CSD CUAS 2nd Edition Web
CSD CUAS 2nd Edition Web
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS
The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College is an interdisciplinary research institu-
tion that examines the novel and complex opportunities and challenges presented by unmanned
systems technologies in both the military and civilian sphere. By conducting original, in-depth,
and inquiry-driven projects, we seek to furnish stakeholders, policy-makers, and the public with
the resources to engage in a robust public debate and develop policies that best address those
opportunities and challenges.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dan Gettinger edited this publication and assisted with the development of the database. Isabel Polletta
and Ariana Podesta provided editorial support. Aasiyah Ali, Lynn Barnett, Dylan Sparks, Josh Kim, John
McKeon, and Lilian O’Donnell provided research support. Layout by Dan Gettinger.
Michael Blades, Vice President for Research and Consulting, Americas Region, Frost & Sullivan,
provided assistance in the development of this database. Frost & Sullivan’s market report on C-UAS
technology is available for purchase at: https://store.frost.com/global-counter-uas-market-forecast-
to-2024.html
The project was made possible by the Peace Research Institute Oslo under its program “Counter-Drone
Systems: Implications for Norway in an EU and NATO context,” which is funded by the Norwegian
Ministry of Defense, as well as by general operating support provided by the Open Society Foundations.
Cover photos by Pvt. James Newsome and Senior Airman Kaylee Dubois.
Copyright © 2019 Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College
OVERVIEW
1
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
BACKGROUND
The rise of C-UAS technology is largely tied to the ble air defense systems have sometimes failed to bring
novel threats posed by the expanding use of drones— down rudimentary unmanned aircraft; in July 2016,
particularly small, inexpensive systems—in civilian and a simple Russian-made fixed-wing drone that flew
wartime environments. In the military domain, small into Israeli airspace from Syria survived two Patriot
drones have been proliferating at a rate that has alarmed missile intercepts, as well as an air-to-air attack from
battlefield commanders and planners alike. According an Israeli fighter jet.2 In civilian airspace, drones aren’t
to our September 2019 report The Drone Databook, yet required to carry transponders, so they cannot be
at least 95 countries now possess drones,1 which can detected and tracked with existing air traffic control
potentially furnish even poorly funded state actors with systems. Relying on visual observation to detect drones
an aerial command of the battlespace that was previ- is equally ineffective; at a distance of several hundred
ously only available to those possessing a sophisticated feet, drones can become all but invisible to the naked
aircraft program. Drones are also increasingly becoming eye.
a weapon of choice for non-state groups that employ the
technology for surveillance, battlespace management, In light of the proliferation of unmanned aircraft that
propaganda, and aerial strike attacks, often to consid- operate precisely within this gap in modern military
erable effect (see insert on page 8). As a result of the and security defenses, the market for fit-for-purpose
proliferation of this technology, which is set to continue counter-drone systems is booming. In a market survey
apace in the years ahead, counter-drone systems will conducted in 2015, researchers at the Sandia National
become a ubiquitous weapon in all future conflicts. Laboratories identified a dozen dedicated counter-drone
systems available for acquisition.3 Today, less than five
In the civilian domain counter-drone systems are years later, we have tallied as many as 537 systems on
likewise set to figure as an important tool for security the market. In that interim, the technology itself has also
and law enforcement, as unmanned aircraft are in- advanced considerably and the knowledge-base for how
creasingly being put to a variety of nefarious purposes. to employ it has matured. However, significant challeng-
With relatively simple modifications it is possible, for es remain unsolved.
example, to convert cheap “off-the-shelf” consumer
drones and hobby kit aircraft into rudimentary yet po-
tentially lethal guided missiles or other airborne attack
systems—so much so that it has become common for
security and law enforcement professionals who track
the issue to characterize the possibility of a lethal drone
attack in the U.S. or Europe as being not so much a
matter of “if,” but “when.” Other dangerous and/or
criminal uses of drones abound (see insert on page 9),
which intensifies the demand for effective methods to
detect rogue unmanned systems and, if necessary, bring
them down.
* Even though the emergence of low-flying small unmanned
aircraft poses a new challenge that cannot fully be addressed
The air defense systems that have traditionally been with existing air defenses alone, many legacy air defense and
used to protect airspace are mostly designed with electronic warfare weapons do figure as a component of a
inhabited aircraft in mind—that is, they are optimized “layered” approach to C-UAS that many established militaries
for detecting, tracking, and shooting down large appear to be adopting. Furthermore, many dedicated count-
fast-moving objects. As a result, they cannot always er-drone products are based on existing air defense technolo-
pick up small, slow, low-flying drones.* Even formida- gies, particularly radar and counter-mortar systems.
2
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
C-UAS 101
C-UAS systems rely on a variety of techniques for detecting and/or intercepting drones. This section describes the
main detection and interdiction methods employed by products currently available on the market, as well as the
principal platform types
Detects the presence of small unmanned aircraft by their radar signature, which is
generated when the aircraft encounters radio frequency pulses emitted by the detection
Radar
element. These systems often employ algorithms to distinguish between drones and other
small, low-flying objects, such as birds.
Detects, locates, and in some cases identifies nearby drones by scanning for the frequen-
Radio-frequency (RF)
cies on which most drones are known to operate.
Electro-optical (EO) Identifies and tracks drones based on their visual signature.
Infrared (IR) Identifies and tracks drones based on their heat signature.
Detects drones by recognizing the unique sounds produced by their motors. Acoustic
Acoustic systems rely on a library of sounds produced by known drones, which are then matched
to sounds detected in the operating environment.
Many systems integrate a variety of different sensor types in order to provide a more
Combined Sensors
robust detection, tracking, and identification capability.
From left to right: examples of handheld, mobile, and UAV-based counter-drone systems. (See “Platform Types” on the following page. Photos by
Cpl. Brian R. Domzalski, Sgt. Devon Bistarkey, and Wesley Farnsworth
3
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Interdiction
Disrupts the radio frequency link between the drone and its operator by generating large
RF Jamming volumes of RF interference. Once the RF link, which can include WiFi links, is severed,
a drone will usually either descend to the ground or initiate a “return to home” maneuver.
Disrupts the drone’s satellite link, such as GPS or GLONASS, which is used for navi-
GNSS Jamming gation. Drones that lose their satellite link will usually hover in place, land, or return to
home.
