Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DARPA Looks To Adaptive Battlefield Wireless Nets

Posted by Zonk on Sat Nov 03, 2007 01:23 AM
from the was-a-boring-conversation-anyway dept.
The Military Communications Wireless Networking Hardware Technology
An anonymous reader passed us a NetworkWorld link about an effort at DARPA to succeed in combat through networking. The idea is to keep soldiers in a position of informational superiority through a tactical radio network that would 'link' everyone together on the battlefield. "Project WAND, for Wireless Adaptive Network Development, will exploit commercial radio components, rather than custom ones, and use a variety of software techniques and algorithms, many of them only just now emerging in mature form. These $500 walkie-talkie-size radios will form large-scale, peer-to-peer ad hoc nets, which can shift frequencies, sidestep interference, and handle a range of events that today completely disrupt wireless communications ... [right now] 'The average soldier on the ground doesn't have a radio,' says Jason Redi, principle scientist for BBN's network technologies group, and the man overseeing the software work. Radios are reserved for platoon and company commanders, in part because of their cost: typically $15,000 to $20,000 each, with vehicle-mounted radios reaching $80,000."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: DARPA looks to adaptive battlefield wireless nets by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

DARPA Looks To Adaptive Battlefield Wireless Nets 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The software research in these various areas has been largely academic and still relatively recent, he says. The real challenge will be to bring all these together in a deployable, $500 radio that actually works in the field.

    WAND is on a tight schedule. An initial technology demonstration is scheduled for January 2008, a second in September. "That's pretty outrageous even for some simple technologies," Redi admits.

    very interesting technology if it ever gets deployed. It would be interesting to see what/

    • And public safety. It'll make communications a lot easier if we can use our handhelds, and have it eventually retransmitted to our dispatch center rather than having to run back to the truck to ask for an air ambulance or whatever. There are times that you just can't leave a patient.
      • I certainly hope that doctors are equipped with cell phones or, when needed, satellite phones rather than depending on unreliable P2P networks.
        • Peer to peer is not synonymous with unreliable. In fact, mesh networking could very well be more reliable than relying on a central network, especially when you consider that a big centralised network is a big centralised target for the enemy in a miltary context.
          • How are you going to contact a doctor at 4am when everyone is asleep and switched off their devices, on a hiking trail, while driving too quickly to keep us with peer switching...?
      • > It'll make communications a lot easier if we can use our handhelds, and have it eventually retransmitted to our dispatch center rather than having to run back to the truck to ask for an air ambulance or whatever.

        That technology already exists. It is called an HT [wikipedia.org], Project 25 [project25.org], and a repeater [wikipedia.org]. Most public safety agencies have HTs and repeaters. Many of them are converting to or using Project 25 at this time.

  • Electronic Warfare (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Saturday November 03 2007, @01:34AM (#21221853) Homepage
    Wouldn't these new battlefield wireless networks give off a radio signal? Couldn't someone with the right equipment then deduce the position of any force using such equipment for a tactical advantage?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wizardforce (1005805)

      Wouldn't these new battlefield wireless networks give off a radio signal? Couldn't someone with the right equipment then deduce the position of any force using such equipment for a tactical advantage?

      the whole point of encryption is to make a signal look like random noise, that being said, with all the background noise around the most you could do is determine that there is something making what appears to be random noise if that, to an outsider it might not even be detectable if you didn't know how to scr

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by HateBreeder (656491)
        That is just silly.

        The point of encryption is not to make the signal seem like background noise - if that were the case, it would most certainly be impossible to decrypt it without losing data (since some background noise would have to sneak in).

        An Encrypted link, means that the data payload is encrypted. But the encapsulating packet is still very much ordinary.

        • FHSS (Score:5, Informative)

          by c4colorado (1097179) on Saturday November 03 2007, @05:09AM (#21222461)
          Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is the technology the GP was referring to rather than the broader term "encryption". While FHSS can and usually is considered a form of encription not all flowers are roses.

          The benifit to FHSS is that both endpoints know the frequency list so they know which frequencies and what order they should be hopping through therefore it is seamless as long as both endpoints remain in synch.

