Protection from commercial drones at public events

Commercial drones (uncrewed aerial systems or UAS) bring challenges and risks to high-profile outdoor public events in safety, cyberattacks, unwanted surveillance, and accidental collisions. Among the advancements in counter-UAS (c-UAS) technology is D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir2, a product that can detect, take over, and mitigate rogue drone threats.

Jeffrey Starr has had executive roles at information, security, compliance, and risk management companies. As chief marketing officer of D-Fend Solutions, Starr discusses the current c-UAS landscape.

Defense and Munitions (DAM): What are the emerging threats with commercial drones?

Jeffrey Starr (JS): Even though we’re a counter-UAS company, we’re very much pro drone and want this emerging commercial drone economy to flourish, prosper, and succeed. However, there’s a very small percentage of bad actors – careless or clueless, criminals or combatants – that could potentially use drones in a dangerous, risky, or rogue way.

For example, sports stadiums have vulnerabilities that are potential risks to spectators, athletes, or entertainers. Baseball and football games have been delayed because of drones flying around. Besides being a potential hazard and a nuisance, there are intellectual property (IP) issues with unauthorized video recordings of gameplay. Drones can interfere with official communication. Much worse, bad actors can use drones to carry payloads long distances directly into a crowded stadium.

DAM: What technologies are used for drone detection?

JS: The traditional way to deal with threats from the sky came from technologies developed for the military. Those technologies in a civilian environment may work but may also have shortcomings. It’s important to separate detection from mitigation.

Radar is a proven detection technology, but in a city environment radar may have trouble distinguishing between a drone and birds. Acoustic (sound) detection technologies have also been used, but stadiums are noisy, and drones are becoming quieter. Optical or camera-based methods need a clear line of sight, which stadiums surrounded by tall buildings may not always have.

DAM: What technologies are most used for mitigation?

JS: One way to deal with dangerous objects in the sky is jamming – disrupting the communication between the remote controller and the drone. But jamming has shortcomings. First, it’s only temporary. When the jamming ends, the operator could potentially regain control of the drone. More importantly, jamming also disrupts other communications in the area – security operations, the media, and cellphone service.

The other method is using something physical, kinetic – shooting it down with bullets, bringing it down with a drone-killing drone, nets, lasers, magnetic fields, microwaves. But anything physical in a civilian environment risks collateral damage. If the drone is hit, there’s going to be debris. If you miss the drone, what’s used to shoot it down may go where it isn’t wanted.

DAM: What new technologies exist for detecting and mitigating drone threats?

JS: Our view is this emerging threat needs next-generation technology, and we advocate RF [radio frequency] cyber methods to passively identify the drone and distinguish whether it’s authorized or unauthorized. For a rogue drone, we want to gain control of it and land it safely in a predefined landing zone where it won’t cause harm. Other options are to send it back where it came from or cause it to hover in place.

The EnforceAir2 uses the RF cyber detection and takeover method. Its purpose-built hardware is designed for countering drones, with longer detection ranges, broader mitigation coverage, and more configurations. These include permanent installation, a tactical configuration that can be set up and taken down very quickly, and mobile versions that can go in a vehicle. A man portable version fits into a backpack, so a security officer and operator can get into hard-to-reach areas or go covertly where drone protection is needed. The control interface is typically on a tablet.

DAM: What is the unit’s form factor?

JS: The first generation EnforceAir was a combination of a software defined radio (SDR) and antennas, built using standardized components. We’ve now optimized these with a special SDR and antennas that vary by configuration, based on all our counter-UAS experience and customer feedback, with much stronger receivers and transmitters and higher performance antennas. The form factor is much smaller, because of the smaller purpose-built SDR. The result is more power, the detection and mitigation ranges are larger, yet the equipment is smaller and lighter.

DAM: How do you identify a drone and respond appropriately?

JS: The first phase is detect-and-alert – it’s passive, recognizing the drone’s unique identifiers, such as make, model, serial number, communication attributes, and distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized drones in the area. Altered commercial drones or drones not purchased but built with off-the-shelf components also must be covered. When a potentially rogue drone is identified, it’s tracked with constant real-time location, but also the takeoff position and the pilot’s location, allowing law enforcement to communicate with the pilot, issue a warning, or apprehend the person, depending on local laws.

A fend-off option won’t take control of the drone, but disconnects it from the remote control, so it flies back to its takeoff or default position. This doesn’t jam or disrupt any other communications. The other option is to take control, send the drone via a safe route to a landing in a predefined zone. We say, “Take control of the drone to take control of the threat.” If you shoot it down, or just jam it, you don’t know the outcome. Ours is a precise takeover and controlled outcome, much safer, which is the goal.

DAM: What ranges are possible?

JS: For larger coverage areas, we can expand the perimeter protection with a multi-sensor command and control system with units controlled and monitored from a single server.

DAM: What are some emerging drone threats?

JS: One is a cyberattack from a rogue drone. Other threats include unwanted surveillance (spying) or accidental collisions, especially as drones become more powerful and bigger, trouble at longer distances, become more durable, and become empowered now by artificial intelligence (AI). It’s going to be constant catch up. New drones are coming on the market all the time, so we provide frequent software updates, countering new drone capabilities and bringing new functionality. The challenge for security authorities, law enforcement, stadium operators, and others is focusing on the risk and staying a drone threat ahead.

DAM: Who are other users?

JS: The primary users of this technology are military, homeland security, law enforcement, and airports. Every country is different in their rules of engagement, and who can deploy this technology. There’s activity now in Congress to extend authority to state and local levels because there’s greater recognition that threats are becoming more widespread, and more events need to be covered.

DAM: Is there some thought that air taxis will need to be addressed?

JS: Yes, and not just air taxis. As more drones fly for deliveries in air traffic corridors specified for them, there’s going to be a future where counter drone technologies must integrate and align with air traffic control to ensure corridors for authorized drones, air taxis, and everything else are kept safe from unauthorized actors.

About the author: Eric Brothers is editor of Aerospace Manufacturing and Design. He can be reached at EBrothers@gie.net.

D-Fend Solutions https://d-fendsolutions.com