Recent footage from Ukraine’s audacious “Spiderweb” operation has jolted military analysts and policymakers. In this top-secret operation, Ukraine’s Security Service smuggled drones deep into Russia and launched them from trucks along highways, striking multiple air bases simultaneously. The coordinated close-range drone blitz reportedly destroyed or damaged dozens of Russian warplanes at airfields once thought secure. This stark visual evidence has challenged the comforting assumption that sheer geographic distance insulates the United States from similar attacks. The reality is that increasingly long-ranged, affordable, and ubiquitous drones – along with other asymmetric threats like cruise missiles – are eroding traditional safety buffers. This report analyzes the current state of air defense for U.S. military air bases and critical civilian infrastructure in light of these developments. It compares U.S. base defenses (at home and abroad) with those of peer adversaries, highlights gaps such as the lack of short-range gun-based defenses on land, and reviews recent drone incursions against high-profile civilian targets. Finally, we assess the evolving threat landscape to critical infrastructure and outline counter-drone systems, strategies, and forward-looking recommendations drawn from the hard lessons in Ukraine.

Geographic Distance No Longer Guarantees Safety

For much of modern history, the U.S. homeland’s vast oceans and borders have provided a “tyranny of distance” that shielded it from the kinds of air attacks seen in war zones. However, officials now warn that this sanctuary mindset is outdated. As one Pentagon operations director bluntly told Congress in 2025, “the homeland is no longer a sanctuary” – if a determined adversary chose to employ drones for surveillance or attack, “we would not be prepared to defend our homeland adequately” and are only marginally capable of defending our domestic installations. This sobering admission came after hundreds of drone incursions over U.S. military sites in recent years. In 2022 alone, the Pentagon recorded 350 drone flights over 100 different domestic bases. Mysterious swarms buzzed Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia in Dec 2023, as well as sensitive sites like Plant 42 (a secretive aerospace facility in California), Picatinny Arsenal, and Naval Weapons Station Earle (New Jersey). These incidents underscored that distance and U.S. airspace control no longer guarantee security when small unmanned aircraft can potentially be launched from within the country or just off the coast by clandestine actors. Indeed, the Spiderweb strikes showed Ukraine could reach deep into Russia by covertly forward-deploying drones. It takes little imagination to see how a peer competitor or proxy could similarly infiltrate drones near U.S. soil, whether via container ships, clandestine operators crossing borders, or insider threats, nullifying the cushion of distance. In short, America’s geographic advantage is being eroded by the proliferation of drones and other long-range, low-cost precision weapons.

U.S. Air Base Defenses: Warzone vs. Homeland

U.S. military air bases, especially those in non-warzone locations, have historically not been fortified with the dense air defenses found on naval ships or in foreign war theaters. During the post-9/11 wars, bases in Iraq and Afghanistan adopted layered defenses like the C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) system – essentially a land-based Phalanx 20mm Gatling gun – to shoot down incoming rockets and shells. C-RAM (nicknamed Centurion) proved effective, intercepting 70–80% of projectiles in tests and dozens of live attacks. However, these systems were limited primarily to active conflict zones. Stateside and peacetime bases typically lack comparable point-defense weapons. A typical Air Force base in the U.S. or Europe relies on perimeter security forces and perhaps man-portable Stinger missiles or alert fighter jets for air defense; however, no dedicated close-range interceptors, such as autocannons or short-range missile batteries, are permanently deployed on site.

This stands in contrast to U.S. Navy warships, which are equipped with multi-layered air defenses – from long-range interceptors to radar-guided CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) guns. For example, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with Standard Missiles for high-altitude threats, ESSM or SeaRAM missiles for medium-range threats, and the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) for last-ditch, rapid-fire 20mm coverage against inbound missiles or drones. On land, outside of combat zones, such gun-based or short-range kinetic defenses are conspicuously absent. Even in some deployed locations, defenses have gaps: U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria in late 2023 faced a surge of Iranian-supplied drone and rocket attacks with only limited protection. Those troops “primarily rely on the C-RAM” land-based Phalanx, but its range is short, and its performance is mixed. An analysis noted the rapid-fire Phalanx “has never stopped any attack on a naval ship”, and similarly struggles with small drones or rockets on land. At night or against low-signature drones made of plastic, visual and radar detection is difficult. In October 2023, over a dozen one-way attack drones hit Al-Asad Airbase and Al-Tanf garrison, injuring U.S. personnel. Only after these incidents did the Pentagon rush additional air defense units (e.g., more C-RAM and Patriot batteries) to the Middle East, highlighting that counter-UAS and short-range defenses were insufficient.

