In a recent episode of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI) podcast, titled “Drones Are Here to Stay: The Proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Systems Across the Spectrum of War,” experts explore the profound impact of drone technology on modern warfare, emphasizing the pressing need for advanced counter-drone strategies.
Colonel Bill Edwards reviews the five levels of drone categorization illustrating the extensive and varied capabilities of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) technology, ranging from simple reconnaissance to sophisticated weapon delivery. Dr. Kerry Chávez’s point about the “democratization of air power” highlights a concern we share at D-Fend: affordable, commercially available drones empower non-state actors, posing significant threats. At the same time, drones will need to play a beneficial role in society.
Drones used by malicious actors, as Dr. Chávez highlights, are “flexible and effective” for various missions, allowing them to bypass traditional defenses. They can gather intelligence, conduct attacks, and endanger lives. This is why D-Fend Solutions is committed to pioneering adaptable, future-proof counter-drone solutions, providing robust defense mechanisms against the escalating threats posed by rogue drones.
The podcast explores drone use in recent conflicts. For example, Hamas has repurposed commercially available drones to launch attacks on Israel’s Gaza border fence, highlighting the severe damage that such accessible technology can inflict in asymmetric warfare. Similarly, both Ukrainian and Russian forces utilized commercial drones for targeted attacks, underlining their effectiveness in modern combat. This trend underscores the versatility and impact of commercial drones in contemporary warfare.
Also discussed in the podcast is the need for economic considerations to drive the development of cost-effective counter-drone technology. Dr. Chávez describes the need for a “renaissance in cheap countermeasures.” She points out the necessity of tailored countermeasures for different environments. “We need solutions that are adaptable to urban environments and mobile solutions that can be deployed quickly and effectively,” she states.
In a related point, the DoD has expressed the need for increased magazine depth for counter-UAS solutions. D-Fend Solutions RF-cyber mitigation technique can be a key contributor to affordability in this regard with its ability to mitigate drones in a non-jamming, non-kinetic manner.
Despite the technical nature of the challenge, the podcast reinforces the critical role of human creativity in developing counter-drone solutions. This underscores the need for a culture of innovation and adaptability in the counter-drone field. D-Fend embodies this philosophy. Our EnforceAir system, unlike traditional jamming or kinetic solutions, utilizes software-driven RF-Cyber technology. This technology allows us to safely take control of rogue drones and land them in designated zones. This innovative approach directly addresses Dr. Chávez’s call for adaptable and non-disruptive countermeasures.
The IWI podcast’s emphasis on the need for continuous innovation and adaptation in counter-drone technology reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the drone threat landscape. This call for ongoing development aligns with the efforts of various organizations working to address the challenges posed by emerging aerial threats.
Future-Proofing Counter-Drone Strategies:
To effectively counter evolving drone threats, several key areas will require focus::
Adaptive Technologies: Counter-drone solutions must be flexible to address new drone capabilities as they emerge. Systems like D-Fend’s EnforceAir, which utilizes software-driven RF cyber-based technology, exemplify this adaptability.
AI-Enhanced Mitigation: Incorporating AI and machine learning into counter-drone systems will enhance their mitigation capabilities, enabling them to efficiently recommend appropriate drone mitigation options for each unique threat scenario.
Multi-Layered Approach: Future counter-drone systems will likely combine various methods to create a comprehensive threat detection network. This multi-layered approach will enhance accuracy and provide a more robust defense against diverse drone threats in various environments.
Regulatory Framework Development: As counter-drone technologies advance, regulations should adapt to ensure responsible use, foster innovation, and avoid collateral damage and airspace disruption.
By focusing on these areas and prioritizing innovative, adaptable counter-drone technologies, we can work towards safeguarding against emerging aerial threats while preserving the beneficial aspects of drone technology in various sectors of society.
The booming popularity of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, has introduced a new layer of complexity for stadium security, especially during major sporting events where the safety of spectators and participants is vital. In recent years, hundreds of sporting events have experienced thousands of unauthorized drone incursions across many stadiums globally. This alarming trend highlights the urgency for effective drone mitigation strategies.
With the 2024 Paris Olympics underway, as with all major sporting events, the spotlight is on France’s anti-drone measures and their effectiveness in safeguarding the French capital from potential aerial threats. The presence of unauthorized drones at major events can pose a triple threat: disrupting operations, causing immediate physical harm, and triggering psychological impact and potential widespread panic among attendees.
Therefore, the establishment of advanced drone mitigation at stadiums is essential. This article explores advanced strategies to counteract these risks and maintain the safety and security of stadiums for all attendees.
Securing a stadium during major events presents a multitude of challenges due to the sheer number of people, the complexity of the venue, and the potential for diverse types of threats. Understanding these vulnerabilities is crucial for developing effective strategies for stadium drone protection.
Dense crowds make it difficult to monitor and manage the airspace effectively. Unauthorized drones can blend in, making detection and response more challenging. The risk of collateral damage is also higher, and countermeasures taken against a drone must prioritize the safety of the spectators.
Stadiums are complex structures with multiple entry and exit points, various sections, and often numerous levels. This complexity can obstruct line-of-sight detection or identification systems, making it harder to spot and track unauthorized drones. Additionally, the architectural features can create blind spots where drones can go undetected until they are already in a critical area.
Major events attract significant media attention and high-profile individuals, making them attractive targets for malicious actors. The presence of VIPs and the potential for large-scale disruptions increase the stakes, requiring more robust and reliable security measures. Unauthorized drones could be used for surveillance or reconnaissance, to deliver harmful payloads, or to cause panic among the attendees.
The mere sight of an unauthorized drone can cause fear and anxiety among spectators, leading to potential panic and chaos. This psychological impact is a significant vulnerability, as it can disrupt the event and lead to injuries in the resulting commotion. Keeping the crowd calm and secure is as important as the physical security measures in place.
Addressing these vulnerabilities requires a comprehensive approach that incorporates advanced technologies and strategic planning.
With over 300,000 spectators expected to line the streets of Paris in July, preventing unauthorized drones from disrupting the Olympic games is a significant endeavor. As such, France has heavily invested in the counter drone systems.
Systems at major events may use a combination of technologies to detect and characterize potential drone threats. The systems may employ countermeasures such as jamming to immobilize or change the drone’s trajectory and/or deploy kinetic measures such as a police drone equipped with a net to capture the unauthorized device.
Yet, despite these counter-drone measures, significant limitations exist:
Certain solutions that work well in the military, such as radars and RF directional finders, may prove less effective in crowded environments. Radars can struggle to differentiate between unauthorized drones and other objects such as birds, cameras, and authorized drones. RF directional finders may not be able to provide the most accurate real-time location of the drone. In addition, in urban and complex terrains, directional finders may point to the wrong direction due to RF reflections from objects like buildings.
To illustrate, during the Tokyo 2020 Olympics opening ceremony, 1,824 Intel Premium drones created intricate geometric shapes and the Tokyo 2020 emblem in the airspace above the venue. In such a complex aerial environment, with traditional counter-drone systems in place, and an unauthorized drone entering the airspace, identifying it among the authorized ones would have been extremely challenging.
Technology based on jamming can immobilize or redirect drones but has significant drawbacks. It can hinder legitimate communications and other electronic devices, potentially causing more harm than good in densely populated areas. What’s more, jamming is only temporary, with the pilot able to reassert control.
Relying only upon kinetic methods, such as police drones equipped with nets to capture hostile drones can be impractical in a crowded environment and may pose a risk of injury from a falling drone or debris.
In urban environments, maintaining a clear line of sight for detection is a significant challenge. Buildings, structures, and the dense city layout can obstruct some systems, reducing their efficiency. Often, you cannot attempt to deny an approaching drone until it’s already in a critical zone. This limitation means that even with advanced detection technologies, response time may be insufficient to effectively neutralize the threat.
To overcome these challenges, more advanced strategies are necessary. RF Cyber-Takeover technology stands out as a promising solution. This non-kinetic approach can distinguish between authorized and unauthorized drones, effectively taking control of the latter to secure the airspace over stadiums. It neutralizes the threat without the additional risks associated with physical mitigation methods.
Securing stadiums during major events is a complex challenge that requires advanced strategies and technologies. Understanding the vulnerabilities and limitations of different systems is essential to develop effective mitigation plans. Learn more about different mitigation measures to secure the safety and security of all attendees.
The commercial drone industry has revolutionized efficiency and safety across numerous sectors. However, this versatility also presents a growing concern: the potential misuse of drones by both careless and nefarious operators to either target or disrupt critical infrastructure is a real threat. To counter this evolving threat, robust counter-drone technology has emerged as a crucial layer of security.
So, how can this technology fortify critical infrastructure security and safeguard essential operations?
In safeguarding critical infrastructure, counter-drone technology has the potential to become an invaluable tool, offering robust defense against diverse threats posed by unauthorized and malicious drone activities. These threats can be multifaceted, ranging from disrupting essential services and causing physical damage to compromising sensitive information. By integrating advanced detection, identification, and mitigation systems, this counter-drone technology can establish a formidable shield against these potential disruptions and damages.
