Chapter 14: Exposing UAS Vulnerabilities via Electronic Warfare (EW) and Countering with Low Probability Intercept Signals (LPI)

Student Learning Objectives

In previous chapters, we have studied the EMS, Data-links and cyber-vulnerabilities of UAS. This chapter introduces electronic warfare as a method of overwhelming, destroying, or controlling the information, transmitted by communication data-links, to alter the mission of the UAS deployment.

Modern Communication Threats to UAS

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are in widespread use for reconnaissance, EW, and weapons delivery. They are extremely dependent on interconnection with ground stations by command and data links. (Adamy D. , 2001) The increased use of Low Probability Intercept (LPI) [Introduced in Chapter 13 Data – Links Functions, Attributes, and Latency] has become a significant challenge to electronic warfare (EW) communication links. (Adamy D., 2001) This chapter explores LPI and Jamming, after a circuitous route through Intelligence / Information Operations (IO), followed by EW. The student should then have enough background to understand the criticality of LPI and Jamming of UAS communication links. Air defense missiles and associated radars make significant use of interconnecting links. (Adamy D. , 2001) SUAS sometimes use cellphones to command and control the UAVs. Cell phones are widely used for command and control function in nonsymmetrical warfare situations. (Adamy D. , 2001) ISIS and other terrorist groups use cell phones to trigger improvised explosive devices.

Cybersecurity attacks on data communications links are highly classified. Similarly, modern radar threats to hostile installations are also generally classified. So, in this chapter, description of EW techniques is generalized; no classified information. This way if the student must apply EW in real-world situations, they can plug in the parameters learned from classified sources. Before examining LPI and communications signals/link- jamming, we first review the EW environment specific to UAS.

Definitions

Nichols (2000) defines Cybersecurity in terms of cyber-conflict. (Nichols, 2008) Alford (2000) authored effective definitions for the DoD. These will illustrate the bigger picture of Information Operations (IO) and the subset known as Electronic Warfare (EW).

Cybersecurity (in the context of Cyber conflict) is defined as, “the broad tree of investigation and practice devoted to cybercrimes, Computer Forensics (CF), Information Assurance (IA), Information Security (INFOSEC), Communications Security (COMSEC), and especially Cyber Counter Intelligence (CCI).” (Nichols, 2008)^[1]

“Cyber Warfare (CW / CyW). Any act intended to compel an opponent to fulfill our national will, executed against the software controlling processes within an opponent’s system. CyW includes the following modes of cyber-attack; cyber infiltration, cyber manipulation, Cyber assault, and cyber raid.” (DAU, 2018) (DAU, 2018)

“Cyber Infiltration (CI / CyI). Penetration of the defenses of a software-controlled system such that the system can be compromised, disabled, manipulated, assaulted, or raided.” (DAU, 2018) (DoD, 2018)

“Cyber Manipulation (CM / CyM). Following infiltration, the control of a system via its software which leaves the system intact, then uses the capabilities of the system to do damage.

For example, using an electric utility’s software to turn off power.” (DAU, 2018) (DoD, 2018)

“Cyber Assault (CA / CyA). Following infiltration, the destruction of software and data in the system, or attack that compromises system capabilities.” (Alford, 2000) Includes viruses and system overloads via e-mail (e-mail overflow).” (DoD, 2018; DoD, 2018)

“Cyber Raid (CR / CyR). Following infiltration, the manipulation or acquisition of data within the system, which leaves the system intact, results in transfer, destruction, or alteration of data. For example, stealing e-mail or taking password lists from a mail server.” (DAU, 2018) (DoD, 2018)

Cyber-Attack. See CyI, CyM, CyA, or CyR.

Cybercrime (CC / CyC). Cyber-attacks without the intent to affect national security or to further operations against national security.” (Alford, 2000)

“C⁴ISR. The concept of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.” (DoD, 2018) (Kaye, 2001) See Figure 14-XXX (C4ISystems, 2013)

Electronic Warfare (EW) is defined as the art and science of preserving the use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) for friendly use, while denying its use by the enemy. (Adamy D. , 2001)

“Information Assurance (IA). Measures that protect and defend information and information systems by ensuring their availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and non-repudiation. These measures include providing for restoration of information systems by incorporating protection, detection, and reaction capabilities.” (Barker, 2003) (Kaye, 2001)

“Information Operations (IO). The integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision-making process, information, and information systems while protecting our own.” (Barker, 2003) (Kaye, 2001)

“Information Superiority (IS). The capability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same. A newer form of this is that: degree of dominance in the information domain which permits the conduct of operations without effective opposition.” (Alford, 2000) (Kaye, 2001)

“Information Warfare (IW). Information operations conducted during time of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary. IW is any action to Deny, Exploit, Corrupt or Destroy the enemy’s information and its functions, protecting those actions and exploiting our own military information functions.” (Alford, 2000) (Kaye, 2001)

“Intentional Cyber Warfare Attack (ICWA). any attack through cyber-means to intentionally affect national security (cyber warfare) or to further operations against national security.

Includes cyber-attacks by unintentional actors prompted by intentional actors. (Also see “unintentional cyber warfare attack.”) IA can be equated to warfare; it is national policy at the level of warfare. Unintentional Attack(UA) is basically crime. UA may be committed by a bungling hacker or a professional cybercriminal, but the intent is self-serving and not to further a national objective. This does not mean unintentional attacks cannot affect policy or have devastating effects.

Intentional Cyber Actors (I-actors). Individuals intentionally prosecuting cyber warfare (cyber operators, cyber troops, cyber warriors, cyber forces).” (Alford, 2000)

“Network Centric Operations (NCO). NCO involves the development and employment of mission critical packages that are the embodiment of the tenets of Network Centric Warfare (NCW) in operations across the full mission spectrum. These tenets state that a robustly networked force improves information sharing and collaboration, which enhances the quality of information, the quality of awareness, and improves shared situational awareness. This results in enhanced collaboration and enables self-synchronization improving sustainability and increasing speed of command, which ultimately result in dramatically increased mission effectiveness. (Kaye, 2001)” (MORS, 2018) (Kaye, 2001)

OPSEC. (Operations Security) (DoD-01, 2018) “Determining what information is publicly available in the normal course of operations that can be used by a competitor or enemy to its advantage. OPSEC is a common military practice that is also applied to civilian projects such as the development of new products and technologies.

OPSEC – The Official Definition

(From JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.) OPerations SECurity (OPSEC) is a process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to:

1. Identify those operations that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems,
2. Determine what indicators adversary intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries, and
3. Select and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation.” (DoD-01, 2018)

“Psychological Operations (PO) Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign entities.” (Alford, 2000) (Kaye, 2001)

“Psychological Warfare (PW / PSYWAR) The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes and behavior of hostile foreign groups.” (Kaye, 2001)

“Unintentional Cyber Actors (U-actors). Individuals who unintentionally attack, but affect national security and are largely unaware of the international ramifications of their actions. Unintentional actors may be influenced by I-actors, but are unaware they are being manipulated to participate in cyber operations. U-actors include anyone who commits CyI, CyM, CyA, and CyR without the intent to affect national security, or to further operations against national security. This group also includes individuals involved in CyC, journalists, and industrial spies. The threat of journalists and industrial spies against systems including unintentional attacks caused by their CyI efforts should be considered high.

Unintentional Cyber Warfare Attack (UCWA/ UA). Any attack through cyber-means, without the intent to affect national security (cybercrime).” (Alford, 2000)

Information Operations (IO) and the part EW plays

Figure 14-1 shows the global view of Information operations. Note how nicely all the prior definitions fit into the puzzle? Note that EW is a key component of IO, but not the singular dominant puzzle piece. EW “boxes” will be discussed under the EW section below.

