Military Watchdog Warns Drone Incursions Require ‘Immediate Attention’

In December 2023, nearly three weeks of unidentified drones reportedly hovering over sensitive areas of a major air installation exposed a problem the nation’s defense establishment was allegedly not prepared to handle: determining who was responsible for investigating the incursions — and who had authority to act.

A new internal oversight report indicates those same gaps in authority and coordination remain unresolved across much of the defense ministry, even as drone activity near the country’s military installations continues with striking frequency, according to officials.

The watchdog report warns that the defense establishment lacks clear, consistent policies governing counter-drone operations at domestic installations, leaving many bases unsure whether they are authorized to respond when drones appear overhead. The findings reinforce what defense officials and outside experts have cautioned for years: while the military can often detect drones, confusion over jurisdiction, approval processes and legal authority can delay — or prevent — action.

The report warns that “immediate attention [is] required” to protect defense ministry assets from unmanned aircraft systems, citing unclear policies, conflicting guidance, and a lack of operational approval at many installations.

Michael Healander, CEO of Airspace Link, said the oversight body’s findings reflect challenges he has observed while working with military bases and civilian authorities on drone airspace awareness. Airspace Link reportedly works with federal aviation authorities, municipalities and select military installations to track authorized drone activity, flag unidentified drones near bases, and improve coordination across civilian and government airspace.

“When we read the document, we noticed these are issues that we’ve been starting to solve with some of these military bases,” Healander told local media. “It’s that understanding of what are the rules and regulations per base — whose drones are whose — and really having that airspace awareness is an issue.”

Healander said identifying whether a drone near a military installation is authorized, misrouted or potentially hostile is often less about detection technology and more about coordination in crowded domestic airspace.

“There are tools out there. The technologies are out there,” he said. “It’s just they don’t have the frameworks, and it seems to be different from base to base.”

The oversight report found that the defense ministry has failed to provide clear, consistent guidance on which installations qualify as “covered assets” eligible for counter-drone protections, resulting in conflicting lists maintained across the department. In some cases, high-value bases conducting critical missions were excluded because their activities did not neatly fall into narrow mission categories defined in federal law. The watchdog concluded these policy gaps have left many installations unsure whether they are authorized to act during drone incursions.

The scope of the issue is far from isolated. The head of the nation’s northern defense command said during a briefing last year that drone activity near defense installations occurs almost daily.

“We’re between one and two incursions per day” at defense installations, the senior commander reportedly told journalists.

Healander said confusion often intensifies when drones appear outside a base’s perimeter, where military authority intersects with federally-regulated airspace and local law enforcement jurisdictions.

“What happens if there’s a drone outside the fence line?” he said. “Most military bases don’t have jurisdiction out there.”

Modern drone identification tools — including systems that detect remote identification signals, radio frequencies, radar and optical tracking — can often determine where a drone originated and whether it is registered. But Healander said that without standardized rules governing who operates those systems and how information is shared, detection alone does not translate into timely decisions.

“If you have those technologies together, you can start to see where the drone came from,” he said. “It’s just making sure that these bases have a framework to follow.”

The oversight body also found that the approval process required for installations to use counter-drone systems is fragmented and burdensome, with different military services following different procedures. In many cases, installations must procure and test systems before receiving authorization to use them — a hurdle that has led some bases to forgo seeking approval altogether, even after experiencing incursions.

Defense leadership last year established a joint task force to better coordinate counter-drone efforts across the department, but the watchdog concluded the recommendation to consolidate policies and authorities remains unresolved.

Healander said improving situational awareness and coordination will become increasingly urgent as civilian, commercial and public-safety drone operations expand near military installations, further complicating an already crowded low-altitude airspace environment.

“Getting their house in order first — understanding who’s flying, where, and under what authority — is the starting point,” he said.