          There are two ways that devices synch up their frequency list. One is physical connection (e.g. a 900MHz FHSS cordless phone placed in the cradle will re-synchronise the "channel" list and, if additional encription is implemented, their encryption key). The second method is during the handshake, or initial connection period of the radio link, on a pre-defined static frequency the frequency list is transmitted, then subsequent transmissions are carried out on the specified frequencies. In this case an encryption key is usually used to prevent eavesdroppers from being able to collect and use this frequency list. A new frequency list can be transmitted after the initial connection is made and perodically updated to increase the security or reliability of the link if needed.

          Now this appears to be background noise as only very small snippets of the conversation, often times digital and/or encrypted to futher obfuscate the transmission, will be transmitted on any given frequency. This means that the pieces that can be received on any given frequency are tiny spikes in the transmission which are clicks or pops and would not be discernable from the "noise".

          FHSS has been in use for many, many years by everyone from civilians to ultra top secret government orginizations to both hide or "encrypt" the communications and to reduce the interferance of similar devices operating on the same frequency bands.

          Hope that is helpful.
          • FHSS is not a method of encryption.
            FHSS is designed to resist narrowband interference - not to provide security.
            Since the carrier frequency is changed all the time, it is possible to share a frequency band using FHSS with very little interference.

            However, if I were to detect a conversation using FHSS i would use a wide-band sort of receiver and quite easily detect where the conversation hops to.

            Agagin, FHSS is not usable for secure communications by itself - it has to be combined with real encryption to pro
              • By your standard, FM might be considered encryption since you can't understand it using the "naked ear".

                FHSS is not an encryption standard. it is a communication method, that as a SIDE-EFFECT makes it a bit harder to eavesdrop - but it was not the intent of the technology!

                On the other hand, WEP is supposed to make eavesdropping hard, but miserably fails doing so.

                WEP is an security standard. FHSS is not.

      • That's not really what encryption is for.

        If you put out a strong signal, no matter how well-encrypted, I guarantee you a bunch of yokels with foxhunting gear could get a pretty accurate fix on you.

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding [wikipedia.org]

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by c4colorado (1097179)
          See my previous comment [slashdot.org] regarding FHSS. By using both a long, complex frequency list and an algorythm that decreases transmission power to just above the point where data begins to be lost (think auto-focusing a camera lens) it would be conceivable that they could evade detection very easily.

          I am a H.A.M radio operator and know how "foxhunts" go. Imagine you have this "foxhunting" gear and are trying to locate enemy soldiers/vehicles using this technology. How would you determine what frequency to tu
          • Well, you know just enough to make yourself look a little foolish in front of people who have done this for a living.

            Pretty much your entire post hinges on this idea that you would use automated equipment to do signal search. You don't; you start with the Mk. 1 Ear, a couple of receivers, and a pair of phones. Acquiring frequency hoppers in a pain in the ass, but not impossible, and typically neither is determining their pattern, assuming you have the right gear.

            Hope this clears things up for you. If not

      • the whole point of encryption is to make a signal look like random noise
        Not so much, though it can have that side effect. Hiding a message is Steganography [wikipedia.org].
      • If you have to press a button to talk then most of the time there's nothing to get a fix on, certainly nothing to tell you numbers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Detritus (11846)
      That's why many modern tactical radio systems use frequency-hopping or direct-sequence spread spectrum techniques to make it difficult to jam or DF (direction finding) the radios on the net. Even with older FM radios, keeping power to a minimum and using proper radio discipline can reduce the risk to friendly forces. The signal from a direct-sequence spread spectrum transmitter can be below the noise floor when viewed on a spectrum analyzer.

      • Keeping power to the minimum (Score:4, Interesting)

        by archeopterix (594938) on Saturday November 03 2007, @03:55AM (#21222297) Journal

        Even with older FM radios, keeping power to a minimum and using proper radio discipline can reduce the risk to friendly forces.


        The modern ad-hoc networks have a huge advantage when it comes to minimalizing transmitter power: routing. A soldier in the battlefield communicating with the HQ only needs enough power to reach the nearest retransmitter, which can be one of many cheap units dumped on the battlefield from a plane.
      • TFA handles about radio's in four bands ranging from 900MHz to 6GHz. There is not a lot of background radiation in those bands, so any increase will be a telltale sign of such a radio in the vicinity. A mobile uses frequency hopping too, but you can even hear it ring on nearby radios etc. Lower emitted power just means that the detection range gets smaller, but the precision gets higher. Imagine for instance a radiation detector (some kind of wideband receiver==cheap radio) that is wired to a bomb inside a
    • Yeah. One of the technologies they mentioned, though, was frequency-hopping. It's kinda difficult to fix those.
  • Salary of a geek browsing slashdot most of the time - $100K
    Cost of a radio - $15K
    Saving an american life on a battlefield - priceless. Isn't it???

