http://vigilantdronedefense.com/products/
any thoughts?

Wow!
I should think that there wouldn't be many people who would invest the cash into products like this simply to run around "jamming" sUAV operations for kicks, and that such products would appeal primarily to persons/companies who have a legitimate right to keep other people and other peoples' property off their property, but...
If your UAV is set to return to home, rather than land, with the loss of signal from the control station you would at least retain your property, right?

Won’t do a lot for local WiFi access either

There are a lot of RC jets at the field I practice at.  I asked a pilot what his failsafe was in case he lost the 2.4 link.  it would be a catastrophic fly away at very high speed with a fireball at the end releasing massive joules of energy in a crowded urban area possibly resulting in loss of life.   In a corporate environment there won't be as much security about these jammers especially among contract security guards because they aren't considered lethal.  I could see a guard borrowing one for the weekend especially if it was in the trunk of the patrol car he gets to drive home.  "Geez, I was just testing it out,  I'm sorry your house burned down."   The problem is he'd never get caught with a such range and even carelessly swinging it in the wrong direction would be disruptive.  How about the bad guys using one to take out government surveillance drones.  These things are bad news and the RC clubs, FCC and FAA need to enact some tough laws and prosecutions before someone gets killed.  Get a warrant for the list of customers and send out warnings and insist on a training program and licensing for their use.  

eggbeater Posted at 2017-12-1 18:04
There are a lot of RC jets at the field I practice at.  I asked a pilot what his failsafe was in case he lost the 2.4 link.  it would be a catastrophic fly away at very high speed with a fireball at the end releasing massive joules of energy in a crowded urban area possibly resulting in loss of life.   In a corporate environment there won't be as much security about these jammers especially among contract security guards because they aren't considered lethal.  I could see a guard borrowing one for the weekend especially if it was in the trunk of the patrol car he gets to drive home.  "Geez, I was just testing it out,  I'm sorry your house burned down."   The problem is he'd never get caught with a such range and even carelessly swinging it in the wrong direction would be disruptive.  How about the bad guys using one to take out government surveillance drones.  These things are bad news and the RC clubs, FCC and FAA need to enact some tough laws and prosecutions before someone gets killed.  Get a warrant for the list of customers and send out warnings and insist on a training program and licensing for their use.

Come to think of it, what does the FCC (in the U.S.) have to say about these devices anyway, given that their whole purpose is to emit high doses of RF energy?

Aren't they subject to the same licensing regulations relating to interference with other lawfully-used devices - laws that Wi-Fi routers, and most other types of RF transmitters have to comply with?

I should think that they would be illegal due to the the very nature of their purpose - interference -  anyway.

I can't help but wonder if a more directional antenna connected to the remote control would be helpful in overcoming the interference from such a device. I didn't look closely at how the RF output from one of these "disrupters" would compare to that from a panel array connected to the RC but, given that the I2 system is designed to frequency-hop to overcome interference, and you'd have the additional signal boost, I wonder if it would be worth doing - for a little more peace of mind.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/4Hawks- ... K-USA-/322668138798