There’s usually a moment in testing where things shift.
It’s not dramatic. Nothing fails. Nothing obvious goes wrong.
But you realise the plan you walked in with isn’t going to hold up.
It might be something small.
The environment behaves differently than expected.
The aircraft doesn’t respond quite how it did before.
The comms aren’t as clean as they looked on paper.
Or the sequence of events just doesn’t flow the way it was designed.
On paper, the test plan made sense.
Clear steps. Logical progression. Defined outcomes.
But reality isn’t linear.
It doesn’t care about sequencing or structure.
It exposes the assumptions built into the plan, usually earlier than expected.
This is the point where testing either becomes useful, or starts drifting.
The easy option is to force things back towards the plan.
Adjust slightly. Ignore the small gaps. Keep moving forward as if everything still aligns.
That’s where a lot of value is lost.
The better option is to recognise what’s actually happening and adapt to it.
Not by throwing the plan away, but by understanding what the plan didn’t account for.
That’s where the real learning sits.
Good testing isn’t about proving that the plan was correct.
It’s about exposing where it wasn’t.
And being able to adjust without losing control of the operation.
That moment is easy to miss if you’re only focused on getting through the test.
But once you start looking for it, it shows up in almost every operation.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority’s introduction of the Recognised Assessment Entity for Flightworthiness, or RAE(F), and the associated SAIL Marking system was presented as a way to support the rollout of UK SORA and help operators demonstrate that their unmanned aircraft systems are safe for more complex Specific Category operations.
In principle, few people in the drone industry would object to proportionate safety assurance. The problem is not the intent. The problem is the way the system risks becoming another costly layer of
assessment on top of standards, certificates, declarations and component-level compliance work that manufacturers have already completed.
The CAA says RAE(F)s are approved to assess whether the technical features of a UAS meet UK SORA requirements, including design, construction and flying characteristics. It also states that designers seeking a SAIL Mark must ask an RAE(F) to assess the UAS, after which the RAE(F) advises the CAA whether the requirements have been met. (Civil Aviation Authority)
That sounds reasonable until you look at what many drone manufacturers are actually building. A modern drone is typically assembled from radios, flight controllers, GPS receivers, batteries, transmitters, electronic speed controllers and other components that already sit within an established conformity framework. Radio equipment is already subject to applicable radio and EMC requirements. CE-marked products and components are already required to demonstrate compliance with applicable Union harmonisation legislation.
EASA’s own guidance for manufacturers confirms that drones are subject to legislation such as the
Radio Equipment Directive and Machinery Directive, and that manufacturers must demonstrate compliance through the defined conformity procedures before affixing CE marking. (EASA)
So the question the industry should be asking is simple: what additional safety value is actually being created by the RAE(F) process, and what is merely a re-check of paperwork that already exists?
The SAIL Mark system is described by the CAA as optional; CAP 722K explicitly states that there is “no obligation” for a UAS designer to SAIL mark their aircraft in the UK. However, the practical reality may become very different. If operators increasingly need SAIL marked aircraft to make UK SORA applications easier, then an “optional” scheme can quickly become a commercial necessity. Once that happens, manufacturers who cannot afford the cost, delay and administrative workload of SAIL Marking may find themselves excluded from parts of the market, even when their aircraft are built from compliant, traceable and already-certified components.
This is where the system becomes problematic. The RAE(F) does not replace proper engineering by the manufacturer. It does not design the aircraft. It does not manufacture the aircraft. In many cases, it will not add meaningful physical test data beyond what the manufacturer has already generated.
CAP 722K requires the designer to submit evidence data to the RAE(F), and the RAE(F) must verify the designer’s compliance against the agreed compliance basis and approach. That is fundamentally an evidence-review model.
Evidence review has value where the aircraft is novel, high-risk, complex, or where the manufacturer is claiming safety functions that are not already proven. But it is much harder to justify when the review becomes a costly confirmation that standard components meet standards they have already been tested against. For example, CAP 722K’s C3 link requirements require data such as C3 link performance, RF spectrum and environmental conditions, plus evidence that the remote pilot can monitor C3 link performance.
