See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269304589

Communication architectures and protocols for networking unmanned aerial

vehicles

Conference Paper · December 2013

DOI: 10.1109/GLOCOMW.2013.6825193

CITATIONS READS
70 5,290

3 authors:

Jun Li Yifeng Zhou

Communications Research Centre Canada Communications Research Centre Canada
35 PUBLICATIONS 581 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 845 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

L. Lamont
Communications Research Centre Canada
81 PUBLICATIONS 1,326 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by L. Lamont on 05 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Communication Architectures and Protocols for
Networking Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Jun Li∗ , Yifeng Zhou∗, and Louise Lamont∗
∗ Communications Research Centre Canada, 3701 Carling Ave. Ottawa, ON. K2H 8S2 Canada
E-mail: {jun.li, yifeng.zhou, louise.lamont}@crc.gc.ca

Abstract—A fundamental but challenging problem in cooper- (ISR) role. ISR includes, as one of its components, monitoring.
ation and control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) Monitoring implies the use of one or more sensors to provide
is efficient networking of the UAVs over the wireless medium feedback to the commander [13], [17]. If each UAV contains a
in rapidly changing environments. In this paper, we introduce
four communication architectures for networking UAVs and sensor, a system must be devised to assign the vehicles/sensors
review some military communication standards applicable to to positions in space and in time, and to move efficiently
UAV communications. After discussions of pros and cons of within a predetermined environment to ensure monitoring.
each communication architecture, we conclude that a UAV ad Monitoring is related to various problems that have been
hoc network is the most appropriate architecture to network studied in the past. A particular case takes place when a group
a team of UAVs, while a multi-layer UAV ad hoc network is
more suitable for multiple groups of heterogeneous UAVs. By of mobile sensors can be used to cover an area. This is the
comparing various legacy and next-generation military data link so-called coverage problem [5].
systems, we highlight that one important feature of the next- In summary, the benefit of multi-UAV cooperation and
generation waveforms is their capability of Internet protocol (IP) control is twofold. First, multi-UAV cooperation significantly
based ad hoc networking, which allows UAVs to communicate reduces the operating cost by transferring the operation mode
with each other in a single- or multi-layer UAV ad hoc networks.
from many-to-one (i.e., many operators control one UAV) to
one-to-many (i.e., one operator controls many UAVs). Second,
I. I NTRODUCTION multi-UAV cooperation and control can minimize the possibil-
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can fly autonomously ity of mission losses caused by human errors, and thus enhance
or be remotely piloted by ground crews, and they can save the reliability of missions. Multi-UAV cooperation and control,
lives when replacing humans in harmful environments. Typical however, critically depends on real-time or near real-time air-
applications of UAVs in such contexts include surveillance and air and air-ground exchanges of information [1]. Moreover,
reconnaissance [11], cooperative search and acquisition and the radio frequency spectrum is currently the only available
tracking [10], persistent surveillance for homeland security transmission medium for these information exchanges because
[6], radio source localization [7], and forest fire monitoring laser communications are not practical due to some technical
[3]. Due to their enormous application potentials, research and challenges of airborne optical devices using lasercom links
development in UAV technologies have been expanding at an [12]. Consequently, a fundamental but challenging problem to
unprecedented rate over the past decade. Among the current be addressed in multi-UAV cooperation and control is efficient
research focuses is UAV autonomy [12]. Currently a UAV in networking of UAVs over the wireless medium this is able to
operation requires one or more operators for control. In the provide timely and reliable information flowing among the
future multiple UAVs with a higher degree of autonomy will UAVs. In this paper, we refer to this problem as the UAV
be integrated into a team autonomously cooperating with each networking problem and focus on the networking issues with
other through more advanced network protocols to achieve a specific applications to UAV operation scenarios.
common task [9], [14], [18]. The UAV team requires only one In particular, we focus on communication architectures
operator for control. In addition, the more autonomous the and protocols that are applicable to addressing the UAV
team of UAVs, the less involvement of the human operator, networking problem. We compare the features of various
the larger the size of the UAV team. communication architectures for networking UAVs and discuss
One of the main hypotheses supporting the development their pros and cons. Following the discussions we conclude
of cooperative multi-UAV systems is that the deployment of that a flat UAV ad hoc network is more appropriate for a homo-
mobile assets in groups is expected to result in a more effective geneous group of UAVs, while a multi-layer ad hoc network is
