The U.S. military finds itself caught in an increasingly expensive game of cat and mouse with unmanned aerial systems. In the Red Sea alone, the Navy has spent over $1 billion in the past year shooting down missiles and drones – an unsustainable approach that highlights the growing challenges of counter-drone defense.

The proliferation of affordable drone technology has created a perfect storm: while adversaries can deploy relatively inexpensive unmanned systems, defending against them often requires costly interceptors. This dynamic has been starkly illustrated in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, where drones serve multiple roles from reconnaissance to one-way attack vehicles.

“We’re very interested in counter-UAS because the next war will be robotic,” says retired Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, defense strategic initiatives lead at Forterra. “And it may not look exactly like what you see in Ukraine or Israel, but it may be something very analogous to that.”

The Regulatory Maze

While the technical challenges are significant, perhaps even more daunting are the bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles facing counter-drone technology deployment. The U.S. currently lacks a comprehensive legal framework for large-scale counter-drone operations, either domestically or abroad. This regulatory vacuum is complicated by restrictions on foreign-sourced components and the notoriously slow federal procurement process.

Domestic deployment faces particularly thorny issues. Federal Aviation Administration regulations strictly limit airspace usage, and some interpretations suggest that shooting down or jamming drones could be illegal even when conducted by government personnel. The Federal Communications Commission adds another layer of complexity with strict rules on jamming techniques, introducing concerns about “electronic collateral damage” – the unintentional disruption of legitimate communications signals.

The Technical Challenge

The defense industry is approaching counter-drone defense as an all-hands-on-deck problem requiring multiple complementary systems. Edward Sugg, president of MG Technologies LLC, emphasizes the need for both active and passive defense, noting that spending millions to shoot down cheap drones isn’t sustainable.

Companies are tackling different pieces of the puzzle:

AimLock is developing autonomous precision targeting systems that combine sensor fusion with advanced fire control and artificial intelligence. Torrey Pines Logic brings optical detection capabilities, adapting sniper detection technology to identify drone signatures. MG Technologies has created low-recoil weapons systems that enable more precise targeting.

The Cost Conundrum

“Handling anti-drone defense against two or three infinitely complex systems is one thing,” says Leo Volfson, founder of Torrey Pines Logic. “But handling anti-drone defense against a thousand $500 drones is a significantly different type of challenge.”

The industry needs a mindset shift regarding both drones and counter-drone platforms. “We have to adopt a mentality that this is a quickly consumable item,” Volfson argues. “Whoever can manufacture more and cheaper will win. It’s simple math.”

Looking Forward

Some relief may come from legislative efforts like S.1631, the “Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act.” This bill, introduced by Sen. Gary Peters, aims to establish a clearer regulatory framework for counter-drone operations, especially around critical infrastructure.

However, the biggest challenge remains alignment across various stakeholders and funding streams. As Bryan Bockmon, CEO of AimLock, notes, “If we have alignment, we know we can confidently apply whatever funding or whatever scheduling we have available to the best effect.”

The path forward likely involves a family of solutions rather than a single silver bullet. This approach would allow different providers to contribute specialized capabilities while keeping costs manageable. As drone threats continue to evolve, the race is on to develop counter-measures that are both effective and economically viable.