Those are important issues, but for many systems the underlying radio modules, output powers,
frequency bands and conformity evidence already exist. The danger is that the RAE(F) becomes an expensive intermediary between the manufacturer’s existing technical file and the CAA’s approval process.
The CAA’s own charging structure shows the wider cost environment that manufacturers and operators now face. For 2026/27, UK SORA-based Operational Authorisation charges range from £2,422 at SAIL 1 to £17,300 at SAIL 5 and SAIL 6, with additional assessment charges possible at £346 per hour. These are CAA charges, not necessarily the full commercial cost of engaging an RAE(F), but they demonstrate the direction of travel: higher SAIL means higher cost, more documentation, more assessment and more delay. (Civil Aviation Authority) EASA’s Design Verification Report system raises similar concerns. EASA states that DVR costs are based on actual time spent assessing documentation, charged at €250 per hour, and that the duration depends heavily on system complexity and the manufacturer’s responsiveness. Again, this is a documentation-heavy model that may be appropriate for higher-risk or more novel designs, but it risks becoming disproportionate when applied too broadly. (EASA)
The strongest argument for SAIL Marking is that it allows a manufacturer to prove the technical aspects once, so operators do not have to repeat the same evidence for every Operational Authorisation. That is a valid objective. The CAA itself says that as more SAIL-marked UAS become available, operators will be able to use them to comply with certain UK SORA technical requirements. (Civil Aviation Authority)
But that benefit only materialises if the process is quick, affordable, consistent and genuinely additive. If the system is slow, expensive and mostly duplicates existing component compliance, then it will not accelerate innovation. It will tax it.
This concern is not just theoretical. In consultation feedback submitted to the CAA, the Royal Aeronautical Society warned that limited numbers of organisations providing RAE(F) services could increase industry costs, extend authorisation timelines and limit growth. The same response noted that many UK drone manufacturers are SMEs, often developing products with limited revenue, and that overly burdensome regulation can make compliance expensive and time-consuming during the critical period before a product is commercialised.
That is the core issue. The UK drone industry is not made up only of large aerospace primes with dedicated certification departments. Much of the innovation comes from small manufacturers, engineering-led start-ups and specialist operators building practical systems for real-world use cases. These companies already face costs for product development, testing, insurance, manufacturing, software, documentation, operational approvals, training, export compliance and market access. Adding another expensive assessment layer may satisfy an administrative need, but it can easily become a barrier to entry.
There is also a risk of regulatory mismatch. Drone technology evolves quickly. Components change, firmware changes, radio modules change and payloads change. A certification-style model that works for traditional aviation can become misaligned with the pace of unmanned aircraft development. The more the approval system struggles to keep up with real product cycles, the more manufacturers will either delay innovation, avoid the UK market, or design around the approval process rather than around the best technical solution.
The answer is not to abandon safety assurance. The answer is proportionality.
For low and medium-risk SAIL levels, the CAA should allow more reliance on manufacturer declarations, existing CE/UKCA/RED evidence, component certificates, conformity documentation and controlled internal test reports. RAE(F) involvement should focus on genuinely operation-specific or system-level risks: containment, failure modes, command-and-control resilience, geofencing, flight termination, software behaviour and manufacturing consistency. It should not become a paid exercise in re-reading radio module certificates and checking that standard parts already comply with standards they were built to meet.
A better model would separate “paperwork already proven elsewhere” from “system-level flightworthiness claims.” If a manufacturer uses a compliant radio module within its rated power, frequency and environmental envelope, that should not need a full reassessment. If a manufacturer claims that its drone can safely terminate flight, contain itself within a defined volume, detect C3 degradation or maintain operational control in a swarm, then that is where independent assessment can add value.
The UK has an opportunity to build a sensible, risk-based drone approval system. But if RAE(F) and SAIL Marking become too expensive, too slow, or too focused on duplicating existing standards, the result will not be a thriving ecosystem. It will be a smaller market, fewer manufacturers, slower product development and less innovation.
