2013 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS)

May 28-31, 2013, Grand Hyatt Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

Mobile Networking with UAVs: Opportunities and

Challenges
Ozgur Koray SAHINGOZ
Turkish Air Force Academy
Computer Engineering Department
34149, Yesilyurt-Istanbul, Turkey
sahingoz@hho.edu.tr

Abstract—With the advances in computation,
sensor, communication and networking
technologies, utilization of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs) for military and civilian areas has
become extremely popular for the last two decades.
Since small UAVs are relatively cheap, the focus is
changing, and usage of several small UAVs is
preferred rather than one large UAV. This change
in orientation is dramatic, and it is resulting to
develop new networking technologies between
UAVs, which can constitute swarm UAV teams for
executing specific tasks with different levels of intra
and inter vehicle communication especially for
coordination and control of the system. Setting up a
UAV network not only extends operational scope
and range but also enables quick and reliable
response time. Because UAVs are highly mobile
nodes for networking, setting up an ad-hoc network
is a challenging issue, and this networking has some
requirements, which differ from traditional
networks, mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) and
vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs) in terms of
connectivity, routing process, services, applications,
etc. In this paper, it is aimed to point out the
challenges in the usage of UAVs as mobile nodes in
an ad-hoc network and to depict open research
issues with analyzing the opportunities and future
works.
Keywords— UAV, MANET, VANET, Mobility,
Networking
I. INTRODUCTİON
Because of the rapid technological
advancement on electronics and sensor
technologies Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
have been indispensable in both military and
civilian areas. It is relatively easy task to use
UAVs in an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) for
increasing communication range and data
aggregation capability. For example, if all
communication infrastructures are collapsed in a
disaster area, and there is an immediate need to
build a network between rescue teams, then UAVs
can easily be used as a communication relay
between rescue teams to coordinate rescue
activities effectively [1].
For enhancing system endurance, expanding
the coverage area and carrying powerful
processors, a large UAV, such as Predator and
Global Hawk, is preferred in single vehicle UASs,
in which setting up a communication environment
is easy. In this type missions, star topology is
typically preferred to facilitate mutual
communication with one hop transmission over
the UAV. To solve some challenging issues such
as increasing the transmission range, sending more
data and minimizing the interference, typically
high gain directional antennas are preferred rather
than omnidirectional antennas. Undoubtedly, this
leads a limited improvement in the performance of
UAS.
On the other hand, despite the restricted
capabilities like power, sensing, communication,
and computation, there is an increasing attention
on mini and multi-UAVs due to their flexibilities
and cost advantages. Although, it improves the
capability and capacity of UAS, it has a
challenging issue: efficient communication of
UAVs.

978-1-4799-0817-2/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 933

 Developing a fully autonomous and
cooperative multi-UAV system requires robust
inter vehicle communication networking in an ad-
hoc manner. Researches on static networks,
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs), and slowly
moving Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs)
do not address the unique characteristics of UAV
networks, which use highly mobile nodes.
Therefore, there is a need of defining new ad-hoc
networking model, which differs from other kinds
of ad-hoc networks along the connectivity, quality
of services, sensor types, node movement features,
data delivery, service discovery, etc.
In the literature, there are some researches
which define the explained networking model with
different names as depicted in Table 1.
TABLE I. Names of Highly Mobile
Networking Model
Given Name Reference
Airborne Networks [2], [3]
(Airborne Telemetry Networks,
Airborne Communication Networks,
Airborne Backbone Networks, etc.)
Unmanned Aeronautical Ad-hoc [4], [5]
Networks (UAANETs)
UAV Ad Hoc Networks [6]
Networks of UAVs [7], [8]
Distributed Aerial Sensor Networks [9]
Flying Ad Hoc Networks (FANET) [10]
Although the used names have little differences in
definitions, it is an explicitly seen fact that the
new communication model is a special form of
VANET. Therefore, it is considered to be more
appropriate to use this new networking model as
FANET [10].
As with the development strategies of ad-hoc
networking, it can be clearly foreseen that in the
future, UAVs will represent an attractive function
for setting up a highly mobile networks with
extended operational range. Therefore, in this
paper, it is aimed to present the challenges and
networking concepts in FANET, and some open
issues and future works are depicted.
The remainder of this paper is organized as
follows: In the following section background
934
information like UAS and MANET, are described.
Section III depicts the ad-hoc networking concepts
with flying objects. Section IV introduces different
networking models for FANET Network Layer.
Finally, conclusion and future works are
explained.