Domestic base defense doctrine is playing catch-up. Until recently, only specific “covered installations” were authorized to use counter-UAS measures (such as jamming or kinetic interception) under U.S. law. Most base commanders had to call on civilian agencies (FAA, DHS) when drones appeared, creating dangerous delays and uncertainty. In April 2025, NORTHCOM and the Pentagon pushed new standard operating procedures to streamline military response and asked Congress to expand legal authority for all bases to act against drones. This came on the heels of incursions that appeared to be foreign spy probes – lawmakers noted the pattern of drones surveilling sensitive U.S. bases might be “a coordinated effort by our adversaries” for espionage. In short, the U.S. is now urgently moving to shore up air base defenses stateside, treating them “not as a war zone” but recognizing domestic airspace is a complex environment requiring new rules and tools.

Gaps in Short-Range Defenses (Land vs. Sea)

One glaring gap in U.S. force protection is the lack of land-based point-defense weapons equivalent to what the Navy fields at sea. Heavily armed naval vessels carry automatic cannons and short-range interceptors on constant alert, yet an air base housing dozens of high-value aircraft may rely on far less. During peacetime, fighter jets on alert can respond to known aircraft threats, and longer-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems (e.g., Patriot or THAAD) are deployed to counter ballistic or cruise missiles in certain theaters, such as Guam and the Middle East. But against low, slow, small drones or mortar-style attacks, many bases remain vulnerable. Notably, the U.S. Army has reintroduced short-range air defense units in Europe and Asia (IM-SHORAD Stryker vehicles with guns and Stinger missiles) and is experimenting with mobile lasers and microwave weapons to protect forward forces from drones. Yet, fixed installations have few permanently emplaced rapid-fire guns or directed-energy weapons as a last line of defense. The contrast with ships is stark – a Navy cruiser might expend a wall of 20mm rounds at a single incoming threat. At the same time, a base can often do little more than have its security forces shoot rifles into the air or use handheld jammers if a drone approaches the flight line.

This discrepancy has not gone unnoticed. Observers point out that U.S. bases abroad are as exposed as Russia’s were. The Russian Air Force’s bomber bases targeted in Operation Spiderweb had some long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the general vicinity. Still, they lacked sufficient close-range defenses, such as Pantsir-S1 gun-missile systems, to stop a swarm of small drones. Dozens of aircraft were parked in the open and paid the price. Analysts warn the U.S. must heed this lesson: for example, Guam’s Andersen Air Base – a crucial American hub in the Pacific – has “disjointed defenses and exposed aircraft,” presenting an inviting target. A recent analysis notes China could readily replicate a Spiderweb-style drone blitz on Guam, where U.S. aircraft often sit in the open with limited shelters. Guam has some high-end missile defenses (THAAD and planned Aegis Ashore) for ballistic missiles, but those are not designed for swarms of low-flying drones or cruise missiles coming in at short range. Compounding the issue, U.S. Pacific bases lack the hardened hangars and fortifications that their adversaries possess. China, for instance, has built over 3,000 reinforced aircraft shelters at its airfields, along with robust runway repair units. In contrast, U.S. bases, such as Guam, have almost no hardened shelters, leaving jets and fuel infrastructure highly vulnerable to even a handful of precise strikes. In a conflict, as few as ten submunition-equipped missiles could neutralize key assets on an unhardened base. This disparity underscores the need for both active defenses (to counter threats) and passive defenses (to enhance protection and disperse assets) at American bases.

