iscover
Opinion: The 1 June 2025 FPV drone attack on a Russian airbase – mirroring the strategic shock of 9/11 – should prompt an urgent overhaul of global military airbase security and procurement models which are currently too slow and outdated to counter the evolving, low-cost asymmetric drone threat, explains Air Commodore (Ret’d) Terry van Haren DSM.
The darkest day for travellers and the airline industry was September 11, 2001, when terrorists used passenger airlines to conduct a strategic attack on the United States.
What happened next was everything to do with aviation security involving airports and commercial airline operations changed. Cockpit doors were locked and hardened. Airfields were secured and access controlled to vetted personnel. Passenger screening and airport security improved immeasurably. Eventually, the world learnt to live with this new reality without losing access to the ability to fly.
While it was a military operation and one the Western or Allied world would celebrate, given the victim, the events of 1 June 2025 should carry similar gravitas and a dramatic change in approach to defence aviation security.
On this day, innovative Ukrainian intelligence operators used first-person view (FPV) drones to conduct a strategic attack on the Russian Air Force.
September 11 highlighted that existing aviation security was nowhere near adequate, and everything changed. 1 June is no different – a motivated, intelligent group was able to destroy over 40 planes at a cost of around AU$11 billion with a few drones not likely to cost more than a few hundred dollars each.
Most airbases around the world would have similar or lower levels of security to Russian airbases. So, what is to change? If the lesson is learnt, every single thing to do with counter drone security around major military installations and air bases all over the world.
The big question is how long it will take military bureaucratic acquisition systems to react? If the lesson is not learned, FPV drone attacks will remain a valid option for any cunning and innovative intelligence operative, terrorist or protestor and remain the most likely asymmetric method of strategically degrading and potentially defeating a military force in their home location.
Fortunately, protecting a military airbase from a drone threat is not actually very hard, if you know what you’re doing.
It is becoming more apparent that the traditional acquisition model is built for a different era.
Standard military procurement process, with its layers of committees, requirements definitions, probity rules and multi-stage tenders, was not designed for modern-era weapons system procurement, responding to fast-moving asymmetric threats.
This system may have worked when planning to build a submarine fleet over 30 years, but it simply cannot adapt at the speed of modern drone technology. By the time a solution is acquired, the threat has evolved. Worse still, the acquired system is often outdated, over-budget and disconnected from actual field requirements.
Traditional procurement is structurally incapable of keeping pace.
The alternative is direct engagement with an expert. Instead of years, the process takes three to six months. You get a tailored solution, a transparent option and a company whose core business is staying ahead of the drone threat because their business survival depends on your satisfaction and safety. You develop trust with your expert provider, not bureaucracy. You can go about your normal business having secured your critical assets and infrastructure.
You now have time to pity the next organisation that suffers an embarrassing drone incursion or devastating drone attack.
So, it will be interesting to see how the world’s militaries and governments react. The new reality may take time to seek in. Maybe some more hard lessons will need to be learnt; time will tell.
AIRCDRE (Ret’d) Terry van Haren DSM, is vice president strategy at DroneShield (ASX:DRO).
