A wave of drone incursions near Belgian airports has pushed the country to accelerate counter drone defenses, signaling a broader shift in European security posture.

The push centers on surveillance radars and portable jammers designed to detect, track, and disrupt unauthorized unmanned aircraft near critical sites. The move comes as airports, military installations, and even storage facilities housing sensitive weapons are repeatedly targeted by aerial drone incursions.

Two key contracts were announced this week to kick-start the €50 million anti-drone plan: Saab’s Giraffe 1X surveillance radar and portable DroneShield drone guns. According to Defense News, the deals underscore Belgium’s intent to build a layered counter drone defenses near Brussels and other sensitive sites.

Officials say the Belgian order is part of a broader strategy to field a layered defensive setup. The country plans to integrate ten National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) with Norway as the primary supplier and will co-procure with the Netherlands. The plan envisions not just detection and denial at the edge, but a wider, interoperable air-defense network capable of fusing data from radar and other sensors into a single operational picture.

Data from public analyses suggests that incidents have spiked over the past year. A compilation by EuroNews’ The Cube, which cross-checks publicly available reports of drone-related interference at European airports, shows cases quadrupling between January 2024 and November 2025, with Belgium repeatedly cited as among the most affected. While the numbers are difficult to verify in real time, they hammer home a shared concern among European capitals: a growing attack surface for drones, especially near airports and defense facilities. In response, governments are moving beyond talk toward concrete buys and trials.

Defense officials point to gaps in the current approach. In a recent interview with Defense News, Terma’s CEO highlighted a slow pace for confirming threats before triggering countermeasures, a problem that can leave critical operations vulnerable. The Belgian plan, by contrast, seeks faster decision cycles through radar-guided alerts and AI-assisted targeting to shorten the window between detection and action. For readers new to the topic, think of a radar network as a nervous system: it senses threats, shares what it sees with the relevant organs of defense, and helps decide whether to engage an intruder or simply reroute traffic.

At a broader level, Belgium’s push fits into a wider NATO and European effort to test and mainstream counter-drone technologies. Initiatives such as the U.S.-led Project Flytrap 4.5 stages field trials to gauge how well different kits can be scaled for quick procurement and smooth integration into existing air-defense architectures. A recent two-week exercise in Germany gathered troops, procurement teams, and industry reps to assess candidate systems under simulated drone threats and live-fire conditions. The goal: build a repeatable playbook for rapid deployment as new drone tactics emerge.

For defense watchers and policy readers, the Belgian case underscores a shift from standalone gadgets to integrated, system-of-systems defense. The forthcoming NASAMS buy signals a move toward interoperable, multi-layer defense that can span borders with the Netherlands and Norway. It also highlights the growing role of commercial tech in national security missions. DroneShield’s handheld guns are an example of civ-mil technology that can be repurposed quickly in the event of a threat, while Saab’s radar provides persistent, wide-area surveillance that can support both air defense and civilian aviation authorities.

Belgium’s leadership in this space matters. It shows a willingness to translate public-budgetary allocations into tangible capabilities that can deter, detect, and deny unwanted drone activity. For security teams at airports and industrial sites, the developments suggest a new baseline for what to expect from modern drone defense: more automation, faster decision cycles, and tighter integration with air-traffic systems. The result could be a safer skies regime across the Benelux region and beyond, reducing near-term risk while signaling to potential aggressors that intrusions will be detected and disrupted.

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo, Defense News Europe correspondent, notes that the Belgian push comes amid broader NATO exercises and a growing emphasis on defense industrial collaboration. As European defense budgets trend higher in the wake of geopolitical tension, the market for counter-drone tech is expanding, inviting both established players and agile startups to contribute to a shared defense posture.

In short, Belgium is making a practical bet on a layered counter-drone architecture. The immediate steps — radar surveillance, portable jamming, and NASAMS procurement — create a credible capability that can deter, detect, and disrupt unauthorized flight paths. For decision-makers in security and aviation, the takeaway is simple: the threat is evolving, and so is the toolkit to counter it. This is not a niche problem but a broader trend toward resilient, intelligent air defense that spans borders and sectors.

Conclusion