the project (or at least how I see it) will be that anyone can buy the hardware and set it up, then instantly be contributing to the mesh. This means the hardware all has to have software that is compatible with its neighbors. Since the project is so anarchistic in this way, a governing body that decides on how the mesh should work is annoying to most people (but I feel it is important, as long as they don't have any power other than organizing the software).

tl;dr: Right now, the project is not organized in any way. We were going to make a committee to decide things, but not everyone wants to.

This is a hacker movement. He or She who builds the best working model becomes an object of attention and is most likely to see their ideas spread. May the best memes win.

It seems like the project is firmly in the aspirational phase at the moment, what would need to happen to push this into an operational stage?

Once cjdns gets finished, we will have a lot of options.

Mesh Network Topology illustration (Photo: an.kaist.ac.kr/~tdinhtoan/)

What level of technical expertise would be required to connect to the darknet as a user?

I don't know about Windows, but on Unix-like operating systems like OS X, Linux, and Android, setup would be handled by the package manager, including setting up a root daemon to start with the system every time it's booted (and also when it's installed). This is all handled by the installer.

What the background process (daemon) does is provide a virtual IPv6 interface that abstracts away mesh routing and such. All your existing programs that are IPv6-capable can be run without any modification.

Bottom line: you install a thing, it acts kinda like a virtual proxy ever after until you uninstall it. If you can install a video game or Google Chrome, you have all the skillset you need to connect to a properly-implemented darknet.

A Berkeley PhD student recently [1] commented that the darknet plan - specifically the wireless mesh solution - was a misguided solution to the wrong problem, below is an extract:

I think that the real danger of the “Darknet Plan” is that it appeals to the problem-solving oriented nature of many of us who are interested in Internet free speech, thereby distracting us from pursuing other more effective means of protest against censorship. We want to build our way around the problem, but not only are wireless mesh networks not the right technical solution, they aren’t even solving the right problem. Censorship is broader than just Internet free speech: it is a social problem that has existed long before the Internet ever did and will continue even if the Internet dies. The only way to really address root causes is to engage with the problem at the social and political level, and I believe those who care about Internet freedom should direct their efforts accordingly.

Care to comment?

The engineers are simply trying to play to their strengths. Fixing societal problems older than Europe? Not really among our strengths. As impractical and symptom-treating as a darknet approach is, if you're geeky enough (like me), it seems like the vastly more realistic option.

Additionally, he offers a false choice. The time we spend on the meshnet would otherwise be wasted on pictures of cats, not on meaningful contributions to politics.

If we (the human race) manage to create a reliable meshnet then I think it makes for a nice statement about how much we desire freedom of speech. It sets a cultural standard that's very hard to unset.

Interview: United States Air Force Drone Network Engineer

2012-01-06T06:06:27Z

Senior Airman Stephen Wade spent four years as a Tech Controller with the United States Air Force engineering networks that disseminated video from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

After leaving the service, he went on to perform network upgrades for the Federal Bureau of Investigations before returning to the Air Force as a contractor to support the Air Force Special Operations Command arm of the UAV network. He currently is a network engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, engineering networks that support national security.

Below he answers a few questions about his time in the Air Force working on drones.

MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft (Photo: U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Sabrina Johnson )

What's your background in networking?

My background in networking is primarily drawn from my 4 years of service in the Air Force. When I went through the 3C2X1 training at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB) we were given the title of Tech Controllers. We had classes in everything ranging from basic electronic principles all the way up through advanced routing and switching.

After graduating through the tech school I got stationed at Langley AFB and was kept there for all 4 of my enlisted years. There was a shortage of tech controllers that managed the UAV video dissemination, so they held all the new tech controllers there indefinitely.

While I was there I learned all I could about multicast networking, ATM networking, bulk/serial cryptography devices, and any other networking related things I could. We had a multi-million dollar lab that we spent hours configuring and reconfiguring that mirrored the production network.

What have you been doing since you left the Air Force?

After I got out of the Air Force I became a contractor and moved out West to Cannon AFB to do support for the AFSOC/SOCOM arm of the UAV network. I started out my time at Cannon doing GCS (Ground Control Station) setup, configuration, and maintenance. I learned the GCS network and how the pilots and sensors are able to control the UAV and the specific equipment and configurations needed to pilot and control the UAV and all of it's cameras/sensors.

I eventually moved to the video distribution part of the AFSOC network, helping to maintain and add additional lines when they came in, routing and disseminating the video to different units across the US. Before I left we had the chance to upgrade the network to handle HD distribution.

How did you get involved with UAV's? Is there a particular AFSC that manages the UAV network? Did you know you would be working with UAV's when you joined the Air Force?

When I first joined the Air Force I did not know that I would be working with UAV's, in fact, I didn't know I would be working with UAV's until I got to Langley.

I did know what the tech controller career field was all about before enlisting though, so I knew what area I wanted to throw myself into, and enlisted with that in my specific contract.

