The force’s Experimental Operations Unit conducted hands-on testing with Anduril’s YFQ-44A aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, California, in an effort to utilize “principles of the new Warfighting Acquisition System,” according to a Thursday Air Force release.

Previously, the concept employed by the force was fully human-piloted drones, and now, “there is no operator with a stick and throttle flying the aircraft behind the scenes,” Jason Levin, Anduril’s senior vice president of engineering for air dominance and strike, said in an October 2025 company release.

The testing took place sometime last week, according to a Thursday Anduril social media post written by vice president of autonomous airpower Mark Shushnar.

Shushnar said in the post that the EOU gained experience launching, recovering and turning the aircraft during the exercise, and it conducted the pre- and post-flight checks and clearances, weapons loading and unloading and direct tasking of the air vehicle during taxi and flight.

The EOU operators used a ruggedized laptop to upload mission plans, initiate autonomous taxi and takeoff, task the in-flight aircraft and manage post-flight data, Shushnar said, taking out the previous need for fixed infrastructure of a large, established base.

Shushnar highlighted how the YFQ-44A is designed to be easy to maintain with a small crew compared to traditional unmanned aerial vehicles. The exercise demonstrated that, he said. With only a couple days of training, a handful of EOU maintainers were able to turn the aircraft between sorties.

The exercise showcases a move toward “operator-driver experimentation” to find ways to speed up the capability process, per the Air Force’s release.

“By embedding the operators from the EOU with our acquisition professionals, we create a tight feedback loop that lets us trade operational risk with acquisition risk in real-time,” Col. Timothy Helfrich, portfolio acquisition executive for fighters and advanced aircraft, said in the release.

From beginning to end, the exercise was executed by EOU airmen, working alongside Air Force Material Command’s 412th Test Wing, to polish procedures for deploying and sustaining CCA, a trailblazer for the Warfighting Acquisition System, in contested environments, the announcement says.

The release recognized that the EOU’s main objective is to place operators at the center of this process to ensure that the CCA is workable for future conflict by “embedding the warfighter’s voice as the driving force from the beginning.”

The Air Force announced in April 2024 that Anduril and General Atomics were selected to design and create this first batch of drone wingmen. Anduril began flight testing in October 2025 and announced the production for the YFQ-44A Fury CCA in March 2026.

General Atomics announced that their ground testing began May 2025.

Although it is not yet clear how many YFQ-44As the Air Force has ordered from the defense companies, the service has noted they want a fleet of at least 1,000 CCAs for tasks, such as conducting strike missions, carrying out operations and flying alongside manned aircraft, like the F-22, F-35 and F-47 fighter jets.

Despite Anduril and General Atomics both developing aircraft for the Air Force’s CCA program, the service may choose to move forward into the production phase with only one. The Air Force is expected to make that decision sometime this year.

Of the total, €675 million ($796 million) will support 32 capability development projects, and €332 million ($391 million) will go to 25 research initiatives. The selected projects involve 634 entities from 26 EU member states plus Norway, with small and medium-sized enterprises making up more than 38% of participants and receiving over 21% of the total funding, according to a summary of the spending plan.

The most striking cluster of projects marks a shift to 21st-century warfare, with at least four separate initiatives − EURODAMM, LUMINA, SKYRAPTOR, and TALON − devoted specifically to loitering munitions and affordable mass drone production.

The concentration reflects an uncomfortable lesson absorbed from the war in Ukraine: cheap, expendable strike drones have reshaped the battlefield, and Europe’s defense industry has been slow to catch up. Lessons learned in Ukraine are referenced repeatedly throughout the EDF’s materials on the funding round and individual projects.

That battlefield knowledge is now being plugged into the fund’s architecture. For the first time, Ukrainian entities are eligible to participate in EDF projects as subcontractors and third-party recipients, marking a significant step toward integrating Ukraine’s defense-technological and industrial base into the European ecosystem. In the coming months, Kyiv and Brussels are expected to complete the required association agreement to allow Ukraine full participation on equal terms with EU member states in the future.

The EU Defence Innovation Office in Kyiv, established under the European Defence Industrial Strategy in 2024, has been the institutional engine behind that push. One flagship project, STRATUS, will develop an AI-powered cyber defense system for drone swarms and includes a Ukrainian subcontractor, a model the Commission explicitly frames as bringing “direct battlefield experience” into EU-funded R&D.

More than 15 of the 57 projects are tied to the Commission’s four European Readiness Flagships, a set of priority capability areas the bloc identified last year as critical to near-term operational readiness. Project AETHER, for instance, will develop propulsion and thermal management systems in support of the Drone Defence Initiative.

To widen the industrial base, several projects focused on mass-producible drone munitions will launch sub-calls specifically for startups as well as small and medium-sized firms, including Ukrainian ones, that can receive up to €60,000 each to integrate innovations into larger consortia. It is a modest sum, but the intent is structural: to lower the barrier to entry for firms without prior defense experience at a moment when the Commission is under pressure to demonstrate that its defense spending is generating real industrial capacity outside of the usual suspects of established prime contractors.

The 2025 funding awards are separate from both the 2026 EDF Work Programme, which carries a €1 billion ($1.18 billion) budget adopted last December, and the European Defence Industry Programme, whose €1.5 billion ($1.77 billion) work program was adopted in March. Taken together, the three tranches reflect an EU defense funding environment that has expanded dramatically in scale and ambition since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and one that is now deliberately building Kyiv into its foundations.

The Baltic nation will instead direct the funds toward drones, counter-drone measures and air-defense systems, while squeezing more service life out of the country’s existing fleet of second-hand CV90 vehicles.

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur announced the move, which pauses a €500 million ($590 million) acquisition, last week, saying it was based on lessons drawn from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Tallinn will “extend the service life of the existing CV90 vehicles by at least 10 years,” Pevkur was quoted in a statement issued by the government.

The move is in contrast with actions by the other two Baltic States, Latvia and Lithuania, which have made decisions to buy new CV90 and Ascod vehicles, respectively.

“We have decided that, at present, it is more rational to modernize the existing infantry fighting vehicles rather than replace them. Modernization will ensure the sustained preservation of capability and the efficient use of resources,” Andri Maimets, spokesman for the Estonian Centre for Defence Investments (ECDI), the country’s military procurement agency, told Defense News.

Under the modernization plan, the vehicles are to be fitted with new electronics, and their weapon and targeting systems will be upgraded, Maimets said.

Estonia secured 44 used CV90s from the Netherlands that were delivered in 2019, and sourced additional 37 hulls of vehicles made by BAE Systems Hägglunds for Norway, subsequently rebuilding them into support vehicles.

Raimond Kaljulaid, an Estonian lawmaker who represents the opposition Social Democratic Party on the parliament’s National Defence Committee, told Defense News the decision should be viewed in the context of Estonia’s rising military expenditure.

“Estonia spends over 5% of its GDP on defense, and this is real spending on our military which is above NATO’s 3.5 percent target to meet the capability targets,” Kaljulaid said. “This means that, if we want to invest more in counter-drone technologies or combat drones, the money must come from the existing budget,” he added. “If our threat assessment and priorities change, we need to adapt our spending accordingly.”

The lawmaker said the National Defence Committee will “keep a close eye on the adapted approach to make sure that everything is done the right away to ensure national security.”

As Tallinn advances plans to select a foreign supplier for the planned domestic ramp-up of 155 mm artillery ammunition production, Kaljulaid also said that projects to attract international defense industry players to Estonia must be accelerated.

“The past five-six years have brought remarkable success to the development of Estonia’s defense industry, with unmanned technologies as one of the prime examples. At the same time, we must make efforts to ensure that Estonia continues to be competitive with regards to other countries in the region,” he said.

The U.S. military is paving the way for the regular deployment of high-energy laser weapons on American soil for air defense amid the expanding threat of low-cost weaponized drones.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Defense Department have reached a “landmark safety agreement” regarding the use of laser weapons to counter unauthorized drones at the US-Mexico border following a safety assessment that concluded such countermeasures “do not pose undue risk to passenger aircraft,” the FAA announced Friday.

The assessment and resulting agreement were the direct result of two laser incidents along the southern border of Texas in February, which prompted the FAA to abruptly close nearby airspace amid concerns over the potential impact on civilian air traffic. The incidents involved the U.S. Army’s 20 kilowatt Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL), a vehicle-mounted version of defense contractor AV’s LOCUST Laser Weapon System.

In the first incident, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol personnel used an AMP-HEL on loan from the Pentagon to engage an unidentified target near Fort Bliss, triggering an airspace shutdown above El Paso on Feb. 11. In the second, U.S. military personnel used an AMP-HEL near Fort Hancock to neutralize a “seemingly threatening” drone that turned out to belong to CBP, spurring another shutdown on Feb. 27.

“Following a thorough, data-informed Safety Risk Assessment, we determined that these systems do not present an increased risk to the flying public,” FAA administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. “We will continue working with our interagency partners to ensure the National Airspace System remains safe while addressing emerging drone threats.”