    • Salary of a geek browsing slashdot most of the time - $100K
      Cost of a radio - $15K
      Saving an american life on a battlefield - priceless. Isn't it???
      Saving any life on a battlefield - priceless. Isn't it???

      FTFY

      • Cost of a radio - $15K
        Saving an american life on a battlefield - priceless. Isn't it???

        Saving any life on a battlefield - priceless. Isn't it???

        There is already a few units(?) active in Iraq using such technology.

        I can't recall the article, but when they were testing it, the soldiers said it was too heavy (15 pounds or so). Weight is an enormous consideration for infantry.

        The end result was that every soldier didn't need to be plugged in, so only the squad/platoon/company commanders wore them to coordinate amongst themselves.

        FTFA: The real challenge will be to bring all these together in a deployable, $500 radio that actually works in the field.
        I

        • 20 years ago, cell phone mounted under the passenger seat in your car.
          10 years ago, cell phone could be held in your hand
          5 years ago, cell phone easily fit in your pocket
          2 years ago, cell phone become even smaller/thinner, had better battery life, and could take a crappy picture
          1 year ago, cell phone has longer battery life, bluetooth, plays .mp3s, connects to push email services, takes even better pictures, etc.

          This is in the early prototype stage, for all practical purposes. The system you may be referrin

          • 5 years ago, cell phone easily fit in your pocket
            2 years ago, cell phone become even smaller/thinner, had better battery life, and could take a crappy picture
            1 year ago, cell phone has longer battery life, bluetooth, plays .mp3s, connects to push email services, takes even better pictures, etc.


            20 years from now, cell phones will be able to make reliable, clear phone calls anyway in Bay Area and will come with real buttons for touch dialing.
      • Uh.. I don't think you quite understand the point of a battlefield. Although yeah, it's better to permanently cripple enemies rather than kill them outright, to impose the burden of caring for the wounded (or at least disposing of them) on survivors.
  • First, ad-hoc networks are only one form of peer-to-peer networking system using wireless. There are over 250 wireless routing protocols, of which probably about half are capable of handling peer-to-peer networks where individual nodes can migrate through the network freely and randomly. This is also not the first attempt at such a network - they've been working on this for literally decades and have always encountered problems with overheads and security.

    Secondly, since the structure of warfare is hierar

  • Bread crumbs (Score:4, Funny)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Saturday November 03 2007, @05:56AM (#21222623)
    Loaded with all these electronic devices, a soldier will never get lost anymore, since they can follow the trail of dead batteries back to base.
  • So, back during the cold war the fear of nuclear attacks leads the US to develop the internet, which reroutes around faults automatically. The result is a communications network which allows citizens across the world to communicate and obtain information without the need to rely on a few media companies.

    Now, in order to get an advantage on the battlefield they are developing a network which will allow nodes to communicate without the need to rely on a single physical access point. Be afraid Verizon, be VERY
  • I looked up the actual price for an RT-1523B radio, which is a vehicle mounted VHF SINCGARS radio used by the U.S. Army. It's $7226, not $80K. I don't know where the numbers in the article came from.

    • I don't know where the numbers in the article came from.
      His ass?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ArmyLT (995763)
      First off $6,500 (according to Wikipedia) is the Unit Cost of the RT-1523E (Current Version). It's like an internal cost to track how much each Company/BN whatever spends. Same as in the civilian world (or at least close). According to this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1998/dot-e/army/98sincgars.html/ [globalsecurity.org] the average unit cost is more like $13,000.