As airspace becomes more congested and drone applications more diverse, the ability to swiftly detect, accurately identify, and effectively mitigate threats becomes paramount for the protection of critical infrastructure. Even more critical is the requirement to distinguish between truly threatening drones versus those being legitimately employed in and around the sites by authorized operators. Advanced counter-drone measures enhance operational security, safeguarding continuity, and integrity amidst escalating aerial threats. Effective counter-drone technology must also be agile and adaptable, enhancing resilience against an evolving threat landscape.
Commercially available drones can be easily used by nefarious operators to gather information on security within establishments, tracking security patrol movements and identifying alarm systems. Drones repurposed for malicious intent and equipped with destructive payloads pose a significant threat to critical infrastructure. Readily available drones can too easily be transformed into instruments of terrorism or sabotage. Even seemingly small attacks can disrupt essential services and endanger public safety. Damage to a power grid can cause widespread blackouts, crippling communication networks and leaving households without electricity. Similarly, a strike on a water treatment plant could contaminate water supplies, triggering public health crises. Such attacks would not only compromise the physical integrity of structures but also endanger the security and well-being of the communities they serve.
In such cases, counter-drone systems are urgently needed to neutralize threats before they can reach their targets. Non-kinetic systems, for example, utilize a combination of radio frequency, advanced sensors, RF technology, and AI to identify threats from a distance. They analyze unique identifiers such as the drone’s make, model, serial number, and other factors allowing for accurate differentiation between authorized and unauthorized drones. Upon detection, these systems can take control of the drone, guiding it to a safe landing zone. Such systems could be vital in sensitive environments like those related to critical infrastructure, where safety and precision are crucial.
Drones, possessing the ability to hover unnoticed and maneuver at various altitudes, serve as adept tools for data collection. Enhanced by features like high-resolution cameras, thermal imaging, and other sensing technologies, they can capture detailed visual and structural data from even heavily secured areas. While these capabilities make drones valuable tools for many applications, they also raise serious concerns about security. The potential for drones to infiltrate sensitive zones and gather confidential information poses significant risks to the security of critical infrastructure. The growing sophistication of drone technology, including miniaturization that makes them even harder to detect, necessitates a robust counter-drone strategy to protect critical infrastructure, sensitive environments, and national interests.
Cyber-centric counter-drone technology, equipped with high-precision tracking capabilities, can play a pivotal role in addressing the espionage threat from drones. By taking control of the communication channels with the drone, these systems have the capacity to effectively mitigate such activities.
Furthermore, some counter-drone systems possess the capability to quickly determine its source or take-off location, facilitating swift law enforcement action to identify and apprehend perpetrators engaged in unauthorized activities, when allowed by local law and regulations.
Drones that erroneously deviate from their intended course or lack proper control pose significant risks, particularly if they were to collide with critical infrastructure like telecommunications towers, electrical substations, or aircraft. These collisions can result in immediate physical damage and could potentially lead to widespread service disruptions, affecting communications, power distribution, and transportation.
The risk of such incidents is even more acute in densely populated urban environments or heavily industrialized areas where airspace congestion and critical infrastructure co-exist. Misguided drones may inadvertently collide with vital assets due to factors like operator error or technical malfunctions.
In such scenarios, kinetic counter-drone methods may be inappropriate and/or otherwise not allowed since they may potentially exacerbate accidents and disruptions, such as debris fallout or interruptions to authorized activities. Hence, the adoption of drone mitigation technology that does not contribute to the collateral damage risk, as well as managing unauthorized drones without compromising the surrounding environment or public safety is imperative.
The threats to critical infrastructure from nefarious drones have been amplified over the last few years and innovative technologies, such as non-kinetic, RF sensor based types of systems are developing to meet this threat. Policy makers are starting to gradually adopt regulations to evolve such that those tasked with the protection of these sites can acquire and effectively use non-kinetic, RF Cyber solutions to keep these facilities and structures safe and secure. For critical infrastructure to remain safe and secure, regulations should adapt to put the tools into the hands of those tasked with keeping not only the physical sites, but the skies over them safe and secure from terrorist threats.
As drone technology swiftly advances, examining past incidents is key to foreseeing upcoming challenges and seizing new opportunities. Past drone mishaps have highlighted weaknesses in the security of vital facilities, leading to necessary enhancements. By looking at these historical trends, we can predict potential threats. Such insights are crucial for creating strong defense strategies and encouraging safe drone operations.
The real-life incidents gathered in this updated drone incident tracker are useful to consider when refining readiness and response strategies. Data can be sorted by date, location, and sector, such as that for Critical Facilities and Infrastructure.
Drones, with their rapidly advancing design and functionality, could potentially become the weapon of choice for terrorists seeking to conduct targeted attacks with minimal personal risk. These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be easily acquired and modified for malicious purposes, offering an unprecedented level of accessibility and anonymity.
As drones grow more sophisticated, more accessible, and less expensive, their capacity for high-impact attacks increases, and there is an urgent need for robust anti-drone protection measures to advance airspace security.
This article explores the challenges related to drone technology’s use for terrorism and the development of countermeasures and regulations to mitigate risks.
Since their initial use in warfare, drones have become the “Poor Mans Air Force” as they are consistently evolving and coupled with 3D printing to provide the capacity to carry diverse types of dangerous payloads, significantly heightening their threat level. Their affordability, along with the availability of open-source software and instructional content online, enables even financially constrained groups to utilize these technologies, expanding the reach and impact of drone terrorism.
Additionally, advancements in drone range, speed, and payload capacities, have enhanced attack lethality. The integration of AI into drone operations poses further risks, facilitating precision attacks and potentially aiding in cyber-attacks.
Drones’ capacity for anonymity and minimizing direct engagement makes them highly attractive for malicious purposes:
Terrorists exploit drones to gather intelligence on critical infrastructures, troop movements, and civilian gatherings, all while avoiding the risk of direct exposure. This intelligence is vital for planning strategic attacks and evading law enforcement detection. As illustrated in the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) drones were used in planning and carrying out the initial attacks.
This is more so prevalent over harbors and airfields where nefarious drone operators can now monitor the status of ships and aircraft line status, all from ranges outside of the protective zones imposed by fence lines around these secure facilities.
Drones have been observed being used by hostile actors to identify and track workers and supervisors at various sites around the globe. By flying near sensitive facilities, they can obtain information with impunity, allowing them to further exploit potential vulnerabilities.
Drones armed with explosives or other harmful agents allow terrorists to target strategic locations remotely, bypassing conventional security measures. These attacks can be swift and potentially unexpected, complicating national defense strategies. Furthermore, terrorists have the capability to utilize multiple drones, and from unexpected locations, evading traditional air defenses. Techniques like swarm drone strikes are particularly disruptive as they can overwhelm air defense systems, facilitating subsequent attacks and significantly elevating the security challenge.
Not all drones need to be fully weaponized to have this impact. The use of agricultural drones, flying over a crowd, dispersing an ostensibly harmless inert product (baby powder, for example), could cause panic that could have a significant impact on hundreds or thousands of people.
Across the globe, nefarious operators are using drones to hamper the efforts of police and public safety officials. In several instances, drones operated by malicious operators at protests have been recorded attempting to attack police drones with their own drones and to track police and public safety official’s movements. The intent is clear – force the police drones to either crash (obtaining a media headline of “Police Drone Crashes – Injures Five”) or to leave the scene, thereby allowing the protestors to operate with impunity.
Furthermore, the psychological impact of drones significantly contributes to their effectiveness as terror tools. The uncertainty and potential invisibility of drone attacks create a pervasive atmosphere of fear and helplessness among civilians. This psychological distress is a strategic tool for terrorists, aiming to disrupt everyday life and create an environment of continuous fear, which can be as debilitating as physical attacks. The unpredictable nature of drone threats forces governments and security forces to remain on high alert, thus straining resources and diverting attention from other security needs.
The use of drones in terrorism and warfare has surged, posing new challenges for global security and forcing countries to adapt to this emerging threat with drones potentially used as a potent addition to large-scale terrorist strategies.
There are many incidents that highlight the significant role drone technology plays in modern conflict and terrorism. All of them underscore the urgent need for advanced defensive measures and a unified international cooperation and law enforcement anti-drone protection strategy to counteract these threats effectively.
A variety of approaches and technologies have been developed to address the complex challenges posed by malicious drone activities. These strategies are essential for safeguarding against sophisticated threats in the evolving landscape of drone use.
The rapid evolution of drone technology has necessitated the development of sophisticated anti-drone systems. EnforceAir2 by D-Fend Solutions represents a leap forward in emerging technologies for counterterrorism, offering a sophisticated RF cyber-takeover solution that addresses the multifaceted challenges posed by DIY and commercially available drones used for hostile purposes.
A significant advantage of EnforceAir2 is its non-jamming, non-kinetic technology, which can operate beyond line-of-sight. This approach avoids collateral damage, disruption, and disturbance, preserving communications and operational continuity. Such features are critical in sensitive environments where maintaining the integrity of surrounding operations is paramount.
