Most of the EU as well as the US have preferences for COTS components and open source software. There is a fairly deep recognition within the industry that no one company can make every component and that proprietary software can hide tracking executables, and every drone sold to the .gov is tested for such. Things are so buttoned down that if you tell a customer the brand of a component they know where it was manufactured and they 100% have an unauthorized component list.I would actually argue that the learnings should be the other way round. All this stuff is being built with 'Aliexpress' tier shit. Look at the 'rockstar' of the war from the Russian's point of view (Lancet). All guided via consumer electronics.....
So I would think the learning would have to be that 'every man and his dog can now build guided killer drones....'. it's no longer exclusively the domain of the MIC. Hell, the MIC will probably suck at it because it breaks there 'here's 1k's worth of electronics with a bit of software and a warhead. That will be 5 million dollars please' business model.
What I just wrote argues your point somewhat. However, do not doubt that the is some seriously high speed shit out there that won’t be coming from a garage. The thing that makes the garage drones do damn dangerous is the agility of the builder - any component will do, the only thing that matters is that it gets the job done. There is no paperwork or multiple agencies to go through for approval, it simply gets made. They really are the flying version of the IED build mentality, and it is effective due to the fact that CUAS systems are not everywhere, yet.
Last edited: