Drone Technology is Evolving Rapidly: Can Detection & Mitigation Solutions Keep Up?

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. … Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” — Calvin Coolidge.

This quote articulates and sums up the rapid evolution of the small uncrewed aircraft system (sUAS), or drone, which has driven nations to reconsider military tactics and critical infrastructure protection and response while also shaping modern society for the coming tidal wave of change. In 2010, the first consumer drone was brought to the market for commercial sale. Since that time, “drone” has become a common term and its systems have continued to evolve in capability, payload sophistication and, potentially most importantly, rapid maturity in component technological growth. 

The endless cat-and-mouse game between drone platform manufacturers, detection sensor development and mitigation tool experimentation continues to amaze those who are watching while carefully sneaking up on those with responsibility for security, safety and emergency preparedness in critical areas of defense and private sector work. The evidence of this sweeping change resides in the laboratory called Ukraine and was solidified by the attack on Russian strategic assets on June 1, 2025.

In this environment of total war, there is an innate need for survival as drones are reported to account for 70% to 80% of battlefield casualties, something that has shocked the seasoned military planner and shaken how defense organizations prepare their forces. In the beginning, it was common to see drone usage in its nascent stages, used mostly for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions that identified targets for artillery or airstrike missions. 

Fast-forward to today’s reality and you see a complex, often chaotic employment of highly advanced equipment and techniques. Over time, commonly used drone platforms like DJI were prevalent, but as electronic warfare advanced, it became clear that these systems were easily defeated. This has relegated their use primarily to observation missions, leaving the attack platforms to time-tested, battle-ready form factors that are often customized for the mission, increased target success rates and electronic warfare defeat. 

Hence, the introduction of fiber-optic command and control platforms has increased the target success rate from 50% with radio frequency drones to 90% to 100% target hit success with fiber optics. This has led to the advancement of the drone platform itself and thoughtful engineering in each component.

Let’s start with the drone frame. It is common now to see carbon fiber, aluminum, glass fiber polymer, aramid fiber (Kevlar) and other fabricated materials that make up the drone foundation. It is also common to see a combination of these components to create even greater efficiency. Early reporting from the June attack on Russian strategic bombers and assets indicates drones with hardened frames.

Next is the power supply or battery. Power manipulation and experimentation are continuing to evolve. Larger battery packs are evident on custom first-person view (FPV) drones to extend range, speed and distance while leveraging copper and nickel configurations to connect individual batteries to create a power pack. The size of the drone and payload must be considered in power composition.

Propeller or rotor blade engineering looks at reshaping to support extended range and noise reduction. It is now emerging to think about propeller pitch and how it affects flight. Higher pitch in blade design adds thrust and speed to the platform but comes with a disadvantage — in this case, a power demand (hence increased power exploration with battery maturation) and a degradation in the ability to hover. Lower-pitch rotor blades are more efficient and give the operator longer flight times and stable hover operations but come with less thrust. The key is balance and mission need and, of course, preference.

Motors are being designed for increased speed, payload increases, lower sound emission and range. Intelligent, brushless and high-efficiency magnets that support lower sound signatures make detection through acoustic sensors much harder.

Lastly, onboard computing is moving to smaller components with more power and intelligence. Some key features include inertial navigation with optical collaboration for electronic warfare defeat, for a higher chance of success. Also, radio frequency variations are leaving the standard 2.4-5.8 GHz ISM operating band for bands ranging from 150-950 MHz. All of this is done to give the drone a better chance in a contested signals operating space where jamming is prevalent and lethal.

These maturations are being tested across the globe, and experiments are taking place in challenged areas, but they are also emerging in younger people interested in robotics. Take, for example, a student in Pennsylvania and his vertical-takeoff-and-landing design. The consistent action-reaction technology design maturity keeps this ecosystem vibrant but also in an unpredictable state of growth and evolution. 

As the drone platform grows technically, there are second- and third-order effects on detection and mitigation sensors and tools. These capabilities must keep up with drone design to effectively operate in a very complex environment. The detection operation is hard enough now but will only become more complicated as the technology improves. In its entirety, this is a fascinating story taking shape right before our eyes.

Public servants, lawmakers and military professionals are not keeping pace with what is developing. This is a technology that matures in weeks and months, not years, and requires a persistent eye and creative thought for security, safety and emergency preparedness, as legacy physical security approaches have quickly become outdated. The level of potential threat and nefarious acts increases with the availability and advent of drone systems. Critical infrastructure, mass gathering venues and public transportation are all vulnerable based on current mitigation legislation, including a lack of delegation for mitigation authority, training and certification. A system of checks and balances does not exist, leaving all of these societal needs vulnerable to a nefarious event.

The proactive step right now is to establish a plan and execute a tested methodology of counter-UAS (cUAS) and law education, Drone Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (DVRA), Drone Emergency Response Planning (DERP) and Left-of-Drone Launch (LoDL) CONOP development. It’s time for business owners and leaders to direct and implement an air domain program within a comprehensive security approach. We no longer have the luxury of viewing this technology as emerging; it’s now steadily maturing.

Owners, leaders and security professionals, it’s time to wake up.

Bill Edwards is a retired U.S. Army colonel, a veteran of the Iraq War and the owner of Phoenix 6 Consulting LLC.