Figure 14-2 shows the DoDs JOPES (Joint Operation Planning and Execution System) plan for 2025. In this plan, Information Operations (IO) are integrated across the military commands and equipment / knowledge / software is supplied by both the military and commercial businesses. (DoD-02, 2018)

Figure 14-3 is a look at the DoD Vision of the future of the Internet where IO and IW are gamed into a fully integrated global network system. (Merrick, 2016) All three figures above show how information operations encompasses all the information collection and action activities of the intelligence, defense, military, computer technology, and civilian organizations for common missions of cybersecurity and information superiority. What is not so obvious is that UAS systems are an integral part of IO planning and actions. Further, global investment in the UAS market are growing exponentially and the leader in development is China, not the USA. Much of China’s investment billions are for PLAN which is hostile to USA interests. In Chapters 15 and 16, we address China’s “Grand Strategy” in Africa (a UAS testing ground for several powers) and the Spratly Islands (Intelligence center in the South China Seas).

Figure 14-1 Information Operations

Source: C4ISystems. (2013). Basics-of-information-operations. Retrieved from http://c4isys.blogspot.com/2013/11/basics-of-information-operations-24.html

Figure 14- 2 DoD JOPES

Source: U.S. Department of Defense. Information Operations Integration into Joint Operations (Notional). Viewed on September 1, 2018. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IO_Integration_into_Joint_Operations_-_Notional.jpg

Figure 14-3 DoD Vision: Future of Internet with IW / IO integration

Source: Merrick, K. (2016). Future Internet. 10.3390/fi8030034 Review, 8(3), p. 34.

Electronic Warfare (EW) Purview

Adamy sets the standards for EW instruction. Moir summarizes the topic with respect to military operations, UAS, and military avionics systems. (Moir, 2006) (Toomay, 1982) and (Burch, 2015) bring Radar to the non-specialist reader. A Google search on the key = RADAR yields 296,000,000 results (0.49 seconds). There is substantial material on the subject. The challenge is determining the UAS applicability.

Warfare is conducted by adversaries who go to great pains to understand their enemy’s intentions, strengths, weaknesses, and to minimize the threats to their own forces and territory.

The detection and interception of messages/data, combined with ground observations, provide an ability to observe troop movements and facilitate counter-actions by opposing forces.

As communication developed (satellite, MW, IR, Cell, Radars) so did the methods of interception. Radar started as a simple detection mechanism and grew into a means of surveillance and guidance. (Moir, 2006)

Communication Links for UAS are critical and must be secured

Modern warfare is conducted in a rich electromagnetic environment with radio communications and radar signals from many sources. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) / UAV / UUV / Drones are an integral part of modern warfare. UAS communications networks and links to ground stations are critical to the successful military use of UAS. Securing UAS links from EW attacks is a fundamental concern to military planners and civilian authorities. The USMC takes UAS contributions to its Close Air Support (CAS) military planning. Figure 14-4 shows USMC PCAS Vision; precise, digital, portable air-ground strike coordination.^[2] This scenario is part of the USMC Guardian Angel program.^[3] In September 2016, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated the importance of UAS in the USMC battle plans of the future:

UAS BLOS communications require stable communications. Disrupting these communications links is a goal of hostile forces.

Figure 14-4 PCAS Vision: precise, digital, portable air-ground strike coordination

Source: Cuomo, S. (September 2017). “Guardian Angel” UAS, Marine Corps Gazette, 101(9). https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/guardian-angel-uas

DoD has also made plans to build UAS into its mission.

Figure 14-5 shows a complex operational concept to be executed over the next twenty years. (DoD-03, 2015) Think of the designers’ struggles to meet required future communication links to the UAS.

Figure 14-5 High -Level C4 Operational Concept Incorporating UAS

Source: (DoD-03, 2015) DoD-03. (2015). Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2013 to 2038. Retrieved from DTIC: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a592015.pdf

Figure 14-6 shows NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project (2018). All communications are in real-time. (NASA, 2018)

Figure 14-6 NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project (2018)

Source: NASA. (July 28, 2018). NASA Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/autonomous-systems DLA 07282018

In a theater-wide scenario, with combined land, sea, and air forces operating against enemy territory, which in turn, are defended with similar forces, we can envision multiple roles for UAS. These include military planning, air defenses, air superiority aircraft, defense suppression, HVT assassination,^[5] maritime operations, offensive operations, naval forces, land forces, cyber forces, TV reporters, mobile telephone traffic, and sound satellite links. (Moir, 2006) The radio frequency spectrum (and EMS) covered by emitters used by the forces is broad as was illustrated in Figures 8-1, 8-3, 13-4 and Table 13-1. No single transmitter /receiver can cover this range for transmission or reception. Most communications and radar systems are designed for use in specific bands, designated by international convention. (Moir, 2006) See Figure 8-8 Radio frequency bands and Figure 8-9 Radar frequency bands.