      And while $80k does sound like a lot, it really depends on how they go about procuring the system. If they are developing it, it's going t
      • They'll take COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) equipment, throw it in a ruggedized casing,

        I recently bought a surplus 2.4 kW DC-to-AC inverter that was from the Navy COTS program. COTS it may be, but it was still built like a brick outhouse.
  • I've been researching self-managing networks, which like adaptive networks are a subset of a new field of research known as cognitive networks. The majority of research in this field was started by J. Mitola of Motorola Labs study of cognitive radio, which is basically synonymous with adaptive radio. The term "cognitive network" was coined only last year, but both IEEE and ACM have a handful of articles on this topic if you want to learn more. I truly believe this (autonomy) is where all networks are headed
    • "Abdul with the $50 cell phone, $100,000 base station, and the IED detonator seems to offer more bang for the buck."

      There, fixed that for ya.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by timmarhy (659436)
        you must suck at maths - unlike the army, Abdul doesn't need a mobile phone base station for each bomb.
        • I get what you mean, but Abdul is still cheating. Without the $100,000 base station his cell phone would be worthless.
      • Of course, Hamid, the neighbor with Google Earth, points out where Abdul put the bomb in an email to the Americans, and Abdul gets nothing for his efforts. Yes, the guerrilla usually has the advantage in where and when to strike, but he also needs to have the confidence of the people he's with, and as long as the Iraqis hate Abdul more than Sam, Abdul gets finked out.

        Technology is wonderful, but it needs to be used in a social and political context. This is why Microsoft still dominates the business market
    • Its not the $50 phone. Its the two year contract that costs you.

      And how many times do you think Verizon is going to buy that, "My phone blew up" excuse for a replacement?

      • Re:Is This Like The $5,000 Hammer? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Detritus (11846) on Saturday November 03 2007, @03:27AM (#21222209) Homepage
        A large portion of that cost is making the radio conform to military specifications for ruggedness, reliability, extreme environmental conditions, etc. It has to work in all possible conditions and also be "soldier proof". You wouldn't believe the amount of abuse that they are subjected to. The manufacturer is making a reasonable profit, it's very expensive to design, build, and support mil-spec hardware. It's not the sort of business to go into if you want to get rich quick.
          • Most contracts are fixed price. XYZ Corp. agrees to deliver 1,000 radios with accessories for $20M.
    • I suspect tanks/army carriers have cigarette lighter adapters that provide more than enough wattage for recharging. And real cigarette lighters for that matter. What's a remote possibility of lung cancer when you are carrying depleted uranium shells and can die any minute of a bullet anyway?
    • The military usually uses disposable batteries. They have better energy density than rechargeable batteries and they avoid all the problems of managing, monitoring and recharging a bunch of rechargeable batteries. Another benefit is that their lifetime is more predictable. A fresh battery will last N hours, every time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      I manage the radio communications here at work, it's similar conditions. extreme heat and cold, dust that gets into everything. we get coverage up to 80 km away from the base station, so the transmission power and freq would be similar

      we pay $4000 for a repeater and $1000 for a radio.

      there's no fucking way those radio's in their jeeps are worth $80,000. even for the latest wizz bang model with built in encryption chips, at most i'd expect $40,000 for the repeater and $10,000 for the radio. and even then i

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Detritus (11846)
        Have you priced mil-spec parts? They are damned expensive due to low production volumes, inspection, testing, and documentation. They also have to meet tougher specs than commercial grade parts. I haven't seen any commercial radios that would meet all of the mil-spec requirements. It would cost too much money to design and build them to that standard. That said, the military has bought a lot of commercial grade radio equipment (VHF/UHF HTs for example), on the theory that they are good enough for most situa

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by TehBlahhh (947819)

      Those are some expensive radios! I understand that they have to be durable, encrypted, frequency shifting, long range, long lasting battery, ect, but 15,000$? are they gold plated or something?

      Wouldnt really surprise me if they were. Add in the green paint (EMP / EM Shielding - heres where the gold plating comes in handy), not off-the-shelf crypto circuitry (if it was OTS it'd be a lot less secure; these guys are that careful), the cost of milspec VS commercial silicon, and the need to make it stupidly ru

    • since we are not fighting a technologically advanced opponent like the Russians anymore

      You can say that again and again and again. How many times do we need to invent some new gizmos that allow soldiers to fight the last war better? I mean gizmos are fun, but this is a big part of the $530 BILLION dollars we spend on "defense" every year. We are devastatingly effective at battlefield war already, and we have not fought an enemy in 30 years that could come even close to us. That said, we've done rather p

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.