II. BACKGROUD
A. Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
Due to improvements in communication,
computation, sensor and energy storage
technologies of UAVs, operating expenses of
UAVs are decreased and UASs have shown
exceptional promises for a large number of
application areas such as in managing wildfire
[11], hurricane tracking [12], monitoring
biological activity [13], relay for sensor networks
[1, 14, 15], airspeed calibration [16], agricultural
remote sensing [17].
A typical UAS consists of:
 one or more UAV(s),
 payloads (sensors, lethal, nonlethal
weapons, etc.),
 command and control systems (ground data
terminals, air traffic control station,
static/portable ground control stations, etc.),
 support equipment (launcher, maintenance,
recovery vehicles, etc.)
 control and data transmission links
(depends on usage area (military/civilian)).
The most important of the above-mentioned
components is UAVs, which deliver the payload
or data to its receivers. Therefore, the performance
and capacity of the UAS directly related to the
abilities of the UAVs, such as endurance, range,
altitude, payload, etc. To increase the application
areas of UAVs and to decrease the personnel
needs, UAVs also need to fly freely in the
enormous sky and complete the mission
autonomously without any centralized controller at
the ground station.
B. Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (MANET)
A MANET is a collection of independent
mobile nodes, which are connected with wireless
links, such as IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n, 802.16, etc.
Besides, it configures dynamically an
infrastructure-less network by using these mobile
 Fig. 1. A Network-Centric Architecture in a battlefield
nodes not only as hosts but also as routers. These
nodes are free to move, and the network topology
changes rapidly over time. Due to the nature of the
wireless links, the connection between nodes loses
its strength and even disappears sometimes.
The MANET nodes, such as notebook,
netbooks, tablets, sensor nodes, etc., should be
mobile; therefore, they are generally small and
have limited processor/energy capacity. It is
difficult to build and maintain such type of
network. Therefore, some main functionalities of
network layer, such as routing, should be done by
these mobile nodes dynamically.
With the increase in utilization rates, and
applications areas of MANET, mobile nodes are
begun to embed in vehicles, such as cars,
ambulances, fire engines, tanks, etc. This new
networking concept called as Vehicular Ad-Hoc
Network (VANET), and it extends the range of
MANETs and enables its usage in new application
areas.
III. AD HOC NETWORKING WITH FLYING
NODES
Combining the use of UAVs in an ad-hoc
network is a promising issue, and it necessitates a
new networking layer between UAVs. This
networking layer can be defined as a sublayer of
Aerial Network Layer (FANET) as depicted in
Figure 1. The main role of this UAV Network
Layer is to act as a mediator between upper and
935
lower layers. Besides, a network layer is
principally responsible for the routing process,
which is liable for selecting an appropriate path in
the network to send data from the source node to
destination node(s).
Usage of a number UAVs in a networked
structure brings some advantages as follows [10]:
Speed-up: The missions, such as
reconnaissance, surveillance, search and rescue,
can be completed faster with proportional to the
number of UAVs.
Cost: Instead of using a large UAV, the usage
of a number of small UAVs cost lower in terms of
acquisition and maintenance.
Scalability: It increases the size of operation
areas by adding new UAVs. System dynamically
rearranged its network structure according to new
locations of UAVs.
Survivability: Multi UAV systems are tolerant
to faults of UAVs. In case of a falling down of a
UAV, the operation can continue with the
remaining ones.
Low detectability (Low radar cross-section):
Radar cross-section is crucial for military
applications. Small UAVs have low radar cross-
section, low infrared signature, and low acoustic
signature. Therefore, it is hard to detect them in
the air (especially with respect to planes and large
UAVs)
 Although usage of multi-UAV systems has a
number of advantages, routing in FANET is still a
challenging issue because the network topology
may change dynamically and the available
information about the network is not precise.
Fueled by this need, some routing protocols for
FANETs have been proposed in the literature. In
these solutions the communication types, which
are crucial for selecting routing algorithm, can be
categorized as follows:
UAV-to-UAV communication: In this type
communication, UAVs communicate with each
other in order to fill the need with different
applications and services such as cooperative path
planning and target tracking. It can be direct or
multi-hop over other UAVs and can benefit from
mesh routing protocols. UAVs can have short
range and long range of communication between
them, and this can increase the efficiency of the
FANET in terms of data rate and/or
communication range.
UAV-to-Infrastructure communication: In this
type of communication, UAVs are able to
communicate with fixed infrastructure like ground
station, satellite or warship near the mission area
to provide information services for other users in
the global networks.