The CAA may see the creation of the RAE(F) system as a step forward. For parts of the industry, it may well be. But unless the system is kept proportionate, transparent and affordable, it risks becoming exactly what manufacturers fear: an expensive double-check on compliant products, paid for by the very companies the UK needs if it wants to lead in unmanned aviation.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Guest post from Jared Oren, Test and Evaluation Division Director at the Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL).
Over the past several years, NUSTL has received more inquiries about drones than almost any other technology in our laboratory’s history. We’re seeing more and more cases of public safety agencies using small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) in their daily operations, from providing aerial situational awareness and enhancing physical protection to supporting search and rescue efforts. The practical use cases for this technology are growing, and America’s first responders are looking for insight into how this technology can improve their safety and effectiveness.
At NUSTL, we work closely with the public safety community to understand and address their most pressing issues. We host a range of working groups, such as the Big City Fire Working Group, that focus on emerging threats and opportunities impacting first responders across the nation. Given the increased interest in sUAS we’ve seen in recent years, the lab has prioritized research and operational assessments that provide first responders with information they need to determine which solutions best fit their mission needs.
One of the latest resources available is NUSTL’s Small Unmanned Aircraft System Program Documentation for Public Safety: Recommendations and Templates. This planning tool gives responders a comprehensive methodology to safely and effectively set up their own program: administrative, operational, qualifications and training, safety, and maintenance.
We created it with collaborative inputs from urban and rural first responders across the country who have experienced the challenges firsthand of how to quickly and effectively initiate or expand a drone program. We understand responders typically don’t come from an aviation background, and we wanted to provide them with a resource that helped fill that gap. The result is a streamlined, easy-to-use template that makes it simpler than ever for responder agencies to implement policies and procedures quickly and get to the real mission at hand – saving lives.
Several factors are driving the increased adoption of sUAS for public safety agencies. Like other technologies, UAS incorporate much of the same components as other popular electronics. Batteries, cameras, and radios are all present in laptops and phones, thus the cost of manufacturing has decreased over time, making them a more affordable option than in prior years. Changes to Federal Aviation Administration regulations have also simplified the process for Drone as First Responder operations, clearing the way for more agencies to incorporate sUAS capabilities into their duties. There is also a national emphasis on expanding America’s sUAS industry, which will ensure the solutions safeguarding our skies are developed by trusted manufacturers.
It comes down to this: UAS are going to play a bigger role in first responder operations moving forward, and agencies need a trusted expert to help them find the right solutions for their unique needs. S&T and NUSTL provide that expertise, giving responders actionable insight and resources that ensure they spend less time worrying about tech specs and more time focused on the mission. I encourage you to review the sUAS Recommendations and Templates to see how your program can benefit.
For more information about the impact of NUSTL’s collaboration with first responders, listen to S&T’s Technologically Speaking podcast episode, “We Take the Load Off of Them.”
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Image Ian Hudson
Defining the threat and the scope of the legislation
At the heart of the new provisions is the definition of an ‘uncrewed device’. The bill describes this as any device operating, or designed to operate, autonomously, or to be controlled remotely without a natural person on board. This broad definition ensures that the legislation covers a wide array of technologies, from commercially available quadcopters to sophisticated military surveillance drones.
The primary objective of these new powers is to allow the use of approved counter-device equipment to prevent or detect the use of an uncrewed device in the commission of a ‘relevant offence’ in relation to a defence area or defence property, or to mitigate the risk of a drone being used in such a manner. The equipment must be explicitly approved by a notice in writing from the secretary of state.
The exhaustive list of relevant offences
The bill meticulously defines what constitutes a ‘relevant offence’, linking the counter-drone measures to some of the most serious security legislation in the UK. Under the National Security Act 2023, these offences include obtaining or disclosing protected information (section 1), assisting a foreign intelligence service (section 3), entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK (section 4), unauthorised entry to a prohibited place (section 5), sabotage (section 12) and preparatory conduct (section 18), as well as breaching specific orders under sections 6(1) and 11(1) of that act.
Furthermore, the scope encompasses the collection of information under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, relevant offences include conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals (section 58) and an owner being liable for the unsafe operation of a ship (section 100(3)). The legislation also extends to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, specifically offences relating to destroying ships or fixed platforms or endangering their safety under section 11.
