As drones increasingly fill our airspace, they bring not only innovation but a plethora of potential security concerns and challenges. In this context, safeguarding airspace from unauthorized intrusions is pivotal.
With a variety of counter-drone mitigation technologies at your disposal, each offering unique capabilities, the question arises: which drone mitigation technology is the most suitable for your specific needs?
This white paper evaluates the different legacy technologies and recent developments to help you navigate the intricate landscape of C-UAS mitigation technologies. Strengths and weaknesses of various counter-drone technologies are compared, contributing to informed decisions as to which technology will best satisfy specific needs.
RF jammers channel large bursts of RF energy in the direction of the drone to mask the controller’s signals, effectively preventing the drone from receiving instructions. This technology is comparatively cheap, simple to operate, and may achieve some desired effect – temporarily incapacitating all drones in the immediate area operating on the same RF band.
Despite their effective benefits, they are accompanied by some significant disadvantages.
The RF noise interference produced can disrupt nearby communications systems, rendering this mitigation technology problematic in many sensitive environments where communication integrity is paramount. This interference can also inadvertently shut down friendly, authorized drones operating in the vicinity.
The success of an RF jammer in disabling a drone largely depends on the strength of the interference it generates compared to the strength of signals the drone receives from the remote controller. The jammer must overpower the controller’s signal within a specific range, which is determined both by the power of transmission and the distance to the drone.
The jammer only works if its signal prevails. This condition has several implications:
It’s important to note that RF jammers do not gain control over a drone; they only block its connection with its remote controller. Once connection with remote controllers is lost, drones usually try to return to the take-off (“home”) position. Such drones may also attempt to carry out pre-programmed emergency default actions, such as hovering in place or trying to land. Each of these options may pose a threat. For instance, a drone programmed to return to its launch point may fly through sensitive airspace, which could include the take-off corridor of an airport. In situations where the drone flies without control, not even its pilot can prevent damage. Unless the drone is within line of sight, the jammer’s operator may not even know whether the drone was disconnected. It’s crucial to recognize that jammers may not always permanently eliminate the specific threat, but rather only temporarily block it, since in many cases, the drone will return to its pilot.
Directional JammersDirectional jammers are designed to mitigate drones approaching from a specific direction. This technology offers a longer range than other types of jamming and causes less disruption and signal interference in the surrounding environment. These devices necessitate continuous transmission to maintain their effectiveness. However, their ability to efficiently overcome swarms is limited, as swarms, by their nature, usually approach from multiple directions.
A narrow beam can also lose its efficacy if the drone starts to fly back to its home location. In such cases, the pilot may regain control and fly from a different direction or evade the effective angle of the directional jammer.
Omni-directional JammersOmni-directional jammers can mitigate drones from all directions, making these types of jammers more effective in handling swarms. However, their protective range is typically shorter than directional jammers.
Additionally, the nature of omni-directional transmission can lead to increased collateral interference. This not only affects authorized and non-threatening drones, but can also disrupt other communication systems in the vicinity.
Handheld JammersThese jammers are mobile and simple to use. The operator just pulls out the device and activates it. This type of jammer is effective in scenarios where a certain sensitive point should be protected and the threatening drones are in close proximity and within eyesight.
However, as this method is manual, a security team member must always have the handheld jammer on his/her person and remain vigilant. The effectiveness of this method hinges on the operator’s readiness; a delayed reaction or lapse in attention could mean missing the crucial window to mitigate the hostile drone.
Moreover, handheld jammers operate at a low power level to safeguard the operator’s health. This safety feature, however, limits the device’s operational range. In situations where a perimeter or a border must be defended, the handheld jammer is practically useless, as the drone can simply fly high enough to be beyond the range of the handheld jammer.
Kinetic solutions cause the drone to stop operating by some sort of physical intervention, such as launching a projectile. These solutions vary in size and portability, ease of operation, cost, and capabilities against specific drone types.
Less favorably, some kinetic technologies may pose a risk of collateral damage. It can be challenging especially in urban or sensitive environments due to obstacles like tall buildings, vehicles, signage, and so on.
Typically, kinetic solutions aim to cause the drone to fall from the sky, which carries the risk of creating severe collateral damage or human injury. The projectiles used in these solutions may inadvertently strike unintended objects and pose risk, especially in sensitive environments such as airports or critical infrastructure.
Each kinetic solution possesses associated advantages and disadvantages, which are crucial to consider before implementation:
Drone-Killing Drone (Net to Tow, Collision, Net Throw or Projectile)Drone-killing drones can capture unauthorized targets with nets and tow them to a controlled landing. Alternatively, this category can also include drones designed to ram into hostile drones or launch other nets and projectiles to disable them. Achieving precision with these tactics can be challenging against drones that fly unpredictably.
Engaging a hostile drone in this manner resembles an aerial “dog-fight,” where the drone-killing drone must chase its target. This pursuit poses significant challenges, no matter if the drone is autonomously operated or controlled by a pilot from the ground. Moreover, this method can also result in collateral damage from a plummeting drone and projectile.
