5G Aero: A Prototyping Platform for Evaluating Aerial 5G Communications

Madhukara S. Holla; Matteo Bordin; Sakthivel Velumani; Salvatore D'Oro; Tommaso Melodia

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

5G Aero: A Prototyping Platform for Evaluating Aerial 5G Communications

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a compact, low-cost drone rebuilt from a discontinued frame and a commercial 5G modem can meet 3GPP latency targets for command-and-control and video in indoor line-of-sight flights, at a battery cost of about 1%.

desk verdict A useful low-cost 5G UE drone prototyping platform, but the paper's headline claim that it meets 3GPP C2 latency requirements is contradicted by its own reported reliability numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08386 v1 pith:A4CVLHCL submitted 2025-06-10 cs.NI eess.SP

Matteo Bordin , Madhukara S. Holla , Sakthivel Velumani , Salvatore D'Oro , Tommaso Melodia This is my paper

classification cs.NIeess.SP

keywords 5GUAVaerialcommunications3GPPlatencyrequirementscommandandcontrolOpenAirInterfaceindoordroneexperimentreliabilityunmannedvehicles

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's goal is to show that a small, affordable drone can act as a 5G user device and still meet the latency and reliability targets that the mobile-industry standards body 3GPP sets for drone command-and-control and video traffic. The authors rebuilt a discontinued Intel Aero frame with a Pixhawk 6C mini flight controller, a compact NucBox computer, and a Sierra Wireless EM9191 5G modem, then flew it indoors at 3, 7, and 14 meters from a 5G base station running an open-source protocol stack, in line-of-sight (LoS), non-line-of-sight (NLoS), and dynamic paths. They report that C2 latency stayed under the 40 ms target in LoS and NLoS, that video latency stayed under the 1 s target in LoS, and that NLoS video remained acceptable, while the 5G module cut flight time by only about 1%. The reported compliance is partial: the paper notes exceptions in NLoS conditions, and its own numbers show several scenarios below the 99.9% reliability bar.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 5G Aero prototype itself: a re-purposed Intel Aero frame with the original integrated board removed and replaced by a Pixhawk 6C mini flight controller, a GMKtec NucBox G2 computing unit, and a Sierra Wireless EM9191 5G modem, powered through a new power distribution board. On the network side, the base station is a USRP X410 running the OpenAirInterface protocol stack, and the UAV connects as a standard 5G user equipment. The measurement machinery is a Wireshark capture at both the drone and the base station, which gives per-packet uplink and downlink latency for C2 and video traffic across three video resolutions and four flight scenarios. That combination turns a 3GPP reliability specification into an experimentally testable claim: the fraction of packets under the latency threshold in each two-minute flight.

What would settle it

Recompute the reliability percentiles from the Wireshark captures: in each scenario, count the packets above the 40 ms, 1 s, and 140 ms thresholds and compare the compliant fraction to 99.9% or 99.99%. The paper already reports several below-threshold fractions, so this calculation would settle whether the 3GPP compliance claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the authors' own terms, the discovery is that an inexpensive off-the-shelf UAV can be upgraded into a 5G user equipment and quantitatively checked against the 3GPP Uncrewed Aerial Systems latency requirements (TS 22.125, TS 23.256). For uplink command-and-control traffic the requirement is that at least 99.9% of packets arrive in under 40 ms; for uplink video it is 99.9% under 1 s in LoS and 99.99% under 140 ms in NLoS. The 5G Aero met the C2 latency target in both LoS and NLoS, and the video target in LoS; in NLoS, reported reliability for C2 at 1080p fell to 98.73% at 14 m and 99.58% in the dynamic flight, and the 480p takeoff at 3 m reached 99.31%, all below the stated 99.9% bar. The paper concludes that current 5G is technically capable of supporting indoor drone operations and that the main obstacle is signal obstruction combined with high uplink throughput, not the drone form factor or modem power draw.

