A thousand drones and a million more to come: why Ukraine must tame its weapons "zoo"
This year, the news has been dominated by the emergence of new military equipment. Since the start of 2025, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence has codified 600 different types of weapons, including 250 models of drones and 100 types of ammunition, which is double the number recorded last year.
Ukrainian defence officials often boast about the growing number of drone manufacturers, which now exceeds 500. But this does not always mean that the defence industry is advancing, technology is improving, or the front lines are better equipped.
Ukraine has developed a substantial defence market where competition has driven many innovative solutions that have proved vital on the front lines. However, the time has come when the strategy of maximum diversity in the arms market is starting to work against Kyiv.
A multitude of different drones, components, specifications and related equipment is overwhelming logistics, slowing training and delaying the deployment of drones in combat. Moreover, supplying various types of ammunition with different loading procedures can even result in injuries among military personnel.
[BANNER1]
The lack of standardisation also hampers technological progress and market growth. Software developers encounter greater challenges in creating high-quality solutions without a unified hardware standard. Component manufacturers struggle to scale production without standard specifications. Engineers find it difficult to integrate military equipment into a cohesive combat system as it varies in design and features from unit to unit.
Fragmented orders for the same products across dozens of different companies prevent achieving economies of scale and hinder the accumulation of resources needed to invest in truly complex technological projects and to keep products competitive on the front lines.
Moreover, that is not even mentioning the corruption risks that arise from the chaos of purchasing a "zoo" of different weapons.
For months, defence agencies and the General Staff have been grappling with how to set standards for new military equipment and at least partially tame the chaotic arms market. However, the challenge remains tough, as they must balance standardisation with the need to stay flexible in the face of rapidly evolving technologies.
What is the problem?
The diversity of Ukrainian military equipment was previously seen as an advantage. Opening the drone market to all comers in 2023 enabled the emergence of innovative young companies competing to develop extraordinary solutions.
Nevertheless, another side to the coin is that the large market has created a zoo. A wide variety of drone models are reaching the front lines, each with its own components, software and specific functions. The lack of consensus on a single solution drains two crucial resources from the military: money and time.
Ukrainian defenders must invest significant time and money in learning how to operate new drone models and adapting them to their needs in frontline workshops.
A good example of a standardised drone is the Chinese-made Mavic. Ukrainians have developed software for the drone, and it comes with original parts, making it reliable and even enabling units to develop their own modifications.
For example, Ukrainian troops have combined the original batteries to create a single unit that extends drone flight times. The wide availability of original spare parts allows for mass production of such modifications to Chinese-made Mavics without increasing the risk of defects.
Meanwhile, some Ukrainian drones remain unused in military warehouses for months due to a lack of essential spare parts.
The problem of a lack of unification and clear standardisation is perhaps most pronounced in the first-person view (FPV) drone segment. Out of the hundreds of models, some feature many cheap and untested solutions. A Ukrainian service member told Oboronka, a defence industry project by Mezha Media (a technology and IT news platform within Ukrainska Pravda’s holding company), that he had repeatedly encountered battery fires that were impossible to extinguish in the field. These incidents resulted in lost equipment and, in some cases, entire dugouts being destroyed by fire.
Ammunition for these drones is a separate issue. Many new manufacturers have emerged since the liberalisation of ammunition production, but the wide variety of products on the front lines is causing problems.
[BANNER2]
"Ten companies manufactured detonator caps (ammunition initiation systems) with their own thread," said Yurii Fedorenko, Commander of the 429th Separate Unmanned Systems Regiment Achilles, speaking at the Defense Tech Era forum. "Another ten companies made blanks, each with a different thread as well. So I can’t use their detonators with the ammunition in the way I need to because none of the threads match. I have to send them to a lathe operator at a factory in Kharkiv to have them re-threaded."
"My dream as a commander is for every weapon to have standardised ammunition that is easy for soldiers to use," he added.
What also requires unification and standardisation is electronic warfare equipment, of which there are dozens of models on the market.
