Max Trescott talks with David Hall, founder and CEO of Velodyne Space, about a new approach to counter-UAS defense that focuses on capturing drones using LiDAR, nets, and parachutes instead of destroying them.

Hall begins by explaining LiDAR—Light Detection and Ranging—and how it measures distance by timing how long it takes for pulses of light to travel out and return. While LiDAR has existed for decades, Hall describes how his work during the DARPA Grand Challenge helped transform LiDAR from slow, single-beam mapping tools into spinning, multi-beam systems capable of real-time 3D perception. Those systems made it possible for autonomous vehicles to reliably understand their surroundings and plan motion in real time.

Initially, Hall experimented with camera-based vision systems for self-driving vehicles, but he found they were easily confused by reflections, shadows, and visual artifacts. Writing software to compensate for every failure mode quickly became impractical. LiDAR offered a fundamentally different solution by providing direct distance measurements rather than inferred depth. By stacking dozens of laser beams vertically and rotating the entire sensor to achieve 360-degree coverage, Hall created a top-down, real-time view of the environment that proved autonomy was achievable.

That experience—combining sensing, computation, and mechanical systems—eventually led Hall into the world of counter-UAS. Roughly a decade ago, he began exploring electromagnetic launch technology as an alternative to rockets for space launch. While studying high-power coil-based systems, Hall realized the same technology could be applied to a much more immediate problem: stopping drones.

As drones have become more capable and more accessible, they’ve also become harder to defeat. Hall explains that many counter-UAS systems rely on electronic warfare techniques such as RF jamming, GNSS interference, or cyber takeover. These approaches can fail against autonomous drones or drones controlled via fiber-optic cables, which are increasingly common in conflict zones. Kinetic approaches, on the other hand, risk sending heavy debris falling into populated areas.

Hall’s solution is a capture-based counter-UAS system. Instead of disabling a drone and letting it fall, the system fires a net that physically entangles the aircraft. Once captured, a parachute deploys, slowing the descent so the drone can fall safely even in populated environments. This makes the system particularly attractive for airports, cities, and other civilian infrastructure, where safety and liability are critical concerns.

The system relies on a layered sensing approach. Cameras combined with AI identify drones and distinguish them from birds, while LiDAR provides precise range information needed to time the net deployment. Hall explains that LiDAR doesn’t need millimeter-level precision in this application; knowing distance within a few feet is sufficient to ensure the net opens at exactly the right moment. This combination allows the system to engage drones at distances approaching a thousand feet or more.

A key advantage of the electromagnetic launcher is its rate of fire. Because the launcher can fire multiple low-cost nets per second, it can repeatedly engage a drone until one net successfully captures it. This capability also makes the system viable against drone swarms, which Hall believes represent one of the most serious emerging threats. Instead of relying on a single, high-value interceptor, the system overwhelms the problem with volume and repetition.

Hall discusses the markets most likely to adopt capture-based counter-UAS systems, including airports—where a single drone sighting can shut down operations at enormous cost—prisons facing contraband delivery by drone, border security operations, and large public venues vulnerable to...

Max Trescott and David Vanderhoof tackle an unexpected reversal in global drone production and a growing crisis for the hobbyist drone community. The show opens with a headline few would have predicted a decade ago: Ukraine negotiating to produce drones for the U.S. military.

David explains that after years of battlefield innovation, Ukrainian engineers have become world leaders in low-cost first-person-view (FPV) and kamikaze drone design. The proposal, reported by The War Zone, envisions a five-year, $50 billion program to produce up to 10 million drones annually. These aren’t large Predator-style aircraft but lightweight, single-use drones capable of swarming and overwhelming defenses. Max notes that instead of replacing airplanes, these weapons replace artillery shells, changing the economics and tactics of warfare. Both hosts see the deal as a remarkable symbol of Ukraine’s technical maturity—and a reminder that the U.S. may now be learning from a nation at war rather than supplying it.

