Kinophile

Is this quite accurate? Microwave emitters are a form of EW. Broader than lasers,  more of a zone/volume effect weapon, correct? Depending on the power, modulation and sustainment of the effect you can sweep the skies in a certain arc to fry all UAV, or focus on individual units to scramble and drop them. 
Would Autonomy not be just as vulnerable to fried electronics as it is "invulnerable" to classic radio attack?
Eg
From The Crows Nest, podcast ep Feb 14th
From The Crows Best, ep. Feb 28
No shielding is perfect or invulnerable. Everything has a finite quality and bell curve of effectiveness., no? 
As I always say, and my wife hates to hear:
There's more than one way to skin a cat. 
Of course, there's also this:
 
 

For sure, a MW Emitter presents a target, but anything doing anything on a battlefield presents a potential target, no? That can't be a priority criteria for platform selection, can it? If we follow that logic, well...
Are you assuming a single platform approach, where the loss is quickly felt and is significant? But I think we're on the same page that any c-uas system must be as equivalently redundant and easy to scale up in numbers as the UAS its countering. Not equivalent in actual numbers but proportional (eg Pacific war, where the eventual AA Cruisers were vastly outnumbered by planes, but their own numbers were sufficient.). 
Skynex systems etc are nice but are thinking from a decade ago. Future skynex need to be mounted on golf cart/minivan sized UGVs, and as plentiful. The same would go for any Microwave Emitters.
Is it also not a factor of exposure time? The length of time the emitter needs to sweep a particular patch of sky vs hostile response time. It doesn't need to be a Big Fat & & Hot - it can be small, light and hot. Then it's hot for a while but can then displace. While it's doing so another one of it's kind lights up.
Running a Christmas lights style op of these networked UGV-MW could keep a sky volume clear, sustain losses, and open/close holes for friendly UAS to pass through, help identify counter measures by their own losses,  etc. 
This is just spitballing, sure. But everything has a signature vs effect tradeoff. The fact of a temporary hot signature does not negate the platform if it's effect is useful, esp at scale and can be maintained.

For sure, a MW Emitter presents a target, but anything doing anything on a battlefield presents a potential target, no? That can't be a priority criteria for platform selection, can it? If we follow that logic, well...
Are you assuming a single platform approach, where the loss is quickly felt and is significant? But I think we're on the same page that any c-uas system must be as equivalently redundant and easy to scale up in numbers as the UAS its countering. Not equivalent in actual numbers but proportional (eg Pacific war, where the eventual AA Cruisers were vastly outnumbered by planes, but their own numbers were sufficient.). 
Skynex systems etc are nice but are thinking from a decade ago. Future skynex need to be mounted on golf cart/minivan sized UGVs, and as plentiful. The same would go for any Microwave Emitters.
Is it also not a factor of exposure time? The length of time the emitter needs to sweep a particular patch of sky vs hostile response time. It doesn't need to be a Big Fat & & Hot - it can be small, light and hot. Then it's hot for a while but can then displace. While it's doing so another one of it's kind lights up.
Running a Christmas lights style op of these networked UGV-MW could keep a sky volume clear, sustain losses, and open/close holes for friendly UAS to pass through, help identify counter measures by their own losses,  etc. 
This is just spitballing, sure. But everything has a signature vs effect tradeoff. The fact of a temporary hot signature does not negate the platform if it's effect is useful, esp at scale and can be maintained.

Another soldier training with the new sight is Lance Corporal Harry Howes, a driver with 13 Air Assault Support Regiment Royal Logistic Corps, who was full of praise for the Smash sight.
LCpl Howes said: "The Smash sight is a simple piece of kit to use. It just takes a few goes to get used to how it works.
"You still pull the trigger, but the system fires the rifle when it is most confident of a hit – which it gets!"

Interesting kit. Bet it will turn up in Ukraine pretty quickly. In that second photo he's using a tripod, I assume for parameter control during range testing. 
And of course,  they must first solve for

The largest drawback (and risk) in employing EM for c-UAS is signature.  One has to pump a lot of energy into the sky with a large very expensive system to take down cheap drones.  These EM systems are very vulnerable to detection because they are pumping out so much energy into space - you can literally see them from space.  They immediately become targets for other fires.  In many ways this is the major dilemma of UAS right now.  Whether a bunch of soldiers open up with small arms, EM or even EW, missiles…they all have high signatures that give away position.  So if you are firing away at 20 small, cheap UAS, you can get 90% of them but your position is given away and artillery can go to work on you.  If you don’t fire and try to hide, the UAS will likely find you anyway and then FPV you to death.
This is why I am a big fan of low energy dispersed systems (like other UAS) doing the c-UAS job.  Fight flies with flies, not a hammer.

