- Skyrocketing Drone Incidents: Unauthorized drone incursions over stadiums, airports, and critical sites are surging – the NFL reported 2,845 rogue drones over games in 2023, up 12% from the previous year reuters.com. Law enforcement and industry experts warn that “the time to act to keep fans safe is now” reuters.com.
- Arsenal of Anti-Drone Tech: A booming market of anti-drone systems offers radio jammers, GPS spoofers, net launchers, radar sensors, and even drone “hijackers” to counter unmanned intruders. These tools promise to detect, track, and neutralize drones at airports, stadiums, prisons, and private properties – without the risks of shooting them down courthousenews.com courthousenews.com.
- Non-Lethal (But Not Legal?) Countermeasures: Civilian-sector defenses focus on non-lethal methods like jamming or capture, as destroying a drone outright is considered destroying an aircraft – a federal crime in the U.S. jrupprechtlaw.com. However, most anti-drone tech (jammers, spoofers, etc.) is off-limits to the public under communications and aviation laws jrupprechtlaw.com robinradar.com, spurring new legislation to expand authority for police and critical infrastructure operators courthousenews.com reuters.com.
- High-Tech Hijacks & Hackers: Cutting-edge systems can hack a rogue drone in mid-air. For example, Israel’s D-Fend EnforceAir platform detects an intruding drone, seizes control, and safely lands it – allowing forensic analysis or return to its owner in harmless cases courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. Such “cyber takeover” tools are precise and safe, though they rely on up-to-date drone software libraries and may falter against military-grade drones courthousenews.com robinradar.com.
- Nets, Eagles, and Interceptor Drones: Low-tech meets high-tech in net capture systems – from handheld net cannons to “drone hunter” UAVs that chase and ensnare rogue drones in mid-air robinradar.com robinradar.com. These physically capture the device intact, aiding evidence collection, but face limits in range and chasing agile targets robinradar.com. (Some agencies even tried trained eagles to pluck drones from the sky, though such programs have been largely discontinued.)
- Detection-First Approach: Many venues deploy multi-sensor drone detection networks – specialized micro radars, RF scanners, cameras and acoustic sensors – to get early alerts of drones. For instance, DroneShield’s new SentryCiv system for civilian sites uses “non-emitting” radio frequency sensors to detect and track drones without jamming cuashub.com cuashub.com. These passive detection systems avoid legal headaches and can pinpoint a drone (and sometimes its pilot) by triangulating signals robinradar.com robinradar.com.
- Civilian vs Military Countermeasures: Military anti-drone defenses include high-power jammers, missiles, and laser weapons that obliterate drones on the battlefield, but civilian defenders must prioritize safety and legality. High-power jamming that creates a wide “radio silence” zone is “typically reserved for wartime use” and rarely deployed around civilians due to collateral interference fortemtech.com. Instead, commercial systems emphasize limited-range jamming or controlled capture to avoid causing falling debris or communication blackouts courthousenews.com fortemtech.com.
- Evolving Laws & Regulations: Governments are racing to update laws written for manned aviation courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. In the U.S., only federal agencies (DOD, DHS, DOJ, etc.) could legally disrupt drones under a 2018 law, but new bipartisan bills in 2024 aim to expand counter-drone authority to airports, local police, and critical infrastructure operators reuters.com reuters.com. Europe, likewise, is approving anti-drone measures for major events (e.g. France deployed advanced spoofing systems to guard the 2024 Olympics) safran-group.com safran-group.com.
Introduction
Drones have become a double-edged sword in modern skies. Affordable quadcopters and DIY unmanned aircraft are everywhere – delivering pizza and filming weddings one day, buzzing airport runways or smuggling contraband into prisons the next courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. With incidents of rogue drones harassing airports and trespassing over critical facilities on the rise courthousenews.com courthousenews.com, a new industry has exploded in response: civilian and commercial anti-drone systems. These counter-UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) solutions promise to detect and defeat unwelcome drones using technology that sounds straight out of science fiction – radio jammers, “GPS spoofing” hackers, net-launching cannons, drone-hunting drones, acoustic trackers, and more.
However, deploying these defenses outside of a battlefield is fraught with challenges. Safety and legality are paramount: Unlike the military, a stadium security team or airport police unit can’t simply blast a drone out of the sky with a missile. Most countries’ laws forbid damaging or disabling aircraft (which includes drones) without proper authority, and jamming radio signals or GPS is heavily restricted by communications regulators jrupprechtlaw.com jrupprechtlaw.com. As one drone warfare expert notes, “aside from shooting down the devices – which may create further danger – there’s often not much anyone can do” once a drone intrudes where it shouldn’t courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. That is finally beginning to change. Spurred by high-profile drone incursions (from the Gatwick Airport shutdown to drones over NFL games), governments and tech companies are investing in creative countermeasures that safely wrest back control of the skies.
This report provides a comprehensive comparison of the anti-drone systems emerging for civilian and commercial use. We’ll examine all major categories of technology – from jammers that sever a drone’s radio leash, to spoofers that fool it with false navigation signals, to nets that literally snare drones in mid-air. Along the way, we’ll highlight recent developments, real-world deployments, legal hurdles, and the pros and cons of each approach. We’ll also name-check leading manufacturers and models shaping this market, and look at how civilian counter-drone defenses stack up against military solutions. Whether it’s protecting an airport, stadium, prison, or your own backyard, consider this your up-to-date guide on how to stop a rogue drone (legally) without shooting it down.
The Spectrum of Civilian Anti-Drone Systems
Modern counter-drone setups typically involve a two-layer approach: 1) Detection – spotting and identifying the drone (and ideally locating its operator), and 2) Mitigation – neutralizing the threat by disabling or capturing the drone. Below, we break down the main system types in both categories, explaining how they work, where they’re used, and their effectiveness, cost, and legal status.
Drone Detection Technologies
Before you can stop a drone, you have to detect it. This is easier said than done – small drones are hard to pick up on conventional radars or cameras, and a lone quadcopter can slip by inattentive eyes and ears. Thus, a range of specialized drone detection sensors have been developed. These are generally passive or non-destructive systems (legal for civilian use) that provide early warning and tracking:
- Drone Detection Radar: Unlike traditional air traffic radars (which ignore small slow objects), dedicated counter-drone radars can track the tiny radar cross-section of hobbyist drones robinradar.com robinradar.com. These radars emit radio waves and detect the reflections off a drone, calculating its location and altitude. Pros: They offer long-range, 360° coverage and can track hundreds of targets simultaneously, day or night robinradar.com. Weather and lighting don’t matter to radar, and crucially, radar can follow autonomous drones that aren’t emitting any signals. Cons: Radar units are expensive and can sometimes struggle in cluttered environments (requiring tuning to distinguish drones from birds or debris). They also provide a blip on a screen – often you’ll integrate radar with other sensors to classify what the object is.
