“By all indications, [small unmanned aerial systems] “will present a security risk to military installations and other critical infrastructure for the foreseeable future,” NORTHCOM boss Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told Journalists of that time. “Reducing those risks requires a dedicated effort across all federal departments and agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial communities, and Congress to build the capabilities needed to detect, track and address potential sUAS threats in the homeland, Coordination and legal authorities can be further developed. ,
But U.S. military officials also indicated to reporters that the kind of counter-drone capabilities the Pentagon might be able to bring to domestic defense would come from non-kinetic “soft kill” means such as RF and GPS signal jamming and other relatively May be limited to less. -Tech interception technology like Net And “String Streamer” Due to legal constraints on the US military's ability to deal with drones on US soil.
“The threat, and the need to counter these threats, is growing faster than the policies and procedures [are] Can hold together in place,'' as Gillot told Correspondent during counter-drone experiment. “We have a lot of work in the homeland, it is a very sophisticated environment because it is complex from a regulatory point of view. It is a very civilized environment. This is not a war zone.”
Defense officials echoed this sentiment during the Pentagon's unveiling of its new counter-drone strategy in early December.
A senior US official said, “The homeland is a very different environment, we have a lot of amateur drones here that are not a threat at all, that are polluting the environment.” told reporters In those days. “At the same time, from a legislative standpoint and from an intelligence standpoint, we have absolutely right, [a] “A more constrained environment in terms of our ability to function.”
According to defense officials, the legislation in question is a specific subsection of Title 10 of the US Code, which governs the US armed forces. The section, known as 130(i), covers military authorities regarding “the protection of certain facilities and property from unmanned aircraft.” It gives U.S. forces the authority to take “actions” to defend against drones, including “measures to disrupt the control of an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including the use of an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.” “Including disabling unmanned aircraft by intercepting or interfering with them.” , or interfering with the unmanned aircraft system or wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft” and “using reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system Or unmanned aircraft.”