OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 1

Overcoming Counter UAS

WO1 Joe Snuffy

2G-150U Class 23-002

CW2 Jane Smith

OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 2

Overcoming Counter UAS

The employment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) on the battlefield has

become commonplace while the method of defeating these effective systems is on the

rise. UAS can deter, confuse, and disrupt military activities, as well as directly and

indirectly support the destruction of military installations and equipment; as a result

countries like China, Germany, and Russia are top examples of adopters of this

technology (Hull, 2017). In The U.S. Armed Forces have been making a continuous

effort to equip and train service members with the latest Counter UAS (CUAS)

technology as well. While this initiative has its importance, it is imperative that the UAS

community shift its focus into developing methods, systems, and new technologies to

destroy or subvert peer and near-peer enemy CUAS. Based on the sheer amount of

CUAS that can be found open source, the countries that pose the biggest threat to

America’s UAS would be China and Russia. This paper aims to look at the CUAS

employed by China and Russia and produce possible short- and long-term solutions to

circumvent those tactics and technologies.

China

The People’s Republic of China has UAS but also has a rising number of CUAS

(Hull, 2017). The first set of Chinese CUAS is from a company called Digitech that has

produced the systems JAM-1000, JAM-2000, and JAM-3000 (Butterworth-Hayes &

Beechener, 2022). The JAM-1000 is a vehicle-mounted, omni directional system that is

driven into the position of desired jamming and counters threat UAS by disrupting

frequency (RF) communications in the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz spectrums as well as satellite

navigation signals including GPS (Butterworth-Hayes & Beechener, 2022). These three
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 3

systems . This group of CUAS technology is aimed at smaller commercial drones and

Group 1 Small UAS (SUAS) like Raven or Puma that fly at lower altitudes and fly

utilizing only radio frequencies.

A technology that has been also utilized by the Chinese known as

electromagnetic pulse (EMP) was used in a test conducted by the Chinese defense

contractor China Electronics Technology Group. “In August 2021, China reportedly

tested EMP technology to shoot down an unmanned aircraft. This event marked the first

Chinese test of this technology to neutralise UAS and has also highlighted the growing

relevance of EMP technology against such systems” (Arif et al., 2021). Prior to 2021,

the most common method of countering UAS was to jam or interfere with the link going

from the unmanned aircraft to a control station and rendering the vehicle uncontrollable

(Hull, 2017). This development shows the Chinese evolving their approach to CUAS.

The test was conducted on a single unmanned aircraft flying under 2,000 feet from sea

level but the “engineers are confident that the weapon will be equally effective against

drone swarms as well” (Arif et al., 2021). Based on just the results of this single public

test, it would be easy to infer that this technology would only be effective against smaller

commercial drones and SUAS as well as UAS swarms like the previously mentioned

JAM systems. However, China is not the only country evolving their approach to CUAS

through the utilization of EMP based technology.

Russia

Another adversary that has had its hand in developing CUAS that incorporate

EMP technology is Russia. “In July 2021 at an international arms show, a Russian state

arms seller, Rosoboronexport, revealed an EMP rifle named Stupor as well as other
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 4

CUAS. Stupor “emits separate electromagnetic pulses to suppress channels used to

operate a drone. As a result, the drone loses contact with its operator, while its

uncontrolled flight ends in a crash. Stupor has a range of two kilometers, covering a 20

degree sector” (Butterworth-Hayes & Beechener, 2022). The Ukrainian military's

extensive employment of UAS and other tiny copters made the need for portable anti-

drone weapons obvious, and Stupor was the answer to that need (Frahan, 2022). The

first documented use of this EMP rifle designed to counter UAS was in the summer of

2022 against the Ukraine.

Another system revealed by Rosoboronexport at this same show include the

Repellent-Patrol electronic warfare system. For Repellent-Patrol, it is advertised to be

capable of “intercepting and jamming the electronic signals of incoming unmanned

aerial systems (UAS) from a range of up to 20 kilometers” (Writer, 2021). While wholly

conjecture, the concept of operation for this system appears to be that the equipment is

emplaced in areas where UAS penetration is not desired and acts as a sort of force field

that disables UAS that flies within its range. The exact method of jamming and

employment as well as the equipment description is not included in the information that

was found. However, if the advertised range is correct, that would mean that every UAS

in the US Army’s inventory would be susceptible to its effects at any altitude. Flying high

above the system to bypass it would be ineffective and result in the loss of control of the

aircraft.

Avtomatika Concern is another Russian company that created a CUAS named

Rubezh-Avtomatika, “an intelligent control to detect and neutralize drones without

human interference. It can be used in field and city conditions, installed in open sites
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 5

and on roofs. The complex is easily transportable. The deployment time does not

exceed five minutes. The complex comprises radio reconnaissance and adaptive

electronic jamming. It can operate automatically and manually. The Rubezh-Avtomatika

was touted as a mobile system that could create “an impenetrable barrier capable of

repelling attacks not only by single drones but also their massive use from different

directions and altitudes within a radius of at least 3 km” (Writer, 2021). Again, based on

conjecture, the concept operation and employment is similar to Repellent-Patrol

electronic warfare system. These Russian systems are marketed to have the ability to

degrade or deny the operation of Group 3 and below UAS like the RQ-7B Shadow

based off its max range.

