Threat Identification
Training subordinates to recognize both low-cost and high-tech drones, including swarm attacks and preprogrammed autonomous UAS.
Guide to Countering Unmanned Systems
Leader’s Guide to Counter Unmanned Systems
Section titled “Leader’s Guide to Counter Unmanned Systems”This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS), integrating practical advice, community insights, and lessons from field operations. It emphasizes training, vendor interaction, and key considerations for leaders in the constantly evolving challenge of countering unmanned systems.
Training for Subordinates
Section titled “Training for Subordinates”Effective C-UAS operations begin with well-trained subordinates. Training should cover key principles of detecting, neutralizing, and engaging unmanned threats. A layered defense is crucial, combining multiple technologies, such as radar, RF jammers, and high-powered lasers. Instructors should focus on hands-on familiarity with these systems, as well as the integration of AI and networked sensors for faster decision-making.
System Proficiency
Ensuring that operators are comfortable with layered defense systems that combine kinetic (e.g., shotguns, missiles) and non-kinetic (e.g., RF jamming).
Tactical Guidance
Emphasize offensive measures, such as targeting enemy UAS operators. Eliminating the pilot renders UAS threats inoperable.
Counter Unmanned Systems: Dealing with Vendors
Section titled “Counter Unmanned Systems: Dealing with Vendors”When engaging vendors, leaders should prioritize systems that offer cost-effective, scalable solutions. Some systems, like the Stargazer series, have demonstrated strong field performance, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine. Others, like Squarehead Technology’s FOCUS system, show promise but could benefit from enhanced features such as higher-quality cameras.
Vendors should be able to demonstrate:
- Scalability: Ability to adapt to evolving threats, such as swarms or autonomous UAS.
- Layered Capabilities: Integration of multiple technologies, such as sensors, RF jammers, and AI-powered tracking.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Offering viable options for both high-end and low-cost UAS threats.
Leaders must also consider practical and unconventional tools, such as the Defendtex Metalstorm shotgun insert for the M320, which offers an effective kinetic solution against drones. However, the challenge of accuracy remains a significant issue for shotgun-based defenses, with opponents often likening it to shooting sporting clays or hunting birds.
C-UAS Technology Comparison Table
Section titled “C-UAS Technology Comparison Table”| Model | Range (km) | Power (watts) | Cost (USD) | Point of Contact | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stargazer | 6 km | 400 W | $180,000 | Vendor A | Proven in Ukraine, adaptable to different UAS threats |
| Squarehead FOCUS | 3.5 km | 320 W | $120,000 | Vendor B | Effective for smaller UAS, needs improved camera quality |
| Defendtex Metalstorm | 0.5 km | N/A | $15,000 | Vendor C | Close-range kinetic option, challenges with accuracy |
Key Considerations
Section titled “Key Considerations”- Range: The maximum effective range for detection, tracking, and engagement.
- Power Requirements: Operational sustainability in field environments.
- Cost: Includes both procurement and operational maintenance.
- Vendor Support: Ability to upgrade and maintain systems over time.
- Remarks: Performance in field trials and user feedback.
Key Phrases to Watch For
Section titled “Key Phrases to Watch For”- “Layered defense approach” – Integrating multiple technologies for a comprehensive defense.
- “Low-collateral interceptors” – Minimizes risk to non-combatants and friendly forces.
- “AI-powered threat prioritization” – Enhances decision-making speed and accuracy.
- “High collateral risk” – Systems that may endanger civilian infrastructure.
- “Limited effectiveness against swarms” – Systems struggling with multiple UAS threats simultaneously.
- “Excessive cost per engagement” – Unsustainable solutions for prolonged conflict scenarios.
Vendor Evaluation Reference Sheet
Section titled “Vendor Evaluation Reference Sheet”Use these tabs to navigate specific categories of questions when evaluating C-UAS systems.
- Total Cost of Ownership: What is the full cost, including kits, additions, and recurring software licenses?
- O&M Support: What are the estimated costs for Operations and Maintenance support?
- Production Capacity: How many units can be produced and delivered within a specific timeframe?
- Portability: How much does it weigh? Is it man-packable, man-portable, vehicle-mounted, or UAS/HAB-ready?
- Power Requirements: Does it run on battery, shore power, or both? What are the requirements for sustained field operations?
- Frequency Coverage: What specific frequencies or frequency ranges does it cover?
- Power Output: How much power (wattage) does it put out for engagement?
- Environmental Rating: Is the system environmentally sealed or ruggedized (IP rating)?
- Data I/O: What data can it ingest or output?
- IQ Data: Can it ingest, save, or output IQ data?
- VITA 49: Does it support any flavor of the VITA 49 standard?
- TAK Integration: Is it compatible with TAK (Cursor on Target)? If not, why?
- COP Integration: Has the system been successfully integrated into a Common Operational Picture (COP)?
- Net Readiness: Does the system meet “Net Ready” requirements for your organization?
- Remote Operation: Can the system be operated remotely?
- Connectivity: Are the cables and connectors proprietary or industry-standard?
- Logic Type: Is it a library-based system, an RFML (Machine Learning) based system, or a hybrid?
- Development Environment: Does it have an open development environment?
- Reprogrammability: Is the system reprogrammable in the field by operators, or does it require proprietary vendor handling?
- Upgradeability: How upgradeable are the internal components and software? (Ask for proof of modularity).
- Third-Party Integration: Who are some Points of Contact (POCs) that have successfully integrated their own software or hardware on this box?
- Targeting Capability: Can it affect more than one target or frequency simultaneously?
- Attack Modes: What are the available attack modes (e.g., noise, timing, protocol manipulation)?
- Target Vectors: Does it target C2 (Command and Control), GNSS (Navigation), and/or video links?
- Performance Data: What proven performance data exists against specific UAS makes/models/groups?
- Security & Classification: Does it meet specific security requirements? What classification levels (Unclassified, Secret, etc.) is it intended for and capable of operating at?
- Swarm Defense: How does the system perform against large-scale swarm attacks?
- User Base: Who currently uses this system? (Request names and contact numbers for references).
- Engagement Economics: What is the total cost per engagement compared to the threat (e.g., using a $100k missile for a $500 drone)?
- Field Provenance: Has this system seen combat or significant field trials?
Actions for Technical Section or Consultant to Validate C-UAS Claims
Section titled “Actions for Technical Section or Consultant to Validate C-UAS Claims”- Verify system detection range and accuracy against different UAS types.
- Test system’s resilience and performance during sustained operations and in harsh environments.
- Evaluate cost-effectiveness of system ammunition or power requirements in comparison to the threat.
- Ensure integration with existing systems and compatibility with other C-UAS technologies.
Telltale Signs Leaders Should Be Aware Of
Section titled “Telltale Signs Leaders Should Be Aware Of”| Sign | Implication |
|---|---|
| Frequent jamming failures | System may not be effective against advanced or multiple UAS threats |
| High cost per engagement | System is likely unsustainable in large-scale, prolonged conflicts |
| Overpromised capabilities by vendor | Could lead to over-investment in unproven systems |
References
Section titled “References”- Technology
- Unmanned Systems
- Warfare