The key role of EW is to search these radio-frequency bands to cull information that can be used for intelligence analysis or by front-line operators. (Moir, 2006) The information gathered may affect a tactical advantage on the battlefield, or in any stage before or after. (Moir, 2006)

Intelligence Cycle

In the CIA, intelligence is viewed as a continuous cycle of activities to keep ahead of adversaries always (peace, transitions, war). Figure 14-7 shows the Intelligence Cycle.

Figure 14-7 Intelligence Cycle

Source: Count upon Security. (August 15, 2015). The Five Steps of the Intelligence Cycle. https://countuponsecurity.com/2015/08/15/the-5-steps-of-the-intelligence-cycle/ DLA 07282018

The cycle begins with a user requesting intelligence be gathered on a scenario. The analysts will develop a set of requirements for the collection stage. Intelligence is then gathered via surveillance platforms; espionage, co-operative exchange, or open source documents. The intelligence is sent to a processing group whereby the data is analyzed, collated, validated, and securely disseminated to the users or to trusted allies. They are read, evaluated, and acted on based on the intelligence. Or the user may rethink the needs/parameters of the project, returning the direction back to a modified intelligence requirements document, which is then transferred over to the collection group, analysis, reporting, and so forth.

EW Generalities

Time to fill in the EW boxes in 14-1. Electronic warfare (EW) is defined as the art and science of preserving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) for friendly use while denying its use by the enemy. (Adamy D., 2001) The EMS is from DC to light and beyond. See Figures 8-1 to 8-4 EMS Spectrum views. EW covers the full radio frequency spectrum, the infrared spectrum, and the ultraviolet spectrum.

Legacy EW definitions

EW was classically divided into: (Adamy D., 2001)

• ESM – Electromagnetic Support Measures – the receiving part of EW;
• ECM – Electromagnetic Countermeasures – jamming, chaff, flares used to interfere with operations of radars, military communications and heat-seeking weapons;
• ECCM -Electronic Counter-Counter Measures – measures taken in design or operation of radars or communications systems to counter the effects of ECM.^[6]

Not included in the EW definitions were Anti-radiation Weapons (ARW) and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

USA and NATO have updated these categories:

• ES – Electronic warfare Support (old ESM)
• EA – Electronic Attack – which is the old ECM but also includes ASW and DE weapons;
• EP – Electronic Protection – (old ECCM) (Adamy D. , 2001)

ES is different from Signal Intelligence (SIGINT). SIGINT is made up of Communications Intelligence (COMINT) and Electronic Intelligence (ELINT). All these fields involve the receiving of enemy transmissions. (Adamy D. , 2001)

COMINT receives enemy communications signals to extract intelligence.

ELINT uses enemy non-communications signals for determining the enemy’s EMS signature so that countermeasures can be developed. ELINT systems collect substantial data over large periods to support detailed analysis.

ES/ESM collects enemy signals, either communication or non-communication, with the object to do something immediately about those signals or the weapons associated with those signals. The received signals might be jammed or the information sent to a lethal responder. Received signals can be used to type and locate the enemy’s transmitter, locate enemy forces, weapons, distribution, and electronic capability. (Adamy D. , 2001)

Adamy (2001) is correct when he suggests that the, “key to understanding EW principles (particularly the RF) part is to understand radio propagation theory. Understanding propagation leads logically to understanding how they are intercepted, jammed or protected.” (Adamy D. , 2001) Adamy has written five books and published numerous papers on the subject. The student can explore his works or use (Moir, 2006) or (Toomay, 1982) (light reading and dated text to dive into RF propagation.) Petti’s book on ECCM is simplistic but has legacy views of the EP function. (Pettit, 1982) One of the classics that should read is by Lt. Col. USAF Fitts, The Strategy of Electromagnetic Conflict (Fitts, 1980) Lastly, a decent text on ELINT beginnings is authored by Wiley. (Wiley, 1993)