Drone Incursions at High-Profile Civilian Targets

The threat is not confined to military sites. In recent years, drones – ranging from off-the-shelf quadcopters to DIY devices – have penetrated the airspace of sports arenas, airports, and government buildings, sometimes causing major disruptions:

  • Airports: Perhaps the most infamous incident was the Gatwick Airport drone disruption in December 2018. Repeated drone sightings near the runway forced London Gatwick to shut down for ~33 hours, cancelling or diverting about 1,000 flights and stranding 140,000 passengers. It was the most significant air travel snafu in the UK since the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption. Police and military units scrambled to locate the operator, even deploying counter-drone tech, but the perpetrator was never found. Weeks later, in January 2019, Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey had to halt all arrivals after pilots spotted drones at 3,500 feet near an adjacent airfield (Teterboro) – echoing the Gatwick scare. Flights resumed after a brief pause, but the incident underscored the potential for rogue drones to snarl air traffic at major hubs. (Heathrow Airport in London also briefly suspended flights in Jan 2019 due to a drone sighting.) These events prompted urgent investments in anti-drone systems at airports worldwide (discussed more below).

  • Sports Stadiums: Drones have violated no-fly zones over packed sports events on multiple occasions. In April 2025, a baseball game between the Oakland A’s and Chicago Cubs was interrupted when a drone swooped low over the field at Sutter Health Park in California. A quick-thinking bat boy knocked the drone out of the air with a baseball bat, to the cheers of the crowd, and the game was only briefly delayed. Similarly, in 2017, a small drone crashed into the stands during a San Diego Padres MLB game at Petco Park (fortunately causing no injuries). Internationally, drones have been used to provoke chaos at sporting events – a notorious example being a drone that flew a political banner into a 2014 soccer match between Serbia and Albania, sparking a player brawl and rioting in the stadium. These incidents highlight the risk of drones to public safety in mass gatherings: a drone could accidentally crash into spectators or, worse, be used deliberately to drop dangerous payloads in a crowded venue.

  • Government Buildings: Even the most sensitive political sites have proven vulnerable. In January 2015, a small DJI Phantom quadcopter flown by a recreational user (unwisely, and allegedly while intoxicated) breached the White House grounds in Washington, D.C.. It crash-landed on the lawn around 3:00 a.m. The White House went into lockdown until the device was analyzed – it turned out to be non-hostile, but the incident was a wake-up call. Secret Service procedures were revamped, and the FAA later banned drones over the downtown area of D.C. Abroad, a chilling episode occurred in August 2018, when two explosive-laden drones detonated near a military parade in Caracas in what was widely seen as an assassination attempt on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The drones exploded in mid-air (apparently after losing control or being disrupted) but still injured several guards – a proof of concept that small UAVs can be turned into airborne IEDs aimed at heads of state. Another incident in 2015 saw a protester in Japan land a drone carrying a small container of radioactive sand onto the roof of the Prime Minister’s office in Tokyo. Traces of radiation were detected on the device, which fortunately caused no harm, but it deeply alarmed Japanese authorities. The drone had gone unnoticed on the roof for days. Officials warned this was a harbinger of how drones could be used in terror attacks, prompting Japan to establish police anti-drone squads (including one that famously uses net-carrying drones to capture rogue UAVs). These cases underscore that no building is off-limits to a drone, whether by reckless hobbyists, activists, or malicious actors, unless protective measures are in place.

  • Other High-Profile Targets: Drones have been spotted over critical events, such as the Olympic Games and political rallies, as well as near the U.S. Capitol. In one dramatic example, a swarm of drones shadowed U.S. Navy warships off the coast of California in 2019, prompting investigations into who was controlling them. While not an attack, it showed how easily drones can approach sensitive military assets. Moreover, domestic terror plots have considered drones: the FBI revealed that in 2020, an unknown individual attempted to attack a Pennsylvania power substation with a modified drone, intending to short-circuit high-voltage equipment by dangling a copper wire from the UAV. The jury-rigged drone crashed before causing damage, but it marked the first known drone-based attempt to target U.S. energy infrastructure. This incident, along with others, demonstrates how readily off-the-shelf drones can be adapted for nefarious purposes on U.S. soil.