The “first of its kind” safety assessment, conducted in early March by the FAA and the Pentagon’s Joint Interagency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401) counter-drone organization at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, reportedly yielded two significant conclusions: 1) the LOCUST’s automatic shutoff mechanism will consistently prohibit the system from firing under unsafe circumstances, a point that AV executives have emphasized in recent weeks, and 2) in the event of a system failure, the laser beam itself cannot inflict catastrophic damage even on aircraft flying at its maximum effective range, let alone those at cruising altitudes.

Here’s how Aaron Westman, AV senior director for business development, described the LOCUST’s safety protocols in a company blog post on March 23:

Every time an operator presses the “fire” button, the system runs through a series of automated checks. Some examples include:

• Is the laser pointing away from protected “keep-out” zones?
• Are all internal subsystems operating within safe parameters?
• Is the system properly locked onto a target?
• Are safety interlock switches engaged?
• Are all software safety checks satisfied?

Each of these checks acts as a safety “vote.”

If any subsystem registers a “no vote,” the laser simply will not fire. An operator can press the trigger — and nothing happens. The system refuses to engage until all conditions are verified as safe.

These automated safeguards are built into both the hardware and the software of the system.

Here’s how DefenseScoop described the LOCUST’s potential effects on passing airframes based on an account from Army Col. Scott McLellan, JIATF-401 deputy director, of the testing at White Sands:

McLellan said the evaluation involved “localized” firing of the AMP-HEL from various distances at the fuselage of a Boeing 767 airliner that testers lugged on to White Sands to assess the system’s damaging effects, “or lack thereof” on aircraft material. He said it aimed to “disprove some myths” about the capability, noting “that energy clearly dissipates over time and space and doesn’t have the effect everyone thinks it does as far as lasers are concerned.”

A JIATF 401 spokesperson said the laser was fired at its “maximum effective range for up to 8 seconds” at the grounded fuselage, “demonstrating that even at full intensity, the laser caused no structural damage to the aircraft.”

As drone warfare spreads beyond distant conflicts, laser weapons are an increasingly attractive domestic countermeasure. While kinetic interceptors and electronic warfare may be considered suitable for chaotic battlefields, their potential for collateral effects makes them far too risky for consistent domestic applications. And even if collateral damage wasn’t a concern, expending expensive missiles on the 1,000 cartel-operated drones that cross the border with Mexico monthly is economically unsustainable, especially for a Pentagon that’s already rapidly burning through munitions as part of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. On paper, the argument seems obvious: Why not save those critical interceptors for high-end threats overseas and let domestic laser emplacements, with their deep magazines and minimal cost-per-shot, pull counter-drone duty at home?

Using laser weapons for domestic air defense wouldn’t be unprecedented. France deployed two 2 kw High Energy Laser for Multiple Applications – Power (HELMA-P) systems to secure the airspace over the country’s Île-de-France region during the 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympics. This past September, China’s People’s Liberation Army deployed several laser weapons across Beijing during a major military parade marking the 80th anniversary of Japan’s defeat at the end of World War II. As of January, the U.K. Ministry of Defense was reportedly drawing up plans to build a domestic laser screen, albeit composed of lower-power laser dazzlers, to protect military installations and other critical infrastructure. The Pentagon has even already considered laser weapons to reinforce the airspace above Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s residences at Fort McNair in Washington following a series of unauthorized drone incursions there.

Indeed, there’s a distinct possibility that laser weapons could see increasing domestic applications amid the U.S. military’s growing appetite for novel drone defenses. On April 2, JIATF-401 announced that it had funneled $20 million in counter-drone systems like the Dronebuster EW handset and Smart Shooter computerized riflescope to the U.S.-Mexico border in just four months.

Days later, the task force announced $100 million to enhance counter-drone capabilities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup starting in June “to protect stadiums and fan zones in 11 cities across nine states,” part of larger $600 million surge in counter-drone systems that also allocated $158 million to “defend the nation’s highest-priority defense critical infrastructure.”

With the Pentagon asking for $580 million in R&D funding just for JIATF-401 in its fiscal year 2027 budget request (and potentially $800 million in procurement cash), the task force appears poised to explore any and all possible solutions to the drone problem — and operationally, the FAA-Pentagon safety agreement helps establish laser weapons as a viable option.

That said, the safety agreement on its own is unlikely to open the floodgates for a sudden spate of laser weapon deployments along the U.S.-Mexico border, let alone for major events like the World Cup or critical infrastructure just yet. First, the agreement doesn’t appear to clarify who has final say in authorizing a laser engagement when U.S. military, CBP and FAA jurisdictions overlap — the precise ambiguity that yielded February’s airspace closures and, until resolved, will complicate future engagements during a fast-moving crisis. Second, the U.S. military’s arsenal of operational laser weapons is currently limited despite a stated goal of rapidly fielding new systems at scale within three years. Even with clear plans to surge directed energy research and development for homeland defense under President Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome for America” missile shield, the age of sleek beam directors quietly standing watch along the US-Mexico border remains a long way off.

The FAA agreement may end up laying the foundation for a true domestic laser air defense architecture — a “Laser Dome” in all but name. Whether the U.S. military actually builds it, however, will depend not just the Pentagon’s promise to deploy laser weapons at scale, but whether Washington can finally sort out who’s in charge when a beam crosses into civilian airspace.

French defense firms have been slow to set up joint companies with Ukrainian partners, with just one joint venture created so far, compared to 11 for Germany and five for Spain, said Ihor Fedirko, the chief executive officer of the Ukrainian Council of Defence Industry. He was speaking at a press briefing late Wednesday after a day of meetings organized with French land defense industry group GICAT.

Ukraine has developed unmatched expertise in Europe in drone warfare after four years of fighting Russia’s invasion, coming up with new use cases and doctrine as well as scaling up drone production to millions of units per year. Meanwhile, France is home to some of Europe’s biggest defense firms and is the world’s second-biggest arms exporter.

“We have to establish a win-win strategy with the defense industry of France, to find our best partners,” Fedirko said. “We want to know as well how you produce your products, your production culture, your standards. That’s what you can bring to our industry.”

Ukraine was present with 27 companies, most of them drone makers, while nearly 60 French firms showed up for the day of match making, according to Fedirko. He said some Ukrainian companies would follow up with visits to French manufacturers on Thursday.

Co-producing Ukrainian defense products with strategic partners, on their territory, means an additional flow of equipment to send to the front, said Oleksandr Kamyshin, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former minister of strategic industries. He said allied governments buying co-produced kit to donate to Ukraine “is the fastest and the best way how we can support our front line.”

Kamyshin said Ukraine’s industry has historically been integrated “into the East” and now needs to become part of the European defense framework, while Europe’s defense industry will become stronger by integrating capabilities learned and developed in Ukraine.

“We come with our lessons learned,” Kamyshin said. “We offer a model which is definitely beneficial for your country, for your industry, for your economy. And we want to do more together.”

Fedirko said no other European country has a defense industry like that of France, active in deep tech and completely independent, with the French industry strong in aerospace and “classic weaponry.” With France able produce everything from missiles and radars to night-vision equipment, what Ukraine can bring is knowledge, technologies and innovations in the field of drones, he said.

“When we will combine our experience and expertise and your deep technologies, your standards, your production culture, we can establish something pretty new,” Fedirko said.

French companies may announce at least one or two drone joint ventures with Ukrainian partners in the coming weeks, said Clément Requier, GICAT’s director of export and European partnerships. He noted France’s defense industry already works with Ukraine’s industry in formats other than joint ventures.

Ukraine is offering a level of industrial collaboration that wouldn’t have been available five years ago, and is open to sharing what it learned to produce, in the interest of integrating with European industry, according to Kamyshin. The Ukrainian official said in turn he sees strong interest in cooperation from the French side.

Wednesday’s meeting was the fourth between the French and Ukrainian defense industries since July 2023, and the first in France, according to Requier. France often frames cooperation with other countries in terms of delivering stand-alone solutions, and should think more about also being a provider of critical components and equipment, he said.

Ukraine has the expertise it needs, with more than 1,000 companies active in defense, most of them producing unmanned systems, said Kamyshin. He said Ukrainian drones have sunk Russian ships and submarines, saying it “looks like Lego drones work well,” an oblique reference to reported comments by Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger widely seen as dismissive of Ukraine’s drone innovation.

France has deep knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence, and “we would be happy do to more in that domain,” according to Kamyshin. Ukraine sees France as a strategic partner, and the focus is on promoting collaboration and co-production in France, rather than sales, the special adviser said.

Ukraine in March raised the possibility of sharing battlefield data with partners to train AI models, and Kamyshin said Ukraine would be happy to share datasets with countries with which it starts co-production, and “not only in Ukraine,” with an announcement on partnerships expected on April 13.

