“From all indications, (small unmanned aerial systems) will present a security risk to military installations and other critical infrastructure for the foreseeable future,” said NORTHCOM chief Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillo. said journalists of the time. “Mitigating those risks requires a dedicated effort from all federal departments and agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial communities, and Congress to further develop the capabilities, coordination and legal authorities necessary to detect, track and address potential threats.” of sUAS in the country. “
But U.S. military officials also indicated to reporters that the types of anti-drone capabilities the Pentagon could use for domestic defense could be limited to non-kinetic “soft kill” means such as jamming RF and GPS signals and other means. relatively low. -technological interception techniques such as networks and “thread streamers” due to legal limitations on the US military’s ability to interact with drones on US soil.
“The threat, and the need to counter it, is growing faster than current policies and procedures can keep pace,” as Guillot says. said Reporters during the anti-drone experiment. “Many of the tasks we have in the country are a very sophisticated environment in the sense that it is complicated from a regulatory perspective. It is a very civilized environment. “It is not a war zone.”
Defense officials echoed this sentiment during the presentation of the Pentagon’s new counter-drone strategy in early December.
“The homeland is a very different environment in the sense that we have a lot of amateur drones here that pose no threat, that kind of congest the environment,” said a senior US official. told reporters At the moment. “At the same time, from a legal perspective and from an intelligence perspective, rightly so, we have a more constrained environment in terms of our ability to act.”
The statute in question, according to defense officials, 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 with respect to the “protection of certain installations and assets against unmanned aircraft. Gives U.S. forces the authority to take “actions” to defend against drones, including measures to “disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system.” or unmanned aircraft intercepting, interfering with, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or the unmanned aircraft” and “use reasonable force to disable, damage or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.” plane”.