Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2026-02-02 Origin: Site
Driven by the rapid iteration of core technologies—including radar, optical imaging, advanced manufacturing, and signal processing—anti-drone detection has evolved from a single, low-efficiency model to a high-end, multi-method integrated system. This advancement has significantly boosted drone detection rates, reduced tracking errors, and enabled seamless adaptation to diverse complex scenarios. Figure 2 illustrates the dynamic evolution of detection probabilities for three mainstream methods (radar, photoelectric, and radar-photoelectric integration), as well as the gradual optimization of tracking errors for radar, photoelectric, radar-photoelectric integrated, and passive detection.
In terms of detection performance: Traditional radar detection rates have risen steadily from 40% to 55%, supporting medium-to-long-distance detection in harsh weather; photoelectric detection, enhanced by improved imaging technology, has increased from 10% to 15%, ideal for short-range, high-precision target identification. Radar-photoelectric integration outperforms single-method detection by combining their strengths, while passive detection—after continuous optimization—has jumped from 50% to 75%, solving the key issue of active detection exposing its position.
For tracking "low-altitude, slow-speed, small-sized" (LSS) drones: Radar-photoelectric integration achieves a tracking error of just 5m, far superior to traditional radar (25m) and photoelectric detection (45m), meeting the demand for precise small-drone tracking. Passive detection, upgraded via advanced signal analysis algorithms, has reduced its tracking error from 50m to 35m, enhancing reliability in complex environments.
Anti-drone countermeasures have evolved from a single jamming approach to multi-dimensional damage capabilities. Early countermeasures focused on communication and navigation jamming: Dedicated jammers transmit specific electromagnetic signals to block links between ground control stations, satellites, and drones, causing flight disruptions or crashes. However, this early technology had limited effectiveness, with interception rates of only 30% for communication jamming and 20% for navigation jamming.
As anti-drone needs have advanced, more efficient countermeasures have emerged: communication-navigation jamming & deception, high-power microwave destruction, integrated communication-navigation jamming, and high-energy laser damage. Communication-navigation jamming & deception delivers the highest effectiveness at 75% interception, followed by high-power microwave (70%), integrated communication-navigation jamming (65%), and high-energy laser damage (50%). These options can be flexibly deployed to cover all drone types across different scenarios.
Control and platform technology is the backbone of anti-drone systems, critical to precise detection and efficient interception. In the early stages, anti-drone equipment relied entirely on manual operation: Operators visually tracked and captured drones, leading to high labor intensity, low accuracy, and inefficiency—unsuitable for large-scale, multi-target scenarios. Advances in precision manufacturing, electronic control automation, and coordinated networking have enabled semi-autonomous and unattended operation, as well as integrated networking of anti-drone equipment across regions, types, and functions. This has cut labor costs, reduced human error, and significantly improved accuracy and efficiency, driving the intelligent transformation of anti-drone operations.
Meanwhile, anti-drone platforms have evolved beyond simple, portable models to diverse options: vehicle-mounted fixed, distributed fixed, vehicle-mounted mobile, and distributed mobile. These platforms adapt seamlessly to deployment scenarios such as land areas, parks, and airports, expanding the scope and operational effectiveness of anti-drone equipment.
