C2 Platform Wars: Comparing the Brains of Modern C-UAS

Why C2 Matters More Than Hardware

Procurement officers typically focus on sensor and effector specifications: radar range, jamming bandwidth, laser power. This focus is intuitive but strategically backwards. In modern C-UAS, the command-and-control platform is the constraining element—the system component that determines how effectively all other hardware operates and whether operators can keep pace with threat evolution.

The reason is straightforward: sensor and effector hardware is increasingly commoditized. Multiple vendors offer good radar. Multiple vendors field effective jamming. Laser suppliers compete on power and beam quality. But C2 is where architectural decisions lock in organizational capability for years. A poor C2 platform cannot be fixed by better sensors. A good C2 platform can integrate new sensors years after procurement.

Three specific problems illustrate why C2 is critical:

Sensor Fusion Under Uncertainty: Modern threats do not arrive as one-at-a-time targets. They arrive as mixed fleets: rotorcraft, fixed-wing, FPV, decoys. Radar sees one picture; RF detectors see another; SIGINT sees a third. The C2 platform must fuse these disparate streams into a coherent operational picture while managing false alarms and sensor dropout. Poor fusion creates either cascading false alarms (operator fatigue, desensitization) or missed targets. Good fusion is invisible—operators see what is actually there, not what sensors report.

False Alarm Management at Scale: C-UAS systems deployed in civilian airspace generate an baseline false alarm rate that defeats untrained operators. A 10% false alarm rate means 9 out of 10 engagements are wasted. False alarms waste ammunition, damage civilian trust, and create operator fatigue. The C2 platform's ability to suppress false alarms without discarding genuine threats is the difference between a system that can be deployed and one that generates political backlash.

Operator Workload and Engagement Timeline: Current C-UAS engagement timelines are operator-limited, not hardware-limited. A radar can track a target in 2 seconds. Laser fire control can lock in 1 second. But human operators need time to assess threat, classify target, identify geofence constraints, and execute engagement decision. C2 platform design—how information is visualized, how recommendations are presented, how automation is enabled—directly determines whether operators can keep pace with high-volume attacks or become bottlenecks.

These three challenges are not solved by faster computers or bigger missiles. They are solved by C2 architecture.

Platform Profiles

Anduril Lattice: AI-Native, Autonomous

Lattice is the newest entrant and represents a fundamental architectural shift: C2 designed from the ground up for AI-driven sensor fusion and autonomous recommendation. Anduril is a Silicon Valley defense tech company founded in 2017, backed by venture capital and technology industry veterans. Lattice reflects that pedigree: it is built on cloud-native infrastructure, continuous machine learning, and minimalist operator interfaces.

What You Get: Lattice ingests feeds from multiple sensor types (radar, RF, optical, SIGINT) and fuses them into a single threat representation. The platform uses machine learning models trained on adversary behavior to assign threat scores to detected objects. When threat levels exceed thresholds, Lattice presents actionable recommendations to operators ("engage at bearing 247, range 8.2 km, target class: DJI Mavic 2"). In some configurations, Lattice can execute engagements autonomously within pre-set parameters, reducing human response timelines from seconds to milliseconds.

Strengths: Lattice is optimized for high-volume, rapid-decision environments. The platform learns from each engagement and improves threat classification over time. Cloud-native architecture means updates deploy continuously without system downtime. The AI recommendation engine is genuinely good at suppressing false alarms while maintaining target detection. Military customers report operator workload reduction of 30–50% compared to traditional C2.

Weaknesses: Lattice is young. Production deployments are limited. Integration with legacy sensors requires adapter modules that Anduril does not always pre-build. The autonomous engagement feature is powerful but politically sensitive—military customers require explicit approval chains for autonomous firing authority, and Lattice's cloud-connected architecture introduces concerns about command authority and network resilience. Additionally, cloud dependency means loss of satellite uplink or network outage degrades the system's ability to maintain autonomous operation.