Mashovets offers a long analysis of how  Avdiivkafail to the Russians:
https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/1688

He concludes with:
 

On the friendly side, that's one of the roles of the unit signals officer.
At the national level, there is an office which allocates broad frequency bands for things, generally in ranges in which the physics of the frequency band suit the application. So, there's a large chunk for commercial radio, a chuck for TV, a chunk for high capacity comms links, a chunk for airspace management, some for 3G, 4G, and 5G, some for consumer stuff like TV remotes and garage doors (yes they're low powered and not likely to interfere with anything else, but if they shared a freq with the local 100MW FM station ... well ... everyone's garage door will be opening every time Lady Gaga comes on rotation), a large chunk set aside for military use (although that's always under pressure from commercial operators), more chunks for the emergency services, wifi, satellite comms, etc etc. Then within each chunk, specific operators are allocated specific frequencies.
For mil use, in the olden days the sigs officer of an AO will be given a band to work within, then he'd have to come up with a plan so that each battalion and company and squadron and battery operating in that AO had its own freq to work with, and a plan to move those freqs around every 24 hours or so to mess with enemy signals interception efforts. That's not so much of an issue with frequency hopping and digital  comms - the new radios just sort of listen to everything that's within their band of interest, and know from the data packet headers which ones are 'theirs'.
For EW, you can just dump noise at high power across multiple freqs, but obviously that messes with your own comms. So the EW wonks and the sigs guys will work together to leave gaps in the blanket through which friendly forces can communicate with each other. Generally those gaps will be in places the bad guys aren't likely to be using. So, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan the gaps would NOT be at or near the freqs that 3G or 4G cellular networks use ... Meanwhile, in Ukraine, presumably the gaps aren't at the common COTS UAS Freqs, except when FF want to send one up.
Generally, I would think that freq management along the front line in eastern Ukraine would be relatively simple. Since there's essentially no civilian activity there, then the entire EM spectrum is up for units to use. Further back the AD dudes would have to manage their freqs a bit more carefully given that there is still a full civilian economy in places like Kyiv and Odessa. But on the other hand they wouldn't generally have to worry too much about Russian jamming that far from the front.
Edit: oh, and don't forget to leave some gaps for the zoomies.

Frequency hopping is great, but all the sudden you the benefits of all the ICs and antennas for the normal frequencies used this stuff and you start needing custom silicon. At scale, not horribly expensive, but starting out, there’s a serious investment needed. Software defined radios aren’t cheap or easy across wider frequency bands, and especially not in higher frequencies.
Basic autonomy is likely much easier, cheaper and more effective in every way. You can’t jam it, there’s no last mile guidance interference, you don’t need a transmitter, and your machine learning training can immediately be applied across the entire fleet.

Good
BUUUUT.... 
 

There seem to be two critical items US provides that Europe can't - C4ISR and Patriots. For almost everything else there is a European equivalent or better (Brad /CV90s, HARM /Meteor, NASSAMs, etc).
I'm not saying CV90s is better than Brad's, but they are certainly equivalent; if UKR swapped every single Brad for a CV90 would there be a drop in effectiveness? Dump the token Abrams and Leos for a fleet of Korean K2s and you're still rolling. 
EU arms production rates and quality of machines can absolutely match US. 
The best (and worst) thing about EU support is that it's non-binary. If the wrong dipsh*t wins the US election then aid drops like a drunk Ivan. EU is slower to get to a point but also slower to leave, and even then intra-member agreements are par for the course. 
Edit-There is a third US item : world wide logistics...damn. 

Good
BUUUUT.... 
 

Japanese have a lock on that.  If you don't have one of these you don't know what you are missing.  
UltraMax® II 1G One-Piece Toilet, Elongated Bowl - 1.0 GPF - WASHLET+ Connection (totousa.com)
 
When the Russians invade Japan, they'll be shooting each other to send one of these home.

Lol
 

Greg Bear would beg to differ.
The Forge of God
Anvil of Stars

Moldova has zero time for RUS nonsense 
https://kyivindependent.com/moldova-signs-defense-deal-with-france-macron-pledges-unwavering-support-against-russian-threat/

Well, not quite....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War
There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.
Copium nets are a-coming...
 

Czechs FTW yet again 
https://kyivindependent.com/czech-company-invest-hundreds-of-millions/

Sounds pretty good, tbh. 
I, for one, welcome our future Svehdish Overlords - Hej! Hej! Hej! 

Moldova has zero time for RUS nonsense 
https://kyivindependent.com/moldova-signs-defense-deal-with-france-macron-pledges-unwavering-support-against-russian-threat/

Hi,
As a Swede I thought today would be a good day to stop lurking for a bit and drop a comment. Been playing cm for 20 years and following this forum for a long time.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread, checking it daily. Always a good source for news and discussion, so much knowledge and experience gathered is hard to get elsewhere. 
I always was all for our countrys neutral stance combined with a strong Defense but last decade has of course swayed us all in Sweden a bit. I have my background in the army, cv90. Seeing us finally start to retake our capabilities regarding defense is good.
Anyways thanks for having us in the club I guess (why am I thinking about brothers Marx)?
Carl