mission than if conducted with a single asset. This is the force more suitable for connecting multiple groups of heterogeneous
multiplication effect expected from teams of UAVs. A great UAVs. In addition, we review communication protocols, or
number of researchers worldwide are currently investigating data links in the area of military communications, for UAV
the design of systems that use multiple autonomous vehicles to networks. Compared with the data links currently being used,
cooperatively conduct civil or military missions, with minimal one important feature provided in the next-generation data
human intervention. One of the obvious roles anticipated for link systems is the capability of Internet Protocol (IP) based
the UAVs is the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ad hoc networking, which allows for UAVs to communicate
with each other in a decentralized manner using a flat or
multi-layer UAV ad hoc communication architecture. The main
contributions of this paper include introduction of appropriate
communication architectures for networking a small or larger
number of UAVs, and an overview of data link systems for
military communications. Both legacy and next-generation
communication technologies are examined with respect to the
requirements for networking UAVs.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
we present various communication architectures for UAV net-
working. In Section III, we review communication standards
currently being used for UAV communications and describe
some recent communication waveforms with ad hoc network- Fig. 1. Centralized UAV Network
ing capability. Finally, concluding remarks are provided in
Section IV.
II. C OMMUNICATION A RCHITECTURES
A communication architecture specifies how information
flows between the ground crew and a UAV or between UAVs.
In this section we introduce four communication architectures
for networking UAVs.
A. Centralized Communications
A centralized UAV communication architecture is shown
in Fig. 1, which has a central node (i.e., the ground station),
to which all UAVs are connected. This is one of the most
common network topologies. In such a network, each UAV
is directly connected to the ground station transmitting and Fig. 2. UAV Ad Hoc Network
receiving command and control data, and the UAVs are not
directly linked to each other. The whole network is centered
at the ground station, and communications between two UAVs
1) UAV Ad Hoc Network: A UAV ad hoc network is shown
need to be routed through the ground station acting a relay.
in Fig. 2. In general, a UAV ad hoc network does not rely on
Since all UAVs are directly connected to the ground station,
a pre-existing infrastructure, and each UAV will participate in
a short information delay is expected for command and
data forwarding for other UAVs of the network. In the network
control data transmitted between the ground crew and a UAV.
shown in Fig. 2, a backbone UAV serves as a gateway of
However, information data transmitted between two UAVs will
the ad hoc network, relaying information data between the
experience a relatively longer delay because the data needs to
ground station and the other UAVs. Then the gateway UAV
be routed through the ground station. Moreover, since long-
needs two radios, one for communication with other UAVs
distance communications are often conducted between the
and the other for communication with the ground station. In
ground station and UAVs, advanced radio transmission devices
this UAV ad hoc network, since only one UAV is needed
with a high transmission power are required in the UAVs,
to connect to the ground station, the coverage area by the
which may not be practical for medium or small UAVs due to
network is significantly extended. In addition, because multiple
their size and and payload constraints. In addition, in the cen-
UAVs are flying relatively close to each other, the transceiver
tralized UAV communication architecture, the ground station
device in a UAV can be low-cost and light-weight, which
represents vulnerability of the UAV network by rendering the
makes it more suitable for small- or medium-sized UAVs.
potential of single-point of failure. I.e., if the ground station
To ensure connectivity of the network, however, the mobility
encounters some problems, the entire UAV network will be
patterns, such as speeds and heading directions, need to similar
disrupted. Thus, this communication architecture is not robust.
for all UAVs. Therefore, this ad hoc network architecture
B. Decentralized Communications is particularly appropriate for networking a group of similar
In a decentralized communication architecture, a central UAVs for operations such as persistent surveillance operations
node is not required, and two UAVs can communicate with [2].
each other either directly or indirectly. This implies that In some missions, there are a large number of UAVs to be
information data that are not destined to the ground station deployed. These UAVs are often of different types ranging
can be routed through a UAV instead of the ground station. In from large to small sized UAVs and of different payloads.
the following, three decentralized communication architectures With multi-type UAV settings, the UAVs of a similar type
are discussed. usually are physically close to each other and form a cluster,
 Fig. 3. Multi-Group UAV Network Fig. 4. Multi-Layer UAV Ad Hoc Network