Concepts

There are several approaches to take when attempting to circumvent these

countermeasures. There is not one catch all solution to overcoming all CUAS. These

approaches will vary between method of jamming and the effective ranges of any given

system.

For CUAS with a shorter range, a technique that can be used is simply

maintaining a higher altitude. Hypothetically, his method could work for Group 3 and

higher UAS that can fly beyond the reach of CUAS that would only be effective against

Group 1 SUAS. This method would require precise and accurate situational awareness

of the battlefield. Knowing exact placement and ranges of CUAS emplaced or in play on

the battlefield would be key to success for navigating any UAS in this situation.

EMP is an obstacle that is difficult to overcome. There is no real way to detect an

EMP prior to it being set off whether from natural or man-made causes. The aircraft is
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 6

completely vulnerable to EMP when within range of any EMP discharge. The only viable

protection against EMP is a Faraday cage (DeBaun, 2022). The Army has a shielded

area or room (either housed within a building or standalone mobile container) that

utilizes this concept called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The

technology used for the SCIF that prevents electromagnetic signals from penetrating or

leaving the SCIF could be utilized to protect the ground control station that controls the

some of the medium sized unmanned aircraft (DeBaun, 2022). It does nothing for the

aircraft but could prevent losing link to the aircraft if the control site was attacked by

EMP. This is still an option worth exploring as it would protect launch and recovery sites

as well as any forward sites and allow the continued operation of an unmanned aircraft.

If the possibility of a CUAS exists on the battlefield, EMP based or otherwise,

another technique would be to commit multiple like UAS platforms across a wide area to

determine where or if they will utilize such CUAS. The range will be limited, leaving the

remaining aircraft in flight the ability to close the gap and continue the fight. Any lost

aircraft would indicate where these CUAS are being used and open the opportunity to

eradicate them from the fight once identified.

Conclusion

CUAS technology continues to advance while becoming more effective in

defeating our UAS and that fact needs be a consideration on today’s battlefield. Other

countries understand this concept and new methods and technologies need to be

constantly explored for America to maintain air superiority on the battlefield with their

UAS. Russia and China’s CUAS that are outlined in this paper are just the tip of the

iceberg; there are many systems that exist that were not covered. Presumably, there
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 7

will continue to be more on the way. Countermeasures such as RF jamming, GPS

jamming, and EMP will always be a consideration for UAS while moving towards a

decisive action fight. The concepts above are just ideas to get the conversation going.

Even if the concepts in this paper were implemented, the UAS community will need to

continue to workshop ways around enemy CUAS; whether it be through techniques or

employment of emerging technologies to remain effective and relevant on today’s

battlefield.
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 8

References

Arif, S., Paul, R., Banlaoi, R. C., & Tolmachev, P. (2021, September 25). Chinese EMP test to

counter unmanned aerial systems – analysis. Eurasia Review. Retrieved January 10,

2023, from https://www.eurasiareview.com/25092021-chinese-emp-test-to-counter-

unmanned-aerial-systems-analysis/

Butterworth-Hayes, P. (2019, March 22). China's Digitech "launches family of three C-UAS

Systems". Unmanned airspace. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from

https://www.unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-systems-and-policies/chinas-digitech-

launches-family-three-c-uas-systems/

Butterworth-Hayes, P., & Beechener, J. (2022, February 7). Russian counter drone technology

designed to combat drone swarms announced by Rospatent. Unmanned airspace.

Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://www.unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-

systems-and-policies/russian-counter-drone-technology-designed-to-combat-drone-

swarms-announced-by-rospatent/

Butterworth-Hayes, P., & Beechener, J. (2022, July 15). Russian stupor counter drone gun

identified in operation in Ukraine, reports Tass. Unmanned airspace. Retrieved January

10, 2023, from https://www.unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-systems-and-policies/

russian-stupor-counter-drone-gun-identified-in-operation-in-ukraine-reports-tass/

Daniel T. DeBaun: Engineer, A. & T. E. (2022, April 26). What is an EMP & how to stop an EMP

attack: The Ultimate EMP Guide. DefenderShield. Retrieved January 12, 2023, from

https://defendershield.com/what-is-emp-how-to-stop-emp-attack-ultimate-guide

Frahan, A. H. de. (2022, July 6). Russian Army confirms use of stupor anti-drone Rifle in

Ukraine. Defense News security global military army equipment technology industry

- Army Recognition. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2022_global_security_army_indus

try/russian_army_confirms_use_of_stupor_anti-drone_rifle_in_ukraine.html
OVERCOMING COUNTER UAS 9

Hull, A. (2017). Foreign Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems: Developments in the International

Arms Markets. DTIC. Retrieved January 21, 2023, from Foreign Counter-Unmanned

Aerial Systems: Developments in the International Arms Markets

Writer, S. (2021, February 23). Russia displays range of counter-drone systems at IDEX 2021.

The Defense Post. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/02/23/russia-counter-drone-systems-idex-2021/