- RF Analyzers (Radio Frequency Scanners): Many drones communicate with their controllers via radio links (typically Wi-Fi or proprietary protocols at 2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz, etc.). RF detection systems passively listen for these control or video signals. By scanning the frequency spectrum, an RF analyzer can detect a drone’s presence often before it’s visible, and even identify the make/model or unique signal fingerprint in some cases robinradar.com robinradar.com. Some advanced systems can triangulate the signals to locate the drone and its pilot (if the pilot is nearby and transmitting) robinradar.com. Pros: RF detectors are generally low-cost and completely passive (no emissions, so no license needed) robinradar.com robinradar.com, and they excel at spotting multiple drones and controllers in real time. Cons: They can’t detect drones that aren’t using a recognizable radio link (e.g. fully autonomous drones on pre-programmed routes) robinradar.com robinradar.com. They also have limited range and can be overwhelmed in “noisy” RF environments (like busy urban settings with lots of Wi-Fi/Bluetooth). Maintaining a database of drone signal signatures is an ongoing effort – new drone models or modified signals may evade detection until libraries are updated robinradar.com.
- Optical Sensors (Cameras): High-resolution electro-optical cameras and infrared (thermal) cameras can serve as “drone spotters,” especially when augmented by AI-based image recognition. These are often mounted on pan-tilt units or paired with radars to zoom in on a suspected drone. Pros: Cameras provide visual confirmation – you can identify the drone type and check for any payload (e.g. is it carrying a package or something dangerous?) robinradar.com robinradar.com. They also record evidence (video/images) that can be used for prosecution or forensic analysis robinradar.com robinradar.com. Cons: Optical systems are highly weather and lighting dependent – fog, darkness, glare, or distance can thwart them robinradar.com. They also have higher false alarm rates (e.g. a bird or balloon might be misidentified by automated vision). Cameras alone are rarely reliable for initial detection, but they are vital for classification and documentation once another sensor cues them to a target.
- Acoustic Sensors: An intriguing approach uses microphones or acoustic arrays to “hear” the distinctive buzz of drone propellers. By filtering specific audio frequencies, these systems can alert to drone noises and roughly direction-find. Pros: Acoustic detectors can pick up drones that emit no radio signal (fully autonomous) and even detect drones hidden behind obstacles or trees (sound can diffract where radar/vision might be blocked) robinradar.com robinradar.com. They are also highly portable and quick to deploy, and like RF sensors, completely passive (no transmission) robinradar.com robinradar.com. Cons: They have short range (often only a few hundred meters) robinradar.com and are easily fooled by loud environments – crowd noise, city traffic, or wind can mask drone sounds. Acoustic systems tend to be used as gap-fillers alongside other sensors, rather than a primary detection method.
Modern counter-UAS installations (e.g. at an airport or large event) often use sensor fusion – combining several of the above technologies to improve reliability. For example, a system might use RF scanning to pick up a drone’s control signal, cue a radar to lock onto the moving object, and then slew a camera to visually confirm the drone and track it. Software will then classify the drone type (perhaps identifying it as a DJI Phantom vs. a custom racing drone) and may even pinpoint the pilot’s location via RF triangulation if possible. The end goal is comprehensive situational awareness: “detect, track, and identify,” as law enforcement officials put it courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. In fact, detection alone is currently the most legally permissible action in many jurisdictions – private security or critical infrastructure operators are generally allowed to monitor their airspace with sensors, even if taking direct action against a drone is restricted. This has led to products like DroneShield’s SentryCiv focusing purely on detection and alerting, “integrating into existing security setups and providing early warning without the legal and operational complications” of jamming or physically intercepting the drone cuashub.com cuashub.com.
Jamming: Radio Frequency Jammers
Once a rogue drone is detected, one common neutralization method is jamming – overwhelming the drone’s control or navigation signals with noise so that it can no longer operate properly. RF jammers work by transmitting a powerful blast of radio energy on the frequencies a drone uses. Most consumer drones rely on two key links: the command-and-control link (from the pilot’s remote control, often at 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz) and satellite navigation signals (GPS or other GNSS in the ~1.2–1.6 GHz range) fortemtech.com fortemtech.com. A jammer can target one or both of these links:
- Control Signal Jammers: These flood the drone’s control frequencies with noise, effectively drowning out the pilot’s commands. The result depends on the drone’s fail-safe programming. Many drones, when jammed, will think they’ve lost connection – they may hover down for a landing, or initiate “Return to Home” (which could be a problem if the pilot set the home point to be an unauthorized target) robinradar.com robinradar.com. Some less sophisticated drones might just drop or fly off randomly robinradar.com robinradar.com. Pros: Jamming is a relatively straightforward, immediate effect – it can stop a drone at the push of a trigger without needing precise aim (if using an area jammer). Cons: It’s a blunt instrument. As the U.S. Associated Press summarized, “jamming a drone is highly effective… but it’s a blunt tool – jamming not just the drone’s signal but other electromagnetic signals” in the vicinity courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. In other words, a jammer doesn’t discriminate: it can also knock out Wi-Fi networks, radio comms, or even affect airport radar and emergency frequencies if not carefully managed. For this reason, **high-power jammers that blanket an area in RF noise are essentially military-only tools, used in war zones or remote test ranges, and “rarely see deployment in places with civilians” fortemtech.com due to the collateral disruption.
- GPS/GNSS Jammers: These target the drone’s satellite navigation reception (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, etc.). Many drones use GPS for position hold and autonomous navigation. Jamming GPS can confuse the drone’s autopilot, potentially causing it to drift or fail to navigate. However, most drone jammers in the civilian context focus on the control link; GPS jamming is more often seen in military contexts or high-security scenarios (e.g. protecting VIP events) because GPS disruption can have wider area effects on any device using GPS nearby.