EnforceAir2’s technology is designed to provide end-to-end detection and mitigation, providing situational awareness, securing operational continuity, and contributing to safe, controlled outcomes. The system detects, locates, and identifies hostile drones in protected airspace. It then neutralizes the threat by taking control of the drone and safely landing it in a predefined zone. Furthermore, EnforceAir2, with its advanced technology, can identify the location of the drone operator, allowing for ground assets to deal with the operator, while the EnforceAir2 system contends with the drone.
Given the transboundary nature of drone operations and the potential for cross-border security threats, international cooperation is crucial. Collaborative efforts can lead to the sharing of best practices, joint deployment of counter-UAV technologies, and synchronization of operational frameworks to effectively manage the global drone landscape. Key stakeholders from government agencies, technology and solution provider companies, and academia should collaborate to address these challenges comprehensively.
In the meantime, D-Fend Solutions continues to track real-world drone incidents, participates in numerous industry events, and develops next-gen airspace protection management to address this serious issue.
The rapid advancement of drone technology has fundamentally reshaped airspace dynamics, with UAVs finding applications across a myriad of sectors. This proliferation, however, brings with it a multifaceted and evolving threat to national security, particularly at sensitive sites along U.S. borders, military installations, and critical domestic infrastructure.
These agile and versatile devices have become tools for nefarious activities, bypassing traditional security measures with ease – an issue that doesn’t seem to be slowing down. In fact, In fact, there are over 1,000 drone incursions into U.S. airspace that occur from the southern border every month.
Such developments starkly accentuate the urgent need to address this security vulnerability and deploy effective counter-UAS solutions.
The challenge lies in implementing these countermeasures in a manner that is both safe and secure. The crux of the solution rests within the development and deployment of counter-UAS technologies designed to address and mitigate the risks posed by unauthorized drones with careful consideration to minimize collateral impacts on surrounding environments and populations.
This article delves into the intricacies of this pressing issue, exploring the balance between effective countermeasures and the imperative to minimize collateral impacts.
The U.S. border has witnessed a surge in illegal drone incursions facilitating the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the country. The agility of drones, traversing rugged terrain and evading detection, exposes vulnerabilities in border security. Drones also pose a threat to national security by enabling espionage on law enforcement and military operations, potentially compromising personnel and infrastructure via reconnaissance used for planning precision strikes.
The threat extends beyond military and border security to vital national infrastructure. Critical sectors such as power generation, water treatment, communications, and transportation are increasingly vulnerable to drone attacks. Drone strikes targeting these infrastructures could potentially lead to widespread service outages that could cripple essential services and have devastating repercussions on the economy, public safety, and overall national security.
Given the complex nature of these threats, there is a pressing need to implement robust countermeasures. A range of counter-UAS solutions are available for authorized personnel to address the drone threat effectively. However, their suitability varies across different environments, influenced by the potential for collateral damage associated with their use.
Kinetic or physical shooting options represent a very wide range of methods, including, for example, net guns and intelligent shooters. These may risk harming bystanders and damaging property in densely populated areas. Similarly, jamming, spoofing, and other electronic warfare-based technologies might unintentionally disrupt essential systems, creating a cascade of safety concerns that affect not only hostile drones but also authorized operations in the vicinity.
In contrast to the traditional counter-UAS solutions mentioned above, low or no collateral options offer a targeted, proportionate, and cost-effective approach to mitigating drone threats. These systems equip authorized security personnel with the ability to mitigate hostile drones quickly and effectively with lower risks to bystanders, infrastructure, and the environment.
Unlike kinetic or jamming methods, EnforceAir2‘s cyber-takeover technology avoids collateral damage and disruption to surrounding communications and electronic systems. Its versatility makes it suitable for a broad range of environments, including urban areas and critical infrastructure, effectively safeguarding these areas without impacting non-targeted electronics or causing unintended consequences.
The recognition of the urgent need for low or no-collateral effect counter-UAS Solutions is widespread among defense, homeland security, and law enforcement operators. These sectors are acutely aware of the sophisticated array of drone threats and the critical gaps in defensive capabilities. In response, significant investment has been made in the research and development (R&D) of counter UAS technologies. This R&D phase is crucial for advancing the technological capabilities needed to address the evolving drone threats effectively and with minimal damage.
In addition to the research and development updating policy implementation initiatives is imperative – especially regarding low collateral counter-UAS solutions. The swift adoption of these systems into operational use is essential to bridge the ever-growing gap between drone capabilities and appropriate defense solutions while empowering authorized security personnel to effectively counter the evolving threat posed by dangerous drones.
As the threat landscape evolves, so too must our approach to national security. The deployment of low or no collateral counter-UAS Solutions represents a pivotal advancement in the ongoing battle for creating safe airspace.
The future of airspace security hinges on developing and deploying counter-UAS solutions that are not only effective but also sustainable and low collateral.
For a deeper understanding and evaluation of counter-UAS solutions, check out these Detection Technologies and Mitigation Technologies white papers.
The drone threat landscape is constantly evolving.
From the battlefield all the way to our own neighborhoods, keeping the skies safe and confronting the misuse of commercial drones is a dynamic challenge.
Just over the last year, for example, there have been countless improvised attacks on military forces, as well as smuggling attempts at prisons and across borders, cases of harassment of civilians, and outright attacks, all using commercially available drones.
Although these may seem like small-scale, tactical-level incidents, they have a strategic-level impact that ripples outward into a wide variety of sectors. The misuse and weaponization of commercially available drones are threats to airspace, the safety of civilians and ground personnel, and the continuity of daily life and ongoing operations.
All over the world, governments, militaries, law enforcement, and other organizations are working to confront the issue with counter unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) solutions.
There are a variety of solutions on offer, including those based on optical, radar, kinetic, jamming, and cyber technologies. Each has its unique set of advantages and disadvantages.
In conducting a proper “due diligence” when working to choose a solution, there is a distinct danger of “analysis paralysis” that can contribute to delays in procurement and deployment.
There’s also a real danger of being caught “off guard” while searching and waiting for the perfect solution to come.
It would be prudent to adopt a cyber-centric C-UAS solution as the first step of a multilayer defense because starting with cyber brings an approach that puts safety, control, and continuity first and foremost in safeguarding airspace from rogue drones, which is especially relevant for sensitive civilian environments that have more constraints and focus on safety.
Additionally, for the military sector (as well as other sectors), starting with cyber gives you more situational awareness and allows for more informed decision making, depending on the particular attributes of the specific drone threat.
With these objectives of safety, control, continuity, and situational awareness firmly in place, other detection and mitigation technologies can be added and integrated to give additional options for various scenarios, to capture additional data, and to allow for escalating responses to various threats from different drone dangers.
For example, some security professionals have advocated an approach in which, once the need for mitigation is established, the first attempt would be a cyber-based surgical method, to allow for safety and continuity, while jamming and even kinetic would still be available, if needed.
From what I’ve seen over the last few years while working in the industry, for most organizations, it’s better to “jump in” and implement a good C-UAS solution now, rather than waiting for a “perfect” solution to come later. Especially when considering the evolving nature of the drone threat, there probably will never be an absolutely perfect solution.
In the meantime, in the world of C-UAS, there are some key decision-making fundamentals to keep in mind:
Whatever C-UAS solution is chosen, the capabilities need to be on a path of continual evolution. For that, customers need their C-UAS solution provider to have the capacity to deal with evolving challenges, no matter how great. So, for that reason, a big part of the C-UAS solution evaluation should focus on the company and include:
There may even be other criteria to add to the list, depending on sector specifics.
Regardless, it’s important to keep in mind that, when you buy the product, you also buy a partnership with this solution provider.
In the meantime, it’s important to get started, to begin to actually build/deploy/implement the foundations (building blocks) of a layered/comprehensive solution now to “close the majority of gaps” existing today.
In C-UAS, just like other industries, no matter how imperfect, something, most often, is better than nothing… and, the right cyber-C-UAS system can close operational gaps and serve as the foundation for a multi-layered C-UAS system solution over time.
Drone technology has advanced dramatically since its inception, and the proliferation of drones buzzing around urban environments is surging. From optimizing logistical operations to capturing breathtaking aerial visuals, drones have increasingly become part of everyday life.
Yet, alongside these great applications and advancements, there has also been a concerning increase in misuse. In sensitive urban settings, the rise in bad actors exploiting drones has highlighted the pressing need for sophisticated Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) to identify, track, and mitigate the threats posed by unauthorized drone activities.
However, implementations of C-UAS measures in urban environments present unique challenges that warrant further exploration into the intricate dynamics of implementing C-UAS solutions in these environments, as well as associated opportunities.
The dense architectural landscape of urban areas introduces significant obstacles for C-UAS operations. Skyscrapers and high-rise buildings create a challenging environment for the deployment of radar and electro-optical sensors. These C-UAS technologies rely heavily on unobstructed lines of sight for effective drone detection and tracking, which many high-rise buildings can severely impede.
Further, the urban jungle exacerbates the sensitivity of radars to signal interference through refractions and reflections of the surfaces of buildings. In areas dominated by tall buildings, radars can receive multiple signals from a single object, emanating from different directions. This issue not only undermines the efficiency of C-UAS measures but also increases the risk of false positives—incorrectly identifying non-threatening objects as potential drone threats.
