IIRC the Rockapes have latched onto C-UAS as their next justification to exist, not unreasonably linking it to point defence and SHORAD. There have been several trials and experiments looking at the variance between the claims of the C-UAS industry and the reality on the ground, such as the
BRISTOW series. In short, dealing with drones is not simple. Sure, jamming the command link is possible, but most UAVs operate in the frequency band of other, legitimate, spectrum users. Some have multiple frequencies. Normally, if jammed, a UAV will think the command link has failed and will apply 'Lost Link Logic' and RTB. Clearly, if you are engaging in nefarious acts (and LGW counts - the UAVs seem to be of a size where they will have had GPS 'gating' and this must have been disabled), the LLL will be reset to either a target or 'dump' location, so jamming the command link isn't a guarantee of success of either denying an attack or locating the User. The netted C-UAS are short ranged, and on an open airfield a UAV user would have time to see a team approach and move out of range. Physically disrupting with rifle, or causing the UAV to fall via other means, then causes other issues about who/what the drone lands on (and who's responsible if it incurs damage/injury) and with the former, where do the stray rounds go if you miss? Perhaps not an issue on a large, open and controlled airfield, but not something you could use without risk in an urban environment. I don't doubt that LGW, GIP, the CAA, Sussex Police and The Home Office (not to mention the news networks….) have all been bombarded with wild promises from the C-UAS snake-oil sellers sniffing a big, big opportunity as well as free advertising….