How Drone Engineers are Helping Robotize the Military

During the years of the Anti-Terrorist Operation and the Joint Forces Operation, the words “army” and “robots” were rarely used in the same context—if at all—and almost never publicly. For the military, robots were seen less as weapons than as curiosities, gadgets with no real place on the battlefield.

Today, that reality has changed fundamentally. Robots can move on the ground or in the air to conduct reconnaissance, adjust arftillery fire, deliver supplies and ammunition, lay and clear mines, engage targets, conduct surveillance, and evacuate the wounded. The list goes on, as technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace.

Ukrinform correspondents spoke with engineers who, for several years now, have been fulfilling contracts for the Ministry of Defense and supplying robotic systems to frontline combat brigades.

“Laska” and “Scorpion”: Early Systems from the ATO Era

Inside the company’s facility, the scene resembles a film set from a science-fiction movie about robots. At first glance, it seems as though the employees are not working at all, but rather playing with oversized machines. Some are assembling platforms, while others are testing control systems using handheld consoles and smartphones.

Eduard Trotsenko, CEO of Temerland, explains that the company specializes in developing solutions for the military. He says their work on drone technologies began as early as 2012, when the company took part in an international “unmanned train” project for Australia.

Eduard Trotsenko

“Iron ore had to be transported from central Australia to the ports,” Eduard explains. “To avoid endangering wildlife and to minimize the number of people involved, the government decided to build an elevated railway. We developed the control systems for the train and the entire infrastructure. That was when we gained hands-on experience in unmanned control. Even back then, we were already using digital communications,” Eduard Trotsenko recalls.

The subject captured his interest, and by 2014 the company made its first attempt at building an unmanned vehicle. Trotsenko explains that it was something akin to what Tesla represents today—except that at the time it was a kind of Ukrainian-made Lanos capable of driving without a human behind the wheel.

He shows a video: a car with no one inside starts up, pulls away, and drives off. The inevitable question arises: how is this even possible?

“When the Anti-Terrorist Operation began, we realized we needed to develop robotic platforms,” Trotsenko continues. “The first one was called Laska, followed by Scorpion—both were large platforms. Laska was built on a gasoline-powered Suzuki quad bike. Later, we met with the head of an automobile plant, who proposed making a KrAZ Spartan unmanned. We implemented that in 2016. It could be controlled by voice and by gestures. For example, the military uses specific hand signals to direct a tank—our vehicle could interpret them. We encoded the commands, linking them to numerical inputs so the machine could understand them. Today, we continue to draw on that experience, refining and improving it.”

MINIMUM HUMAN INPUT, MAXIMUM SMART ROBOTS

This was eight years ago, at a time when Ukraine’s military was still largely relying on doctrines and experiences left behind from the Soviet era.

“Back then, our military was only beginning to grasp that the future lay with robotics, even though drones and ground-based robotic systems were often dismissed as toys,” Mr. Trotsenko recalls. “In the prevailing mindset, the battlefield was still dominated by tanks, infantry, and airborne forces. It was a far more conservative way of thinking. But then a new generation came along—young commanders who already had combat experience—and they gradually began to introduce drones into real-world military operations.”

Trotsenko is an advocate of what he calls the “mosquito doctrine”—an approach in which hundreds of thousands of intelligent robotic platforms and smart FPV drones are capable of carrying out specific, well-defined tasks.

Under this concept, a ground-based robotic system, for example,  can move into a designated sector along the front line, await instructions from reconnaissance—either a human operator or another drone—then launch an aerial drone to scan the area. Based on the data collected, that drone can relay commands to other robotic platforms, coordinating their actions with precision and minimal human involvement.

“We are designing specialized systems that integrate ground-based and aerial technologies. Over the years, we have invested substantial resources in research and development. In doing so, we have effectively helped other companies as well—because they no longer need to build everything from scratch. Being the first is always the hardest,” the developer explains.

The specialist admits that back in 2016 the army showed little interest in companies like theirs. Military officials said the technologies were excessively sophisticated. Developers explained that they were using neural networks and machine vision—but the response was invariably the same: everything needed to be made less sophisticated. The perfet control interface, they were told, was a joystick.

“Even back then, we understood that a war of robots and intelligence was already underway, and that modern methods had to be deployed,” Trotsenko says.

Eduard recalls developing a tracking turret as one early concept. The idea was to deploy large numbers of such systems—say, along a border line—to monitor specific areas, identify targets, and, if necessary, lock onto and track them down. Put simply, once a target crossed a defined boundary, the operator would already know how to respond: fire a warning shot into the air, aim at the legs, or escalate further. All of this would require minimal human involvement.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the company pivoted to civilian applications, developing robots for hospitals and guide robots for museums. They received orders from Japan, the United States, and Belgium. But by 2022, it became clear that robotic platforms were once again—and decisively—needed by the military.

LEARNING FROM MISTAKES

Whenever the company develops a new unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), the first prototype is invariably handed over to frontline units for field testing. The developers say this is the most effective way to obtain honest feedback, identify mistakes, and pinpoint vulnerabilities that require refinement.