Allows one to take control of or misdirect the targeted drone by feeding it a spurious
communications or navigation link. (For our purposes, we include within this category a
Spoofing
range of measures such as cyber attacks, protocol manipulation, and RF/GNSS Decep-
tion).
Dazzling Employs a high-intensity light beam or laser to “blind” the camera on a drone.
Destroys vital segments of the drone’s airframe using directed energy, causing it to crash
Laser
to the ground.
Directs pulses of high intensity microwave energy at the drone, disabling the aircraft’s
High Power Microwave
electronic systems.
Platform Types
Ground-based: Fixed Systems designed to be used from either stationary positions on the ground.
Ground-based: Mobile Systems that are designed to be mounted on vehicles and/or operated on the move.
Systems that are designed to be operated by a single individual by hand. Many of these
Hand-held
systems resemble rifles or other small arms.
4
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Counter-drone technology can serve in a wide variety of 3. A mitigation system is activated and the drone is
roles. In wartime, militaries are adopting C-UAS for pro- intercepted. Depending on the technique used, this
tecting bases, naval vessels, convoys, and ground units. could result in a range of effects, including the drone
In civilian environments, counter-drone technology is landing on the ground or activating a “return to
primarily used for securing the airspace around criti- home” mode (in the case of jamming or spoofing),
cal infrastructure, sensitive facilities, and large events the capture of the drone (nets), or the complete or
such as party conventions and sports games, as well as partial destruction of the drone (lasers, projectiles,
for protecting VIPs and countering airborne smuggling collision UAVs, high powered microwaves).
at prisons.4 Increasingly, the technology is also being 4. Depending on the circumstances, once a drone is
adopted for private use. In any of these contexts, coun- intercepted the device may need to be isolated and
tering a drone is a complex multi-step process involving retrieved. If the drone is potentially armed, an ex-
interaction between several distinct systems and between plosive ordnance disposal team may be called in to
those systems and the human operator(s). assess and, if needed, disable the device. Unarmed
drones must likewise be treated with caution. If the
device is damaged, its lithium-ion battery poses a
1. First, a sensor system must detect, identify, locate, risk of combustion. If the device continues to be
and track the incoming drone. Depending on the type functional, its rotors can pose a risk of injury. Those
of system used, a sensor that makes an initial detec- wishing to perform forensic analysis on the device
tion, such as a wide-area radar or an RF detector, may need to follow a series of steps to ensure that the
may have to “cross-cue” to secondary sensors such as integrity of the system and the potentially valuable
cameras or electronic identification elements to con- data it carries are not compromised.
firm that the detected object is in fact a drone, as well
as determine its precise location and track its move-
ments. Secondary sensors may also serve to provide
additional information about the drone, which may
help determine intent. For example, a camera may be
able to show whether a drone appears to be carrying
explosives. Certain electronic sensors may be able to
additionally identify the location of the drone oper-
ator. Sensor data can often be stored for later use as
evidence.
2. Based on the information from these sensors, a
human operator must decide how to respond to the
incoming drone. This may not always involve acti-
vating an interdiction system. For example, a federal
law enforcement team operating a C-UAS system
with mitigation capabilities at the 2019 Super Bowl
found that they could usually just locate the operator
of the drone and ask them to cease flying in the area.5
Particularly in civilian environments, C-UAS opera-
tors often describe mitigation as a “last resort” mea- Photo by Capt. Jason Welch
sure. C-UAS teams may have a very limited window
of time to make this decision.
5
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
DATABASE OF PRODUCTS
To better grasp the scale and form of the counter-drone 133 employ a combination of one or more sensor
market, we have assembled a database of publicly mar- types (we count EO and IR sensors as distinct detec-
keted counter-drone systems. The database consists of tion elements, though the two are more often than not
537 products sold by 277 firms and partnerships from 38 used in conjunction). Forty two systems employ a
different countries. combination of four or five different sensor types.
• RF and radar are the most common detection ele-
This database was built through open-source research of ments, appearing in 159 and 147 systems respec-
news stories, marketing materials and brochures, press tively. EO and IR systems, which are usually used in
releases, and other publicly available information. It in- conjunction, appear in 113 and 111 systems, respec-
cludes a small number of systems that are still in active tively. Acoustic sensors are used in 34 products. (In
development, as well as existing products designed for a small number of products, some of these detection
other purposes that have been retooled and/or specifical- elements may be optional).
ly marketed for C-UAS. The full database can be found • Of the 362 systems capable of interdiction, 147 rely
on page 18. on a single technique and 215 rely on two or more
techniques (we count RF and GNSS jamming sys-
Key Analysis Points tems as distinct, even though the two are more often
than not used in conjunction).
• With 537 systems, this database is considerably • Jamming (both RF and GNSS) is the most common
larger than our original database, published with the interdiction method—259 systems employ some
first edition of “Counter-Drone Systems” in February form of signal jamming as a standard feature. Thirty
2018, which contained 235 products from 155 man- one systems have a spoofing capability, 18 involve
ufacturers in 33 countries. This difference does not lasers, 27 employ nets, and eight take the form of
represent absolute growth in the sector: Twenty-four a sacrificial collision drone. (A small number of
products and 9 manufacturers were removed from systems have certain interdiction elements as added
our original database because they no longer appear optional extras)
to be active, while a small number of products in
our new database appear to have already been on the
market before February 2018.
• One hundred and seventy five of the products in the
database are designed only for detection, while 214
systems are designed only for interdiction.
• At least 138 systems are advertised as being capable
of both detection and interdiction, while 10 systems
can be equipped with an optional interdiction ele-
ment.
• A majority of the systems, 375 in total, are designed
for ground-based use; of these, 260 are fixed systems,
55 are mobile, and 59 are undefined or platform
agnostic. One hundred and six systems are handheld
and 34 systems are mounted aboard a drone. Twelve
products consist of a combination of ground-based
elements and either a handheld device or a UAV.