while UAVs of different types are relatively far away from information exchange between any two UAV groups does not
each other. Thus, these UAVs may form into multiple groups need to be routed through the ground station. The ground
according to their types. Apparently, it may not be efficient or station only processes information data that are destined to
practical for a large number of UAVs to form a single UAV it, resulting in a significantly reduced computation and com-
ad hoc network due to traffic patterns involved and network munication load in the ground station. The multi-layer UAV
control overhead caused. In fact, as discussed below, two com- ad hoc network architecture is a fundamental communication
munication architectures, which are multi-group UAV network architecture for implementing the one-to-many UAV operation
and multi-layer UAV ad hoc network, can be considered for mode. Moreover, a multi-layer UAV ad hoc network is robust
networking UAVs of multiple types. because the network does not contain a single point of failure.
2) Multi-Group UAV Network: A multi-group UAV net- In summary, a UAV network can be either centralized or
work is shown in Fig. 3. In this network, UAVs within a group decentralized. The centralized UAV network is centered at the
form a UAV ad hoc network with its respective backbone UAV ground station and may require long-distance communications
connecting to the ground station. Intra-group communications between the ground station and each individual UAV. A
(e.g., communications within a same group) are conducted decentralized communication architecture is able to provide
within a UAV ad hoc network described in Section II-B1, while extended coverage through multi-hop transmissions. Moreover,
inter-group communications (e.g., communications involving both a UAV ad hoc network and a multi-layer UAV ad hoc
two different groups) are performed via respective backbone network are more robust communication architectures due to
UAVs and the ground station. It is worthwhile noting that the the fact that these networks do present a single point of failure,
multi-group UAV network architecture can be considered as a and offer more communication efficiency without requesting
network combining a centralized UAV network and UAV ad wide-band links to the ground station. A UAV ad hoc network
hoc networks. This communication architecture is suitable for is more suitable for a homogeneous group of multiple UAVs,
a mission scenario that involves a large number of UAVs with while a multi-group UAV network and a multi-layer UAV ad
different flight or communication characteristics. However, due hoc network architectures are more appropriate for networking
to its semi-centralized nature, this communication architecture a large number of heterogeneous UAVs. With multiple groups
still lacks robustness. of UAVs of a high degree of autonomy, a multi-layer UAV
3) Multi-Layer UAV Ad Hoc Network: Another commu- ad hoc network may be more preferable due to the its truly
nication architecture for networking multiple groups of het- one-to-many UAV operation mode.
erogeneous UAVs is a multi-layer UAV ad hoc network. An
example of multi-layer UAV ad hoc networks is shown in III. C OMMUNICATION P ROTOCOLS (DATA L INKS )
Fig. 4. The UAVs within an individual group form a UAV In telecommunications, a data link is a means of connecting
ad hoc network, which corresponds to the lower layer of the one device to another device for the purpose of exchanging
multi-layer UAV ad hoc network architecture. The upper-layer information (voice, data and video etc.) between the devices.
UAV ad hoc network is composed of the backbone UAVs In the area of military communications, a data link consists of
of all groups. Unlike the multi-group UAV network, only physical devices that are used for transmitting and receiving
one backbone UAV in the multi-layer UAV ad hoc network information data as well as protocols that governs how the
is directly connected to the ground station. In this network, information is transmitted and received. A physical device
is typically characterized by transmission range, data rate, modulation techniques and transmission frequencies are fully
operating frequency, link protection and security, communica- interoperable with CDL. TCDL uses a Ku narrow-band uplink
tion mode, message format, and weight/size/cost/power of the for payload and vehicle control, and a wide-band down-link
transceiver equipment. To meet the communication require- for data transfer. TCDL is inter-operable with multiple TCDL
ments for command and control (mainly between the aircraft platforms, TCDL surface terminals, and currently fielded CDL
and the ground station), several data link standards have been systems. It runs at the point-to-point data transmission rate of
established. Digital data links are mainly the implementations 200 Kbps in the uplink and 10.71 Mbps in the downlink. The
of military communication technologies, which correspond to point-to-point communication range of TCDL can reach 300
the physical layer and the link layer in the OSI model. They are miles. To maximize the operation compatibility and flexibility,
