The Fight For Decision Advantage 3D Physical Security Has Arrived

Bill Edwards, U.S. Army Colonel (R), a veteran of the Iraq War, and Director of C-UAS Operations and Training at ENSCO.

​The drone threat is no longer emerging. This technology is operational, scalable, inexpensive and evolving faster than most security institutions can adapt. Legacy physical security models were built for a world defined by fences, gates, cameras and networked sensors tied to ground-based assumptions. Even the widely accepted notion of physical-cyber convergence is now insufficient. The operational environment has changed again. Security is no longer two-dimensional or even converged; it is fully three-dimensional.

Organizations now face threats that have introduced a persistent vertical layer of risk that fundamentally reshapes how protection, awareness and response must be designed. Approaching security through this 3D reality is no longer innovative—it is essential. The legacy threat model no longer exists in two dimensions; adversaries now frequently exploit the air domain.

In Ukraine and beyond, drones have already changed the relationship between concealment and exposure. The side that controls low-altitude airspace gains more than a tactical advantage. It gains persistent surveillance, operational transparency and the ability to compress decision cycles faster than legacy organizations can respond. That compression is where a modern advantage is won or lost.

Modern drone capabilities expose a difficult truth: Most organizations are structurally unprepared for threats that operate at machine speed inside human decision cycles. Security architectures designed for static or predictable ground threats now face inexpensive aerial systems capable of appearing without warning.

Commercial drones are highly sophisticated and can surveil airports, ports, energy facilities, water systems, telecommunications hubs, manufacturing plants and mass gathering venues, all of which exist beneath a persistent aerial layer that many security programs were never designed to address. These critical organizations must consider a layered counter-unmanned system to maintain safe airspace above dense populations.

Yet, many organizations still treat counter-unmanned aerial systems as a procurement exercise, rather than an operational transformation. Technology alone does not close the gap. Detection without integration is simply awareness without the potential for "decision advantage," a concept I've coined in this space.

This is the central lesson of the current environment: Decision advantage belongs to the side that can complete the observe-orient-decide-act cycle faster than the threat can take action. That cycle is collapsing. In many cases, a suspicious drone provides only seconds of ambiguity. It may be recreational, or it may be conducting surveillance, mapping defenses or preparing for a coordinated strike. The window for interpretation is narrowing to, from what I've seen in the industry, as little as 90 seconds.

A time span of 90 seconds changes the entire architecture of security response. It renders traditional layered approval processes dangerously slow during active incidents. It exposes the limits of centralized decision-making structures that were designed for stability rather than speed. In a drone-enabled environment, waiting for multitier authorization while aerial systems loiter overhead is no longer operationally viable.

Decision authority must move closer to the point of contact. This represents a profound shift for institutions accustomed to centralized control. For decades, information moved upward for analysis, while decisions moved downward for execution. Drone-enabled conflict disrupts that model because threats now operate inside the same compressed timelines as the defenders’ approval chains. Adversaries do understand this imbalance and actively exploit it.

Commercial platforms now provide criminal networks, extremist groups, proxies and hybrid actors with capabilities once reserved for advanced militaries. At the same time, these adversaries are rapidly embracing autonomy, navigation resilience, swarm behavior and electronic countermeasures faster than many acquisition systems can respond.

This creates a dangerous asymmetry. Many organizations are investing heavily in offensive unmanned systems while underinvesting in survivability against them. Yet survivability, not proliferation, will define the next phase of operational success. A facility that cannot operate under persistent aerial observation is already at a disadvantage, regardless of its own unmanned capabilities.

Across homeland security and critical infrastructure, drone threats are no longer isolated concerns. They intersect with cyber operations, electronic warfare, intelligence collection, physical intrusion and psychological disruption. Future attacks will not respect organizational boundaries. They will exploit the seams between cyber teams and physical security, between intelligence and operations and between airspace monitoring and emergency response. Those seams are now vulnerabilities.

This reality demands integrated situational awareness. The concept I often describe as a “single pane of glass” is paramount here. Security operations centers must evolve beyond passive monitoring environments into fused decision ecosystems where radar, RF detection, optical systems, cyber indicators, intelligence feeds and operational response are integrated into a coherent real-time picture.

Counter-unmanned aerial systems can no longer be treated as a specialized capability isolated within technical teams or outsourced to contractors. It must become a core operational competency embedded across security enterprises. Without integration, even advanced systems create fragmentation rather than advantage.

The largest gap today is not technology—it is training and operational integration. Organizations often invest in sophisticated detection and mitigation systems but fail to develop the doctrine, confidence and authority structures required to use them effectively. Tools without trained operators and clear decision frameworks produce the illusion of readiness, not resilience.

Effective preparedness requires continuous training under realistic conditions. Critical infrastructure must assume persistent aerial observation as a baseline condition of operations, and operators must rehearse drone incidents with the same seriousness as cyberattacks or active shooter scenarios. Leaders, operators, legal advisors and emergency managers must pre-negotiate decision authorities before a crisis forces improvisation under pressure.

No single system solves the counter-drone challenge. Radar is essential, especially considering the rise of “dark drones,” and layering it with radio frequency and optical sensors is a good approach. Effective defense requires layered, interoperable ecosystems designed for speed, redundancy and adaptability,

The future belongs to organizations that can connect detectors, effectors, intelligence and decision-making into a unified operational framework that functions across all levels of command and leadership. The question is no longer whether drones will shape the future of security operations. That has already been decided.

Detectors matter. Effectors matter. But in the end, I believe the decision advantage will determine who survives.​​

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?