The frontline shield: wearable counter-UAS

The RfPatrol Mk2 is a C-UAS detection unit worn by dismounted troops. Credit: DroneShield

In modern warfare, drones have become both a powerful tool and a persistent threat. From reconnaissance and target acquisition to direct attack missions, uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) are reshaping battlefields, with the New York Times reporting in November 2024 that drones now account for 80% or more of Russian losses along much of the front with Ukraine.

While counter-UAS (C-UAS) technology has historically been dominated by large, vehicle-mounted or fixed-site systems, the demand for wearable C-UAS solutions is surging, driven by frontline realities where soldiers require immediate situational awareness and protection from drone threats.

“What happens in Ukraine today is what the rest of the world will face tomorrow,” says Hans Hoyer, sales director of DroneShield, a manufacturer with expertise in C-UAS.

In July 2024, the US Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Request for Information (RfI) for dismounted counter-UAS systems for US Marines, reinforcing Hoyer’s assertion about the growing demand for wearable C-UAS technology.

The RfI sought both kinetic and non-kinetic solutions to counter drones, including passive detection systems using auditory or radio frequency sensors. At the platoon level, these detection sensors could be vehicle-mounted, while wearable solutions for squad-level use were required to minimise interference with primary mission equipment.

The requirements for non-kinetic platoon and squad-level solutions differed in attack span. Squad-level systems were intended to be directional RF or GPS jammers/spoofers, whereas platoon-level solutions were expected to provide omnidirectional coverage.

For kinetic solutions, the RFI called for rifle optics capable of tracking drones and enhanced ammunition for existing firearms, including “buckshot-like 5.56, 7.62, .50, and 40mm rounds.”  

On the battlefield, detecting and responding to drones is a high-stakes challenge that requires rapid decision-making.

Hoyer explains that soldiers rely on wearable C-UAS devices to scan for radio frequency signals and identify incoming threats. Once a drone is detected, operators have protocols to determine the model and affiliation of the drone based on qualities including radio frequency. Where a drone poses a threat, personnel then deploy electronic countermeasures to jam its communications, forcing it to land or return to its home point.  

Hoyer points to DroneShield’s own RfPatrol Mk2 and DroneGun Mk4 as a pairing of systems that would be used in this manner, detecting and defeating the UAS respectively. Operators read the frequency of a nearby drone on the screen of the RfPatrol Mk2, and then key the frequency into the DroneGun Mk4 before aiming the effector at the intended target.

The biggest advantage of wearable systems is their portability and passive detection capabilities. Unlike active jammers, these devices do not emit signals that could reveal the user's position. Soldiers can operate them covertly, receiving immediate alerts when a drone is nearby, along with information about its protocol and frequency.

The workflow provided from wearable C-UAS has been valuable for dismounted soldiers and special operations forces (SOF), who often operate in areas where vehicle-mounted systems are unavailable or potentially impractical. 

The use of wearable C-UAS devices in Ukraine is an example of agile and responsive counter-drone solutions. Initially, C-UAS technology focused on detecting drones operating in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands—common frequencies for commercial UAVs, and these bandwidths covered the majority of systems Russia deployed in the opening stages of the conflict.

However, Ukraine’s Russian adversaries adapted quickly, shifting to lower frequency bands - 433 MHz, 868 MHz, and 915 MHz - before moving to full-spectrum operations. This forced the counter-drone stakeholders to seek to develop wide-band detection systems that can track drones across a broader range of frequencies. 

A key strategy for maintaining relevance against evolving threats is continuous software updates. While hardware takes years to develop and field, software can be updated multiple times per year. “This is a race, and we can keep the same hardware, and then we are able to upgrade the features of the units,” says Hoyer. “Not only just in terms of new protocols on new drones coming to market, but also in terms of detection speed and detection accuracy.”

A core challenge in the development of C-UAS equipment is balancing size, weight, and power efficiency. According to Hoyer, “End-users want light products, but they also like to have sufficient battery power. They like to have all of the nice features of the product.”

Operators prefer small, simple products, but also seek the maximum detection range and functionality possible. Because of this, Hoyer believes that the defence industry will soon see a range of different products in the market, with different levels of complexity and weight. 

While wearable systems are gaining traction, vehicle-mounted and fixed C-UAS systems remain critical for large-scale operations. The DroneSentry-X, for instance, offers 360-degree detection and omnidirectional jamming, making it more effective against swarms, and provides directional information to inform triangulation efforts and coordinate fires.

Manufacturers are developing modular systems that network wearable C-UAS detection systems with larger vehicle mounted systems, says Hoyer, allowing users to scale capabilities depending on their mission requirements. For example, while a lightweight detector may be sufficient for a routine tactical patrol, a heavier, feature-rich device could be used for specialised operations requiring longer-range detection. 

Advanced users can integrate detection data into tactical networks, allowing units across the battlefield to share real-time drone intelligence and improve situational awareness. This can then be integrated into a multi-layered air defence network, that makes use of conventional air-defence sensors in conjunction with a dispersed network of wearable audible and RF sensors deployed wherever dismounted troops are operating.

But Hoyer explains that vehicle mounted systems will not replace wearable C-UAS, which fill a crucial gap by providing individual soldiers with personal drone detection capabilities, and despite a wide range of additional features that can only be delivered on a vehicle-based system, DroneShield will be bringing a new undisclosed wearable C-UAS to market soon.

Lisa Sheridan, an International Field Services and Training Systems programme manager at Boeing Defence Australia, said: “Ordinarily, when a C-17 is away from a main operating base, operators don’t have access to Boeing specialist maintenance crews, grounding the aircraft for days longer than required.

“ATOM can operate in areas of limited or poor network coverage and could significantly reduce aircraft downtime by quickly and easily connecting operators with Boeing experts anywhere in the world, who can safely guide them through complex maintenance tasks.”

Boeing also uses AR devices in-house to cut costs and improve plane construction times, with engineers at Boeing Research & Technology using HoloLens headsets to build aircraft more quickly.

The headsets allow workers to avoid adverse effects like motion sickness during plane construct, enabling a Boeing factory to produce a new aircraft every 16 hours.

Elsewhere, the US Marine Corps is using AR devices to modernise its aircraft maintenance duties, including to spot wear and tear from jets’ combat landings on aircraft carriers. The landings can cause fatigue in aircraft parts over its lifetime, particularly if the part is used beyond the designers’ original design life.  

Australia could be one of the main beneficiaries of this dramatic increase in demand, where private companies and local governments alike are eager to expand the country’s nascent rare earths production. In 2021, Australia produced the fourth-most rare earths in the world. It’s total annual production of 19,958 tonnes remains significantly less than the mammoth 152,407 tonnes produced by China, but a dramatic improvement over the 1,995 tonnes produced domestically in 2011.

The dominance of China in the rare earths space has also encouraged other countries, notably the US, to look further afield for rare earth deposits to diversify their supply of the increasingly vital minerals. With the US eager to ringfence rare earth production within its allies as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, including potentially allowing the Department of Defense to invest in Australian rare earths, there could be an unexpected windfall for Australian rare earths producers.