Two different approaches to drone defense
Whenever the conversation turns to protection against drones, the counter-UAS market loves to frame it as a contest between electronic warfare (jamming) and kinetic interception. In practice it is not an either/or choice but two layers of defense that cover different threats. To choose correctly you need to understand the physics of each approach and — above all — where it stops working.
Jamming acts on a drone through the air: it suppresses the control link and satellite navigation signals. Kinetic interception acts in the physical world: an interceptor aircraft finds the target and removes it mechanically. The first method is cheaper per "shot" but has fundamental blind spots. The second guarantees the kill but requires an interceptor drone and a crew. Below we break down where each one is strong, where it is useless, and why serious sites increasingly layer a kinetic anti-drone system on top of existing jamming.
What jamming (EW) is and where it hits a wall
Electronic warfare against drones works in two modes: suppressing the control link (the operator loses contact with the drone) and suppressing the satellite-navigation receiver (the drone loses its fix and goes "blind" on coordinates). Against mass-market commercial drones and simple FPVs this is effective — the target switches to return mode, falls, or loses control. But counter-UAS jamming has hard physical limits.
The first and most important limitation is the fiber-optic FPV. Such a drone is controlled over a physical cable that unspools behind it in flight. It simply has no radio link to jam and does not rely on GPS/GLONASS. Any EW station is ineffective against fiber-optic control by definition — there is nothing to jam.
The second is onboard autonomy. A drone with a pre-loaded route and inertial navigation (or with onboard computer vision) needs no continuous link to the operator. Jam the channel and you will not stop a craft that already knows where to fly and sees the target with its own camera.
- Fiber-optic FPV — no radio link, no reaction to jamming.
- Onboard autonomy — route and guidance pre-recorded, no link required.
- Alternative channels — non-standard frequencies, frequency hopping, LTE/satellite links bypass narrow-band jammers.
- Targets without satellite navigation — guidance by visual landmarks or terrain maps does not depend on GPS.
In other words, jamming excels at cutting out the "crowd," but against modern autonomous and fiber-optic threats it leaves a gap. That gap is exactly where kinetic interception steps in. (More on the role of EW in the overall scheme is on the jamming section of the landing page.)
What kinetic interception is
Kinetic drone interception is the "drone-versus-drone" scheme: an interceptor aircraft lifts off, finds the target and physically removes it. In the VOLKODAV system the interceptor rams the target without explosives — the kill comes from the kinetic energy of the collision, not from a warhead. This matters: no explosives, no uncontrolled fragments, no risk of secondary damage from a detonation above the protected site.
The key element is the AI drone interceptor. It is a quadcopter on 10-inch props with a takeoff weight of up to 3 kg. Cruise speed 90 km/h, top speed 150 km/h, range from the launch point up to 5 km, up to 15 minutes airborne, operating altitudes up to 1,500 m. The aircraft is rated for −30…+45 °C and winds up to 10 m/s.
The decision to engage is not taken by a machine alone. VOLKODAV keeps a human in the decision loop at three independent points:
- Detection confirmation. The AI server at the control post classifies video from every observation post — multirotor, fixed-wing UAV, bird, or manned aircraft. The operator confirms it is a legitimate target.
- Interceptor launch. The pilot flies the interceptor drone over the radio link toward the target area.
- Lock-on confirmation. The operator visually confirms the lock, after which control is handed to the autonomous onboard AI.
Only the final phase — the actual closing and ram — is performed by the autonomous onboard AI module. This pairs human control at the critical points with machine reaction speed in the last few seconds, when the radio link may be suppressed by the adversary.
Why VOLKODAV is resistant to jamming
The main vulnerability of many interceptors is dependence on GPS/GLONASS and a continuous radio link. If the adversary uses jamming, such an interceptor loses its own navigation and link. VOLKODAV is engineered differently: in the engagement phase it does not depend on satellite navigation. Jamming GPS/GLONASS has no effect on the terminal guidance, because lock-on and closing are performed using the onboard camera video feed by the autonomous AI module.