- Handheld vs. Fixed Jammers: Handheld “drone gun” jammers have become iconic in the C-UAS world – they look like sci-fi rifles, and are pointed at a rogue drone to jam it in a targeted cone of interference. Examples include the DroneShield DroneGun series and the newer DedroneDefender gun robinradar.com robinradar.com. These are designed to be relatively “safe” in that they directionally jam the drone (aiming upward at it), minimizing horizontal spread of interference fortemtech.com fortemtech.com. By contrast, fixed or vehicle-mounted jammers can output higher power to cover a larger radius, but with greater risk of creating a local communications blackout. Handheld jammers have the advantage of mobility and precision, but their effective range is typically a few hundred meters at most, requiring the drone to be fairly close and the operator to have line of sight. Fixed jammers might protect a 1–2 km radius but are heavily controlled.
Legality: In most countries, using a jammer is illegal for anyone other than specially authorized government agencies. In the U.S., for example, drone jammers (indeed any jamming) are outright illegal to operate except by federal agencies with specific permission jrupprechtlaw.com jrupprechtlaw.com. The reason is that jamming violates the Communications Act and FCC regulations by interfering with licensed spectrum and potentially public safety communications. Even testing or R&D of jammers on your own property can incur massive fines jrupprechtlaw.com jrupprechtlaw.com. Thus, commercial sellers of jammers generally restrict sales to military or government only, and even public safety officials have been in a legal gray area (though this is changing, as discussed in the legal section below).
Effectiveness: Jammers can be very effective at immediately neutralizing most off-the-shelf drones – for drones that depend on the radio control link, jamming forces them to either land or return, ending the threat (at least temporarily) courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. Many law enforcement teams like jammers because they’re fast and don’t require precise marksmanship (unlike shooting a net or projectile). However, jammers are far less useful if the drone is autonomous (flying a pre-set route) and not reliant on a control signal. If only GPS is guiding it, you’d need a GPS jammer to interfere, which might cause the drone to drift but not necessarily drop it quickly. Another limitation: jamming doesn’t retrieve the drone – the drone might just fall or fly off, possibly denying you the ability to investigate who sent it or what it was carrying. And as noted, a jammed drone that “fails safe” by returning home could inadvertently go back to the very location you don’t want (like an important building) if malicious actors pre-programmed it.
Use Cases: Jammers have seen use in prison security (to prevent drones from dropping contraband by forcing them away or down), at major events (where federal authorities create a “no drone zone” and stand ready with jammer guns), and in combat zones. For example, at recent Super Bowls (designated National Special Security Events in the U.S.), the FBI and Department of Homeland Security deploy counter-UAS teams equipped with jammers and other tools to enforce the temporary no-drone airspace fedscoop.com reuters.com. Some prisons in Europe and the Americas have tested RF jamming systems to create a bubble over yard areas. Importantly, these deployments are always by government authorities under exemptions; a private company running a stadium cannot legally just buy a jammer and use it on its own. That’s why solutions like DroneShield’s SentryCiv explicitly avoid jamming – instead they provide detection and tracking, and then if a threat is confirmed, a law enforcement partner on site could use a jammer or other countermeasure that they are authorized to employ cuashub.com.
Pros and Cons Summary (Jammers): Pros: Relatively easy to use (point and shoot), immediate effect on standard drones, non-kinetic (no bullets or physical projectiles), and some drones will land themselves when jammed, minimizing collateral risk robinradar.com robinradar.com. Cons: Illegal for civilians in most cases jrupprechtlaw.com robinradar.com, short range for handheld units robinradar.com, non-discriminatory interference can disrupt friendly signals courthousenews.com, and can cause unpredictable drone behavior (one jammer test famously had a drone dart off in a random direction – potentially toward a crowd – when its link was jammed) robinradar.com robinradar.com.
Spoofing and “Cyber” Takeover Systems
A more surgical alternative to brute-force jamming is spoofing – essentially hacking the drone or feeding it false information to make it stop or go where you want. Several cutting-edge anti-drone systems now advertise the ability to take control of a rogue drone in mid-flight. There are two main flavors: GPS spoofers and more advanced protocol takeover/cyber control systems.
- GPS Spoofers: These devices transmit counterfeit GPS signals that override what the drone is receiving from satellites. By sending a slightly stronger fake signal, a spoofer can fool the drone into thinking it’s at a different location. The goal might be to trigger the drone’s geofence (e.g. make it think it’s entering a restricted zone so it auto-lands) or to misdirect it entirely – for example, make the drone navigate to a “safe” location away from the protected area. Safran’s new Skyjacker system is a state-of-the-art example: it “alters the trajectory of a drone by simulating the GNSS signals guiding it,” in order to deceive the drone about its position and interrupt its mission safran-group.com safran-group.com. In tests, Skyjacker was able to defeat both individual drones and swarms, steering them off course (ranges of 1–10 km are claimed) safran-group.com. Pros: Spoofing, when it works, can subtly take a drone out of play without the drone necessarily realizing it – it might simply drift off or land thinking it’s elsewhere. It can also handle scenarios like swarm attacks better than a single-target net or gun, since one spoofer box can theoretically mislead multiple drones at once if they rely on GPS. Cons: GPS spoofing is technically complex and riskier to non-targets. If not carefully focused, you could confuse any GPS receivers in the area (including planes, phones, cars). For that reason, spoofers are largely confined to military use or authorized security operations robinradar.com robinradar.com. Also, a spoofer needs the drone to be using satellite navigation – if a drone is flying via manual control only (line-of-sight piloting), spoofing GPS might not immediately stop it. And some advanced drones might detect anomalies in GPS and either revert to manual control or other sensors.