"Military units use a wide range of tactical and operational electronic warfare systems developed by different manufacturers," Anatolii Khrapchynskyi, deputy director of Piranha Tech (an electronic warfare equipment manufacturer), told Oboronka. "This creates challenges with operation, compatibility, maintenance and personnel training. The absence of clear, unified standards for form factors, power sources, mountings, control interfaces, antennas and connectors makes it difficult to integrate these systems into a single electronic warfare network. Often, one system's power supplies, cables or antennas aren’t compatible with another, even within the same military unit."
"Take, for example, colour-coded system status indicators," he added. "Many models use different or even conflicting signalling schemes (green, red, blue), which can confuse personnel. NATO standards clearly define the logic: green indicates normal operation, red signals a critical error or failure, yellow denotes a warning or unstable mode and blue is used for special or encrypted modes. Following this scheme allows military personnel to operate the system without additional training, even under stressful conditions."
The absence of unified standards is also holding back technological progress. As Oboronka noted in an article on machine vision, the sheer number of different hardware types prevents programmers from creating a single, effective and mass-produced target acquisition system for FPV drones.
Fragmentation among development companies is holding back the creation of an automated system that would use interceptor drones to shoot down Russian loitering munitions. Taras Tymochko, a consultant at Come Back Alive (a Ukrainian public organisation and charitable foundation supporting the Armed Forces), spoke about this to Oboronka in an interview.
"Such systems already exist, but they are separate," he said. "One system handles automatic launch, another manages target acquisition and a third controls engagement (...) The problem is that these different segments belong to different companies. If they had all been combined into one system and the engineers had worked together, I believe we would have had a drone with automatic launch and targeting long ago."
Another drawback of the so-called "zoo" is that several companies are working in parallel on similar products. On the one hand, this encourages competition and development, but on the other, it spreads resources thin across R&D, which is demanding ever greater investment.
"There's only one producer of deep-strike drones in Russia, while we have several. There are pros and cons to this situation. In my view, there are too many cons. We made progress because there were many teams of manufacturers. But now, that's starting to hold us back," says Oleh Boldyriev, a veteran of the Russo-Ukrainian war who is involved in the production of long-range drones, in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda.
Ultimately, the lack of clear technical requirements for weapons creates corruption risks in procurement. Tetiana Nikolaienko, a representative of the Public Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defence, said that the Defence Procurement Agency is currently ordering FPV drones from suppliers not based on technical specifications, but rather on specific brand names listed by the General Staff. This kills competition and gives manufacturers the power to set their own prices. Moreover, the absence of unified technical standards makes it impossible to conduct transparent tenders, which could significantly help save public funds. At present, contracts are signed only through direct agreements.
The main thing is not to do harm
The issue of standardisation and setting technical requirements has long been on the agenda of defence officials. But the problem isn't as straightforward as it might seem. "Simple solutions" can end up doing real damage.
That's not to say standardisation should be abandoned. It seems that Ukraine's defence industry is now at a stage where this step is necessary for further development. But the process needs to be gradual, flexible and guided by expertise.
For example, if the requirements for FPV drones are defined too rigidly – in the style of Soviet-era GOST standards – it could stifle technological progress, as manufacturers would lose the freedom to innovate.
Nikolaienko says the rapid pace of technological change on the line of contact requires flexibility from both FPV drone manufacturers and buyers. If standards aren't adaptable, there's a real risk the state will end up supplying hundreds of thousands of drones that are already obsolete.
[BANNER3]
Another important issue is competition. If the number of suppliers is reduced from ten to just one, that manufacturer may lose the motivation to improve their product. One combat commander told Oboronka that he is less concerned about the lack of standardisation and more worried about the loss of momentum in the development of a key drone his unit uses.
In the end, the question is whether the standards for each type of weapon will be set competently and independently.
"I see people who've never built anything telling engineers how things should be built. I get worried when these respectable decision-makers start trying to 'standardise' things.
Let me give just one example. During the ATO/JFO [Anti-Terrorist Operations/Joint Forces Operations] period, the Armed Forces developed technical requirements for a military off-road vehicle. One of the requirements stated 'central tyre inflation system'. And that was it – not a single global manufacturer met the standards set by the Armed Forces Institute. So no vehicles were purchased," Boldyriev said in his interview with Ukrainska Pravda.