Threats to Critical Infrastructure: Nuclear Plants, Power Grids, and More

Beyond symbolic targets, drones pose a growing threat to critical infrastructure – the utilities and facilities that society depends on (power plants, electrical grids, dams, transportation networks, etc.). Security experts have warned that the drone threat to these sites is “real, and not enough is being done to stop it.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of Energy are increasingly focused on protecting such facilities from both accidental drone incursions and deliberate attacks.

Recent examples and concerns include:

  • Nuclear Power Stations: There has been a notable increase in drone sightings over U.S. atomic power plants. In September 2019, the nation’s largest nuclear plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, experienced a bizarre series of nighttime drone swarms. Plant security reported that five or six large drones flew in a coordinated fashion over the restricted reactor area on multiple occasions. Despite FBI investigations, the operators were never identified, and their motives remain unknown (spying, sabotage, or diversion?). This and similar incidents led the FAA in 2019 and 2020 to declare temporary no-drone flight restrictions over numerous nuclear sites as a precaution. In Europe, French nuclear facilities were repeatedly buzzed by drones in 2014, leading to speculation about terrorist reconnaissance or activist stunts. Greenpeace activists later used a hobby drone (painted as Superman) to crash into a French nuclear plant in 2018, to demonstrate glaring security gaps. More gravely, during the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly launched kamikaze drones and missiles near nuclear power plants. In 2022–2023, Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant – the largest in Europe – suffered drone strikes and shellfire on its grounds during fighting, prompting dire warnings from the IAEA. In May 2025, the IAEA Director General reported drone attacks hitting Zaporizhzhia’s training center roof and emphasized that “there are too many drones flying near nuclear sites… it should stop immediately,” as such incidents pose a direct threat to nuclear safety and could lead to catastrophe.

  • Power Grid and Substations: The U.S. electric grid’s physical infrastructure (transformer yards, substations, transmission lines) is mostly unprotected from low-tech sabotage, and drones add a worrisome new dimension. As mentioned, the first known drone attack attempt on the grid occurred in July 2020. A modified quadcopter was found crashed near a Pennsylvania substation with trailing wires intended to short out the high-voltage equipment. The drone had been stripped of identification and memory, suggesting a sophisticated effort at anonymity. Had it succeeded in causing a short-circuit, it might have triggered outages or equipment damage. This incident was labeled an “alarming escalation” by security experts – no longer theoretical, but a real attempted drone sabotage of the power grid. Although it failed, authorities fear it won’t be the last. Recent physical attacks on substations (e.g., shootings in North Carolina and Washington state in 2022) demonstrated how relatively easy it is to knock out power to thousands; a drone could carry out a similar attack more covertly. The DHS and FBI have been issuing alerts to utilities, advising them to remain vigilant and invest in counter-drone measures. Some utilities have started using drone detection systems around critical substations. The FAA, at the request of security agencies, has also imposed no-fly zones for drones over dozens of major electrical substations in states such as New Jersey and New York, following reports of suspicious drone activity. While officials stated they have “no evidence of a threat” in those cases, the restrictions were done “out of an abundance of caution.” This underscores the seriousness with which the potential threat is being taken.

  • Other infrastructure, including dams, water treatment plants, pipelines, and railways, all have unique vulnerabilities to unmanned aircraft. A drone carrying a few pounds of explosives could target control systems or critical machinery at a dam or hydroelectric facility. Even without explosives, drones can conduct detailed surveillance on security routines or vulnerabilities. Law enforcement has intercepted drones smuggling contraband into prisons and across borders – the same methods could be adapted to deliver dangerous payloads. Counterterrorism analysts worry about chemical plants or refineries being targeted by drones to ignite explosions or toxic releases. So far, no major attack of this kind has occurred in the West. Still, conflict zones have seen precursors: e.g., ISIS used consumer drones to drop grenades on Iraqi oil facilities and front-line refineries, and Houthi rebels in Yemen have used drones to hit Saudi Arabian oil pumping stations. These examples illustrate the asymmetric appeal of drones – they allow a small adversary to hit high-value targets with a degree of remoteness and deniability.

