EU Counter-Drone Action Plan: What's Actually in It

The European Commission published its drone and counter-drone action plan. What it contains, what it lacks, and what it means for European C-UAS procurement.

CUAS Editor

— 8 min read

What Happened: EU Counter-Drone Action Plan Publication

On February 11, 2026, the European Commission published its "Counter-Drone and Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Action Plan"—the first coordinated EU-level policy framework addressing counter-UAS. The document followed nine months of interagency consultation, industry working groups, and member-state coordination.

Document scope: 47-page policy framework, published under the aegis of the EU Internal Security Directorate, endorsed by Directorate-General for Defence, Industry and Space (DEFIS).

Stated objectives: 1. Establish harmonized legal framework for counter-drone operations across EU member states 2. Create certification and standards pathway for C-UAS systems 3. Coordinate procurement across national governments 4. Support European defense industrial base development

The action plan is aspirational policy, not binding legislation. It proposes pathways and coordination mechanisms but lacks enforcement authority or binding timelines.

What's Actually in the Action Plan

EU Counter-Drone Centre of Excellence

Establishment: The plan calls for creation of an EU Counter-Drone Centre of Excellence—a coordination hub for:

  • Technical standards development (testing protocols, interoperability specifications)
  • Threat intelligence sharing (incident reporting, emerging drone threat patterns)
  • Operational doctrine (best practices for counter-drone deployment)
  • Industry engagement (liaison with vendors, testing partnerships)

Structure: Anticipated to be hosted by a member-state government (Germany, Netherlands, or France are candidates) with EC financial support.

Authority: The Centre lacks regulatory authority; it functions as a coordination node and standards advisory body. Actual implementation depends on member-state adoption of recommendations.

Timeline: Plan calls for Centre operational status by Q4 2026 (feasibility questionable given staffing, facility, and governance requirements).

C-UAS Certification Scheme

Proposal: A standardized C-UAS system certification pathway modeled on existing EU equipment certification (radio equipment directive, aviation safety standards).

Scope: Certification would cover:

  1. Detection performance (probability of detection against target drone populations, false alarm rates)
  2. Mitigation effectiveness (engagement success rates, collateral risk)
  3. Interoperability (C2 system compatibility, sensor fusion protocols)
  4. Safety (personnel safety, environmental impact)
  5. Regulatory compliance (ICNIRP RF exposure, aviation regulations, civilian harm minimization)

Standards reference: Plan proposes using:

  • ETSI standards (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for RF-domain specifications
  • CEN/CENELEC (European Committee for Standardization) for mechanical/operational standards
  • EASA standards (European Aviation Safety Agency) for airspace integration
  • NATO STANAG (for military interoperability)

Certification body: Plan suggests establishing a notified body (independent third-party certifier) delegated under the certification scheme. Vendors would submit systems for testing and assessment; passing systems would receive EU C-UAS certification mark.

Implications for vendors:

  • Standardized testing protocols reduce vendor variation in marketing claims
  • Certification provides legitimacy for European procurement
  • Non-compliance cost (testing, redesign) is significant
  • Timeline: Expect 12–18 months from scheme finalization to first certifications

Status: Currently in development; no certification requirements yet binding. Expect draft standards by Q3 2026.

Drone and Counter-Drone Industry Forum

Establishment: Plan calls for formal Drone and Counter-Drone Industry Forum—a standing venue for:

  • Vendor-government liaison (quarterly meetings)
  • Supply chain coordination (component sourcing, manufacturing resilience)
  • Research collaboration (technology roadmap alignment)
  • Procurement planning (matching vendor capability to government requirements)

Structure: Organized by DG DEFIS, with participation from major European vendors (Rheinmetall, Hensoldt, Cassidian, smaller firms) and government procurement representatives.

Purpose: Formalize dialog previously conducted ad-hoc through defense industrial associations. Creates predictable channel for vendors to influence regulatory and procurement direction.

