The Commercial C-UAS Market Is About to Explode

The counter-UAS market has historically been dominated by military customers. Defence primes, armed forces, and national security agencies drove product development, procurement, and strategy. Commercial applications were treated as secondary or aspirational.

This dynamic is reversing. Commercial counter-UAS—driven by legislation, funding, airport incidents, and threat evolution—is transitioning from niche to mainstream. The commercial market is significantly larger than the military market and is growing much faster. Within five years, commercial counter-UAS revenue may exceed military C-UAS revenue.

This shift has profound implications for vendors, procurement professionals, and organizations operating critical infrastructure or high-risk civilian facilities.

Four Market Drivers

Commercial counter-UAS growth is powered by four converging forces:

1. Legislation and SAFER SKIES

The Safeguarding the Airspace for Emergency Response (SAFER) SKIES Act, enacted in 2024 and progressively implemented through 2025, legally authorizes and partially funds airport and critical infrastructure operators to deploy counter-UAS capability. SAFER SKIES removes regulatory ambiguity and creates legal certainty for non-military C-UAS deployment.

The legislation is significant because it resolves a critical constraint: prior to SAFER SKIES, civil aviation operators were uncertain whether counter-UAS deployment was legally permitted. The act clarifies that airports, critical infrastructure operators, and other authorized entities may operate counter-UAS systems under specified conditions.

SAFER SKIES also allocates initial funding ($150–$250 million) for deployment at selected sites, creating procurement demand immediately.

2. Funding and FEMA $250M

The Federal Emergency Management Agency allocated $250 million in grants for counter-UAS and C-UAS-adjacent capability (drone detection, response training, equipment) at critical infrastructure and major event venues. These grants are distributed to states and are flowing to:

• Airports: Major commercial airports are deploying detection systems, training personnel, and establishing response procedures.
• Power Plants and Electrical Infrastructure: Utilities are deploying perimeter detection and response capability to counter drones targeting power generation and transmission.
• Dams and Water Infrastructure: Water authorities are deploying detection systems to counter potential threats to dam infrastructure.
• Major Event Venues: World Cup stadiums, Olympic venues, and other high-profile events are deploying temporary counter-UAS capability.

FEMA funding is driving immediate procurement activity across civilian infrastructure segments.

3. Incident Acceleration

The October 2025 spike in airport drone incursions—Munich, Brussels, Liège, Riga, Sofia, Alicante-Elche—generated urgent procurement pressure. Airport operators that experienced disruptions or near-misses are now prioritizing counter-UAS investment.

Additionally, criminal use of drones for reconnaissance, payload delivery, and other illicit purposes is increasing. Drug trafficking organizations, smuggling networks, and criminal enterprises are using drones routinely. This generates demand for counter-UAS capability from law enforcement, border authorities, and correctional institutions.

Public incidents and media coverage have elevated threat awareness among decision-makers. Procurement priorities are shifting upward in organizational hierarchies.

4. Threat Evolution and Sophisticated Platforms

Commercial drone technology is improving rapidly. Drones with extended range (100+ kilometers), autonomous flight, swarm capability, and sophisticated payloads are increasingly available. High-altitude platforms (20,000+ feet), long-endurance systems, and platforms designed for contested environments are no longer exclusively military.

This threat evolution is driving commercial demand for detection and mitigation capability that was previously considered unnecessary.

Market Structure: Commercial vs. Military

The commercial counter-UAS market differs fundamentally from the military market in several dimensions:

Sophistication Requirements: Lower

Military counter-UAS must defeat sophisticated, near-peer adversarial systems designed to evade detection, survive engagement, and accomplish difficult missions. Detection and mitigation requirements are demanding.

Commercial counter-UAS primarily addresses commercial drones, recreational operators, and criminals using off-the-shelf platforms. Threat sophistication is lower. A commercial RF detection sensor that reliably detects DJI Avata, FPV platforms, and fixed-wing drones in the 2–5 kilogram class is often sufficient.

This lower sophistication requirement enables lower cost, simpler integration, and faster time-to-deployment.

Price Sensitivity: Much Higher

Military customers have large budgets and accept high system costs if capability and integration are superior. Commercial customers have constrained budgets and are highly price-sensitive.

An airport operator deciding between a $500,000 detection system and a $2 million system will carefully weigh cost vs. capability. A military customer with a $100 million air defence programme accepts $500,000 sensors as a minor line item. Commercial customers do not.

This price sensitivity is driving competition and favoring vendors who can deliver capable, reliable detection at lower cost.

