Ukraine’s drone innovations are once again in the spotlight—largely because the CEO of Rheinmetall, which is currently building several plants in Ukraine, publicly questioned the innovative nature of Ukraine’s unmanned technologies.
Meanwhile, last week, hundreds of Ukrainian drones continued to strike multiple strategic targets in Russia—defence production sites, oil processing facilities, a port; intercepted thousands of Shahed drones, and destroyed various high-value targets along the frontline.
Perhaps the world should learn more about the nature of Ukraine’s defence innovation.
In this edition:
“Ukrainian Housewives with 3D Printers”: CEO of Rheinmetall on Ukraine’s Drone Producers;
“Dozens of Inquiries, Zero Contracts”: The Paradox of Ukrainian Interceptor Drones;
Pentagon Considers Redirecting Military Aid from Ukraine to the Middle East;
Brave1 Launches Matchmaking Between Ukrainian and NATO Companies;
and 10+ additional developments in Ukraine and Russia.
If you’ve missed my last open-access article, take a look - “Turning Virtual Errors into Ukraine’s Battlefield Advantage: Drone Simulator Obriy”.
Thank you for reading and supporting my work!
We have previously raised funds for three Mavic 3T night-vision drones for the unit of my university friend Vasyl in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Mavic drones are expendable—they are often lost within weeks, or even days. That’s why I’m launching a new fundraiser to purchase another drone.
If you support Ukraine, please consider contributing: PayPal.
Thank you!
“Ukrainian Housewives with 3D Printers”: CEO of Rheinmetall on Ukraine’s Drone Producers
In a conversation with The Atlantic, Armin Papperger, the CEO of Rheinmetall, one of the largest producers of defence equipment globally, called Ukrainian drone manufacturers “housewives”. According to him, “They have 3-D printers in the kitchen, and they produce parts for drones…This is not innovation.”
Papperger also added that Ukrainian drones don’t offer a technological breakthrough. “They make innovations with their small drones, and they say, ‘Wow!’ And that’s great. Whatever. But this is not the technology of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, or Rheinmetall,” he stated.
This interview sparked a wave of reactions in Ukrainian society.
Yuriy Kasianov, an aerial reconnaissance specialist and founder of the Matrix-UAV unmanned aviation bureau, agreed with Papperger that the vast majority of Ukrainian drones contain no real innovation. “These are instruments of war that perform their assigned tasks reasonably well, but they are certainly not a 'silver bullet,' not a wunderwaffe, and not something the rest of the world has failed to develop,” Kasianov wrote.
He continued: “Our FPV drones, like Russian ones, are nearly identical to Chinese racing drones. Our bomber drones resemble Chinese agricultural drones. Our “analogs” to DJI systems do not reach even half the functionality of the originals, which is why they are not favored on the front line. And it is not surprising: DJI employs hundreds of thousands of engineers, while we do not have that number in the entire country”.
At the same time, according to Kasianov, Ukrainian drones have successfully protected skies in the Middle East — but only because they are operated by a few hundred highly experienced Ukrainian specialists. Modern FPV drones are, ultimately, just radio-controlled devices — and they are worthless without the operator. “Ukrainian drones have struck Ust-Luga and continue to effectively destroy the enemy on the battlefield. That, too, is true,” he added.
Bohdan Krotevych, a former officer of the National Guard of Ukraine, wrote in his LinkedIn post that the claim that Ukrainian drones lack innovation is too narrow: “It reduces innovation solely to the complexity of the product. Historically, that approach does not hold. There was nothing “extraordinary” about combining two wheels, a frame, and a handlebar — yet it became a breakthrough that changed mobility.
Such statements can contribute to a distorted understanding of the effectiveness and potential of Ukrainian manufacturers, and thus affect decisions regarding cooperation”.
According to Krotevych, those who invest in Ukrainian manufacturers are thinking strategically. The notion that this is “simple” or “nothing complex” is a form of devaluation rooted in a backward-looking perspective.
Yaroslav Kalinin, CEO at Infozahyst Research and Production Center, reacted in the following way: “We develop our own components, technologies, and code—not because we wanted to reinvent the wheel, but because your “leading Western companies” would not sell it to us. Not before the full-scale invasion, and often not even after. That is why we are moving toward our own chips and metamaterials—not out of ambition, but out of necessity created by the very “civilized world” itself.
Innovation means solving a problem no one has solved before. A $500 FPV drone that destroys a tank worth millions—that is innovation. Not by your corporate standards, but by the only standard that matters in war: effectiveness”.
I would add to the reactions of the above-mentioned experts that the effectiveness of Ukrainian-made unmanned technologies speaks for itself. Last week, Reuters reported that, according to their own calculations, at least 40% of Russia's oil export capacity is at a halt following Ukrainian drone attacks and the seizure of tankers. This is not to mention the “standard” list of achievements by other Ukrainian innovations, such as maritime drones that have destroyed helicopters, oil tankers, and a submarine, and have significantly constrained Russia’s military activity in the Black Sea; or Operation Spiderweb, which used Ukrainian-made FPV drones to destroy or damage 20–40 aircraft and reportedly caused up to $7 billion in losses to Russia.
Moving to the operational-tactical level, the use of fiber-optic drones—despite their relatively low technological sophistication—is currently considered one of the greatest challenges on the frontline, as they are capable of destroying not only personnel but also high-value military equipment, including tanks.
The vast majority of Ukraine’s innovations began as garage-level production and, over time, reached technological maturity. The manufacturers behind these systems are relatively small companies, certainly not comparable in scale to defence tech giants such as Rheinmetall. Still, the results they have achieved are remarkable.
Large producers are unable to innovate and iterate at the pace of small companies in sectors of novel technologies, where this capability is decisive in determining success in high-intensity conflict.
For the context, Rheinmetall aims to build three factories in Ukraine that will remain operational in the future, regardless of whether the war continues or ends during the construction phase. The Rheinmetall ammunition production plant in Ukraine is expected to begin operations in 2026.
Defense Express noted that it took Rheinmetall 15 months to open the production facility in Unterlüß, near Hanover, Germany. A 30 mm ammunition plant in Hungary was also built within 1.5 years. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, 2.5 years have passed since the contract between the company and the government was signed, yet no tangible progress has been made. The Ukrainian plant would realistically only be able to start production in 2027.
“Dozens of Inquiries, Zero Contracts”: The Paradox of Ukrainian Interceptor Drones
There are 15 interceptor drone manufacturers in Ukraine that have been producing more units than the country’s defence needs. Output stands at around 5,000 units per month.
Ukraine’s MoD reported that in February, the Defense Forces shot down over 10,000 Russian fixed-wing drones, including Shahed and Gerbera, using interceptor drones. However, none of the Ukrainian manufacturers currently supply interceptor drones to Gulf countries.