Main Contention

It is the author’s contention that UAS communication links are vulnerable and must be evaluated to protect US Unmanned Aircraft in the cyber or electronic domain. Further, those links may be electronically jammed, cyber-spoofed (especially navigational), or made ineffective with electronic or cyber interference.^[7]

Cyber-spoofing is conjectured in Chapter 16 in the GPS cyber-spoof discussion of the Spratly Island complex, Red Drones, and US Capital ships colliding with commercial vessels. The remainder of this chapter will focus on the electronic jamming, LPI countermeasures and UAS vulnerabilities to electronic interference.

Communications Jamming

The purpose of communication is to move information from one location to another. All the following types of transmitted signals are communications:

• “Voice or non-voice communications (video or digital format)”;
• “Command signals to control remotely located assets;”
• “Data returned from remotely located equipment”;
• “Location and motion of friendly or enemy assets (land, sea, or air);”
• UAS communications links from it ground station for control of the aircraft;
• UAS communications links from another aircraft or satellite affecting its flying characteristics;
• UAS communication signals (from any source) that affect the SAA / navigation / payload / waypoints;
• Computer-to-computer communications;
• Data links;
• Weapon-firing links;
• ISR data links;
• Cell phones.  (Adamy D., 2009)

“The purpose of communications jamming is to prevent the transfer of information. Communications jamming requirements depend on the signal modulation (strength), the geometry of the link, and the transmitted power.” (Adamy D., 2009) Another way to think of jamming is a method to “interfere with the enemy’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum. Use of EMS involves the transmission of information from one point to another”. (Adamy D., 2009)

“The basic technique of jamming is to add an interfering signal,” along with the desired signal, into an enemy’s receiver. “Jamming becomes effective when the interfering signal is strong enough to overwhelm the desired signal.” This prevents the enemy from recovering the information from the desired signal. (Adamy D., 2009) There are two possible methods for a successful jam: either the jamming signal is stronger than the desired “signal or the combined signals received have characteristics that prevented the processor from properly extracting the desired information.” (Adamy D., 2009) A simple case of jamming unintentionally is when your AM news station (listening in the car) becomes overwhelmed by junk music. You can hear the beginning of the interference as noise, then the junk signal is strong, then as the car moves out of the area, the AM news station regains its status. (Adamy D., 2009)

The cardinal rule of jamming is that you jam the receiver, NOT the transmitter. (Adamy D., 2001)

Figure 14-8 shows the communication jamming geometry. (Adamy D., 2009)

“The primary difference between radar and communication jamming is in the geometry. Whereas a typical radar has both the transmitter and the associated receiver at the same location, a communication link, because its job is to take information from one location to another, always has its receiver in a different location from that of the transmitter.” (Adamy D. L., 2004)

In Figure 14-8, the “communications-jamming geometry has one-way links from the desired transmitter and the jammer to the receiver.” (Adamy D. L., 2004)

Figure 14-8 shows the communication jamming geometry

Source: Adamy, D. (2009). EW 103 Tactical Battlefield Communications Electronic Warfare. Boston, MA: Artech House.

“Communication is often done using transceivers (each including both transmitter and receiver), but only the receiver at location B in the figure is jammed. If transceivers are in use and one desires to jam the link in the other direction, the jamming signal must reach location A.” (Adamy D. L., 2004)

“There are some important communications instances in which transceivers are not used. For example, in UAV links as shown in Figure 14-9, this figure shows the data link (or “downlink”) being jammed. Again, the receiver is the objective to be jammed.” (Adamy D., 2009)

Figure 14- 9 UAV Link Jamming Geometry

Source: Adamy, D. L. (2004). EW 102 A Second Course in Electronic Warfare. Boston: Artech House. Also see: https://www.globalspec.com/reference/61136/203279/5-8-communications-jamming

“Figure 14-9 shows that a jammer operating against a UAV data-link must target the receiver at the ground station.