Aviation-specific violations under the Air Navigation Order 2016 are prominently featured. These include flying certain unmanned aircraft over or near aerodromes without permission (article 94A), prohibited or restricted flying (article 239(4)), endangering the safety of an aircraft (article 240) and endangering the safety of any person or property (article 241).
Lastly, offences against byelaws made under part 2 of the Military Lands Act 1892, which covers land used for military purposes, and offences under orders in council relating to the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 are included. To ensure the law can adapt to future threats, the secretary of state retains the power to amend this list of offences by regulations.
Defining defence areas and properties
The powers granted by the bill are geographically bound to the protection of a ‘defence area’ or ‘defence property’. A defence property is defined as any property in the UK used for specific defence purposes. A defence area includes any land (including Crown land) or building in the UK, areas of sea, tidal water or shore to which byelaws apply under the Military Lands Act 1900 or the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, and areas of water within a dockyard port regulated by the 1865 act.
The phrase ‘UK defence purposes’ is defined broadly. It covers the activities of His Majesty’s forces; the invention, development, production, operation, storage or disposal of weapons, equipment or capabilities; military planning, defence policy, strategy and intelligence; and plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services needed by the UK in time of war. Crucially, the provisions also extend to foreign military forces, covering the activities, capability development and weapons management of armed forces from a foreign country or territory allied with or operating within the UK.
The authorisation framework: seniority and oversight
To ensure that these significant powers are not misused, the bill establishes a strict hierarchy for the authorisation of counter-drone equipment. An application for an authorisation can only be made by a person subject to service law, a civilian subject to service discipline, or a member of the civil service working within the Ministry of Defence.
An ‘authorising officer’ must grant the approval. The legislation defines this officer as a senior military figure of at least the rank of rear admiral, major general or air vice-marshal, or a member of the senior civil service of a specified seniority. Before granting an authorisation, this officer must believe that an uncrewed device has been, or is being, used to commit a relevant offence, or that there is a risk of it being so used. Crucially, the authorising officer must also believe that granting the authorisation is appropriate in the interests of national security.
Authorisations must generally be given in writing. They must specify the particular defence area, defence property or description of property where the equipment will be used. They must also state the period for which the authorisation is valid, which cannot exceed 12 months from the day it takes effect. An authorisation may be given generally for approved equipment or limited to specific descriptions of equipment.
Moreover, the authorisation must specify the required seniority of the ‘responsible person’ who will oversee the operation on the ground. This responsible person must be a member of the armed forces of at least the rank of lieutenant commander, major or squadron leader, or a suitably senior civil servant. The approved equipment may only be used if this responsible person is satisfied that it will be used strictly in accordance with the authorisation, and that its use is both necessary and proportionate for the stated purposes.
Fast-track protocols for urgent threats
Recognising that threats to national security can emerge rapidly and without warning, the bill provides a fast-track procedure for situations requiring urgent consideration. If it is not reasonably practicable for a standard authorising officer to consider an application, the power to grant an authorisation can be exercised by a ‘designated person’.
A designated person must be a military officer of at least the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore, or a specified member of the senior civil service. In these urgent scenarios, the authorisation may be given orally, bypassing the standard written requirement, but it will only remain valid for a maximum of 72 hours.
If the threat persists, these urgent authorisations can be renewed. A designated person can renew an urgent authorisation on one occasion only for a further period of up to 72 hours. Alternatively, a standard authorising officer can step in to renew the authorisation for up to 12 months. This tiered approach ensures that frontline personnel have the immediate operational flexibility they need, while maintaining strict long-term executive oversight. Authorisations can also be varied or revoked by an authorising officer at any time.
The scope of interference and lawfulness of action
When a valid authorisation is in place, the military is granted significant powers to neutralise the threat. Any action taken is considered lawful for all purposes, provided it is authorised by the framework. This includes interfering with an uncrewed device at any place in the UK, as well as in, above, or below the adjacent territorial sea.
Interference explicitly includes the seizure and retention of the drone. However, the military is not intended to hold civilian property indefinitely. If a device is seized and retained, and not immediately returned to its owner or another appropriate person, it must be delivered to a civilian police constable within 72 hours of its seizure. If the drone was captured at sea, this 72-hour window begins when the device first reaches land in the UK.