Detection vs. Mitigation: Detection Often Sufficient

Military customers often require mitigation capability: they must defeat threats through kinetic or non-kinetic engagement.

Commercial customers often require only detection. An airport operator who detects an unauthorized drone can alert law enforcement, adjust ATC routing, and establish cordon areas. The operator does not need to shoot the drone down.

Similarly, a power plant operator who detects a drone approaching the facility can alert security and emergency response. Detection + alerting may be sufficient for successful response.

This asymmetry is driving demand for detection-focused systems that are simpler, cheaper, and faster to deploy than integrated detection + engagement systems.

Buying Cycle: Much Shorter

Military programmes operate on multi-year acquisition cycles: requirements definition, competitive evaluation, testing, selection, integration, and deployment span 2–5 years or longer.

Commercial customers often operate on 6–12 month cycles. An airport experiencing incursion incidents may need to deploy detection within 3–6 months. A power company concerned about drone reconnaissance may require capability within months, not years.

Shorter buying cycles favor vendors with existing products and rapid deployment capability over defence primes requiring months of engineering and integration.

Subscription and Software Models: Preferred

Military customers often prefer capital-intensive, on-premise deployments with perpetual licenses.

Commercial customers increasingly prefer subscription models, cloud-based services, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) architectures. This preference reflects commercial business practices and reduces upfront capital requirements.

Vendors offering recurring-revenue subscription models are gaining favor in commercial segments.

Who's Positioned?

The commercial C-UAS market has distinct players from the military market:

Dedrone

Dedrone is the commercial C-UAS specialist, focusing on RF detection for civilian applications. The company has deployed systems to 30+ major airports across Europe and North America, with additional deployments at critical infrastructure sites and commercial facilities.

Dedrone's advantages are significant. The company's RF detection is specialized for commercial drones and has low false alarm rates. Dedrone's software is cloud-native, offering subscription-based licensing. Customer support is optimized for civilian infrastructure operators.

Dedrone's limitations: the company does not offer mitigation capability. Dedrone is pure-play detection. For customers who need detection + mitigation, Dedrone must partner with other vendors.

D-Fend

D-Fend is an RF jamming and electronic countermeasure specialist. The company offers remote-operated RF systems designed to disrupt drone control links and GPS, forcing drones to land or return to operator.

D-Fend's advantages: D-Fend's RF disruption is operationally compatible with civilian airspace (non-kinetic, low collateral risk). The company's technology is proven with law enforcement and correctional institutions. Cost is lower than kinetic alternatives.

D-Fend's limitations: RF jamming is not legal everywhere (certain jurisdictions restrict RF emissions), and effectiveness depends on drone design (autonomous platforms with pre-programmed routes are not disrupted by jamming).

DroneShield

DroneShield is an acoustic detection specialist with acoustic and RF sensor products. The company has deployed systems at airports, correctional facilities, and critical infrastructure sites globally.

DroneShield's advantages: acoustic detection is passive and non-jamming (unlike RF, acoustic detection does not disrupt drone operations). The company's software integrates multiple sensor types. Pricing is reasonable.

DroneShield's limitations: acoustic detection is less reliable than RF in noisy environments. The company does not offer mitigation capability. Integration with airport operations and law enforcement processes is not native to the platform.

Sentrycs

Sentrycs is positioned as an airport-focused vendor, specializing in RF detection and command-control integration optimized for civil aviation. The company has secured significant airport contracts (Ondas partnership, $8.2 million in recent awards).

Sentrycs' advantages: the company understands airport operations, air traffic control integration, and civil aviation regulatory constraints. Sentrycs' approach is detection + immediate operational response (ATC notification, runway adjustment).

Sentrycs' limitations: Sentrycs is young and unproven at scale. The company has fewer operational deployments than Dedrone. International presence is limited.

Fortem

Fortem is a non-kinetic counter-UAS specialist using RF and kinetic net-capture systems. The company has military deployments and is pursuing commercial opportunities.

Fortem's advantages: Fortem offers integrated detection + non-kinetic engagement (net-capture). Non-kinetic engagement is operationally compatible with civilian airspace. The company has real operational experience.

Fortem's limitations: non-kinetic engagement systems are more complex and expensive than detection-only systems. Fortem's cost structure may be misaligned with commercial market price sensitivity.

Defence Primes Watching Carefully

Large defence primes (RTX, Leonardo, Rheinmetall, Kongsberg) are aware of the commercial C-UAS opportunity but are not yet dominant players. The commercial market does not fit the high-cost, long-lifecycle defence prime model.