The imperative to operate reliably despite urban obstructions has led to the development of more advanced detection capabilities. RF Cyber technology from D-Fend Solutions is a prime example of this innovation, capable of operating effectively even in scenarios where optical tracking is not viable, thus contributing to a robust defense against drone threats.
In addition to enabling the accurate detection of unauthorized drones within the airspace, C-UAS technology from D-Fend Solutions provides for RF Cyber-Takeover, which is particularly crucial in urban areas teeming with various drones because it supports the ability to safely and surgically target only those drones that potentially present an actual threat. Consequently, this C-UAS technology with RF Cyber-Takeover capability allows the undisturbed flow of drone operations, greatly reducing the incidence of false positives and maintaining the safety and security of urban airspace.
Addressing the complexities of urban settings is vital for the successful deployment of C-UAS. In these environments, businesses, critical infrastructure, and people in general depend on communication networks and electronic systems to function.
Even with the best of intentions, some C-UAS technologies can unintentionally disrupt crucial systems. For instance, employing drone jamming techniques to disable unauthorized drones may also disrupt key communication networks, potentially affecting both essential services and the operation of authorized drones. Similarly, GNSS spoofing techniques pose their own set of challenges, potentially leading to misdirection in vehicle navigation and increasing the likelihood of accidents and traffic tie-ups.
Kinetic counter-drone measures, while offering a direct means of neutralizing drone threats, present significant challenges in densely populated environments. These solutions, which employ projectiles or nets to physically disable drones, can result in collateral damage when the disabled drone falls to the ground or if the projectile deviates from its intended trajectory. This risk is particularly concerning around critical infrastructure, where even minor damage can have significant consequences.
Therefore, C-UAS operations must be designed and implemented with precision and caution, and without causing collateral damage.
Facing these challenges, the adoption of C-UAS technology with advanced capabilities becomes crucial. Within this realm, RF Cyber-Takeover technology, such as that provided by EnforceAir2, stands out as an exemplary solution. It provides end-to-end detection and mitigation for situational awareness, operational continuity, and safe, controlled outcomes.
EnforceAir focuses on the RF communications between the pilot’s remote controller and the drone and then intervenes with it, taking over command of the drone. It then directs the drone to a safe landing site. Its non-jamming, non-kinetic, surgical approach to controlling drone threats significantly lowers the risk of affecting other electronic devices and critical urban infrastructure, supporting the protection and continuity of urban life without unintended consequences.
The deployment of C-UAS in urban environments is far from straightforward. There’s a complex web of regulations to navigate, ranging from airspace governance to electromagnetic frequency management. Security teams are tasked with the delicate balance of conducting C-UAS operations while remaining compliant with relevant counter-drone-related legislation.
Moreover, the fast-paced advancements of modern drone technology often outpace the development of corresponding laws and regulations, creating a scenario where legal frameworks are constantly trying to catch up with technological developments. This gap becomes particularly pronounced with the advent of artificial intelligence-enabled drones, compelling C-UAS systems to adapt swiftly. Yet, these necessary adaptations must navigate the constraints of pre-existing legal frameworks.
The complexities associated with regulatory and legal compliance for C-UAS operations, while challenging, offer a pivotal opportunity to utilize innovative solutions like EnforceAir2. This technology distinguishes itself by adeptly addressing the complexities of C-UAS deployment in urban settings with adherence to relevant regulatory standards. The adaptability of EnforceAir2 allows it to effectively address emerging drone threats with current legal frameworks, providing a proactive approach to urban security challenges.
EnforceAir was deployed and tested at Syracuse Hancock International Airport and Atlantic City International Airport as part of the FAA’s Airport UAS Detection and Mitigation Research Program. This program aims to verify that technologies developed for detecting and mitigating drone threats do not interfere with the National Airspace System’s safe and efficient operation. The participation of D-Fend Solutions in such programs underscores its commitment to safe operations in such environments and its positive engagement with regulators in preparing for the drone-empowered future. As policymakers work towards developing more flexible and future-proof regulatory frameworks, technologies like EnforceAir2 play a crucial role in bridging the gap between current capabilities and future needs.
Explore the potential technology from D-Fend Solutions for your urban security needs and take the next step towards secure, compliant airspace management in urban environments.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a game-changer across many industries, revolutionising the way we conduct our lives, and the drone industry is certainly seen as an early adopter of AI technology enhancements.
The integration of AI technology within commercial drones has unlocked unparalleled possibilities across multiple industry sectors including agriculture, surveillance & security, and logistics as well as search & rescue operations. AI has truly empowered drones with an ability to operate with enhanced autonomy and intelligence within complex environments. The weaponisation of AI empowered drones is also now firmly established as a military capability and we need look no further than Ukraine to see credible and indeed deadly examples of this technology in use.
So, an important question is, what are the most effective countermeasure options? How do we stop a hostile AI enabled drone attack in, say, city centres??
Well, thank goodness for jamming technology, right?
In truth, jamming by itself is quickly becoming less effective as a drone mitigation capability, and I’ll explain why. Jamming is the intentional transmission of powerful RF signals that cause interference with communication signals and disrupt the control link in some way between, in this case, the drone and its pilot. The rapid pace of drone AI technology development, however, could enable AI drones to possibly circumvent the effect of RF jamming signals.
To defend against the effects of jamming, modern drone software could possibly include AI algorithms that analyse, interpret, and categorise incoming signals, allowing them to detect the presence of jamming signals and take evasive action. AI-enabled drones could thereby adapt to
these changing environments and dynamically adjust.
AI enhanced drones could achieve this through advanced signal analysis capabilities enabling them to differentiate between normal communication and jamming signals. By analysing the frequency, power and patterns of incoming signals, AI algorithms could classify and identify jamming attempts with ever increasing accuracy. This classification would allow the drone to respond dynamically and autonomously change their flight path to bypass or even fly though RF jamming interference. What could this mean for the future of C-UAS?
By leveraging AI algorithms for signal analysis and dynamic route planning, drones can effectively detect, avoid, or fly through jamming signals. This ensures their uninterrupted operation on route to mission success, be that hostile or otherwise.
This represents an emerging threat, and the mitigation pendulum has already swung away from more traditional technologies. There are already reports of AI-enabled drones attempting to outmanoeuvre law enforcement agencies’ direct RF jamming operations, and we can only expect AI technology to grow exponentially in this area. RF jamming could rapidly become subordinate to modern mitigation technology capable of staying ahead of rapidly evolving software driven technology, such as AI.
It’s time to rapidly reevaluate effective drone mitigation tools within the C-UAS toolbox and in Part 2 of this blog we’ll do just that: What is the role of software-based cyber mitigation solutions capable of taking full control of even the most sophisticated AI enhanced drones?
Last month, I had the pleasure of attending the IDGA Counter-UAS USA Summit in Alexandria, VA. The event featured many impressive speakers, including US Army officers and government officials. I was honored to be invited to participate in the Department of Defense (DoD) and Industry Panel discussion about capability gaps and future requirements.
The panel included impressive experts in the field, and I had the opportunity to discuss critical issues such as how to improve the effectiveness of counter-UAS detection and mitigation solutions, and how we can address current and future C-UAS requirements to address the increasing threat from hostile drones. As IDGA highlighted on the event website, the “rapid proliferation of UAS has been one of the most unsettling tactical advancements on the battlefield in recent years.” 
There were great and relevant questions during our panel as well as throughout the conference, and I had the opportunity to share my views on how to address these challenges and learn more about the situation from the speakers, my co-panelists and attendees. Let’s dig into some of the most relevant topics we discussed throughout the two-day event:
Military forces have understood for some time now the gravity of the asymmetrical drone threat. Terrorist groups have long been using commercial drones that could be easily obtained online. Explosive devices may be attached to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), transforming drones into remotely piloted bombs. Many commentators have correctly characterized these adapted commercial drones as “the new flying IEDs.” A few hundred dollars of electronics and a commercial drone can directly impact a million-dollar piece of military equipment, not to mention the risk to life.
Over the years, the situation has worsened, as commercial (off-the-shelf or adapted) and do-it-yourself (built from off-the-shelf components) drones continue to be employed in asymmetrical warfare against conventional forces. Drone threats to military units go beyond terror attacks, as they are also used to collect intelligence on troop movements, formations, and bases.
One drawback in countering the asymmetrical drone threat is that kinetic or jamming solutions preclude obtaining intelligence from captured drones. “Unmasking” is also a risk with some C-UAS technologies, and jamming may also disrupt critical communications. These are some of the factors that are making military units look at new generation technologies that can deal with the asymmetric threat created by commercially-based drones, such as RF Cyber-takeover, as a key part of their C-UAS arsenal.
A more robust, layered defense concept for C-UAS is key to strengthening the homeland’s ability to defeat multi-faceted threats from rogue drones. With cross-agency and industry cooperation towards such a layered defense approach, more robust protection will arise, as different but complementary technologies can work together to provide a broader and deeper defense to deal with multiple vector threats.