The second story turns domestic and controversial. Several California cities used drones to catch illegal fireworks, leading to fines exceeding $300,000 for one homeowner whose show produced 300 explosions. Each was recorded and counted by a city-operated drone at $1,000 per violation. David raises constitutional questions about warrantless aerial surveillance, while Max points out the state’s wildfire risk that motivates strict enforcement. They compare cities such as Brea and Anaheim, which issued much smaller or even zero citations, and wonder how long it will take before courts define what’s legal when drones are used for neighborhood enforcement.

Next, Max introduces a topic from his home state of Pennsylvania. A local hunter used a drone to locate a wounded deer, prompting fines that were later dismissed. A state senator now proposes changing wildlife regulations to permit drone searches for downed game. David, also from Pennsylvania, notes that under current law, using “artificial means” such as a drone for tracking is prohibited. Max jokes that a drone large enough to lift a hundred-pound deer out of the woods would certainly attract attention—but admits it could save hunters’ backs and even lives.

The duo then contrasts Pennsylvania’s reform effort with Kentucky’s new ban on using drones for any hunting or fishing activity. Kentucky allows UAVs only for research, enforcement, or removing invasive carp. David observes that ranchers in Texas and Oklahoma already use drones to herd cattle, highlighting how every state is creating its own patchwork of rules. Max predicts that, just as right-on-red traffic laws eventually became standardized, federal guidance will probably harmonize drone-wildlife laws within a decade.

Humor keeps the conversation lively—Max quips that the FAA’s jurisdiction over fishing would only apply to “flying fish.” But their closing story is no joke. They discuss an article warning that the American drone-hobby industry faces an accessibility crisis. With DJI products banned from federal use and dwindling retail stock, newcomers are finding it harder to buy affordable, high-quality drones. The lack of alternatives, combined with strict FAA rules, could shrink the pipeline of young pilots and...

Episode 436 of UAV News Talk dives into global security, emerging automation, and the effects of Washington’s budget stalemate on the future of flight. Hosts Max Trescott and David Vanderhoof examine how nations, defense contractors, and innovators are redefining drone policy and autonomy at the same moment that the FAA’s own progress is slowed by the ongoing government shutdown.

The show opens with the news that Germany has approved new counter-UAS authority allowing police to neutralize unmanned aircraft threatening airports and public safety. Max and David debate whether “shoot down” literally means gunfire or refers to electronic jamming and interceptor drones. Max notes that rogue drones have forced multiple Munich Airport closures—172 incidents in 2025 alone—leaving thousands of passengers stranded. David links the policy to Germany’s proximity to the Ukraine conflict, where drone incursions have heightened sensitivity across Europe. The hosts agree that while the measure feels drastic, persistent incursions make formal counter-drone rules inevitable.

Next, the discussion turns to a futuristic retail-security concept: autonomous drones that pursue shoplifters once they leave a store. The hosts describe how “drone-in-a-box” platforms—similar to systems now deployed for school-campus emergencies—could track suspects until police arrive. Max imagines Apple Stores or high-end jewelers using such tools, while David questions cost and privacy implications. They joke about criminals splitting up so a single drone can follow only one thief. The takeaway: aerial surveillance is extending from military to consumer sectors, and regulation will soon need to catch up.

In one of the episode’s most popular segments, Sikorsky unveils the U-Hawk, an autonomous variant of the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. The cockpit has been removed entirely, replaced by cargo-bay clamshell doors for vehicles or supplies. David calls it “a major step beyond optionally piloted,” while Max compares it with Skyryse Aviation’s SkyOS, which retrofits existing aircraft for unmanned flight. Drawing from his own visit to Skyryse’s Southern California facility, Max explains how their flight-automation suite can be adapted to both helicopters and fixed-wing platforms. The hosts discuss potential missions—resupply, firefighting, and hazardous evacuations—and note that Boeing is exploring similar automation for the CH-47 Chinook. The ability to deploy heavy-lift helicopters without pilots, they say, could transform both logistics and combat operations.

A long-running puzzle also gets closure: the mysterious nighttime drone sightings over New Jersey that drew public complaints and congressional attention. New reports reveal that a private defense contractor conducted classified U.S. Army UAS demonstrations, accounting for many of the sightings. The hosts appreciate finally having an