Drones, data and manoeuvre: rebalancing the Counter-UAS equation for ground vehicles

Download article as PDF

Abundant, cheap and impressively adaptable UAS have stripped away the illusion of a conventional battlefield. Today, drones reach from the forward edge to deep logistics hubs, forcing militaries to rethink how ground vehicles sense, communicate and fight. A converging set of technologies, including mobile ad hoc mesh networking, low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, advanced on the move sensors, robust C2, repurposed commercial platforms and a strong and growing COTS impact is now starting to rebalance the engagement economics equation.

The drone challenge to conventional manoeuvre

In recent conflicts, small UAS have become a primary means of finding, fixing and striking ground forces. In Ukraine, both sides now deploy millions of drones annually, from simple quadcopters to improvised loitering munitions and AI assisted FPV (first person view) platforms.¹

This scale has two strategic effects. First, it has made the battlespace radically transparent. Massing armor or logistics convoys without being seen is increasingly difficult, particularly in open terrain. Second, it has inverted traditional cost dynamics. Relatively inexpensive drones - some built from commercial racing components - are routinely destroying or disabling multi million dollar vehicles, artillery systems and air defense radars.²

For ground vehicle designers and operators, drones now represent a persistent, multi axis threat. They appear at very short notice, from multiple altitudes and directions, and often in coordinated groups. They threaten not only frontline units but also command posts, supply depots, bridges and repair hubs. The “front line” is now a wide, overlapping set of critical nodes rather than a neat line on a map.

The response has been a surge of innovation in communications, sensing, vehicle C2 and platform design - using technologies that, taken together, can move ground vehicles from drone vulnerable to drone resilient.

The foundation is rapid adaptation in vehicle platforms and commercial levels of supply. Drones have driven rapid adaptation in vehicle requirements. Large platforms bristling with sensors and effectors are giving way to smaller, lighter vehicles, such as the Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) from GM Defense with interchangeable payloads of sensors and effectors. An example from Centauri Technologies is TriAD, a modular, vehicle-mounted Counter-UAS ecosystem that fuses radar, RF and electro-optical sensors with AI decision-support and multiple hard-kill effectors to detect, prioritize, and defeat hostile drones in real time.³

Rugged, COTS vehicle platforms with robust, standardized inertial navigation systems (INS) and swappable, attritable sensor and/or effector platforms is the solid foundation for the maneuvering force in the drone age.

Data-centric network architectures

The modern mobile squad is built on communications. Traditional, hierarchical radio architectures struggle under modern drone driven data loads and electronic warfare (EW). Today's vehicles must exchange high definition video, radar tracks, target metadata and command messages across dispersed formations - often while on the move and under jamming pressure.

Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) using IP based radios are increasingly central to this problem set. Modern MANET systems, such as Silvus StreamCaster radios, create self healing mesh networks in which every node - vehicle, dismount, mast or airborne relay - can route traffic for others. The U.S. Marine Corps has integrated StreamCaster 4400 radios into its Networking On The Move (NOTM) system for at the halt and on the move connectivity, highlighting the role of MANET as a tactical backbone for multi domain operations.⁴

From a military vehicle systems perspective, this shifts the focus in two directions from “radio as accessory” to “radio as core system component”, and from “voice as primary service” to “IP data as primary service”. Vehicles need sufficient power and cooling for high duty cycle MANET radios, antenna masts and mounting options that support hemispherical coverage, and data architectures that carry IP traffic from sensors and effector controllers directly into the network.

Crucially, these networks must also survive deliberate interference. Modern MANET waveforms employ multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) techniques, adaptive modulation and frequency agility to maintain links in contested spectrum - capabilities now regarded as core requirements whenever ground vehicles are expected to operate inside a sophisticated drone and EW threat envelope.⁵

Layered Communications

But meshed MANETs are not enough. Counter-UAS operations must function even when terrain, distance, or disruption prevent local radio networks from closing the loop. Here, LEO satellites, airborne relays and HF radio provide higher order infrastructure and options.

LEO satellite services have become a critical communications layer, keeping forces online when terrestrial infrastructure is destroyed or power is lost. Reporting in 2025 noted that more than 50,000 Starlink terminals were in use in Ukraine, supporting both civilian and military connectivity; the country has now gone further by becoming the first in Europe to launch Starlink's direct to cell service, allowing ordinary smartphones to connect to satellites when ground networks fail.⁶

For vehicle systems, this means satcom terminals and modems are no longer niche equipment reserved for command elements. Smaller, low profile antennas, simplified terminals and vehicle network architectures that can route traffic seamlessly between MANET and satcom are increasingly desirable. When a local mesh is degraded by EW or terrain, vehicles should be able to fall back to LEO links for critical data - particularly when relaying radar tracks and drone alerts to higher echelons or adjacent units.