- Protocol Takeover (Cyber Takeover): This is the method used by products like D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir or Apollo Shield (now owned by D-Fend?) and others. Instead of just jamming or faking GPS, these systems attempt to hack into the drone’s communication link by exploiting the protocol. For example, EnforceAir creates a stronger “rogue” link to the drone, essentially impersonating its ground controller. The drone then binds to EnforceAir’s system as if it were the pilot, allowing the counter-UAS operator to send commands like “land now” or “return to home” courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. In a live demo, EnforceAir “quickly hijacked a drone… as it entered the monitored area” and safely landed it courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. Pros: This is very precise and causes minimal disruption – only the targeted drone is affected, with virtually zero collateral effects on other devices robinradar.com robinradar.com. The drone can be landed intact, which is great for forensic investigation (and for avoiding any crash debris) courthousenews.com robinradar.com. It’s effectively a hack, so it doesn’t violate RF power rules the way jamming does; these systems are often marketed as “FCC compliant” since they transmit within legal power limits and protocol definitions. Cons: The big drawback is that they only work on drones with known, vulnerable protocols. These systems rely on a library of drone control link “handshakes” – essentially reverse-engineered code for popular drone models so the system can impersonate the controller robinradar.com robinradar.com. If someone custom-builds a drone or uses strong encryption, a takeover system might not be able to hack it. Even military drones or state-of-the-art models often have encrypted links that resist spoofing or takeover. EnforceAir’s team itself acknowledges such cyber takedowns may not work on military-grade drones that have hardened against hacking courthousenews.com. Additionally, these systems tend to be expensive, cutting-edge technology. They might also need legal authorization if one interprets them as “intercepting electronic communications” (some legal frameworks could see that as hacking – though no precedent has been set publicly).
Legal/Regulatory: GPS spoofing is effectively a form of transmitting an unlicensed signal (like jamming) and could interfere with navigation signals, so it falls under similar restrictions – only government or authorized use. Cyber takeover is a bit of a gray area legally – it’s not jamming, but it is taking control of someone else’s device. In the U.S., current federal law restricts state/local police from using such tools without explicit permission courthousenews.com courthousenews.com (this is part of what new legislation aims to address). Companies like D-Fend typically sell to federal agencies, military, or approved security organizations. The technology itself is legal to own; the act of using it on an uncooperative drone might conflict with anti-hacking laws or aircraft protection laws unless authorized jrupprechtlaw.com jrupprechtlaw.com. There is momentum to ease these rules for law enforcement because the ability to “detect, track, and if necessary, mitigate threats posed by unlawful drone usage” is increasingly seen as vital for public safety homeland.house.gov reuters.com.
Use Cases: Cyber takeover systems have been used to protect high-profile events and VIPs. For instance, D-Fend’s EnforceAir has been deployed at the World Economic Forum and by U.S. agencies in certain sensitive locations (according to company reports). The 2024 U.S. presidential campaign events and 2025 Papal visit (hypothetical examples) are the kind of scenarios where one might see this tech quietly in action – something that can discretely take down a drone with no boom or bang. Meanwhile, Safran’s Skyjacker (GPS spoofing-based) was being readied for the Paris 2024 Olympics to guard venues against drone threats safran-group.com. These methods are especially attractive where you cannot risk any projectile or falling drone – e.g. a drone over an audience at an Olympic opening ceremony could be gently diverted rather than shot down.
Pros and Cons Summary (Spoofing/Cyber): Pros: No collateral RF disruption (doesn’t jam everything) cuashub.com, drone can be guided to safe landing (full recovery), highly effective against many hobbyist and semi-pro drones, and some systems can even identify the pilot’s location during the takeover. Cons: Typically government-only use (for now) due to legal constraints, ineffective on drones with strong encryption or non-standard signals robinradar.com courthousenews.com, requires constant updates to keep up with new drones, and generally costly high-end systems.
Physical Capture: Nets and Interceptor Drones
In some scenarios, the most straightforward way to stop a drone is to physically capture it or knock it out of the sky without using explosives or bullets. This has led to an array of net-based countermeasures and even drone-on-drone interceptors.
- Net Guns (Shoulder-Fired or Turrets): These are devices that launch a net projectile like a spider web to entangle the target drone’s rotors. They come in handheld bazooka-like launchers and larger turret or vehicle-mounted systems. For example, OpenWorks Engineering’s SkyWall is a well-known portable net-cannon that fires a canister which opens a net around the drone, often combined with a small parachute so the ensnared drone floats down softly robinradar.com robinradar.com. Ranges for net launchers vary from about 20 meters up to ~100–300 meters for bigger cannons robinradar.com. Pros: Nets can physically remove a drone intact, which is great for forensics – authorities can analyze the drone, extract data, or use it as evidence robinradar.com robinradar.com. A well-aimed net shot can neutralize a drone instantly with minimal collateral damage (especially if a parachute eases it down). Cons: Range is limited – beyond a couple hundred meters it’s very hard to hit a moving drone with a net projectile. Also, a fast or maneuvering drone is a tough target – net guns are most effective on hovering or slow-moving drones. There’s a risk of missed shots (the net has to hit the drone), and reloading a net launcher takes time (you usually get one shot per device before reloading). There’s also still a safety risk if the drone falls uncontrolled (parachute mitigates this somewhat).
- Interceptor Drones (Drone vs. Drone nets): Instead of firing from the ground, another method is to send up a friendly interceptor drone equipped with a net. Companies like Fortem Technologies produce interceptor drones (DroneHunter) that autonomously chase the rogue drone and shoot a net to capture it in mid-air robinradar.com robinradar.com. Another technique uses a hanging net: a pursuing drone carries a large net and tries to literally catch the target by enveloping it robinradar.com robinradar.com. Pros: Using a drone to catch a drone extends the range – you’re not limited by line-of-sight of a launcher on the ground. Fortem’s DroneHunter, for example, can engage targets at several kilometers distance, using onboard radar guidance. Interceptor drones can be effective even against fast or higher-altitude targets that ground nets can’t reach. Cons: A drone dogfight introduces complexity – it can be “difficult to capture another moving drone”, especially if the rogue drone takes evasive action robinradar.com robinradar.com. Interceptor drones also carry only a limited number of nets (often just one or two shots per flight), and a miss means the hostile drone might escape. There’s also the chance of collision; if the net fouls the drone, both could potentially fall. Generally, these systems are designed to either lower the captured drone on a tether or drop it with a small parachute if it’s too heavy to carry robinradar.com robinradar.com.
- Other Kinetic Interceptors: Nets are the preferred non-destructive approach, but it’s worth noting other physical methods have been tested. Projectile impactors (like specialized frangible rounds or high-tech “drone bullets”) have been trialed by some companies, aiming to knock out drones without an explosive. There were also experiments with trained birds of prey (e.g., Dutch police trained eagles to snatch drones). While fascinating, the eagle program was discontinued due to the birds’ unpredictability and risk of injury. In Japan, police have used large drones with nets to patrol sensitive airspace since 2016. The trend is clearly toward using machines (interceptor drones) rather than animals or bullets, to minimize safety issues.
