Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2015 | Page 17

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
underwater booby traps and mines. Putting a GoPro-like camera on one of these
dolphins is a simple solution. However, this lesson does not seem to transfer to the
ground or air domain. There seems to be no advantage to putting a small camera on
a trained pigeon. Regardless, implementing some type of brain control of a dolphin
or bird seems to cross some sort of ethical red line.
Interestingly, humans seem to have less empathy for insects. A company called
Backyard Brain developed RoboRoach which uses neuroscience to attempt to control
the movements of a live roach. Insect drones could be the ultimate clandestine ISR,
becoming the proverbial “fly on the wall” to watch and listen to the adversary. But,
the fact that an insect can be controlled by remote control does not necessarily make
it a good candidate for a UAV. The major technological challenge will be solving the
power problem for the mini camera and the two-way communication packages that
will enable the roach to go BLOS. Moreover, the insect will still need to eat and rest.
To mitigate the challenges of biological functions, technology is already
starting to create man-made insect UAVs. The Harvard Monolithic Bee and
Robugtix’s Spider are but two early examples that suggest that the development of
a realistic looking robot insect can be used as a UAV. Besides, a robot insect may
be able to overcome the power limitation. Ideally, a robot insect can harvest energy
from the environment such as solar or wind. For high-power needs, the robot can
plug into power lines or electrical outlets.
One drawback of any nano UAV will be its survivability in an electronic
warfare (EW) environment. Two key factors in EW are power and distance. The
nano UAV will have problems with both. It is designed to be extremely close to
the adversary and far from the friendly communications node. Its small size will
inherently limit its total power to transmit clearly through enemy jamming. Even
with advancements in technology, the nano UAV is likely to be at a comparative
disadvantage relative to the adversary’s EW system. This suggests that nano UAV
will be most appropriate for environments in which there is a low threat of electronic
attack. This suggests that stealth or swarms are the more likely answers for access
against an advanced air defense system.
As UAVs continue to proliferate, there will be increased demand to reduce
the command and control burden of UAVs. A major effort underway in this arena
is detect and avoid technology in order to help reduce the probability of a midair
collision. While this technology will improve safety at congested military bases, it
will also be a boon to help the job of the Federal Aviation Administration to define
rules to enable UAVs and manned aircraft to share the same airspace. One of the likely
side effects of the military’s research efforts on UAV detect and avoid technology will
be increased domestic use of UAVs by law enforcement entities such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Border Patrol, Secret Service, Coast Guard and local law
enforcement.
10