A cyber-centric approach as the core component in a multiple technology counter-drone defense brings unique advantages including fuller control and safety, the possibility of capturing the drone, and associated intelligence, and the preservation of continuity. Cyber technology can complement traditional C-UAS technologies, including radar for detection, and jamming or kinetic for mitigation as they too will play a role in a multi-layered defense strategy with a single, integrated view. Such a simplified, synergistic approach provides expanded security capabilities for C-UAS solutions, leading to optimized airspace protection, and addressing a wider range of drone threats. Multiple detection and mitigation options provide an in-depth defense mechanism, which can be activated according to situation and security considerations. A layered, less disruptive, more advanced technological approach provides a broad spectrum of options for military, law enforcement, and infrastructure protection, even as the lethality and variety of drones continue to evolve.
Drone threats will always vary significantly by mission, use case and environment, so forces and organizations must carefully evaluate their specific needs. In many cases, it’s best to preserve flexibility and agility since the drone threat can be unpredictable.
Systems must offer multiple deployment options, gaining optimized coverage for a wide variety of scenarios, conditions, and terrain types. Cyber solutions, for example, can be affixed to vehicles or ships, covertly, if necessary, set up as stationary on low or high ground, or taken into the field for tactical use. Hardware should be lightweight and compact, with the ability to rapidly take it apart, move and reassemble it in minutes.
Focusing on safety, control, and continuity, with an innovative and flexible approach towards continuously advancing our counter-UAS solutions, enables us to always stay a drone threat ahead.
The constantly broadening range of Counter-Drone (C-UAS) Detection and Mitigation Technologies available today makes an efficient assessment incredibly challenging. Each technology is different in terms of relevance for various environments, scenarios, and use cases. Both well-established legacy methods, as well as newer innovations and techniques, warrant deep investigation to provide thorough decision support for C-UAS system acquisition processes.
While plenty of such comparisons have been published and are readily available, what has been lacking in many of these summaries is focused attention on the special requirements of sensitive and civilian environments, as C-UAS threats have extended from the military sphere to urban and other environments that have very different requirements, with special attention needed to achieve control, safety and continuity.
In addition, recent technologies have emerged with vastly different approaches and capabilities that should be considered in the mix.
Finally, each technology field has within it specialized segments and sub-segments. This level of detail needs to be thoroughly addressed rather than making oversimplifications for broad technology segments.
In this context, and bringing a new and fresh perspective, these two white papers on counter-drone (C-UAS) detection and mitigation consider today’s sensitive environments for C-UAS deployments, the latest technologies, and present detailed looks at segments within the various counter-drone technologies.
These white papers lay out detailed overviews of the various counter-drone detection and mitigation options, including descriptions, primary uses, strengths, challenges, and operational considerations.
From a best practice perspective, the core issue is always which counter-drone detection and/or mitigation technology will be the most suitable for the particular use case, scenario, sector, and environment. Responsible decision makers will of course seek to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each detection and mitigation technology, to support thorough deliberations and research regarding which technology option will satisfy very specialized needs.
These papers also discuss operational considerations relating to how security agencies that are allowed to utilize C-UAS technologies should be cognizant of how regulatory and environmental considerations can affect these technologies in the field.
Ultimately, adoption of a multi-layered detection and mitigation technology can support the success of countermeasures for the varied nature of the rogue drone threat, with a holistic approach for safer airspace.
Read and compare with this new take on C-UAS technologies and concepts!
As drone usage continues to thrive offering a variety of benefits to different sectors around the world, the potential threats caused by rogue drone operators or inexperienced pilots also continue to grow, leading to dangerous and life-threatening situations. Such threats manifest themselves in weaponized attacks, collisions into crowds or critical infrastructure, disruptions and delays, contraband smuggling into prisons or across borders, and even espionage. The cost of these threats can be enormous, in economic terms, including revenue losses totaling millions of dollars (eventually passed to the consumer), or in damage to property, or even human safety.
At the heart of D-Fend Solutions’ mission, there are four core concepts: control, safety, focus, and future-readiness, behind its unique cyber counter-drone system that ensures continuity. With these concepts as a foundation, there are two capabilities required when addressing drone threats today: agility and connectivity.
Operational agility and flexibility are critical elements in a counter-drone environment, as it enables the system to be quick and to be easily transferred, mounted and configured, to address any unexpected threats. With agility, end users can rapidly adapt to different environments, conditions, and terrain types by deploying mobile or tactical units to areas that have the most impact on the situation and protect the focus of the mission. Agility is critical. Stopping ongoing or potential UAS attacks and denying drone incursions over critical assets in every adversarial conflict, intended or otherwise, the adversary has a vote in the fight. In this regard, the operational flexibility, such as that offered by D-Fend, provides the end-user with the ability to adapt and learn from each incident and continue to deny the rogue operator the ability to maintain unimpeded air access.
In today’s connected and congeste
d sphere, as we become increasingly reliant on technology, decision-makers demand the most accurate and timely information when making decisions. This is no less true in counter-drone operations. With the right connectivity (such as that provided by D-Fend Solutions’ Multi-Sensor Command & Control system – MSC2), it is possible to control multiple sensors remotely from a single server, empowering organizations to intuitively safeguard vast expanses of land from rogue drones and quickly scale up for virtually any operational requirements. This is particularly necessary when large areas are defended, as multiple UAS detections of the same drone are displayed as a single track, and not as a swarm situation, removing false alarms. Providing the end user with a clear, easy to understand picture of their airspace removes end user information overload, and allows for rapid decisions based on real-time threat data overload.
By eliminating false alarms, end users can maintain vigilance despite prolonged deployments. Attention is focused on reacting only to real threats. Connectivity also plays a significant role when additional authorities are needed to mitigate a threat. Being in a connected world, one no longer must be in the physical location of the deployed system for accurate and timely information. Local authorities can monitor the situation at hand, while informing the mitigation authority about the ongoing threat. When the situation warrants, the appropriate authority can remotely connect to the system, and immediately receive the same, real-time picture of the deployed system. In conjunction with input from the local deployed unit, the mitigating authority can safely mitigate the threat while local law enforcement can conduct post-fight intelligence gathering or appropriate enforcement. This shows a synergistic approach to enforcement that is sensitive to the current issues surrounding enforcement, which is made possible by being truly connected.
At the end of the day, agility and connectivity are essential elements when looking at the ever-evolving risk of drone threats from malicious actors. D-Fend Solutions is continuously focused on identifying and researching the emergence of new threats, so that our current and future end users can maintain their agility and connectivity, denying any rogue drone the ability to affect our daily lives.
Safer airspace and safer outcomes.
Although it sounds like a weird question, truth is, there is some logic to it…
There are drones, and there are rogue drones. Commercial and DIY drone usage, regardless of how the drones are used, must adhere to relevant government regulations. A rogue drone is a drone gone bad, intentionally or just carelessly. Rogue drones represent a hazardous threat to society.
In recent interviews in Aviation Week and elsewhere, D-Fend Solutions’ CEO Zohar Halachmi has explained how the rising threat from hostile unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) demands increased protection of critical assets as well as pro-active prevention of associated collateral damage from their interception. While most counter-drone solutions see drones as “flying objects,” which need to be neutralized or taken down from the sky, cyber-takeover, D-Fend ‘s core technology, takes a different approach. The EnforceA
ir solution’s approach is, in some ways, analogous to confronting rogue drones as a technological virus – albeit a virus with wings
As with computer viruses, a rogue drone can cause disruption or catastrophe. A computer virus can damage an operation, by deleting, altering, or taking control of files, slowing down connectivity, destroying hardware, compromising passwords or other sensitive information, shutting down business, and more. Similarly, a rogue drone can assassinate, harass, or observe political leaders, conduct corporate espionage, sow mass terror, smuggle drugs into a prison or across borders, disrupt major events and endanger the airspace at airports. Even unintentional accidents can lead to adverse outcomes, such as collisions with people, power lines or moving vehicles.
Antivirus technology protects computers and networks from viruses or malware, and within this context, conducts various accurate and thorough processes. A counter-drone solution is similar in two main aspects:
Recognition and Threat Management:
An antivirus system scans files and programs to detect, neutralize and eradicate any malware, all while also making sure that other software is unaffected. Antivirus software is constantly updated to address any upcoming threats.
That’s similar to how RF cyber takeover counter-drone technology works. EnforceAir is constantly updated for the latest UAV protocols, which enables the system to quickly recognize drones and, if the drone is unauthorized, take over control of the threat without affecting authorized drones. As a counter-drone system developer, D-Fend continuously monitors and researches the latest developments in the field, to rapidly respond to any new drone threat. D-Fend’s multi-disciplinary R&D team is deeply committed to make sure to cover a range of environments and potential threats, watching for the potential threats that lie in wait.
Integration: A computer antivirus technology does not work alone, but rather complements other, additional security systems, such as firewalls, sensors, etc.
To better address the risks posed by a rogue drone D-Fend also can support a layered defense approach, integrating the solution with complementary technologies. This provides a wider, more comprehensive solution for airspace defense, electronic warfare, and cybersecurity.