By using these communication links, a FANET
structure can be quickly deployed into the mission
field. Therefore, usage of UAVs in MANET
makes routing easier and improves the
performance of wireless communication systems.
For example, in many ad-hoc communication
scenarios like VANET; there exist some obstacles
like mountains, buildings, etc. They critically
deteriorate or even obstruct the signal between the
sender and the receiver. By using FANET, two
ground stations can easily communicate over
UAVs with a well-established network structure.
Communication between UAVs and UAV-to-
Infrastructure is also a challenging issue. Different
type of antennas can be used for improving system
performance. Especially by the usage of GPS
receivers, which can be easily installed in vehicles,
and the usage of directed antennas like phased
array antennas; communication can be effectively
set in FANET.
While the number of UAVs is increasing in
UASs, installing and maintenance of the
936
networked communication are emerged as vital
issues to solve. Especially in some scenarios the
heterogenic UAVs that are equipped with different
payload capacity, sensors, avionics,
communication range, and flight endurance;
communication and coordination of UAVs are a
challenging task in order to achieve such a flying
network. According to the US UAV Roadmap
[18], to achieve robust and reliable UAV
communications, some networking technologies
have to be developed as follows;
 High capacity directional data links,
 High capacity routers with large processing
capacity,
 Modular and programmable router
architecture,
 Standardized protocols and interfaces,
 Embedded network security.
 and mobile ad-hoc networking is needed
not only for establishing an UAV-to-UAV
network, but also to be employed as a
coordination and control infrastructure.
As depicted, networking between UAVs is a
challenging issue, and in the following section
different routing protocols are described.
IV. NETWORKING MODELS
There are many existing routing protocols in
ad-hoc wireless networks like pre-computed
routing, on-demand routing, location based
routing, flooding, etc [19, 20]. As a result of the
limited spectrum, to increase FANET
communication performance, there is a need to
decrease transmitting power by sending a message
to closer nodes (UAVs) and using multi-hop
routing between communicating parts. Therefore,
typical MANET routing protocols are preferred for
FANET. There are several routing algorithms in
MANET, and most of them are not directly
applicable for the FANET due to the UAV-
specific issues, like quick changes in link quality.
Therefore, some specific ad-hoc networking
protocols have been implemented in the literature.
These protocols can be categorized in three main
classes;
 static protocols: which have static routing
tables.
 proactive protocols: which periodically refresh
routing tables.
 reactive protocols: which discover routes of
messages on demand.
By using these routing protocols, FANET can
dynamically discover routes between
communicating ends, and it can scale to a large
area by allowing addition and subtraction of UAV
nodes dynamically.
A. STATIC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In this type routing protocols, routing table of each
node has been computed before starting the
mission and loaded to UAV nodes. Each node can
communicate with a few UAVs. Therefore, they
are not fault tolerant and appropriate for dynamic
environments.
Load Carry and Deliver Routing (LCAD)
[21, 22] is a relatively easier routing model in
which an UAV gets data from a ground node (as
source node); after that, it carries the data to the
destination by flying, and finally it delivers the
data to a destination ground node as depicted in
Figure 2. This routing methodology is feasible for
especially delay-tolerant applications like secure
data routing with minimum hops and latency-
insensitive bulk data transfer. LCAD routing aims
to maximize the throughput, while increasing the
security.
Fig. 2. Load Carry and Deliver Routing Model
Multi-Level Hierarchical Routing: Due to the
structure of the typical VANET environment, the
routing protocols are especially organized as flat
routing in 2 dimensional space. In large-scale
VANETs with hundreds and thousands of mobile
nodes, typical flat routing causes performance
degradation. To solve this network scalability
problem, one probable solution is the usage of
hierarchical routing protocols [23, 24]. It increases
937
not only the number of nodes but also the
operation area.
Hierarchically organized UAV networks
consist of a number of clusters, which operates in
different mission areas as shown in Figure 3. Each
cluster has a cluster head (CH), which represents
the whole cluster, and it is in connection with the
upper/lower layers (ground stations, UAVs,
satellites, etc.) directly or indirectly. Each mobile
node is in the direct transmission range of the CH.
At the same time, it also disseminates data (by
broadcasting) and control information to the nodes
in the cluster. This model is better if the UAVs are
organized in different swarms, mission area is
large, and many UAVs are used in the network.
