The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has rapidly accelerated the development and deployment of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), particularly first-person view (FPV) drones, which have become pivotal for both sides.
Beyond the various active weapon and electronic countermeasures, rudimentary but effective countermeasures that utilise physical barriers like nets and mesh screens have been widely fielded to protect firing positions and battle trenches.
The basic premise behind using nets and cages against drones is to physically entrap or disrupt them, or force them to explode at stand-off distances.
There are numerous videos and images from Ukraine of drones that have been defeated by nets and mesh screens.
Combined with camouflage nets, they provide not only a counter observation capability, but also a basic defeat mechanism.
Counter UAS nets are not a panacea, and should be considered one (cheap) component of a wider systems approach.
Counter Drone Nets — Components
Nets and Mesh
The most obvious net to use is whatever camouflage nets are already in service, a bit of a no-brainer to utilise them more widely for fighting positions and shelters.
As discussed in the post on battle trenches, concealment should be a more significant feature of our design and build process.
For lighter UAS, especially those with exposed rotors, very lightweight mesh or fabric nets would likely be effective.
There are hundreds of types of lightweight mesh readily available in a bewildering array of sizes, mesh sizes, and materials.
Pop over to Huck for a look at Sports Netting, Safety Nets, Bird Nets, and Industrial Nets
Some of the lightest nets are those used for bird control, a 100 mm x 100 mm mesh heron net is approximately 15g per square metre, ideal for dismounted infantry use. Decrease the mesh size to 50 mm, widely used for pigeon nets, the weight rises to 20g per square metre, but still light.
They can be provided as plain nets on a roll, cut sheets, or with securing fixtures, cord edges, and eyelets built in.
Nets are available in long lengths and roll sizes, suitable for infrastructure protection.
Larger loitering munitions, like the Russian Lancet, would likely require a stronger mesh, possibly with some metal content.
Initial sighting of nets and mesh barriers in Ukraine saw the use of chain link fence, as above, and whilst this provides good strength, it could add to fragmentation damage.
Galvanised steel netting may be a suitable alternative to rigid fencing panels.
The image below shows the use of anti-climb steel fencing panels.
Again, the UK is not short of manufacturers of this type of product.
Fixings, Fasteners, and Tensioners
Lightweight nets need minimal fixings and almost no tensioning, the defeat mechanism is to snare exposed rotor blades and prevent forward passage of the drone body.
In numerous instances, no fixings at all will be required. The net can simply be wrapped or hooked on branches, doors/windows or other convenient fixtures.
Where some additional fixings are required, cable ties are cheap, quick, and easy, and add no metal content.
They are available in standard lengths up to 1.5m and in various colours, and can be used to join multiple nets as well as fixing.
As long as there is some fixture to affix to, tensioning of the lightweight mesh nets can be secured and tensioned with simple knots and cordage, paracord or non-stretch materials like Dyneema, for example.
The advantage of this is no metal content and absolute simplicity.
Nite-Ize Cam Jams, although not super cheap, are very fast and require no skill to use.
Screw in vine eyes are commodity items.
With other designs available.
With hand or power tools, these can be quickly fixed to various surface and the mesh attached to them, either directly, or with cordage and cable ties.
Nails and screws means that a hammer and screwdriver must be carried, less of a problem for vehicle borne personnel or where engineer support is available, but for dismounted infantry, especially in an urban environment, every kilogram matters.
Modern construction adhesives would certainly be strong enough to support the weight of a lightweight mesh/wall hook, can be used on a wide variety of surfaces, and cure in minutes. They are also readily available in small tubes, 75ml to 150 ml, for example.
For medium weight mesh and nets, sturdier fixings and tensioning systems will be required.
Gripple markets a Garden Trellis Kit that comprises four Gripple X10 tensioners, four screw in vine eyes, and 50m of nylon trellis wire. Ready-made for fixing and tensioning a single mesh panel (top and bottom), and with minimal metal content, and less than fifteen quid.
The fencing and industrial sectors also have products for heavier duty fixing and nets.
Gripple, again, the Dynamic fastener can be used with 4 mm or 6 mm wire rope.
In an urban environment, where brick, concrete, and steel are common, creating secure and sturdy fixings may be challenging for dismounted operations, especially those that are transient in nature.