By being able to quickly detect an unauthorized rogue drone, D-Fend’s EnforceAir can take control of such drones, without affecting authorized ones, or leading to any unnecessary, tragic outcome.
Drones are a game-changer – they bring many benefits to the world, enhancing operations across many fields and industries, such as entertainment, military and law enforcement, airspace, agriculture, and more. With EnforceAir, society can continue to take full advantage of authorized drones without unnecessary jeopardy. In a similar manner as we continue to enjoy our ‘computer lives’ with antivirus technology…
After all, continuity prevails.
There seems to be some confusion in the counter-drone space about the definitions of “cyber-takeover” and “spoofing.” I have even heard top industry experts, vendors and end users mixing up these terms.
Cyber-takeover and spoofing are NOT interchangeable, although they are mentioned often in the same context and have similarities. Spoiler alert: spoofing is basically a name for methods that are commonly used while performing cyber-attacks. In the C-sUAS sphere, it is often used as part of a defense tactic, either in standalone form, or as part of a more elaborate mitigation process. As an isolated method, spoofing does not offer nearly the same level of control or continuity for users as complete cyber-takeover.
Spoofing is a method of mimicking a transaction – whether the communication is IP, radio frequency or telephony-based – so it appears legitimate to the receiver. Such communications usually appear to originate from an expected source. Instead of containing data sent by the original entity, though, the received information is the data the spoofer has chosen to convey.
Some cyber-attack methods may include spoofing, combined with other methods, to coerce a target into functioning in a way that would make it vulnerable. The attackers can then use this vulnerability to complete the attack. However, spoofing can be used in a standalone fashion, making the target respond or act according to the spoofed information, without being part of a more elaborate cyber-attack – or in the case of C-sUAS, without a cyber-drone takeover.
If you make a drone “think” it is higher than it actually is, to give an example from the C-sUAS world, the drone will likely react by descending, in an attempt to reach its intended altitude. This can be repeated until the drone has touched down and stopped its engines.
The GNSS example involves broadcasting fake signals, without the cyber-control element – there is no takeover of the drone’s system.
Sidenote: in cases where the spoofed signal is relevant to parties other than the attacked entity, the consequences may expand beyond the desired effect of the attack and pose collateral risk. Broadcasting a fake GNSS signal, for example, could affect nearby cars or aircraft (as well as other drones) using GNSS-based navigation systems.
Effective counter-drone, radio frequency-based (RF), cyber-takeover solutions detect and then take control over rogue drones in the airspace. These types of systems neutralize the threat by allowing operators to take full control over the drone, lead it along a pre-defined safe path and land it in a pre-planned safe zone.
The reason it is necessary to distinguish between spoofing and cyber-takeover is because some people in the industry mistakenly think these two terms are the same, not fully understanding that takeover offers its users much greater control due to its cyber capabilities. This is important information for organizations evaluating potential C-sUAS systems.
Read about D-Fend’s counter-drone system.
The issue of cybersecurity is expanding and evolving in the drone and counter-drone spaces. Traditional cyber concerns in the drone world referred either to the vulnerability of drone data and operations to cyber-attack, or the role that drones can play in perpetrating cyber-attacks.
But nowadays, when it comes to cyber and drones, a new dimension has arisen. Offensive cyber techniques have proven to be an effective method for facilitating end-to-end rogue drone detection and controlled mitigation.
Let’s take a quick look at all three areas relating to cyber and drones.
The vulnerability of drones to cyberattack – such as when internal enterprise drones, or external supply chain partner drones, are hacked for nefarious purposes – has long been a concern. In 2011, an entire fleet of American unmanned aerial systems (UASs) were infected with a mysterious keylogger. In 2015, drug traffickers succeeded in hacking U.S. surveillance drones at the U.S. border, so they could bypass them and smuggle contraband into the U.S. These potential drone hacks remain a concern, with DroneDJ recently reporting that there is optimism that blockchain technology could help alleviate this worry.
A Booz Allen Hamilton report on cybersecurity highlighted the role that external drones could play in corporate or governmental espionage, sabotage and surveillance:
“The use of drones as rogue Wi-Fi access points may be one of the most simplistic yet effective tactics for targeting individuals. Drones equipped with a device like a Wi-Fi Pineapple can be placed in proximity to a targeted company and used to harvest credentials, perform man-in-the-middle attacks, and conduct network reconnaissance. Even users connected to legitimate company access points could conceivably be forced to connect to the drone’s Wi-Fi if the target’s network does not prevent forced de-authentications.”
The cyber conversation now extends beyond cybersecurity…to counter-drone, radio frequency-based (RF), cyber-drone takeover methods.
This is because takeover techniques have emerged and are being deployed as the centerpiece of an effective defense against unauthorized drones engaged in attack, smuggling or espionage.
Cyber-takeover systems detect and penetrate the unique communication signals used by commercial drones. Once detected, a cyber system can understand the drone identifiers with a classification process that distinguishes between hostile and friendly drones. Such a system can also determine the drone position with GPS accuracy, including the take-off position near the pilot in real-time.
During the mitigation process, the takeover process commences, and the pilot loses all control of the drone, including video and telemetry information, and cannot regain it.
The innovative benefits from cyber technology methods have changed the game – “cyber” is now an important part of the anti-drone security solution, rather than being a drone problem.
What do you think about when you hear the word “cyber” in relation to drones or counter-drone measures?
Please read about D-Fend Solutions’ anti-drone system and our solution for expanded perimeter protection against drones
D-Fend Solutions often leads discussions that encompass both detection and mitigation, due to our end-to-end full incident lifecycle capabilities. Sometimes, though, we find it useful to break up the discussion into separate capability stages. This month, we’re focusing on detection. Obviously, if you cannot detect a drone, you have a significantly reduced chance of effectively mitigating it, or of collecting intelligence on how to prevent future rogue drone incursions.
For detection requirements, organizations will often conduct a self-assessment: what is the surrounding environment like? (terrain, noise level, line-of-sight). What type of drones does the organization expect to be detecting most of the time? Which resources, assets and staff will be allocated to drone detection?
Following that assessment, it is important for an organization’s technology evaluators to review the fundamentals of counter-drone detection, including the pros and cons of each of the main detection technology types.
D-Fend Solutions’ new white note, Traditional Drone Detection Technologies vs. RF Cyber-Drone, reviews the various traditional counter-drone detection technologies: radars, electro-optical, directional finders and acoustic solutions. It then highlights the wide gap between these solutions and radio frequency (RF) based solutions that are integrated with cyber-takeover mitigation technology.
RF drone detection is not reliant on clear lines of sight, is not interfered by bad weather or acoustic noise, and even RF noise can easily be filtered out.
Four core concepts are at the heart of D-Fend Solutions’ product development, execution and roadmap: control, safety, focus and future-readiness. These ideas chart our mission and offer a superior counter-drone user experience for security agencies. By adhering to them, a fifth value objective, continuity, arises.
While traditional counter-small, unmanned aerial system (C-sUAS) technologies – based on radar, jamming and/or kinetic mitigation – can play a role in multi-layered defense strategies, these methods do not offer full control. They are less suitable for sensitive and challenging environments, due to the high risks of false positives, communication interference and disruption. With jamming-based solutions, operators can regain control of the rogue drone when the jamming ceases.
EnforceAir, D-Fend Solutions’ flagship C-sUAS product, features counter-drone, radio frequency (RF)-based, cyber-takeover technology. It empowers operators to disconnect the unauthorized drone from its remote control and take full control of the situation.
But merely controlling the situation temporarily is not enough…
A safe landing or fend-off of the rogue drone is the best possible outcome for airspace safety. A recent survey conducted by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement (IDGA), in conjunction with D-Fend Solutions, found that special forces and military, national and homeland security, law enforcement and personnel from other organizations strongly prefer a controlled outcome for rogue drone incidents.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of those surveyed said the best possible outcome of a threatening rogue drone incident is the takeover of the drone, followed by a safe landing in a designated zone. Twelve percent (12%) favor sending the drone back to its takeoff point, making a total of 75% favoring a controlled outcome over traditional methods.
The least desirable outcome among respondents was physically (kinetic) shooting down the drone with a projectile, such as a bullet, laser, net or drone-killing drone – with 7% selecting this as the best outcome. Only 17% favored jamming to disconnect the drone from its controller.
A focus on the real risk, dangerous drones, is also critical. An exhaustive effort to cover every possible drone, dangerous or not, can be a futile effort. Not all drones pose an equal threat. The focus should be on the most prevalent, dangerous drones that can carry heavy payloads, travel long distances and withstand difficult weather conditions. It does not make sense to apply disproportional investment and attention to the mitigation of smaller, toy-type drones that cannot travel long distances, outside of their Wi-Fi range, or carry heavy payloads, such as explosives.
Meanwhile, drones are becoming smaller, faster, harder to detect and more durable, with longer flight ranges and heavier payload capacities. They are also more affordable and accessible, with many beneficial applications for enterprises and organizations. We can expect unmanned aerial systems (UASs) to continue rapidly proliferating worldwide.
As the number of drones in use continues to expand, the threat of rogue drones is also constantly evolving, meaning that organizations in nearly every environment and scenario have to stay future-ready.