Load-bearing premise

The compliance claim rests on assuming that running each test three times for two minutes is enough to measure 99.9% and 99.99% on-time delivery rates, without reporting confidence intervals or packet counts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the platform's results are representative, a commercial drone can be turned into a 5G user device with commodity hardware and open-source software, without a heavy software-defined radio payload.
The roughly 1% reduction in flight time means the 5G modem is not the dominant battery drain, so future improvements can focus on propulsion and frame efficiency.
LoS flights at 3 m and 7 m stayed within the C2 and video latency targets at every tested resolution, suggesting indoor LoS drone missions are within reach of current 5G.
The binding constraint is NLoS video under high resolution: at 14 m the reliability fell to 98.73% at 1080p, below the 99.9% C2 and 99.99% NLoS-video requirements.
The described rebuild workflow gives other labs a reproducible path to a small 5G drone testbed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the paper does not report packet counts or confidence intervals, its 99.9% and 99.99% reliability claims are not statistically established by three two-minute flights per scenario; a longer flight campaign could confirm or overturn them.
The pattern of shortfalls (NLoS plus high uplink bitrate) suggests that lowering the video bitrate or adding a second uplink path could restore the 99.9% bar, which is a testable extension of the authors' setup.
The modular separation of flight controller and computing unit points toward an even smaller build with an M.2 5G modem, which could reduce weight and electromagnetic interference and potentially change the NLoS latency results.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a genuinely useful hardware build paper. Taking an obsolete Intel Aero frame, swapping in a Pixhawk 6C mini, a GMKtec NucBox, and a Sierra EM9191 modem, and connecting it to OpenAirInterface gives other labs a low-cost, small-form-factor 5G UE drone to experiment with. The write-up of the rebuild is detailed enough to reproduce, and the indoor LoS/NLoS test setup is reasonable. For that, it deserves credit.

But the paper's central claim is not supported by its own data. The abstract states the 5G Aero meets 3GPP standards for C2 latency in both LoS and NLoS. The 3GPP requirement cited is that at least 99.9% of C2 packets have latency below 40 ms. The paper reports 99.31% for 480p at 3 m, 99.5% for 720p dynamic, 98.73% for 1080p at 14 m, and 99.58% for 1080p dynamic. Every one of those is below 99.9%, so the blanket compliance claim cannot hold. The conclusion in Section VI even admits 'a few exceptions during NLoS conditions,' which is in tension with the abstract. This isn't a statistical tail issue; it's a direct mismatch between the stated thresholds and the reported percentages.

There's also a specific misapplication of the video latency threshold. The paper says an 830 ms latency spike 'falls within the acceptable latency threshold of 140 ms.' 830 ms is not within 140 ms. If the relevant LoS video threshold is 1 s, fine, but then the text should say that. The 140 ms threshold is for NLoS video with 99.99% reliability, and the paper provides no evidence of hitting that either. The paper never reports the fraction of video packets under 140 ms in NLoS; it only says video stays under 1 s.

The statistical foundation is also thin. Three two-minute flights per scenario is not enough to estimate a 99.9 or 99.99 percentile with any confidence, and no packet counts or confidence intervals are given. The battery measurement is a single average with no variance or sample size. That said, those are secondary to the threshold problem.

The citation pattern is fine. Prior OAI and SkyCell work is properly acknowledged.

Bottom line: the platform is worth knowing about, but the compliance conclusion is overclaimed and the video threshold error is hard to overlook. With a corrected abstract, careful re-analysis of the tail probabilities, and a transparent data release, this could be a solid systems paper. As is, it needs major revision.

I'd send it to peer review rather than desk reject, because the build is reproducible and the area is active. But any reviewer should be asked to check the abstract against Section V.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents '5G Aero', a small-form-factor UAV built by reusing the Intel Aero frame and pairing it with a Pixhawk 6C mini, a GMKtec NucBox G2 compute unit, and a Sierra Wireless EM9191 5G modem. The authors set up an indoor testbed with an OpenAirInterface gNB based on a USRP X410 and evaluate uplink C2 and video latency, downlink latency, and battery lifetime in four scenarios: static LoS at 3 m and 7 m, static NLoS at 14 m, and a dynamic LoS-to-NLoS flight. They compare measured latency percentiles against 3GPP requirements from TS 22.125 and claim in the abstract that the platform meets the required C2 latency standards in both LoS and NLoS and video latency standards in LoS, while maintaining acceptable NLoS video latency. They also report that the 5G module reduces flight time by about 1%.