Counter-UAS Systems and Strategies in Use

To confront this evolving threat, the U.S. and its allies have been ramping up counter-Unmanned Aerial System (C-UAS) efforts on multiple fronts. Countermeasures generally fall into three categories: detection and tracking, electronic warfare (including jamming and spoofing), and kinetic or directed energy interception. Here we provide an overview of current systems and strategies:

  • Detection & Early Warning: The first step is knowing a drone is present. Traditional air defense radars often struggle to detect small, low-flying drones made of plastic or composites. Hence, specialized low-cost detection networks are being fielded. These include 3D radars tuned for low RCS targets, passive RF sensors that detect a drone’s control signals, and optical/infrared cameras or acoustic sensors for close-range detection. U.S. bases and cities are testing sensor fusion systems (for example, Dedrone and DeTectare companies providing multi-sensor drone detection networks). Following the Gatwick debacle, both Gatwick and Heathrow airports invested millions in detection equipment that can spot a rogue drone several kilometers away. Japan’s police use a fleet of security drones to patrol for other drones (using nets to catch them physically). In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Secret Service has deployed drone detection around the White House and Capitol, and the DOE has systems watching nuclear sites. The goal is an “early warning” of incoming drones so that responders have at least a few minutes to react (which is vital, given that a drone might only be detectable when it’s already very close).

  • Jamming and Takeover: Many counter-UAS engagements favor non-kinetic methods to minimize collateral effects. Radio-frequency jammers can sever the link between a drone and its operator or jam GPS signals, thereby confusing its navigation. Systems like Israel’s Drone Dome, used at airports, can detect a drone’s control frequency and then jam or even spoof it, forcing the drone to land or crash. The U.S. military and DHS widely use man-portable jammer guns (e.g., Battelle’s DroneDefender and newer variants), which resemble sci-fi rifles that emit an electronic disruption beam. These have been used successfully, for instance, by U.S. forces to down drones in Iraq without gunfire. Additionally, some systems attempt protocol takeover – sending a signal that makes the drone think it’s receiving new instructions (for example, the U.S. Army’s Dronebuster or the FAA’s tested SkyJack software). However, jamming in civilian environments is challenging: it can interfere with other communications, and newer drones can fly pre-programmed routes autonomously without requiring a control link, thereby reducing the effectiveness of jammers.

  • Kinetic Interceptors: When electronic measures fail or aren’t feasible, physically destroying or turning off the drone is the option. Traditional guns and missiles can be used, but firing bullets or explosively armed missiles over civilian areas poses risks. Thus, “low-collateral” interceptors are in development. Some approaches include net guns or net-carrying drones (to entangle the target), or even trained birds of prey (the Dutch police famously trained eagles to snatch small drones, though that program was later shelved). The U.S. Army and Air Force have tested small interceptor drones that autonomously hunt other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). One example is the “Low-Collateral Interceptor” program, which evaluated several drone-on-drone systems in 2021. The Pentagon’s Joint C-sUAS Office (JCO) narrowed it down to five vendors and planned “fly-off” competitions in 2023–24 to select deployable versions. Another kinetic method is using short-range surface-to-air missiles or guided projectiles. For instance, the Israeli Barak and Iron Dome systems have proven capable of shooting down drones (though at a high cost per kill). In 2019, the U.S. Marine Corps famously employed a new Light Marine Air Defense Integrated System (LMADIS), an electronic jammer mounted on a Polaris MRZR vehicle, to defeat an Iranian drone that approached a Navy ship – a notable case of a ground-based system protecting a vessel. The U.S. Army has outfitted Stryker vehicles with a combination of 30mm autocannons (equipped with airburst rounds) and Stinger missiles (the IM-SHORAD), specifically designed to counter drones and helicopters. These systems are now deployed in Europe and Korea. There is even discussion of shotgun squads or using anti-materiel rifles with specialized ammo, particularly as a last resort on bases – essentially training personnel to blast drones out of the sky at close range if all else fails. While rudimentary, at least one U.S. Naval Institute article advocated practicing exactly that, noting that when high-tech systems are overwhelmed, a well-placed shotgun slug can still take down a quadcopter.

