Purpose and scope Falcon Peak is the U.S. Northern Command and NORAD series of counter‑small unmanned aircraft system (C‑sUAS) experiments and demonstrations that bring together government, industry, and academia to test detection, tracking, identification, and mitigation approaches against small UAS threats to installations. The event series has been run on and off since 2024 and continued into 2025 as a major venue for operational evaluation of layered base defense concepts.

Why Falcon Peak matters to engineers and operators Falcon Peak is not a vendor trade show. It is an operational experiment that stresses integration, safety, and the full kill chain in an environment meant to look like real homeland defense scenarios. Systems are evaluated not only on sensor performance but on how they share data, create tracks, and enable decision loops for effectors in constrained airspace. If you design sensors, processing, or C2 software for C‑UAS, Falcon Peak results and methodologies are one of the best proxies for what transitions to operational use will require.

Typical architecture and categories tested

  • Distributed detection layer: low‑cost radars, acoustic arrays, passive RF detectors, and EO/IR cameras that produce early indicators and tracks. Recent DIU challenges explicitly targeted low‑cost, scalable sensing meant to augment more exquisite site defenses.
  • Correlation and fusion: middleware or orchestration layers that fuse heterogeneous sensor inputs into an integrated air picture and provide standardized APIs for downstream systems. At Falcon Peak the emphasis is on real time sharing and reducing single‑sensor false alarms.
  • Identification and classification: short‑range EO/IR and RF fingerprinting used to identify friend/foe and reduce collateral‑risk. Algorithms are evaluated for robustness to low‑emission and no‑emission adversary tactics.
  • Effectors: electronic attack (targeted RF denial, GNSS spoofing), soft‑capture nets or interceptors, and kinetic or directed energy options where authorized and range‑safe. Exercises focus on safe, legal defeat options inside U.S. airspace.

How Falcon Peak evaluates systems (operational testing methodology) 1) Scenario realism: organizers create complex, multi‑axis ingress profiles including swarms, low‑emission or “dark” drones, and mixed signature sets so that detection is not trivially solved by a single sensor. Exercise ranges and safety procedures are documented in solicitations and public notices. 2) Layered engagement: experiments look for solutions that contribute usefully to a layered defense, not standalone gimmicks. A low‑cost sensor that reliably flags and hands off to a more precise classifier is more valuable than a single distant detection with poor ID. 3) Integration and APIs: systems are judged on data formats, latency, and ability to integrate with existing C2, mapping, and alert systems. DIU and USNORTHCOM emphasize open integration to enable rapid fielding. 4) Safety and airspace deconfliction: range safety and FAA coordination are fundamental constraints. Demonstrations include range control, NOTAMs, and maritime/helicopter advisories when applicable. If your design needs kinetic effects, plan for extra certification and safety documentation.

Practical checklist for teams preparing for Falcon Peak style testing

  • Define the role you play in a kill chain. Be explicit: are you an early warning sensor, an ID classifier, a network broker, or an effector? Systems that try to be everything rarely meet integration standards.
  • Provide standardized outputs. Support common track formats, time stamps in UTC, and at least one simple API (REST or message bus) for ingest. Demonstrators are penalized for bespoke, closed interfaces.
  • Characterize performance against realistic targets. Report detection range versus signature‑class, false alarm rate in crowded RF/visual environments, and latency to track handoff. Operators need numbers they can plan around.
  • Demonstrate interoperability. Deliver a simple integration script and a sandboxed data replay so evaluators can stress your fusion logic without flights. Preparing synthetic but realistic scenarios accelerates evaluation.
  • Safety package. Include detailed RF emissions plans, mitigation for inadvertent spurious transmissions, and procedures for safe defeat options. Plan to comply with range safety and FAA restrictions.

Design tradeoffs observed at Falcon Peak

  • Cost versus reach. The DIU Low‑Cost Sensing challenge that fed Falcon Peak 25.2 emphasized scalable, affordable sensors that trade absolute range for density and persistence. Think networked cheap sensors with smart correlation rather than one expensive long‑range radar wherever possible.
  • Passive versus active. Passive RF and optical approaches reduce detectability and regulatory impact but struggle with stealthy or GPS‑silent threats. Active radars give range but raise cost and false alarm complexity. A mixed approach is the pragmatic option proven in experiment settings.
  • Automation versus human‑in‑the‑loop. Automation is essential for swarm-level threats. However, experiments stress predictable, auditable automation and clear escalation paths to human operators for engagement decisions. Prepare human‑readable overrides and robust logging.

Tactical considerations for deployment in installation defense

  • Site surveys first. Noise, multipath, and clutter will cripple poorly sited sensors. Run a short survey campaign and adjust mounting heights and antenna patterns. This is where low‑cost sensors can be iterated quickly.
  • Network resilience. Expect intermittent links. Design graceful degradation so the system still provides at least local warning with partial connectivity.
  • Rules of engagement and legal counsel. In the homeland, mitigation options are constrained by airspace law and collateral‑risk policy. Coordinate legal clearance early, especially for any RF effects or kinetic solutions. Falcon Peak exercise design explicitly integrates these constraints.

How to learn from Falcon Peak without being a participant

  • Track public briefings, DoD and USNORTHCOM news releases, and imagery that describe experiment objectives and broad technology categories. These sources summarize what worked at scale and what integration gaps remain.
  • Follow DIU prize challenges and finalist announcements. They reveal the technology directions the DoD is prioritizing for scalable sensing and which sensor modalities are being fielded for evaluation.

Final takeaways for practitioners Falcon Peak is a shift from component testing to systems and integration testing under operational constraints. If you build sensors or C2 for C‑UAS, your technical focus should be on reliable small‑target detection in clutter, low‑latency track handoff, standardized APIs, and a defensible safety and legal posture. Low cost plus smart fusion is currently favored over monolithic high‑cost sensors for installation defense scale. Getting those things right is what moves technology from demo to deployed capability.

Recommended next steps 1) Build a minimal interoperable demo: sensor feed, fusion node, and a simple alert dashboard. 2) Quantify detection and false alarm metrics in representative noise. 3) Prepare integration and safety documentation. 4) Monitor DoD/DIU solicitations and public Falcon Peak reports to align milestones and transition opportunities.