Blue force drones themselves are also becoming important communications tools. Medium endurance UAS can carry relay payloads, lifting parts of the MANET or specialized links above terrain and urban clutter. Experiments in multiple forces are exploring drones as airborne repeaters, extending line of sight communications and bridging gaps between dispersed manoeuvre elements.

Finally, HF radio has re-emerged as an important long range fallback. Digital HF waveforms and automatic link establishment (ALE) techniques allow survivable, low bandwidth communications over very long ranges, independent of satellites or terrestrial infrastructure. While HF cannot carry sensor video, it can support command, status and alert traffic when higher capacity paths are denied.

The result is a layered architecture in which MANET, LEO satcom, airborne relays and HF complement each other.

On-the-move (OTM) sensing for a drone-saturated sky

If communications are the nervous system, sensors are the eyes and ears. The drone problem demands sensors optimized for very small, low, slow and agile aerial targets, often operating close to clutter and ground vehicles.

Legacy air defense radars were designed for high altitude aircraft and missiles and are typically deployed at fixed sites. Counter-UAS operations, by contrast, require short-/medium-range, high resolution sensors mounted on vehicles, able to detect and track multirotor and fixed wing drones at close range while the platform itself is moving.

This is the logic behind modern on the move (OTM) radar families and electro optic/infrared (EO/IR) payloads designed for vehicle integration. Systems of this class provide 360° coverage, high update rates and fine range resolution to pick out small cross section targets from birds and background clutter, even while the vehicle bounces over terrain. Many vehicles and remote weapon station (RWS) OEMs are turning to metamaterials electronically scanned array (MESA®) radar technology for ultra-low SWaP, consistent and highly accurate operation, and sophisticated Doppler processing to maintain tracks on slow moving UAS and loitering munitions.

For vehicle OEMs, these new sensor classes impose three clear requirements. First, rugged, predictable physical integration points for radars on vehicles and RWS. Second is stable power, robust INS performance and standard interfaces to support high bandwidth, ultra-low latency data streams. And third, open data architectures for sensor fusion, so radar tracks can cue cameras, EW payloads and weapons in real time.

Vehicle C2 as the brains of Counter-UAS

As the volume of data from radar, EO/IR, RF detectors and drones increases, the vehicle's C2 system becomes the central decision support engine. It must fuse heterogeneous sensor data into a coherent picture, classify threats and present engagements to crews in a manageable, timely way.

Modern systems like M LIDS illustrate why this C2 layer is now as important as the sensors themselves. M LIDS integrates detection, tracking, classification and weapon control into a unified architecture. It can task EW effectors, launch kinetic interceptors such as the Coyote missile, or cue guns and remote weapon stations (RWS), all from a mobile platform.⁷

This type of C2 capability is migrating across vehicle classes. Light and medium vehicles, including 4×4 platforms and ISVs, are being equipped with compact C UAS masts, RWS and integrated C2 software that allows them to act as mobile drone escorts for high value assets. Data flows are increasingly bi-directional: vehicles both consume the air picture and contribute their own sensor feeds back into the wider network.

For vehicle designers and integrators, key implications include adoption of open, modular vetronics architectures to integrate diverse sensors and effectors, sufficient processing capacity (CPUs/GPUs) to host AI enabled target classification and decision aids at the edge, and human machine interfaces that allow crews to understand and act on complex air pictures without overload. Vehicles are becoming mobile C2 nodes, not just platforms carrying guns and armor.

Commercial vehicle platforms as Counter-UAS carriers

Another important trend is the rapid repurposing of commercial vehicle platforms for defense roles, particularly for drone and counter drone missions. Modern conflicts have shown that commercial trucks, vans and buggies can be adapted quickly to carry sensors, weapon stations and power systems, giving forces a way to field capability at scale without waiting for new bespoke armored platforms.

Ukraine provides multiple examples. The Protector unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), developed by Ukrainian Armored Vehicles, evolved from a logistics support concept into a heavy UGV armed with a Tavria 12.7 remote weapon station. It can carry a 700 kg payload, travel up to 400 km and now conducts live fire trials with a 12.7 mm Browning M2 against both ground and aerial targets.⁸

At the lighter end of the spectrum, the Krampus UGV - a compact, tracked flamethrower vehicle armed with thermobaric rocket launchers - has been approved by Ukraine's Ministry of Defense for frontline service. It is designed to be transported in a pickup or trailer and used in assault and defensive roles where human presence would be particularly hazardous.⁹

These systems demonstrate that swappable Counter-UAS and effectors will be engineered to fit a range of vehicle platforms, from heavy Boxers and JLTVs to lightweight ISV type vehicles and UGVs. For industry, this points towards designing modular Counter-UAS “mission kits” with common mechanical and electrical interfaces, such as the unmanned Seraphim platform from Digital Force Technologies. Treating commercial trucks and 4×4 platforms as viable hosts for high end sensors and C2, not just for logistics, is another primary consideration for platform designers. Anticipating that some platforms will operate uncrewed from the outset, with remote or autonomous control tightly integrated into vehicle systems, is the future.