  • Directed Energy Weapons: High-energy lasers (HELs) and high-power microwave (HPMs) systems are highly promising for drone defense, as they offer a theoretically low per-shot cost and deep magazines (not limited by finite missiles or bullets). The U.S. and allies are actively testing these. The Army’s Indirect Fire Protection program features a laser component, and prototypes such as the 50 kW HEL-MTT and DE M-SHORAD have successfully shot down drones in tests. The Epirus “Leonidas” HPM system – a microwave emitter that can turn off drone electronics in a targeted area – was delivered as a prototype to the Army in 2023. In 2022, the Army also received its first IFPC-High Power Microwave prototypes. These systems can fry multiple drones simultaneously, making them ideal for swarms of drones. Israel is deploying a laser called Iron Beam to complement Iron Dome, intended to zap drones and rockets at short range. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has mounted experimental lasers on destroyers (like the USS Portland’s 150 kW laser, which downed a target drone) and is testing others to replace or augment CIWS guns. Allies are also in the game: Germany, the UK, and France have collaborated on laser demonstrators for drone defense; Japan announced it’s developing truck-mounted microwave weapons to protect the Tokyo 2024 Olympics from drone threats. While these directed energy solutions are still maturing, they are likely to become a critical layer of base and infrastructure defense in coming years, as they directly address the cost-exchange ratio problem (using a $1 of electricity laser shot to defeat a $1,000 drone is far preferable to using a $100,000 missile).

  • Strategic and Legal Measures: Organizationally, the U.S. established a Joint Counter-UAS Office (JCO) in 2019 to coordinate all these efforts across the services. The JCO has since conducted five major technology demonstrations and helped fast-track systems that showed promise. According to its director, Maj. Gen. Sean Gainey, “several technologies to combat the rising drone threat are no longer just in demonstrations… they are being procured and used by units in every combatant command.” Units in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia have received various C-UAS tools vetted by the JCO, from low-collateral interceptors to high-powered microwaves. On the home front, policy changes are underway. The 2023 and 2024 National Defense Authorization Acts included provisions expanding who can engage rogue drones. Previously, only a handful of federal agencies —specifically, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Energy (DOE) — had legal authority under 18 USC 130i to disrupt drones. Now, legislation is being proposed (like the “DEFENSE Act” in Congress) to give state and local law enforcement limited counter-drone authority, especially to protect mass gatherings such as stadium events. Stadium security professionals rank drones as a top threat and have lobbied for such changes. The FAA is also working on a new system of UAS traffic management and remote identification – essentially requiring most drones to broadcast an ID, which became law in 2023, so that authorities can more easily track down operators of rogue drones. This won’t stop a deliberate attack, but it raises the stakes for casual violators and helps deconflict friendly drones from hostile ones.

  • Allied and Adversary Strategies: Allies are sharing lessons and technologies among themselves. After Gatwick, the UK deployed military counter-drone units to major airports and then invested in permanent systems (as noted, reportedly the Israeli Drone Dome jammer). France and Germany, worried about both terror threats and nuisance drones, have deployed mobile jamming units to significant events (Tour de France, state visits, etc.). In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has had to learn the hard way after Iranian-supplied drones attacked its oil facilities – they have since integrated radar/laser systems (like China’s Silent Hunter laser and their own improved Shadb solutions) to protect infrastructure. Meanwhile, Russia and China – U.S. peer competitors – are also improving their drone defenses. Russia’s approach, heavily tested in Syria and now in Ukraine, relies on layered SAMs and point-defense systems like Pantsir-S1 (which combines a rapid-fire autocannon and missiles) and electronic warfare units. Despite notable failures (like Ukrainian drones hitting airbases), Russia has strengthened defenses around Moscow – even mounting Pantsir systems on rooftops near the Kremlin – and around strategic bomber bases after the first surprise attacks. China, observing drone use in Ukraine and likely anticipating U.S. or Taiwanese drone swarms in a potential conflict, has unveiled new counter-drone “barrage” weapons: for example, a recently showcased system fires a spread of hundreds of small munitions to blanket the sky against swarms. China’s military and police have also deployed a range of anti-drone tech domestically, from jamming rifles (commonly seen with PLA guard units) to dazzlers and net drones. In short, the counter-UAS field is an arms race in itself, with measures and counter-measures proliferating rapidly worldwide.