However, defence primes are positioning for future scale. RTX's pursuit of Coyote Block 3NK (net-capture, recoverable) and non-kinetic variants suggests recognition that kinetic-only systems have limited commercial applicability. Leonardo's integration partnerships with commercial vendors hint at commercialization strategies.

Within 5 years, expect defence primes to acquire leading commercial vendors, integrate commercial capabilities into existing product lines, or establish commercial subsidiary business units.

Buyer Guidance: Commercial C-UAS Procurement

Organizations procuring commercial counter-UAS should focus on the following:

1. Demand Product Demonstrations

Request demonstrations of detection capability, false alarm rates, and operator interfaces on your site or a reference site with similar characteristics. Do not rely on vendor claims. Test the system in your operational environment.

Specifically, test: - Detection range and sensitivity for commercial drones in your geographic area - False alarm rate during peak operational periods (with authorized aircraft, weather, etc.) - Integration with your existing security or operational systems - Operator training time and proficiency requirements

2. Calculate Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

As detailed in the previous analysis, acquisition cost is only a portion of total cost. Model all costs: - Acquisition and installation - Integration and training - Annual software licensing and updates - Recurring support and maintenance - Operator labor for monitoring and response

Compare vendors on TCO, not acquisition price alone.

3. Understand Detection vs. Mitigation

Be clear about your capability requirement. Do you need: - Detection only: RF or optical detection, reporting to human operators for decision-making? - Detection + Response Coordination: Detection + integration with law enforcement and response processes? - Detection + Mitigation: Detection + capability to engage and defeat threats?

Most commercial customers find detection sufficient. Verify this assumption for your operational context.

4. Ask About False Alarm Rates

False alarm rates are critical for commercial deployment. A system generating 5–10% false alarms will disrupt operations daily. Demand specific false alarm rates during your site's peak operations and operational periods.

A system with 1–2% false alarm rates during peak periods is acceptable. Higher rates will create operational friction and user resistance.

5. Evaluate Integration and Deployment Timeline

How long will it take to deploy the system? A system requiring 4–6 months of integration work is less valuable than a system deployable in 4–6 weeks.

Evaluate: - Site survey and preparation time - Hardware installation labor and timeline - Software integration and testing time - Personnel training timeline - Testing and validation before go-live

Request reference sites and confirm deployment timelines through direct conversation with customers.

6. Assess Vendor Financial and Strategic Stability

The commercial C-UAS market is crowded with startup and small vendors. Assess vendor financial stability, funding, and strategic direction.

• Is the vendor well-funded? What is the runway?
• Does the vendor have paying customers generating recurring revenue?
• Is the vendor focused on counter-UAS, or is C-UAS a side project?
• What is the vendor's commitment to long-term product support?

A vendor that exits the market or faces financial distress will leave you with a stranded asset. Prefer vendors with stable funding and clear commercial pathways.

7. Understand Regulatory Constraints in Your Jurisdiction

Regulations vary significantly by country and region. Some jurisdictions permit RF jamming; others do not. Some permit kinetic engagement under specific conditions; others prohibit it entirely.

Evaluate: - What counter-UAS techniques are legal in your jurisdiction? - What approvals or licenses are required to operate counter-UAS systems? - What are the constraints on private (non-law-enforcement) use of counter-UAS?

A system that is legal and effective in one jurisdiction may be illegal or constrained in another.

Market Forecast

The commercial counter-UAS market is at an inflection point. The combination of legislation, funding, incidents, and threat evolution has shifted commercial counter-UAS from niche to essential.

2025–2026 Forecast: - Dedrone, Sentrycs, and DroneShield will continue to gain market share among airports and critical infrastructure. - RTX and other defence primes will begin acquisition activity targeting commercial vendors. - Commercial C-UAS will become a standard operational element at major airports, power plants, and water utilities. - Subscription and SaaS models will become dominant in commercial segments. - Non-kinetic mitigation (RF disruption, net-capture) will see increased deployment as regulatory constraints limit kinetic options.

Market Size Projection: - 2024 Commercial C-UAS revenue: ~$200–$300 million globally - 2028 Projected Commercial C-UAS revenue: $1.5–$2.5 billion globally

Commercial C-UAS will likely exceed military C-UAS revenue within five years, driven by the large installed base of civilian critical infrastructure and the regulatory and funding tailwinds currently in place.

Organizations in aviation, critical infrastructure, or high-risk civilian segments should prioritize counter-UAS procurement now. First-mover advantage is significant, and suppliers with operational experience will command pricing and market position power as demand accelerates.

Related Reading

• The True Cost of Counter-UAS
• The Authority Gap
• Airport Drone Incidents
• Dedrone
• D-Fend Solutions