the technological basis of systems supporting Network centric TCDL employs an open system architecture. The Ku-band
Warfare and Network Enabled operations. Recently, several operating frequency can be changed by replacing the RF
next-generation data link systems have also been proposed converter and antenna. TCDL antenna can be changed from
to facilitate communications in decentralized UAV networks. omnidirectional to directional for directed transmissions. An
In the following, we give an overview of the current and asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) interface is provided for
next-generation data link standards. Note that the overview ATM data transmission between a UAV and its ground station.
presented below is based on publicly available sources only. Since the Internet Protocol can be deployed over ATM links,
it is possible for UAVs to connect to a wider-area military
A. Current Data Links internet.
Data links that are considered as “legacy systems” are still 3) Link-11: Link-11 is the NATO design of Tactical Digital
in wide use for a range of applications. The popular ones Information Link (TADIL-A). The US Navy has adopted the
are the Common Data Link (CDL), Tactical Common Data term Link-11 in order to maintain commonality within the
Link (TCDL), Link-11, Link-14, Link-16, and Link-22. Each NATO arena. (The term Tactical Data Link (TDL) is now
of these systems has defined protocols and a radio with certain more commonly seen to replace the term TADIL.) Link-
defined characteristics. 11 employs netted communication techniques and a standard
1) Common Data Link (CDL): CDL is a secure com- message format for exchanging digital information among
munications link developed by the U.S. military in 1991 airborne (Link-11A) as well as land-based and shipboard
as the military primary protocol and allows for full duplex (Link-11B) tactical data systems. Link-11 operates in the high
transmitting imagery and signal intelligence. CDL specifies frequency (HF) band (3-30 MHz) or the ultra high frequency
a set of radios providing standardized, wide-band, line-of- (UHF) band (225-400 MHz). Link-11A is a secure half-duplex
sight (LOS) communications between UAVs and the ground TADIL radio link with all users sharing common channels
station. The radio frequency (RF) parameters of CDL are and employs quadrature phase-shift keying modulation. It is
listed in TABLE I. The CDL links are typically asymmetric. a low-bandwidth data communication link (1.364 2.25kbps)
CDL uses a 200 Kbps uplink (from the ground station to that provides summary position and situation information from
UAVs) for control and management. Binary phase shift key other participating ships and aircraft in the Maritime Air Area
modulation, Viterbi convolutional encoding, interleaving, and Operation, NATO Air Operations, Maritime Air Contingency
pseudo-noise spreading are used in the uplinks. The data rate Operations and other missions for establishment of Wide
of a CDL downlink (from UAVs to the ground station) can be Area Tactical Situation (WATS). Link-11B (also called before
configured to be either 10.71 Mbps, 137 Mbps, or 274 Mbps, TADIL-B) is a full-duplex, two-way, point-to-point tactical
by multiplexing a number of data channels, each of which runs data link that provides serial communications between NATO
at a ?xed data rate, onto the overall link. The downlinks of nations.
a CDL employs offset quadrature phase shift key modulation, 4) Link-14: Link-14 is a data link system for broadcasting
Viterbi convolutional encoding, and interleaving techniques. information data in maritime areas for ship-to-ship and ship-
to-shore communications. The data link can operate in either
X-band Ku-band HF, VHF, or UHF band and broadcast information data to
Up-link Frequency 9.750 - 9.950 GHz 15.15 - 15.35 GHz maritime units without the tactical data processing capability.
Down-link Frequency 10.150 - 10.425 GHz 14.40 - 14.83 GHz
Airborne Antenna 7- or 9-inch directional dish antenna
Link-14 is an old non real-time teletype tactical data Link, and
Surface Antenna 1 m or 6 ft directional dish antenna is usually used as a backup for ships not equipped to decode
TABLE I
and use Link-11 data.
RF PARAMETERS OF CDL 5) Link-16: Link-16 is now a most common tactical com-
munication device on war-fighting aircraft platforms. Link-
16 uses the joint tactical information distribution system
2) Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL): TCDL is a secure (JTIDS) as its communication component with intension of
data link developed by the U.S. military to send secure exchanging tactical information among various tactical users,
multimedia data from airborne platforms to ground stations. It including UAVs. A multi-functional information distribution
was designed for UAVs, specifically the MQ-8B Fire Scout, system (MIDS) defined by North Atlantic Treaty Organization
as well as manned non-fighter environments. The data rates, (NATO) is an equivalent term to JTIDS. Therefore, the terms,
Link-16, JTIDS, and MIDS, are used interchangeably, even software for TCP/IP networks. Depending on the configuration
though JTIDS and MIDS are more often used in reference to of the radio, JTRS can operate at the data rate up to 1.2
