Technological interventions and digital hijackings: Anti-drone technology presents fresh methods for combating escalating dangers
Drones have relentlessly disrupted airports and municipal police forces, transgressing restricted airspace over nuclear facilities and prisons. In the battlefield, they pose a lethal threat. Although shooting them down may introduce further risks, limiting their activities remains a challenge. Nonetheless, recent advancements in technology aim to curb the threat drones pose when they endanger the public or violate restricted areas.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become commonplace, utilized by governments and malicious actors alike for intelligence gathering, surveillance, sabotage, and terrorism. The potential misuse of UAVs has precipitated a flurry of technological endeavors to intercept these devices in flight safely.
Zachary Kallenborn, a national security consultant and drone warfare expert based in London, notes, "An adversary can employ an off-the-shelf drone costing as little as $500 to monitor activities at U.S. nuclear weapons bases. The neglect of countermeasures by countries such as China, Russia, and Iran would suggest a lack of foresight."
Military drones have already proven themselves as formidable tools of war, utilized for tracking enemy movements and striking targets. However, at home, these devices have become an increasing concern, and anti-drone technologies carry significant potential for protecting critical infrastructure, such as airports, water treatment facilities, military bases, and public gatherings.
Incidents involving UAVs have escalated, with countless drone sightings reported last year in New Jersey alone. This trend has driven increased research and investment into the most effective methods of countering UAVs without causing unnecessary harm to those below.
Anti-drone systems look to neutralize UAVs through various means. Some rely on projectiles to destroy or disable the devices, while others interfere with the radio frequencies controlling the drones, prompting them to land or return to their origin. A third method enlists other drones to net offending vehicles.
Each technique has its merits and shortcomings. For instance, jamming a UAV's signal offers excellent effectiveness and relative ease from a technical standpoint, but it indiscriminately disrupts signals used by telephones, emergency responders, air traffic control, and the internet.
Basic anti-drone measures, known as kinetic defenses, involve firing missiles, bullets, nets, or other projectiles at UAVs to destroy or disable them. While effective, these strategies carry risks, as debris from either the UAV or projectile could fall onto people or property, or a missile intended for a drone might accidentally strike civilians.
The Israeli firm D-Fend Solutions developed a system it calls EnforceAir, which allows operators to seize control of an adversarial UAV and land it safely. Similar to other anti-drone solutions, the equipment can be set up on a tripod, vehicle, or carried in a backpack. Upon detecting a UAV entering a predetermined area, the operator can permit friendly devices to pass while disabling others.
Landing the aircraft makes it possible for authorities to examine the device for investigative purposes, as well as enabling authorities to return it to its rightful owner in the case of unintentional mistakes involving hobbyists. Anti-drone systems that involve hacking the invading aircraft may not function against military drones due to their enhanced cyberdefenses.
As national security experts anticipate a variety of techniques to counter UAVs becoming mainstream, it's essential that current federal laws adapt to the emerging threat. DJ Smith, senior technical surveillance agent with the Virginia State Police's Bureau of Criminal Investigations, notes that most laws were written for manned aviation, necessitating appropriate federal regulations and a public awareness campaign to educate drone enthusiasts and commercial users on the law and their responsibilities. Additionally, authorities require greater powers to track suspicious UAVs and take action against them when they pose a threat.
Federal restrictions currently limit the ability of local and state police to use anti-drone systems. Efforts are underway to modify these restrictions, with some lawmakers advocating for laws that would make it easier for local authorities to use technology to counter drones at public events.
In conclusion, the quest for safe UAV countermeasures relies on a blend of advanced detection, non-kinetic, and directed-energy methods, with a priority on minimizing collateral damage and improving rapid, autonomous response. Technological advancements in drone detection, AI, edge computing, and directed energy are expected to contribute significantly to this effort. However, to fully address the threat posed by UAVs, federal laws must be updated to catch up with the evolving limitations and capabilities of these devices.
- Seattle government, along with other municipalities worldwide, is grappling with the increasing concern of drones, especially in critical infrastructure protection, such as airports, military bases, and public gatherings.
- The emergence of drones has led to a surge in research and investment into anti-drone technologies in Seattle, aiming to ensure public safety and curb potential misuse.
- Seattle police forces, in partnership with national security experts and technology innovators, are exploring various methods to counter UAVs, including signal jamming, projectiles, and drones that net offending vehicles.
- As the threat posed by drones continues to evolve, it's crucial for Seattle's federal laws to adapt, ensuring they adequately address the changing landscape of drone capabilities and responsibilities for both hobbyists and commercial users.