• Of the 323 systems that are capable of detection, 190
Photo by Wesley Farnsworth.
appear to employ a single sensor type, while at least
6
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
As of this writing, the technical challenge of coun- with automated tracking algorithms applied to radar
tering drones has not yet been fully surmounted. In a or camera data.11
solicitation published in March 2019, the U.S. Defense • Acoustic sensors rely on a library of sounds emit-
Innovation Unit stated that “it has proven difficult to ted by known drones, while RF detection systems
identify and mitigate threats using currently fielded likewise only detect certain frequency bands in a
technologies.”6 Dozens of background interviews with pre-established library. Given the rapid rate at which
military and law enforcement personnel have validated drones are emerging on the market and proliferating,
this assertion. The challenges posed by, and to, count- even libraries that are updated often will never cover
er-drone technology also extend beyond a simple matter 100 percent of the drones that might be operating at
of effectiveness: they include complex questions around any given time.
safety, practicality, policy, and legality.
False Negatives and False Positives
Detection Effectiveness
In order to be useful, C-UAS detection systems must
Every detection system has drawbacks. For example: generate low levels of false negatives and false positives.
This is difficult to achieve. C-UAS detection elements
• Radar systems may struggle to pick out small drones must be sensitive enough to detect all drones operating
and UAS flying very close to the ground. within the area of use, but systems that are too sensitive
• Camera systems might confuse a drone with a bird or may create an overwhelming number of false positives,
an airplane, and may also struggle in adverse weath- rendering the system unusable. According to the results
er with low visibility, or if the drone is backlit by a of FAA counter-drone systems testing, distinguishing
strong light source such as the sun. true-positives from false positives in cluttered environ-
• Electro-magnetic interference can degrade the ments requires “a high level of manpower.”12
detection capabilities of RF sensors. In urban envi-
ronments, there are many potential sources of such Distinguishing Legitimate and Illegitimate
interference, including communications antennae,
two-way radios, telemetry systems, and even power
Drone Use
lines and LED lights.7
In future operating environments where legitimate drone
• Certain RF sensors, including some systems market-
use is common, it will become increasingly important
ed as “passive” may likewise emit RF signals that
for C-UAS operators to be capable of differentiating
could interfere with other communications, making
between legitimate and rogue drones. For example, at
them potentially dangerous to deploy in some envi-
a large sporting event, the airspace may be crowded
ronments.8
with legitimate aerial cinematography drones that do
• Radar, certain RF systems, and EO/IR sensors must
not pose a security risk alongside rogue drones that do.
have a direct line of sight with the intruding drone in
During its deployment to the 2019 Super Bowl, the FBI
order to make a detection. This could be particularly
counter-UAS team was “seconds away,” according to
problematic in urban environments, where a drone
one official involved in the operation, from mitigat-
may only appear within a sensor’s line of sight for a
ing a drone that turned out to be operating as part of a
couple of seconds before disappearing again.9
sanctioned cinematography service. Particularly given
• Some detection systems may only be capable of
the potential hazards of mitigating a drone in civilian
providing a rough estimate of an incoming drone’s
environments, C-UAS operators will need to develop
location.10
means to rapidly and reliably determine the threat
• Certain flight patterns—most notably hovering and
level of an incoming UAV based on the limited infor-
moving vertically—can make drones harder to detect
7
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
8
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
drone. Jamming systems, meanwhile, can interfere with universally effective against all drones. Unmanned
legitimate communications links in their vicinity; if used aircraft that have been built with protected com-
at an airport, for example, they could interrupt air traffic munication links, for example, could be resistant to
management operations.* The use of GPS jamming or spoofing attacks.
spoofing systems, in particular, is especially dangerous
in areas where other entities rely on reliable GPS naviga-
tion (for example, manned aircraft at an airport).
Drone Threats in Civilian Environments
Interdiction Effectiveness
In civilian environments, the threat of rogue,
Like detection systems, no interdiction system is 100 malicious drone use continues to grow and extends
percent effective. Following a five day counter-drone beyond the troubling prospect of a kinetic attack by a
exercise in 2017 in which a variety of established terror group.
defense firms and startups tested their counter-drone
products on drones operating at a distance of roughly • The prolonged disruption at Gatwick Airport in
200 meters, the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Orga- December 2018, which grounded flights for more
nization, which organized the event, reported that the than 36 hours and left hundreds of thousands of
drones were, in general, “very resilient against damage” passengers stranded, costing airlines an estimated
and concluded that most of the C-UAS systems needed $60 million in losses,21 not only demonstrated the
further development.20 More recent C-UAS exercises technology’s capacity to cause havoc but also the
indicate that this problem remains an enduring one. impunity that it can afford the operators. As of this
writing, the perpetrators of the disruptions have
Like detection systems, all interdiction systems have not been apprehended. And this is to say nothing
specific drawbacks: of the fact that, had the drones been armed, they
could have been used to attack the aircraft, with
• RF jamming systems have no effect against drones potentially devastating consequences.
that operate without an active RF link. • Sightings of drones over sensitive facilities such
• Many signal jammers have a limited effective range as a submarine base in Washington State22 and
of a few hundred meters, meaning that the system nuclear facilities in France23 have raised the
must be very close to the intruding drone to success- specter of state- and non-state-sponsored drone
fully mitigate it, and are not effective without a direct espionage, while sightings of drones at large
line-of-sight to the drone. Jammers that are capable sporting events are also becoming increasing-
of operating at long ranges and beyond line-of-sight ly common, highlighting how these generally
must be significantly more powerful, but more pow- well-protected facilities also remain vulnerable
erful jammers also pose a higher risk of interference from the air.
to legitimate communications. • Among criminal groups, drones have become
• All kinetic systems may struggle against drones that a popular tool for smuggling contraband into
are moving quickly or in unpredictable patterns. prisons and across heavily secured borders.