Legality: Physical capture methods exist in a bit of a gray zone legally, but generally they may be considered a form of “damage” or interference with an aircraft, thus requiring authorization. A private person firing a net at a drone could still be violating laws (and certainly causing property damage or injury if done recklessly). However, nets do not violate radio laws and are arguably less legally problematic than jamming/hacking. In practice, police and security agencies have deployed net guns at events (there are reports of law enforcement in Tokyo, Paris, and U.S. venues using them during VIP protection). As long as it’s government actors, they typically have some immunity when protecting the public, whereas a private individual using a net gun on a neighbor’s drone could face assault or property damage charges. The safest route, legally, is still to involve authorities.
Use Cases: Nets are popular around stadiums and open-air events where a drone might threaten attendees. For example, at the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, security forces reportedly had drone catchers ready (though no incident occurred). Prison facilities have also considered nets – either installed on perimeter (like netting shot from launchers) or anti-contraband drones. Critical infrastructure sites (power plants, etc.) might use an automated system: detect with sensors, then cue a launcher to fire a net. One notable use: in 2015, Tokyo police formed a drone interception unit that flew large drones carrying nets to intercept suspicious UAVs after a drone with radioactive material landed on the Japanese PM’s office. That proved nets can be a viable defense in urban areas without resorting to firearms.
Pros and Cons Summary (Nets/Physical): Pros: Captures the drone intact (ideal for forensic analysis or safely disposing of it) robinradar.com robinradar.com. No RF interference and minimal collateral effects if done right. Net drones can cover long range and engage beyond line-of-sight robinradar.com. Cons: It’s a kinetic solution, so there’s always a risk of debris or a falling drone (though parachutes mitigate that) robinradar.com. Limited ammunition (one net = one chance) and precision required – fast, agile drones or multiple drone swarms can overwhelm net defenses. Also, deploying interceptor drones in busy airspace requires its own coordination (ensuring the defenders don’t crash into other things).
High-Energy and Emerging Countermeasures
Beyond jamming, hacking, and nets, there are a few other exotic methods worth noting, some of which blur the line between civilian and military use:
- High-Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: These emit a directed electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or microwave burst that frys drone circuits or sensors. Think of it as a localized thunderstrike of energy. A company called Diehl Defence markets an HPM-based “counter UAV system” (often called HPEM) that can disable drones within a certain radius robinradar.com robinradar.com. Pros: If tuned right, HPM can stop drones instantly in mid-air by knocking out their electronics robinradar.com. It’s also non-kinetic (no shrapnel). Cons: These systems are highly expensive and not selective – any electronic device in range (cars, phones, pacemakers) could be disrupted or damaged robinradar.com. Because an EMP can make a drone just drop out of the sky, it shares the falling risk issue. HPM devices are mostly in the realm of military or specialized agency use, given their cost and area effects.
- Lasers (High-Energy Lasers): Directed-energy weapons, basically powerful lasers, can be used to heat and destroy parts of a drone. A sufficiently strong laser beam can melt or ignite a drone’s motors or batteries, disabling it. Defense giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have demonstrated laser systems that shoot down drones robinradar.com robinradar.com. On the civilian side, one might see lower-powered “dazzler” lasers to blind a drone’s cameras as a non-lethal measure, but anything that can physically destroy a drone is typically military-grade. Pros: Speed-of-light interception – a laser hits the target almost instantly, and it doesn’t need ammo (just power). Low cost-per-shot once built, and can engage multiple targets in succession rapidly robinradar.com robinradar.com. Cons: Large and power-hungry systems – not portable, often requiring a truck or container setup. Eye safety and collateral damage: a stray reflection or miss could pose a hazard to pilots’ eyes or satellites. Also, high-energy lasers are still mostly experimental and very expensive. They work best in clear air (dust, fog, or heat haze can weaken the beam). For civilian use, lasers are not practical except maybe to protect fixed sites with military involvement (e.g. a military base might use one to guard a perimeter). There are international legal concerns, too, about lasers causing blindness, so any use would be carefully weighed.
- Interceptors with Projectile or Collision: Some companies (and the U.S. military) have tested small interceptor drones that ram into rogue drones at high speed, basically kamikaze attackers. Others have looked at shotgun shells filled with drone-chaff (like a net spread) or specially designed munitions that explode a small charge with minimal collateral range. These tend to be military or law enforcement only due to obvious safety issues in civilian environments. They are mentioned here for completeness – the civilian sector prefers capture or disable over outright destruction.
- Novelty and Emerging Ideas: As drone threats evolve, so do defenses. AI-controlled autonomy is improving both detection (AI can better distinguish a drone from a bird on radar/vision) and interception (drones doing autonomous pursuit). Swarm countermeasures are in R&D – e.g. if a swarm of hostile drones attacked, perhaps a swarm of defender drones or a combination of a wide-area HPM and multiple interceptors would respond. There’s also talk of counter-drone drones armed with electronic warfare payloads (essentially a flying jammer that gets close to the target to minimize collateral effect). Startups are exploring creative approaches like using sticky foam projectiles or directed sound (sonic) weapons to disrupt drones. While these are not mainstream yet, the coming years could see some of these emerge in the civilian security toolkit, especially as regulators start allowing more active defenses.
Comparing System Effectiveness, Costs and Use Cases
Each anti-drone approach comes with trade-offs. Here’s a comparative look at how they stack up on key criteria in civilian use:
- Technology & Effectiveness: For small-scale, single-drone incursions, RF jammers and cyber takeovers have proven highly effective (when legally usable) at quickly disabling common drones. Net guns and interceptors are effective if the drone can be engaged within range and are especially useful when preserving the drone is desired. Against more complex threats (high-speed or swarm drones), GPS spoofers and HPM/lasers might be more effective, but those are rarely available outside the military. Detection systems like radar/RF scanners are extremely effective as the foundational layer – without detection, other measures can’t be cued in time.
- Safety & Collateral Risk: Cyber takeovers and passive measures score best on safety – they land the drone safely or simply monitor it. Nets are relatively safe (controlled descent with parachute). Jammers and spoofers carry moderate risk: a jammed drone might crash unpredictably, and spoofing could misdirect signals. HPM and lasers have the highest collateral risk if used near the public (electronics disruption or eye hazard). In civilian contexts like airports or cities, non-kinetic, controlled outcomes are preferred, which is why there’s emphasis on jamming to force landings or hacking to commandeer drones.
