DARPA Looks To Adaptive Battlefield Wireless Nets

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."

Comments

Electronic Warfare

[mastershake_phd]

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:Electronic Warfare

[wizardforce]

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 screen it out. Although it also means that because the military has the ability to communicate effectively it gives a much greater advantage than not having any communication most of the time. In the times where it would give no advantage to communicate, there is always radio silence.

Keeping power to the minimum

[archeopterix]

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.

Re:Actual Prices

[ArmyLT]

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/ 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 to be INSANELY expensive. So $80k might not be too far off. This is because you are asking a company to create exactly what you want with the exact specifications, and be able to make as many as you originally ask for (and usually have an option of more). While the components might not cost that much, it's the Research and Development that really get the cost up.

They have started to change the process as of lately. They'll take COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) equipment, throw it in a ruggedized casing, put some Army encryption on it, and use it. That reduces the cost considerably. This method not only makes the process cheaper, it avoids the huge disparity between civilian capabilities and military capabilities.

On a side note, whoever said that Abdul (or some other stereotypical name) gets more bang for their buck from a cell phone and a bomb is absolutely correct. Killing people is easy and cheap. All armies are great at that. It's killing just the enemy and staying alive afterwards thats difficult and expensive. That's what our Army does better then most, if not all.