Small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – from off-the-shelf quadcopters to military-grade drones – have become a major threat on modern battlefields and in security environments. From Syria and Iraq to the war in Ukraine, armed forces have witnessed drones being used for reconnaissance, targeted strikes, and even swarm attacks. In response, countries around the world are racing to develop counter-drone technologies. This article provides an accessible overview of current methods to counter drones (jamming, kinetic interceptors, lasers, interceptor drones, etc.) and highlights which nations are investing in them. We then focus on an emerging approach: a mobile turret-based anti-drone system – essentially a lightweight automated gun turret that a soldier can carry and rapidly deploy in the field to detect and shoot down drones. We’ll compare this soldier-portable solution with more expensive, stationary or vehicle-based anti-drone systems, emphasizing the tactical and logistical advantages of a scalable, soldier-deployable defense.
Current Methods to Counter Drones
Modern militaries and security agencies employ a mix of techniques to detect and defeat drones. Here’s a brief rundown of the main counter-drone methods and who’s investing in them:
Radio Jamming and Electronic Warfare: One of the most common anti-drone tactics is to jam the drone’s control signals or GPS. Portable jamming guns (like the US “Dronebuster” or DroneShield devices) emit radio frequency interference that can cause a drone to lose contact with its operator and either land or drift. Many countries use electronic warfare (EW) units for drone defense – for example, the U.S. and NATO forces field man-portable jammers, and Russia has heavily relied on EW to disable Ukrainian drones. However, advanced drones are becoming harder to jam: they can hop between frequencies or use inertial navigation and even fiber-optic tethers to bypass radio jamming. This has driven interest in other solutions.
Kinetic Interceptors (Guns & Missiles): The most straightforward way to stop a hostile drone is to shoot it down. This can range from sniper rifles and shotguns loaded with special anti-drone ammo, to anti-aircraft cannons and even small missiles. Countries with a strong air-defense tradition (like Germany, Israel, and the U.S.) are updating their arsenals to tackle drones with kinetic means. For example, the Netherlands is buying 22 Rheinmetall Skyranger mobile air-defense cannons (30mm auto-cannons mounted on vehicles) specifically “to protect ground troops against the increased threat of drones,” a project budgeted at €1.3 billion. These gun systems can engage drones at distances of a few kilometers. On the missile side, using a $50,000 missile to destroy a $1,000 hobby drone is obviously inefficient, so new mini-missiles are being tested to redress the cost imbalance. Estonia and Ukraine, for instance, have experimented with affordable mini anti-drone missiles guided by AI for tracking. While effective, such missiles have limited range and can be overwhelmed by swarms. Traditional high-end air defense missiles (Patriot, Stinger, etc.) are generally seen as overkill for small drones due to the skewed cost-to-kill ratio.
High-Energy Lasers and Microwaves: Directed-energy weapons are an attractive counter-drone option because of their low cost-per-shot and silent, lightning-fast impact. High-energy laser beams can burn through drone components or blind their sensors. The United States, United Kingdom, Israel, China, and South Korea are all investing in anti-drone laser projects. In fact, anti-drone lasers have seen trials in conflicts – a German laser was reportedly used in Ukraine, and the UK’s DragonFire laser boasts a cost of only about £10 per shot. Lasers are cheap to fire and can take down drones without explosive collateral damage. Their downsides: they need clear weather (fog, smoke or rain can hinder them) and must dwell on the target for a short time, which is challenging against fast or swarm targets. Alongside lasers, some countries (notably the U.S. and China) are developing high-power microwave (HPM) systems that can fry a drone’s electronics with an electromagnetic pulse. China has demonstrated both laser and microwave-based drone defenses. These directed-energy systems are promising, but still maturing in terms of power and fieldability.
Interceptor Drones and Nets: A more novel method is using drones to counter drones. So-called “interceptor drones” can chase down an enemy drone and either collide with it or capture it in a net. For example, Fortem Technologies (USA) has a DroneHunter UAV that autonomously pursues rogue drones and snags them with a net, hauling them to the ground. This approach is effective for lower-risk takedown (good for urban areas or airports where stray bullets or debris are a concern). Several nations have shown interest in interceptor drones – Japan and France have tested net-carrying drones, and the U.S. has deployed systems like Fortem’s in certain sensitive sites. In one creative twist, the Netherlands even trained eagles to grab small drones out of the sky a few years ago, proving that not all counter-drone solutions are high-tech (though the bird program was eventually shelved). Net launchers and drone-on-drone tactics provide a low-collateral damage option, but they may struggle against faster, higher-flying UAVs or large drone swarms.
