Header Image - Fibre-optic Drone Testing in Ukraine - Copyright Reserved © Viktor Fridshon / Global Images via Getty
The Communication Challenges of Long-Range UAV Operations
In a world where uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) are becoming indispensable to defence, commercial surveying, and emergency response, the Achilles’ heel of long-range missions often lies in communication. As Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations become standard across both military and civilian sectors, the ability to maintain robust, resilient, and secure command and control (C2) links is emerging as a defining challenge and a key differentiator.
At the heart of this challenge is the interplay between geography, spectrum constraints, emerging threats from counter drone systems, and the increasing complexity of data payloads. Operating a UAV hundreds of kilometres away, over mountainous terrain and/or in contested environments, demands more than just good piloting. It requires a sophisticated, multi-layered communication architecture. This article examines the modalities, trade-offs, and innovation shaping long-range UAV communications now and in the future.
The Multi-Layered Web of UAV Communication
No single communication modality can meet the varied requirements of all long-range UAV missions. Instead, operators rely on a hybrid approach that combines satellite communications (SATCOM), point-to-point (P2P) radio links, and increasingly, mesh networking to maintain connectivity over diverse and unpredictable environments.
The implications of employing such a hybrid system are multifaceted. Financially, this approach significantly increases the capital expenditure for UAV operators due to the integration of multiple transceivers, antennas, and control modules, alongside associated licensing and satellite service fees. Operationally, it introduces complexity in terms of mission planning, payload balancing, and signal management, often requiring dedicated ground personnel or autonomous logic to manage link transitions. Moreover, every additional communication module places further strain on the UAV’s limited onboard power supply, reducing flight endurance or payload capacity. Consequently, designers and operators must carefully balance performance, reliability, and power consumption to ensure mission success in a range of contested and degraded environments.
Satellite Communications: Coverage with Cost and Latency
SATCOM remains the cornerstone for global UAV connectivity, particularly for oceanic or remote region operations. High altitude relays minimise terrain masking and offer broad geographic coverage. L-Band solutions such as Inmarsat or Iridium offer data rates up to 500 kps, sufficient for command and control but very limited use if any, for visual data stream, except where compression software can be used (such as Dynamic Video Encoding [DVE]). This of course, comes at a significant cost to the operator. Newer Ku and Ka-Band terminals, like those used by Starlink offer data rates often exceeding 50 Mbps enabling real-time video transmission and sensor feeds providing actionable intelligence to the command centre. SATCOM comes at a cost, both financially and operationally. Prices vary between providers with Starlink being the most cost-effective (where available) however, the latency of a feed often exceeds 600 milliseconds, making real-time manual control difficult. This is especially problematic for tactical missions where split-second decisions matter. Moreover, the risk of signal spoofing or denial remains non-trivial. In hostile environments, SATCOM is a known target for a sophisticated adversary, and encryption, authentication, and link-switching protocols are essential safeguards. Another factor to bear in mind is that Starlink, in particular, is power hungry, typically 2-4x the power consumption of a system such as Iridium Certus 100 (noting the difference in data transfer depending on use case).
RF Links: High Throughput, High Risk
P2P RF links deliver unparalleled speed and low latency attributes that are vital for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Frequencies in the C and X bands can deliver up to 50 Mbps, while systems such as the Silvus StreamCaster enable robust multi-channel data streams with spectrum agility. However, the line-of-sight requirement presents a critical vulnerability and is a key consideration in the mission planning phase. Experience shows that the quoted direct communication range of controllers is often far in excess of what is achieved in reality.
Terrain, urban canyons, and vegetation can all block RF signals, and adversaries increasingly exploit this with deliberate jamming. According to a 2024 NATO assessment, over 35% of lost UAV links in Eastern Europe occurred due to targeted electronic warfare (EW), including deliberate jamming and spoofing of C2 and telemetry channels. This operational vulnerability highlights the urgent need for resilient, multi-layered communication systems in contested airspace. The solution lies in a combination of hardened physical infrastructure – such as mobile or man-portable REBROadcast nodes (REBRO), mesh radio relays, and forward-deployed control vans – and intelligent onboard systems that can dynamically switch between frequencies, adjust modulation schemes, or seamlessly fallback to SATCOM in real time.
Mesh Networks: From Redundancy to Autonomy
In recent years, mesh networking has emerged as one of the most promising developments in UAV communication. Rather than relying on a central node, mesh systems allow each UAV or ground node to act as a relay, dynamically routing data through multiple hops. This provides redundancy and range extension, particularly useful in complex or hostile terrain. Planning for these sorts of operations can be complex, especially when using additional UAVs as relays. Meticulous schedules of take-off and landing for each UAV must be adhered to in order to maintain coverage for the duration of the task.
In military contexts, swarm UAV operations benefit heavily from mesh networking. If one drone goes down, others can reroute its data. Likewise, in civilian applications such as wildfire monitoring, infrastructure inspection or disaster mapping, mesh networks allow multiple UAVs to cooperatively scan and relay data even when isolated from base control. It should be noted that the civilian use case for this sort of requirement is very limited at present due to airspace regulation surrounding BVLOS operations, however this is beginning to change at pace as regulators grapple with the challenges of congested airspaces and deconfliction. For now, direct RF links are the most widely used form of communication link given the relatively short flight distances, but the focus is shifting to fully robust, multi-layered and dependable C2 systems to allow for the expansion of civilian use cases.