D-Fend Solutions is committed to foreseeing future drone threats. We relentlessly develop new capabilities to stay ahead and anticipate even the most unpredictable drone challenges, with an eye toward proactively building next-generation, optimal solutions for the coming dangers. Continuous software updates result in an up-to-date response to new drone models and DIY radio components.
By offering customers complete control and safety, along with a focus on dangerous drones and future-readiness, a fifth core value emerges: continuity.
The IDGA survey found that respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the importance of preserving operational and situational continuity. Nearly 9 out of 10 respondents (86%) say that while mitigating a rogue drone incident, it is very important to preserve continuity at the site.
Sixty-three percent (63%) have already experienced operational disruption from drone incidents and 77% expressed concern that a counter-drone system could possibly disable “friendly” drones during an unauthorized sUAS intrusion.
D-Fend Solution’s emphasis on the four key concepts ensures that EnforceAir avoids collateral damage, interference, disruption or disturbance. The solution transmits a precise and short signal that takes control over the rogue drone without interfering with other drones and communication signals. Continuity prevails as communications, commerce, transportation and everyday life smoothly proceed.
By letting the four concepts guide our decision-making, D-Fend has happily discovered that continuity is the resulting outcome of the new counter-drone equation.
As a child, I was fascinated by the poster in science class that showed zoological lifecycles. Seeing how an egg became a tadpole and then a tadpole transformed into a frog was fascinating. It’s the same thing regarding a caterpillar hatching from an egg, entering the chrysalis stage and then emerging as a beautiful butterfly.
Discussion of “lifecycles” isn’t confined to the natural world. This term is often applied to innovative technology.
Maybe it seems like a strange comparison, but D-Fend Solutions’ counter-drone incident lifecycle actually has much in common with the natural metamorphoses described above. Like those natural processes, each stage in D-Fend’s drone incident lifecycle is dependent upon the previous stage. For instance, our flagship counter-drone takeover system, EnforceAir, cannot locate and track a drone until it first detects the drone. Similarly, mitigation occurs only after the detection process is complete.
Also, during the process of the chrysalis, the caterpillar becomes immobile and is stripped down to its very essence. This immobility reminds me of one possible final stage of D-Fend’s lifecycle, when a rogue drone is taken over and landed in a pre-determined safe zone and the pilot is unable to connect with or move his inert drone.
Of course, there are many differences, too. Following chrysalis, a beautiful butterfly eventually emerges and flies away. D-Fend Solution’s takeover stage permanently grounds the captured drone.
Process flexibility is another important divergence. Barring an unforeseen circumstance, such as an attack from another animal, a tadpole will become a frog and most types of caterpillars change into butterflies – each stage is rigidly defined and fixed, the outcome is known.
Our EnforceAir system, in contrast, empowers system operators to choose how rogue drone incidents will conclude. It offers alternatives: either a fend-off, sending the rogue drone back to its point of origin, or a complete takeover, which ends with the drone flying a pre-determined route that culminates in a safe landing.
The importance of providing counter-drone system operators with a choice was validated when my recent article about fend-off and takeover, as well as all of the drone lifecycle steps, was published in Security Magazine.
Other, more traditional methods of counter-drone mitigation oftentimes do not allow system operators to choose the final outcome and these technologies cannot guarantee a positive conclusion to the drone incident lifecycle.
Jamming, for instance, may result in a variety of outcomes, with the drone either:
The surrounding environment must also be considered. Jamming can disrupt necessary communication systems in the area.
The use of a kinetic solution – such as bullets, lasers, nets, magnets, other drones, etc. – can successfully conclude the drone incident lifecycle in some instances. If the projectile misses the drone, though, the sUAS continues along its potentially destructive path and the projectile may cause collateral damage, depending on what it hits or where it lands. Unlike the caterpillar to butterfly metaphor, collateral damage is certainly not a beautiful ending to the counter-drone process.
Please check out D-Fend Solutions’ NEW:
Misleading claims about the counter-drone space continue to proliferate, particularly regarding radio frequency (RF)-based, takeover technology. There are a few reasons for these claims:
Let’s look at a few of these common assertions and how they relate to D-Fend Solutions’ experience in the field:
It’s been suggested that takeover systems cover and confront only a small portion of the drone threat.
But D-Fend Solutions already covers approximately 90 percent of the drone market and we keep expanding our coverage and improving our solution for better operational performance.
Additionally, D-Fend prioritizes drone threats and concentrates on the small, unmanned aerial systems (sUASs) most likely to cause significant harm. We employ drone risk analysis, assessment and prioritization that factor in drone prevalence, payload capacity and flight range. We benefit from a wide variety of customers across different sectors and geographies, which has yielded field-tested knowledge to hone this analysis.
If it were somehow possible to measure coverage of the actual threat, meaning the truly dangerous drones that actually threaten organizations across sectors, our coverage level would be even higher than 90 percent.
Another claim is that it takes too long for takeover vendors to address and confront new drone technology.
Touting traditional technologies’ speed to market is like bragging about rushing to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
Traditional counter-drone technologies are limited as the core component of a C-sUAS. When it comes to detection, radars can generate false positives and acoustic solutions may be ineffective in noisy environments.
Jamming-based solutions for mitigation can affect other radio communications, which could pose a problem for nearby broadcasts, or security personnel. And they do not provide full control, as drone operators can regain access to the drone when the jamming ends. Kinetic solutions can cause collateral damage and become ineffective when the drone is flying near its top speed, while optical solutions are ineffective without clear line-of-sight and are sensitive to weather conditions.
Takeover technology does require significant efforts and resources to develop and maintain, but the payoff is that it is significantly more effective and comprehensive, and safe. And we are constantly getting faster at confronting new drone frequencies and protocols.
The good news is that D-Fend Solutions has pioneered its leading takeover technology and it is already here.
The price point of takeover technologies is also occasionally discussed.
This reminds me of the famous adage, “You get what you pay for.”
The investment in D-Fend Solutions’ takeover technology has resulted in a comprehensive solution that can handle actual threats, permit authorized drones that underpin the modern economy and security efforts to keep functioning and offer unparalleled control to system operators, without disrupting their environments.
Traditional C-sUAS systems may claim to be cheaper if you compare single systems to each other. However, these traditional technologies are unable to provide any of the aforementioned benefits. And because traditional counter-drone solutions provide limited coverage, organizations usually must assemble a suite of products that are not pre-integrated, which makes the overall package less cost-efficient than an effective takeover system on a price-performance basis for the same coverage area. Such suites are also often less user-friendly and intuitive than a holistic, end-to-end solution.
No technology is perfect, but counter-drone takeover technology is poised to take over leadership of the space, regardless of some of the claims floating around.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ramped up its enforcement of drone safety violations, proposing over $341,000 in civil fines between ...
In a recent episode of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI) podcast, titled "Drones Are Here to Stay: The Proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
The booming popularity of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, has introduced a new layer of complexity for stadium security, especially during ...
In the ever-evolving landscape of security threats, critical infrastructure sites like nuclear facilities face an increasingly complex challenge: ...
Miniature unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAVs), categorized by the Department of Defense as Types 1 and 2, encompass a wide array of aerial systems ...
The soaring popularity of drones has ushered in a new era of convenience and innovation. However, their increasing presence has not come without its ...
Enhancing Modern Naval Defense Against the Ever-Present Drone Threat: The proliferation of commercially available drones, or Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
The commercial drone industry has revolutionized efficiency and safety across numerous sectors. However, this versatility also presents a growing concern: ...
The rapid proliferation of cheap commercial drones, particularly those manufactured by Chinese companies, is creating a significant security challenge for ...
Drones, with their rapidly advancing design and functionality, could potentially become the weapon of choice for terrorists seeking to conduct ...
The rapid advancement of drone technology has fundamentally reshaped airspace dynamics, with UAVs finding applications across a myriad of sectors. This ...
The drone threat landscape is constantly evolving. From the battlefield all the way to our own neighborhoods, keeping the skies safe and confronting ...
The swift evolution of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) has ushered in a wave of significant changes across numerous fields, from delivery logistics to ...
Drone technology has advanced dramatically since its inception, and the proliferation of drones buzzing around urban environments is surging. From ...
Weaponized drones may dominate war zone headlines, but a different aerial threat looms over the American homeland. The increasing availability of cheap, ...
As drone-related disruptions surge globally, it’s evident that traditional security measures are inadequate against the evolving threat posed by ...
When you think of drone incidents and airports what comes to mind? The Dublin Airport incidents? Or what about the Reagan Airport incident? While years ...
From airspace intrusions to surveillance to smuggling contraband, drones have become the tool of choice for different degrees of malicious activities. ...
This year was the 25 th edition of Intersec , a leading business event for safety and security, and it was a great opportunity for our team to ...
Conquer, Soar, and Roar! What an epic week in Athens, Greece, at D-Fend Solutions ’ SKO! Our 2024 Sales Kick-Off was a massive success, filled ...
Five years have passed since the infamous incident at Gatwick Airport. Since then, some airports around the world started to ‘arm’ themselves with ...
