From Cope Cages to Active Protection: The Race to Defend Armored Vehicles from FPV Drones
By Jacob Wirtzer
ParaZero Technologies Ltd.
Executive Summery
Passive Protection Is No Longer Enough
FPV drones are outpacing static armor defenses.
Armor Faces a New Threat
Low-cost drones now target vehicles from vulnerable angles.
APS Must Evolve
Traditional active protection was not built for FPV attacks.
Active Interception Is Coming
Defense developers are moving toward anti-FPV countermeasures.
DefendAir Leads the Shift and Sets the standard
ParaZero is advancing net-based terminal-phase interception.
Ukrainian tank with an insufficient anti-drone net cover
Image source: Ukraine Ministry of Defense.
FPV Drones Are Forcing A Mew Era of Armored Vehicle Protection
The image has become one of the defining visuals of modern warfare: tanks and armored vehicles covered in improvised metal grills, mesh screens, and overhead cages in an attempt to survive FPV drone attacks. Someone unfamiliar with this development would think they were on the set of a Mad Max movie.
What began as a battlefield improvisation in Ukraine has evolved into a broader recognition that armored warfare has entered a new era. The rise of low-cost FPV drones has exposed a growing vulnerability across armored fleets worldwide, forcing militaries and defense companies alike to rethink vehicle survivability. Whereas armored regiments have long been seen as decisive force multipliers, the rise of FPV drones is exposing new vulnerabilities that must now be addressed as part of modern vehicle survivability.
The challenge is not theoretical anymore.
“Someone unfamiliar with recent CUAS development would think they were on the set of a Mad Max movie”
According to recent reporting, Russia claims its domestic industry can now produce up to 15,000 FPV drones per day – a dramatic increase from production levels seen just a few years ago. The implication is clear: future conflicts may involve continuous saturation attacks by inexpensive drones capable of targeting vehicles from angles traditional armor was never designed to defend against.
The battlefield response has largely started with passive protection. So-called “cope cages,” anti-drone mesh, and improvised slat armor have spread from Russian vehicles to Western platforms as well. In early 2025, the British Army reportedly began evaluating anti-drone cage concepts for Challenger 2 tanks, while Japanese Type 90 and Type 10 tanks were later seen fitted with similar protection measures. More recently, Israeli forces operating along the Lebanon front have also deployed makeshift netting, including fishing nets, to help protect vehicles and positions from FPV drones.
These adaptations are understandable. FPV drones frequently target thinner top armor and vulnerable openings. Even relatively simple physical barriers can disrupt a drone’s fusing sequence or detonate a warhead before direct impact.
From Passive Armor to Active Interception
At the same time, militaries are continuing to invest heavily in active protection systems (APS) for armored platforms. Systems such as Rafael’s Trophy or Rheinmetall’s StrikeShield were originally designed to defeat anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs through rapid detection and hard-kill interception. However, the FPV drone threat introduces an entirely different challenge set.
Unlike traditional anti-armor threats, FPV drones are smaller, slower, controllable, and often attack in unpredictable flight profiles. They can approach from elevated angles, hover briefly before impact to zero-in on the weakest part of the target or overwhelm defenses through mass deployment. Recent combat observations have also raised questions about how existing APS architectures perform against modern drone threats.
As a result, a growing number of defense developers are now exploring dedicated anti-FPV active protection concepts.
One of the more notable recent examples emerged from Ukraine, where developers publicly unveiled a vehicle-mounted anti-drone active protection system using directional net launchers designed specifically to intercept incoming FPV drones during their terminal attack phase. This shift reflects a broader trend across the defense sector: moving from passive mitigation toward active interception.
The future of armored vehicle survivability will likely depend on layered protection architectures that combine sensors, electronic warfare, kinetic interception and rapid-response countermeasures into a unified defensive system. The question is no longer whether FPV drones threaten armored vehicles. That debate is over. In fact, I would argue that FPVs are quickly becoming the most notable threat to vehicles on the battlefield. Now the question is how quickly effective countermeasures can be deployed at scale.
DefendAir’s Autonomous Application
At ParaZero, we believe this operational gap represents one of the most important protection challenges facing modern ground forces. The race to defend armored vehicles from FPV drones has already begun, and active anti-drone protection is quickly emerging as a critical new layer in vehicle survivability.
ParaZero’s DefendAir technology is positioned at the forefront of this shift.
Building on a non-explosive, net-based interception approach, ParaZero is advancing active protection concepts designed to address FPV threats during the critical terminal attack phase, where passive defenses alone may no longer be enough.
While these capabilities remain under development, ParaZero has already engaged with Tier-1 partners worldwide as part of its efforts to help move this next layer of protection closer to operational deployment.
The threat is already here.
The countermeasure is getting closer.
DefendAir – Where the Threat Ends, Victory Begins.