Fig. 3. Hierarchical Routing Model
Data Centric Routing: Due to the nature of
the wireless communication structure of UAVs,
one-to-many data transmission can be preferred to
one-to-one data transmission [25, 26]. This routing
is preferred when the data is requested by a
number of nodes, and it is distributed according to
on-demand algorithms. Publish-subscribe model
typically used for this type routing, and it
automatically connects data producer and
consumer nodes. Routing is done with respect to
the content of data; and if needed, data
aggregation algorithms can be used for energy-
efficient dissemination as depicted in Figure 4.
This type routing performs three dimensions of
decoupling;
 Space decoupling: this technique does not
need a binding between the sender and the
receiver. Sender does not need to know the
receiver nodes address and/or location.

Fig. 4. Data Centric Routing Model
 Time decoupling: means that communicating
parties do not need to be on-line at the same
time to communicate.
 Flow decoupling: results an asynchronous
communication structure; therefore, message
sending operation does not block both sender
and receiver sides.
This model especially preferred for the cluster
structured UAS, and it drives the UAV mission
along a predetermined flight-plan and does make
high level cooperation between UAVs.
B. PROACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Proactive routing protocols (PRP) use tables to
store the information of connected nodes. These
tables are updated periodically or if there is a need
(such as the network topology changes). Each
node shares its routing table with its neighbors to
update their routing tables. This update does not
regard the network load/size or bandwidth
constraints. Therefore, it brings additional burden
to the network. Two main protocols are widely
used in VANETs: optimized link state routing
(OLSR) and destination-sequenced distance vector
(DSDV).
Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) is a
proactive link-state routing protocol [27]. It uses
two types of messages (hello and topology control
messages) to discover the neighbors. OLSR
periodically floods topology data over the network
to make sure that each node is synchronized with
link state information. Therefore, for each
destination node, route is available before
transferring the packets. Topological changes
cause the flooding of network information to each
node. To reduce the communication overhead,
OLSR uses Multipoint Relays (MPR) that forward
broadcast messages during flooding process.
938
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)
is a table driven proactive routing protocol, which
guarantees loop-free routes by using sequence
numbers for each path [28]. Each node maintains a
routing table for all other nodes, not just for the
neighboring nodes. It provides a single path to
each destination nodes, and it is selected by using
the distance vector shortest path routing algorithm.
DSDV also uses a large amount of periodic update
messages, and this brings an overhead to the
network.
C. REACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Reactive routing protocol (RRP) is designed to
overcome the overhead problem of PRP. In RRP,
a route between communicating nodes is
determined according to the demand from the
source node. The source node starts the route
discovery process by sending a route request
message to the network. The route is determined
according to incoming route reply message from
the destination node. As a result, each node
maintains only the routes that are currently in use.
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a simple and
efficient reactive routing protocol, which is
designed for multi hop ad-hoc networks [29]. This
is a source demanding routing protocol and the
source node stores the complete hop-by-hop route
to the destination node. Therefore, the data packets
should carry the complete list of nodes that it has
to traverse. If a link is broken, then the source
node is notified with an error message, and a new
route discovery phase is started. This routing
protocol is implemented by Brown et al. in [30]
and they were reported that finding a new route in
UAV network with DSR can be irritating.
Ad-hoc on-demand Distance Vector (AODV)
has same on demand characteristics with DSR
with different maintaining mechanisms of routing
table [31]. It uses typical routing tables (caches),
which contain one record for each destination.
This table structure is different from DSR, which
stores multiple entries in the routing table for each
destination. AODV routing protocol consists of
three phases: discovering routes, transmitting
packets and maintaining the route. If the source
node has packets to be sent, it first starts a route
discovery process and then dispatch these packets
over this determined route. Discovery process
enables determined routes without a loop, and it
uses a specific number (called as sequence
number) to ensure the usage of fresh routes. Due
to the mobility of the nodes, some nodes can be
out of the communication range. This connection
loss triggers a repairing process of the broken
route.
V. OPEN ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
The researches over this type of highly mobile
networking do not include all the necessary facts
and details. Although there are some researches to
support effective and efficient communication
between UAVs, there are still many research
topics that should be explored in the future works
as follows:
1) National Regulations: Perhaps the biggest
current barrier to the development of UASs in
civilian areas stems from the integration of UAVs
into the each country’s national airspace system.
There is a serious need for the creation of an
information management system between air
traffic management users and the UAS developers.
This management system should enable not only 4
dimensional navigation but also alternative
separation procedures from manned planes.
2) Routing: Due to the highly mobile and
dynamic structure of FANETs with highly mobile
nodes, previous routing algorithms are not much
appropriate for this type networks. Therefore,
developing new routing algorithms is still an open
issue for constructing a flexible and responsive
integration model.