Deployment Reality: Primarily US military, advanced trials with NATO allies. Limited international availability due to US export control restrictions on autonomous weapons technology.

DroneShield DroneSentry-C2: Integrated with Own Sensors

DroneShield is an Australian company founded in 2014, focused explicitly on C-UAS. DroneSentry-C2 is their command platform, built to integrate seamlessly with their own DroneSentry RF sensor suite but also capable of ingesting radar, SIGINT, and optical feeds from third parties.

What You Get: DroneSentry-C2 is a mature, operator-centric platform. The interface is designed around threat assessment workflow: detect, classify, decide, engage. The platform prioritizes false alarm suppression by combining multiple sensor modalities into a confidence-weighted threat score. Integration with DroneShield's own sensors is native and tight—no protocol translation, direct data feeds at sensor latency.

Strengths: DroneSentry-C2 is battle-tested. Deployments across four continents, military and paramilitary customers. The system handles mixed-threat scenarios well (tactical UAS mixed with commercial aircraft) because the classification engine was built around that challenge. Pricing is moderate. The company provides direct customer support and is responsive to feature requests. Third-party sensor integration works well for major platforms (radar, EW systems).

Weaknesses: DroneSentry-C2 is tightly coupled to DroneShield sensors. Customers who want to integrate primarily with other vendors' sensors find themselves fighting architecture decisions. The platform is good at integrating three-to-five sensor types concurrently but struggles with massive sensor networks (20+ feeds). Updates are periodic, not continuous—customers should expect major releases quarterly, not weekly.

Deployment Reality: Primarily Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Europe. Strong in critical infrastructure (airport, power plant, border security) deployments. US military adoption is present but not dominant.

Dedrone DedroneTracker: Cloud-Native, Sensor-Agnostic

Dedrone is a German company founded in 2014, focused on urban airspace security. DedroneTracker is their C2 platform, built from the start as cloud-native and agnostic to sensor type. The platform can ingest feeds from radio towers, stationary sensors, mobile units, and crowdsourced detection.

What You Get: DedroneTracker runs in cloud or on-premises and is designed to ingest sensor data from multiple vendors with minimal integration effort. The platform's primary strength is situational awareness visualization and historical analysis. Operators see a map-based display of detected threats with rich metadata (signal strength, bearing, altitude, classification confidence). The system supports distributed operations: multiple sites feeding data into a regional operations center.

Strengths: DedroneTracker is genuinely sensor-agnostic. If a vendor can output JSON or syslog, the platform can likely ingest it. Cloud infrastructure means unlimited scalability—the platform can handle 100 sensors as easily as 10. The visualization is strong, particularly for operators who are familiar with traditional air traffic control displays. Pricing is subscription-based, predictable, and often lower than licensed alternatives.

Weaknesses: Sensor-agnosticism means optimizing for none. The platform does not make assumptions about sensor types or reliability, so it cannot apply domain-specific fusion algorithms. False alarm management is more generic—operators spend more time filtering noise. Autonomous engagement is not a feature; the platform is strictly human-in-the-loop. Cloud dependency means network availability is critical, which can be problematic in contested or remote environments.

Deployment Reality: Strong in Europe and civilian airspace management. Growing presence in Asia-Pacific. Rarely deployed by traditional military C-UAS programs; more common in civil aviation and critical infrastructure protection.

FAAD C2 / IBCS: Military Institutional Standard

The US military's Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) includes a C-UAS module called FAAD C2, built by Northrop Grumman. This is not a commercial product; it is an institutional platform designed to integrate all air defense systems within a military formation.

What You Get: FAAD C2 / IBCS is a massive, federated system designed to link air defense sensors and effectors across a division or larger formation. The platform ingests data from Patriot radar, Avenger air defense vehicles, joint sensors, and increasingly C-UAS radars. IBCS fuses all of this into a picture available to every air defense operator and commander. The system includes command and control workflows, engagement authorization, rules of engagement enforcement, and data logging for battle damage assessment.

