wifi as communication method for military UAVs

senmeis

New Member
Hi,

from some articles I get informed that some military UAVs use Wifi (WLAN) as LOS communication method with the base station. Is it true? Is it secure enough when Wifi standards are well known?

Owen
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hi,

from some articles I get informed that some military UAVs use Wifi (WLAN) as LOS communication method with the base station. Is it true? Is it secure enough when Wifi standards are well known?

Owen
It can't be wi-fi in the domestic sense as none of those standards can reach over more than a few tens of metres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wireless_data_standards

Don't forget, the transmission method has nothing to do with the encryption however.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It can't be wi-fi in the domestic sense as none of those standards can reach over more than a few tens of metres.
It's all about frequencies. Datalinks used in US UAVs may *cough* in some cases use a 5 GHz frequency band, which is also used for domestic wifi.
Unlike wifi, these datalinks are optimized for range instead of transfer rate.

Most wireless data transmission providers, at least in Europe, have begun shifting everything over to 60 GHz links due to the radio clutter stemming from domestic wifi in urban areas; 2.4 GHz links in particular have virtually disappeared, since you pretty much can't transmit anything without running into a giant cloud of emitters in that band over any city.
60 GHz is a long-time military comms frequency in the US. Wifi standard 802.11ad will also use 60 GHz, but - due to layout for very high transfer rates - likely only in a highly localized fashion which won't interfer with communications above cities.

(sorry, had to listen to a presentation on this topic this week)
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It's all about frequencies. Datalinks used in US UAVs may *cough* in some cases use a 5 GHz frequency band, which is also used for domestic wifi.
Unlike wifi, these datalinks are optimized for range instead of transfer rate.

Most wireless data transmission providers, at least in Europe, have begun shifting everything over to 60 GHz links due to the radio clutter stemming from domestic wifi in urban areas; 2.4 GHz links in particular have virtually disappeared, since you pretty much can't transmit anything without running into a giant cloud of emitters in that band over any city.
60 GHz is a long-time military comms frequency in the US. Wifi standard 802.11ad will also use 60 GHz, but - due to layout for very high transfer rates - likely only in a highly localized fashion which won't interfer with communications above cities.

(sorry, had to listen to a presentation on this topic this week)
WiFi saturation is a beautiful thing. Not, so very, very not...

I really wish people were required to take and pass a test before they were allowed to operate network capable devices.

One thing which has not been mentioned yet is the type of antenna, and its impact on a connection. If a UAS has a directional antenna aimed at a satellite constellation, then a potential hostile would need to position their transceiver above the UAS in order to either receive or send data to the UAS. This is of course assuming that the RF/hopping scheme could be worked out, as well as any encryption could be overcome.

Not impossible, but not an easy task by any means.
 
Top