Pinned straw:
DroneShield at Dubai Airshow 2025: Notes, Impressions and Concerns
The theme of investing in anti-drone technology continues to look like a major long-term opportunity. Even outside military applications, the civilian use cases alone are expanding quickly as drones become cheaper and more capable. Airports, prisons, government buildings and critical infrastructure all need protection.
At the Dubai Airshow 2025, DroneShield had a stand in the Australian pavilion. It was one of the busier displays, helped along by a free barista, but the conversations were genuinely useful. I spoke with one of their UAE-based sales reps and walked away with a clearer view of where the company stands, along with a few concerns that remain.
Staff, Scale and the Catalogue
DroneShield now employs roughly 360 to 380 people, which is more than many investors realise. According to the rep, demand is still roughly split between civilian and military enquiries.
One detail that stood out was that around 40 employees work full-time on evaluating new civilian drones as they arrive on the market. They analyse radio signatures, frequencies and behaviours, and then add them to DroneShield’s detection library. The company owns or has tested a huge collection of drones, which helps them keep the detection database up to date.
This is reassuring, although it highlights something important. Success in this space depends on constant R&D. If they slow down, they risk becoming irrelevant very quickly.
Detection Limits
I asked about tethered drones and home-built systems like those appearing in Ukraine and Russia where factories produce customised drones without standard signatures. The rep explained that radar systems can detect tethered drones, and in theory DroneShield detection can be paired with something like EOS, who were presenting next door, to neutralise them.
He also admitted that a knowledgeable operator can build a drone that is harder to detect, although he said it is difficult to do. It still raises a clear question. If a drone is not in DroneShield’s catalogue, is it less detectable? What about someone building a drone in a garage with no standard radio profile?
The takeaway for me is simple. They must continue investing in R&D or the technology edge will disappear.
The Oleg Question
I used to be a shareholder when the company traded around 26 cents, and I sold when Oleg dumped his shares the first time. Naturally I asked about this. The sales rep even joked that Oleg is at least consistent when it comes to selling.
My concern is straightforward. If you truly believe your company’s best days are in the future, why would you and the board sell your stock at the earliest opportunity?
The rep insisted Oleg is still deeply involved. A couple of years ago he was personally handling most of the company’s sales, and although he has stepped back from that role, he is still calling the team every day during the airshow and trade shows etc to follow up. His involvement sounds genuine and committed.
Even so, selling everything leaves a poor impression. Selling enough to buy a house in Sydney or even a boat makes sense. Selling the lot feels different.
Final Thoughts
Management questions aside, the drone sector itself feels like it is only in its early stages. The airshow was filled with drone technology. Dubai is pushing ahead with drone taxis, and droneports are already being built.
Anti-drone technology will remain essential and demand is likely to grow. The real question for investors is whether DroneShield can stay ahead as drones evolve at high speed.
Discl: DRO Not Held, EOS Held
@Magneto , had a close read of you very informative post - many thanks for this. I don’t hold DRO but it was on my watch list against a “multi-layered counter-drone defence system” thesis.
1. This cat-and-mouse game that all counter-drone companies are playing is exactly the game that cyber security companies play, 24x7, forever. It is relentless and you cannot ease the throttle to not only stay on top, but ahead. After Oleq and his mates sold off, the question for me now is whether Oleg can still be trusted to stay for the long haul to continue the relentless innovation that is required to keep DRO’s products effective against an enemy that is completely motivated to constantly innovate to find ways to win the battles.
I asked about tethered drones and home-built systems like those appearing in Ukraine and Russia where factories produce customised drones without standard signatures. The rep explained that radar systems can detect tethered drones, and in theory DroneShield detection can be paired with something like EOS, who were presenting next door, to neutralise them.
2. This comment was rather troubling particularly after EOS’ (obviously-biased) position in Friday’s counter-drone preso that “Soft kill (jamming/spoofing) is no longer effective in the military space and soft kill companies are now announcing moves towards incorporating hard kill into their solutions”.
Detection is probably the easy bit but being good at this doesn't move the dial at all. It is how to nuke/neutralise the drone swarms that matters, as customer battlefield and civilian protection outcomes are rightly measured against this.
Is the comment from the DRO rep a tacit admission that DRO products are struggling against neutralising tethered drones on its own, I wonder? Together with the EOS POV + market concerns which have surfaced in the past few days around DRO product effectiveness, is there a bigger product effectiveness concern that hasn’t fully surfaced/played out yet?
For me, both these uncertainties are existential in nature, and until clearly resolved, make DRO uninvestible at whatever price ...
Brilliant notes @Magneto, thanks for sharing.
I agree that the current dramas for Droneshield are much less about the sector and macro picture than about the optics of management and sentiment.