International Defense Security & Technology Your trusted Source for News, Research and Analysis
Modern warfare has exposed a crucial vulnerability: advanced counter-drone systems can be neutralized by electronic warfare (EW) attacks. No longer just a technical issue, electromagnetic resilience has become a strategic imperative. As drone technologies evolve—integrating hardened communications and jamming-resistant guidance, such as Ukraine’s fiber-optic-controlled drones—defensive systems must now do more than just neutralize threats. They must survive, adapt, and operate under active electronic assault.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s upcoming Demonstration 6, scheduled for March 2025, will be the most demanding test yet. Systems will be challenged to function effectively under active jamming across an unprecedented frequency range of 30 to 20,000 MHz, proving their viability in an increasingly congested and contested electromagnetic spectrum (EMS).
The EW Threat: Turning Shields into Vulnerabilities
Counter-drone systems rely heavily on consistent access to the electromagnetic spectrum for detection, tracking, and engagement. Yet this dependency introduces exploitable weaknesses. Radio frequency jammers, radar systems, and GPS spoofers form the backbone of many C-UAS systems, but each carries its own set of vulnerabilities.
Frequency-hopping drones can outmaneuver RF jammers. Radar-based systems like micro-Doppler detectors are prone to blinding by electromagnetic noise. GPS spoofers, once highly effective, are rendered impotent by navigation systems relying on inertial guidance or computer vision.
Real-world operations reinforce these risks. During Ukraine’s Operation “Spider’s Web,” drones staged from within Russian bases evaded layered air defenses completely. In parallel, Russian EW systems severely disrupted Ukrainian drone controls. The takeaway from the U.S. Joint Counter-small UAS Office (JCO) May 2025 tests was unequivocal: “No single system was 100% effective” under contested EMS conditions.
Pentagon’s Crucible: Demonstration 6 Requirements
Scheduled for early 2025, Demonstration 6 (Demo 6) represents a critical milestone in evaluating the next generation of counter-drone systems under realistic and hostile electromagnetic warfare (EW) conditions. This exercise will push participating technologies to their limits across two high-threat scenarios, focusing on kinetic and dismounted defense capabilities under sustained EMS (electromagnetic spectrum) interference.
The first scenario focuses on the kinetic defeat of Group 3 drones, which include jets or fixed-wing drones operating within a 2 km range. Systems in this category must employ small arms, 40mm munitions, or interceptors to neutralize threats while sustaining target acquisition and engagement amidst active jamming. Maintaining precision targeting under such conditions is a key performance benchmark.
The second scenario involves dismounted defense against Group 1 and Group 2 drones, which are typically smaller and more agile. Here, wearable counter-UAS systems, rifle-mounted optics, or handheld weapons must deliver real-time drone detection and tracking. Complicating the task, these systems must operate while adversarial EW platforms actively disrupt communications and sensor feeds—testing the robustness of their standalone and networked capabilities.
To pass Demo 6, systems must meet stringent resilience mandates. According to JCO guidelines, each system must autonomously detect EMS interference and adapt by maneuvering across frequencies using methods such as Low Probability of Intercept (LPI)/Low Probability of Detection (LPD) techniques, adaptive beamforming, or AI-enabled frequency hopping. These requirements are designed to ensure system survivability and sustained operational function in environments saturated with electromagnetic noise or targeted jamming.
Below is a summary of key EMS resilience technologies being evaluated during Demo 6:
| Technology | Function | Vulnerability Mitigated |
|---|---|---|
| Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) | Conceals radar emissions to avoid detection | Detection by enemy ELINT systems |
| Adaptive Beamforming | Dynamically focuses RF energy | Disrupts wide-area jamming |
| AI-Driven Frequency Hopping | Predicts and switches to clean frequencies | Neutralizes spot jamming |
| Cyber Takeover | Seizes drone control without emitting RF | Bypasses jamming detection |
Demo 6 is more than a test—it is a crucible that will separate outdated systems from those capable of surviving the spectrum-dominated battlefield. It places a premium on autonomy, spectrum agility, and EMS survivability—setting the standard for future deployments in both homeland defense and expeditionary operations.
Mitigation Technologies Facing the Test
As electronic warfare becomes more sophisticated, defense industry innovators are racing to develop counter-drone technologies that can operate effectively in degraded or denied electromagnetic environments. A new generation of EMS-agnostic and AI-augmented solutions is emerging—designed not only to detect and neutralize drones but to do so under conditions of active interference.
Sensing Beyond Jamming
One of the most promising mitigation strategies involves multi-sensor fusion. By integrating radio frequency (RF), acoustic, and electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) inputs, systems can maintain situational awareness even when a single sensor domain is compromised. For instance, during Demonstration 5, Teledyne FLIR’s EO/IR cameras successfully tracked drones after radar systems were degraded by electromagnetic interference. This layered approach ensures continuity in detection and targeting in the face of jamming or spoofing attacks.
