Counter-drone defence – Oliver Dürr: “When we shoot, we hit”

Why are drones best defeated kinetically, and what role do electronic countermeasures play in counter-drone defence? Answers from Oliver Dürr, managing director of Rheinmetall Air Defence in Zurich.

Mr Dürr, drones are not an entirely new topic, but the wars in Nagorno-Karabakh and currently in Ukraine show that unmanned systems pose an ever greater threat. How do you see the threat situation?
The threat posed by larger drones has been on the radar for some time; the war in Nagorno-Karabakh mentioned above was already a “game changer”. In Ukraine, smaller, partly home-made drones with the lowest unit costs are now also being used in huge numbers every day, posing an enormous threat to large military systems but increasingly also to individual soldiers. So far, however, nobody apart from us has an answer to this.

And what does Rheinmetall Air Defence's answer look like in concrete terms?
We have been working on engaging air targets for 60 to 70 years, and long ago our development moved towards being able to detect and engage smaller targets as well. In doing so, we realised that the probability of a hit increases if you spread the effect, that is, if the ammunition breaks up in the air like shot. When we developed the programmable Ahead fragmentation ammunition at the end of the 1990s, nobody had originally thought of drones, of course. But we now see that drones can be engaged kinetically and brought down very effectively with it.

What role does electronic counter-drone defence play in comparison?
Electronic defence is certainly important at the moment and will retain a certain significance in future. However: electronic systems can be circumvented in many cases, and we are already seeing in Ukraine that drones increasingly manage without electronic control and thus become immune to jammers. That does not apply to kinetic effectors, though. When we shoot, we hit.

But the prerequisite for this is detection, that is, finding and locating the drone in time?
Of course, but we are well positioned in that respect too, because we have always needed the air picture in order to deploy our systems effectively.

You have emphasised the importance of kinetic defence. In this respect, Austria last year commissioned your company to modernise its existing 35-millimetre air defence guns; in addition, Skyranger air defence turrets from your company are to be mounted on at least 36 new Pandur Evolution vehicles. Is the Bundesheer (Austrian Armed Forces) backing the right horse?
Definitely, and Austria is also taking on a pioneering role internationally. Not many have the courage and at the same time the foresight to say that you need both a modern mobile defence system and, in addition, a deployable ground-based system, and that you network the two. Some far larger armies could take a leaf out of that book.

The Skyranger was originally designed for the Boxer, but for Austria it had to be adapted for the much smaller Pandur Evolution from General Dynamics European Land Systems-Steyr. How did that go?
Quite honestly, that was a challenge, and internally we thought carefully about whether we wanted to go down this road at all. But since a relevant number of units was at stake in Austria and other countries are also interested in a lightweight variant, we finally decided to do it. Together with the Bundesheer, in a very appreciative exchange, we were then able to develop a really good turret.

How many compromises had to be made? After all, about a third of the weight had to be saved, around one tonne.
We did not have to make any compromises on performance, which was an eye-opener for us too. The decisive factor was that we had previously planned a hatch in the turret leading out of the vehicle, an emergency exit. In the talks with the Bundesheer, however, the question was soon raised whether this hatch was needed at all.

And the answer was?
No, it is not needed. So we removed the hatch and, in combination with a few further measures, saved the corresponding weight.

We talked about detection and the air picture earlier: to what extent can this information from the Skyranger turret, which in addition to the cannon and air defence missiles also has a Hensoldt radar, also be shared with the infantry in the vicinity? Can a kind of protective bubble be created with it? And if so, how large can this bubble be?
Given the threat from drones mentioned at the beginning, even to individual soldiers, that is a crucial point. We can indeed share the information on the drone situation and thus help the infantry to locate threats early. In principle, the size of the bubble is unlimited. But it makes no sense to inform a soldier about micro drones 50 kilometres away. The goal must therefore be to always provide the infantryman only with the information that is relevant to him.

Apart from that, do you see further trends and development potential in counter-drone defence?
A good question, which of course we ask ourselves every day. We are working on a laser, of course on interceptor drones and, in parallel, on the further development of our electronic defence systems …

… although their importance is dwindling, as you said earlier?
I said that electronic defence can be circumvented by certain systems. But there are still enough systems that can be engaged with it, and so electronic defence will remain relevant. As with air defence, counter-drone defence must be thought of in several superimposed and mutually complementary layers with a wide variety of means of engagement and effectors.

In addition to the modernisation of air defence and the new Skyranger turrets, the Bundesheer is planning to upgrade its corresponding electronic interception capacities in the “C-EAT” project. To what extent is your company involved?
We are of course giving it thought and are also in talks. For us, this would offer the unique opportunity to draw the complete interception picture in Austria, integrating a wide range of approaches and layers into one overall system. That would certainly have many advantages for the Bundesheer.

Finally, let us look to the future once more: more and more unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) are currently coming onto the market. With the Mission Master, Rheinmetall has one of the leading systems. Is it conceivable to integrate this or another platform into the Skyranger family in order to bring more sensors into the field or possibly even to provide additional firepower with smaller complementary cannons?
That is indeed more than just a consideration. Last year at the AUSA trade fair in the USA we already exhibited a Skyranger turret on an M5 Ripsaw Robotic Combat Vehicle, and we are of course continuing to think in this direction. There are many ideas in this regard, and the mere fact that more and more armies are struggling to find enough personnel will ensure that such platforms and concepts gain in importance. But we will probably only see in a few years exactly where the journey is heading.