Timeline: Forum meetings scheduled to begin Q2 2026; quarterly cadence anticipated.

Current state: Counter-drone operations are regulated separately in each EU member state. Germany permits kinetic engagement in restricted airspace; France restricts to RF jamming; Belgium prohibits C-UAS entirely in populated areas.

Plan's approach: Recommends harmonized legal framework for:

  1. Deployment authorization (circumstances permitting C-UAS operation)
  2. Operational zones (geographic and airspace boundaries for counter-drone)
  3. Engagement rules (kinetic vs. non-kinetic, target classification requirements)
  4. Liability and insurance (who bears liability for collateral damage)
  5. Training and certification (operator qualification standards)

Proposed framework:

  • Distinguish military operations (full C-UAS authority; minimal civilian airspace restrictions)
  • Critical infrastructure defense (airports, power plants, sensitive government facilities; restricted kinetic engagement)
  • Law enforcement (police counter-drone; non-kinetic preferred, kinetic permitted in emergency)
  • Civil/private use (prohibited except with explicit national authorization)

Status: Recommendations only; legally non-binding. Implementation depends on individual member-state legislation.

Timeline: Plan requests member-state implementation of harmonized framework by end of 2027 (unlikely; legislative timelines typically extend 18–36 months).

Coordinated Procurement Framework

Objective: Establish coordinated purchasing across EU member states to achieve scale economies and avoid vendor fragmentation.

Mechanism: Plan proposes:

  1. Common procurement specification (technical requirements agreed across major buyers: Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland)
  2. Joint tender process (participating nations issue unified RFQ; vendors respond to single specification)
  3. Pre-qualified vendor list (vendors passing C-UAS certification scheme added to approved list)
  4. Open architecture mandate (preference for systems permitting multi-vendor integration)

Participating nations: Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland identified as initial participants. EU also seeks NATO participation (creating potential U.S.–EU procurement alignment).

Timeline: Plan targets procurement specification finalization by Q4 2026; first joint tender Q2 2027 (feasibility uncertain; procurement processes typically require 12–24 months for specification agreement among multiple member states).

Financial commitment: Plan calls for EU budget allocation to support coordinated procurement, but does not specify amounts (currently under budget negotiation; estimates €500M–1B+ for initial 5-year deployment cycle).

What the Plan Lacks

The action plan is policy guidance, not legislation. It does not:

  • Mandate member-state compliance
  • Create enforceable requirements
  • Establish EU-level authority over national counter-drone operations
  • Provide legal recourse for non-compliance

Implementation depends entirely on member-state political will. A member state may ignore the plan with no EU consequences.

No Regulatory Framework

The plan does not propose or establish new EU-level regulations. Instead, it recommends that:

  • ETSI develop standards (ETSI is independent; may not prioritize C-UAS)
  • EASA coordinate with aviation stakeholders (EASA's mandate is civilian aviation safety, not counter-drone)
  • Member states implement domestic legislation (each nation has different constitutional and legal frameworks)

Implication: Regulatory landscape remains fragmented. Vendors must still navigate 27 different national approval processes.

Vague Timeline and Unspecified Budget

The plan contains aspirational timelines (Centre of Excellence by Q4 2026, framework by end 2027) but lacks:

  • Specific staffing allocation
  • Budget commitment
  • Contingency pathways if initial timelines slip
  • Enforcement mechanism for non-compliant member states

Budget for implementation is unspecified. Plan calls for "proportionate EC financial support" without quantifying commitment. Estimates range from €50M to €500M+ depending on scope, but no official allocation exists.

Practical implication: Implementation will proceed slowly. First concrete deliverables (Centre of Excellence operational, draft standards) likely 18–24 months; full framework implementation 36+ months.

Vague Interoperability Specifications

The plan emphasizes open architecture and interoperability but does not define technical standards:

  • C2 system connectivity (protocols, APIs, data formats)
  • Sensor fusion requirements (how RF, EO/IR, radar data integrate)
  • Engagement orchestration (how distributed systems coordinate targeting)
  • Software interfaces (how third-party tools integrate)

Implication: "Interoperability" is aspirational; actual technical standards remain to be developed. Vendors are not required to achieve interoperability with competitors' systems.