Intelligent ShooterIntelligent shooters are equipped with a rifle-mounted system that enables accurate shots against nearby drones. A special scope calculates the trajectory before the shot, significantly improving the probability of a hit compared to other kinetic methods. Additionally, this technology is economical and may play a role in a multi-layer counter-drone system, particularly in rural, or open-field environments.
The effective range of this technology extends to several hundred meters (generally, less than 250 meters) and may face difficulties in hitting smaller drones. The security team must act immediately – drones fly fast, and there are only a few seconds to respond.
These high-energy devices warrant their own sub-category in drone mitigation technologies. By emitting an intense beam of light, laser-based systems can destroy the drone structure or its electronics. Effective against a wide array of drones, lasers offer a formidable solution to neutralize airborne threats.
However, their operation comes with specific drawbacks. Lasers require direct line-of-sight with their target, and their powerful energy not only burns the drone to pieces but also any intelligence, limiting the opportunity for data recovery. Additionally, the destruction process can result in plummeting drone fragments, posing a risk of collateral damage. Environmental obstacles, such as buildings or other flying objects, can also complicate the use of lasers, especially in densely populated or sensitive environments.
Given these considerations, lasers for drone mitigation may be less suitable in environments where precision and minimal collateral damage are paramount. Finally, it is also more difficult to hit smaller, fast moving drones using lasers.
EMP and HPM drone mitigation technologies harness radiation and powerful radio waves, delivering high-powered bursts of energy in short blasts. Such intense energy can potentially damage electrical devices in the area.
EMP and HPM work indiscriminately and can cause heavy collateral damage, potentially rendering nearby electronics or computers inoperative by damaging their internal circuits. Given their broad and destructive impact, EMP and HPM are often viewed as a last resort options.
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing broadcasts a false GNSS signal, such as GPS, within a specific area. When a GNSS receiver picks up the spoofed signal, it may determine its location incorrectly. By controlling the perceived location of a drone, it may be possible to steer it on a controlled path and deter it from flying according to its pre-programmed flight plan or from returning home.
In terms of disrupting the environment and affecting continuity, this technology can be even more problematic than jamming. Every navigation device in the area may receive the spoofed GNSS signal and determine a wrong global position.
As such, GNSS spoofing could affect, for instance, auto navigation systems, or navigation apps, causing confusion, accidents, or worse. It may also disrupt friendly drone operations. Given these implications, this technology should not be used near authorized ships, planes, helicopters, or other friendly vehicles.
RF-based cyber takeover is an innovative non-jamming, non-kinetic approach that transmits a precise and short signal to take control of a hostile drone. Such drone mitigation technology zeros in on the RF communications between the pilot’s remote controller and the drone, effectively intervening and taking command of the drone. Once in control, it redirects the drone along a predetermined route to a designated safe landing location. This surgical mitigation may occur within a certain range, tailored to the power output required to intervene with the hostile drone’s communication link.
Characterized by its comprehensive, end-to-end capability, RF Cyber-Takeover seamlessly flows from the initial hostile drone detection, all the way through to takeover and safe landing. It can also be deployed automatically, eliminating the chance of human error.
Unlike the other mitigation technologies, our drone takeover solution secures operational continuity by avoiding collateral damage or interference with other communications systems. It can also distinguish between authorized and unauthorized drones, enabling authorized drones to keep functioning during the mitigation of hostile drones.
Given its reliance on short, targeted transmissions, it may also contend with swarms of unauthorized drones by quickly mitigating each of them within their own frequency and transmission patterns.
Importantly, as RF cyber-takeover mitigation does not destroy the drone, like lasers or EMP technologies, organizations can reap the benefits of extracting the valuable intelligence within the drone, subject to applicable laws, of course. RF cyber-takeover is effective against a wide range of drones, from specific commercially available RF-based drones to Do-It-Yourself drones, ensuring comprehensive airspace security.
Entities permitted to lawfully employ C-UAS technologies 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.
In addition, drone mitigation extends beyond the techniques mentioned above. Mitigation can also be achieved by finding the drone operator’s location and having that person cease their operations. Incorporating multiple layered mitigation technologies is the most effective strategy to increase the probability of countering any given threat.
LEARN MORE
Drone Attack & Incident Tracker
C-UAS (Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System) mitigation refers to technologies and methods used to neutralize unauthorized or malicious drones.
Unauthorized drones pose security threats such as espionage, smuggling, airspace violations, and drone-enabled attacks. Numerous incidents all over the world highlight the need for effective mitigation solutions to prevent drone-related disruptions.
Counter-drone mitigation systems work by detecting, identifying, and neutralizing rogue drones using methods such as:
RF-based cyber-takeover technology allows security teams to take control of unauthorized drones and land them safely, rather than jamming or destroying them. This method minimizes collateral damage, avoids interference with surrounding communications, and helps operators to comply with airspace requirements.
Subject to regulations which vary by country, counter-drone mitigation may be deployed in: