Vendor Profile: Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
Kongsberg assessment. Norwegian defence prime with NASAMS pedigree. Where the air defence giant fits in counter-UAS — and why its approach differs from the pure-plays.
Vendor Profile: Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace occupies an unusual position in the counter-UAS market. As a Norwegian-headquartered defence prime with deep expertise in air defence systems, the company brings established pedigree—particularly through its work on the NASAMS platform—to a threat category that most incumbents initially dismissed as niche. Yet Kongsberg's layered approach to C-UAS reveals both the strengths and structural constraints of bringing legacy air defence architecture down-spectrum to address unmanned aircraft threats.
Company Positioning
Kongsberg is primarily known as a global leader in naval systems, air defence systems, and precision munitions. The company is heavily integrated into NATO procurement, with significant exposure to Scandinavian and European defence budgets. Its NASAMS (Norwegian Air Defence System) platform, developed in partnership with Raytheon (now RTX), has become a NATO standard for medium-to-high altitude air defence and has seen significant modernization cycles over the past two decades.
The company's entry into counter-UAS does not stem from organic development of drone-focused solutions, but rather from the natural evolution of its air defence portfolio. When unmanned aircraft began to present a material threat to military installations, airports, and critical infrastructure, customers naturally asked: can NASAMS be adapted? Can existing radar architecture be repurposed? The answer was qualified yes—but the path forward reveals important trade-offs that distinguish Kongsberg from pure-play counter-UAS vendors.
Core Product Offerings
NASAMS for Counter-UAS
Kongsberg's most prominent C-UAS play involves adaptation of the NASAMS architecture to detect, classify, and engage smaller unmanned aircraft. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather a recalibration of existing systems—radar sensitivity improvements, software updates to recognize drone signatures, and integration work to connect established C-UAS architecture with existing ground-based engagement layers.
The appeal is significant for military customers with existing NASAMS deployments. Operational continuity, crew familiarity, and integration with established air defence networks make this approach attractive for armed forces already committed to the platform. A customer with NASAMS infrastructure can implement counter-UAS capability through software update and configuration, rather than procuring entirely new systems.
However, this approach carries inherent limitations. NASAMS was engineered for jets and cruise missiles, not objects weighing 5–50 kilograms traveling at 20–30 meters per second. Radar cross-sections are vastly different. False alarm rates can be high in environments with significant clutter—wind farms, birds, weather, or densely built terrain. The engagement pipeline—designed for high-altitude intercepts—must be restructured for short-range, low-altitude engagements where time-to-decision is measured in seconds, not minutes.
PROTECTOR RWS
Kongsberg's PROTECTOR Remote Weapon System is a fully stabilized, operator-controlled platform capable of mounting various payloads—kinetic (7.62mm, 12.7mm, or 40mm), non-kinetic (nets, signals intelligence), or sensor packages. PROTECTOR is well-established in military inventories worldwide and has proven reliable in contested environments.
For counter-UAS, PROTECTOR offers flexibility. The system can be mounted on fixed installations, vehicles, or vessels. Operator control ensures human-in-the-loop engagement decision-making. The platform's fire control system is accurate and reliable. In lower-complexity threat environments where target vetting is manual, PROTECTOR provides a proven engagement layer.
The limitation is equally clear: PROTECTOR is an engagement platform, not a detection platform. It requires external sensor input—radar, optical, RF, or human cuing—to operate effectively. Kongsberg does not manufacture primary C-UAS sensors and instead relies on integration partners or customer-provided detection infrastructure. This dependency on external detection creates a systems-level vulnerability: a PROTECTOR RWS without reliable upstream sensing is an offline asset.
GhostEye Radar Partnership
Kongsberg has partnered with RTX on the GhostEye multi-mission radar—a modular, mobile radar system designed for air defence, C-UAS, and other applications. This partnership is revealing. Rather than develop its own primary radar, Kongsberg partnered with the world's largest air defence contractor, gaining access to proven radar architecture while contributing systems integration, NASAMS interoperability, and European market access.
GhostEye itself is a solid platform: compact, mobile, capable of detecting small objects, and proven in operational deployments. However, it is RTX intellectual property. Kongsberg's role is integrator and distributor, not originating developer. This matters for customers evaluating vendor independence, sustainment timelines, and long-term roadmap alignment.
Limitations and Trade-offs
Weight and Mobility
NASAMS in its counter-UAS configuration remains a complex, multi-element system. Radar trucks, engagement platforms, power generation, command vehicles, and cabling infrastructure are substantial. The system is designed for semi-permanent or permanent installation at high-value military sites, not for rapid deployment or footmobile operations.
For critical infrastructure C-UAS—power plants, ports, border crossings—this weight can be acceptable. For airfields, airports, or mobile force protection, NASAMS becomes a capital-intensive solution that may be oversized relative to threat severity.
Cost Per Engagement
NASAMS engagements, even at small unmanned aircraft, consume missiles designed for jet-class threats. Cost per engagement can exceed $500,000 per round in some configurations. For military applications where UAS threats are episodic, this may be acceptable. For civilian or commercial applications where incursion frequency is higher, this cost structure becomes prohibitive.
Sensor Dependency
Kongsberg's C-UAS positioning relies heavily on external detection. The company does not offer organic RF sensors, optical detection systems, or acoustic arrays equivalent to competitors like DroneShield or Dedrone. Customers must source detection capability elsewhere, introducing procurement fragmentation and integration risk.
Kinetic-Heavy Posture
The PROTECTOR-based engagement approach is kinetic—live fire. In civilian airspace, particularly near airports or urban areas, this introduces collateral risk and regulatory friction. Non-kinetic defeat (net capture, electronic jamming, kinetic recovery) exists on Kongsberg's roadmap but has not yet achieved production status.
Market Fit
Kongsberg's counter-UAS approach is optimized for a specific buyer: armed forces with existing NASAMS infrastructure, need for high-confidence air defence integration, and high-value site protection requirements. For these customers, Kongsberg offers a path to extend existing capability rather than procure new platforms.
The company struggles in adjacent segments: airports (civil aviation airspace constraints, regulatory restrictions), critical infrastructure (cost structure, mobility requirements), and commercial markets (cost, complexity, no organic detection).
Organizational Constraints
As a defence prime with NATO exposure and Scandinavian market focus, Kongsberg operates on procurement timelines measured in years. Major contract modifications, software updates, and integration work follow formal defence acquisition processes. This is appropriate for military customers but creates friction in commercial markets where adaptation cycles are measured in months.
The company is also constrained by its dependence on RTX for key sensors (GhostEye) and engagement ordnance. This dependency is manageable—RTX is reliable and strategically aligned—but it limits Kongsberg's ability to implement rapid product evolution or take positions that conflict with RTX's market strategy.
Competitive Position
Kongsberg is not a pure-play counter-UAS company. It is an air defence prime extending its portfolio downward. This positioning has advantages (established relationships, operational experience, integration capability) and disadvantages (legacy architecture constraints, cost structure misalignment, commercial market unfamiliarity).
Against pure-plays like Anduril or Dedrone, Kongsberg appears expensive and inflexible. Against defence primes like RTX, Kongsberg appears as a systems integrator and regional distributor rather than an originating developer.
The company's competitive advantage lies narrowly: for NATO armed forces with NASAMS deployed and high-value site protection requirements, Kongsberg's approach offers a path to rapid capability insertion. Outside this band, customers face fewer compelling reasons to select Kongsberg over more specialized competitors.
Outlook
Kongsberg is not exiting the counter-UAS market. The company is investing in modernization, pursuing partnerships, and supporting customer integration. However, the company's structural positioning—as a legacy air defence prime rather than a purpose-built counter-UAS specialist—suggests that Kongsberg will remain a significant player in military/NATO segments while remaining marginal in commercial and civilian markets.
The company's GhostEye partnership with RTX, while strategically sensible, also signals that Kongsberg lacks confidence in its ability to develop world-class counter-UAS detection independently. This dependency, while manageable, is a limiting factor for long-term differentiation.
For procurement professionals evaluating Kongsberg, the key question is straightforward: Does your organization already operate NASAMS, and is integration with existing air defence infrastructure a driver? If yes, Kongsberg merits serious evaluation. If no, stronger candidates likely exist.