- Cost: There’s a huge cost spectrum. On the lower end, some anti-drone tools can be a few thousand dollars – e.g. a handheld net gun or a basic RF scanner. A DIY enthusiast might even cobble a net gun for under $1k, but that’s not comparable to pro systems. High-end multi-sensor systems and takeover tech easily run in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a complete setup. For example, an integrated system for an airport (with radar, cameras, RF analyzers, and intercept drones) can cost several million dollars. Simpler setups (like a radar + jammer combo to cover a small facility) might be mid-five-figures. Subscription models are emerging: DroneShield’s SentryCiv is offered as an “affordable subscription-based” service dronelife.com, suggesting critical infrastructure sites can pay monthly for detection coverage rather than huge upfront costs. The bottom line: military-grade lasers or HPM = very expensive; takeover systems = expensive; good radar = pricey; handheld jammers/nets = moderate; acoustic/visual sensors = relatively cheap. Over time prices are dropping as tech matures and competition grows.
- Legality & Regulation: This is perhaps the defining factor in civilian deployment. Detection tech is generally legal and widely adopted – airports and stadiums can install drone detection systems today without much issue. Active countermeasures (defeat) are heavily regulated. In the U.S., only federal agencies were authorized to disable drones until recently reuters.com. A patchwork of temporary measures (e.g. DOJ and DHS using authority at events, or DOE at nuclear sites) existed, but most local police and private entities had no clear permission. As of late 2024, Congress and the White House have been pushing to expand these authorities reuters.com reuters.com. Proposed laws (the Counter-UAS Authorization Act of 2024) would allow state and local law enforcement to use approved counter-drone systems at special events and let critical infrastructure operators employ vetted detection and mitigation tools with DHS oversight reuters.com reuters.com. Europe and other regions likewise are updating laws, often allowing police and security services to use jammers or interceptors in defined scenarios (like national events or around airports) while still banning vigilantism by private individuals. Private property owners still have virtually no legal right to shoot down or jam a drone – doing so could violate aviation laws (in the U.S., 18 USC §32 makes it illegal to destroy any aircraft jrupprechtlaw.com) and radio laws. The proper procedure is to notify authorities. Some homeowners have resorted to creative non-tech means (like water hoses or privacy drones that chase the intruder away), but those carry their own risks and legal uncertainties. The trend is that anti-drone defense is becoming a recognized necessity, and laws are slowly adjusting to allow more entities to act, under strict guidelines. Until those laws catch up, most civilian sites stick to detection and calling law enforcement when a threat appears courthousenews.com courthousenews.com.
- Use Cases & Preferred Systems: Different environments favor different solutions:
- Airports: The priority is detection, early warning, and avoiding false alarms. Airports use advanced radars, RF detectors, and long-range cameras to monitor airspace courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. For mitigation, airports have been cautious – typically they rely on police or military units to intervene. For example, after London’s Gatwick Airport was infamously shut by drone sightings in 2018, airports worldwide accelerated adoption of detection systems. The ideal airport system is one that detects and tracks intruder drones and helps authorities locate the operator quickly. Some airports are now piloting interceptor drones or dedicated police drone squads to chase intruders instead of using jammers (due to risk of interfering with aviation radios). The newly authorized U.S. law would give DHS authority to protect airports with counter-UAS tech homeland.house.gov homeland.house.gov, so we may see more active defenses in airports soon.
- Stadiums and Sports Events: These are challenging because of large crowds. Detection is widely used (the NFL, MLB and others have been working with companies like Dedrone to monitor drone activity around games) reuters.com. In 2023, it was revealed that “from 2018 to 2023, there were 121,000 requests to the FBI to send specialized counterdrone units to stadiums and other critical venues”, indicating how often events have drone concerns dedrone.com. At high-tier events (Super Bowl, World Series), the feds declare it a No Drone Zone and deploy jammer guns and intercept teams ready to disable offending drones reuters.com. The NFL has strongly lobbied for more permanent legal solutions, warning that without expanded authority, stadiums “are at substantial risk from malicious and unauthorized drone operation” reuters.com. The preferred setup at stadiums is portable RF detection and tracking gear, and a quick reaction force with handheld jammers or net guns to take down any drone that gets too close. Stadiums also blast public announcements – “if you fly, we will have to take your drone” – as deterrence.
- Prisons: Prisons face daily battles with drones dropping drugs, phones, weapons. They often install RF and radar detectors on perimeters to alert guards of incoming drones. Mitigation is tricky: some use elevated netting or wire mesh in drone landing hotspots. A few have tested jamming systems (with special permission) to drop drones, but jamming can interfere with prison radio comms or nearby cell towers, so it’s not widespread. A promising approach is a combination of detection and rapid response teams – once a drone is detected, officers try to physically seize it (if it lands) or track the pilot (often the pilot is nearby outside the prison). New tech like EnforceAir’s protocol takeover could be very useful in prisons to commandeer and land drones carrying contraband safely inside a neutral zone.
- Private Properties and Personal Use: For private citizens worried about nuisance drones (peeping tom scenarios, etc.), the options remain limited. Detection apps or devices (like RF sniffers or even DJI’s smartphone aeroscope app that was once available) can sometimes alert you to a drone, but actually stopping it yourself is risky legally. The best course is to document it (video, etc.) and call authorities. One emerging consumer-focused device was marketed as a “drone shield” that uses high-frequency sound to supposedly drive drones away, but effectiveness is dubious. Until laws allow more, private anti-drone defense might mean planting trees or using privacy drones (drones that surveil back or escort the intruder away, which has been experimented with by some enthusiasts). It’s a space to watch, but for now, personal anti-drone measures are more about detection and deterrence than force.
Major Players and Products in the Market
The counter-drone industry has grown from a handful of defense contractors to a broad mix of startups, security firms, and aerospace giants. Some leading manufacturers and their notable systems include:
- Dedrone: A pioneer in drone detection, Dedrone offers a sensor fusion platform (DedroneTracker software) that integrates RF, radar, and camera feeds. They acquired a radio communications tech company and launched DedroneDefender, a handheld jammer, in late 2022, expanding into mitigation. Dedrone’s gear has protected events like the World Economic Forum. They focus on airspace security as a service, emphasizing AI-driven detection. (Dedrone by Axon is also a recent partnership to bring drone detection to U.S. police agencies).
- DroneShield: Based in Australia/U.S., DroneShield is known for its DroneSentry system (fixed multisensor) and DroneGun jammers. Their newest offering, DroneShield SentryCiv, is a civilian-oriented detection network intended to be cost-effective and “non-emitting” (no jamming) for places like utilities and stadiums cuashub.com cuashub.com. DroneShield often works with law enforcement and military globally, and their DroneGun has been seen in use from Ukraine battlefields to U.S. police on Super Bowl standby.
- D-Fend Solutions: An Israeli firm specializing in cyber takeover. Their flagship EnforceAir system is a leading example of protocol takeover tech, used by U.S. agencies and others. It’s essentially a high-end hacker in a box that secures a zone by detecting and hijacking rogue drones courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. D-Fend often highlights their role in protecting VIP events where you can’t use jammers (e.g. ceremonies, airports).
- Fortem Technologies: A U.S. company offering the SkyDome system (a network of their own small radars) and the DroneHunter interceptor drone. Fortem’s radars are compact and optimized for drone detection; the DroneHunter is an autonomous quadcopter that carries a net gun to physically capture intruders robinradar.com robinradar.com. Fortem has contracts securing venues in Asia and the Middle East and has pitched its system to airports for non-destructive drone removal.
- OpenWorks Engineering: UK-based, known for the SkyWall series (SkyWall 100 handheld net launcher, SkyWall 300 automated turret). They’ve been one of the prominent names in net capture. OpenWorks systems have been tested by militaries and used by police in Europe for event security.
- Leonardo, Thales, Rafael, Saab: These major defense companies have developed integrated C-UAS systems often combining their radars, jammers, and effectors. For example, Leonardo’s Falcon Shield and Rafael’s Drone Dome both got attention after the Gatwick incident – Drone Dome even offers a laser weapon option. These tend to target military and government clients (airports, national police).
- Lockheed Martin & Raytheon: They are developing the laser-based and microwave-based anti-drone weapons robinradar.com robinradar.com (e.g., Raytheon’s PHASER microwave, Lockheed’s ATHENA laser). While not commercialized for civilian market, their tech trickles down in partnerships. Raytheon’s subsidiary did work with Dedrone on some U.S. defense projects, for instance.
- Smaller Innovators: Black Sage Technologies (US) provides C-UAS command-and-control and sensor fusion; SkySafe (US) works on enforcement and drone telemetry interception; MyDefence (Denmark) makes wearable and vehicle RF sensors and jammers for police; Aaronia (Germany) makes RF detection arrays used at events; Cerbair (France) specializes in RF detection for critical sites. TRD Singapore makes the Orion jammer rifles used by some Asian police. And new startups keep entering as drone threats evolve.
The market is growing fast – forecasts estimate the global anti-drone market to jump from a few billion dollars today to well over $10–15 billion within a decade marketsandmarkets.com marketsandmarkets.com. This growth is fueled by both commercial demand (airports, prisons, stadiums) and civilian government demand (law enforcement, homeland security), as well as the unfortunate reality that drone misuse – whether careless or malicious – isn’t going away.
Limitations of Civilian Systems vs. Military Counter-UAS
It’s important to emphasize that civilian anti-drone systems, by design, avoid the lethality and scale of military systems. A few key contrasts:
- Rules of Engagement: Military forces in a combat zone can use any means necessary to stop hostile drones – shooting them with rifles, anti-air missiles, electronic warfare to jam whole frequencies, etc. Civilian operators must abide by laws and safety. The use of force is extremely limited: you can’t just shoot down a drone over a city without endangering people and breaking the law. Civilian systems therefore prioritize low-collateral damage methods (capture, controlled landing, etc.), whereas militaries can justify blowing a drone to bits if it’s a threat.
- Scale and Power: Military C-UAS can cover large perimeters (forward operating bases, borders) with powerful radars and electronic warfare trucks. They also prepare for swarm scenarios using perhaps anti-drone drones with explosives or area weapons. Civilian systems typically handle one or a few drones at a time. A coordinated swarm of malicious drones would likely overwhelm most civilian defenses currently deployed. It’s an area of active development – but militaries are one step ahead, testing anti-swarm lasers and microwaves, which aren’t in civilian hands.
- Technology Secrecy vs. Openness: Military systems often involve classified tech (frequencies, algorithms, etc.), while civilian market products must be FCC and publicly approved. For instance, the U.S. military has devices like the DroneDefender (initially by Battelle) which were used in the field years before any such tech was available to domestic law enforcement. Only recently have those filtered into things like the DedroneDefender for police, once regulators got on board. So civilians are a bit behind the curve of the latest and greatest – they get “trickle-down” counter-UAS tech after it’s proven in military context (cyber takeovers being a good example that originated in military interest and then adapted to civilian security use).
- Threat Profile: Militaries face not just hobby drones, but also larger and faster UAVs, munitions like loitering drones (“kamikaze drones”), and state-sponsored tech. Civilian systems mostly aim at the small UAV (sub-25 kg) class that are readily available. A Patriot missile battery can shoot down a military drone at 20,000 feet – something irrelevant to a civilian airport dealing with a quadcopter at 500 feet. Conversely, some military countermeasures (like artillery shells with airburst flak to hit drones) are absolutely unsuitable for civilian areas.
Despite these differences, there is crossover. For example, after repeated drone incursions, some military bases on U.S. soil worked with civilian authorities to install permanent counter-drone systems, effectively blending military-grade tech into a domestic setting (with legal authorization). The Pentagon has also been testing systems for homeland defense – in one test, they tried nets, jammers and “cyber scalpels” in a mountain range to simulate protecting domestic facilities breakingdefense.com. This shows the recognition that the drone threat blurs lines between military and civilian realms – a terrorist could use a hobby drone to attack civilians, which might warrant a military-level response on home turf.
Ultimately, civilian anti-drone defense is about risk management: using the least force necessary to mitigate a drone threat in a crowded, sensitive environment. As one law enforcement official put it, “Most of the laws we’re dealing with were written for manned aviation”, and adapting them to drones is the challenge courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. The goal is to give police and security teams more options that are safe, legal, and effective – a tough trio to balance.