Emerging quantum sensor technologies offer another path forward. These systems utilize quantum states—such as atomic spin or magnetic resonance—to detect the minute magnetic signatures of drones. Immune to electromagnetic noise, quantum sensors represent a transformative leap in EMS-resilient detection capabilities, with potential applications across both tactical and strategic levels of engagement.
EMS-Stealthy Defeat Mechanisms
Defeating drones in contested EMS zones demands solutions that avoid revealing their own signatures. Directed energy weapons, such as Raytheon’s Phaser system, emit high-powered microwaves that disable drone electronics without firing a single kinetic round. These systems are particularly valuable for fixed installations but remain limited in mobile or dismounted applications due to their high power requirements.
Cyber takeover systems, like D-Fend’s EnforceAir, present a non-kinetic, EMS-stealthy alternative. By exploiting communication protocols, these systems can hijack and safely land drones without emitting detectable RF signals. While highly effective against commercial-grade UAS, their efficacy against encrypted, military-grade platforms is more constrained.
Autonomous interceptors offer a third line of defense. Ondas’ Iron Drone Raider, for example, employs AI-guided drones that physically intercept and destroy hostile drones without relying on GPS or RF links—making them ideal for environments where spectrum access is heavily contested or denied.
AI as the EW Arbiter
Artificial intelligence has emerged as a critical enabler in electronic warfare resilience. Machine learning algorithms are now capable of identifying and predicting jamming patterns in real-time, allowing systems to dynamically reroute communications and maintain control. In one high-profile case, Ukraine’s AI-enhanced Osa drones were reportedly able to detect and prioritize Russian EW assets during deep-strike operations, neutralizing them early in the mission to clear the way for follow-on attacks.
Together, these technologies signal a major shift from reactive defense to proactive spectrum dominance. As Demonstration 6 approaches, the focus will not simply be on drone defeat—but on resilience, survivability, and sustained operational effectiveness in an environment where the electromagnetic spectrum is as contested as the skies.
Demonstration 6: Counter-Drone Systems in Contested Electromagnetic Environments
The highly anticipated Demonstration 6 was conducted from April 7 to 25, 2025, at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona under the leadership of the Pentagon’s Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO) and the Army Rapid Capabilities Office. This iteration of the demonstration placed unprecedented focus on the ability of counter-drone systems to operate under aggressive electronic warfare conditions. Systems were subjected to wideband jamming across the 30–20,000 MHz frequency range, designed to simulate the most challenging operational environments observed in recent theaters like Ukraine and the Middle East.
One of the clearest takeaways from Demo 6 was the confirmation that no system proved universally effective under sustained EW assault. Adversarial jamming significantly impaired the performance of key sensors and effectors, often leading to delayed or inaccurate engagements. As JCO project manager Hi-sing Silen candidly observed, “They all dealt with the [electromagnetic] environment in certain ways, but there’s no silver bullet.” Despite some successful adaptations, it became evident that even cutting-edge systems can falter when spectrum dominance is lost.
The technologies evaluated during the demonstration reflected a blend of traditional kinetic defeat mechanisms and next-generation electronic and cyber capabilities. Group 3 drone threats—typically larger, jet-powered platforms—were engaged using interceptors such as 40mm munitions within a 2 km range. Meanwhile, smaller Group 1 and Group 2 drones, often deployed for reconnaissance or commercial use, were countered using wearable and rifle-mounted systems tailored for dismounted operations. Many platforms incorporated advanced features such as low-probability detection, adaptive beamforming, and frequency-hopping communication links to counter spectrum interference. Among the most innovative technologies were cyber takeover tools like D-FEND Solutions, which demonstrated the ability to redirect hostile drones without relying on kinetic strikes—a tactic that holds promise in civilian-populated areas or infrastructure-sensitive environments.
Industry participation was robust, with eight companies presenting nine distinct systems. Teledyne FLIR impressed with its multi-sensor fusion approach, combining electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) imaging and radar to maintain tracking even when one modality was jammed. Anduril Industries brought AI-powered kinetic interceptor drones designed to engage swarming threats, while ELTA North America showcased RF jamming systems capable of real-time spectral agility. The systems were tested against dense swarms of over 50 drones, simulating combined rotary-wing and fast fixed-wing threats, closely mirroring evolving adversary tactics.
One of the most significant lessons to emerge from Demo 6 was the necessity of a “system-of-systems” approach. As Col. Michael Parent of the JCO emphasized, no single system—whether kinetic or non-kinetic—could singlehandedly address the full range of drone threats in contested EMS environments. This has prompted the JCO to prioritize layered defense architectures that integrate multiple defeat mechanisms, coordinated in real time. Echoing the urgency, officials pointed to the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), a prior demonstration success story now fielded across several military branches, as a model for rapid fielding.
