The term “left-of-launch” has been widely used by the military, public safety, and counter-UAS professionals worldwide over the last few years. What does the term mean, and what is its importance to an overall physical security plan in the homeland security environment?
A similar term, “left-of-boom,” has been used extensively by military and public safety professionals over the last two decades to describe the time before an improvised explosive device (IED) incident when measures could be implemented to prevent or minimize the impact of the event.
To facilitate these IED preventive measures, the FBI-led Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) was created to help the U.S. government and its international partners proactively prevent and mitigate IED attacks by providing scientific and technical information and intelligence to law enforcement, military, and intelligence partners to disrupt the networks that finance, supply, build, emplace, and employ the devices.
In addition to investigative and forensic measures to disrupt the IED networks, the left-of-boom also includes training, creating or modifying security policies and procedures, technology implementation, and physical design measures meant to prevent or minimize the impact of an IED attack.
What does left-of-launch mean?
The term counter-UAS left of launch is very similar in context to its IED cousin. It describes the time before a careless, clueless, or nefarious drone incident when measures could be implemented to prevent or minimize the event’s impact.
In an article published in War on the Rocks earlier this year, Paul Lushenko and Caitlin Lee suggest that the U.S. government has primarily adopted a narrow “right-of-launch” reactionary approach that involves intercepting and neutralizing drones once they are en route to their target using various methods. The authors further mention that a “bullet-on-bullet” approach is likely expensive and insufficient. The authors further promote the concept of a left-of-launch approach to “focus not only on drone attacks but also the networks behind them.”
Similarly, in a 2023 article, David Kovar suggests that “analyze” and “attribute” should be part of the CUAS Kill Chain. To prevent the next malicious UAV operation before it occurs, the mitigated UAV should be analyzed to understand the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of its operation. Attribute the operation to an individual, group, or potential threat actor if possible. Finally, intelligence sharing feeds the results into the kill chain.
What are the critical left-of-launch preventative measures?
Analysis, attribution, and attacking the network are all key components of left-of-launch activities, but what else does the concept include?
There are several left-of-launch activities that public safety and security teams can begin to work on and implement now to reduce the threat of careless and clueless or nefarious drone activity. Examples of these activities include:
UAS Risk and Threat Analysis
A UAS threat and risk assessment should be one of the first left-of-launch steps an organization should take. The results of these efforts will play a significant role in developing policies and procedures, training, identifying internal and external stakeholders, determining physical hardening measures, and, if warranted, selecting and deploying counter-UAS technologies.
UAS threat identification involves recognizing potential means and methods of attack. This includes assessing existing protective measures (if any), identifying vulnerabilities in the asset being examined against the considered UAS attack tactic, and developing attack scenarios.
A UAS risk assessment aims to identify relevant threats, construct attack scenarios, determine vulnerabilities, estimate the likelihood of terrorist or malicious acts, and evaluate their potential consequences.
Security by Design and Physical Hardening
Security by design is a proactive approach involving designing and building airspace awareness and protection features into critical infrastructure or other assets.
This can mean including network infrastructure and building specific field-of-view vantage points to install counter-UAS technology in a structure’s original design. It could also include features in the original design or post-construction modifications that prevent or minimize the impact of careless/clueless or nefarious drones, such as a roof over a stadium, nets over an area susceptible to contraband delivery, or installing specific infrastructure to protect critical components at an oil/gas or chemical facility from an airborne UAS threat. It can also mean disguising or hiding assets of value.
Training
Training is a vast category, and the needs of each role or function can vary. Training can include UAS threats, UAS response procedures, counter-UAS equipment-specific training, and legal and regulatory compliance, to name a few.
Policies and Procedures
Policies and procedures are essential to an organization’s operations. They provide a framework for consistent decision-making, ensure regulation compliance, and promote efficient and effective processes.
Policies are formal guidelines or rules that dictate how certain situations should be handled within an organization. An example of a policy could be how the agency or organization complies with applicable state/federal laws and regulations related to counter-UAS technologies.
Procedures are detailed, step-by-step instructions for implementing policies and performing specific tasks. They describe the processes required to achieve the policies’ objectives. An example procedure could be the steps for applying for the necessary regulatory authority for the agency’s radar or the procedures for collecting, preserving, and analyzing digital evidence collected from a drone.