Lessons from Ukraine and Forward-Looking Recommendations

  • No Target is Too Far or Too Secure: The Spiderweb operation dramatically demonstrated that distance is no refuge – Russian long-range bomber fleets, sitting over 400 miles from Ukraine, were devastated by relatively cheap drones launched close by. The U.S. must assume that determined adversaries could attempt similar long-range or insider-assisted strikes on high-value targets. Complacency is dangerous. Implementing redundant defenses, even at “safe” locations (such as U.S. bases in Europe or the Pacific, or key homeland sites), is necessary. This includes permanent C-UAS detection around critical bases and the ability to deploy interceptors in response to an alert rapidly.

  • Layered Air Defense is Essential: A key takeaway is the effectiveness of layered defenses that combine multiple technologies to enhance security. In Ukraine, Russian forces learned to use electronic warfare to down or turn off many Ukrainian drones, but some still get through to be shot down by point defenses (like Pantsir or Tor missiles), and even then, a few have hit targets. Conversely, Ukraine has been highly successful in intercepting Russia’s Iranian-made Shahed attack drones by employing a mix of fighter intercepts, medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and extensive short-range fire (from mobile anti-aircraft guns to rifle fire). Ukrainian officials estimated by mid-2023 that they were shooting down around 90% of incoming Shahed drones. That high success rate comes from throwing every available defense at the problem. U.S. bases and cities should likewise plan for integrated defense in depth, utilizing long-range sensors and interceptors for larger threats, combined with ubiquitous close-range defenses (guns, MANPADS, C-UAS teams) for more minor leaks. Each layer backs up the next.

  • Hardening and Dispersion: Active defenses must be paired with passive protective measures. One lesson of Spiderweb is that clumping valuable aircraft in the open invites disaster. The U.S. should increase hardening of shelters and hangars at key bases (especially in range of adversary missiles/drones) – e.g., build more concrete aircraft shelters on Guam, in Okinawa, in the Middle East, and even consider them at domestic bases that house critical assets like strategic bombers. Dispersal is another strategy: in a crisis, distribute aircraft across many locations (including civilian fields if needed) to complicate the enemy’s targeting. Agile combat employment (ACE) concepts in the Air Force already emphasize this for Pacific conflict; it should be expanded to home defense scenarios as well. Critical infrastructure facilities should also review physical hardening – e.g., enclosing key machinery and adding simple coverings over open tanks or equipment to mitigate the effects of grenade-sized blasts from drones.

  • Training and Rules of Engagement: The human element is vital. Ukraine’s troops have become adept at spotting and reacting to drones – often with simple means like small arms – because they face them daily. U.S. personnel and security teams need regular training drills for drone threats: everything from how to recognize the buzz of a quadcopter to practicing rapid response (like evacuating aircraft into hangars, using jamming guns, or even shotgunning a drone if it’s hovering overhead). Clear rules of engagement (ROE) for drones in U.S. airspace are needed so that defenders can act decisively. Currently, legal ambiguity can cause hesitation – this must be resolved via legislation and policy so that if a drone threatens a base or a crowd, responders know who can jam it or shoot it immediately. Exercises could incorporate drone scenarios – e.g., a “red team” flies a benign drone into a base to test how quickly it’s detected and what actions are taken.