Significance. If the compliance claims were supported, the paper would provide a valuable open-hardware reference platform for aerial 5G experiments: the hardware design is detailed and reproducible, the measurement setup is clearly described, and the battery-lifetime result is a concrete quantitative finding. The work also addresses a real gap, since few compact, programmable 5G-enabled UAV platforms are available to the research community. However, the central claim of 3GPP compliance is contradicted by the paper's own reported reliability numbers, and the statistical basis for tail-percentile claims is too thin. The platform itself may still be a useful contribution, but the manuscript in its current form does not establish its main stated conclusion.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and Section V.A] The abstract's claim that '5G Aero meets the required 3GPP standards for Command and Control (C2) packets latency in both LoS and NLoS' is contradicted by the paper's own reported reliability figures. Section IV.A states the requirement that at least 99.9% of C2 packets have latency below 40 ms, but Section V.A reports 99.31% for 480p at 3 m LoS, 99.5% for 720p Dynamic, 98.73% for 1080p at 14 m NLoS, and 99.58% for 1080p Dynamic. All four values are below 99.9%, so the blanket compliance claim fails even if every measurement is taken at face value.
[Section V.A.1] The text states that a video latency reaching 830 ms 'still falls within the acceptable latency threshold of 140ms defined by 3GPP.' This is internally inconsistent because 830 ms is larger than 140 ms. If the applicable LoS video threshold is 1 s, as stated in Section IV.A, the paper should say so and apply that threshold consistently; as written, the sentence is a straightforward numerical error in a load-bearing comparison.
[Section IV.A and Section V.A] The experimental design uses three two-minute flights per scenario and reports no confidence intervals, per-run breakdowns, or total packet counts. Since the 3GPP requirements are tail probabilities (99.9% for C2, and 99.99% for NLoS video), aggregate percentages from such small samples cannot establish compliance. The paper needs to report the number of packets captured, per-run reliability, and interval estimates before any compliance conclusion can be evaluated.
[Section V.A.3 and Section VII] For NLoS video, the standard cited in Section IV.A requires at least 99.99% of packets below 140 ms, but Section V.A.3 only checks the sub-1s latency requirement and concludes that video packets meet it in both LoS and NLoS. This is non-responsive to the actual NLoS video requirement, and the conclusion in Section VII that the platform 'maintained compliance with stringent latency and reliability standards' is therefore not supported for NLoS video.

minor comments (4)

[Section V.A.2] The text says the 720p transmission frequency 'doubles to 0.006 packets/s, compared to 0.013 packets/s at 480p'; since 0.006 is half of 0.013, the direction is reversed. The same issue appears for 1080p, where 0.003 packets/s is described as double the 720p rate.
[Section VI] The sentence 'the frequency of C2 packet transmission in both uplink and downlink ranges from 0.026 packets/s to 0.032 packets/s, which exceeds the expectations set by the 3GPP standards of 0.04 packets/s' is numerically backwards: 0.026–0.032 is below 0.04. If the comparison is between intervals rather than rates, the text should state that explicitly.
[Section IV.A and Section V.A] The latency measurement methodology does not explain how the Wireshark captures at the UE and gNB are synchronized. Without a common clock or an explicit one-way-delay estimation procedure, the reported end-to-end latency values need a synchronization error bound to be interpretable.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues: inconsistent spacing in 'UA Vs' and 'MA VLink', 'forth' instead of 'fourth' in Section IV.A, and duplicate reference entries for SkyCell ([3] and [10]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: measurement campaign against external 3GPP benchmarks; self-citations are non-load-bearing tooling references.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental measurement study, not a derivation chain. The central claim (compliance with 3GPP C2 and video latency requirements) is evaluated by comparing Wireshark-captured latency statistics against external ETSI/3GPP thresholds cited in references [6] and [7]. No parameter is fitted to the threshold and then renamed as a prediction; the reported reliability percentages (e.g., 99.31%, 99.5%, 98.73%, 99.58%) are computed directly from the captures, and the thresholds are not derived from the measurements. The only self-citations are to prior platform work and to OpenAirInterface ([3], [4], [8], [10], [13]); these are tooling/context references and do not define or constrain the measured latency values, so they are not load-bearing. Any apparent inconsistency between the abstract's blanket compliance claim and the paper's own reported reliability values (e.g., Section V.A.1 describing 830 ms as within a 140 ms threshold) is a factual/correctness issue, not a circularity issue, because the conclusion is not equivalent to the inputs by construction. No equation or definition in the paper reduces the claimed result to its own assumptions, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on measurements, not derivations. The key unstated premises are the correctness of the 5G testbed, the applicability of the 3GPP thresholds, and the sufficiency of the sample size. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The 3GPP TS 22.125 latency and reliability requirements quoted are correctly interpreted and apply to the measured C2 and video traffic.
The paper applies inconsistent thresholds (e.g., 1 s for NLoS video, or calling 830 ms acceptable under 140 ms), so this premise is not reliably established.
domain assumption The OpenAirInterface 5G stack and USRP X410 gNB provide a representative 5G network with accurate timestamps at both ends.
No calibration or validation of the testbed is reported; latency measurements depend on capture accuracy.
domain assumption Three two-minute runs per scenario are sufficient to estimate 99.9% and 99.99% packet reliability percentiles.
Tail probabilities at the 0.1% and 0.01% level require many more packets or a distributional model; none is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 5G Aero: A Prototyping Platform for Evaluating Aerial 5G Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4CVLHCL

