New DroneShield report unveils gaps in counter-drone security

New research released by DroneShield finds that unauthorised drone activity has moved well beyond a theoretical threat, according to international airports, aviation authorities, correctional facilities, and port operators across North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. DroneShield Airspace Under Pressure: A Global Assessment of Counter-UAS Readiness Across Airports and Critical Infrastructure, a new industry report drawing on direct survey responses from more than twenty airport and critical infrastructure operators worldwide. The report finds: Detection gaps are systemic and severe: 70% of respondents identified detection capability gaps as a barrier to effective counter-UAS operations. Regulatory, legal constraints also hamper counter-UAS: 6 in 10 (60%) of respondents also indicated that they lack the legal authority to take direct mitigation action against unauthorised drones, even when the threat to safety is clear and immediate. Other reasons cited as barriers to effective counter-UAS operations include integration complexity (at 48%) and training and preparedness (35%). Respondents were also asked to describe their organization’s counter-UAS operational objectives: Full combination (Awareness + Detection + Tracking + Response): 57% Detection-focused (Partial): 13% Awareness only: 13% Undefined / No formal plan: 17% The responses reveal a critical structural problem: the gap between what organizations intend and what they have built. In particular, the 17% of respondents with no formalised counter-UAS plan represent a specific and acute risk: organisations that will be managing a drone incident for the first time during the incident itself, with no established procedures, no clear escalation pathway, and no baseline situational awareness from which to act. “The primary Counter-UAS challenge in 2025 is not awareness of the threat; it is the capacity to convert awareness into authorized, coordinated, real-time action,” said Tom Adams, Director of Public Safety at DroneShield. “Technology investment alone will not close this gap. Regulatory reform and operational integration must advance simultaneously.” The report introduces a readiness maturity framework mapping respondents across two dimensions: objective maturity and operational capability. The majority of surveys operators cluster in quadrants: Prepared quadrant: 13 organisations had defined operational objectives and moderate counter-UAS capabilities. These are typically larger airports and critical infrastructure operators who have invested in the problem and have structured frameworks in place. But even within this group, capability gaps remain. The Prepared quadrant describes a relative position, not an adequate one. Partial quadrant: 5 organisations had operational objectives in place, but capability has not kept pace with the realities they face. These operators face a specific risk: they have plans that they cannot execute with their current tools and authority. Exposed quadrant: A meaningful minority (of 3 organisations) sit in the exposed quadrant: undefined objectives, minimal capability, and no formalised framework. These organisations are at the greatest risk of managing a serious drone incident reactively, without established procedures, and with outcomes that are difficult to predict or control. Overall, this report argues that the defining differentiator in the years ahead will be whether organisations address these gaps systematically, before an incident forces an unplanned response; or reactively, under pressure, with consequences that cannot be fully controlled. For Editorial Inquiries Contact: Editor Kym Bergmann at [email protected] For Advertising Inquiries Contact: Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at [email protected]