Drone Mitigation: Neutralizing Aerial Threats (Part 2)

Welcome back to the second portion of my two-part series of blogs on the full life-cycle of an unauthorized drone incident. I know it's weird to hear me talk about drones as threats because I often preach their usefulness, but they can be very dangerous. As we discussed in Part 1, the first part must be to Detect, Track and Identify (DTI) the drone. Then, once the unauthorized drone has been deemed a threat, the next step in the counter-drone life-cycle is Mitigation. This step essentially means stopping the drone threat and can be accomplished in four basic ways which I will outline below.  Additionally, each method has its associated pros and cons (or advantages and challenges) depending on the specific risk profile in each case as well as the legislative environment that you are working in.

1.    Talk to the Pilot: Talking to the pilot of the drone to inform them that flying in this area is not allowed and asking them to land their drone safely.

Pros:

·      Legislative clear: this form of mitigation is always legal

·      Risk free: As long as the pilot is cooperative, this presents little to no risk of harm to the people and assets near by

·      Certain outcome: Again, if the pilot is cooperative, mission success is assured

Cons:

·      Depends on a drone detection system that can als0o locate the pilot (aka: the remote controller of the drone)

·      Risky: If the pilot is truly mal-intended then they may be non-cooperative and complete their malicious mission anyway

2.    Jamming: Disrupting the Connection: Jamming is effectively cutting the communication between the drone and the remote by overwhelming the drone's communication systems with radio frequency (RF) signals. This causes the drone to either hover in place, or more likely, return to its take-off location.

Pros:

·       Effective against virtually all RF controlled drones

·       Works against drone swarms (defined as more than one drone)

·       Even works against a swarm of a diverse drone fleet (ie: different drone brands at once)

Cons:

·       May affect other electronic devices in the area

·       Some countries have strict regulations on the use of jammers

·       Does not work on autonomous drones

·       May never have physical possession of the drone, thus enabling future incidents and foregoing the opportunity to collect forensic evidence

·       Illegal in US, outside of a few very narrow use-cases

Real-world example: In 2016, Chinese police used jamming rifles to force down an unauthorized drone at a soccer match in Wuhan, demonstrating the technology's effectiveness in crowded public spaces for the first time.

3.    Cyber Takeover: Hijacking Control: This method is also known as “Hacking into a Drone and, as the name implies, involves hacking into the drone's control system and taking over its operation.

Pros:

·       Allows for controlled landing of the drone in a safe location

·       Authorities now have physical possession of the drone, preventing future incidents and offering opportunity to collect forensic evidence

Cons:

·       Requires finding a flaw in the drone to remote connection which can then be easily blocked by drone manufacturer

·       Will not work on drone swarms (defined as more than one drone)

·       Will not work on autonomous drones

·       May not work against all types of drones, especially those with encrypted communications

·       Illegal in US, outside of a few very narrow use-cases

Real-world example: In 2016, the US military successfully demonstrated a cyber-takeover of an ISIS drone in Iraq, showcasing the potential of this technology in combat situations.

4.    Kinetic Solutions: Physical Interception: Unlike the methods mentioned above, kinetic solutions involve physically effecting the drone in some way and take a variety of forms from net-gun laden drone chasing another drone, to laser or microwave blasts (aka: directed energy weapons) to simply artillery (ie: shooting the drone out of the sky).

Pros:

• Can be effective against a wide range of drones, including autonomous drones that are resistant to jamming or hacking

• Provides a visible and decisive response to the threat

Cons:

• Risk of collateral damage from falling drone debris

• Requires precise targeting, which can be challenging with small, fast-moving drones

• Generally giving up the opportunity to collect forensic evidence (except drone-laden net gun approach)

• Illegal in US, outside of a few very narrow use-cases

Real-world example: During the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korean police deployed a net-laden drone-catching drone system, which chased the unauthorized drone and used a net-gun to capture unauthorized Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), ensuring the security of the event.

Conclusion

Each of these methods of drone mitigation has its place in the counter-UAV (cUAV) kill-chain. The choice of tool depends on both the risk profile of the use case and the legislative environment that it is happening in. As drone technology continues to evolve, so too will the methods for stopping this resistant and escalating threat to both public safety and even national security.