Recent Developments and Regulatory Trends
The past two years (2024–2025) have seen significant movement on the legal and practical front of civilian drone defense:
- In the United States, a major push by the White House, DOJ, DHS, FAA, and sports leagues led to the introduction of the Counter-UAS Authorization Act of 2024 homeland.house.gov. This bipartisan effort (as of June 2024) aims to renew and expand the counter-drone powers granted in 2018 (which were due to expire) homeland.house.gov. Key elements include:
- Extending authority for DHS and DOJ to act against drones through 2028 homeland.house.gov.
- Allowing state and local law enforcement in certain cases (with federal approval) to use counter-UAS tech at large events and emergencies courthousenews.com courthousenews.com.
- Empowering critical infrastructure owners (like airports, power plants) to deploy federally approved detection systems and even mitigation, under DHS oversight reuters.com reuters.com.
- Improving inter-agency coordination (DHS, DOJ, FAA, etc.) so responses don’t conflict homeland.house.gov homeland.house.gov.
- Increasing privacy protections (ensuring any data from drone detections isn’t misused).
- Notably, also prohibiting the use of foreign-made counter-UAS gear by DHS/DOJ (likely targeting Chinese-made systems) homeland.house.gov.
- Requiring FAA to set standards for counter-UAS equipment performance and to integrate these into airspace planning homeland.house.gov.
- In Europe, many countries have already used counter-drone tech under existing public safety laws (e.g. French police and military gendarmes for events, UK police around airports after Gatwick). The EU has been coordinating efforts, especially after incidents like drone disruptions at airports in the UK, Ireland, Germany, and the drone attack on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia (which raised alert in Europe). France took a lead for the 2024 Olympics, employing a multi-layered anti-drone strategy including the Safran Skyjacker spoofing system, dedicated drone interdiction units, and even anti-drone rifles for police. UK in 2023 trialed new detection systems around airports and passed an update to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act, giving police greater stop-and-search powers for drone operators and permitting counter-UAS use in designated zones. Japan revised laws after a drone incident at the Prime Minister’s residence, empowering authorities to jam or capture drones over key facilities.
- Industry Self-Regulation: Drone manufacturers have also contributed by adding geofencing (no-fly zone) data into drones (for example, DJI’s drones won’t fly into airports or other sensitive sites listed in their GPS lockouts, unless specially unlocked). While not foolproof (and not present in all drones), this helps reduce casual incursions. However, bad actors can use drones without such constraints or modify them, so it doesn’t eliminate the need for counter-systems.
- Insurance and Liability: A subtle development is that large venue organizers and critical infrastructure are increasingly mandated by insurers or regulators to assess drone threats. This is spurring investment in at least detection tech. We may see insurance incentives – e.g. a stadium with an anti-drone plan might get lower insurance premiums for event cancellation due to drone disruption.
- Incidents as Wake-Up Calls: Sadly, real incidents keep the issue in headlines: In late 2023, a drone carrying fireworks exploded over a soccer stadium in Argentina (fan-related incident), injuring some – showing drones can be weaponized in crowds. In mid-2024, drones caused brief closures at airports in Sweden and in India, illustrating global scope. Each incident tends to prompt local authorities to acquire counter-drone gear “so it doesn’t happen to us.”
- Public Awareness: There’s also a growing public awareness of drones as a potential nuisance or threat, which might lead to more acceptance of counter-drone measures. However, there are also privacy and misuse concerns – for instance, if a device can pinpoint a drone pilot, it raises questions about surveillance of lawful drone users. Lawmakers insist on “important protections for the civil liberties of Americans using drones in a legal and responsible manner” homeland.house.gov homeland.house.gov even as they empower agencies to counter malicious use. This balance will be an ongoing policy discussion.
Conclusion
The cat-and-mouse game between drones and anti-drones is well underway in the civilian realm. Commercial and civilian anti-drone systems have evolved from experimental gadgets to mature, multi-layered defense networks in a very short time, driven by the ubiquity of drones and the incidents they’ve caused. Today, a major airport or sports stadium can deploy a sophisticated shield: radar scanning the skies, RF sensors sniffing the airwaves, AI cameras watching the horizon – all backed by quick-response tools from jammer guns to interceptor drones.
Yet, the deployment of these tools is still catching up to the threat. Regulatory frameworks lag behind technology, keeping many countermeasures out of reach for those who could use them. As one police counter-drone specialist noted, “Most of the laws we’re dealing with were written for manned aviation”, not cheap quadcopters courthousenews.com. That is changing: legislation is in motion to enable broader use of anti-drone tech by law enforcement and critical infrastructure, reflecting a recognition that drones pose unique security challenges that require new defenses reuters.com reuters.com.
For the average person or private company, the message is clear: don’t take drone defense into your own hands unless you’re authorized. The best step now is to invest in detection and alerting systems, and coordinate with authorities when an unauthorized drone appears. The good news is that industry innovation, coupled with smarter policy, is making the skies safer. Non-lethal, precision tools are replacing the urge to shoot down intruders. As one industry expert put it, the goal is to “detect, track, and identify” suspicious drones – and only then neutralize them in a controlled way courthousenews.com courthousenews.com.
Civilian anti-drone systems will likely never have the brute force of military ones, but they don’t need to. They just need to be smart enough and swift enough to handle the relatively small-scale drones that threaten our airports, stadiums, prisons, and public events. With continued progress in technology and law, the hope is that would-be wrongdoers will be thwarted – their $500 off-the-shelf drone no match for a coordinated defense courthousenews.com courthousenews.com. As of 2025, we’re not quite there everywhere, but the trend is unmistakable: the era of the drone also demands the era of the anti-drone, and both the tools and legal frameworks are rising to the challenge.
Sources: Recent news and expert analyses were used in compiling this report, including Associated Press and Reuters investigations into counter-drone efforts courthousenews.com reuters.com, official legislative updates from the U.S. Congress and Homeland Security Committee homeland.house.gov reuters.com, industry whitepapers on counter-UAS technology robinradar.com robinradar.com, and manufacturer statements for the latest systems like Safran’s Skyjacker and DroneShield’s SentryCiv safran-group.com cuashub.com. These and other cited references provide a factual basis for the comparison and claims made herein. The rapidly evolving nature of drones and countermeasures means it’s wise to stay updated – as drone technology advances, so too will the creative means to counter it, in the ongoing quest to keep the skies open for good uses and closed to bad actors.
Leave a Reply