Picture: PC Pro Issue 370
After urgently calling for anti-drone missile technology, Rois is pleased to discover that the MoD has heeded her advice
Nobody likes a know-it-all. Less appealing still is someone who actually says “I told you so.” But when someone unburdened by any measurable technical expertise happens to blurt something out on a podcast (PC Pro podcast episode 725, viewable at tinyurl.com/370pod725), and it later turns out to be eerily on the money, well – how can one not gloat just a little?
You see, some time ago I asked, possibly with dramatic arm gestures, “Surely to God we have the technology to knock things out of the sky with a beam?” I wasn’t proposing death rays – although who among us hasn’t secretly wanted one? – but something a bit more precision-engineered. It turns out, we kind of do.
Now, I’m not claiming to be a prophet. I merely speculated wildly and, against all odds and reason, hit the mark. Besides, I wasn’t the first to imagine such a thing. Let us not forget that seminal moment in the late 1970s when Colonel Steve Austin – yes, that Six Million Dollar Man (adjusted for inflation, a very reasonably priced $43 million) – helped exonerate a test pilot whose aircraft was mysteriously downed. The culprit? A disgruntled Navy scientist with a beam that could zap the electrics in a plane or Jeep. Science fiction? Not any more.
RFDEW: it does what it says on the tin
Fast-forward to 2025 and the Ministry of Defence, in collaboration with the private sector, has unveiled a frankly impressive anti-drone system. It cost
£40 million, roughly the same cost as rebuilding Steve Austin. Coincidence? I don’t think so. For that same tidy sum, the MoD has developed a Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapon, or RFDEW. No, it’s not the catchiest name – unlike laser, which somehow made the leap from acronym to everyday lingo – but I like it. It’s honest. It does exactly what it says on the tin.
And here’s the part that really caught my eye: each RFDEW shot costs just 10 pence. That’s not a typo. Ten. Pence. Per. Shot. According to the MoD, “the RFDEW beam is a significant cost-effective alternative to traditional missile-based air defence systems, capable of downing dangerous drone swarms with instant effect.”
Better yet, it can be operated by just one person, which in itself helps keep costs down. According to Sgt Mayers of the 106 Regiment Royal Artillery, who had the honour of being the first British soldier to bring down drones using the weapon, he and his colleagues “found it quick to learn and easy to use”. Sounds just about my speed when it comes to technology. If you can point and zap without needing a PhD in quantum physics you’ve got my attention.
If I buy a printer, it’s because I want to print. Similarly, if I was to buy a beam weapon designed to frazzle drones, it’s because – well, you get the picture. I would want it to frazzle drones.
So why do we need anti-drone technology? Quite a few reasons, actually. Let’s take it from the top.
Anti-drone tech for the win
Drones aren’t just for aerial selfies and delivering overpriced lattes any more. They’ve become handy tools for criminals, particularly when it comes to smuggling drugs and weapons. And if we can’t control the skies above our highest-security prisons, that’s not just inconvenient: it’s a serious threat to national security.
In January this year, the chief inspector of prisons called for urgent action to deal with the rising number of drones delivering contraband to inmates in Category A prisons. That’s not a minor issue. These are facilities that hold some of the most dangerous individuals in the country – people officially labelled as high-risk.
And of course, there was the incident in California that first prompted my on-air outrage about drones during the PC Pro podcast. A Super Soaker firefighting plane was grounded after being struck by a drone in January. This happened in the middle of a wildfire response effort within an area where unauthorised flying (including
drones) was expressly forbidden. It’s a miracle no-one was killed. When you’re trying to save homes and lives, the last thing you need is to delay emergency air drops because someone fancied getting a better shot for their Instagram story. We simply can’t afford to put first responders in any more jeopardy than they’re already in.
And then, selfishly, there’s me. Two things you should know: (1) I live near the mountains; and (2) I also happen to live directly on the regular low-level flight path of the RAF’s Hawk and Texan trainers in an area of intense aerial activity.
While I’ve (thankfully) never needed mountain rescue, I’d quite like to believe that if I ever did need pulling off a peak, drones wouldn’t be cluttering the skies and blocking the route for the rescue helicopter. Likewise, keeping the airspace clear
for our pilots and their instructors seems like a pretty reasonable request.
And of course – oh yes – I’d also really prefer to fly off on holiday without having to knock back Xanax like they’re Tic Tacs because someone wants footage for their TikTok.
The legal side of drone use is… well, let’s call it a work in progress. While the technology has advanced rapidly, the enforcement has sometimes lagged. But recent cases suggest things might be turning a corner.
