Why collaboration is no longer optional for the counter-drone effort
- mrisak7
- Oct 16
- 4 min read
Adam Jeffs \ Editor - C-UAS Hub and SAE Media Group
It has long been clear that no single agency or sector could solve the drone threat alone. But what struck me most over the two days of Counter UAS Homeland Security Europe was just how deeply this reality is shaping the field and how much work remains to turn the rhetoric of “collaboration” into practical, everyday action.
Why collaboration is not optional
Across the range of presentations from military, government and industry, discussions circulated around the complexity and pace of the drone threat and the demand for a coordinated response. The evolution of drone technology, the rapid progression of tactics and the diversity of environments, from airports to borders to critical infrastructure, mean that military, law enforcement, regulators, government, industry and even academia all have a stake and a role.
One speaker summed it up well:
“No one country has the answer to all these challenges and all these problems. It is only by working together, learning how each of us are approaching it, working out what works and what doesn’t, and then sharing that, that we are going to be able to counter this UAS challenge.”
Breaking down silos
A recurring theme was the need to break down silos, between agencies, between sectors and even between countries. Several sessions highlighted the frustration with “fragmentation,” where efforts are duplicated or disconnected, and where vital information or lessons learned are not shared.
One panelist felt these frustrations:
“Too often efforts are duplicated or disconnected. We are committed to breaking down these silos between agencies, departments and sectors. By fostering a culture of openness and shared purpose, we can create a truly collaborative counter-drone ecosystem.”
This requires more than just the sharing of data or holding joint meetings. An international and inter-agency counter-drone effort would require regular joint exercises, shared intelligence platforms and unified command structures to streamline responses to major incidents. The point was made repeatedly that collaboration is not a “nice to have,” it is seen as essential for operational readiness and resilience.
Shared testing, data and standards
One of the most practical aspects of collaboration discussed at the conference was the need for shared testing environments and open data. Multiple speakers and panelists called for more transparency in testing results, so that agencies and industry do not waste time and money repeating the same mistakes or reinventing the wheel.
There was also a strong push for standardisation of protocols, reporting and technical interfaces.
As one speaker noted:
“We need to come to a situation where performance capabilities of counter-drone systems can be proven… not once and for all, but on a certain track record, so you don’t need to test it again and again for every client.”
The role of industry and SMEs
Industry was repeatedly described not just as a supplier, but as a partner. There was a clear recognition that innovation often comes from small and medium enterprises, and that procurement and engagement processes need to be more agile and inclusive.
Several speakers called for more direct engagement with SMEs, more open workshops and even the creation of centralised supplier databases to make it easier for new entrants to contribute.
International and cross-sector coordination
The need for international collaboration was especially pronounced, given the cross-border nature of drone threats.
Examples from the EU, NATO and Dubai showed how different jurisdictions are trying to harmonise regulations, share intelligence and coordinate operational responses. But there was also a candid acknowledgement that this is a work in progress, and that legal, cultural and technical barriers remain.
Lessons and cautions
If there was a note of caution, it was that collaboration cannot be taken for granted. Trust takes time to build, and it is easy for innovation to get weighed down by bureaucracy and red tape. As one panelist observed:
“We need to push forward together, that’s both within the different agencies, but also the collaboration with industry. Otherwise we simply don’t have the time available to do it by ourselves.”
What needs to happen next
By the end of the conference, I was convinced that multi-stakeholder collaboration is a genuine goal of the relevant parties seeking to counter drones threats, rather than just a buzzword. However, realising this goal will require regular significant effort to develop joint exercises and shared testing environments, as well as open data and transparent reporting of results.
It will also depend on the adoption of standardised protocols and interfaces, along with agile procurement processes and genuine engagement with industry, especially small and medium-sized enterprises rather than relying in tried and true main contractors simply because that is what is comfortable.
International coordination and harmonisation of regulations are essential, as is fostering a culture of transparency and shared purpose. The drone threat will not wait for us to get organised and we will need to move from talking about collaboration to implementing it at every level of the counter-drone effort.