Sensors and “Soft-Kill” Takeover: Before any countermeasure can be used, drones must be detected and tracked. Advanced radars, infrared cameras, and acoustic sensors are being fielded to spot small drones. Once detected, another “soft kill” method is a cyber takeover – hacking or sending commands to hijack the drone. The U.S., Israel, and others have specialized teams and devices that attempt to spoof a drone’s GPS or exploit its communication link to commandeer it mid-flight. This is usually complex and situation-dependent, so it’s a smaller piece of the C-UAS (counter-UAS) puzzle. Many Western companies (DroneShield, Dedrone, etc.) focus on these detection and identification technologies to alert defenses before the drones get close. In practice, militaries use layered defenses: radar/camera detection, then a jammer or laser or kinetic weapon to neutralize the threat.
It’s worth noting that most modern militaries are investing in multiple counter-drone methods in parallel. North America (especially the U.S.) currently leads in anti-drone spending, with major defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed developing EW and directed-energy systems. Europe is also ramping up its capabilities – the UK, France, and Germany have active programs for drone jammers and laser weapons. China is pouring resources into both military and commercial anti-drone tech, seeing threats to border security and civilian targets. Israel, facing frequent small drone threats, has deployed systems like the Drone Dome (an integrated radar/jammer/laser system) and is reportedly working on Iron Beam lasers and even interceptor drones to add to its Iron Dome defense family. In short, counter-drone technology is a hot market worldwide, with the global anti-drone market expected to quadruple in the latter half of this decade.
The Case for Mobile Turret-Based Systems
With so many approaches in play, a new concept is gaining traction: mobile turret-based anti-drone systems that are lightweight enough for soldiers to carry and deploy in the field. Instead of a large vehicle or fixed installation, imagine a portable automated turret – essentially a robotic gun on a tripod – that can be set up by a two-man team on a hilltop, or even carried in a backpack, to provide immediate drone defense for troops on the ground. This idea brings the firepower of kinetic interception to the small-unit level.
A modern automated anti-drone turret uses a mounted rifle and advanced sensors to detect and shoot down small drones. The appeal of such systems is that they directly destroy the drone (a “hard kill”) without relying on fragile radio links or fancy missiles. Proponents argue that as drones get smarter and better protected against jamming, “the only way to stop drones will be to destroy them.” An automated micro-turret can use computer vision, radar, and tracking algorithms to spot a hostile drone and then shoot it out of the sky with bullets. This approach is being pursued by several companies and defense organizations. For instance, the U.S. firm Hover recently unveiled a fully automated counter-drone turret that successfully detected and shot down fast-moving FPV drones in tests. Hover’s system uses a mix of image recognition AI, LiDAR, and radar for detection, and its creator emphasizes a shift away from jamming toward kinetic action. Similarly, Israeli startup SMARTSHOOTER has developed the SMASH Hopper, a lightweight remote-controlled weapon station (essentially a smart gun turret) equipped with an assault rifle and fire-control system, specifically to target drones. The SMASH system can automatically track a drone and even link into a broader command-and-control network (for example, the U.S. Army’s ATAK battlefield network) to receive target cues. These examples show the feasibility: a small turret with a standard rifle or machine gun, paired with smart optics and software, can effectively engage drones “regardless of their communication link or model.”
A big advantage of a soldier-portable turret is rapid deployment and flexibility. Unlike a permanent anti-drone battery that might need a truck or a generator, a portable system can be set up in minutes wherever needed – on a rooftop, a forward operating base perimeter, or guarding a convoy halt. For instance, Liteye’s portable Anti-UAS system (used by the U.S. and UK) packs all its components into two backpacks and can be operational in about five minutes by soldiers on the ground. A turret-based system could similarly be unpacked and scanning the skies almost immediately, providing on-the-spot air defense for patrols or small units. This kind of on-demand protection is invaluable as drones proliferate at the squad and platoon level of warfare.