With regards to what France can bring to the table, Ukraine could benefit from more sharing of strong standard setting in Europe, said Éloi Delort, public affairs director at Alta Ares, a French defense AI firm. He said France’s Directorate General for Armament puts “a lot of stress” on French companies to secure systems and ensure technology is not getting stolen.

One of Wednesday’s participants, Ukraine’s MOWA Defense, which provides training and advisory services for defense, sees France as a key market, co-founder Fedir Serdiuk said. Operating in France would require a local partner, which the executive says he hopes to have found, with a possible final agreement or at least a letter of intent in coming months.

Ukrainian drone maker eDrone came to Paris looking for new partnerships, chief commercial officer Pavlo Valenchuk said. He cited the example of a French company with radars, a good drone-tracking system and software, “everything to develop a really good system” to protect strategic objects in France, but lacking interceptor drones. “This type of partnership we’re looking for.”

French company SBG Systems, which makes low-cost inertial navigation systems in France that are used by Ukraine in strike drones, is looking to qualify partnerships to relocate some production to Ukraine, CEO Thibault Bonnevie said. Some manufacturing may be difficult to move because it relies on machine tools from Switzerland, with export restrictions for countries in conflict, he said.

SBG is working to enhance feedback on its products from the front line, a key issue in Ukraine because of the fast-evolving battlefield and Russian electronic-warfare, Bonnevie said. The company’s customers are manufacturers rather than the armed forces directly, which means relying on the drone makers for user feedback, something that was “discussed a lot” on Wednesday, the CEO said.

Meeting with Ukrainian companies in Paris was a way to meet potential new partners rather than sign contracts, according to Bonnevie.

“The next step is usually to go visit those companies directly in Ukraine, because there is nothing really happening in Ukraine for European companies without stronger links,” Bonnevie said. Even if discussions center around drones and robots, “there is still a story of humans working together and trust that needs to be built between the companies,” he said.

The website cited a state-run media report and experts calling the vessel a “major leap in integrated combat capability” that “positions the vessel among the most advanced frigates in service today”.

A slew of announcements such as that one from March 30 shows AI expanding across a military that aims to “intelligentize” as it prepares for potential conflicts in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. But analysts say China is picking its AI battles carefully rather than expecting quick domination of the technology or short-term parity with the United States.

China is taking a “cautious official posture” toward AI in the armed forces, said Sophie Wushuang Yi, postdoctoral teaching fellow with Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University.

“China’s concept of intelligentized warfare has been embedded in official defense white papers since 2019,” Yi said. “But the open-source academic literature is frank that China cannot currently close the overall gap with the United States in military AI capability.”

Still, AI is becoming a force within the forces.

An institution under the People’s Liberation Army in January used AI to test drone swarms and, according to a test run shown on Chinese state television, one soldier supervised some 200 of the autonomous vehicles at the same time.

AI is taking on a greater role as well in the military’s use of space and cyberspace, said Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst for defense strategy and national security with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. In space, he said, it can manage “complex orbital operations,” while in cyberspace it can plan and conduct operations against critical information infrastructure.

The military’s ability to use AI at machine speed would potentially let it exploit a faster “observe-orient-decide-act” loop compared to purely human-controlled systems, Davis said.

“That’s something that’s being demonstrated by the U.S. and Israel now in operational planning in the Iran war, where AI is playing a key role in identifying targets and planning mission packages,” the Canberra-based analyst said. “There’s no reason that the PLA won’t learn from that and utilize a similar capability.”

A testament to AI’s reach throughout the military, a March 26 PLA Daily report notes its use in battlefield perception, intelligent decision support and autonomous control systems.

PLA leaders particularly value AI decision-making because most of their people lack battlefield experience, unlike American counterparts, said Sam Bresnick, a research fellow with the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.

He said its priorities include layering AI on top of computer networks, gathering volumes of data and the autonomy of unmanned systems such as uncrewed underwater vehicles.

Chinese officials want to surpass the U.S. in military AI use, Bresnick noted, but the government today fears information that AI could use or generate. “The data could go against Xi Jinping and Communist Party ideals,” he said. “They don’t want to lose control over it.”

The U.S. armed forces now have a “commanding” AI lead over China, the Modern War Institute at West Point said in a March 17 study.

It says the United States has more than 4,000 data centers versus some 400 in China. Four-year-old U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors shipped to China limit Beijing’s access to AI-related hardware, the study adds.

“China’s publicly stated position is considerably more cautious and more hedged than is commonly assumed in Western coverage,” Yi said.

“The PLA lacks the volume of real operational data that the U.S. military has accumulated over decades of expeditionary warfare, and there are unresolved doctrinal tensions between the decentralized decision-making that effective AI-enabled operations require and the PLA’s deeply embedded centralized command culture,” said Yi of the Schwarzman College.

China may have surpassed the United States in AI for drone swarms, however, said Chen Yi-fan, assistant professor in the Diplomacy and International Relations Department at Tamkang University in Taiwan.

“With the addition of drone carriers already in service, the PLA has taken the lead over the U.S. military in this category of AI military applications,” he said.

The Qinzhou frigate was commissioned last year and did a combat drill in the South China Sea, where Beijing disputes maritime sovereignty with five other governments.

The air-defense interception rate has been steadily rising in recent months, according to data from Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, climbing to 89.9% in March from 85.6% in February and 80.2% in December. At the same time, Russian attacks increased to 6,600 last month from 5,345 in February, the ministry said in a social media post on Wednesday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week visited Middle Eastern countries facing Iranian drone attacks, offering to share the interception expertise Ukraine has built up over four years of Russian air war. With air-defense missiles in short supply and costly, Ukraine has turned to solutions ranging from AI-assisted machine guns on pickup trucks to electronic warfare and interceptor drones.

“The frequency of attacks is increasing but air defense performance is improving,” the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said.

Russia is promoting its own air-defense successes, with TASS reporting on Tuesday that a so-called Donbass Dome is making Ukraine’s high-speed Skat drone ineffective, citing claims by the Russian Federal Security Service Directorate. The air-defense system is able to repel “virtually any drone of this type,” the state-owned news agency said.

Ukraine is building a multi-layered air defense system and stepping up production of interceptors in order to protect civilians and critical infrastructure, according to a war plan presented by Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov in February. The goal is real-time detection of all aerial threats, and intercepting at least 95% of them.

The country could produce 2,000 drone interceptors a day, provided it has sufficient funding, Zelenskyy told Reuters in an interview in March. In the Kyiv region in February, more than 70% of Russian Shahed-type drones were destroyed by interceptor drones, according to Ukraine’s commander in chief Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi.

Recent Ukrainian interceptor-drone models include the JEDI Shahed Hunter, a multi-rotor drone that can hit speeds of more 350 kilometers per hour, and the winged Shvidun with a speed of more than 250 kilometers per hour and an operational range of more than 70 kilometers.

Beyond equipment innovation, Ukraine is also experimenting by allowing private companies to develop their own air-defense capabilities to protect infrastructure, while being part of the broader command-and-control system. One company already shot down several drones in Kharkiv Oblast, with another 13 firms authorized to set up air-defense groups, the Ministry of Defense said on Monday.

The most serious incident occurred at 3:43 a.m. on March 25, when a drone crossing Estonian airspace from Russia struck the chimney of the Auvere power station in the eastern Ida-Viru County − located less than 50 kilometers from the Russian port of Ust-Luga, which Ukraine was striking overnight. No one was injured and the plant’s power output was not affected, Estonian energy company Enefit Power said. But the incident was enough to trigger an emergency government session in Tallinn and a nationwide alarm alert that caused confusion when it failed to specify the affected region.

The Director General of the Estonian Internal Security Service, Margo Palloson, confirmed it was “indeed a drone of Ukrainian” origin, and Estonia’s foreign minister stressed it “was not directed at Estonia.”

Estonian Defense Forces Commander Lt. Gen. Andrus Merilo said investigators were working to determine what type of drone hit the plant, but he was unambiguous about its payload. “We can say with fairly high confidence that it was not a reconnaissance drone, but rather an explosive-laden device — either an attack drone or a decoy drone,” he told reporters.

Earlier the same night, a drone entered Latvian airspace from Russia and detonated in the Krāslava region in southeastern Latvia at around 2:30 a.m., according to Latvian military authorities. Latvian Deputy Chief of Joint Staff Egils Leščinskis said the object was detected by radar roughly ten minutes before impact. “The aircraft most likely veered off course or was affected by electromagnetic warfare measures,” he said.

On Monday night, a Ukrainian drone had already come down in the Varena district of southeastern Lithuania, near the Belarusian border, following a separate attack on Primorsk − Russia’s other major Baltic oil port, which had been burning for over two days by Wednesday. Lithuanian authorities confirmed the drone had flown over Belarus before crashing.