(And when they do work as intended they may de- Drones have also reportedly been used for count-
stroy components of the drone that are necessary for er-surveillance,24 scoping targets for robberies
forensic investigations). and, in at least one dramatic case in the U.S, dis-
• Spoofing systems, meanwhile, are technically very rupting a major law enforcement operation.25
difficult to build and implement, and may not be • Meanwhile, near misses between drones and
manned aircraft have become a common occur-
rence in every crowded airspace system in the
world. Even though many of these incidents are
the result of clueless—or perhaps reckless—
*Advanced jamming systems that only block the frequency operators, many worry that they could still cause
on which the targeted drone is operating, as well as directed a collision with a manned aircraft that could result
jamming antennas, may reduce interference with legitimate in a catastrophic accident.26
communications, but this technology is only beginning to
emerge on the market, and it has not yet been certified as
entirely safe.27
9
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
“This threat is evolving every three to six months—it is just that adaptive...This is going to be a
continuing challenge due to the adaptive nature of the problem of being able to use small drones
in so many different ways and you cannot rely on one technique to respond to them.”28
—Vayl S. Oxford, Director, U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, March 2019
There are also individual technological advances aircraft more robust against jamming. Researchers at the
emerging that pose unique challenges from a count- University of Zürich are developing a multirotor drone
er-drone perspective. Perhaps most notably in the that can autonomously dodge fast-moving objects at
near-term is the active research to develop drones that close range. The idea is to enable unmanned aircraft to
can operate in GPS-denied environments,29 which avoid obstacles such as birds or other aircraft,36 but the
would be resilient to any kind of jamming (which is same feature could also enable the drone to avoid nets
currently by far the most common interdiction method and other projectiles.
on the market). For example, according to Russian
state media, the Russian military is planning to deploy The proliferation of C-UAS technology will also accel-
GLONASS-free surveillance drones to the Arctic to erate the development of technologies that will render
track vessels across wide areas,30 while the U.S Defense C-UAS systems less effective—countermeasures to
Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing the countermeasures—particularly in military environ-
autonomous, GPS-free multirotor drones that can travel
at 20 m/s.31
Lack of Standards collected data, and destroy all intercepted drone commu-
nication data within 180 days,54 but many civil or private
No international standards exist for the proper design C-UAS operators around the globe likely do not have
and use of C-UAS systems. This means there may be similar protections in place.
significant variances between the performance and
reliability of systems that might, at the spec-sheet level,
appear to be very similar. Given that the demand for
this technology has only emerged in the past few years, Electronic Identification and Unmanned Traffic
many of the products offered by the companies that Management
we identified have not yet had time to mature. Some
firms appear to be working to capitalize on the growing Running in parallel to the growing adoption of
interest in this technology before properly maturing or counter-drone technologies is the range of efforts
field-testing their products. U.S. security officials who by airspace authorities to implement Unmanned
spoke on background have noted that a large proportion Aerial System Traffic Management (UTM) systems
of systems that are actively marketed to U.S. govern- and Remote Identification (Remote ID or RID)
ment customers do not perform as advertised. The requirements for civilian and civil drones. UTM
absence of standards also raises questions about the systems will enable airspace authorities to segregate
safety of these systems. Particularly in civilian environ- compliant unmanned aircraft from airports, restricted
ments, a malfunctioning C-UAS system might present a airspace, and airspace inhabited by manned aircraft.
public safety threat—consider, for example, a jamming Remote identification, meanwhile, refers to a range
system that interferes with emergency radio communica- of systems for remotely accessing information such
tions, or a kinetic system that misses its intended target. as the model type, operator name and location, and
registration number of certain nearby drones. Chinese
Privacy drone maker DJI produces one such system, called
AeroScope55—which has already been adopted for
Because counter-drone detection systems are a form of drone detection by C-UAS teams—and other man-
surveillance technology, they potentially pose a risk to ufacturers are likely to follow suit. A number of
privacy if misused or if the data that they collect is not governments are in the process of developing detailed
handled properly. For example, electronic identifica- plans for implementing UTM, as well as regulations
tion systems could be capable of obtaining personally to require all drones to be equipped with Remote ID
identifiable information—such as the aircraft’s registra- capabilities. In the long-term, the combination of
tion number—for drones operating across a broad area. Remote ID and UTM is likely to significantly reduce
Similarly, wide-area camera systems could inadvertently potentially dangerous drone incidents caused by
record individuals or vehicles on the ground that are not “careless” or “clueless” operators who simply venture
relevant to the counter-drone operations itself.53 This is into restricted airspace by mistake. This will narrow
in addition to private digital information that could be the C-UAS challenge to those cases where a drone
collected from a drone either at the point of detection operator has both malicious intent and some technical
and tracking or during forensic analysis. So far, there capacity to bypass these routine airspace control
have been relatively few efforts to evaluate how to systems. These cases will be far less common than
mitigate privacy risks that could arise from the use of the non-malicious cases that make up the majority of
these systems.* Under the Preventing Emerging Threats drone incidents today, but they will also be far more
Act of 2018, U.S. agencies with C-UAS authorities are dangerous and difficult to defend against.
required to ensure that their operations respect First
and Fourth Amendment protections, responsibly handle
13
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
READING LIST
“Berlin Memorandum on Good Practices for Countering Don Rassler, “The Islamic State and Drones: Supply,
Terrorist Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems,” Global Scale, and Future Threats,” Combating Terrorism
Counterterrorism Forum, September 2019. https:// Center at West Point, United States Military Academy,
www.thegctf.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=j5gj4fS- July 2018. https://ctc.usma.edu/app/uploads/2018/07/
J4fI%3d&portalid=1×tamp=1569424280400 Islamic-State-and-Drones-Release-Version.pdf
“Blue Ribbon Task Force on UAS Mitigation at Airports Deepan Sarma and Paul Quinn, eds., “D3.1 – Data
Final Report,” Blue Ribbon Task Force on UAS protection, Social, Ethical and Legal Frameworks,”
Mitigation at Airports, October 2019. https://uasmit- Diginext, Advanced hoListic Adverse Drone
igationatairports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ Detection, Identification Neutralisation program,
BRTF-Report2019.pdf February 2018. http://aladdin2020.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2018/04/ALADDIN_D3.1_DataProtection-
Scott Brooks and Camron Kouhestani, “Counter-Un- SoEL_Framework_V1_0_PU.pdf
manned Aircraft Systems Market Survey,” Depart-
ment of Homeland Security, Prepared by Sandia Col. Matthew T. Tedesco, “Countering the Unmanned
National Laboratories, February 2019. Aircraft Systems Threat,” Military Review, No-
vember-December 2015. usacac.army.mil/CAC2/
“Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) Strategy MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryRe-
Extract,” United States Army, 2016. www.arcic.army. view_20151231_art012.pdf
mil/App_Documents/Army-CUAS-Strategy.pdf
U.K. Parliament Defence Committee, Domestic Threat
Scott Crino and Andy Dreby, “Drone Technology of Drones inquiry - publications. https://www.par-
Proliferation in Small Wars,” Small Wars Journal, liament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/
September 2019. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ commons-select/defence-committee/inquiries/par-
art/drone-technology-proliferation-small-wars?mc_ci- liament-2017/domestic-threat-drones-17-19/publica-
d=90e54c31e2&mc_eid=cb69914e13 tions/
Dan Gettinger, “The Drone Databook,” Center for the John Wendle, “The Fighting Drones of Ukraine,”
Study of the Drone, 2019. https://dronecenter.bard. Air & Space Magazine, February, 2018. https://
edu/projects/drone-proliferation/databook/. www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/ukraines-
Dan Gettinger, “Drones Operating in Syria and Iraq,” drones-180967708/
Center for the Study of the Drone, 2016. https://
dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-operating-in-syria-and-
iraq/
Dan Gettinger and Arthur Holland Michel, “Drones at
Home: Drone Incidents,” Center for the Study of the
Drone, 2017. http://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-at-
home-drone-incidents/
Brian A. Jackson, David R. Frelinger, Michael J.
