Airspace protection where jamming creates liability.

Power plants, port terminals, and data centers cannot deploy RF jammers without disrupting communications, aviation, and their own industrial control systems. Kinetic defeat has no signal footprint.

Energy facility at night with drone defense installation in foreground
RF Interference Zero (kinetic only)
SCADA Impact None
Response Window < 3 s from detection
Facility Types Energy, ports, data centers

Infrastructure Threat Scenarios

01
Scenario A

Energy Facility Perimeter

Commercial drones carrying surveillance or strike payloads approach a power generation facility. The facility's industrial control systems and communication infrastructure make RF jamming inadvisable — interference with SCADA communications could cause secondary failures more damaging than the drone threat itself. ARES-1 defeats the threat without electromagnetic output.

SCADA Risk Zero RF interference
Detection Range 3.5 km radius
02
Scenario B

Port Terminal Airspace Control

Large port terminals operate under Class B or Class C airspace in proximity to major airports. Electronic jamming near an active airport is illegal under FAA regulations. ARES-1's passive-radar and optical approach allows airspace protection without interfering with airport operations or triggering FCC Part 25 violations.

Regulatory Conflict None (no RF emissions)
Proximity to Aviation Compatible
03
Scenario C

Data Center Campus Protection

Dense computing facilities are sensitive to broadband RF interference. A drone-band jammer powerful enough to suppress a target at 1 km — operating in the 2.4 or 5.8 GHz ISM bands — produces field intensities that can disrupt unshielded server infrastructure and storage systems. ARES-1's defeat mechanism is kinetic. The sensor radar operates at X-band and is focused directionally, not broadcast. No jammer-class RF output is produced at any point in the engagement sequence.

EMI Risk to Servers Zero
Deployment Mode Fixed installation

Regulatory Considerations

We are not legal counsel. The below is our understanding of the regulatory environment as of the date of this page — operators should consult qualified legal and regulatory advisors before deployment.

FAA Part 107 Airspace

Commercial drones operating in US airspace are subject to FAA Part 107. Unauthorized UAS operations over critical infrastructure are addressed under 49 U.S.C. § 46502. The legal authority to deploy kinetic counter-measures against unauthorized UAS in civilian airspace is currently limited to federal agencies under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 and the NDAA provisions that followed.

14 CFR Part 99

Special Security Instructions (SSIs) and TFRs under 14 CFR Part 99 define restricted airspace around critical infrastructure. Infrastructure operators should work with the FAA and relevant federal authorities to understand the specific legal framework that applies to their facility type and airspace class.

FAA B-TFAR Framework

The FAA's Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) and Temporary Flight Restriction for Armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft (B-TFAR) framework is the current regulatory pathway for authorized kinetic counter-UAS operations in civilian airspace. ARES-1 is designed to operate within B-TFAR-authorized engagements where applicable authority has been established.

Our Approach

ARES-1 is currently marketed to federal agencies and military organizations with existing legal authority for counter-UAS operations. Infrastructure operator deployments require coordination with federal authorities. We assist qualified operators in understanding the relevant framework — we do not facilitate unauthorized deployments.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. Regulatory status is subject to change. Operators are responsible for ensuring any deployment complies with applicable law.

Brief your infrastructure threat model

Security teams, federal facility managers, and government procurement contacts can request a facility-specific scenario review. We will map your airspace context, threat profile, and regulatory constraints before discussing hardware.