Battery operated power tools are the obvious answer, and the British Army uses Makita, an 18v DHR171Z 18v SDS+ Plus drill weighs less than 3 kg with a battery. With a small range of drill bits and fixings, this would be a flexible and capable option.
A quicker option would be powder actuated impact tools.
These generally use .22 or .27 blank rounds of different strengths to provide the power. Ramset and Hilti are the two main manufacturers.
With many other models available, the Hilti DX2 weighs less than 2.5 kg.
Fastenings like the model below would allow nets to be quickly fixed across doorways, entries, and other openings.
At 1.4 kg, the Ramset Trigger Shot is an even lighter alternative to the Hilti DX2, and cheap enough to be semi-disposable.
These modern products (and there are many more of them) can be used to quickly fix and tension meshes and nets.
Frames and Poles
If the net or mesh is covering an existing gap, in an urban or wooded environment for example, there is arguably no need for a frame structure.
The net would be simply affixed to the walls or trees.
Where it is freestanding, over a gun pit or in front of a fire bay, some supporting frame or post will be needed to suspend the mesh from.
These posts or frames might also need to be anchored and tensioned to ensure they have enough strength and rigidity to withstand impact forces from larger drones and loitering munitions.
The lightest frame, for lightweight nets, is likely to be collapsible fibreglass tent poles, tensioned with an internal shock cord.
Everyone is familiar with these, and they are easy to carry.
With simple cordage and ground pegs, they could easily be used to quickly create a frame over a firing position or trench line.
Dismounted infantry could also take this approach when at a halt.
For stronger frames, any of the systems like Unistrut or Kee Klamp described in the previous post(s) could be used. These are cheap and simple solutions that are readily available, although they are adding metal, to be avoided if possible.
GRP poles are available in the same diameters as those used with the Kee Klamp style fittings.
They are fixed length, but easily cut and compatible with the full range of fittings, such that almost any dimension frame could be quickly built.
GRP scaffolding systems are also available, either would be practical options for high strength low metal content frames, although they would be semi-permanent in nature.
This is an example of a Russian position with a rigid steel frame and mesh
There is no need for any tensioning systems, and installation, I imagine, would have been quick.
It would be easy enough to contract the manufacture of these, but if an off the shelf solution is needed, Heras security fencing fits the bill quite well.
Different panel sizes are available, but the standard is 2.025 m high by 3.45 m wide.
Panels can be clipped together and stabilised with metal feet or ballast blocks.
The accessory range also includes castor wheels
Alternatively, a door kit is available.
Stabilising struts and soil pins are used to improve strength and stability.
The same panels could be used to provide overhead cover, or simply used as anchor points for netting.
A stillage can be used to transport multiple panels.
Poles can be used for lightweight mesh.
Either with timber.
Or telescoping masts.
We are not short of telescopic masts, they could be easily repurposed, or, simply buy a load of new ones from Clark Masts.
For larger mesh screens and nets, scaffold poles and quick setting Postcrete could be used, its initial cure is only ten minutes and this would be ‘strong enough’. Simply driving posts into the ground is also a viable method for larger installations, although this would require mechanical assistance or some jointing.
The safety need for non-conducting poles for cleaning, access, inspection, and installation has driven the widespread availability of composite telescoping poles.
The British company, Rolatube, makes a range of lightweight and compact masts and tripods, in limited service with the British Armed Forces.
One could imagine four of these, with a five mesh panels, being used to rapidly create a vehicle protection screen, perhaps even fixed to the vehicle itself.
At the halt, the vehicle crew could attach suitable nets and guy lines, and deploy the four corner masts to elevate the assembly. Then, drive pickets and tension the whole assembly.
This could be done in less than ten minutes.
Counter Drone Nets — Ready Made Kits
Each one of the items described above is a component, not a ready-made solution.
As one might expect, Ukraine has started to iterate designs and manufacture complete solutions.
Metinvest now produces the Lancet Catcher to protect vehicles from large loitering munitions.
As described by Metinvest
The weight of one mobile shelter, which is ten metres long, five metres wide and five metres high, is about one tonne. The shelter consists of a steel frame and a chain-link mesh with camouflage elements stretched over it. Metinvest can produce up to five lancet catchers per week.
Note the use of chain-link fence, not fabric mesh or netting.
Let’s talk about cricket, this is a British defence blog after all.
For about the same cost as the cheapest 81 mm mortar bomb, we could obtain one of these for the 81 mm mortar team.
Nothing more than a pop-up batting net.