Once the device is in the possession of the police, existing civilian laws regarding recovered property apply. These include the Police (Property) Act 1897 in England and Wales, part 6 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in Scotland (disregarding references to the finder of the property), and section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
It is important to note that while the powers of interference are broad, they are not absolute. The bill explicitly states that nothing in this new part authorises the taking of any action that is prohibited by parts 1 to 7, or chapter 1 of part 9, of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, thereby preserving existing legal safeguards against unlawful surveillance and the interception of communications.
Preparedness: testing and training
A crucial component of effective defence is the ability to operate complex counter-drone technology safely and efficiently. To this end, the bill allows authorisations to be granted specifically for testing or training activities, either in addition to or instead of active operational purposes.
Testing activities include the testing, maintenance or development of the approved counter-device equipment. Training activities involve training personnel to use the equipment for the purpose of preventing or detecting drone-related offences. Crucially, the stringent requirement that an authorising officer must believe a relevant offence is actively occurring, or at risk of occurring, does not apply to authorisations granted solely for testing and training. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that no criminal liability is incurred in respect of any action taken so far as it is authorised for these training and testing activities.
Conclusion
The armed forces bill represents a highly structured modernisation of the military’s legal toolkit. By formalising the definition of uncrewed devices, exhaustively listing relevant security offences, and detailing the exact ranks and procedures required to authorise interference, the government is attempting to strike a careful balance. The legislation provides the armed forces with the agility to respond to immediate aerial threats through 72-hour oral authorisations, while ensuring long-term deployments of counter-drone technologies are subject to rigorous oversight by senior military and civil service officials. As uncrewed technology continues to proliferate, these precise powers will be essential to safeguarding the UK’s defence infrastructure.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ePropelled opened its new Global Innovation Centre in Coventry on 20 March, a major expansion that supports the company’s plan to scale production beyond one million propulsion systems annually by 2027. The development positions the UK at the heart of ePropelled’s global growth strategy and strengthens capability in electric and hybrid propulsion, high efficiency motors and intelligent energy management systems. Members of Parliament, industry leaders, prime contractors, investors and international partners were invited to attend the launch, reflecting its importance to the future of intelligent electric- propulsion and uncrewed platforms.
Nick Grewal, Founder, Chair and CEO, said: “In the past three years uncrewed systems and solutions have moved from the periphery of global defence and industrial strategy to the very centre. We know we have the proven technology to transform this market and now we must scale it. Today we produce around one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand systems a year. By 2027 we intend to exceed one million systems annually. That is the scale required for sovereign capability, affordability and global competitiveness. Our Midlands-based Global Innovation Centre is a critical step in that journey.”
Henry Sullivan, CFO, added: “The West Midlands has a rich heritage in innovative engineering and design from the first automated traffic lights to the famous Coventry Climax engine and the first multi-city testbed for 5G technology, giving us access to one of the strongest engineering talent pools anywhere in the world. By bringing our propulsion design, software development and systems testing together in Coventry, we are creating a genuinely global centre for research, innovation and validation. This is where the next generation of electric and hybrid propulsion systems will be engineered.”
Mary Creagh MP for Coventry East, who attended the event, said: “ePropelled is another world class innovator in modern manufacturing who has found Coventry to be a brilliant city to make their home. Coventry’s deep engineering heritage has kept us at the heart of UK manufacturing for more than a century.
Investment from companies like ePropelled creates more skilled jobs in the city and will further strengthen our industrial ecosystem, enabling the people of our city to future-proof their skills and experience in this rapidly developing sector.”
Simon Baugh, Director of Corporate Marketing, explained: “The West Midlands sits at the heart of our global operations network. By integrating engineering here with our manufacturing footprint and supply chain partners worldwide, we are creating a seamless capability that supports high volume production and meets all relevant European compliance requirements. This is essential as we scale toward more than one million systems a year.”