@misc{pith2026250608386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 5G Aero: A Prototyping Platform for Evaluating Aerial 5G Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4CVLHCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08386}
}

read the original abstract

The application of small-factor, 5G-enabled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has recently gained significant interest in various aerial and Industry 4.0 applications. However, ensuring reliable, high-throughput, and low-latency 5G communication in aerial applications remains a critical and underexplored problem. This paper presents the 5th generation (5G) Aero, a compact UAV optimized for 5G connectivity, aimed at fulfilling stringent 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) requirements. We conduct a set of experiments in an indoor environment, evaluating the UAV's ability to establish high-throughput, low-latency communications in both Line-of-Sight (LoS) and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) conditions. Our findings demonstrate that the 5G Aero meets the required 3GPP standards for Command and Control (C2) packets latency in both LoS and NLoS, and video latency in LoS communications and it maintains acceptable latency levels for video transmission in NLoS conditions. Additionally, we show that the 5G module installed on the UAV introduces a negligible 1% decrease in flight time, showing that 5G technologies can be integrated into commercial off-the-shelf UAVs with minimal impact on battery lifetime. This paper contributes to the literature by demonstrating the practical capabilities of current 5G networks to support advanced UAV operations in telecommunications, offering insights into potential enhancements and optimizations for UAV performance in 5G networks

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08386 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows the 5G Aero UAV we have built following the design described above and shown in Fig. 1b. As FCU we have installed the latest and smallest model of the Pixhawk family, the 6C mini. We have paired it with the GMKtec NucBox G2, a small factor Computing Unit, 3.3x3.3x1.37 inches (8.5x8.5x3.5 cm), with 12GB of RAM, and an Intel 12th Alder Lake N100 processor, which perfectly fits within the UAV’s frame. The UAV’s o… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Uplink C2 and Video Stream performance overview in the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Experiment scenario. flight test in an indoor environment designed to simulate a UAV flying inside an office or laboratory. This environment enabled UAV to navigate through LoS and NLoS spaces, with obstacles made of various materials that influence signal propagation …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A Versatile and Programmable UAV Platform for Radio Access Network and End-to-End Cellular Measurements
cs.NI 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A customizable UAV platform collects cellular RAN and end-to-end performance metrics in rural areas, showing altitude improves signal power but degrades signal quality due to increased interference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A compilation of UA V applications for precision agriculture,

P. Radoglou-Grammatikis, P. Sarigiannidis, T. Lagkas, and I. Moscho- lios, “A compilation of UA V applications for precision agriculture,” Computer Networks, vol. 172, p. 107148, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of UA V-assisted Data Collection for Wake-up Radio- enabled Wireless Networks,

A. V . Sheshashayee, M. Bordin, P. B. del Prever, D. Villa, H. Cheng, C. Petrioli, T. Melodia, and S. Basagni, “Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of UA V-assisted Data Collection for Wake-up Radio- enabled Wireless Networks,” pp. 01–06, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,

L. Ferranti, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, and T. Melodia, “SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,” pp. 329–334, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Au- tonomous driving from the sky: Design and end-to-end performance evaluation,

M. Bordin, M. Giordani, M. Polese, T. Melodia, and M. Zorzi, “Au- tonomous driving from the sky: Design and end-to-end performance evaluation,” in2022 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2022, pp. 1610–1615

work page 2022
[5]

UA V-Enabled Ultra-Reliable Low- Latency Communications for 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,

A. Masaracchia, Y . Li, K. K. Nguyen, C. Yin, S. R. Khosravirad, D. B. D. Costa, and T. Q. Duong, “UA V-Enabled Ultra-Reliable Low- Latency Communications for 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 137 338–137 352, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Unmanned aerial system (uas) support in 3gpp (3gpp ts 22.125 version 18.1.0 release 18),