Another difference of radar jamming is that the radar signal makes a round trip to the target, so the received signal power is below the transmitted power by the fourth power of the distance (often stated as 40 log range). Since the jammer power is transmitted one way, it is only reduced by the square of distance.” (Adamy D. L., 2004)

Table 14-1 shows the Types of Jamming. (Adamy D., 2001)

Table 14-1 Types of Jamming

Source: (Adamy D., 2001)

To be effective, the jammer must get its signal into the enemy’s receiver – through the associated antenna, input filters, and processing gates. This depends on the signal strength the jammer transmits in the direction of the receiver and the distance and propagation conditions between the jammer and the receiver. (Adamy D., 2009)

Jammer-to-Signal Ratio

The real test of jammer effectiveness is the effectiveness with which information flow is stopped. “A jammer interferes with communication by injecting an undesired signal into the target, receiver along with any desired signals that are being received.” (Adamy D. , 2009) “The obstructing signal must be strong enough that the receiver cannot recover the required information from the desired signals.” The ratio of the jamming signal to the desired signal is known as the jamming–to-signal ratio (J/S), stated in dB.^[8] Effective J/S depends on the transmitted modulation, but the Adamy formula works in general. (Adamy D., 2001)

Refer to Figure 14-9 UAV Link Jamming Geometry. The jammer-to-receiving link and the desired transmitter-to-receiver UAV link in Figure 14-9 can employ any propagation model. (Adamy D., 2009)

“The formula for communication J/S is:

Where: J/S = the ratio of the jammer power to the desired signal power at the input to the receiver being jammed in dB

ERP_J the effective radiated power of the jammer in dBm
ERP_S the effective radiated power of the desired signal transmitter, in dBm
L_J the propagation loss from jammer to receiver, in dBi^[9]
L_S The propagation loss from the desired signal transmitter, in dBm
G_RJ the receiving antenna gain in the direction of the jammer, in dBi
G_R The receiving antenna gain in the direction of the desired signal transmitter, in dBi.” (Adamy D., 2001)

Many UAS (especially UAV or sUAS ) have a target receiving antenna with a 360-degree azimuth coverage. They use whips or monopoles. They are inexpensive. With a 360-degree antenna, the communications J/S equation simplifies to:

The receiving antenna has the same gain toward the jammer and the desired signal transmitter. The two gain terms cancel out. (Adamy D., 2009)

Figure 14-9 shows a simple example where the J /S calculation would indicate a successful jam (desired signal fully compromised). (Adamy D., 2001) The terminology is slightly different for the power terms (removing the “effective radiated” and using “power total” instead). The principle is still the same. (Adamy D., 2009)

US Army Field Manual FM 34-40-7 (23 Nov 1992) Communications Jamming Handbook, presents three alternative methods for calculating the jamming power required and distance to target. For the designer of an anti-UAS Drone gun, which transmits a jammer signal to a UAS to overwhelm the desired ground station command signals, one needs the know the power and height of the drone. Since the drone is moving the jammer signal must radiate in such a manner that it covers a volume of space until target “UAS lock.” Recall Figure 7-5 Drone Jammer Model KWT-FZQ. Table 14-2 shows the details for this anti-drone gun.^[10]

Figure 14- 10 J/S Calculation Example

Source: Cagalj, M. (2014). FELK 19: Security of Wireless Networks: University of Spain PPTX Presentation.

Quote from manufacturer Globaldroneuav.com: (Adamy D. , 2009)

Table 14-2 Tri-band Anti Drone Rifle KWT-FZQ/DG10-A^[11]

Functions and features

1. Full range cover within three frequency section and high-power transmission helps to achieve the ideal effects.
2. Fast trigger, easy use and daughter switch design make control more ease and comfort.
3. Dual lithium batteries for power supply last work time longer.
4. The strong internal line connector and external fuses port make the whole vehicle and component parts fastened securely.
5. All aluminum alloy case body design and glass fiber material for antenna cover make its appearance lighter and faster.