Researchers home in on origins of Russia’s Baltic GPS jamming

It’s not clear why these Ukrainian drones are now repeatedly falling on Western territory rather than reaching their intended Russian targets, but Russian GPS jamming and spoofing have been singled out as a likely cause by officials and analysts. Russian transmitters are known to block and falsify Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals, such as those from the GPS and European Galileo satellite constellations. This can cause drones to lose track of their location or even veer off course when the systems on board are fed falsified location information.

“It’s electronic warfare with the aim of preventing being hit by things that use satellite navigation – drones,” Ralf Ziebold of the German Aerospace Center DLR previously told Defense News for an investigation that geolocated the origin of these signals.

It’s unclear whether Russia is actively redirecting drones to NATO countries or whether the incursions are simply a byproduct of EW defenses protecting key infrastructure and assets on Russian soil. Western officials so far have described the incidents as accidents.

In addition to electronic warfare, the distances at play are huge: Some of the targets Ukrainian drones were intending to strike were up to 1,000 kilometers from Ukrainian territory, making these some of the longest-distance strikes Ukraine has conducted. These long flights can magnify minor navigational errors.

Russian media, heavily controlled by the Kremlin, have reported that the Baltic States have opened their air spaces for the overflight of Ukrainian drones on their way to strike targets in the Leningrad oblast. The claim, which was picked up by Russian state-owned TV channel Rossiya 1, appears to have originated from Mash, one of the most widely read Russian-language Telegram channels.

None of the three drones was intercepted by the Baltic states’ or allied air defense systems. The EDF commander acknowledged that engaging drones near the Russian border is legally and tactically constrained. “Our goal is to avoid any unintended escalation, so we certainly cannot engage drones where there is even the slightest risk that our actions could carry over into Russian territory,” Merilo said.

The incidents follow a growing number of drone incursions along the eastern flank. In July 2025, Lithuania recorded two incursions by Russian-origin Gerbera drones crossing from Belarus − the second of which was found at the Gaižiūnai military training ground carrying approximately two kilograms of explosives, some 100 kilometers inside NATO territory. In August, Ukrainian drone fragments were found near Elva in south-central Estonia after a night of Ukrainian strikes on Russian inland targets. The following month, Latvia recovered Gerbera fragments on a western beach.

That accumulation of incidents has sharpened allied frustration. “These are the effects of Russia’s full-scale war of aggression. We can assume that we will see more such incidents,” said Margo Palloson, director general of Estonia’s Internal Security Service.

Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina drew a connection with Western capitals’ preoccupation with the war against Iran: the attacks on Ukraine and their spillover were intensifying “at a time when the attention of the West has been diverted by events in the Middle East,” she said.

Latvian Defense Minister Andris Sprūds cut short a visit to Kyiv, where he had been delivering drones to Ukrainian forces, to return home. Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys said Vilnius had opened talks with Kyiv. None of the governments signaled any intent to invoke Article 4 or 5, and all three publicly attributed the drone incidents to the spillover of Russia’s war.

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi addressed the incidents at a press conference, stating that Kyiv is in close contact with its partners to clarify all details and that such incidents “have been occurring regularly” in the Baltic states.

The incursions show that the Baltic states’ air defenses may still be unprepared to tackle modern drone threats and raise questions about whether Russia is deliberately redirecting Ukrainian drones to Western states, or whether the incidents can be chalked up as collateral. With Ukraine striking deep into Russia and targeting the Leningrad Oblast along corridors that pass directly over or near the Baltics in particular, more incidents of the Baltic states inadvertently ending up in the crossfire of the war in Ukraine seem likely.

The two nations are seeking a comprehensive suite of commercial systems that can detect and destroy a variety of undersea robots, including unmanned underwater vehicles, remotely operated vehicles and semisubmersibles.

“Current solutions are fragmented, expensive, and limited in number,” warned the solicitation. The primary focus of the Robotic Exclusion and Engagement Framework, or REEF, project is to protect “ports and harbors from underwater threats of varying size and sophistication, while the broader goal is to protect all U.S. critical waterways.”

DIU envisions using off-the-shelf sensors, edge processing, active and passive sensors, sensor fusion, decoys and other technologies to create a stand-alone solution that can be quickly deployed as needed. This can include fixed systems such as moored buoys and buried cables, or mobile systems such as USVs, UUVs, UAVs and drifting buoys.

Sensors should be able to utilize artificial intelligence to discriminate between hostile undersea drones, versus nonthreats such as marine life, cargo ships and fishing vessels.

“The system must provide sufficient detection-to-response time for human in-the-loop decision-making such that underwater threats can be safely interdicted or neutralized,” the solicitation noted.

The system will employ kinetic and nonkinetic approaches to stop drones. Nonkinetic methods can include rapidly deployable nets, bubble curtains and synthetic barriers. Kinetic defenses can include kinetic payloads, acoustic directed energy and physical coupling devices.

Preference will be given to nonkinetic solutions, the solicitation said.

REEF will emphasize decoys to protect waterways and critical infrastructure. “Capabilities to confuse adversarial underwater craft are of high interest. These can be low-cost attritable systems or more technologically advanced systems that use signals to act as a decoy to prevent the successful completion of the adversary’s mission,” according to the solicitation.

REEF should require little training to operate, and use AI to provide users with suggestions. It must be compatible with existing U.S. command-and-control systems and common operating pictures.

Cooperation with the U.K. will be eased by a 2024 Department of Commerce interim final rule that allows some controlled items to be shared with Britain. British companies are eligible for export control relief under General Export Authorization No. 001.

The Dutch armed forces already incorporate drones in their operations, and will expand that capability “significantly” by deploying 1,000 to 1,200 personnel specifically for drone and counter-drone operations, Eichelsheim said in the WNL Op Zondag podcast on Sunday.

Drones have become ubiquitous on the battlefield in recent years, with much of the development driven by the war in Ukraine, where the government says unmanned aerial systems now account for more than 80% of enemy targets destroyed. Meanwhile, Iran’s one-way Shahed drones have been causing destruction across the Middle East since the United States and Israel started striking the country.

“The lessons identified and learned from the war in Ukraine were in any case that unmanned systems were going to play a much greater role,” Eichelsheim said. “We’re seeing that now in the Middle East, and the same goes for the conflict with Iran.”

Eichelsheim said drone warfare requires a “completely different approach” to collaborating with industry on the front lines, as systems require continuous modernization and adaptation. That includes radars that have to be adjusted to respond to threats, or unmanned systems that become either more or less effective over time, the defense chief said.

“So you have to continuously adapt,” Eichelsheim said. “That too requires a change in how we operate.”

Armed forces across Europe have been trying to figure out how to adapt to an era of mass drone warfare, with Russia and Ukraine each using millions of drones a year in their war that has entered its fifth year. The Netherlands in December ordered Skyranger anti-drone cannons from Rheinmetall to protect maneuvering troops as well as static sites.

Regarding the conflict in the Middle East, the Dutch chief of defense said that while Iran’s defensive capabilities have been destroyed, the country retains a large portion of its offensive capabilities.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the U.S. was “getting very close to its objectives” in Iran, with the fight militarily won.

“Iran is still perfectly capable of launching ballistic missiles and maintain mobility regarding its launch sites,” Eichelsheim said. “So it is not quite as Mr. Trump says that Iran has been completely taken out. That is absolutely not the case.”

While the United States and Israel have air superiority, Iran has been clever about hiding launchers, and making them mobile, according to the Dutch general. He said Iran is “nowhere near halfway” through its missile stock, which makes it hard to say how long the conflict will continue.

The Netherlands and its allies are drawing up an inventory of the capabilities that could contribute to securing the Strait of Hormuz, to be able to brief policy makers on what the military options are, according to Eichelsheim. “We’re really still right at the very beginning of the planning process.”

The vessel, identified as an AEGIR-W variant, came aground on a beach in the Yüceler neighborhood of Ünye district in Ordu province. Locals discovered the craft and informed the authorities.

According to a statement issued by the Ordu Governorate, Turkish Navy explosive ordnance disposal specialists conducted a technical inspection of the vesselon March 21.

The examination determined that the craft remained operationally active and was carrying a warhead. Given the assessed risk, authorities made the decision to tow the vessel approximately four kilometers from the shoreline and destroy it in a controlled detonation.

Görseller üzerinden yapılan incelemelerde, bahsi geçen İDA'nın, AEGIR ailesinin AEGIR-W adlı üyesi olduğu görülüyor.

Yaklaşık 10 metre uzunluğundaki AEGIR-W, azami 900 kilometre menzile sahip ve 25+ knot sürate ulaşabiliyor. Otonom olarak görev icra edebilen İDA'nın faydalı yük… https://t.co/Uqdb24Z73G pic.twitter.com/jZ3DjBbdx0

— SavunmaSanayiST.com (@SavunmaSanayiST) March 21, 2026

The AEGIR-W is a long-endurance unmanned surface vessel designed for operations in high-threat maritime environments. The platform measures under ten meters in length, is constructed from high-density polyethylene, and is powered by a diesel combustion engine.

