As a radio enthusiast (and owner of multiple SDRs), I found the article very interesting. Cognitive radio is a new term to me, but very understandable. Thanks for sharing!
At some point somebody will need to decide upon the definition of 'drone'.
All the fuss started with repurposed commercial/recreational flying playthings, and now it's about high cost mil grade hardware with capabilities usually present in cruise missiles and such.
Can't wait for the first Tomahawk drone attack :-*/
Its both. The plaything and the military hardare. Drones is a catch all name. Very, maybe too flexible, word. I dont think we will manage to define it very well, but we will definetly have subbets.
Seriously though, I think at this point "drone" is just a convenient word. I believe there was an article with a variant of extensive UAV classification here somewhere, some time ago. There are also "sea drones" (USV) and "ground drones" (UGV). What would a definition change in that zoo? It's not like it would stop someone crazy enough to develop a nuclear drone...
It's also a bit funny how the military only starts seriously considering (and then massively adopting) "playthings" based on tech available for decades only after stepping on enough rakes to realize that everything else just isn't effective enough in today's world. And how it always starts with initiative on the ground. Normally, the Big Guys (decision makers) seem only to be susceptible to "sexy" ideas of Big And Powerful Wunderwaffe like new tanks, jets or ICBMs...
It's not a lack of definitions. It's too many. NATO has a classification system. So does the US. Sadly, it is only based on size. The DoD has sort of a system for what they have taken to calling "exquisite" drones. That's a fun way of saying expensive. There is the R in RQ for a drone meaning ISR (Recon). The Q meaning unmanned. And M meaning multi role in MQ. Like MQ Reaper.
There is "s" in sUAV meaning small sometimes. But what does "small" mean?
What's most baffling is that some branches of the military call a UAV an unmanned AUTONOMOUS vehicle or sometimes something completely different.
What NATO and the US need is a Naming Convention.
I messed around with the idea as my very first post to Tom's blog here.
Hi Benjamin, very interesting and a logical step in hindsight. Interested in the physical elements that accompany SDR. Obviously we want the strongest and highest-bandwidth signal going into our digital electronics. Knowing very little about radio physics, I suppose broad-spectrum antennae would provide the most flexibility, but at the cost of providing more power at specific bandwidths. Antennae with actuators to change characteristics in-flight? Probably too much hassle!
As a radio enthusiast (and owner of multiple SDRs), I found the article very interesting. Cognitive radio is a new term to me, but very understandable. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you!
At some point somebody will need to decide upon the definition of 'drone'.
All the fuss started with repurposed commercial/recreational flying playthings, and now it's about high cost mil grade hardware with capabilities usually present in cruise missiles and such.
Can't wait for the first Tomahawk drone attack :-*/
Its both. The plaything and the military hardare. Drones is a catch all name. Very, maybe too flexible, word. I dont think we will manage to define it very well, but we will definetly have subbets.
Definition of drone: "A drone is a male bee."
Seriously though, I think at this point "drone" is just a convenient word. I believe there was an article with a variant of extensive UAV classification here somewhere, some time ago. There are also "sea drones" (USV) and "ground drones" (UGV). What would a definition change in that zoo? It's not like it would stop someone crazy enough to develop a nuclear drone...
It's also a bit funny how the military only starts seriously considering (and then massively adopting) "playthings" based on tech available for decades only after stepping on enough rakes to realize that everything else just isn't effective enough in today's world. And how it always starts with initiative on the ground. Normally, the Big Guys (decision makers) seem only to be susceptible to "sexy" ideas of Big And Powerful Wunderwaffe like new tanks, jets or ICBMs...
It's not a lack of definitions. It's too many. NATO has a classification system. So does the US. Sadly, it is only based on size. The DoD has sort of a system for what they have taken to calling "exquisite" drones. That's a fun way of saying expensive. There is the R in RQ for a drone meaning ISR (Recon). The Q meaning unmanned. And M meaning multi role in MQ. Like MQ Reaper.
There is "s" in sUAV meaning small sometimes. But what does "small" mean?
What's most baffling is that some branches of the military call a UAV an unmanned AUTONOMOUS vehicle or sometimes something completely different.
What NATO and the US need is a Naming Convention.
I messed around with the idea as my very first post to Tom's blog here.
https://researchingukraine.substack.com/p/uas-uav-drone-cruise-missile-whats
Somehow I was sure that from military side there is a detailed classification...
Where it gets annoying is when drones meets the public hype.
You have a lightweight cruise missile for three hundred mile radius and 20kg of oooomph? That's lame, it's drone time!
You have a jet powered drone with three hundred mile radius and 20kg of TNT?
COOOOL!
/rant off
Thanks for the update. I can see this being important and valuable. However, what is the price and the computing power needs for such systems?
Manageable for hardware. I don't know about the software. I don't think there are "off the shelf" versions that can handle Russia's EW.
The computing power itself required for basic functionality is trivial these days.
The question is whether you can get it by mil spec HW/SW, with proper design and testing.
Also, you need a complete system of these toys. A transmission always has at least two ends...
Thanks Tom. It was really very interesting to read.
As a radio and electronics geek, this article really spoke to me. Thanks for this Benjamin !
I’ve often thought of the utility of spectrum analyzers to ID frequencies for selective jamming or interception.
Imagining intercepting a Russian com frequency then injecting a recording of Baby Shark on endless loop as part of psychological counter torture.
Hi Benjamin, very interesting and a logical step in hindsight. Interested in the physical elements that accompany SDR. Obviously we want the strongest and highest-bandwidth signal going into our digital electronics. Knowing very little about radio physics, I suppose broad-spectrum antennae would provide the most flexibility, but at the cost of providing more power at specific bandwidths. Antennae with actuators to change characteristics in-flight? Probably too much hassle!