Another benefit is automation and accuracy. Humans can struggle to spot tiny drones or react fast enough as they zip by. An automated turret, however, leveraging thermal cameras and radar, can detect a drone day or night, lock on, and fire with precision guided by algorithms. The U.S.-developed “Bullfrog” turret is an example: it’s a 7.62mm machine-gun turret that uses AI trained on millions of images for drone recognition, boasting a false-negative rate under 2%. It can even predict its shots to maximize hit probability. In Ukraine, where drone threats are constant, a local company developed a turret with a 12.7mm machine gun guided by neural-network-based control – early tests showed it could be controlled remotely to shoot down enemy drones. (The Ukrainian system currently is mounted on a trailer for testing, but it underlines the interest in turret solutions at the front.) By using advanced sensors and processing, these turrets can react faster and more accurately than a human with a rifle, and potentially handle multiple targets or swarm attacks by assigning each turret to a different sector.
Crucially, a portable turret system uses conventional ammo – typically rifle bullets or small cannon shells – which are much cheaper per round than missiles. For example, SMARTSHOOTER’s 5.56mm or 7.62mm rounds cost a few dollars each, versus tens of thousands for a guided missile. This dramatically lowers the cost of engaging a drone. It also means soldiers in the field can be resupplied with ammo through normal logistics, instead of needing specialized interceptors. The designers of these turrets often stress cost-effectiveness and scalability as key goals. By keeping the technology simple (a gun, a sensor suite, and a smart controller), the units can potentially be mass-produced and issued widely, rather than only a few gold-plated systems being available.
Portable vs. Traditional Anti-Drone Defenses
How does the soldier-portable turret concept stack up against the more traditional, larger counter-drone systems? There are trade-offs, but several clear advantages for the portable approach in many scenarios:
Mobility and Rapid Deployment: Big anti-drone systems – like vehicle-mounted cannons or fixed radar-jammer installations – provide coverage but are limited to where you can drive or build them. In contrast, a man-packable turret can go anywhere a soldier can go: up a mountain, into dense urban terrain, or dispersed across a wide area. This tactical mobility means troops on a mission can take along drone defense and set it up on the fly. It’s the difference between having to call in support versus having an organic capability at hand. Portable systems can be especially useful for special forces or infantry on the move, who might face drone threats deep in the field.
Scalability and Coverage: Stationary systems are often few in number due to cost – you might have one battery protecting an entire base. If that system is overwhelmed or pointed the wrong way at the wrong time, gaps in coverage occur. By equipping units with portable turrets, forces can achieve a layered and scalable defense. Dozens of small turrets networked together could cover an entire perimeter or formation, each watching a sector of sky. Even if a few fail or run out of ammo, others fill in, increasing overall resilience. It essentially democratizes air defense, extending protection to the smallest units. This is increasingly important as drones become a ubiquitous threat; every squad might need some anti-drone capability, and you can’t realistically equip every squad with a large vehicle-based system.
Cost and Logistical Footprint: Large high-tech C-UAS platforms come with a hefty price tag and support requirements. For example, the Dutch military’s purchase of 22 Skyranger anti-drone vehicles for $1.35 billion illustrates how expensive cutting-edge solutions can be. Each of those armored gun systems is a multi-million-dollar asset with crews, maintenance, and fuel needs. A soldier-deployable turret, by contrast, is envisioned to be relatively low-cost – possibly on the order of tens of thousands of dollars for the hardware, using existing rifles or machine guns. Dozens of smart turrets could be fielded for the cost of a single vehicle system, allowing much wider coverage for the same investment. Logistically, portable turrets would use batteries (rechargeable in the field) and ammo that is already standard issue, simplifying supply. They also avoid the need for heavy transport; a couple of soldiers or a small ATV can carry a turret where it’s needed, versus requiring trucks or C-130 aircraft to move a 26-ton air-defense vehicle. This lighter footprint is a huge plus in expeditionary and high-mobility operations.
Autonomy and Ease of Use: Modern portable C-UAS turrets are being designed with user-friendly interfaces and automation. They can operate in semi-autonomous modes where the system tracks targets and either suggests an engagement to a human operator or even fires automatically when a target is confirmed (with proper rules of engagement controls). This reduces the training burden on soldiers – they don’t need to be anti-aircraft gunners; the system handles the hard part. A single operator could potentially oversee multiple turrets via a tablet or rugged laptop, receiving alerts when a drone is detected. In essence, these turrets act as tireless sentries. Freeing up human warfighters from staring at the sky means they can focus on other tasks until a threat arises. Traditional systems, in contrast, often require dedicated operators and integration into air defense networks, which is feasible at the battalion level but not for every squad. The “set-and-forget” nature of a portable turret is a big tactical selling point.