Lostumbo, and Robert W. Button, “Evaluating Novel
Threats to the Homeland: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
and Cruise Missiles,” RAND Corporation, 2008.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/mono-
graphs/2008/RAND_MG626.pdf
14
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
NOTES
15
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
tions,” Agence France-Presse, October 31, 2014. https:// in High-Speed Sense and Avoid,” IEEE Robotics and
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/more- Automation Letters, Preprint Version, January 2019. rpg.
drones-spotted-over-french-nuclear-power-stations ifi.uzh.ch/docs/RAL19_Falanga.pdf
24. “Drug syndicate ‘used drones to monitor police’,” 37. Scott Brooks and Camron Kouhestani, “Counter-Un-
BBC News, June 30, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/ manned Aircraft Systems Market Survey,” Department of
world-australia-40453026 Homeland Security, Prepared by Sandia National Labora-
25. Patrick Tucker, “A Criminal Gang Used a Drone Swarm tories, February 2019.
To Obstruct an FBI Hostage Raid,” Defense One, 38. See for example, the U.S. Air Force THOR program, the
May 3, 2018. https://www.defenseone.com/technolo- U.S. Army’s Indirect Fires Protection Capability sys-
gy/2018/05/criminal-gang-used-drone-swarm-obstruct- tem, And Raytheon’s High-Power Microwave and laser
fbi-raid/147956/ systems.
26. Dan Gettinger and Arthur Holland Michel, “Drones at 39. “Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) Capability
Home: Drone Incidents,” Center for the Study of the for Battalion-and-Below Operations,” Board on Army
Drone, 2017. http://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-at-home- Science and Technology Division on Engineering and
drone-incidents/ Physical Sciences, National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
27. Michael J. O’Donnell, A.A.E., Director of Airport Safety neering, and Medicine, 2018. (Abbreviated Version of a
and Standards, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Oc- Restricted Report.)
tober 26, 2016. https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safe- 40. Scott Brooks, Camron Kouhestani, “Counter-Unmanned
ty/media/UAS-Counter-Measure-Testing-letter.pdf Aircraft Systems Market Survey,” Department of Home-
28. Interview with Vayl S. Oxford in Kristina Hummel, “A land Security, Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories,
View from the CT Foxhole: Vayl S. Oxford, Director, De- February 2019.
fense Threat Reduction Agency,” CTC Sentinel, Volume 41. Josh Spero, “Gatwick spends £5m on airport anti-drone
12, Issue, March 2019, pp10-14. https://ctc.usma.edu/app/ measures,” Financial Times, January 3, 2019. https://
uploads/2019/03/CTC-SENTINEL-032019.pdf www.ft.com/content/cdaa19e6-0f97-11e9-a3aa-
29. G. Balamurugan, J. Valarmathi and V. P. S. Naidu, 118c761d2745
“Survey on UAV navigation in GPS denied environ- 42. “Integrating drone detection systems into airport surveil-
ments,” 2016 International Conference on Signal lance networks in Germany ‘will cost EUR500 million,’”
Processing, Communication, Power and Embedded Unmanned Airspace, October 1, 2019. https://www.
System (SCOPES), 2016, pp. 198-204. doi: 10.1109/ unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-systems-and-policies/
SCOPES.2016.7955787 integrating-drone-detection-systems-into-airport-surveil-
30. Paulina Glass, “Russia’s New Arctic Drones Are Built to lance-networks-in-germany-will-cost-eur500-million/
Spot Ships,” Defense One, December 11, 2018. https:// 43. “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/12/russias-new- 2018,” Sec. 1602, 115th Cong, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/
arctic-drones-are-built-spot-ships/153444/ news/2017/06/dod-uas.pdf
31. “Fast Lightweight Autonomy (FLA),” Defense Advanced 44. “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),” Internet Law
Research Projects Agency. https://www.darpa.mil/pro- Treatise. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_
gram/fast-lightweight-autonomy and_Abuse_Act_(CFAA)
32. S. Walker-Roberts and M. Hammoudeh, Written evi- 45. “S.2623 - Aircraft Sabotage Act,” 98th Cong., 1984.
dence submitted by Manchester Metropolitan University, https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/sen-
U.K. Parliament Defense Committee, Domestic Threat ate-bill/2623
of Drone Inquiry, May 9, 2019. data.parliament.uk/writ- 46. “Blue Ribbon Task Force on UAS Mitigation at Airports
tenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/ Final Report,” Blue Ribbon Task Force on UAS Mitiga-
defence-committee/domestic-threat-of-drones/writ- tion at Airports, October 2019. https://uasmitigationatair-
ten/101797.html ports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BRTF-Report2019.