However, mesh networking adds significant complexity. Routing algorithms must handle fluctuating node positions, bandwidth contention, and interference. Power demands also rise, as each node must transmit continuously. For medium size UAVs in particular, the added weight of such equipment on the airframe can significantly reduce the flight range and endurance. Security remains an Achilles’s heel – in ad hoc configurations, a compromised node could potentially intercept or alter data.
Autonomy, Infrastructure, and Security in the Field
Autonomous Missions and Onboard Intelligence
As communications challenges persist, one logical evolution has been toward greater UAV autonomy. Pre-programmed flight paths and AI-enabled onboard processing reduce the reliance on continuous command and control links. In GPS-denied or RF-contested environments, this is not merely a luxury but a necessity. Autonomous UAVs can continue missions despite temporary link outages, adjusting for wind, terrain, and obstacles using onboard sensors. This is seen in basic form and more commonly, on retail and commercial multi-rotor UAVs such as DJI aircraft however, it becomes far harder on fixed wing, long endurance aircraft given their aeronautical complexity, operating distances and power requirements. However, autonomy introduces its own risks, especially in unpredictable environments where human intervention might be needed. Debugging mission failures or conducting mid-flight re-tasking remains a significant operational challenge in the absence of a persistent live link between the UAV and its ground control station. Without real-time telemetry, video, and system health data, operators are forced to rely on delayed post-mission logs or incomplete datasets, which hinders rapid root cause analysis and corrective action. This can result in repeated mission aborts, reduced confidence in system reliability, and missed time-sensitive opportunities in dynamic operational environments.
Furthermore, without live connectivity, UAVs lack the flexibility to adapt to emergent threats or intelligence cues – limiting their utility in complex ISR or kinetic tasking scenarios. The ability to redirect flight paths, re-task sensors, or respond to operator input hinges on continuous communications. In denied or degraded environments, this underscores the critical need for autonomous diagnostic systems, edge processing, and fallback communication protocols that can maintain situational awareness even in the absence of full connectivity.
REBRO Stations and Control Vans
Infrastructure also plays a crucial role. REBRO stations can be rapidly deployed to bridge RF gaps or circumvent jamming zones. Control vans, essentially mobile command centres allow operators to remain close to the field without exposing themselves. These units typically integrate SATCOM, RF, LTE/5G and TAK (Tactical Assault Kit or Team Awareness Kit) interfaces to maintain flexibility across diverse missions.
The primary challenge with such infrastructure lies in deployment logistics. While REBRO nodes are agile, they require line-of-sight to both the UAV and the ground. Control vans offer excellent command environments but can be restricted by terrain, mobility, and visibility on covert operations.
The Security Imperative
With the growing reliance on data from UAV-based ISR footage, multispectral imaging, and LiDAR terrain mapping to inform both tactical decisions and strategic planning, the security of UAV communication links has become mission-critical. These data streams often carry sensitive intelligence, geolocation metadata, and operational status indicators, making them high-value targets for interception or manipulation by adversaries. As such, AES-256 encryption is now regarded as a baseline requirement for protecting UAV C2 and telemetry links, as well as sensor payload transmissions. However, encryption alone is insufficient in the face of advanced electronic warfare and cyber tactics.
To strengthen link integrity, additional measures like frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS), burst transmission techniques, and low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) protocols are increasingly integrated into UAV communication suites. These approaches aim to reduce the detectability and jammability of signals by dynamically shifting transmission parameters and minimizing RF signature exposure. In parallel, AI-based anomaly detection algorithms are now being deployed to monitor telemetry and spectral data in real time, flagging unusual behaviours that may indicate spoofing attempts, link hijacks, or payload interference.
The urgency of these measures is underscored by the more than 40 documented cyber incidents in 2023 targeting UAV command and communication systems, as reported by the European Centre for Cybersecurity in Aviation. These included GPS spoofing, signal saturation (jamming), and attempts to hijack or impersonate ground control links, potentially leading to data exfiltration or complete mission compromise.
To counter these evolving threats, high-end UAV platforms are now being equipped with Direction Finding (DF) hardware capable of geolocating hostile signal sources, allowing either automatic avoidance or counter-electronic warfare responses. Moreover, some systems are integrating redundant communication channels – such as fallback SATCOM links or mesh radio relays – combined with onboard decision logic that enables autonomous switching between links in the event of signal degradation or suspected compromise.
In this threat landscape, communication security is no longer a peripheral concern – it is integral to platform survivability, mission assurance, and data integrity. As a result, advanced cybersecurity frameworks and real-time signal intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities are fast becoming standard features on military-grade and critical infrastructure UAVs.
A Hybrid Future: Balancing Flexibility, Resilience, and Mission Goals
The future of long-range UAV communication is unlikely to favour any one solution. Instead, it lies in intelligent hybridisation: SATCOM for backbone connectivity, RF for tactical responsiveness, mesh for redundancy and autonomy, and robust security protocols across all layers. As the battlefield, both physical and digital, grows more complex, resilience becomes the cornerstone of mission success. A layered, flexible approach will be necessary not just for the military UAVs operating in contested airspace, but for civilian operators tackling critical infrastructure inspections, cross border delivery or emergency response in communications denied environments.