3) Path Planning: Cooperation between UAVs
is not just desirable; it is crucial for developing
multi-UAV systems in large-scale theatres. There
are some possible changes at UAV’s cost
estimates or in the mission environment like
addition/removal of UAVs and physical obstacles.
In this case, for each UAV new flying paths
should be re-assigned across the fleet. Thus, new
methods in path planning are required to
coordinate the fleets of the UAVs.
4) Quality of Service (QoS): This type of
networks are used for transporting some
applications' data, which can include simple
messages, video or delay-sensitive data such as
real-time voice. FANET must enable some service
qualities to satisfy a set of predetermined service
939
performance constraints like delay, bandwidth,
jitter, packet loss, etc. Due to the high mobility
and distributed structure of this ad-hoc network,
defining a comprehensive framework for QoS
support is an important technical challenge to
overcome.
VI. CONCLUSION
While the future of Unmanned Aerial System is
promising, the lack of networking standards is a
fundamental gap. This type of mobile ad-hoc
networks (FANETs), which use UAVs as mobile
nodes, requires scalable, reliable, real-time peer-
to-peer mobile ad-hoc networking between UAVs
and ground stations. The communication
requirements of UAVs differs significantly from
traditional networking assumptions, Mobile Ad-
Hoc Networks and Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks in
terms of connectivity, data delivery, latency,
service and etc. In this article, it is surveyed the
researches in UAV networking and related issues.
It is aimed to encourage the researchers into the
problems on FANETs and motivate them to find
solutions for the open research issues as detailed in
the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Jiang, A.L. Swindlehurst, "Dynamic UAV
relay positioning for the ground-to-air uplink,"
IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops, 2010, pp.1766-
1770, 2010.
[2] Bow-Nan Cheng; Moore, S., "A comparison of
MANET routing protocols on airborne tactical
networks," Military Communications Conference-
MILCOM 2012, pp.1-6, 2012.
[3] E.W. Frew, T.X. Brown, "Airborne
Communication Networks for Small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems," Proceedings of the IEEE,
vol.96, no.12, pp.2008-2027, 2008.
[4] R. Shirani, M. St-Hilaire Kunz, T.; Yifeng Zhou,
Jun Li, L. Lamont, "Combined Reactive-
Geographic routing for Unmanned Aeronautical
Ad-hoc Networks", 8th International Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing
Conference (IWCMC- 2012), pp.820-826, 2012.
[5] Y. Li, M. St-Hilaire, T. Kunz, "Enhancements to
Reduce the Overhead of the Reactive-Greedy-
Reactive Routing Protocol for Unmanned
Aeronautical Ad-Hoc Networks", 8th
International Conference on Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile
Computing (WiCOM), pp.1-4, 2012.
[6] Y. Cai, F.R. Yu, J. Li, Y. Zhou, L. Lamont,
"Medium Access Control for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) Ad-Hoc Networks With Full-
Duplex Radios and Multipacket Reception
Capability," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol.62, no.1, pp.390-394, 2013.
[7] P Y. Tuchelmann, "Context-Aware QoS
Control for Wireless Mesh Networks of UAVs",
International Conference Computer
Communications and Networks (ICCCN), pp.1,6,
2011.
[8] Y. Li, M. St-Hilaire, T. Kunz, "Improving routing
in networks of UAVs via scoped flooding and
mobility prediction", IFIP Wireless Days (WD),
pp.1-6, 2012.
[9] S. Rohde, N. Goddemeier, K. Daniel, C. Wietfeld,
"Link quality dependent mobility strategies for
distributed aerial sensor networks," GLOBECOM
Workshops, pp.1783-1787, 2010.
[10] I. Bekmezci, O.K. Sahingoz, S. Temel, “Flying
Ad-Hoc Networks (FANETs): A Survey”, Ad
Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1254-1270,
2013.
[11] C. Barrado, R. Messeguer, J. Lopez, E. Pastor, E.
Santamaria, P. Royo, "Wildfire Monitoring Using
a Mixed Air-Ground Mobile Network," IEEE
Pervasive Computing, vol.9, no.4, pp.24-32,
2010.
[12] J.J. Cione, E.W. Uhlhorn, G. Cascella, S.J.
Majumdar, C. Sisko, N. Carrasco, M.D. Powell,
P. Bale, G. Holland, P. Turlington, D. Fowler,
C W Landsea and C L Yuhas “The first
successful unmanned aerial system (UAS)
mission into a tropical cyclone (ophelia 2005) ” in
Proc. AMS 12th Conf. IOAS-AOLS, pp. 25–30,
2008.
