"While the Defense Department has issued multiple counter-UAS policies - rules governing how the military can detect, disrupt, or disable uncrewed aerial systems - those directives are not standardized, leaving some base leaders unaware that their installations qualify as "covered assets." The term refers to locations within the US that deal with sensitive missions like nuclear deterrence, missile defense, presidential protection, air defense, and "high yield" explosives."
"The Inspector General report examines 10 military installations where drone incursions have occurred. The watchdog assessment found multiple examples of "covered assets" left uncovered due to unclear policies. The Air Force base in Arizona where most F-35 pilots are trained, for instance, is not authorized to defend against UAS incursions because pilot training does not qualify as a "covered" activity under Pentagon policy, despite the Air Force describing the F-35 as "an indispensable tool in future homeland defense.""
The military lacks consistent guidance for defending "covered assets"—US-based sites authorized to use certain counter-drone defenses—against offensive uncrewed aircraft. Multiple counter-UAS policies exist across the Defense Department, but those directives are not standardized, causing some base leaders to be unaware that their installations qualify as covered assets. Covered assets include locations handling nuclear deterrence, missile defense, presidential protection, air defense, and high-yield explosives. Several at-risk installations have experienced drone incursions. Examples include an Arizona Air Force base training F-35 pilots that is not authorized to defend against UAS because pilot training does not qualify as a covered activity. Policy confusion risks leaving sensitive sites exposed.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]