It is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 25 knots and carries a maximum payload of 300 kilograms across a range of 500 nautical miles at cruise speed. The vessel can operate either fully autonomously or under direct human operator control, depending on mission requirements.

According to Sierra Nevada Corporation’s product documentation, the AEGIR family — which also includes the AEGIR-F stealth variant and the longer-range AEGIR-H — is designed for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare, offensive operations, and autonomous resupply tasks.

The Black Sea has become an increasingly active theater for unmanned maritime systems since the start of Russia’s full-scale Ukraine invasion in February 2022.

This is the fifth time an out-of-control naval surface drone has been found on Turkish shores since September 2025. In previous cases the vessels were Ukrainian Magura-family craft. This is the first time that a foreign-made system has been confirmed present in the region.

“In the early hours of Operation Epic Fury last month, a deployed [Fly-Away Kit] successfully detected and defeated sUAS operating over a strategic U.S. installation,” Guillot said in his written statement ahead of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.

Although he did not give details about the installation threatened, Guillot revealed that the threat was defeated by USNORTHCOM’s counter-drone Fly-Away Kit.

The FAK is produced by Anduril and was “designed specifically to detect, track, identify and mitigate drone incursions at military installations within the United States,” USNORTHCOM previously said. The kit is manned by a team of 11 soldiers who became operational as a rapid counter-drone response force last November.

The Defense Department’s lead counter-drone task force, Joint Interagency Task Force 401, did not provide specific details about the location or nature of the incident but told Military Times that the unit will continue to monitor the situation.

“We are aware of the action reported by U.S. Northern Command, and we continue to work closely with them on how best to array our c-UAS capability to defend the homeland,” a spokesperson for the JIATF-401 told Military Times.

“We also work with our law enforcement and interagency partners to monitor and investigate illicit drone use around military installations and other defense critical infrastructure. Our top priority is the safety of our service members and civilian personnel that work and live on the base.”

The FAK features an enhanced array of sensors to detect rogue drones, including Anduril’s Wisp, an AI-infrared system with 360-degree motion sensor; a Heimdal mobile sensor trailer that uses thermal optics and radar; and Pulsar, an AI-enhanced electromagnetic warfare platform.

It uses a self-guided drone interceptor called Anvil to home in on and ram drones out of the sky.

USNORTHCOM expects to receive more of the kits in late spring, according to Guillot’s written testimony.

During the committee hearing Thursday, in response to questions from Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., Guillot also revealed that the U.S. has seen a spike in drone intrusions over military installations over the the last year.

“Some of that might be due to the fact that we have more detection capability now than we did in the past, and then our ability to defeat them has improved,” Guillot said. “Whereas a year ago, almost every one that was detected was not defeated. Now about a quarter of the ones that we detect we’re able to defeat.”

Guillot stated that he works closely with U.S. Strategic Command to ensure that submarine silos, aircraft bases and other key locations have adequate protection from potential threats posed by small unmanned aircraft systems.

Meanwhile, as a deterrent to drone intrusions, the Defense Department, along with the Federal Aviation Administration and other federal agencies, announced a zero-tolerance policy toward unauthorized drone flights in restricted airspace, with penalties including fines of over $100,000, criminal charges and imprisonment.

Amid cornfields and horse farms 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Columbus, Ohio, the defense tech start-up is expecting its $1 billion Arsenal-1 autonomous systems manufacturing campus to employ more than 4,000 people over the next decade, starting with roughly 250 by the end of this year, officials said on Thursday.

Anduril is one of a new but growing group of small defense firms hoping to win lucrative Pentagon contracts for next-generation weapons. The Trump administration hopes the newer firms will help upend weapons manufacturing by delivering cutting-edge technology more quickly and at a lower cost.

Matt Grimm, Anduril’s co-founder and chief operating officer, said its approach to manufacturing differs fundamentally from traditional defense contractors.

Rather than designing products first and worrying about production later, the company bakes manufacturability in from Day 1 — choosing commercial materials such as aluminum over titanium, using composite techniques borrowed from the recreational boat industry and selecting a commercial business jet engine for the Fury program specifically because of its well-established supply chain and maintenance ecosystem.

Production of the company’s Fury autonomous aircraft will be the first to launch at the facility. The Fury is Anduril’s entrant for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program — part of an Air Force plan for a next-generation family of systems, an effort to equip crewed fighter jets and other planes with an uncrewed platform that would fly alongside the human pilots.

“From the very first prototype, we’ve been working with our engineers on every single build, thinking, how do we design it for production?” Grimm said.

Anduril said its Roadrunner interceptor, Barracuda cruise missile family and a classified program were all expected to be produced at the new factory by year-end.

The company said it is already operating production facilities in Mississippi, Australia, Rhode Island, Colorado, Atlanta, North Carolina and Southern California.

(Reporting by Mike Stone in Ohio; Editing by Chris Sanders, Rod Nickel)

During Operation Skyfall held at Grafenwoehr Training Area, soldiers of the 2-159th Attack Battalion, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, used the Boeing AH-64E Apache to pursue and attack Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

It is not the first time that the Army has ever practiced using Apaches against drones. In December, the service held an air-to-air combat training exercise in Yuma, Arizona, that saw the Apaches destroy a a variety of drones in flight using a 30mm fragmentation round called the APEX.

The exercise in Germany, however, marks the first time that the U.S. Army has wielded Apaches for this purpose in Europe. It is a significant move due to the relevance of anti-drone training for NATO allies.

Soldiers of the 12th CAB train regularly alongside British, Dutch and Polish NATO forces. They remain in Germany as “a tactical necessity,” the service said in a statement last month.

Operation Skyfall is aimed to advance NATO’s Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative, or EFDI, to protect countries in Eastern Europe from incursions.

The Apache has proved well-suited to chasing and killing drones as it can fly at speeds of over 180 miles per hour and is more nimble at maneuvering than many larger fixed-wing aircraft.

Many pilots within the 12th CAB’s attack unit, known as the “Gunslingers Battalion,” had never previously used Apache helicopters in this manner.

“Most pilots in our unit and across the Army have never engaged in air-to-air with the Apache, so this is a new engagement profile for us that we have to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures for,” said Maj. Daniel Murphy, operations officer for the battalion, in a statement.

“We’re looking forward to sharing what we learn so we can continue developing the EFDI alongside our NATO allies.”

The new training will provide “a blueprint for Allied aviation units“ across Europe, the Army has stated.

The service also noted that this training is “more critical than ever as Poland prepares to become the second-largest operator of Apaches in the world.”

Last November, Boeing announced that 96 Apaches would be produced for the Polish Armed Forces under a $4.7 billion U.S. Army Foreign Military Sales contract, with deliveries expected to start in 2028.

While the PrSM Increment 2 is part of the U.S. Army’s long-range fire program, it is designed for sea denial. It features a seeker within its navigation system that provides targeting guidance and homes in on fast-moving threats, including ships.

Its new capabilities will allow the Army to “strike relocating or fleeting targets in both land and maritime environments,” according to a statement released by Lockheed.

The company said the first flight test was a “major milestone” and added that missile development was “backed by significant investment,” thus advancing rapidly through initial tests. Two more tests are set to take place this year.

The upgraded missile builds off the foundation of its predecessor, and both systems share common baselines.

US launches Precision Strike Missiles in Iran war in first combat use

Both missiles are compatible with M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, as well as the M270A2 Multiple Launch Rocket System, or MLRS, which is commonly used in European countries.

The missiles are designed to withstand turbulent in-flight weather conditions, and their warheads are built to deliver fragmentation effects when they explode on impact.

During the recent test, the upgraded PrSM launched from a HIMARS system and flew more than 200 miles.

“With Increment 2, PrSM delivers the long-range capability the Army asked for to defeat moving land and maritime threats,” Carolyn Orzechowski, vice president of Lockheed Martin Precision Fires Launchers and Missiles, said in the statement.

Production of the the original PrSM was already accelerated last fall prior to its combat debut in Operation Epic Fury, during which it was fired against Iranian targets from HIMARS launchers positioned in open terrain.

The PrSM was launched among an array of weapons systems, including Patriot Interceptor Missile Systems and THAAD Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. LUCAS one-way attack drones were also used for the first time by the U.S. Special Operations Command-led Task Force Scorpion Strike.

The sea service reached an agreement with the Pittsburgh-based Gecko Robotics, the company confirmed Tuesday, to deploy tech capable of streamlining repairs and reducing maintenance delays for a surface fleet that continues to be stretched thin.

The contract will begin as a 5-year, $54 million indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity deal that will soon see Gecko begin work on 18 ships assigned to the Navy’s U.S. Pacific Fleet.

To expedite what has in recent years become a headache for naval readiness, Gecko uses drones, wall-climbing robots and fixed sensors to gather data on components, decks, welds and hulls.

That information, paired with AI tools, is used to identify current and potential structural issues that may remain hidden to the naked eye.

“A single robotic evaluation and digital rendering of a flight deck eliminated over three months of potential maintenance delay days,” the company release stated about one such procedure.

