Inside Unmanned Systems

FEB-MAR 2017

Inside Unmanned Systems provides actionable business intelligence to decision-makers and influencers operating within the global UAS community. Features include analysis of key technologies, policy/regulatory developments and new product design.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 54 of 59

55 unmanned systems inside February/March 2017 presence of an alarm should enable evidence to be collected and retained for a later date. Collected data should include the time- stamp of the event and the identifying sig- nature of the suspect drone. Any RF signals occurring after the alarm should also be able to preserve other information established between the controller and device such as telemetry or video link signals. This informa- tion would provide valuable evidence in the case of criminal prosecution following an at- tempted crime. Summary There are many considerations to the chal- lenges of the potential threats presented by drones. The widespread use of commercially available drones heeds warning to an in- creased need for vigilance these threats may possess for potential high-valued targets and critical sites. The depth of the solution obviously needs to be weighed against the possibilities of the threat and the potential of the threat to change over time. RF detection systems have a distinct advantage of reaction time along with a high probability of use. The actions and workf low of how to respond to a threat must play into how components of a defen- sive system can complement their actions for a complete solution. The careful consideration of the type of RF detection system must also consider the need to be able to sift through the myriad of RF signals in a dense spectrum environment and simultaneously reduce the false alarm rate. You need to be able to tell the differ- ence between a WiFi signal someone turns on for their own personal hotspot and the WiFi signal of a drone intended for nefarious activity. As new signals appear and technol- ogy advances, skilled users should be able to def ine their own threats to be included in the identification database, or a service level agreement to renew and keep the database current w ith technolog y should be made available. Geolocation technology needs to be care- fully considered and technology assessment should be performed against an anticipated scenario. Choosing a direction finding tech- nology that is blind to a multi-threat environ- ment could have disastrous consequences. Threat mitigation will always have a situa- tional dependence. Knocking a drone out of the sky over a large crowd also may not have the de- sired consequences. Preventing the drone from getting off the ground or close to the protected perimeter while identifying the location of the control agent has its advantages. If RF jamming can be used, the type of jammer technology can impact the performance of the immediate RF environment, and there are advantages using lower powered follower jammer technology in the presence of a dense RF spectrum. THE DEPTH OF THE SOLUTION OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE THREAT AND THE POTENTIAL OF THE THREAT TO CHANGE OVER TIME As a leader in RF engineering solutions for over 80 years and over 25 years of spectrum management systems in over 100 countries, Rohde & Schwarz is leading the way with suc- cessful solutions to meet the challenges of drone protection. As a proven technology, the R&S® ARDRONIS technology has already demon- strated itself as acceptable for the highest levels of security. At the G7 Economic Summit held in Elmau Castle, Germany and again during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to the Hanover Trade Fair in 2016, the system's underlying technologies were used to secure the sites from unauthorized, remote controlled drones. To learn more about the technology be- hind the solution, contact us at www.rohde-

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Inside Unmanned Systems - FEB-MAR 2017