For less than the cost of a single round of 155 mm ammunition, we could buy a couple of these for our Archer 155 mm SPH.
Maybe even splash out for a door.
There are plenty of other solutions, retractable car ports and spray booths, or we could even just use surplus tentage frames and instead of canvas, fix mesh or netting.
Counter Drone Nets — Discussion
We already have in service, in abundance, the most snaggy thing on the planet.
Cam nets make perfect drone nets, if the defeat mechanism is ensnaring an exposed rotor.
We even have popup shelters in service.
The question is, are these enough?
It must also be observed that whilst there is an enormous investment in Counter-UAS detection and weapon systems, from handheld devices
to vehicle mounted weapons.
Investment in passive systems, like multi-spectral camouflage and nets and screens, seems much less visible from outside. This is understandable, lasers are interesting in a way that nets are not, but it would be good to hear more about investment in not being seen as, it relates to field defences.
Back to the nets.
What type of loitering munition, UAS or UAS dropped munitions does the net need to defeat?
If the answer is a lightweight armed FPV with exposed rotors, lightweight plastic netting with 100 mm mesh size might be enough.
This is so lightweight, a 3m × 2m panel (with a selvedge edging) would only weigh 150g.
Compress half a dozen in a stuff sack, with a dozen hooks and two 150ml tubes of construction adhesive, and you have a kit for use by dismounted infantry in an urban setting, able to stairways and door openings.
Dismounted infantry in more open terrain or woods (without many vertical openings to protect), any C-UAS net has to be as light as possible and quick to deploy at a halt, but able to provide a bubble. A larger net might be a better option here, with simple fixings and tensioning systems in a stuff sack.
For vehicles at rest, I’m quite in favour of four Rolatubes at each corner, with clip on mesh panels and attached guy lines. This would allow the crew to rapidly put up a C-UAS mesh when at the halt (and might work equally well with multispectral camouflage)
Fixed defences would benefit from any of the lightweight solutions described above, especially during initial development, before the personnel building them have time to get under cover and build more robust counter UAS defences.
Beyond the simple defeat method of rotor entanglement, higher strength nets (or those with smaller mesh) will generally require greater tension to provide a suitable physical barrier. Greater tension and stronger nets lead to a requirement for stronger fixings and tensioning fixtures, together with frame systems.
Rigid mesh (like security fencing) requires no tension, although it will typically require some frame if freestanding, and these will be largely less convenient to carry. Freestanding fence panels may also require some tensioning like guy lines to remain in place.
In Ukraine, methods for defeating larger and heavier drones and loitering munitions appear to centre on rigid steel mesh panels or chain link over a steel frame, whether in vehicle slots and larger field shelters.
Heras fencing would appear to be a useful alternative option, or galvanised mesh over a scaffold or steel tube and connector frame system.
These are cheap, readily available, likely to be quite effective, and easy to deploy, even without skilled personnel.
Any of these would be versatile, not vehicle or shelter specific, a kit of components that could be adapted to suit evolving requirements and environments.
The main problem with these is they have a high metal content that would likely provide a distinctive radar and thermal signature.
Great as an expedient, but arguably a technical dead end.
Low metal content solutions would be better to explore.
Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) tube and clamp systems are available today, and they could be treated in the same way as their steel cousins to create a strong frame.
GRP grating (commonly used for industrial flooring) could be fixed to the tube frame, but this would be heavy, unwieldy and space inefficient. A high strength net would be preferable.
Dyneema nets, more commonly used in fishing and aquaculture, potentially provide similar strength and stretch resistance of steel, but with zero metal content.
The big metal vehicle would still require some means of concealment, of course, using multispectral camouflage, the two are complementary.
As with all these solutions, optimal combinations would come from study and practical testing.
Discover more from Think Defence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for article
Ex 11th Hussars & Kings Royal Hussars
Not to be negative, cheap and simple has a lot going for it, but one flaw to my mind is these devices won't provide any protection against Self Forging Projectiles…which are small enough to be fitted to your typical FP drone. Such war heads aren't suitable for every application either.
It’s always going to be a reaction game, one side counteracting the other 🤷🏻♂️
AmSafe Bridport's Tarian RPG netting should be a suitable replacement for steel mesh/fencing.
I was talking about Tarian the other day in this context Paul, but I have obviously forgotten to include it here. Good shout, will do an edit and include.