These measures have expedited maintenance “up to 50 times faster and more accurately than manual methods,” the company added.

“Readiness isn’t just a metric, it’s all that matters,” Jake Loosararian, co-founder and CEO of Gecko, said in the release. “This growing partnership is about unfair advantages Gecko is deploying to our Navy; and how prediction, through our robotics and AI products, ensure our brave men and women are the most advantaged in the world in their fight to defend freedom.”

In fall 2024, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti unveiled a goal of having 80% of the Navy’s fleet ready to deploy at any given time by 2027.

Obstacles to reaching that goal materialized quickly, however, with a Government Accountability Office report in December 2024 highlighting a readiness rate among the Navy’s amphibious warfare ships of just 46% between 2011 and 2020. This rate, in turn, significantly hindered Marine Corps deployment and training plans.

In August 2025, that rate reportedly dipped to just 41%, resulting in a more than five-month gap in Marine Expeditionary Unit deployments that year and further straining resources amid the Trump administration’s push to counter the illicit drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The 80% plan, meanwhile, was picked up by Franchetti’s successor, Adm. Daryl Caudle, who called the rate “an ambitious but essential readiness goal.”

“Achieving this requires shorter maintenance cycles, increased spare-parts availability, improved training pipelines and targeted upgrades across the fleet,” Caudle wrote for Military Times in December.

“Readiness is not a budget line — it is a promise to the American people that their Navy will never arrive late to a fight."

The K2 is a fixed-wing loitering munition measuring 5.1 meters in length and 2.1 meters in height, with a wingspan of 10 meters. The maximum take-off weight is 800 kilograms, of which 200 kilograms is allocated to the warhead payload.

Baykar states that the K2 has a maximum range in excess of 2,000 kilometers, a cruising speed of over 200 km/h, and an endurance exceeding 13 hours.

The K2 carries an electro-optical and infrared gimbal camera, providing day and night reconnaissance and surveillance capability alongside a visual target lock-on function for terminal guidance.

urkey’s Kızılelma combat drone hits test target in all-Turkish setup

The K2’s navigation architecture is designed to function in conditions where global navigation satellite systems are unavailable or subject to jamming. The platform supports coordinate-based targeting and visual lock-on engagement. Datalink architecture includes both line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight satellite communications.

The platform uses terrain-referenced visual navigation — scanning ground features through its gimbal and underside cameras — to derive positional estimates without reliance on external satellite signals.

This approach has become a stated design requirement across a growing number of loitering munitions programs, driven by the prevalence of GPS jamming and spoofing observed in Ukraine and other recent conflicts.

According to Baykar, in the test scenarios, five K2 platforms operating with AI-assisted swarm synergy, used their artificial intelligence, sensors and software to determine their position relative to other aircraft in the swarm, maintaining their place within the formation without error and successfully completing all assigned tasks

Baykar has marketed the K2 as a relatively inexpensive strike option for military forces, with unit cost low enough to permit large-scale fielding and reduce dependence on more expensive precision munitions

Roughly 240 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, two soldiers — part of the Norwegian Armed Forces’ long-range reconnaissance unit — were imperceptible from their position deep in the woods during NATO’s Cold Response 2026 exercise.

One of the only clues of their presence was a small, grey, first-person-view drone lying on the snow — a stark contrast to their all-white uniforms. The drone in question is an American system, the Skydio X10D, which is also used by Ukrainian forces.

The U.S. manufacturer was awarded a $9.4 million contract by the Norwegian Ministry of Defense in July.

“We are trying our best in Norway to implement lessons from Ukraine — for us, it’s all about increasingly using FPV and intelligence-gathering ones but adapting them to our environment,” said a Norwegian officer who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity around the unit.

The Norwegian officer told Defense News during the NATO exercise, which lasts from March 9 to 19, that there is also an interest in incorporating FPVs into high-value target operations. While some operators have begun simulator training to fly them, this is a fairly recent development and has not yet been formally incorporated into their training.

Another drone model was displayed by the Norwegian Army Land Warfare Centre, which is responsible for training and developing weapon systems, including testing drones and sensors.

An officer with the Land Warfare Centre who flies the Skydio explained that, as part of Cold Response, almost every unit of the Norwegian Army was equipped with this capability to rehearse intelligence-gathering maneuvers. So far, it has performed relatively well, but it has experienced some difficulties, like most drones, in harsh conditions found in the Norwegian Arctic, he said.

One of the key challenges is battery life, which degrades significantly in cold environments.

An additional FPV used by the Norwegians during the exercise was a self-built one, with cheaply procured parts. It served as a one-way attack drone whose purpose was to carry explosives and see how far it could fly.

Another Arctic nation to have brought along an experimental drone was the United States.

The U.S. Marines tested a unique-looking FPV provided by Johns Hopkins University. The variant was equipped with a cage, the purpose of which is to prevent an excessive loss of the systems during training. The cage prevents it from crashing, and if repairs are needed, they can be carried out easily.

The U.S. troops used it in force-on-force scenarios, in which a friendly force engages a live adversary. This type of training allows their operators to enhance their piloting skills in a strike manner while also improving their counter-drone tactics, increasing pilots’ survivability.

Similar to the Norwegians, Master Sgt. Patrick Harrington, director of the unmanned systems center of excellence at the 2nd Marine Division, highlighted power as one of the biggest challenges to operating FPVs in Arctic conditions.

“We’ve been able to exchange with our allies here also, there’s interest in how each country [ourselves included] uses them, what they fly, how they fly it,” he said.

The Pentagon announced the CAMP program last April with the release of a solicitation calling for a new class of XL-AUV, or extra large underwater vehicle.

The solicitation called for a large underwater vessel that could maneuver in GPS-denied environments, dive over roughly 656 feet (200 meters) deep and drop “various payloads to the sea floor.” It specified that the vessel had to stay underwater for prolonged periods and be able to be transported and recovered easily by commercially available freight and logistics equipment.

Anduril was chosen for the CAMP program after wrapping the longest-ever XL-AUV demonstration, per a company statement. It will conduct an extended demonstration of its Dive-XL platform within four months of contract award.

“The subsea domain currently is patrolled and serviced by a very small number of exquisite capabilities,” Dr. Shane Arnott, senior vice president of Anduril’s maritime division, told reporters at a March 11 roundtable. “The Pacific and also the High North, which is the new fight that’s starting around the Arctic, are water-based fights. So it’s a no-brainer that robots are needed to supplement the crewed systems.”

The Dive-XL meets many of the desired features noted in the original CAMP solicitation. The vehicle is propelled by an all-electric powertrain that allows it to speed through the depths without needing to break the surface and can travel in excess of 2,000 nautical miles.

It has a highly flexible design that be modified for different mission types, including reconnaissance, and can carry up to three payload modules at once. These loads can include smaller unmanned underwater vehicles, effectively making the Dive-XL an type of mothership for even smaller drones that can conduct surveillance or strike underwater.

Additionally, the Dive-XL platform fits into commercial freight containers and can be transported via train or trucks, which corresponds to the Navy’s demand for a modular, easy-to-use system.

Anduril’s selection for the project follows its formal adoption last September by the Royal Australian Navy to deliver a fleet of AI unmanned submarine called Ghost Sharks within the next three years.

The announcement, reported by Reuters, marks a striking role reversal from years of Western forces training Ukrainian troops and underscores the value of lessons learned on the increasingly drone-dominated battlefield of the Russian invasion. ​

“We have high expectations,” Lt. Gen. Christian Freuding told Reuters in an interview. “The Ukrainian military is currently the only one in the world with frontline experience against Russia.”

Ukraine’s top drone units to bring frontline lessons to Washington this month

The deployment follows an agreement signed between the German and Ukrainian defense ministries, under which Ukrainian instructors will embed at Bundeswehr schools to pass on battlefield knowledge accumulated over more than four years of full-scale war. The first contingent is expected to number in the “middle double-digits” and will rotate through for several weeks at a time, Freuding said.

Their expertise will span artillery, engineering, armored operations, drone employment, and command and control − precisely the capability types where the Ukraine war has produced the most rapidly evolving battlefield lessons. The move reflects growing recognition across NATO that European armies have more to learn from Kyiv than they can offer in return.​

Freuding grounded the urgency in Western intelligence assessments suggesting Russia could be in a position to mount a large-scale offensive against the alliance as early as 2029. “That’s almost the day after tomorrow. We have no time - the enemy doesn’t wait for ‌us ⁠to declare we’re ready. So we have to use every possibility to prepare,” he said.

Germany has trained Ukrainian personnel on platforms including the Marder infantry fighting vehicle, Leopard main battle tanks, artillery systems, and air defense since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. That the relationship has now effectively inverted − with Kyiv dispatching trainers north rather than receiving them − is, Freuding said, a reflection of “an equal partnership in the field of security.”

