Thanks, Think Deep, we've already done two slideshows on nautical robots, some of which are military, and many of which are AUVs, UUVs and/or ROVs: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=246206 http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=262528 SeaBotix is a new one to me, though--thanks for the link.
Ann, you might want to include underwater robots in you future blogs, they are used extensively for mine countermeasures, waterborn IED defeat, search and rescue, ship hull maintenance and many other critical tasks. Some good examples might be the SeaBotix LBV: http://www.seabotix.com/products/vlbv950.htm or the LBC, which can both swim and attach to and crawl on subsea structures: http://seabotix.com/products/lbc.htm Both have numerous commercial uses in addition to maritime security.
One more interesting thing about this collection of robotic packages is that they would all find use in the non-military realm as well. Some would work in law enforcement and others in industry and firefighting. Plus, some of them would make really neat toys.
Thanks for the info, William. In the distant past I covered communications technology, including military comms and the intricacies of how data transmission protocols work, and even wrote articles for at least one of those journals. I do find them to be dry, but that's the nature of the beast.
Ann, spoofing is indeed a very big challenge, there was quite q write up about how the spoofing of the drone was accomplished, and what can be done to avoid a repeat of the attack. Fortunately the method of attack is fairly well understood, and there were a few statements about methods available to detect it in the future. Unfortunately the implementation of the detection process is not so very simple, and it seems that it may take quite a bit more than just adding a few lines of code. The articles were either in "Microwaves and RF" or in the "Microwave journal", I don't recall which. And it was several months ago. You may find those publications a bit dry, though. Or possibly not.
Thanks, William, I already know what you mentioned about those secure protocols. In fact, I learned a little bit about how they transmit both commands and data, and the ECC--but not as much as I'd like. And not nearly as much as I want to know about just how hackable they are. I hadn't thought of spoofing, though--that does sound scary.
Ann, They are secure, and much of the information is classified. That means that they would not tell me much more than I told you.
But they are able to pass both commands and data, and they have a method of error detection and correction.
What I hope is that it is not able to be "spoofed", like the one drone was a few months back. That was a case of where the enemy lislead the GPS system. Worse yet, that drone did not have a "destruct on capture" system installed. That was very unfortunate.
William, thanks for backing me up on this. I'm always surprised at some people's lack of understanding about WiFi's non-security. And I'd really like to know a lot more about the "secure" protocols the military uses for WiFi and other wireless comms.
What should be the perception of a product’s real-world performance with regard to the published spec sheet? While it is easy to assume that the product will operate according to spec, what variables should be considered, and is that a designer obligation or a customer responsibility? Or both?
Biomimicry has already found its way into the development of robots and new materials, with researchers studying animals and nature to come up with new innovations. Now thanks to researchers in Boston, biomimicry could even inform the future of electrical networks for next-generation displays.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.