Guide to Countering Unmanned Systems: Difference between revisions

From Irregularpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
shell tables
Tag: wikieditor
Tag: wikieditor
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Leader’s Guide to Counter Unmanned Systems =
= 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 ==
== 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/3/5/pentagon-consolidates-counter-uas-programs-as-menace-grows |title=Pentagon Consolidates Counter-UAS Programs |publisher=National Defense Magazine}}</ref>
Key training components:
* '''Threat Identification''': Training subordinates to recognize both low-cost and high-tech drones, including swarm attacks and preprogrammed autonomous UAS.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/09/u-s-army-tests-counter-uas-systems-to-tackle-drone-swarm-threats |title=U.S. Army Tests Counter UAS Systems To Tackle Drone Swarm Threats |publisher=The Aviationist}}</ref>
* '''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) solutions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/how-innovative-technologies-and-a-layered-approach-can-make-c-uas-solutions-more-effective |title=How innovative technologies and a layered approach can make C-UAS solutions more effective |publisher=Military Embedded Systems}}</ref>
* '''Tactical Guidance''': Emphasize offensive measures, such as targeting enemy UAS operators, when possible. A solid offensive strategy complements C-UAS efforts, as eliminating the enemy pilot renders UAS threats inoperable.
“At all times, if given the opportunity, kill the enemy pilot and disable their sUAS weapon systems. This concludes the counter sUAS brief.”


== Counter Unmanned Systems: Dealing with Vendors ==
== 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/how-innovative-technologies-and-a-layered-approach-can-make-c-uas-solutions-more-effective |title=How innovative technologies and a layered approach can make C-UAS solutions more effective |publisher=Military Embedded Systems}}</ref>
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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/09/u-s-army-tests-counter-uas-systems-to-tackle-drone-swarm-threats |title=U.S. Army Tests Counter UAS Systems To Tackle Drone Swarm Threats |publisher=The Aviationist}}</ref>
* '''Cost-Effectiveness''': Offering viable options for both high-end and low-cost UAS threats.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/3/5/pentagon-consolidates-counter-uas-programs-as-menace-grows |title=Pentagon Consolidates Counter-UAS Programs |publisher=National Defense Magazine}}</ref>
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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/how-innovative-technologies-and-a-layered-approach-can-make-c-uas-solutions-more-effective |title=How innovative technologies and a layered approach can make C-UAS solutions more effective |publisher=Military Embedded Systems}}</ref> 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 ==
This table compares various C-UAS solutions, focusing on operational effectiveness, range, power consumption, and other factors that matter on the battlefield.


== SWaP-C Comparison Table for Counter Unmanned Systems ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! '''Model'''
! '''Model'''
! '''Size (L x W x H)'''
! '''Range (km)'''
! '''Weight (kg)'''
! '''Power (watts)'''
! '''Power (watts)'''
! '''Cost (USD)'''
! '''Cost (USD)'''
! '''Point of Contact'''
! '''Point of Contact'''
! '''Remarks'''
! '''Remarks'''
|-
| Stargazer
| 6 km
| 400 W
| $180,000
| Vendor A
| Proven in Ukraine, adaptable to different UAS threats.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/09/u-s-army-tests-counter-uas-systems-to-tackle-drone-swarm-threats |title=U.S. Army Tests Counter UAS Systems To Tackle Drone Swarm Threats |publisher=The Aviationist}}</ref>
|-
| Squarehead FOCUS
| 3.5 km
| 320 W
| $120,000
| Vendor B
| Effective for smaller UAS, needs improved camera quality.
|-
| Defendtex Metalstorm M320 Insert
| 0.5 km (shotgun)
| N/A
| $15,000
| Vendor C
| Close-range kinetic option, challenges with accuracy in swarm scenarios.
|}
|}


== SWAP-C Table Key ==
== Key Considerations ==
# '''Size''': Dimensions of the system (e.g., length, width, height).
# '''Range''': The maximum effective range for detection, tracking, and engagement.
# '''Weight''': Total weight of the system including payloads.
# '''Power Requirements''': Operational sustainability in field environments.
# '''Power''': Power requirements and battery life.
# '''Cost''': Includes both procurement and operational maintenance.
# '''Cost''': Overall cost including maintenance and operation.
# '''Vendor Support''': Ability to upgrade and maintain systems over time.
# '''Point of Contact''': Primary vendor contact for the system.
# '''Remarks''': Performance in field trials and user feedback.
# '''Remarks''': Additional comments or limitations about the system.


