SCILT counter-drone system: Mehler interview on close-range protection against drones

Mehler Protection Platform Armour is developing the SCILT counter-drone system, an active hard-kill system for close-range protection against drones and loitering munition. In conversation, Denis Weber, Business Development Director at Mehler Protection Platform Armour, explains how the system emerged from the identified gap in the “last layer of defence”, why it is designed for land vehicles as well as maritime platforms and stationary facilities, and the automation with AI support that is being pursued.

Mr Weber, how did the development of SCILT come about? Were different platforms – maritime and ground-based – envisaged from the outset?
Even before the war in Ukraine, we were aware of the impending threat from drones and gave corresponding thought to various countermeasures. The subsequent developments and lessons from the crisis regions led us, as Mehler Protection Platform Armour, to decide to pursue the realisation of our ideas with determination. While there were approaches in the long- and medium-range segment that are being continuously improved, we had to recognise that there are no functioning solutions in the close range. For this “last layer of defence”, ultimately only a hard-kill system with scatter ammunition came into question, one that is also capable of defeating simultaneous threats with maximum coverage. Various considerations regarding effectiveness, reliability and robustness, as well as danger-zone considerations, led to the solution, which is fundamentally applicable in various scenarios, whether maritime, ground-based, airborne or also for stationary facilities, albeit with specific adaptations.

Is SCILT intended as a retrofit for existing platforms, as part of a new-build programme, or deliberately designed for both routes?
We were aware from the outset that SCILT needs both integration options. Platforms that do not have appropriate reconnaissance technology require a complete system, which Mehler Protection offers as a whole. Platforms, whether maritime or ground-based, that already have sufficient reconnaissance technologies may not and cannot be overloaded with additional systems. Here it only makes sense to integrate into the existing systems, which is why we opted for an open CAN bus system architecture (note: “Controller Area Network” bus: a shared digital communication network). SCILT can thus be fitted as a stand-alone, integrated or also supplementary system.

Which drone threats were in the foreground during development: individual first-person-view (FPV) drones, coordinated attacks by several systems, loitering munition, or particularly fast or hard-to-detect targets?
For the effectors, we deliberately chose a calibre which, through its range of ammunition types, has the potential to defeat various threats while still being available on the market, inexpensive and reliable. The threats range from small FPV drones to loitering munitions. The ability to defeat coordinated attacks by several threats results from the adaptable and scalable design of the overall system. In scenarios with several threats appearing at short distance, the task is to generate reliable protection when all other defence systems are no longer able to react or have been overcome.

SCILT combines sensors, effectors and operating logic. How does the interaction work in the concrete sequence from detection to effect?
SCILT as an overall system has a sensor network for detecting and tracking the threat. The sensor system, consisting of daylight and IR cameras and LiDAR, detects a threat. This leads to a detection alarm in the operating logic. The threat is tracked by software and triggers a second “approach alarm” in the operating logic when the threat is on an attack vector towards the platform. A third alarm level recommends triggering the system.

SCILT initially operates in “man-in-the-loop” mode. For a close-range system, what reasons speak in favour of leaving the final engagement decision with a human?
Fundamentally, this is a topic we have been discussing in Germany and Europe for a long time. It is above all a question of certification. Here, taking into account the pace of development in the Ukraine conflict, the NATO/European certification procedures must be assessed with regard to speed and an adapted risk management in order to get autonomous functions into use more quickly.

How far could the planned automation go in future? Are you thinking more of automated target tracking and prioritisation or, in the longer term, also of automated triggering under clearly defined rules of engagement?
The clear goal is to implement fully autonomous target identification, tracking and triggering of the countermeasure in future. The use of AI systems in target prioritisation and engagement tactics plays an essential role here.

Is there a difference in drone protection depending on whether SCILT is deployed in a stationary or mobile role?
The operating principle is the same. Only reconnaissance is more demanding when mobile. Modern reconnaissance sensors and software can, however, deliver this.

Where does SCILT Naval differ most clearly from the land variant SCILT, technically and conceptually?
SCILT Naval has an autoloader to ensure availability even during longer missions. The installation space on ships allows this. Compared to SCILT Land, it also has an increased effective range to meet maritime requirements.

What next development steps are you planning for SCILT and SCILT NAVAL – for example in sensors, automation, range, networking or the defence against coordinated multiple attacks?
Only recently we tested the effectors of SCILT Land very successfully in a dynamic environment, that is, with a moving platform and a flying target. By the end of 2026 we want, on the one hand, to test a complete system of the land variant with semi-autonomous functions, and to complete the functional tests of the SCILT Naval effectors. We are planning the first integrable systems of SCILT NAVAL for mid-2027.