The interceptor is not "flying to coordinates" at the moment of the kill — it sees the target with its own camera and homes on the image. That is why enemy jamming, designed to break a drone away from the satellite, is ineffective against VOLKODAV.
This same edge-AI logic — decisions made onboard, without the cloud and without a stable link — underpins the entire technology. For how AI classification works on an edge device, read Edge-AI on Raspberry Pi for drones, and for the single core that serves both civilian and security tasks, see One AI module — two tasks. The complex's technical parameters are collected in the Specs section of the landing page.
Comparison: jamming vs kinetic interception
The summary table makes it clear where each method is effective and why it makes sense to combine them rather than pick one.
| Parameter | Jamming (EW) | Kinetic interception (VOLKODAV) |
|---|---|---|
| Principle | Suppressing the radio link and satellite navigation | Physical ram of the target in the air, no explosives |
| Fiber-optic FPV | Ineffective — no radio link | Effective — destroys physically |
| Autonomous drones (route onboard) | Ineffective — target needs no link | Effective — guidance by video |
| Dependence on own system's GPS | — | None in engagement phase — camera guidance |
| Vulnerability to enemy jamming | — | Low — no satellite needed in the final |
| Secondary-damage risk | Low (target may fall uncontrolled) | Low — no explosives or fragments |
| Human in the decision loop | Depends on implementation | Yes — 3 independent confirmation points |
| Mass-market simple drones | Very effective and cheap | Effective but cost-overkill |
| Best use | First line, filtering out the "crowd" | Finishing breakthroughs and jamming-resistant targets |
The headline conclusion: jamming and kinetics cover different threats and reinforce each other. VOLKODAV is designed as a kinetic layer on top of the customer's existing detection and EW assets. Jamming cheaply strips out simple targets at the far approaches, while kinetic interception reliably removes whatever got through the jamming — fiber-optic, autonomous and suppression-resistant drones. This is layered perimeter drone defense.
Which sites kinetic interception protects
Kinetic counter-UAS is justified where the cost of a single drone breakthrough is incomparably higher than the cost of protection, and where the threat includes autonomous and fiber-optic craft. VOLKODAV is used to protect:
- Premium residences;
- Data centers;
- Warehouses and logistics hubs;
- Agricultural holdings;
- Industrial sites;
- Stadiums and mass events;
- Tankers and vessels;
- Linear assets — pipelines and power lines.
A dedicated architecture is built for each site. The reference configuration for a 16+ km perimeter includes a control post (CP) with an AI classification server and operator workstation, seven automated observation posts with cooled 360° thermal imagers in arctic build, four rapid-response groups with pilot consoles and 2-person crews working 24/7, plus a fleet of interceptor drones. Example application scenarios are in the Use cases section of the landing page.
How the system is deployed
VOLKODAV deployment takes 30–45 days and follows a clear schedule:
- Site audit (3–5 days) — perimeter survey, threat assessment, architecture calculation for the specific site.
- Contract — fixing the system composition, timelines and service terms.
- Preparation and logistics (20–30 days) — system assembly, delivery, installation of posts and the control post, AI classification tuning.
- 24/7 duty — an 8-person crew (5 UAV operators and 3 technicians, each with at least one year of drone-interception experience) goes on round-the-clock watch.
The AI server at the control post classifies video from every post and issues a decision in 25–30 seconds at a target false-positive threshold of no more than 5%. The exact decision logic is described in the How it works section of the landing page.
Conclusion
Pitting jamming against kinetic interception is methodologically wrong. Jamming is irreplaceable as a cheap first line against mass-market drones, but it has fundamental blind spots: fiber-optics, onboard autonomy, alternative channels and targets without satellite navigation. Kinetic interception closes exactly those gaps — physically and reliably, without explosives, with a human in the decision loop at three points.
VOLKODAV is resistant to enemy jamming because in the engagement phase it homes by video and does not depend on GPS/GLONASS. That lets you layer it on top of any existing EW and obtain a defense-in-depth perimeter against drones. If your task is to protect a serious site from the modern drone threat, the combination of the customer's jamming and VOLKODAV kinetic interception covers it completely.