Just before we started our weekly hangout this week the House Homeland Security group sat down to talk about drone threats. This is at a time when a mass hysteria lights in the sky event is happening in New Jersey and oh boy it was leveraged hard.
I will put the video below and have summarised it for you dear reader. Bruce has created a comment video I will add that in as well. The panels seemed very keen to say the New Jersey lights were drones, not really entertaining anything else.
I stopped watching when Keith Jones, representing US Customs and Border Protection, testified that CBP sensors recorded more than 6,900 drone flights within close proximity of US borders during a recent six-week period.
He mentioned that in 2023, there were 45,000 drone detections on the southwest border. However, only a small percentage of these drone flights resulted in incursions into US airspace. It was said that the border patrol could land these devil drones with its counter drone equipment.
Keith would not actually be drawn on how many had been landed, just saying they had been mitigated, whatever that means.
In 2023, 86 drone threats were mitigated, and so far this year 60. Only 5% of the 45,000 detections represented actual incursions. He further clarified that these figures represent the number of events, not necessarily individual drones. This indicates that a single mitigation might involve multiple drones or repeat offenders.
Apparently the only thing to be done is chuck millions of dollars at the problem.
All sounds very Gatwick and aviation regulators favourite thing to do, fudge figures to make them fit the narrative.
I am laying this one down in detail because we will be able to pin a date on when the next round of RPAS restrictions for a still emerging industry were hatched.
I find myself worried about the mention of Ukraine, it’s not a like for like situation but this will allow folks to push yet more CUAS BS into America, FUD sells.
It’s also not going to help the DJI/Autel potential ban.
American Drone professionals, make a note in your diary 10th December 2024. The day the extra nuts rules and restrictions were born.
In summary this is what the entire thing was about :-
Escalating Threat: UAS pose a rapidly evolving threat to US national security and critical infrastructure, demanding urgent attention and action.
Authority Gap: Current legal frameworks are insufficient to effectively address the scale and complexity of the UAS threat, necessitating expanded authorities for federal, state, and local agencies.
Collaboration: Effective counter-UAS efforts require strong collaboration between government agencies, private industry, and international partners.
Technological Advancement: The US must prioritize research, development, and rapid acquisition of counter-UAS technologies to keep pace with adversarial advancements, learning from the Ukrainian example.
Balancing Security and Privacy: Expanding counter-UAS authorities must be done responsibly, ensuring the protection of privacy and civil liberties through clear guidelines, training, and oversight mechanisms.
These were the key parts.
Representative Mike Fluger (R-TX), Chairman, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence
Highlights the growing security concerns posed by UAS, emphasizing their potential misuse for criminal activities, espionage, and attacks on critical infrastructure.
Stresses the urgency to extend and reform counter-UAS authorities, praising bipartisan efforts to introduce legislation addressing the issue.
Expresses concern over recent incidents, including those in New Jersey and Langley Air Force Base, underscoring the immediacy of the threat.
Representative Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence
Acknowledges the technological arms race between criminal use of UAS and law enforcement efforts to counter them.
Emphasizes the need for expanded authority to monitor, track, and jam UAS signals while safeguarding civil liberties.
Supports HR8610, the Counter-UAS Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act, as a means to address the issue.
Representative Carlos A. Giménez (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security
Addresses the rapid increase in drone operators, highlighting safety risks posed by uninformed operators and the potential danger from malicious actors.
Details specific instances of drone threats at airports and energy facilities, underscoring the real and escalating nature of the problem.
Urges swift action to bolster defenses against drone misuse, particularly in light of upcoming major events like the FIFA World Cup and Summer Olympics.
Representative Dale Kildee (D-MI), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security
Acknowledges the widespread and beneficial use of drones across various industries.
Emphasizes the need for government preparedness and empowerment to protect critical infrastructure and public safety as drone use increases.
Calls for extending and expanding counter-drone authorities while ensuring the protection of privacy and civil liberties and maintaining airspace safety.
Witness Testimony: Panel 1
Mr. Keith Jones, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner for Air and Marine Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
The Current State of UAS Threats to Border Security:
Details the rapid increase in UAS activity along the border, highlighting the significant threat posed by counter-surveillance activities of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).
Underscores the use of drones for reconnaissance and, to a lesser extent, for smuggling contraband, emphasizing the potential harm from even small payloads of fentanyl or explosives.
Critical Authorities and Response:
Explains CBP’s role as the executive agent for counter-UAS operations and their collaboration with other agencies and industry partners.
Stresses the importance of the Preventing Emerging Threats Act in enabling CBP to counter UAS threats, highlighting their targeted approach and mitigation efforts.
Improving Domain Awareness and Technology:
Emphasizes the need for continued congressional support to counter the evolving UAS threat, particularly in light of TCOs acquiring more advanced drones.
Calls for enhanced domain awareness capabilities and advanced technology to maintain a strategic advantage in countering UAS threats.
Mr. Robert Wheeler Jr., Assistant Director, FBI Critical Incident Response Group
Evolving UAS Threats:
Provides examples of recent criminal cases involving UAS, including espionage at a naval facility and an attempted attack on an energy facility.
Highlights the unique security challenges posed by UAS technology and the increasing malicious use by state, non-state, and lone actors.
The Importance of Counter-UAS Authority:Explains the authority granted to the FBI under the 2018 Preventing Emergency Threats Act and its use in mitigating UAS threats at special events, investigations, and facilities.Stresses the importance of a durable extension of the counter-UAS authorities, highlighting the negative impact of short-term extensions on long-term strategy and resource allocation.
Expanding Counter-UAS Authority to State and Local Partners:Advocates for expanding counter-UAS authorities to state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, emphasizing their crucial role in protecting the vast number of events and potential targets.Provides specific examples of successful FBI mitigation efforts, such as at the Boston Marathon, but underscores the need for expanded capabilities to address the nationwide scale of the threat.
Mr. Bragg Wiggman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
The Need for Expanded Legal Authority:
Explains the legal challenges faced by law enforcement in countering UAS threats, highlighting the potential for counter-drone activities to violate existing criminal laws.
Urges Congress to reauthorize the existing law, emphasizing the inadequacy of current authorities to address the scale of the threat.
Advocates for broader legal authority to cover a wider range of protected sites, including airports and critical infrastructure, and to empower state and local law enforcement.
Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties:
Assures the committee that counter-UAS technologies target communications between drones and controllers and do not extract personal information.
Emphasizes the commitment to safeguarding privacy and civil liberties, highlighting DOJ guidance, training requirements, and adherence to legal parameters for data collection.
Advocates for expanding authorities while maintaining strong privacy protections, including training and oversight mechanisms for state and local law enforcement involved in counter-drone activities.
III. Witness Testimony: Panel 2
Mr. Jeffrey Bombgartner, Vice President for National Security and Resilience, Berkshire Hathaway Energy
UAS Threats to Critical Infrastructure:
Explains the importance of critical infrastructure to the economy and security, highlighting the increasing threat posed by UAS to energy, transportation, communications, and water sectors.
Describes the evolving capabilities of UAS, enabling malicious actors to surveil, disrupt, and attack critical infrastructure.
Cites the Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment, emphasizing UAS as a persistent and growing risk.
Modernizing Defenses and Legal Frameworks:
Argues for modernizing defenses against UAS threats while balancing security measures with civil liberties.
Calls for granting critical infrastructure companies limited authority to deploy counter-UAS technologies.
Advocates for enhanced information sharing, law enforcement empowerment, research and development, and a comprehensive strategy to address regulatory, technological, and operational aspects of UAS threats.
Collaboration Between the Public and Private Sectors:
Emphasizes the need for public-private collaboration to protect critical infrastructure.
Urges Congress to renew and expand counter-UAS authorities for DHS and DOJ, warning of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure if authorities lapse.
Dr. Paul Scharre, Co-Director, Global Strategy Decisions Group
Lessons from Ukraine:
Highlights the transformative impact of UAS in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, underscoring the revolution in the application of lethal force at low cost and with decentralized command structures.
Argues that the US is losing its strategic military advantage in this evolving technological environment.Emphasizes the need to learn from Ukrainian innovations and adapt to the changing rules of warfare.
The Need for Urgency and Adaptation:
Expresses concern over the lack of urgency and coherence in the US response to the evolving UAS threat.
Advocates for reducing bureaucratic barriers to innovation and empowering operational units to tinker and experiment with new technologies.
Recommends a rapid acquisition and deployment strategy, learning from Ukrainian successes in fielding UAS systems quickly.
Recommendations for Policy and Technology:
Suggests the creation of a dedicated UAS force or service within the US military, similar to the Ukrainian model, to centralize expertise and accelerate innovation.
Encourages focusing on offensive UAS capabilities and counter-UAS technologies, leveraging lessons from the Ukrainian conflict.
Emphasizes the importance of policy changes that empower innovation and streamline acquisition processes to keep pace with rapid technological advancements.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.