I'm not sure what AFSC would be the tech controller equivalent at this point, the last I heard they merged a bunch of AFSCs, and got rid of some others, and the AFSC of 3C2x1 no longer exists, but there is an equivalent under a new AFSC which I THINK falls under the 3Dxxx field.

What kind of capabilities do the UAV's offer in terms of communications and battlefield intelligence that would not be available through traditional communications infrastructure?

As far as the UAV capabilities go, they are quite advanced from where they began many years ago. While I was at Cannon AFB the powers that be wanted a heads-up 3d display that would show a commander there at Cannon exactly where all their UAVs were overlayed on a Google Earth application window, the commander could click on any of the UAVs on the screen and begin to see the video that the pilots and sensors could see, they could then send operational flight info and intelligence to other analysts or units across the US. This allowed quick sharing and dissemination of information to units both here in the states or overseas on the ground. The UAVs themselves of course use a Lynx SAR (Synthetic Apeture Radar) this allows them to see through clouds, fog, smoke, etc. And also allows high resolution stills to be taken under adverse conditions.

The Air Force was also testing a joint capability network, which allowed the F-22 Raptor to share and exchange information with a UAV to allow support between the Raptor and the UAV in the field. We set this up using stationary Radar domes for the networking equipment, and the short range (<25 miles) microwave shots. Although this was just an exercise, I'm sure this has been put to use since the experiment, and has seen real world combat action.

The UAVs that we supported were the MQ-1 and MQ-9, and while operationally they were very similar, as far as the network was concerned it was identical, and as long as the UAV can send its video and flight information over a network, we could support it and distribute that information to any of our units in the world.

MQ-1 Predator control station (Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Steve Horton)

Give us an idea of what your network basically looks like.

Network wise we would establish link over a specific RF prior to the crew showing up, this would allow C2 (Command & Control) priority over the link, even if video is lost, the C2 link can still send the emergency mission coordinates to the GCS and it will automatically return home. Once link was established the networking team would ensure the correct multicast ACL was being applied, this would ensure that only certain units would receive the video feed, and would also allow us to ensure that the ATM path was correct.

The basic network layout is...

HD Video stream -> RF -> local SATCOM -> GeoSAT -> Stateside SATCOM -> ATM backbone -> IP distribution

There are additional stops along the way, but that is the gist of it.

What kind of protocols/technology do you use in the operations of drones that would be recognizable to a more traditional enterprise network engineer? Or maybe a better question would be what technologies do you use that a typical enterprise engineer wouldn't be familiar with?

An average engineer would recognize just about everything that we use to carry the video and air handler circuits, with the exception of the ATM configuration, and possibly the encryption devices. The ATM backbone is an aging technology, and is getting more and more difficult to support since it isn't being made anymore. The encryption technology is used quite often in the military, but an average engineer might not be familiar with them. Also for the local video distribution in our POC (Predator Operations Center) we used a LOT of video routers, content processors (for the conversion of raw video to MPEG), and audio converters so the pilots/sensors could talk with the analysts and supervisors.

You mentioned the system recently upgraded to HD video - what are some of challenges you faced with that project?

The HD upgrade itself was somewhat difficult due to the fact that there was NO available downtime. The pilots and missions themselves often times ran for 12-16 hours, and there was usually just enough time to configure the circuit for the next mission, and that was it. We rarely had time to implement many changes simply because there wasn't more than an hour or two of downtime between missions. Eventually we found a way to integrate and upgrade sections of the network to allow the HD upgrade to happen while still supporting the SD video feeds concurrently.

Are there any plans to move away from an ATM backbone to an all IP network to disseminate video?

Before I left there were many suggestions regarding the move away from ATM to an IP based backbone, the only issue of course is security. Even with the hardware encryption there is still a question of reliability with an all IP based network, the ATM backbone is a proven technology when it comes to latency vs encryption overhead vs reliability. The ATM backbone seems able to find the perfect balance of all three of those issues.

I know that DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency - the commercial carrier for this UAV network and many DoD networks) was planning to cut off their ATM support sometime in the near future, which was essentially the tipping point to get HD going over the network.

What civilian applications of this technology do you imagine we will be seeing in the next 10 years?

I think we're already beginning to see how this DoD based system is creeping into civilian programs. The border patrol is the most recent example I can think of, I believe that Lockheed Martin won that contract and have been using drones on the mexican border. I know the FAA is supposed to clear UAV for use over American airspace within the next year or so, which leads me to believe that police stations will be using them in some capacity once they see how useful they are. With the UAS platform expanding out to the foreseeable future with the Air Force, and things like supersonic flight in the near future this is a huge field to be in, and one that will only continue to grow in the future.

Advice for someone who wants to be a UAV Drone Network Engineer?

If someone wants to be a drone engineer I would advise you to get a security clearance and a general networking background. If not that route, learn multicast routing inside and out, and learn about bulk encryption devices. If you can find a lab or some cheap refurb ATM equipment that would also be a great way to get an inside step on getting a job as a UAV network engineer.

Drone related links:

DIY Drones

Pentagon introduces new helicopter drones

New Unmanned Drone Fits In The Palm Of A Hand