33. Information provided by Red Six Solutions, a U.S. red pdf and Joseph De Avila, “New York Police Seek Author-
teaming firm specializing in drones and counter-drone ity to Take Down Drones,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb-
dynamics. ruary 17, 2019. https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-
34. Yong Zeng, Jiangbin Lyu, and Rui Zhang, “Cellular-Con- police-seek-authority-to-take-down-drones-11550419320
nected UAV: Potentials, Challenges and Promising Tech- 47. Letter from John R. Dermody, P.E., Director, Office of
nologies,” draft paper published on arXiv, April 6, 2018. Airport Safety and Standards, U.S. Federal Aviation
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02217.pdf Administration, July 19, 2018. https://web.archive.org/
35. Angus Batey, “Regulatory Uncertainty Roils UK Re- web/20190110160243/https://www.faa.gov/airports/air-
sponse To Drone Threat,” Aviation Week & Space port_safety/media/counter-uas-airport-sponsor-letter-ju-
Technology, May 10, 2019. https://aviationweek.com/ ly-2018.pdf
future-aerospace/regulatory-uncertainty-roils-uk-re- 48. Letter from John R. Dermody, P.E., Director, Office of
sponse-drone-threat Airport Safety and Standards, U.S. Federal Aviation Ad-
36. Davide Falanga, Suseong Kim, and Davide Scaramuzza, ministration, May 7, 2019. https://www.faa.gov/airports/
“How Fast is Too Fast? The Role of Perception Latency airport_safety/media/Updated-Information-UAS-Detec-
16
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
tion-Countermeasures-Technology-Airports-20190507.
pdf
49. Deepan Sarma and Paul Quinn, eds., “D3.1 – Data pro-
tection, Social, Ethical and Legal Frameworks,” Diginext,
Advanced hoListic Adverse Drone Detection, Identifi-
cation Neutralisation program, February 2018. http://
aladdin2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ALADDIN_
D3.1_DataProtectionSoEL_Framework_V1_0_PU.pdf
50. Jonathan Rupprecht, “7 Big Problems with Counter
Drone Technology (Drone Jammers, Anti Drone Guns,
etc.),” Rupprecht Law, P.A.. https://jrupprechtlaw.com/
drone-jammer-gun-defender-legal-problems
51. “D3.1 – Data protection, Social, Ethical and Legal Frame-
works”
52. “D3.1 – Data protection, Social, Ethical and Legal Frame-
works”
53. “D3.1 – Data protection, Social, Ethical and Legal Frame-
works”
54. “Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Legal Authorities,”
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2019. Retireved
from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publica-
tions/19_0502_cisa_dhs-cuas-legal-authorities-factsheet.
pdf
55. Brian Heater, “DJI’s ‘electronic license plate’ helps
authorities identify drones in mid-flight,” TechCrunch,
October 25, 2019. https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/25/
djis-electronic-license-plate-helps-authorities-identify-
drones-in-mid-flight.
17
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
About At a Glance
Products
NM1-KHSxV Securi-
Accipiter Canada Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
ty Radar System
RF Jamming, GNSS
ADE Maestro South Korea Handheld
Jamming
18
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Advanced Radar
Drone Sentinel Spain Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Technologies
UAV, Ground-Based:
ALX Systems Spartiath Belgium Radar
Fixed
RF Jamming, GNSS
Anti-Drones Skynet Ultra Taiwan Handheld
Jamming
19
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
ApolloShield RF Sense&Block Israel RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
ApolloShield RF Gun Israel Handheld
Jamming
Low-Cost Count-
Applied Technology er-Unmanned Aerial
USA RF, EO, IR Laser Ground-based
Associates System for Targeting
(LOCUST)
Aquila Defense Aquila Defense Group RF, Radar, Acoustic, RF Jamming, GNSS
Switzerland Ground-based
Group Counter-UAS IR Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
ARTsys360 RS500 Israel RF Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Aselsan IHASAVAR Turkey Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Aselsan IHTAR Turkey Radar, RF Jamming, Projectile Ground-based: Fixed
(Optional)
RF Jamming, GNSS
Aselsan GERGEDAN Turkey Ground-based
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
ATL Europa INH-606-SW1W2 Spain Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
ATL Europa CON-001-SW1W2 Spain Handheld
Jamming
20
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Bei Dou Open Lab Antidrone Gun China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
BEL Drone Guard System India RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Black Sage TD-1 USA Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Black Sage/IEC Jamming, Dazzling
UASX USA Radar, EO, IR Ground-based
Infrared (Optional), Laser
(Optional)
Blighter Surveillance
A400 Series UK Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Systems
Blighter Surveil-
lance Systems/Chess Anti-UAV Defence RF Jamming, GNSS
UK Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Dynamics/Enterprise System (AUDS) Jamming
Control Systems
Wireless Intrusion
Blind Tiger Detection and Defeat USA RF Managed Access Ground-based
System
Boeing/General
MEHEL 2.0 USA Laser Ground-based: Mobile
Dynamics
Broadfield Security
Drone Blocker Netherlands RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Services
RF Jamming, GNSS
BYLBOS/Roboost SPID France EO, IR, RF Ground-based
Jamming
LightWave CUAS
C Speed USA Radar, RF Ground-based
Surveillance Suite
21
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Centum ARES Spain Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Centum No Fly Zrone Spain Radar, RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming, Spoofing
CerbAir CerbAir Fixed France RF, EO,IR RF Jamming, Net Ground-based: Fixed
Acoustic, Motion
Chenega Europe dronetracker Ireland Ground-based: Fixed
Detection
dronevigil Field
Chenega Europe Ireland Radar Ground-based: Mobile
Mobile
dronevigil Holo-
Chenega Europe Ireland Radar Ground-based: Fixed
graphic
China Aerospace
Science and Industry China Net UAV
Corporation
Handheld, Ground-
Citadel Defense DFU3000 USA RF Spoofing
based: Fixed
RF Jamming, GNSS
Citadel Defense Titan USA RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
22
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Communications &
RF Jamming, GNSS
Systèmes/HGH/Spec- Boreades France Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming, Spoofing
tracom
RF Jamming, Spoof-
Convexum Israel RF Ground-based: Fixed
ing
RF Jamming, GNSS
CPM Elettronica CPM-DJI-120-4B Italy Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
CPM Elettronica CPM-WILSON Italy Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
CTS Drone Jammer China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, Spoof-
D-Fend Solutions EnforceAir Israel RF Ground-based: Fixed
ing
Department 13 Inter-
MESMER USA RF Spoofing Ground-based: Fixed
national/Raytheon
HARRIER Drone
DeTect USA/UK Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Surveillance Radar
23
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Electronic Identifi-
DJI AeroScope Mobile Kit China Ground-based
cation
Electronic Identifi-
DJI AeroScope G8 China Ground-based: Fixed
cation
Electronic Identifi-