[13] E. Fiorelli, N. Leonard, P. Bhatta, D. Paley, R.
achmayer and D Fratantoni “Multi-AUV
control and adaptive sampling in Monterey bay ”
IEEE Journal Oceanic Eng., vol. 31, no. 4, pp.
935–948, 2006.
[14] E.P. de Freitas, T. Heimfarth, I.F. Netto, C.E.
Lino, C.E. Pereira, A.M. Ferreira, F.R. Wagner,
T. Larsson, "UAV relay network to support WSN
connectivity," 2010 International Congress on
Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control
Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), pp. 309-314,
2010.
[15] O.K. Sahingoz, “Multi-Level Dynamic Key
Management for Scalable Wireless Sensor
Networks with UAV”, The 7th International
Conference on Ubiquitous Information
TEchnologies & Applications (CUTE 2012),
Ubiquitous Information Technologies and
940
Applications, Lecture Notes in Electrical
Engineering 214, pp. 11-19, 2013.
[16] A. Cho, J. Kim, S. Lee, C. Kee, "Wind Estimation
and Airspeed Calibration using a UAV with a
Single-Antenna GPS Receiver and Pitot Tube",
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, vol.47, no.1, pp.109-117, 2011.
[17] H. Xiang, L. Tian, “Development of a low-cost
agricultural remote sensing system based on an
autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV),
Biosystems Engineering”, vol. 108, no. 2, pp.
174-190, 2011.
[18] J. Clapper, J. Young, J. Cartwright, and J.
Grimes “Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-
2032 ” Tech. Rep., Dept. of Defense, 2007.
[19] M.T. Hyland, “Performance evaluation of ad hoc
routing protocols in a swarm of autonomous
unmanned aerial vehicles”, PhD Thesis, Air Force
Institute of Technology, 2007.
[20] D.L. Gu, G. Pei, H. Ly, M. Gerla, B. Zhang, X.
Hong, "UAV Aided Intelligent Routing for Ad-
Hoc Wireless Network in Single-Area Theater",
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking
Conference, WCNC. 2000, vol.3, pp.1220-1225,
2000.
[21] C.M. Cheng, P.H. Hsiao, H.T. Kung, and D.
Vlah “Maximizing throughput of UAV-relaying
networks with the load-carry-and-deliver
paradigm ” IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC 2007), 2007.
[22] M. Le, J.S. Park, M. Gerla, "UAV Assisted
Disruption Tolerant Routing", Military
Communications Conference, MILCOM 2006,
pp.1-5, 2006.
[23] G.B. Lamont, J.N. Slear, K. Melendez, "UAV
IEEE Symposium on Swarm Mission Planning
and Routing using Multi-Objective Evolutionary
Algorithms", Computational Intelligence in
Multicriteria Decision Making, pp.10-20, 2007.
[24] Z. Sun, P. Wang, M.C. Vuran, M.A. Al-Rodhaan,
A.M. Al-Dhelaan, I.F. Akyildiz, “BorderSense:
Border patrol through advanced wireless sensor
networks”, Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 9, no. 3,
pp.468-477, 2011.
[25] J. Ko, A. Mahajan, R Sengupta “A Network-
Centric UAV Organization for Search and Pursuit
Operations” IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2002.
[26] J: López P. Royo, E. Pastor, C. Barrado, and E.
Santamaria, “A middleware architecture for
unmanned aircraft avionics” ACM/IFIP/
USENIX International conference on Middleware
companion (MC '07) 2007.
[27] T. Clausen,P. Jacquet, “Optimized Link State
Routing Protocol (OLSR) RFC 3626” 2003.
 Available online: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3626
(accessed on May 2013).
[28] C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat “Highly dynamic
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector routing
(DSDV) for mobile computers” In Proceedings
of the conference on Communications
architectures, protocols and applications
(SIGCOMM '94), pp. 234-244, 1994.
[29] D.B. Johnson and D.A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source
Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks” In
Mobile Computing chapter 5, pp. 153–181.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
[30] T. X. Brown, B. Argrow, C. Dixon, S. Doshi, R.
G The e unel and D Hen el “Ad hoc UAV
ground networ (AUGNet) ” 3rd AIAA
Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, pp.
29–39, 2004.
[31] S. Murthy and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “An
efficient routing protocol for wireless networks”
ACM Mobile Networks and Applications, pp.
183-197, 1996.

941