E. 3GPP, “Unmanned aerial system (uas) support in 3gpp (3gpp ts 22.125 version 18.1.0 release 18),” May 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Support of uncrewed aerial systems (uas) connectivity, identifi- cation and tracking; stage 2 (3gpp ts 23.256 version 18.2.0 release 18),

——, “Support of uncrewed aerial systems (uas) connectivity, identifi- cation and tracking; stage 2 (3gpp ts 23.256 version 18.2.0 release 18),” May 2024

work page 2024
[8]

What is a wireless uav?: A design blueprint for 6g flying wireless nodes,

J. Buczek, L. Bertizzolo, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “What is a wireless uav?: A design blueprint for 6g flying wireless nodes,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental evaluation and Characterization, ser. ACM MobiCom ’21, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 13 references

[9]

(2024) AIRLink: The Most Advanced AI Drone Flight Controller

Sky Drones. (2024) AIRLink: The Most Advanced AI Drone Flight Controller. [Online]. Available: https://sky-drones.com/airlink

2024
[10]

SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,

L. Ferranti, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, and T. Melodia, “SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,” inProceeding of IEEE SwarmNet, Cork, Ireland, August 2020

2020
[11]

Signal- based self-organization of a chain of uavs for subterranean exploration,

P. Laclau, V . Tempez, F. Ruffier, E. Natalizio, and J.-B. Mouret, “Signal- based self-organization of a chain of uavs for subterranean exploration,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2021

2021
[12]

Sky5g: Prototyping 5g aerial base station (uav-bs) for on-demand connectivity from sky,

D. Mishra, H. Gupta, and E. Natalizio, “Sky5g: Prototyping 5g aerial base station (uav-bs) for on-demand connectivity from sky,” in2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[13]

Driving innovation in 6g wireless technologies: The openairinterface approach,

F. Kaltenberger, T. Melodia, I. Ghauri, M. Polese, R. Knopp, T. T. Nguyen, S. Velumani, D. Villa, L. Bonati, R. Schmidt, S. Arora, M. Iraz- abal, and N. Nikaein, “Driving innovation in 6g wireless technologies: The openairinterface approach,” 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A compilation of UA V applications for precision agriculture,

P. Radoglou-Grammatikis, P. Sarigiannidis, T. Lagkas, and I. Moscho- lios, “A compilation of UA V applications for precision agriculture,” Computer Networks, vol. 172, p. 107148, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of UA V-assisted Data Collection for Wake-up Radio- enabled Wireless Networks,

A. V . Sheshashayee, M. Bordin, P. B. del Prever, D. Villa, H. Cheng, C. Petrioli, T. Melodia, and S. Basagni, “Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of UA V-assisted Data Collection for Wake-up Radio- enabled Wireless Networks,” pp. 01–06, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,

L. Ferranti, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, and T. Melodia, “SkyCell: A Proto- typing Platform for 5G Aerial Base Stations,” pp. 329–334, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Au- tonomous driving from the sky: Design and end-to-end performance evaluation,

M. Bordin, M. Giordani, M. Polese, T. Melodia, and M. Zorzi, “Au- tonomous driving from the sky: Design and end-to-end performance evaluation,” in2022 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2022, pp. 1610–1615

work page 2022

[5] [5]

UA V-Enabled Ultra-Reliable Low- Latency Communications for 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,

A. Masaracchia, Y . Li, K. K. Nguyen, C. Yin, S. R. Khosravirad, D. B. D. Costa, and T. Q. Duong, “UA V-Enabled Ultra-Reliable Low- Latency Communications for 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 137 338–137 352, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Unmanned aerial system (uas) support in 3gpp (3gpp ts 22.125 version 18.1.0 release 18),

E. 3GPP, “Unmanned aerial system (uas) support in 3gpp (3gpp ts 22.125 version 18.1.0 release 18),” May 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Support of uncrewed aerial systems (uas) connectivity, identifi- cation and tracking; stage 2 (3gpp ts 23.256 version 18.2.0 release 18),

——, “Support of uncrewed aerial systems (uas) connectivity, identifi- cation and tracking; stage 2 (3gpp ts 23.256 version 18.2.0 release 18),” May 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

What is a wireless uav?: A design blueprint for 6g flying wireless nodes,

J. Buczek, L. Bertizzolo, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “What is a wireless uav?: A design blueprint for 6g flying wireless nodes,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental evaluation and Characterization, ser. ACM MobiCom ’21, 2021

work page 2021