“In combat conditions, a machine’s life cycle is extremely short—sometimes as little as fifteen minutes,” Eduard explains. “Robotic platforms may cost a million or just a few thousand, but their life cycle on the battlefield is often the same. That’s why it’s critical to strike the right balance between cost and survivability. We keep improving our platforms: we’ve introduced airless tires, added extra protection, and refined communication channels. We constantly receive feedback from the military. That’s crucial, because we can sit on a ‘battlefield couch’ and invent ideas, but it’s the soldiers at the front who truly see both the strengths and the flaws. For example, the 3rd Assault Brigade tested one of our platforms. It was riddled with shrapnel, but it kept moving and completed its mission. That meant a great deal to us.”

There have also been setbacks. Trotsenko recalls one instance where a platform failed to pass a set of trials on the training ground on the first attempt. The route turned out to be far more demanding than expected, and the performance parameters the developers had set for themselves proved to be misjudged. Those failures, he says, became another lesson—one that directly informed the next iteration of the system.

“It’s all part of the learning process,” the developer notes. “There were things we hadn’t fully accounted for—things that are unavoidable at the front. One example is battery capacity. We believed the platform already had a sufficiently capacious battery to cover 20 kilometers, but it turned out that it needed to be two, even four times more powerful. We try to correct such issues quickly. We are highly critical of our own work, we understand what needs to be changed and improved. Our conscience simply won’t allow us to do anything halfway.”

ROBOTIC “SPECIAL OPERATORS”

We were shown several robotic platforms. Some are already assisting frontline units, while others are currently undergoing the so-called codification process—a mandatory stage of evaluation and approval before they can be formally adopted for military use.

A compact platform known as Gnom weighs around 100 kilograms. It can easily fit into a car trunk, making transportation straightforward. The platform is capable of deploying between two and five landmines. In addition, Gnom can serve as a platform for a combat module. For example, the Gnom-VP21 UGV platform carries two RPG-7 launchers and a 7.62-mm PKM machine gun. Another robotic platform in the lineup is fitted with a Browning heavy machine gun.

Another system, called Shuttle, is a small robot mounted on a mechanized evacuation cart integrated into the Gnom platform. It features a robotic “arm” capable of gripping a wounded soldier by a piece of gear or uniform and pulling him onto the evacuation cart. The robot is operated via a mobile phone, which is also mounted on the platform. This phone provides both voice and video communication, including direct contact with the wounded servicemember.

In addition, Shuttle can load damaged drones onto the cart and neutralize enemy FPV drones—so-called “loitering waiters”—among other specialized tasks.

There are also robotic “drone carriers”—platforms capable of launching FPV drones, both radio-controlled and fiber-optic, while operating several kilometers away from the human operator. This is critical, as it significantly enhances crew safety.

“We initially developed kamikaze platforms, and later moved on to platforms designed to return to base after completing a combat mission. Moreover, we began changing the roles of our platforms using a special modular tray. I can’t say which robot is my favorite—everything new is a favorite,” the developer says.

WAR ECONOMY: A SMALL DRONE CAN DESTROY A TANK

Back in 2022, we visited frontline positions held by the Vasylivka Territorial Defense Battalion, formed by fighters from the currently occupied towns of Enerhodar, Dniprorudne, and Kamianka. At the time, one of Ukraine’s most skilled drone pilots, Sviatoslav Naumychev—callsign “Sviat” (tragically killed on November 26, 2024, while carrying out a combat mission in the Kharkiv sector)—spoke about drones as the future of warfare.

“Drones move forward, destroying everything in their path, leaving nothing behind. Artillery then finishes the job based on their targeting data, and soldiers will hardly ever face the enemy directly. That is what war will look like… in fact, it already does. Kamikaze drones, munition dropping UAVs —this is where the future lies,” he said at the time.

To be honest, back then we did not fully grasp what he meant. Today, however, it is clear that he was right—one hundred percent.

We discussed this with Eduard Trotsenko, who added that he personally favors intelligent robotic platforms.

“So is it ultimately a battle of technologies?” I asked. “Who wins in the end—the side that is faster, or the one that produces more robots?”

“War is about economy, about mathematics, and about people,” he replied. “The enemy also has very strong technological innovations, and they are constantly improving them. The tragedy is that they are working to wage a war. We, too, are working for war—but we are defending ourselves, while they are attacking. That difference matters.”

“Did Ukraine realize too late that it needed to robotize its armed forces?”

“Yes, it should have been done earlier—back in 2014–2018,” Eduard says. “But let’s be honest: at that time, there were traitors in many government institutions who did not want Ukraine to have a strong army. Later came a process of cleansing. Today, everywhere you look, there is a shift toward using drones—airborne, ground-based, and even underwater. Why spend huge money, say, on a single tank, when you can use that money to build many small platforms instead and make them intelligent? The effect will be far greater than from a tank. A tank is large and highly visible: the moment it is spotted, it is immediately destroyed. And, by the way, even a small drone is capable of taking out that same tank.”

We also talk about the shortage of personnel and the lack of truly versatile specialists.

“On the other hand, we now have artificial intelligence, and it must be used,” Trotsenko concludes. “The key is to formulate tasks correctly. This is how we can make up for manpower shortages.”

Olha Zvonariova, Zaporizhzhia

Photos via Dmytro Smoliienko / Ukrinform

More of Ukrinform photos are available for purchase here