Take the Wirral man who, in March this year, was found guilty of flying his drone in breach of height and distance restrictions while filming Everton’s new Bramley-Moore Dock stadium. On another occasion, he flew it nearly 300ft above the legal height limit in Anglesey and sent it 2.39km away from his take-off point – well beyond the range where he could maintain visual line of sight, which is very much a no-no under current recreational drone rules.
He was convicted on four counts – two for flying above the legal height, two for letting his drone disappear over the horizon – and was handed a fine of £2,890. Not nearly enough, in my opinion, for treating what is essentially an airborne liability like a toy. But it’s a start. At the very least, it shows the courts are beginning to take these violations seriously.
Contrast that with an earlier case, where a 37-year-old man strolled away from Leamington Spa Magistrates Court after committing 15 dangerous drone offences – four separate unsafe flights between December 2016 and January 2017. His total penalty? A £259 fine, a £30 surcharge, £185 in costs and a confiscated drone. That’s less than the cost of a decent pair of noise[1]cancelling headphones.
And yet the law does have teeth, at least on paper. Section 240 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 clearly states that endangering the safety of an aircraft is a criminal offence. On conviction, a court can impose a fine, a prison sentence of up to five years, or both. Now that sounds more like it.
As the Civil Aviation Authority puts it, in terms both clear and blunt: “It is totally unacceptable to fly drones close to airports and anyone flouting the rules can face severe penalties including imprisonment.” Let’s hope that “can” soon becomes “will” before someone’s hobby and a moment of inattention collide in mid-air with something far bigger and faster.
All of this assumes the operators in question are simply careless, rather than malicious. But that benefit of the doubt becomes harder to offer when you consider reports of mysterious drones operating over US Air Force bases here in the UK. That’s not a case of poor judgement. That’s something else entirely.
Drones in warfare
Beyond the local and domestic, drones are now playing a starring role on the international stage: in the grim theatre of modern warfare. They’re used for surveillance, reconnaissance and, increasingly, for direct attacks.
Ukraine reportedly defended itself from 18,000 drone assaults last year alone. That’s not just a number – it’s a reminder that the skies have become the new frontline. Meanwhile, Russia has weaponised drones to devastating effect, launching strikes that have killed civilians and destroyed markets, schools and hospitals. Roman Kostenko, chair of Ukraine’s Defence and Intelligence Committee, estimates that drones are now responsible for up to 80% of wartime casualties. That statistic alone is enough to make any talk of “hobbyist misuse” seem like a quaint problem from a much simpler time.
And yet, all of this brings us right back to Steve Austin.In that classic Six Million Dollar Man episode, Steve is riding in a Jeep with the test pilot when the rogue scientist unleashes his prototype beam weapon. The result? The Jeep’s electrics go kaput, leaving our heroes stranded. Now, you may reasonably ask how the beam managed to knock out the crude circuitry of a Willys Jeep (long before the adoption of advanced engine management systems) while leaving Steve’s cutting-edge bionics unaffected. You could be on to something.
Because, even with today’s very real RF-directed energy weapons, there’s one lingering concern: area of effect. A beam powerful enough to fry a drone’s electronics from a kilometre away might also scramble, say, nearby medical devices, aviation systems or even friendly assets. A wide cone of interference – what the military might politely call a “blast radius” – could, in the wrong setting, create more problems than it solves.
As I’m fond of saying: but wait, it gets worse.
While the RFDEW is undoubtedly a formidable tool – one that marks a major step forward in defence technology – it would be naive to assume it will remain solely in our hands, or even those of our allies. History doesn’t work like that. Once a weapon exists, it rarely stays exclusive for long. From there, it’s a short and uncomfortable mental leap to imagine how such power might be used by actors who care not a jot for human life, international law or even basic accountability.
The beam that can protect us today might be the same one we’ll fear tomorrow. In a world where drones are cheap, accessible and increasingly weaponised, and where the line between science fiction and battlefield strategy is growing ever thinner, the question isn’t just what we can do – but who else might be watching and waiting to do it too.
Article by: Dr Rois Ni Thuama
First printed: PC Pro Magazine, Issue 370, Dated 1st July 2025, Pages 116-117, ISSN 1466-3821, issue available from https://www.pressreader.com/magazines/m/pc-pro/20250701, Subscribe to PC Pro Magazine: https://www.magazinesdirect.com/uk/pc-pro-subscription/dp/8ce631dc
Reproduced here with kind permission from PC Pro Magazine.