Berlin is currently Kyiv’s most significant backer, having provided the most aid of any country aside from the United States, which has paused direct military support to Ukraine under the Trump administration. By the end of 2025, Germany had provided a total of €20 billion ($23.1 billion) in military aid to Ukraine, according to a running tally by the German-based Kiel Institute, an economics research organization.

Defense and government officials from both countries have launched a number of initiatives to benefit from each other’s comparative advantages, including taking steps to foster tighter integration of their defense industrial bases.

The latest announcement comes as Berlin accelerates its broader Bundeswehr buildup, with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius targeting defense spending of 3.5% of GDP by 2029 as part of an ambition to field Europe’s most powerful conventional army.

The Ground Truth Symposium will be hosted on March 25 by the Peace Through Strength Institute, a foreign policy and defense think tank based in Washington.

The event promises to translate “Ukraine’s frontline reality into clearer congressional understanding of the war, the capabilities shaping it and the conditions required to help bring it to an end on terms consistent with both Ukraine’s survival and United States strategic interests,” according to a release.

Representatives from several Ukrainian drone units will participate in the symposium, including soldiers from the country’s most effective UAV squads like Lazar Group, the 12th Special Forces Brigade and the 414th UAV Brigade “Magyar’s Birds.”

Discussions are expected to focus on Ukraine’s expertise in drone tactics and technology, along with the best practices for integrating the newer class of weapons into countries’ existing air defense systems.

The heavy use of several types of drones by multiple countries since the start of the recent conflict in the Middle East, currently involving about a dozen countries, will be a major talking point.

“Ukraine’s experience offers critical lessons for the United States and its allies — lessons the United States and our allies need now in the Iranian conflict,” the event’s press release stated.

Ukraine first made the shift to cheap interceptors not by choice, but because Russia’s nightly Shahed waves were burning through Western-provided missiles faster than allies could resupply them.

Last month, Ukrainian interceptors destroyed more than 70% of incoming Shaheds over Kyiv, freeing scarce Patriot missiles for the ballistic threats they were designed to stop.

Interceptor drones are small, fast, semi-autonomous unmanned aircraft — often costing between $1,000 and $2,500 each — designed to hunt and destroy incoming drones by ramming into them or detonating alongside them at altitude.

Compact enough to fit inside a duffel bag and fast enough to chase a Shahed in the dark, Ukraine’s interceptors can fly at speeds between 195 and 280 miles per hour, depending on the model.

Most combine thermal imaging with radar tracking and AI-assisted guidance, with a human operator taking manual control for the final seconds of the intercept.

“By working hand-in-hand with the [Federal Aviation Administration] and our interagency partners, we are ensuring that these cutting-edge capabilities are safe, effective, and ready to protect Americans from emerging drone threats,” U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Matt Ross, director of the JIATF-401, stated in a release. “Our measure of success is to quickly deliver state-of-the-art C-UAS capability to the warfighter, and this test furthers that mission.”

The release did not state the specific laser system being tested.

The test will be conducted in partnership with the FAA. It aims to address FAA safety concerns about lasers, and will gather data for the agency regarding eye safety for aircrews and potential effects on aircraft during tests conducted using aircraft surrogate models, according to the release. The trials will also test laser systems’ automatic safety shut-off functions.

The test will focus on demonstrating the systems’ built-in safety features and training protocols to allow operators to use them securely and effectively. The laser will engage a variety of targets.

High-energy laser systems are manufactured by many leading defense contractors and provide a “soft kill” approach to taking out small drones using photons, or light particles. The concentrated beams track small unmanned aircraft systems and burn them with focused rays, bringing them down without expending munitions.

The test is part of a steady upswing in the integration of laser weapons into the services. Last year, the U.S. Army released a Request for Information to obtain up to 20 high-energy laser weapons to kill three different classes of drones. This followed a U.S. Navy disclosure that the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Preble fired a high-energy laser weapon against a drone during an exercise.

Figures published by Gulf defense ministries indicate that as of March 3, Iran has launched more than 540 missiles and carried out over 1,450 drone strikes against regional countries, with drones constituting roughly three-quarters of the attacks, Reuters reported.

While the patterns seen since the start of the Iranian attack window resemble the saturation logic observed in Ukraine, where large waves of cheap one-way attack drones combined with ballistic missiles are deployed to overwhelm defensive systems, analysts note some differences in their roles.

“In Ukraine, Shahed-type drones often serve as nightly, persistent harassment and infrastructure attrition tools, whereas in the Gulf they’re being used inside a broader missile campaign intended to stretch the Gulf and U.S.-aligned air defenses across multiple states, bases and urban areas simultaneously,” Kristian Patrick Alexander, senior fellow and lead researcher at the UAE-based Rabdan Academy, said.

Thus far, Gulf countries have reported high interception rates of missile attacks, and to a lesser extent, against low-flying drones. For example, data published March 4 by the United Arab Emirates, which has absorbed a large number of the offensives, claimed military forces detected 941 drones and intercepted 876 of them.

Some of the weaponry used by countries and their allies to shoot down low-cost drones includes the U.S.-made Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) systems as well as Rafale fighters, F-15s and Eurofighters.

Francesco Schiavi, research fellow at the Middle East Institute Switzerland, concurs that one of the main challenges for the region will be endurance, especially as the fighting continues.

“Each interception carries a financial and logistical cost – estimates suggest that for every dollar Iran spends producing drones, Gulf states may spend $20-$28 on defensive fire, with individual interceptors often costing more than $1 million,” Schiavi added.

Both experts advised that countries under attack must urgently look to cheaper and scalable counter-drone layers: electronic warfare, jammers, guns or close-in weapons, directed energy, and enhanced shared air picture coordination.

“The ‘winning’ defense will be the one that can kill lots of targets cheaply without burning premium interceptors – without cheaper layers and better integration, the cost curve favors the attacker,” Alexander said.

Meanwhile, Tehran’s offensive arsenal, already degraded by U.S. and Israeli air strikes, is also running lower, said Federico Borsari, non-resident fellow at the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis

What to watch

As hostilities drag on, subject experts highlight three important factors to monitor: the type of attacks, the nature of targets, and the performance of strike weapons.

According to Alexander, one tactic to watch is whether Tehran will continue to send attack drones in big waves or if they will be used in sequenced packages to probe radars before firing missiles.

Schiavi adds that it will be important to pay attention to the strike pattern Tehran adopts: Until now, the regime has followed a dispersed approach, targeting several Gulf countries at once with a mix of weapons, but it could shift toward true saturation attacks as observed in Ukraine.

The primary targets of Iranian attacks have so far been military bases and embassies. It remains to be seen if Tehran is able to expand the target set to include more critical infrastructure, such as ports, logistic hubs, or energy facilities, which experts say would signal an escalation.

Sam Bendett, advisor at the Center for Naval Analyses, said he’s keeping close tabs on the flight ranges of Iran’s Shahed drones, and the variety of similar weapons the country has in its arsenal.

It will also be important to see if Washington’s role changes as the conflict continues, considering that Gulf countries’ interception capabilities are closely tied to U.S. technology.

“Gulf air defense systems and their performance remain closely linked to U.S.-enabled radar coverage, early warning, and operational coordination – interceptions over Qatar, for example, rely heavily on radar networks connected to Al Udeid Air base, while missile engagements in Kuwait occur in airspace shared with American aircraft,” Schiavi added.

Various countries, including the United States, have approached Ukraine for help in defending against the Iranian drones, Zelenskyy said late Wednesday. He said he has spoken in recent days with the leaders of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait about possible cooperation.

Russia has fired tens of thousands of Shaheds at Ukraine since it invaded its neighbor just over four years ago, launching a swarm of more than 800 drones and decoys in one of its biggest nighttime barrages. Iran has responded to joint U.S.-Israeli strikes by launching the same type of drones at countries in the Middle East.

Ukrainian assistance in countering Iranian drones will be provided only if it does not weaken Ukraine’s own defenses, and if it adds leverage to Kyiv’s diplomatic efforts to stop the Russian invasion, according to the Ukrainian leader.

“We help to defend from war those who help us, Ukraine, bring a just end to the war” with Russia, Zelenskyy said.

Ukraine has battle-tested drone defenses

Ukraine has pioneered the development of cut-price drone killers that cost as little as $1,000, rewriting the air defense rule book and making other countries take notice.

European countries got a wake-up call last September on the changed nature of air defense when Poland scrambled multimillion-dollar military assets, including F-35 and F-16 fighter jets and Black Hawk helicopters, in response to airspace violations by cheap drones.

Ukrainian manufacturers have developed low-cost interceptor drones specifically designed to hunt and destroy Shaheds, and its rapidly expanding drone industry is producing excess capacity.

Zelenskyy announced earlier this year that Ukraine would begin exporting the battle-tested systems.

The European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said before chairing a meeting of EU and Gulf foreign ministers via video link Thursday that the talks would look at how Ukraine’s experience can help countries counter Iranian drones.

