This video from D-Fend Solutions examines the capabilities and drawbacks of various C-UAS mitigation technologies, including RF jammers, kinetic solutions, lasers, EMP/HPM, GNSS spoofing, and advanced RF cyber-based methods.
- RF Jammers: Disrupt drone communication with bursts of energy. Cost-effective and simple, though performance depends on signal strength, distance, and continuous transmission.
- Kinetic Solutions: Use projectiles to neutralize drones. Factors such as size, portability, and cost impact usability. These methods require line-of-sight and face challenges with moving targets and the risk of collateral damage.
- EMP/HPM: Typically used as a last resort due to their indiscriminate nature and potential to damage surrounding electronics.
- GNSS Spoofing: More disruptive than jamming, impacting all navigation devices in the area and potentially causing accidents and confusion with other systems.
- RF Cyber-Based Takeover: Offers precise, low-risk mitigation by detecting, taking control of, and safely landing rogue drones. Can be automated to reduce human error and preserve the drone for analysis while allowing authorized drones to continue operation.
Operational Considerations
Environmental factors, such as limited visibility, RF interference, and signal propagation, can affect effectiveness. Identifying and neutralizing the drone operator and using a multi-layered approach can enhance overall success.
