Evaluating and Comparing Counter-Drone (C-UAS) Detection Technologies
Unauthorized drones pose one of the fastest-growing security threats to our airspace. In the rapidly evolving field of counter-C-UAS solutions, selecting the most effective and suitable counter-drone detection technology tailored to your unique scenario is more crucial than ever
This white paper provides an in-depth evaluation of both legacy and recent drone detection technologies, offering insights to navigate the complexities of airspace security.
We will explore the capabilities and limitations of the following drone detection methods, empowering you to make informed decisions regarding which technology will best satisfy specific needs.
The use of radars for drone detection has long been a popular technology for the detection of aerial drone threats, offering long-range coverage. Older legacy drone detection systems, which were used mostly in military and aviation, are adept at detecting larger aircraft but often struggle to track sUASs, due to their small size.
To address this limitation, modern anti-drone radar detection systems have incorporated advanced technologies, such as Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) and Micro-Doppler. These innovations aim to improve the radar’s sensitivity, making it easier to detect smaller drones. Despite these advances, modern radar systems still grapple with limitations. Differentiating small drones from other flying objects, such as birds, remains a challenge. This often generates false positives, undermining the reliability of radar for drone detection.
Further, the effectiveness of employing radar for drone detection largely hinges on environmental conditions, given their need for a clear line-of-sight to operate optimally. Adverse weather conditions, including rain and fog, can diminish radar’s performance.
In addition, radars face challenges with signal distortion caused by their sensitivity to refractions and reflections. This is particularly problematic in urban environments, where high-rise buildings can create such refractions and reflections. Consequently, a radar may receive multiple signals from the same object, but from different directions, complicating the drone radar detection and tracking process.
Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensors are used for the identification of drones and are usually triggered by other detection and tracking systems, such as radars. These sensors leverage sophisticated electro-optical infrared thermal imaging (EO/IR) cameras to identify drones based on their visual and temperature-related identifiers, verifying that any object detected is indeed a drone. When combined with drone radar detection, they can function as a validation technology to lessen the incidence of false detections.
Like radars, the biggest disadvantage of EO/IR solutions for detection lies in its dependency on a clear and direct line-of-sight, which is not always available in dense, crowded, or urban settings. Environmental conditions, including darkness, fog, and rain can also hinder the effectiveness of EO/IR drone detection systems.
In addition, relying on EO sensors for verification may require human intervention in real-time to determine whether the image is of a drone or not, demanding continuous staffing resources.
RF directional finders utilize sensors to detect and track UAVs by monitoring common frequency bands. They compare detected signals against a library of drone control signal profiles to classify these types of signals and estimate the radial direction they originate from. Using measurements from multiple sensors helps narrow down the possible location of the drone, aiding in tracking and during the transition from detection to mitigation.
But directional finders are limited only to detection and to some limited tracking, without identification. They may not be able to identify specific airframes or provide the most accurate real-time location of the drone. Urban environments and complex terrains pose additional challenges, as directional finders may point in the wrong direction due to RF reflections from objects like buildings or mountains.
Directional finders may not always provide the most precise location, as their spatial resolution is limited. To achieve a more accurate estimate of a drone’s location, multiple directional finders are often required. This necessitates a complex deployment of multiple sensors, each with varying accuracy levels, depending on the deployment scheme and the drone flight area.
As the name implies, acoustic detection systems operate by identifying the unique sound signature of a drone and its motors. These systems use acoustic sensors that can match the sounds produced by drones to a library of known acoustic profiles. They are mobile and easy to deploy.
However, the limitation of this technology is fairly evident: many of today’s sensitive environments, such as airports, urban environments, outdoor stadiums, and arenas, tend to be loud. In these bustling settings, noises emitted by drones can easily be drowned out, especially as some newer drone models are designed to be quieter. As a result, acoustic solutions are ineffective in noisy environments, and cannot be reliably used for directional finding, location, or identification.
Advanced, radio frequency (RF)-based cyber solutions offer an innovative approach to anti-drone defense, employing passive, continuous scanning to detect the unique communication signals of commercial drones, without producing false positives. Once detected, the solution can understand drone information and protocols to classify and tag specific drones as either authorized or unauthorized.
What’s more, the system can determine the type of drone and its accurate position, including the take-off position and, frequently, the pilot position. This real-time information is invaluable to security officials in addressing dangerous drones. RF Cyber-Takeover solutions do not require a quiet environment or a direct line-of-sight, making them ideal solutions for a range of environments.
While RF cyber solutions are generally robust, their performance may be impacted by signal/noise ratios, although often the range of flight that the drone will have in the same RF noise level will also be reduced. The detection distance can also be affected by the drone’s operating frequency band.
Nevertheless, the use of RF-cyber drone detection solutions offers a comprehensive and holistic approach by seamlessly integrating detection and mitigation capabilities to offer an intuitive, end-to-end, counter-drone solution without the risk of false positives. EnforceAir2 exemplifies this by delivering accurate location tracking unaffected by weather conditions and operating without a clear line-of-sight. Automation of threat recognition eliminates the need for human intervention to identify drone threats, and, therefore, frees up staffing resources.
Entities permitted to lawfully employ counter-UAS solutions should be aware of some environmental considerations that can directly impact how such technologies operate. These considerations may include limited line-of-sight, radio frequency (RF) noise, and radio signal propagation.
Incorporating multi-layered detection technologies and including RF-based cyber solutions is an effective strategy to increase the probability of countering any given threat, facilitating a holistic approach to safer airspace.
LEARN MORE