the terminal type by tactical end users. Mbps. JTRS includes the following two major development
A frequency hopping scheme is used in Link-16 for data waveforms.
transmission, which makes Link-16 signals highly resistant to 1) Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT): TTNT,
jamming. In addition, both messages and transmissions are developed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects
encrypted using cryptovariables. One cryptovariable is used Agency (DARPA), is a military communication system de-
to encrypt the data, while another is used to control the signed for support of line-of-sight, ad-hoc IP networks. It
transmitted waveform. The data link operates in the L band features low latency, high throughput, and mobile ad hoc capa-
(969 - 1206 MHz), and is shared by multiple MIDS/JTIDS bilities in net-centric military operations, and is able to coexist
systems using the time division multiple access (TDMA) with fielded technologies including Link-16. The networking
scheme. The data transmission rate can be up to 115.2 kbps. technology in TTNT is an IP-based, ad hoc network capable of
Link-16 provides almost real-time, jam-resistant, and secure transmitting 2 M bits of data per second. The technology can
communications between platforms. However, the network support more than 200 nodes, allow for the reception of four
is limited to kilobits/sec data rates and thus infeasible for or more data streams simultaneously and provide for secure,
transmitting imagery or multimedia data. In addition, due to jam-resistant transmissions at high-speed Internet throughput.
a prohibitive cost and great mass of such a system, Link-16 2) Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW): WNW pro-
has been only equipped on those key tactical platforms. Even vides a tactical wireless networking capability for both users
with the most recently developed MIDS low volume terminal and backbone infrastructure. It uses an adaptive TDMA
(MIDS-LVT) of tens of pounds in weight and almost half scheme for efficient channel access [15]. A link adaptation
million dollars in cost, it is still challenging when considering component is included in WNW to adjust transmission param-
installation of Link-16 on small and tactical UAVs whose gross eters (e.g., modulation type, transmission power, etc.) based on
weight is no greater than hundreds of pounds. the information contained in received packets. This adaptive
6) Link-22: Link-22 is an electronic counter measures structure helps optimize the overall network performance for
(ECM) resistant, BLOS tactical data communication system various tactical applications. WNW uses a distributed resource
capable of transmission of Link-16 messages. It operates in management scheme for improved packet delivery rates [16].
the HF or UHF band and employs TDMA or dynamic TDMA A priority queue is applied to control traffic flows according to
for multiple access. A Link-22 unit may operate up to four their priorities. A platform equipped with WNW can operate
networks simultaneously, each on different media, as part of as an ad hoc node in a large scale IP-based mobile network.
a super network with any participant on any network able The function of neighbor discovery and monitoring can also
to communicate with any other. With the addition of data be enabled in WNW.
forwarding to other links, a framework of network centric In summary, legacy data links were designed to provide
warfare emerges. Network management is supplied in the communications between the ground station and a UAV. While
design of Link-22, which gives the potential to dynamically legacy data links can be used for networking groups of
react to changing operation conditions. UAVs, they are not suitable because of limited bandwidth and
network architectures optimized for other applications. With
B. Next-Generation Data Links the emerging next-generation data link systems capable of
Fast moving tactical information among combat platforms IP-based ad hoc internet-working, a decentralized architecture
helps commanders make timely and informed decisions for can be established to enable air-to-air communications. It is
winning a battle, and thus achieving high-speed wireless links, worthwhile noting that some low-cost and commercial off-
through which tactical information is exchanged between war- the-shelf (COTS) communication devices (e.g., 802.11 links)
fare platforms, becomes extremely critical in network-centric have also been equipped in small UAVs to prove emerging
warfare. Therefore, among several key technical innovations concepts of operations of UAVs (e.g., net-centric warfare and
enabling the future development of unmanned aviation is UAV swarming) [4], [8].
the communication technology [12]. In line with this key
technical innovation, Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), a IV. C ONCLUSION
next-generation data link, has been proposed to be used for Explosive development of UAVs has been witnessed during
tactical UAV communications. the past decade. In this paper we introduced four communica-
JTRS is a highly-configurable tactical data link for military tion architectures for networking UAVs. We summarized that
