By Dronelife Features Editor Jim Magill
(Editor’s note: This following story is part of an ongoing series of stories on efforts to establish new counter-UAS protocols in the U.S. to protect high-profile sporting events and critical infrastructure from the potential threats posed by drones flown by careless or hostile actors.)
As U.S. cities get ready to host FIFA World Cup events, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a document aimed at helping law enforcement officials to make decisions regarding the siting of the counter-UAS equipment needed to protect fans and facilities from drone incursions.
The SAFER SKIES Act of 2025, passed last December as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, gives state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement agencies greater authority to detect, identify, track and mitigate unmanned aircraft systems that might pose a threat. The same month, FEMA announced it was awarding $250 million in grant moneys to 11 American cities hosting World Cup events, as well as the National Capital Region comprising Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia and Maryland, to protect events associated with the country’s 250th birthday celebration.
DHS has reportedly been working with eight of the 11 World Cup host cities to help law enforcement agencies their establish counter-UAS capabilities in time for the soccer tournament.
The New York City-based National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) recently issued a document, C-UAS Equipment Placement, which serves a primer for state and local first responders establishing counter-UAS capabilities for the first time. The guidance gives practical, step-by-step advice on how to evaluate sensor locations, conduct site surveys and refine operational plans.
In addition, the document helps the local law enforcement personnel choose the best type of C-UAS equipment to fit their particular sensing needs, and gives advice for choosing suitable locations for each type of technology. Users are encouraged to employ the guide when searching for sites to stage the equipment needed to protect stadiums, critical infrastructure and public events.
The guide also includes a site access and contact information page and a field worksheet where users can record their process for establishing the locations of their drone-tracking equipment.
With most World Cup events slated to occur in high-density urban settings, police agencies and other first responders are encouraged to first establish an Area of Regard (AOR), the 3-D volume of airspace the sensor is meant to watch, such as “from the stadium to 2 km out, from 0 ft AGL up to 1,000 ft AGL.”
Would-be counter-UAS operators are also encouraged to be mindful of “clutter,” in the AOR — cars, trees, waves in nearby bodies of water, fans in the stadiums or wind turbines – which can result in unwanted radar or sensor returns. “Too much clutter creates false tracks or hides real drones,” the guide warns.
C-UAS sensors (radar, RF, EO/IR cameras) work best when there is a clear line of sight (LOS) between the sensor and the drone. Buildings, trees or terrain that block LOS reduce detection range and create blind spots.”
Another consideration for choosing a site for counter-UAS sensor equipment is measuring the noise floor, the total background electromagnetic static from natural and man-made sources. Higher noise levels make it harder for the operation to see weak signals, such as those emitted from small drones or those that are further away from the sensor, the guidance states.
Perfecting Equipment Siting
The document also contains helpful instructions for siting specific categories of counter-UAS equipment, such as surveillance radar, RF-detection sensors and EO/IR cameras.
For surveillance radar, users are recommended to establish a clear LOS and site the equipment on an elevated location, such as a rooftop, tower or hill. Those making siting decisions should avoid large reflective surfaces in the main beam, such as buildings and water; pointing directly at heavy traffic; and locations very close to other powerful RF emitters on the same band.
Users should also be aware that the installation of radar-based equipment invariably involves trade-offs: Raising the height of the radar improves range but may reduce coverage of very close, low-altitude drones, while using radar settings that reduce clutter may also reduce maximum range.
“RF detection sensors benefit from good LOS toward drone flight paths and are often more tolerant of partial obstruction than radar,” the document states. Such sensors perform best when they are sited away from strong, nearby RF sources, such as cell towers and broadcast antennas; and enclosed spaces or metal structures that shield signals.
Increased height placements of RF sensors can allow them to “see” more RF energy but may also result in picking up more urban noise, the guidance states.
Because EO/IR cameras require a direct visual line of sight to the drone or to designated sectors, personnel siting them should place the equipment where the camera can rotate and tilt freely without hitting or being their view obstructed by walls or railings. In addition, persons making siting decisions should take care to avoid persistent glare from the sun or bright lights.
Users should also consider how the EO/IR cameras will perform at night and might see the need to introduce ambient lighting or infrared illumination. They should also take into account the camera’s potential exposure to the weather, by providing housing, wipers or heaters.
NUSTL encourages first-responder agencies using the field guidance document to share their feedback to it by visiting the agency’s website at www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/national-urban-security-technologylaboratory. Interested parties also can contact [email protected] for more information.
Read More
Jim Magill is a Houston-based writer with almost a quarter-century of experience covering technical and economic developments in the oil and gas industry. After retiring in December 2019 as a senior editor with S&P Global Platts, Jim began writing about emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robots and drones, and the ways in which they’re contributing to our society. In addition to DroneLife, Jim is a contributor to Forbes.com and his work has appeared in the Houston Chronicle, U.S. News & World Report, and Unmanned Systems, a publication of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