What the Plan Means for Vendors

Certification Requirement as Competitive Hurdle

European vendors (Rheinmetall, Hensoldt, Cassidian, Thales) view certification favorably because:

  1. Legitimacy (certification provides marketing credibility)
  2. Barrier to entry (smaller or non-European competitors face higher certification cost)
  3. Procurement preference (government buyers prefer certified systems)

However, certification also creates:

  1. Development cost (testing infrastructure, redesign for compliance)
  2. Time friction (12–18 months to achieve certification)
  3. Regulatory exposure (certification can be revoked; vendors liable for non-compliance)

Vendor strategy: Expect major European vendors to pursue early certification (Q3–Q4 2026), positioning themselves as standards-compliant while competitors navigate bureaucracy.

U.S. vendors (Fortem Technologies, Dedrone) will face higher compliance friction. They can pursue EU certification but lack established relationships with European notified bodies. Expect 18–24 month certification timelines for U.S. vendors compared to 12–15 months for established European firms.

Procurement Coordination as Market Consolidation

The coordinated procurement framework favors large, integrated vendors:

  • Rheinmetall can offer Skyranger 30 kinetic system + Oerlikon Skyshield C2 as single package
  • Hensoldt can bundle Xedar radar + Skyranger integration + software suite
  • Dedrone and Fortem must partner with European vendors to remain competitive in coordinated procurement

Implication: Coordinated procurement may accelerate industry consolidation. Smaller vendors face pressure to merge with larger systems integrators or accept niche market position.

Standards Development as Influence Opportunity

Vendors are actively engaging with ETSI and CEN/CENELEC standards working groups to influence specifications. Key battlegrounds:

  1. Autonomous drone detection (define technical requirements that favor vendor strength)
  2. False alarm rates (high thresholds favor RF-only vendors; low thresholds favor multi-sensor systems)
  3. Open architecture (vendors prefer open specs allowing proprietary integration; competitors prefer proprietary locks)
  4. Cost-per-engagement metrics (kinetic vendors prefer loose TCO requirements; RF vendors prefer strict cost caps)

Expectation: Standards development will be contested; final specifications will reflect political compromise rather than technical optimality.

What the Plan Means for Buyers

Procurement Coordination Benefits and Delays

For participating member states (Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland), coordinated procurement offers:

Benefits:- Volume discounts (bulk purchasing reduces per-unit cost) - Standardized requirements (simplified specification, faster procurement) - Pre-qualified vendors (reduced evaluation burden) - Interoperability (systems from different vendors work together)

Delays:- Specification agreement across multiple nations (18–24 months typical) - Certification scheme finalization (12–18 months) - First joint tender (2–3 years from plan publication)

Implication: Member states cannot initiate large-scale C-UAS procurement until coordinated framework is finalized (late 2027 at earliest). Nations pursuing independent procurement now will have deployed systems before coordinated framework exists.

Certification as Quality Assurance

For procurement authorities, certification provides:

  • Standardized testing (objective performance data vs. vendor marketing claims)
  • Comparative evaluation (side-by-side performance comparisons)
  • Liability limitation (certified systems have reduced legal exposure if performance fails)
  • Supply chain transparency (certified systems subject to auditable manufacturing and component sourcing)

Implication: Procurement decisions will increasingly depend on certification status. Non-certified systems face discriminatory procurement barriers (legal, but effective).

Non-EU Member Vulnerabilities

The action plan does not address non-EU participation. Non-member nations (UK, Switzerland, Norway, Turkey) are excluded from coordination mechanisms:

  • No participation in coordinated procurement
  • Different certification requirements (if adopted at all)
  • Limited access to Centre of Excellence data and standards
  • Separate bilateral negotiations with EU vendors

Implication: European NATO allies outside EU (UK, Poland to some extent as EU member but historically aligned with U.S.) face fragmented procurement landscape. Procurement authority must negotiate separately with each EU body.