Of course, portable turret systems are not a silver bullet. They typically will have shorter effective range than larger systems – a small turret might engage drones out to 500 meters or 1–2 kilometers, whereas a vehicle-mounted cannon with advanced radar can reach 4–5 km and hit faster targets. The portable systems also need to be mindful of safety and IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) – you don’t want an autonomous gun firing at friendly UAVs or low-flying aircraft by mistake. Thus, rules of engagement and perhaps a human “on-the-loop” supervision are important, as seen in the Bullfrog turret which includes human override features to prevent unauthorized shots. In high-intensity combat, the portable turrets would work best as a complement to – not a total replacement for – the heavier air defense assets. They would handle the cheap, close-in drones, easing the burden on bigger systems that might be needed for cruise missiles or aircraft.
The Road Ahead
The trend in drone warfare is clear: drones are getting smaller, cheaper, and more capable, and they’re being used in greater numbers. In return, drone defenses must become more agile, affordable, and ubiquitous. Soldier-portable anti-drone turrets exemplify this shift – moving from a few big-ticket defense systems to many widely distributed smart mini-systems. Several countries are already prototyping or fielding such equipment. The United States military, for one, has been testing a variety of counter-small UAS (C-sUAS) setups through its Joint C-sUAS Office, which has evaluated everything from net guns to small lasers to robotic turrets. Israel’s defense industry, known for nimble tech, is likely to produce more rifle-mounted intercept solutions (building on products like SMASH Hopper) to equip its infantry. Ukraine’s experience on the front lines is accelerating innovation out of sheer necessity – we can expect to see more improvised yet effective turret guns and electronic traps deployed by their forces. Even traditional air-defense companies in Europe are beginning to scale down their systems – for instance, Rheinmetall (Germany) markets a “Skynex” system that can network multiple little gun turrets as a swarm defense, hinting at the direction things are going.
For defense tech enthusiasts, the prospect of a “drone shield” that travels with every platoon is exciting. It means envisioning battlefields where small robotic sentries automatically watch for buzzing threats overhead, a bit like something out of science fiction. The technology is rapidly catching up to that vision: sensors are getting smaller, AI algorithms better, and weapons smarter. In the next few years, we will likely see hybrid solutions – maybe a portable turret that can fire bullets and deploy a small anti-drone missile or drone of its own for extended range. Countries such as China, India, and others will no doubt introduce their own versions, given the global urgency to counter drones.
In summary, anti-drone defense is evolving from static and costly installations to nimble, scalable systems. A mobile turret-based anti-drone system exemplifies this evolution, offering frontline troops a potent new tool to fight back against the drone threat without breaking the bank or slowing down the tempo of operations. It’s a classic offense-defense tech race: drones had the advantage for a while, but with these portable guardians, the playing field may be leveling out. Keep an eye on this space – the next time you see footage of soldiers on exercise, you just might spot a tripod-mounted “drone killer” turret swiveling in the background, ready to blast rogue UAVs out of the sky.
Sources
Bloomsbury Intelligence & Security Institute – “From Lasers to Mini-Missiles: Emerging Counter-Drone Technology,” analysis of global C-UAS trends.
Defense Blog – Reports on new C-UAS systems: SMARTSHOOTER’s portable SMASH Hopper/DOME system.
ArmyRecognition.com – Details on the U.S.-developed “Bullfrog” AI-powered anti-drone gun turret (Allen Integrated Systems).
Defence News / DefenseNews.com – News of the Netherlands acquiring Rheinmetall Skyranger anti-drone cannon vehicles to protect troops.
Militarnyi (Ukraine) – News on Ukrainian National Guard testing a locally made drone-killing turret with heavy machine gun.
National Defense Magazine – “Hunting Drones with Drones,” on Fortem’s DroneHunter F700 interceptor UAV using nets.
Liteye Systems – Man-portable Multi-Domain Anti-UAS system deployment info.
Comments