Looking forward, planning for Demonstration 7 is already underway. The next phase will place greater emphasis on cost-effective methods for defeating swarms and the incorporation of artificial intelligence to enhance target discrimination and threat prioritization. The list of participating vendors is still being finalized. In parallel, the Pentagon is expanding counter-drone training initiatives, with Virginia Tech set to open a new $5 million facility in 2026 focused on preparing operators to function effectively in EMS-contested scenarios.
Strategically, the results of Demo 6 are already influencing doctrine and budgeting. The urgency stems in part from recent battlefield examples like Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web, which saw drones destroy Russian bombers by exploiting air defense blind spots. This has reignited concern about the vulnerability of U.S. bases to similar attacks. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin underscored this challenge, stating, “We’ve always known hardening bases is critical, but we’re not where we need to be.” In response, budget priorities are shifting toward non-kinetic solutions such as cyber takeovers, which reduce both cost and collateral damage—especially vital for homeland protection where civilian infrastructure is at risk.
Demo 6 has made one truth unmistakably clear: electronic warfare remains one of the greatest vulnerabilities in today’s counter-drone arsenal. It has forced a reckoning with the limits of current technology and highlighted the critical need for systems that can not only detect and defeat drones, but do so while surviving—and even thriving—in the midst of electromagnetic disruption. As the Pentagon accelerates its push toward Demo 7, the lesson resonates deeply: the future of air defense belongs not just to the fast and the accurate, but to the agile systems that dominate the spectrum under fire
Global Momentum for EMS-Resilient C-UAS Systems
A wave of multinational initiatives is rapidly advancing the development and deployment of resilient counter-drone systems designed to thrive in contested electromagnetic environments. These efforts reflect a shared understanding: without EMS resilience, even the most advanced systems risk operational failure.
In the United States, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) have partnered to foster innovation through low-cost sensing challenges and the development of “low-collateral defeat” systems. These initiatives aim to enhance homeland defense capabilities while minimizing unintended disruption to civilian electromagnetic infrastructure. The focus is not only on performance but also on safety and precision—ensuring that EMS countermeasures don’t interfere with critical civilian communications during urban engagements.
On the transatlantic front, the United Kingdom and United States have launched their first-ever joint Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) to solicit commercial technologies that offer electromagnetic-resilient counter-UAS capabilities for the upcoming Replicator-2 initiative. This effort emphasizes scalability in production, ensuring that solutions can be rapidly fielded at scale in response to growing drone threats. The bilateral cooperation underscores a commitment to harmonizing interoperability and ensuring that allied forces can operate seamlessly across shared EMS environments.
Meanwhile, international demand for proven EMS-resilient systems continues to grow. Qatar’s $1 billion acquisition of Fixed-Site Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS) components, including Coyote interceptors and Ku-band Radio Frequency System (KuRFS) radars, marks a major milestone in export momentum. These systems have undergone extensive testing in electromagnetic warfare scenarios and reflect a broader shift toward fully integrated, EW-hardened C-UAS solutions in allied nations’ defense planning.
Together, these global initiatives are creating a foundation for next-generation counter-drone capabilities—ones that are not only effective but enduring in the face of increasingly sophisticated electronic warfare threats.
The Path Ahead: From Survival to Spectrum Dominance
The future of counter-drone warfare lies not merely in hardening systems against electronic attacks, but in achieving full-spectrum electromagnetic superiority. To transition from survival to dominance in the electromagnetic battlespace, several strategic shifts must take place across doctrine, architecture, and acquisition.
A fundamental shift in military doctrine is imperative. Integrating electronic warfare (EW) officers directly into counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) teams enables real-time spectral mapping, threat diagnostics, and adaptive countermeasures. These specialists bring vital expertise in identifying enemy jamming patterns, locating emitters, and dynamically reshaping EMS usage based on rapidly evolving battlefield conditions.
System design must also evolve toward open and modular architectures. Platforms such as the European SAPIENT framework are setting the benchmark by supporting rapid sensor and effector interchangeability. This flexibility allows C-UAS systems to adapt swiftly as drone threats advance—from commercial quadcopters to encrypted, autonomous swarms—without requiring complete hardware overhauls.
Equally critical is the need to balance technological sophistication with cost-efficiency. High-end interceptors and advanced EW-resistant systems must be complemented by affordable, scalable defeat mechanisms such as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rockets. This hybrid approach ensures sustainable defense against drone swarms, where attrition and saturation tactics can overwhelm expensive, one-shot solutions.
As Ukraine’s battlefield experience shows, drones will eventually breach even the most layered defenses. The defining test for counter-drone platforms—such as the upcoming Demo 6—is whether they can continue operating effectively while under persistent electromagnetic assault. The next frontier is clear: it’s not just about detecting or defeating drones. Victory depends on doing both, while navigating and surviving in the heart of the storm that is the modern electromagnetic battlespace.
“In modern warfare, controlling the spectrum is controlling the battlefield. Lose EMS access, and your counter-drone umbrella becomes a liability.”
— JCO Acquisition Director
