Drone News, page-1358

"DRONESHIELD will be synonymous to military and civil defences" – I'm still not convinced, sorry. In fact, as time goes by with the company failing to gain recognition and momentum, I become increasingly concerned that DroneShield has missed the boat. The article you posted above – a 5,500 word in-depth treatment of drone defence – contains the words "drone shield" but not one reference to DroneShield the company nor to any of its products. Further, the article (under heading "Native Counter-Weapons") identifies the critical weakness in DroneShield's defeat products on the battlefield: the radio-frequency emissions they produce. A jamming signal, regardless of whether it's jamming drone communications or navigation, must be much stronger at the drone than the signal the drone is trying to receive. Therefore the jamming signal must be very strong at the source. This makes both fixed and portable drone jammers extremely vulnerable to anti-radiation weapons. Pulling the trigger on a DroneGun will be like lighting a radio-frequency flare on your own position.

I suspect that DroneShield will never win significant amounts of defence business because it is suited to only very specific applications and not much else. Defence will be looking for suppliers who can provide a broad range of capabilities, which will include jamming where useful, but will not rely on it as the only response. Defence customers will buy smallish lots of DroneShield products, play with them, explore their capabilities and limitations, develop ideas for improvements, and then approach their primary suppliers with specifications shaped by these experiences.

I believe that DroneShield should be hammering the civil markets: prisons, airports, firefighters, police, shipping ports, venue operators, mines, electrical infrastructure, datacentres. There should not be one of these organisations anywhere that hasn't heard of or from DroneShield.