The company’s product suite, built on a proprietary unified architecture to facilitate range upgrades and connectivity, futureproofing ePropelled’s solutions, includes motors and controllers for lightweight and high-power UAVs, such as the Sparrow Series from 160Kv to 7000W, the Falcon range including the iAPM600 delivering up to 10kW and the Hercules hybrid starter generator systems up to 14kW. ePropelled holds 36 patents in advanced magnetics, electric drive and energy management. Additionally, the UK is leading development of AI and connected solutions including ePConnect, an integrated on-board service manager and telemetry platform that enables real time data monitoring, control and analytics for uncrewed air, ground and marine applications.
ePropelled works with Germany based Hirth Engines on hybrid propulsion solutions that combine lightweight two stroke engines with intelligent electric power systems, delivering extended endurance, improved efficiency and enhanced mission resilience.
This acceleration in platform demand reflects broader expansion across the uncrewed systems sector. Independent forecasts show the global unmanned systems market growing from around 26.6 billion dollars in 2024 toward an estimated 48.3 billion dollars by 2030.
ePropelled operates globally with strong UK engineering roots and is supported by operations in India and the United States, serving customers across Europe, North America and Asia.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FlyGuys, the reality data platform powering AI innovation, today announced it has achieved 40% year-over-year growth, marking the company’s seventh consecutive year of double-digit expansion, driven by enterprise demand for scalable, standardized data infrastructure.
Over the past year, FlyGuys has expanded its network to more than 20,000 FAA-certified drone pilots nationwide. This distributed network powers recurring reality data capture programs for AI companies, software platforms and enterprise customers that need consistent, high-quality data at scale. The majority of FlyGuys’ work now supports AI-driven applications, with the platform serving customers across construction, solar, agriculture, facilities inspections, public safety and dozens of other vertical markets.
“FlyGuys is the data pipeline for AI,” said Joe Stough, CEO of FlyGuys. “We’ve built an enterprise software platform that gives AI companies access to reality data nationwide. An order comes in, data comes out – at any scale, in any geography. That’s the model, and that’s why we’ve grown every year since we were founded.”
FlyGuys works with leading companies across construction, energy, real estate, insurance and agriculture – industries where timely, accurate data is essential for decision making. The company serves as a plug-and-play data pipeline between the physical world and AI enterprise systems, delivering verified, field-level data through a single, scalable platform.
At the center of that model is FlyGuys’ distributed pilot network. Every mission is executed by FAA-certified drone pilots using standardized workflows that ensure data consistency across thousands of locations. The result is a national operating layer for reality data – one that allows enterprises to launch, manage and scale data capture programs without building their own internal data capture teams or managing fragmented vendors.
“Data is the new oil, and we’re building the pipeline,” Stough added.
Looking ahead to 2026, FlyGuys is projecting 70% overall growth and plans to complete approximately 70,000 missions nationwide. The company also expects to expand its customer base by adding more than 300 customers, representing a material increase over its current base of 502 customers. By increasing sales efficiency, accelerating delivery timelines, and investing in a dedicated Customer Success team, FlyGuys is focused on scaling operations while strengthening customer relationships and long-term value.
About FlyGuys
FlyGuys is the nationwide marketplace connecting professional data capturers with clients seeking real-time intelligence solutions. Using a network of certified drone pilots and advanced technology, FlyGuys delivers actionable aerial insights for industries including telecommunications, construction, agriculture, and more. Learn more about FlyGuys at www.flyguys.com.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sentrycs will launch its new portable solution, Sentrycs Scout, at the Enforce Tac exhibition in Germany
High-growth handheld C-UAS segment projected to triple by 2030, creating a significant new revenue vertical within Ondas’ counter-drone portfolio
Ondas Inc. (Nasdaq: ONDS) (“Ondas” or the “Company”), a leading provider of autonomous aerial and ground robot intelligence through its Ondas Autonomous Systems (OAS) business unit and private wireless solutions through Ondas Networks, today announced its subsidiary Sentrycs, a global leader in counter-drone (C-UAS) technology based on Protocol Manipulation, also known as Cyber over RF, has
successfully delivered and deployed its C-UAS solutions to a German State Police office. This milestone reflects both Sentrycs’ growing role in European law enforcement and the rising demand for lawful, non-disruptive drone mitigation. The announcement coincides with Sentrycs’ upcoming launch of its new man-carried system, Sentrycs Scout, at the Enforce Tac exhibition in Germany, marking the Company’s entry into a new multi-billion-dollar segment of the rapidly expanding counter-UAS market.