Implementation Roadmap and Timeline

Phase 1: Framework Development (2026)

  • Q2 2026: Industry Forum first meeting; vendor feedback on proposed standards
  • Q3 2026: Draft ETSI/CEN standards published; public comment period
  • Q4 2026: Centre of Excellence operational (staffed, facilities established)
  • Late 2026: Procurement specification draft circulated to participating member states

Feasibility: Moderately achievable; depends on parallel administrative and legislative progress.

Phase 2: Certification Scheme Launch (Late 2026–2027)

  • Q1 2027: Notified body(ies) designated; testing criteria finalized
  • Q2 2027: First vendor certifications begin (leading European vendors)
  • Q4 2027: Harmonized legal framework recommendations adopted by member states

Feasibility: Likely to slip by 6–12 months; certification scheme development historically requires longer than planned.

Phase 3: Procurement and Deployment (2027–2028)

  • Q1 2027: Joint procurement specification finalized (or close to finalized)
  • Q2 2027: First coordinated RFQ issued to pre-qualified vendors
  • 2027–2028: Contract awards and initial deployment across participating member states

Feasibility: Very dependent on Phase 1 and Phase 2 progress; significant risk of 12–18 month delay.

Key Assessment for Stakeholders

European Governments

Benefits:- Coordinated procurement reduces cost and deployment timeline - Common standards reduce interoperability friction - Centre of Excellence provides threat intelligence and technical guidance

Risks:- Timeline may slip significantly (implementation history of EU procurement processes suggests 18–36 month delays) - Budget commitment undefined (procurement may be underfunded) - Member-state participation voluntary (fragmentation may persist despite coordination effort)

Vendors

European vendors:- Advantage: early certification access, industry forum participation, relationship leverage with governments - Risk: certification cost and timeline burden; standards may disadvantage specific technologies

U.S. vendors:- Advantage: technically advanced products; European customers seek diversification from sole-source dependence - Risk: certification pathway unclear; potential favoritism toward European vendors in coordinated procurement

Chinese vendors (DJI):- Exclusion: plan does not propose acquisition of Chinese C-UAS technology; de facto barrier to EU market participation

Buyers (Government Procurement Authorities)

Short-term (2026):- Pursue independent procurement; do not wait for coordinated framework - Establish bilateral relationships with vendors; participate in Centre of Excellence information sharing - Develop domestic legal frameworks; do not assume EU framework will emerge in timely manner

Medium-term (2027–2028):- Engage with coordinated procurement specification development; influence requirements - Establish testing partnerships with emerging notified bodies - Plan for certification delays; budget additional 12–18 months beyond plan timelines

Long-term (2028+):- Participate in coordinated procurement if timing aligns - Adopt harmonized procurement standards for consistency across member states - Maintain vendor diversity; avoid monopolistic procurement patterns

Key Takeaway

The EU Counter-Drone Action Plan represents a policy signal of intent, not a binding commitment. It establishes aspirational timelines and coordination mechanisms that are likely to experience delays.

For procurement authorities, the plan's significance lies in its direction (harmonization, certification, coordinated procurement) rather than immediate deliverables. Buyers should assume:

  • Implementation timeline 18–36 months beyond published dates
  • Budget and staffing likely to be underfunded relative to scope
  • Member-state participation uneven (some nations will pursue independent procurement in parallel)
  • Certification scheme eventually will be adopted; early compliance provides competitive advantage

For vendors, the plan creates both opportunity (early certification positioning) and risk (standards development that may disadvantage proprietary technologies).

The plan does not represent a transformative shift in European C-UAS capability. It formalizes coordination efforts already underway through NATO and bilateral partnerships. Its principal value is signaling regulatory direction and creating procurement predictability for vendors and buyers willing to align with emerging EU standards.

Read more