As part of my role at D-Fend Solutions, I track open-source drone incidents in the public domain, which makes for a revealing journey into the world of ...
When D-Fend announced the launch of EnforceAir2 a few months ago, the many benefits that the new system offers became very clear, including enhanced, ...
We recently had the opportunity to attend the AUSA 2023 Annual Meeting & Exposition , in Washington, DC. AUSA is an annual gathering that serves as ...
D-Fend Solutions has recently taken a transformative step, concurrent with the introduction of EnforceAir2 , in offering new Multiuse Deployment Bundles ...
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and security, my journey has taken a compelling turn with my recent foray into the world of counter-drone at ...
In a display of solidarity and support, I had the opportunity to participate in the Border Patrol Protection Foundation’s Honoring the Green 2023 charity ...
D-Fend Solutions is proud to introduce EnforceAir2 – a next generation, counter-drone solution that delivers more power, performance, portability, ...
Remote ID (RID) refers to a drone’s transmission of its location and certain identification data in a standardized, public, and non-encrypted format. ...
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a game-changer across many industries, revolutionising the way we conduct our lives, and the drone industry is ...
In the first half of 2023, the wave of significant drone incidents continued to capture headlines, pointing to the need for effective counter-drone ...
In June 2023, we had the privilege of participating in the National Sheriffs Association (NSA) Conference. This influential gathering brought together ...
Attending the 2023 AUVSI XPONENTIAL show in Denver last month was an unforgettable experience for me, as a Presales Engineer at D-Fend Solutions. The ...
Port operations are crucial for global trade, with ports serving as gateways for billions of dollars' worth of cargo. However, the increase in unauthorized ...
In my last blog ‘ Airpor t Drone Mitigation -Part 6: So, Is Jamming a Viable Solution for Airports? , ’ we discussed how a hand-held jammer ...
Drone safety is the law, as the Federal Aviation Administration explains. Before flying a drone in the US, many rules must be considered, particularly ...
In a series of recent blog posts focused on airport drone mitigation , Mark Rutherford , our Sales Director in the UK, explained what is jamming, its ...
Civil aviation provides the means of transporting millions of passengers and tons of goods to all corners of the globe. In the U.S. alone, more than 5,000 ...
My previous blog examined the current state of the rogue drone threat in the context of notable incidents perpetrated by criminals across various ...
The commercial drone market experienced major growth in 2022, and this trend is expected to continue as drones become more affordable, accessible, and ...
The start of 2023 has seen drone incidents at prisons happening everywhere, which brings to mind the title of the current movie “ Everything Everywhere ...
Why Study Jammers? As a reminder of why we’re looking at jamming in this series of blogs, it’s clear that many airports either have no C-UAS or ...
The Intersec Expo has been around for more than 20 years, addressing issues facing world-leading emergency services, security, and safety. This year, the ...
In the previous post - Drone Jamming Effectiveness at Airports - we discussed the effectiveness, features, and limitations of jammers. Specifically, we ...
As we get older, it seems that we celebrate the New Year more frequently, doesn’t it? I mean, it feels like the year gets shorter and shorter, even ...
Not a simple issue. As discussed in my previous post ( Types of Jammers ), each type of jammer brings drawbacks and limitations to airport ...
In my last post - The Issues with Jamming Drone Frequencies - we started to dig into why jammers may not be the ideal solution to protect airports from ...
Delivering service is a privilege. As a global professional service team leader, with years of experience, I can say that delivering service is not only ...
In my previous blog post– What is Jamming and How does it Work? , we reviewed “Jamming 101” topics – what are jammers, and how they operate. In ...
In my previous blog – Why Mitigating the Increase in Rogue Drone Activity in the Vicinity of Airports Has Been Such a Hard Nut to Crack – Until Now? ...
There are thousands of drone companies today, some focused on specific vertical industry fields or sectors, others on more horizontal general commercial, ...
A few years ago, it became clear that the coordination and management of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) – or drones – was an important and critical ...
D-Fend Solutions was proud to attend and exhibit at this year’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) convention! AUSA is a well-established and ...
Drone delivery-driven consumer commerce, from giant retailers such as Amazon and Walmart , is becoming a reality. In the US, California, Texas, Ohio and ...
I am a technology guy. I love all aspects of technology and its innovative capabilities. More than ten years ago, I started working with the US Marine ...
Last month, I had the pleasure of attending the IDGA Counter-UAS USA Summit in Alexandria, VA. The event featured many impressive speakers, including US ...
The constantly broadening range of Counter-Drone (C-UAS) Detection and Mitigation Technologies available today makes an efficient assessment incredibly ...
I was born and grew up in Brazil. Back then, there was so much hope, and Brazil was often called “The Country of the Future.” (Even though this hopeful ...
While drone incidents at airports have garnered headlines recently, see Ilana Brodesky’s blog The Challenge of Drone Incidents at Airports , there is ...
On July 21, 2022, a drone incident at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, halted flights for about 45 minutes. While this is by far ...
Drone Proliferation: The Good, the Bad, and the Dangerous In 2020, the total number of consumer drone shipments worldwide was around five million ...
Military forces, airports, borders, and prisons all saw notable dangerous drone incidents While 2022 has seen drones continue to become integrated ...
As drones increasingly become a significant threat around the world, security and safety are imperative. In fact, the Russia-Ukraine war has brought ...
In a previous blog post , I explained the importance of operational flexibility when handling drone threats in today’s society, given different ...
The threat from rogue or nefarious drones is not going anywhere. In fact, as drones continue to evolve, the risks will increase and add further dangers and ...
An entire book can be written about drone accidents and incidents that occur worldwide, either due to careless, inexperienced drone operators, or ...
Last week, I joined some of my colleagues at D-Fend Solutions and attended the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference – SOFIC . It counts as one ...
As drone usage continues to thrive offering a variety of benefits to different sectors around the world, the potential threats caused by rogue drone ...
Although it sounds like a weird question, truth is, there is some logic to it… There are drones, and there are rogue drones. Commercial and DIY drone ...
The BBC reports that last month there were days’ worth of mysterious drones sightings over key sites in Sweden, including three nuclear sites and the ...
Rogue drones smuggling contraband – weapons, drugs, cellphones, etc. – has been an issue for years, but it seems to have significantly spiked in the ...
America’s stalled supply chain has become a problem and U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg offered a partial ...
There seems to be some confusion in the counter-drone space about the definitions of “cyber-takeover” and “spoofing.” I have even heard top ...
After blogging about the attempted drone attack on electrical infrastructure in Pennsylvania, I want to turn my attention to another major incident that ...
CNN obtained a U.S. federal law enforcement bulletin that details an attempted drone attack on energy infrastructure in the U.S. in 2020. A drone ...
Drone tracking methods and the associated technology are constantly evolving, but there is an important capability that many security teams are currently ...
The issue of cybersecurity is expanding and evolving in the drone and counter-drone spaces. Traditional cyber concerns in the drone world referred either ...
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently released a Part 139 CertAlert informing Part 139 airport operators that airport emergency plans ...
Drones smuggling contraband into correctional facilities is still a major problem. An Associated Press story notes that following a deadly prison riot at ...
Effectively keeping borders safe from rogue drones has long been a challenging mission . Rogue or unauthorized drones are increasingly used to smuggle ...
Drones pose a major threat, according to a relatively recent article by Major Thomas G. Pledger, an Infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard, ...
D-Fend Solutions often leads discussions that encompass both detection and mitigation, due to our end-to-end full incident lifecycle capabilities. ...
Many of the traditional counter-small, unmanned aerial systems (C-sUASs) were designed for the battlefield. It seemed natural for military personnel to ...
My previous blog post was intended to help clarify some of the industry confusion around the term “remote ID ready” following the announcement of the ...
A Confusing Conversation There have been many industry discussions recently about remote ID for small, unmanned aerial systems (sUASs), following the ...
Four core concepts are at the heart of D-Fend Solutions’ product development, execution and roadmap: control , safety , focus and ...
Law enforcement personnel in California arrested a man this week that they allege was operating a small, unmanned aerial system (sUAS), or drone, with a ...
An EasyJet plane traveling at 320 miles per hour just after leaving the Manchester, UK airport, nearly collided with a recklessly piloted drone, according ...
As a child, I was fascinated by the poster in science class that showed zoological lifecycles. Seeing how an egg became a tadpole and then a tadpole ...
Misleading claims about the counter-drone space continue to proliferate, particularly regarding radio frequency (RF)-based, takeover technology. There are ...
A scary collision between a Chilean Navy helicopter and an unmanned aerial system (UAS) has once again highlighted the tremendous risk to aircraft posed by ...
I love the song “Jamming” by Bob Marley and the Wailers . It instantly relaxes me and puts a smile on my face, and gets me thinking about a ...
The Counter-Drone Drill blog has officially launched, and the sky is the limit. D-Fend Solutions’ talented team of bloggers is comprised of experts ...
Subscribe to email updatesMost popular publications
This year was the 25 th edition of Intersec , a ...
Conquer, Soar, and Roar! What an epic week in ...
Five years have passed since the infamous incident at ...
Our Bloggers
Tags