== Key Phrases to Watch For ==
== Key Phrases to Watch For ==
=== Look For (Good) ===
=== Look For (Good) ===
#  
# "Layered defense approach" – Integrating multiple technologies for a comprehensive defense.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/how-innovative-technologies-and-a-layered-approach-can-make-c-uas-solutions-more-effective |title=How innovative technologies and a layered approach can make C-UAS solutions more effective |publisher=Military Embedded Systems}}</ref>
#  
# "Low-collateral interceptors" – Minimizes risk to non-combatants and friendly forces.
#  
# "AI-powered threat prioritization" – Enhances decision-making speed and accuracy.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/09/u-s-army-tests-counter-uas-systems-to-tackle-drone-swarm-threats |title=U.S. Army Tests Counter UAS Systems To Tackle Drone Swarm Threats |publisher=The Aviationist}}</ref>
#


=== Watch Out For (Bad) ===
=== Watch Out For (Bad) ===
#  
# "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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/3/5/pentagon-consolidates-counter-uas-programs-as-menace-grows |title=Pentagon Consolidates Counter-UAS Programs |publisher=National Defense Magazine}}</ref>
#


== Questions Leaders Should Be Asking ==
== Questions Leaders Should Be Asking ==
#  
# How does this system perform against large-scale swarm attacks?
#  
# What is the total cost per engagement, and how does it compare to the threat posed by low-cost UAS?
#  
# How does the system integrate with other defensive layers and existing command and control networks?
#  
# What are the power and logistical requirements for sustained field operations?
# What is the system’s adaptability to evolving UAS threats, such as autonomous and preprogrammed drones?<ref>{{cite web |url=https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/how-innovative-technologies-and-a-layered-approach-can-make-c-uas-solutions-more-effective |title=How innovative technologies and a layered approach can make C-UAS solutions more effective |publisher=Military Embedded Systems}}</ref>


== Actions for Technical Section or Consultant to Validate SUAS Claims ==
== 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/09/u-s-army-tests-counter-uas-systems-to-tackle-drone-swarm-threats |title=U.S. Army Tests Counter UAS Systems To Tackle Drone Swarm Threats |publisher=The Aviationist}}</ref>
#  
# Evaluate cost-effectiveness of system ammunition or power requirements in comparison to the threat.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/3/5/pentagon-consolidates-counter-uas-programs-as-menace-grows |title=Pentagon Consolidates Counter-UAS Programs |publisher=National Defense Magazine}}</ref>
#  
# Ensure integration with existing systems and compatibility with other C-UAS technologies.


== Telltale Signs Leaders Should Be Aware Of ==
== Telltale Signs Leaders Should Be Aware Of ==
Line 54: Line 92:
! '''Implication'''
! '''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 ==


[[Category:Login NotYet Required]]
[[Category:Login NotYet Required]]

Latest revision as of 12:27, 24 September 2024

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

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.[1]

Key training components:

  • Threat Identification: Training subordinates to recognize both low-cost and high-tech drones, including swarm attacks and preprogrammed autonomous UAS.[2]
  • 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) solutions.[3]
  • Tactical Guidance: Emphasize offensive measures, such as targeting enemy UAS operators, when possible. A solid offensive strategy complements C-UAS efforts, as eliminating the enemy pilot renders UAS threats inoperable.

“At all times, if given the opportunity, kill the enemy pilot and disable their sUAS weapon systems. This concludes the counter sUAS brief.”

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.[4]

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.[5]
  • Cost-Effectiveness: Offering viable options for both high-end and low-cost UAS threats.[6]

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.[7] 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

This table compares various C-UAS solutions, focusing on operational effectiveness, range, power consumption, and other factors that matter on the battlefield.

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.[8]
Squarehead FOCUS 3.5 km 320 W $120,000 Vendor B Effective for smaller UAS, needs improved camera quality.
Defendtex Metalstorm M320 Insert 0.5 km (shotgun) N/A $15,000 Vendor C Close-range kinetic option, challenges with accuracy in swarm scenarios.

Key Considerations

  1. Range: The maximum effective range for detection, tracking, and engagement.
  2. Power Requirements: Operational sustainability in field environments.
  3. Cost: Includes both procurement and operational maintenance.
  4. Vendor Support: Ability to upgrade and maintain systems over time.
  5. Remarks: Performance in field trials and user feedback.

Key Phrases to Watch For

Look For (Good)

  1. "Layered defense approach" – Integrating multiple technologies for a comprehensive defense.[9]
  2. "Low-collateral interceptors" – Minimizes risk to non-combatants and friendly forces.
  3. "AI-powered threat prioritization" – Enhances decision-making speed and accuracy.[10]

Watch Out For (Bad)

  1. "High collateral risk" – Systems that may endanger civilian infrastructure.
  2. "Limited effectiveness against swarms" – Systems struggling with multiple UAS threats simultaneously.
  3. "Excessive cost per engagement" – Unsustainable solutions for prolonged conflict scenarios.[11]

Questions Leaders Should Be Asking

  1. How does this system perform against large-scale swarm attacks?
  2. What is the total cost per engagement, and how does it compare to the threat posed by low-cost UAS?
  3. How does the system integrate with other defensive layers and existing command and control networks?
  4. What are the power and logistical requirements for sustained field operations?
  5. What is the system’s adaptability to evolving UAS threats, such as autonomous and preprogrammed drones?[12]

Actions for Technical Section or Consultant to Validate C-UAS Claims

  1. Verify system detection range and accuracy against different UAS types.
  2. Test system's resilience and performance during sustained operations and in harsh environments.[13]
  3. Evaluate cost-effectiveness of system ammunition or power requirements in comparison to the threat.[14]
  4. Ensure integration with existing systems and compatibility with other C-UAS technologies.

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

  1. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  2. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  3. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  4. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  5. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  6. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  7. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  8. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  9. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  10. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  11. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  12. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  13. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  14. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
Retrieved from "https://irregularpedia.org/index.php?title=Guide_to_Countering_Unmanned_Systems&oldid=649"