Designed to detect, identify, and take control of unauthorized drones without jamming or kinetic engagement, Sentrycs’ field-proven system is actively supporting Germany’s State Police units in securing large-scale events and sensitive missions – ensuring public safety without collateral disruption. Engineered for the demands of modern policing, the system provides precision mitigation by safely taking control of unauthorized drones and guiding them to predefined landing zones. It also identifies drone serial numbers and operator locations in real time, enabling a comprehensive, intelligence-driven response.
Unlike traditional jamming, Sentrycs’ protocol-based approach operates without interfering with
communication networks – making it ideal for dense urban environments.
“We’re proud to support law enforcement agencies with operationally proven solutions that reflect the realities of today’s security landscape,” said Tal Cohen, CEO of Sentrycs. “Our deployment with the German State Police demonstrates the immediate impact of lawful, precise drone mitigation. With the launch of our new man-carried solution, Sentrycs Scout, we’re extending that capability to tactical units that require mobility without compromising performance.”
This deployment comes amid heightened concern over drone activity in Germany, with more than 1,000 suspicious flights reported by the federal criminal police (BKA) in 2025 – including incidents near military facilities, airports, and sensitive government zones. These events exposed a critical operational gap: detection alone left authorities without compliant means to neutralize threats effectively.
At Enforce Tac (Hall 10, Booth 404), Sentrycs will present its Cyber over RF technology and officially debut its new portable product – Sentrycs Scout.
Scout is a compact, battery-powered Counter-UAS system designed for law enforcement and tactical forces. It enables rapid deployment of passive detection, tracking, identification, and cyber-based mitigation in a lightweight, man-portable format – without reliance on fixed infrastructure. Delivering real-time situational awareness and rapid, precise mitigation in any environment, Scout supports safe operations in sensitive areas while minimizing regulatory and operational risk. It is ideal for tactical force protection, convoy security, VIP safeguarding, border enforcement, and infrastructure patrols.
Building on the same core technology trusted in Sentrycs’ fixed deployments, Scout is ruggedized for field use in challenging operational conditions. It offers tactical teams autonomous airspace control capabilities wherever they’re needed.
Based on market research from Grand View Research, Ondas estimates the five-year total addressable market for handheld counter-UAS systems to be approximately $9.8 billion globally, underscoring the strong commercial opportunity for compact, field-deployable counter-drone solutions across defense, law enforcement, and homeland security markets.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We’re proud to introduce ASX-1, our new fixed-wing UAV platform from Aero Solutions UAV Ltd, designed from the outset to be modular, adaptable, and tailored to customer-specific operational requirements.
ASX-1 provides a flexible foundation that can be configured to support a wide range of defence, security, and industrial missions.
Core Capabilities
MTOW: 35 kg
Payload Capacity: up to 20 kg
Endurance (IAW current flight configuration): up to 3 hours
Platform Specifications
Wingspan: 2970 mm
Length: 2150 mm
Static Height: 610 mm
Operational Wind Limits
Headwind: 20 kts
Crosswind: 12 kts
Tailwind: 6 kts
ASX-1 is not a one-size-fits-all solution. We work directly with customers to configure payloads, performance, and systems to meet specific mission needs.
More to follow soon.
Your mission isn’t standard — your UAV shouldn’t be either.
Speak to us now to secure a tailored ASX-1 solution built around your operational requirements and timelines.
Contact us: [email protected]
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Following the recent introduction of its Advanced Drone Motor (ADM), PMW Dynamics takes a closer look at the engineering decisions and manufacturing philosophy that underpin the platform. The ADM has been developed as a purpose-engineered propulsion solution, combining high performance with reliability and assured supply for demanding UAV applications.
As UAVs play increasingly critical roles in defence, security surveillance, and sensitive national-level applications, system integrity and source traceability have never been more vital. Addressing this need, PMW Dynamics has engineered the ADM entirely within the UK, underlining its commitment to domestic design excellence and British manufacturing integrity.