Strengths: IBCS is designed to handle the complexity of real military air defense—managing civilian air traffic, friendly air operations, decoys, and coordinating engagement across multiple systems. The system is mature, operational, and continuously updated. Integration with existing military sensors and command structures is native. IBCS enforces institutional command and control, which is critical for military operations where rules of engagement and command authority must be explicit.

Weaknesses: IBCS is extraordinarily complex. Operators require extensive training. Customization for a new customer can take years. The system is not designed for rapid innovation—software updates go through military validation cycles. Integration of commercial C-UAS vendors into IBCS is possible but non-trivial. The platform is massive, both in compute footprint and in organizational change required—deploying IBCS means transforming how an entire air defense formation operates.

Deployment Reality: US military primary. NATO integration ongoing. International availability limited due to export control; allies typically deploy customized versions.

Open Architecture vs. Proprietary Lock-In

A critical procurement decision is whether to adopt a platform built on open APIs (allowing third-party sensor and effector integration) or a proprietary stack (single vendor controls integration).

Open Architecture Advantages: - Vendors compete on components, not lock-in, which drives innovation - Customers can upgrade one subsystem without replacing the entire stack - Long-term flexibility to integrate emerging technologies

Proprietary Stack Advantages: - Tighter integration means lower latency and fewer hand-off errors - Simpler procurement: one vendor responsible for performance - Vendor has incentive to optimize the full stack

The tradeoff is real. Anduril Lattice's architectural integration is possible because Anduril controls the sensor-to-weapon pipeline. DroneShield's tight integration with its own sensors works because they own both. Open systems like DedroneTracker sacrifice integration efficiency for flexibility.

Procurement should choose based on strategy: if the organization plans to standardize on a single vendor's sensors and effectors long-term, proprietary lock-in is acceptable and even beneficial. If the organization wants multi-vendor flexibility, open APIs are essential.

What Makes a Good C2 Platform

Evaluating C-UAS C2 platforms should focus on five specific capabilities:

Sensor Fusion Quality: Run the platform against data recorded from mixed-threat scenarios. Provide radar + RF + SIGINT + optical feeds simultaneously. Measure how accurately the platform identifies distinct threats, combines detections into single tracks, and suppresses duplicate reports. This is the hardest problem and the place where platforms diverge most.

False Alarm Management: Provide the platform with recorded background signals (civilian air traffic, WiFi networks, radar clutter, vehicle borne sensors). Measure what percentage of false alarms the platform suppresses without reducing genuine threat detection. Target is <5% false alarm rate in realistic urban/coastal environments.

Scalability Under Load: Measure operator workload at engagement rates of 5, 10, 20, 50 threats simultaneously. Plot operator response time (detection-to-engagement decision) as threat rate increases. Good platforms keep response time flat up to a threshold, then degrade gracefully. Poor platforms show exponential latency growth above 5–10 simultaneous threats.

Update Speed: How long does it take to deploy a software update? Minutes (cloud-native), hours (patching), or months (validation)? In a dynamic threat environment, update speed directly translates to competitive advantage.

Open APIs and Integration: Can the platform ingest new sensor types? How much engineering does integration require? Is the integration documented or proprietary? Can third-party developers build modules on top of the platform? These determine long-term extensibility.

Conclusion: Choose C2 First, Then Sensors and Effectors

Most procurement flows backwards: select a radar, add jamming, add a laser, then figure out what C2 to use. This is tactically backwards. The optimal flow is:

1. Define the threat scenario and engagement timeline
2. Select a C2 platform that can manage those scenarios with acceptable operator workload
3. Integrate sensors and effectors that feed that C2 platform efficiently
4. Validate the integrated system against realistic threat scenarios

C2 is the limiting factor. A good platform elevates mediocre sensors to acceptable performance. A poor platform will waste even excellent hardware.

Choose C2 first. Everything else follows.

Related Reading

• How Detection Actually Works
• Anduril
• DroneShield
• D-Fend Solutions
• Dedrone