DJI AeroScope G16 China Ground-based: Fixed
cation
RF Jamming, GNSS
Drone Defence Paladyne E1000MP UK Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
Drone Security
UK Unspecified Unspecified Ground-based: Fixed
Defence
RF Jamming, GNSS
DroneShield DroneCannon RW Australia Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
DroneShield DroneNode Australia Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
DroneShield DroneGun MKIII Australia Handheld
Jamming
24
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
DroneShield DroneGun Tactical Australia Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Dynamic Shielding Drone Hunter South Korea Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Dynamic Shielding Drone Hunter X South Korea Handheld
Jamming
RF, EO (Optional),
RF Jamming, GNSS
Elbit Systems ReDrone Israel IR (Optional), Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
(Optional)
RF, EO (Optional),
ReDrone Vehicular RF Jamming, GNSS
Elbit Systems Israel IR (Optional), Radar Ground-based: Mobile
Tactical System Jamming
(Optional)
RF Jamming, GNSS
ELT-Roma ADRIAN Italy RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
Jamming, Electromag-
Epirus Leonidas USA "Visual," Radar Ground-based: Fixed
netic Pulse
25
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
RF, Radar, Acoustic,
esc Aerospace escCUAS Germany Jamming, Electromag- Ground-based: Fixed
EO
netic Pulse
RF Jamming, GNSS
Flex Force DroneBuster Block 3 USA Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Flex Force DroneBuster FS USA Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Fortunio Drone Hunter Hungary Ground-based
Jamming
Portable Counter
RF Jamming, GNSS
Fuyuda Drone Defence China Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
System
Gewerbegebiet
AARTOS Germany RF Ground-based: Fixed
Aaronia
RF Jamming, GNSS
Gradiant smartJam Spain Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
Groupe ADP/DSNA
Hologarde France Radar, RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Services
26
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Gryphon Sensors
Skylight USA Radar, RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
(SRC)
Gryphon Sensors
Skylight Mobile USA Radar, RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Mobile
(SRC)
Guangdong Guo-An
RF Jamming, GNSS
Intelligent Aviation Anti-Drone Jammer China Handheld
Jamming
Company
Drone Detection
Hanwha Systems South Korea Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Radar
RF Jamming, GNSS
Hensoldt UK Germany Radar, E/O, RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Hensoldt Xpeller Rapid Germany Radar, E/O, RF Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Hensoldt Xpeller Gear Germany RF Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
Multi-sensor
Hunan NovaSky Elec-
Anti-UAV Defense China RF, EO RF Jamming
tronic Technology
System Solution
27
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Red Sky 2 Drone
IMI Systems Israel Radar, EO, IR Jamming, Laser (Op- Ground-based: Fixed
Defender System
tional)
RF Jamming, GNSS
Indra ARMS Spain Radar, RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming, Spoofing
RF Jamming, GNSS
IPB Systems Drone-Hunter Spain Acoustic, RF, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming, Spoofing
Israel Aerospace
POPSTAR Israel EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Industries
RF Jamming, GNSS
IXI Technology Drone Killer USA Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-2065 China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-2065H China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-2085H China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-1040H China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-4001P China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-4002P China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-3076B-UAV China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-4035-UAV China Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-3060N-UAV China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
28
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-3040-OMN China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-N3076-HGA China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-3076B-HGA China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-5030-UAV China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-5040R-UAV China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-6067-UAV China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-8078AR China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-8078ATW-HGA China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jammers4u CT-N3060-OMN China Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
JCPX Drone Fighter France Handheld
Jamming
JCPX Development/
DSNA Services/ UWAS Monaco Radar, EO, IR "Counter measures" Ground-based: Fixed
Aveillant
29
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Jiun An Technology Raysun MD1 Taiwan Handheld
Jamming
JSC Concern
Spoofing, RF Jam-
Radio-Electronic Leer-3 Russia UAV
ming, GNSS Jamming
Technologies
RF Jamming, GNSS
K9 Electronics Terminator 3000 UK Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
K9 Electronics DJ500F UK Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kaspersky Antidrone Russia Laser Scanning Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
GeoDome CDS
Kineti Netherlands RF RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Advance
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kirintec Recurve UK Ground-based
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kirintec Sky Net Longbow UK Ground-based
Jamming
Kongsberg Geospa-
tial/Echodyne/uAvi- Argus CUAS Canada/USA Radar, E/O, RF Ground-based: Fixed
onix
Konsortium Engi-
neering Activities & UAS Jammer France EO, IR Jamming
Security (KEAS)
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus KVS ANTIDRON-H Ukraine Handheld
Jamming
30
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus KVS ANTIDRON-M Ukraine Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus Veil Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus Typhoon Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus KVS ANTIDRON-C Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus KVS ANTIDRON-RC Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus FOG X6 Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Kvertus MIST Ukraine Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
Multi-Mission Hemi-
Leonardo DRS USA Radar Ground-based: Fixed
spheric Radar
Liteye/Blighter
Surveillance Systems/ Mobile Anti-UAV
RF Jamming, GNSS
Chess Dynamics/ Defense System USA/UK Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
Enterprise Control (M-AUDS)
Systems
RF Jamming, Pro-
Liteye/Orbital ATK T-REX USA Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Mobile
jectile
31
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, Spoof-
Lockheed Martin ICARUS USA RF, EO, Acoustic Ground-based
ing
Miniature Hit-to-Kill
Lockheed Martin USA Radar Projectile Ground-based: Mobile
(MHTK)
Lockheed Martin/
Falcon USA Radar Interceptor rockets Ground-based: Mobile
Saab/Diehl Defence
RF Jamming, GNSS
LocMas STUPOR Russia Handheld
