Guide to Countering Unmanned Systems: Difference between revisions
fixed bold Tag: wikieditor |
references Tag: wikieditor |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== 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 | 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: | Key training components: | ||
* '''Threat Identification''': Training subordinates to recognize both low-cost and high-tech drones, including swarm attacks and preprogrammed autonomous UAS | * '''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 | * '''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 | * '''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.” | “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 | 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: | Vendors should be able to demonstrate: | ||
* '''Scalability''': Ability to adapt to evolving threats, such as swarms or autonomous UAS | * '''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 | * '''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 | * '''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 | 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 == | == C-UAS Technology Comparison Table == | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| $180,000 | | $180,000 | ||
| Vendor A | | Vendor A | ||
| Proven in Ukraine, adaptable to different UAS threats | | 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 | | Squarehead FOCUS | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| $120,000 | | $120,000 | ||
| Vendor B | | Vendor B | ||
| Effective for smaller UAS, needs improved camera quality | | Effective for smaller UAS, needs improved camera quality. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Defendtex Metalstorm M320 Insert | | Defendtex Metalstorm M320 Insert | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| $15,000 | | $15,000 | ||
| Vendor C | | Vendor C | ||
| Close-range kinetic option, challenges with accuracy in swarm scenarios | | Close-range kinetic option, challenges with accuracy in swarm scenarios. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
== 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 | # "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 | # "Low-collateral interceptors" – Minimizes risk to non-combatants and friendly forces. | ||
# "AI-powered threat prioritization" – Enhances decision-making speed and accuracy | # "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 | # "High collateral risk" – Systems that may endanger civilian infrastructure. | ||
# "Limited effectiveness against swarms" – Systems struggling with multiple UAS threats simultaneously | # "Limited effectiveness against swarms" – Systems struggling with multiple UAS threats simultaneously. | ||
# "Excessive cost per engagement" – Unsustainable solutions for prolonged conflict scenarios | # "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 == | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
# How does the system integrate with other defensive layers and existing command and control networks? | # 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 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 | # 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 C-UAS Claims == | == Actions for Technical Section or Consultant to Validate C-UAS Claims == | ||
# Verify system detection range and accuracy against different UAS types. | # Verify system detection range and accuracy against different UAS types. | ||
# Test system's resilience and performance during sustained operations and in harsh environments | # 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 | # 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 | # 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 93: | Line 93: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Frequent jamming failures | | Frequent jamming failures | ||
| System may not be effective against advanced or multiple UAS threats | | System may not be effective against advanced or multiple UAS threats. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| High cost per engagement | | High cost per engagement | ||
| System is likely unsustainable in large-scale, prolonged conflicts | | System is likely unsustainable in large-scale, prolonged conflicts. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Overpromised capabilities by vendor | | Overpromised capabilities by vendor | ||
| Could lead to over-investment in unproven systems | | Could lead to over-investment in unproven systems. | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 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
- 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
Look For (Good)
- "Layered defense approach" – Integrating multiple technologies for a comprehensive defense.[9]
- "Low-collateral interceptors" – Minimizes risk to non-combatants and friendly forces.
- "AI-powered threat prioritization" – Enhances decision-making speed and accuracy.[10]
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.[11]
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?[12]
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.[13]
- Evaluate cost-effectiveness of system ammunition or power requirements in comparison to the threat.[14]
- 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. |
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
- ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).