The push for standardisation marks a shift away from the philosophy of saturating the market with companies and diverse solutions. The key now is not to destroy the innovative environment that has emerged thanks to deregulation.
"If the balance shifts too far in favour of standardisation, it might actually benefit manufacturers focused on scaling up. Supply chains would shrink and production would become more efficient. But it would also slow the search for innovative solutions.
(...) It is possible to strike the right balance. It all depends on how creative and open-minded our officials are. We must avoid extreme restrictions that would hinder the sector's development, while also preventing an even greater diversity of connectors and everything else affected by standardisation. This can be achieved. And our end users – service personnel – must be involved in the process. They are the ones who best understand what's really needed," said Yaroslav Honchar, head of the NGO Aerorozvidka [a team that promotes the creation and implementation of net-centric and robotic military capabilities for the Ukrainian security and defence forces], in an interview with Ukrainian Radio.
Standardisation with a Ukrainian twist
As Deputy Defence Minister Valerii Churkin explained in an interview with IT community platform DOU, the Ministry has developed standards for munitions and explosives. He believes that, out of over 200 types of drone munitions currently used by the defence forces, around 20 should remain in service.
A similar programme is planned for UAVs. Ideally, from around 600 drone models, only a few dozen should be kept, covering various operational needs. Churkin believes this would allow the state to scale up their production as much as possible.
He added that the Ministry hopes to finalise standards for FPV drones, long-range attack UAVs and their warheads between July and August.
Work is also ongoing to develop standards for modular UAVs, meaning the ability to equip a single platform with different components tailored to specific combat tasks. Initially, antennas, controllers and cameras are expected to be modular to streamline logistics for drone units.
Nikolaienko says work on these UAV standards has been ongoing for over a year and faster progress is expected now with the appointment of a new Unmanned Systems Forces commander.
Reducing the number of manufacturers of similar products does pose a corruption risk, namely that the market could be divided among "preferred" producers. That's why the Brave1 tech cluster believes the consolidation of manufacturers should happen naturally, not through manual control by the state. But that requires clear and transparent rules.
For example, in large government tenders, only major producers will be able to offer lower prices for drones. Smaller companies will survive either by developing unique products that competitors don't offer or by joining forces with other small teams around a single project.
One step toward this kind of standardisation has been the launch of Brave1 Market, which is a new marketplace for the military featuring drones, electronic warfare and reconnaissance equipment as well as related components. Around 1,500 products are already listed.
Project coordinator Yuliia Myrna told Oboronka that individual service members will be able to rate each product and leave detailed feedback about its strengths and weaknesses. They'll be able to compare items and choose the best options available.
[BANNER4]
The Brave1 team believes that this kind of market-driven approach is what will ultimately determine the best technologies for the line of contact, helping to scale them up and therefore pushing forward the process of standardisation.
At Brave1 Market, purchases will be made using funds allocated to individual military units, meaning it will cover only a small part of total procurement. To handle Ministry of Defence funds, the Defence Procurement Agency is developing a similar marketplace called DOT-Chain Defence, which will also offer a product catalogue and allow soldiers to see peer reviews.
To summarise, Ukraine's path to standardising weapons doesn't follow the Russian model, where the state manually selects contractors and scales up production of a few key models it considers most effective or has a corrupt interest in.
The Russian approach to standardisation does work, but they achieve results largely due to the scale of their resources. Brave1 argues that trying to compete with Russia by matching their resources is a losing game as they simply have far more money.
Instead, Ukraine should look for an asymmetric response and build a different kind of system: one that leaves room for creativity, while also concentrating orders to enable scaling and improve production efficiency.
The sooner Ukraine finds this golden mean, the sooner its defence industry will achieve a mature structure and move toward sustainable development.
Authors: Bohdan Miroshnychenko and Vladyslav Khrystoforov
Translation: Artem Yakymyshyn and Tetiana Buchkovska
Editing: Susan McDonald
Latest news
more news