operations. It is intended to replace many legacy military radio these decentralized communication architectures are suitable
standards with a faster and more flexible system. To support in the implementation of the one-to-many mode of operating
most legacy data links currently in use, JTRS has a broader multiple UAVs through provisioning of timely air-air and air-
operating bandwidth, ranging from 2 MHz to 2 GHz, and ground information exchange. In particular, we concluded that
is a software-defined radio enabling an evolutionary process a UAV ad hoc network is more suitable for missions involving
of system development. It includes encryption capabilities a single group of UAVs of one similar type, while a multi-
for secure voice and data transfer and wide-band networking layer UAV ad hoc network should be considered in missions
deploying a large number of heterogeneous UAVs having a [7] E. W. Frew, C. Dixon, B. Argrow, and T. Brown, “Radio source
certain degree of autonomy. We then reviewed these legacy localization by a cooperating UAV team,” Infotech@Aerospace, pp. 26
- 29, Arlington, Virginia, USA, September 2005.
and next-generation data link systems for communications [8] D. Hague, H. T. Kung, B. Suter, “Field experimentation of COTS-based
between the ground station and a UAV and between UAVs. UAV networking,” IEEE 2006 Military Communications Conference
Different from these legacy data link systems, next-generation (MILCOM 2006), pp. 1-7, Washington, DC, USA, October 2006.
[9] H. Liu, B. Zhang, H. Mouftah, X. Shen, and J. Ma, “Opportunistic
waveforms provide the IP-based ad hoc internet-working ca- Routing for Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks: Present and Future
pability and will be adopted for decentralized communications Directions,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 103-
for UAV networks. 109, December 2009.
[10] S. Morris and E. W. Frew, “Cooperative tracking of moving targets
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by teams of autonomous unmanned air vehicles,” Technical Report,
FA9550-04-C-0107, July 2005.
This research was supported by Defence Research and [11] B. J. O’Brien, D. G. Baran and B. B. Luu, “Ad hoc networking for
Development Canada (DRDC). unmanned ground vehicles: design and evaluation at command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnais-
R EFERENCES sance on-the-move,” Army Research Laboratory, Technical Report,
[1] J. Baillieul and P. J. Antsaklis, “Control and communication challenges ARL-TR-3991, November 2006.
in networked real-time systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. [12] Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
1, pp. 9 - 28, January 2007. Roadmap 2005 - 2030.
[2] R. W. Beard, T. W. Mclain, D. B. Nelson, D. Kingston and D. [13] Maj. D. W. Pendal, “Persistent surveillance and its implications for the
Johanson, “Decentralized cooperative aerial surveillance using fixed- common operating picture,” Military Review, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 41 - 50,
wing miniature UAVs,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. November 2005.
1306 - 1324, July 2006. [14] T. Samad, J. S. Bay, and D. Godbole, “Network-centric systems for
[3] D. W. Casbeer, D. B. Kingston, R. W. Beard, T. W. McLain, S.-M. military operations in urban terrain: The role of UAVs,” Proceedings of
Li, and R. Mehra, “Cooperative forest fire surveillance using a team of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 92 - 107, January 2007.
small unmanned air vehicles,” International Journal of Systems Science, [15] C. D. Young, “USAP: A unifying dynamic distributed multichannel
vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 351 - 360, May 2006. TDMA slot assignment protocol,” IEEE Military Communications Con-
[4] C. M. Cheng, P. H. Hsiao, H. T. Kung and D. Vlah, “Performance ference (MILCOM 1996), pp. 235 - 239, McLean, VA, USA, October
measurement of 802.11a wireless links from UAV to ground nodes 1996.
with various antenna orientations,” Proc. 15th International Conference [16] C.D. Young, “USAP multiple access: dynamic resource allocation for
on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN 2006), pp. 9 - 11, mobile multihop multichannel wireless networking,” IEEE 1999 Military
Arlington, VA, USA, October 2006. Communications Conference (MILCOM 1999), pp. 271 - 275, Atlantic
[5] J. Cortés, S. Martinez, T. Karatas, and F. Bullo, “Coverage control City, NJ, USA, October 1999.
[17] US Army, 2003 Army Transformation Roadmap, 2003.
for mobile sensing networks,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and [18] B. Zhang, J. Hao, and H. Mouftah, “Bidirectional Multi-Constrained
Automation, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 243 - 255, April 2004. Routing Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, in press. (access
[6] J. A. Curry, J. Maslanik, G. Holland, and J. Pinto, “Applications of on http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=06475940.)
aerosondes in the arctic,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, vol. 85, no. 12, pp. 1855 - 1861, December 2004.

View publication stats