Meeting the Needs of High-Performance UAV Platforms
The ADM is designed to deliver a compelling balance of power, efficiency, and compactness, a combination essential for propulsion and lift systems in cutting-edge UAV architectures. Its initial specification highlights include:
- Peak Torque: 2.6 Nm
- Peak Speed @ Peak Torque: 3,750 RPM
- Rated Voltage: 48 V DC
- Outer Diameter: 90 mm (nominal)
- Overall Height: 30 mm (nominal)
- Peak Current (180 s): 32A
- Peak Power (180 s): 1.1 kW
- Kv: 97.5 RPM/Vpk
These headline figures underscore a carefully optimised design for high-demand UAV applications where dynamic response, precise control, and power density are critical performance differentiators.
Engineering and Manufacturing, British at Every Step
Unlike many globally sourced off-the-shelf components, the ADM has been designed, developed, and manufactured entirely in the United Kingdom by PMW Dynamics’ expert engineering team. This vertical integration not only ensures stringent quality control but also enhances supply-chain resilience, a significant advantage for defence, government, and security sector customers seeking assured sources and traceability.
In an era where global supply uncertainty can impact mission-critical programmes, UK-based innovation and production provide both strategic confidence and engineering transparency, reinforcing PMW Dynamics’ longstanding reputation for robust British-built motion solutions.
Ready to explore ADM with us?
With initial data now published, PMW Dynamics invites aerospace, defence, and UAV system integrators to discuss their specific motor requirements and explore how the ADM can be configured to meet bespoke performance targets.
PMW Dynamics will also be showcasing the ADM at Eurosatory, Paris, and the Farnborough International Airshow, providing an opportunity to view the motor in person and engage directly with the engineering team.
For detailed specifications, technical dialogue, or application support, contact PMW Dynamics’ experienced application engineers today.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For years, UK defence has been trying to solve the challenge of accessing information from lots of different systems and sources. The goal is to make sure all this information can be shared quickly, so military decision makers at every level have the full picture and can make smart decisions for successful military operations.
Information integration is the foundation of interoperability.
Information needs to be shared quickly from:
- radar
- satellites
- aircraft
- warships
- drones
- air defence systems
- soldiers on the ground
In the future, the military will use a mix of old and new systems, including autonomous platforms and fully digital tools like AI decision support. This will make managing and connecting all the information even more challenging.
How Single Information Environment architecture can help
Dstl’s Cyber and Information Systems (CIS) began tackling this problem in 2018 to explore the scope of the challenge, build consensus and develop possible solutions.
By 2021 the team, along with industry partners, had built the foundation of what is now known as the Single Information Environment (SInfoE) architecture. This is a set of MOD-owned software components that enable rapid search, discovery and access to data.
They ensure information can move smoothly from its point of origin to its point of need.
Involvement of MDIS
In 2021, Dstl’s work caught the attention of the Defence Equipment and Support led Game Changer programme called Multi-Domain Integrated Systems (MDIS).
What is Multi-Domain Integration?
The aim was to unlock the potential of drones working collaboratively to provide the UK Armed Forces with freedom of access and manoeuvre on the battlefield.
ARCHERON: the trial
In July 2024, MDIS conducted a month-long trial, ARCHERON, in which Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force systems were integrated with drones from industry partners.
The trial successfully showed how the Single Information Environment can help different military systems from different suppliers quickly share critical operational data.
Amanda, Dstl Senior Principal Consultant and originator and coordinator of SInfoE architecture says:
The Single Information Environment facilitates fast discovery of, and access to, information from a range of military systems, allowing any system to be connected. It means defence can quickly get all the information it needs to carry out successful operations.
NATO interoperability is a priority for UK MOD. NATO standards at the heart of the Single Information Environment make it easier to interoperate with NATO partners.
Richard, Dstl Communications and Networks Programme Manager says:
Having just one Single Information Environment interface per system has the potential to significantly reduce integration time, to hours and days, while saving many millions of pounds.
Find out what Dstl does and how to work with us.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.