As more armed forces follow Ukraine's lead and stand up dedicated robotic vehicle units, demand for such adaptable, repurposed platforms is likely to increase.¹⁰

COTS systems, attrition and procurement agility

The rapid rise of drones on the battlefield has largely been a COTS story. FPV drones, in particular, originated in the commercial and hobbyist world. In Ukraine, government and industry aim to produce around one million FPV drones annually, an effort that roughly matches or outstrips the volume of artillery shells supplied by some alliance partners over the same period.¹¹

These platforms are inherently attritable. They are inexpensive, highly modular and benefit from fast innovation cycles in the civilian electronics market. The same characteristics now shape Counter-UAS and ground vehicle design. COTS cameras, radios and compute modules are being integrated into ruggedized enclosures for harsh military environments. AI “strike kits” and autonomy packages can convert COTS drones into semi autonomous loitering munitions, with onboard processing that allows continued flight even under jamming. Vehicle borne systems must interoperate with a wide variety of COTS UAS types, both friendly and threat, often using rapidly changing waveforms and control schemes.

This logic underpins major initiatives such as the U.S. Department of Defense's Replicator program. Replicator aims to field “multiple thousands” of all domain, attritable autonomous systems (ADA2) by August 2025, specifically to counter the massed use of inexpensive drones and uncrewed systems by potential adversaries.¹²

For procurement organizations, the shift towards COTS and attritable systems raises questions of certification, supply chain security and lifecycle support. For vehicle OEMs and integrators, it emphasizes the value of open architectures that can host and update third party COTS payloads rapidly, software first design for radios and EW systems capable of keeping pace with civilian waveform evolution, and approaches to qualification that accept shorter technology refresh cycles and planned attrition.

From front line to logistics hub: the network is the asset

Drone threats are not confined to trench lines. Operations in Ukraine have repeatedly demonstrated long range drone strikes against fuel depots, ammunition dumps, repair facilities and power infrastructure hundreds of kilometers behind the forward edge. Homeland security officials worry about domestic violent extremists (DVEs) and foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) that study drone attacks with malign intent.

This reality drives two related changes in vehicle and systems thinking:

1. Defensive coverage for logistics and rear areas. Convoys, transshipment points, depot complexes and temporary staging areas now require organic Counter-UAS coverage. That implies mobile C UAS vehicles assigned as escorts, rapid deployment sensor masts on commercial or military trucks, and UGVs tasked with perimeter surveillance.
2. Distributed and mobile support nodes. To reduce vulnerability, logistics and C2 functions are increasingly dispersed across multiple smaller sites and convoy elements. Vehicle mounted MANET nodes, sensors and C2s are essential to keep these distributed nodes connected and protected.

In this environment, the network itself becomes a key asset. As noted decades ago by Robert Metcalfe, now an eponymous “law”, the value of a network grows roughly with the square of the number of connected nodes. Every additional sensor equipped vehicle or UGV added to a formation does more than add a single data stream; it multiplies the number of possible cross fixes, correlations and engagement options. It is a force multiplier and it is a robust counter to drone threats.

For ground combat vehicles, this translates into design and integration priorities:

• Treat every vehicle as a potential sensor and effector node in a wider Counter-UAS grid
• Ensure platforms can publish and subscribe to common air and ground pictures, rather than operating in isolation
• Support rapid “plug and fight” onboarding of newly arrived vehicles, UGVs and UAS into the existing mesh

The outcome is a battlespace in which no single vehicle is solely responsible for its own defense; instead, vehicles collectively contribute to and benefit from a shared defensive envelope. As the technologies highlighted above mature and converge, ground combat vehicles are better placed than ever to survive and operate in a drone saturated environment. By embracing data centric architectures, layered communications, advanced sensing and modular, COTS friendly designs, military vehicle systems can help move ground forces from being passive drone targets to active participants in a resilient, networked Counter-UAS ecosystem.

For more information please visit:
https://echodyne.com

anchor

References:
1 https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukrainian-drone-pilots-look-ai-battlefield-edge-2025-11-29/
2 https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/fpv-drones-ukraine-war-analysis
3 https://defenceweb.co.za/industry/industry-industry/south-african-counter-drone-system-earns-capability-pass-mark/
4 https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/14286646/manet-radios-battlefield-communications
5 https://silvustechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Silvus_ANPRC_169-Datasheet.pdf
6 https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/starlinks-direct-to-cell-service-launches-ukraine-european-first-2025-11-24/
7 https://www.army-technology.com/projects/m-lids-mobile-low-slow-small-unmanned-aircraft-integrated-defeat-system/
8 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-remote-truck-machine-gun-turret-protector-tavria-2025-11
9 https://thedefender.media/en/2025/05/mod-approved-krampus-ugv/
10 https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraines-military-roll-out-units-robotic-vehicles-2025-02-05/
11 https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/DRONES/dwpkeyjwkpm/
12 https://www.diu.mil/replicator