With the addition of synthetic intelligence and machine studying, the purpose is to make each soldier, no matter job specialty, able to figuring out and pulling down threatening drones.
Whereas a lot of that mission used to reside largely within the air protection neighborhood, these assaults can strike any infantry squad or tank battalion.
The aim is to scale back cognitive burden and operator stress when coping with an array of aerial threats that now plague models of any dimension, in any theater.
“Everyone seems to be counter-UAS,” mentioned Col. Marc Pelini, division chief for capabilities and necessities on the Joint Counter-Unmanned Plane Programs Workplace, or JCO.
Pelini and Maj. Gen. Sean Gainey, JCO director, who spoke Thursday on the digital Affiliation of the U.S. Military convention, advised reporters that the unique focus was on smaller Tier I and II threats. However that has now prolonged to Tier III threats, historically coated by the Military’s air protection neighborhood, similar to Avenger and Patriot missile batteries.
A few of that work contains linking the bigger menace detection to the smaller drones that now dot conflicts internationally, together with the recent zone of the Armenia-Azerbaijan battle.
In June, the Division of Protection performed a “down choose” of current or in-the-pipeline counter-drone programs from 40 to eight, as Navy Instances sister publication C4ISRNET reported at the time.
That was an effort to reduce redundancy in the flood of counter drone programs taken on in the wake of a $700 million funding push in 2017 to get after problems posed by commercially available drones being used more frequently by violent extremist organizations such as the Islamic State to harass, attack and surveil U.S. and allied forces.
Those choices, in the down select, included the following, also reported by C4ISRNET:
* Fixed Site-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS), sponsored by the Army
* Negation of Improvised Non-State Joint Aerial-Threats (NINJA), sponsored by the Air Force
* Counter-Remote Control Model Aircraft Integrated Air Defense Network (CORIAN), sponsored by the Navy
* Light-Mobile Air Defense Integrated System (L-MADIS), sponsored by the Marine Corps
* Bal Chatri, sponsored by Special Operations Command
* Dronebuster, no sponsor, commercial off-the-shelf capability
* Smart Shooter, no sponsor, commercial off-the-shelf capability
Command and Control
* Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD-C2), sponsored by the Army (includes FAAD-C2 interoperable systems like the Air Force’s Air Defense System Integrator (ADSI) and the Marine Corps’ Multi-Environmental Domain Unmanned Systems Application Command and Control (MEDUSA C2))
The four areas evaluated to determine which systems stuck around for use or further development were effectiveness, integration, usability and sustainment, Gainey said Thursday.
A kind of virtual open house with industry is planned for Oct. 30, in which JCO will evaluate what options are out there.
Some of what they’re learning is being gathered through a consortium, of sorts, that involves regular meetings between service branch representatives during monthly sessions at the two-star level, Gainey said.
That goes into a real-time, updated “common threat library” that helps those in the field identify trends and changes that can be met across forces.
They use those sessions to share what each component is seeing in theater as far as drone use and changes. But it’s more than simple intelligence gathering, he said.
They also form rapid response teams.
“My operations team works with the warfighters, [the] intelligence community” and others, he said. They “triangulate” common problems with drones and send the rapid response teams to the area of operations most affected.