Jamming
Magna Detection Solution Israel EO, IR, Acoustic Jamming, Spoofing Ground-based
Marine Anti-Drone
RF, Radar (Optional), RF Jamming, Spoof- Ground-based: Mar-
Martek Marine System (MADS) UK
EO, IR (Optional) ing (Optional) itime
Fixed
Reconfigurable Jam-
MC2 Technologies France RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
ming System
RF Jamming, GNSS
Meritis RTX-300P2/P6 Switzerland Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Meritis RTX-2000M6 Switzerland Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Meritis RTX-3000X Switzerland Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Meritis SkyCleaner Switzerland Handheld
Jamming
32
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Drone Detection
Miltronix UK Radar Ground-based: Mobile
Radar
Drone Deterrence
Mitsubishi Electric Japan RF RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
System
MyDefence Commu-
EAGLE Denmark Radar Ground-based: Fixed
nication
MyDefence Commu-
WATCHDOG Denmark RF Ground-based
nication
MyDefence Commu-
WOLFPACK Denmark RF Ground-based: Fixed
nication
MyDefence Commu-
Wingman 100 Denmark RF Handheld
nication
MyDefence Commu-
Wingman 101 Denmark RF Handheld
nication
MyDefence Commu-
Wingman 103 Denmark RF Handheld
nication
Programmable ammu-
Nammo Norway
nition
33
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Joint Counter
Radio-Controlled
Northrop Grumman Improvised Explosive USA RF Jamming Handheld
Device Electronic
Warfare (JCREW)
Mobile Application
Northrop Grumman for UAS Identification USA Acoustic Handheld
(MAUI)
Drone Restricted
Northrop Grumman Access Using Known USA RF Jamming Ground-based
EW (DRAKE)
Mobile Application
Northrop Grumman USA Acoustic Handheld
for UAS Identification
OpenWorks Engi-
Skywall 100 UK Net Handheld
neering
OpenWorks Engi-
Skywall 200 UK Net Handheld
neering
OpenWorks Engi-
Skywall 300 UK Net Ground-based: Fixed
neering
RF Jamming, GNSS
Optix Anti-Drone Bulgaria Handheld
Jamming
Repulse 2458H
PDA Electronics UK RF Jamming Handheld
Handheld
34
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Poly Technologies LANU-M1 China Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Proximus Bukovel Mini-FX Ukraine RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Proximus Bukovel Ukraine RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
QiLing UAV Air Guard-200 China RF, Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RADA Electronic
MHR Israel Radar Ground-based: Mobile
Industries
RADA Electronic
RPS-42 Israel Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Industries
RADA Electronic
ieMHR Israel Radar Ground-based
Industries
35
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RADA Electronic
xrMHR Israel Radar Ground-based
Industries
RADA Electronic
eCHR Israel Radar Ground-based
Industries
Rafael Advanced
I-Dome Israel Radar Projectile Ground-based: Mobile
Defense Systems
Explosive Collision
Raytheon Coyote USA UAV
Drone
Explosive Collision
Raytheon Howler USA Radar, RF Ground-based, UAV
Drone
Optional: Spoofing,
Radar, RF, Acoustic, RF Jamming, GNSS
Raytheon Windshear USA Ground-based: Fixed
EO, IR Jamming, High Power
Microwave
Remote Sensing
UAV Detection Radar Turkey Radar Ground-based
Technologies
RF Jamming, GNSS
Rheinmetall "Jammer" Germany Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
36
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Laser, Electromagnet-
Roketsan Alka Turkey Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
ic pulse
SC Scientific and
Technical Center of Repellent-1 Russia RF RF Jamming Ground-based: Mobile
Electronic Warfare
SDT Space and De- Radar, RF, EO, IR, RF Jamming, GNSS
Avci Turkey Ground-based: Fixed
fense Technologies Acoustic Jamming
37
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
eXpeditionary Mobile
Sierra Nevada Corpo-
Air Defense Integrat- RF Jamming, GNSS
ration/RADA/Ascent USA/Israel Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
ed System (X-MAD- Jamming
Vision Technologies
IS) FS
Three Dimensional
Signal Systems Cor-
Acoustic Sensing Unit USA Acoustic Ground-based: Fixed
poration
(3DASU)
RF Jamming, GNSS
Optional: Radar, EO,
SkyLock SkyLock Israel Jamming, Laser (Op- Ground-based, Mobile
IR, RF
tional)
RF Jamming, GNSS
SkyLock RF Anti-drone jammer Israel Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
SkyLock KNIGHT`S DOME Israel Handheld
Jamming
38
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Spoofing, RF Jam-
SkySafe Skysafe USA RF Handheld
ming, GNSS Jamming
Smart Anti-Vehicle
Ground-based: Fixed
SmartRounds Aerial Guided En- USA Projectile
or UAV
gagement (SAVAGE)
Sohgo Security
Japan Acoustic Ground-based: Fixed
Services
RF Jamming, GNSS
Sozvezdie Borisoglebsk 2 Russia RF Ground-based, Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
SRC Silent Archer USA Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
System Drone/Em-
Spain Spoofing UAV
bention
39
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
Tayyar Systems Sa'aq Gun (SG3) Oman Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Tayyar Systems Sa'aq Gun (SG2) Oman Handheld
Jamming
Tactical Expeditionary
Technology Service Mobile Protection USA Radar Ground-based: Mobile
Radar (TEMPR)
TeleRadio Engineer-
SkyDroner 1000 Singapore EO, Other Ground-based: Fixed
ing
TeleRadio Engineer-
SkyDroner 500 Singapore EO, Other Ground-based: Fixed
ing
RF Jamming, GNSS
Terra Hexen DBS Poland Ground-based
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Terra Hexen SAFESKY Poland Radar, EO, Acoustic Ground-based
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Thales Horus Captor Spain Radar, EO, IR Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
"AN/MPQ-64F1
Thales/Raytheon France Radar Ground-based: Fixed
Improved Sentinel"
Drone Detection
Toshiba Japan RF, EO Ground-based: Fixed
System
40
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
RF Jamming, GNSS
TRD Consultancy Orion-7 ++ Singapore Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
TRD Consultancy Orion-H Drone Slayer Singapore Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
TRD Consultancy Orion-9 Singapore Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
TRD Consultancy Orion-T Singapore Handheld
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
TRD Consultancy Orion-B Singapore Ground-based: Mobile
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Ukroboronprom Suricatta Ukraine RF Ground-based
Jamming
RF Jamming, GNSS
Unknown Valdai Russia RF Ground-based: Fixed
Jamming
Verus Technology
SkyView-DI USA RF Ground-based: Fixed
Group
Verus Technology
SkyView-MP USA RF Ground-based: Mobile
Group
Vigilant Drone
DDU-1 USA RF Ground-based
Defense
Vigilant Drone
DD-SP1 USA RF Jamming Ground-based: Mobile
Defense
Vigilant Drone
HH-SP1 USA RF Jamming Handheld
Defense
Vigilant Drone
DD-SP160 USA RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Defense
41
COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS 2nd Edition
Vigilant Drone
DD-SP360 USA RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Defense
Vigilant Drone
LRP-1 USA RF Jamming Handheld
Defense
Vigilant Drone
LRP-2 USA RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Defense
Vigilant Drone
LRY-2 USA RF Jamming Ground-based: Fixed
Defense
42