Middle East war delays Russia-Ukraine talks

The Iran war, now in its sixth day, has drawn international attention away from Europe’s biggest conflict since World War II, and forced the postponement of a new round of U.S-brokered talks between Russia and Ukraine planned for this week, Zelenskyy said.

Western governments and analysts say the Russia-Ukraine war has killed hundreds of thousands of people, while there is no sign that yearlong U.S.-led peace efforts will stop the fighting any time soon.

“Right now, because of the situation around Iran, there are not yet the necessary signals for a trilateral meeting,” Zelenskyy said. “But as soon as the security situation and the overall political context allow us to resume that trilateral diplomatic work, it will be done.”

Zelenskyy thanked the United States for the return from Russia on Thursday of 200 Ukrainian prisoners of war. Russia’s Defense Ministry also said it received the same number of prisoners from Ukraine and thanked the U.S. and United Arab Emirates for mediating.

Prisoner swaps have been one of the few tangible results of the talks. Vladimir Medinsky, a Russian negotiator, said on social media that a total of 500 prisoners from each side would be exchanged between Thursday and Friday.

Oleksandr Merezhko, the head of Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, said Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to drag out the negotiations so that he can press on with Russia’s invasion while escaping further U.S. sanctions.

He urged the U.S. administration to look at the Russia-Ukraine war and the war in the Middle East as linked.

“In reality, Russia and Iran are close allies that act in concert — Iran supplies weapons and Russia helps Iran develop its defense industry. These are interconnected conflicts,” Merezhko told The Associated Press.

Ukraine’s army has recently pushed back Russian forces at some points along the roughly 1,250-kilometer (750-mile) front line, according to the Institute for the Study of War.

Localized Ukrainian counterattacks liberated more territory than Ukrainian forces lost in the last two weeks of February, the Washington-based think tank said this week, estimating the recovered land at about 257 square kilometers (100 square miles) since Jan. 1.

Over the capital, the new class of interceptors is even more effective. Drones were credited with more than 70% of Shahed downings in February, Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi announced on Tuesday.

The math tells the story: A single Patriot interceptor costs over $3 million, a NASAMS round slightly over $1 million — and each Shahed costs Russia as little as $35,000 to manufacture, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That puts Ukraine on the wrong side of an approximately 85-to-1 cost exchange every time it uses a Patriot to defend against a drone.

But at $3,000 to $5,000 apiece and an average success rate over 60%, interceptors are now changing the calculus of war, Zelenskyy told Fox News late last year.

These drones, a weapons category that barely existed a few years ago, have become the fastest-growing layer of Ukraine’s air defense.

“We are the first in the world to have a system of destroying drones with drones in the air,” Col. Yuriy Cherevashenko, deputy commander of UAVs for air defense of the Ukrainian Air Force, said in a video marking the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Facing an unrelenting adversary whose economy dwarfs its own by nearly tenfold, Ukraine had no choice but to outthink rather than outspend, and interceptor drones — mobile, cheap and scalable enough to answer Russian mass production with Ukrainian ingenuity — have emerged as their biggest bet.

Now, what began as battlefield improvisation has become a deliberate war strategy.

“Drones now occupy a wide segment of the air defense system,” Cherevashenko said. “In the future, they will be perhaps the most numerous means of destroying aerial targets.”

Their rapid development over the last year tracked Russia’s escalating use of Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones, which by mid-2025 were arriving in record-breaking waves that overwhelmed Ukraine’s missile-based air defenses faster than Western allies could resupply them.

“We needed to supply a lot of interceptors this year, because without them, the winter would have been even harder for Ukraine,” Alona Zhuzha, director of digitalization at Ukraine’s newly established Defense Procurement Agency, told Military Times.

The National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) said the country produced 100,000 interceptor drones in 2025 and reported that production capacity has grown eightfold compared to the prior period.

Frontline units received an average of over 1,500 interceptor drones per day in December and January — up from about 1,000 per day during the previous period, the MOD said at the beginning of the year.

That supply is translating into operational tempo: Last month, interceptor drones flew approximately 6,300 sorties and destroyed more than 1,500 Russian UAVs of various types, Syrskyi said.

Interceptors are now a top priority on the DOT-Chain Defence marketplace, the digital platform through which units order directly from manufacturers.

“They are very critical for our defense,” Zhuzha said.

Russian tech continues to evolve, too.

Moscow’s drones have been equipped with rear-facing infrared spotlights designed to blind interceptor pilots, and some have been armed with air-to-air missiles to shoot back, Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, a radio expert and early advocate of interceptor tech who was recently appointed as an adviser to the Ministry of Defence, wrote on Telegram in January.

Russia has also expanded its use of decoy drones — foam-and-plywood models including the Gerbera and Parody — which now constitute roughly one-third of all Russian mass attacks, specifically designed to exhaust interceptors and overload the detection layer, according to Defence-UA.

Ukraine now flies several distinct classes of interceptors: cheap FPV airframes built for last-kilometer kills — the kind that catch a Shahed before it reaches a substation or apartment block — and faster pursuit systems tied to forward drone lines, designed to launch immediately upon detection, climb fast, and intercept before the threat crosses into civilian airspace, according to the NSDC.

Higher-speed interceptors designed for targets like the jet-powered Geran-3 variants, where the old FPV chase math breaks, are emerging now too, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

And networked defense systems are beginning to link interceptor nodes across sectors, sharing tracks so a single incoming target can be handed off from one crew to the next as it crosses boundaries.

One unit trying to push forward the development and use of interceptors is Lazar’s Group — a drone formation within the National Guard’s 27th Pechersk Brigade known as one of the most effective interceptor units in the country.

Phoenix, who commands the group’s drone operations, told Military Times that the group has destroyed more than $15 billion in Russian military equipment since the full-scale invasion — part of Ukraine’s broader shift away from infantry warfare. Military Times agreed to refer to all active duty soldiers by their nom de guerre for operational security.

Strike drones, not interceptors — still account for “60 to 70% of confirmed hits” on Russian equipment and personnel across the battle zone. “Interceptors take out most of the rest.”

Lazar’s Group utilizes both. Fixed-wing strike models can engage deep targets and conduct reconnaissance well beyond the battle’s edge, while interceptors are optimized for counter-UAV work at shorter ranges and higher closing speeds.

For example: Ukraine’s Wild Hornets “Sting” interceptor — a quad-rotor designed to chase and collide with enemy drones — is reported to reach speeds over 300 km/h and operate out to roughly 25 kilometers in interception missions, with altitude service up to several thousand feet, while fixed-wing interceptor variants such as the VB140 Flamingo are designed with extended pursuit profiles that can engage reconnaissance drones at ranges up to 50 km.

The real challenge slowing interceptor innovation now? Sensors.

“We just need better radar,” Phoenix said. “It allows you to see your enemy and your plane. You understand where you are and where your enemy is, and you can fly to that position.”

Ukraine’s most common intercepts still start with cueing: radar tracks, acoustic spotters and stitched feeds from Ukraine’s master “Mission Control” battlefield management system that put a pilot in the right place at the right time.

“Without good radar — durable sensors, strong [electronic warfare] defense, etc. — it’s very difficult,” he told Military Times.

To counter Russian electronic warfare, another persistent problem, the unit builds its own interceptor drones with proprietary remote control and video transmitter systems designed to resist jamming.

“We create our own models because we understand the technical specifications that we need,” Phoenix said. “So they’re not immediately jammed or located.”

Illustrating the problem, SpaceX cut off Russian forces’ contraband Starlink terminals at Ukraine’s request last month — but the disruption also knocked out feeds for Ukrainian units sharing the same network, leaving parts of the front without connectivity or intercept capability, according to CNN.

Artificial intelligence has not yet come to dominate interception missions — today it is still manual ramming or close-in detonation.

“Our pilots mostly operate manually,” Phoenix told Military Times. “Because AI features are nice, but sometimes they just aren’t working.”

Finding solutions to the other common hurdles beyond radar — like battery endurance in freezing conditions or operator fatigue on overnight shifts — tends to be simpler, Phoenix said.

“After that, they just keep flying.”

Lazar’s Group’s strategy has become a national model for how to institutionalize a new layer of air defense into the existing military structure, both in Ukraine and abroad.

The 1,700-strong group is helping construct the country’s Drone Line — an unmanned kill zone stretching 15-kilometers deep across the front, announced by Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense a year ago.

In Brussels, officials have been pushing their own version of a drone wall to bolster defenses along Europe’s eastern flank, but the effort has run into political and technical hurdles, according to Reuters.

Kyiv has taken note, and begun leveraging its country’s battlefield tech, skills and data as a major benefit of remaining its staunch ally as peace trilateral negotiations to end the war continue between Ukraine, Russia and the United States.

“As we work together to protect lives in Ukraine, we are building a new system – a new security and response architecture, new approaches – to protect lives in any European country when needed,” Zelenskyy told his counterparts at the Munich Security Conference in February.

“Our wall of drones is your wall of drones.”