Tabletop Exercises
Tabletop exercises are valuable tools for organizations to prepare for and manage drone-related incidents. Regular exercises build confidence among security team members, ensuring they are ready to act effectively in an actual crisis.
The benefits of a drone-related incident tabletop include:
- Enhanced preparedness— Exercises can help clarify roles and responsibilities during a drone-related incident and help internal and external security stakeholders understand the complexities and challenges they might face during an actual incident.
- Improved coordination and communication— Drone response exercises can facilitate coordination between internal and external security stakeholders, fostering a collaborative approach to a known or suspected drone incident.
- Identify gaps and weaknesses— Exercises can help identify gaps and deficiencies in current drone response plans, procedures, and protocols.
- Risk management—Drone response exercises can enable organizations to proactively approach risk management by anticipating and preparing for potential issues. The exercises can also help an organization understand resource needs and constraints, allowing better allocation during an event.
- Decision-making practice—Exercise participants have the opportunity to practice making critical decisions under pressure. The exercises also provide a platform for developing and testing team members’ leadership capabilities.
- Learning and training—Participants develop and hone their crisis management, problem-solving, and teamwork skills. Knowledge and best practices can also be shared among security stakeholders.
Collaboration with other Internal and External Security Stakeholders
Collaboration with internal and external security stakeholders is crucial for effective airspace awareness and protection efforts.
Sharing information and insights between internal teams and external partners, such as partner organizations, law enforcement agencies, and intelligence communities, enhances situational awareness and threat detection.
Collaborative efforts ensure that resources are effectively allocated and utilized, avoiding duplication of efforts and maximizing the use of available technology and expertise.
Combining the strengths and capabilities of various stakeholders leads to developing more robust and comprehensive counter-UAS strategies that address potential vulnerabilities and gaps.
Regular communication and coordination between stakeholders streamline decision-making processes and ensure a timely and coordinated response to potential threats.
Community Engagement and Social Media
Community engagement, similar to training, is a broad term. It can include developing relationships with local drone clubs, RC airplane organizations, and retail locations where drones are sold. It can also include developing relationships with businesses and landowners near the protected asset or venue and installing “No Drone Zone” signs.
Social media and outreach to other news and information outlets can pay significant dividends by reducing the incidents of the careless and clueless over a protected facility. In doing so, public safety and security personnel can focus their efforts on the non-compliant users of the airspace or drone pilots with nefarious intent.
Selection and Implementation of Technology
The discussion of counter-UAS technologies is last and not by accident. Implementing airspace awareness and protection technologies as part of an agency or organization’s security plan is essential to a defense-in-depth security posture. The previous left-of-launch measures have no legal constraints and can now be used by any organization or entity.
Each organization seeking to evaluate and purchase airspace awareness and technologies has unique user requirements, budgets, and, in some cases, legal and regulatory constraints that dictate the types of technologies able to be deployed.
A defense-in-depth counter-UAS strategy involves using legally authorized multiple detection and mitigation technologies to enhance the likelihood of detecting and countering various drone threats.
The four primary categories of technologies used to detect UAS are radars, EO/IR cameras, acoustic sensors, and various radio frequency detection technologies. Kinetic and non-kinetic are the two categories of technologies used to mitigate, disrupt, disable, or destroy drones.
The DHS Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Counter-UAS) Technology Guide provides additional information on counter-UAS technologies. For further legal and regulatory information in the United States, please visit Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
Summary
Although responding to a known or suspected drone threat is essential to airspace awareness and protection, right-of-launch activities should not be the only focus of a security team or public safety agency.
Left-of-launch activities and planning can occur regardless of legal or regulatory authorities and a budget to purchase counter-UAS technologies. In many cases, left-of-launch activities can significantly reduce or eliminate the threat or impact of a careless/clueless or nefarious drone operation.
The C-UAS Hub Resources section contains resources to help organizations conduct and organize left-of-launch activities. Counter-UAS product and service information can also be found on our industry resource website.
Post Image Credit- Adobe Stock by Sergey (Generated with AI)