  • Cost Management – Avoiding the Cost Exchange Trap: Offense-inclined drones are generally far cheaper than the interceptors used against them (a $10,000 DIY drone can force the launch of a $400,000 Patriot missile in worst cases). Russia and Ukraine have both attempted to saturate the other’s defenses with inexpensive drones, aiming to exhaust the enemy’s stock of expensive surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The U.S. should heed this by proliferating cost-efficient defenses. That means investing in bulk lower-cost interceptors (such as emerging intercept drones or airburst munitions), directed energy (where a “shot” costs only diesel fuel or electricity), and electronic warfare. Save the high-end missiles for high-end threats, and let cheaper systems handle the small drones whenever possible. In Ukraine, we’ve seen modern SAM systems wasted on $5k drones – a win for the attacker’s economics. Avoiding that asymmetry is crucial for U.S. defense sustainability.

  • Intelligence and Preemption: Finally, one lesson is to tackle the threat “left of launch” when possible. Ukraine’s success with Spiderweb came in part from Russia’s failure to anticipate it – Ukrainian operatives could transport and launch drones within Russia. For U.S. homeland security, intelligence and law enforcement must coordinate to detect plots involving drones (e.g., online purchase of swarms of drones by suspicious groups, or smuggling of drones/components). The U.S. should expand monitoring of drone-related imports and strengthen counter-intelligence at bases (to deter insiders from providing targeting or access). Likewise, diplomatic and military efforts to address drone threats at their source are key – e.g., working with allies to interdict shipments of Iranian drones to proxies, or sanctioning companies that help adversaries build large drone fleets.

Forward-looking, the U.S. and its allies should approach the drone threat with the same rigor as traditional air defense. This includes continuing to fund and deploy advanced C-UAS technology, but also simple fixes: radars on every base that can see small drones, portable jammers in every security squad car, rapid sharing of airspace violation data between civilian and military authorities, and public awareness campaigns (for example, encouraging citizens to report suspicious drone activity near critical sites). Just as the post-9/11 era brought “If you see something, say something,” the drone era may require a similar vigilance for objects in the sky.

The Navy model of layered defense and constant vigilance is instructive for land installations. Some experts even propose stationary CIWS-like systems at key bases – essentially a land Phalanx permanently guarding an airfield. While Phalanx guns are not a panacea (and can create a rain of shrapnel), new variants with guided projectiles or lasers could fill that niche. Ukraine and others illustrate the cost of failure: a handful of drones can wreak outsized havoc if defenses are absent or asleep. On the other hand, effective defenses can deter attacks altogether – if an enemy knows a base has airtight anti-drone coverage, they may not bother wasting munitions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolving threat of drones and other asymmetric weapons demands a transformation in how the U.S. protects its military bases and vital infrastructure. Geography alone is no guarantee of safety in the 21st century; America must pair its traditional strategic depth with technological depth in air defense. The current state of U.S. base defense reveals some serious shortcomings, especially in the gap between the robust point defenses at sea and the relative sparseness of equivalent protections on land. Peer adversaries are rapidly expanding their offensive drone capabilities, but also shoring up defenses – China’s heavy fortifications and Russia’s crash efforts after Ukrainian strikes show that the U.S. cannot afford to be complacent. Recent drone incursions into civilian airspace – be it over a busy airport or a packed stadium – highlight that this is as much a homeland security issue as a military one.

The lessons from Ukraine’s battlefields come at a high cost, but they offer a glimpse into the broader strategic landscape. They urge us to invest in resilience, to innovate in countermeasures, and to adapt our doctrines. Spiderweb was a wake-up call, as it showed a modern military with insufficient short-range air defenses suffering a public relations black eye. The U.S. should ensure that, if a similar challenge ever arises – whether from a nation-state or a lone actor – we have layers of defense ready to detect, deter, and defeat those threats. In practice, this means hardened bases, networked sensors, agile counter-drone units, and integrated civil-military response protocols. By implementing these measures, the U.S. and its allies can blunt the risks posed by drone proliferation and secure both their forces and their people against the spider’s web of emerging aerial threats.

Sources:

Reply

or to participate

Keep Reading

No posts found

© 2025 The Northern Signal.

Privacy policy

Terms of use

Powered by beehiiv