Abstract: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and, especially, First Person View (FPV)-drones have fundamentally altered conventional and asymmetric warfare. With their rapid development since 2022 in the Russian-Ukrainian war, the Austrian Armed Forces recognised the need to develop methods to train future leaders in the intricacies of warfare with a heavy UAV presence and in integrating FPVs into soldier training.
Problem statement: How are FPV-drones changing warfare, and what needs to be done on the strategic and operational level to successfully train drone-builders and operators?
So what?: At the strategic level, a framework needs to be created to achieve the desired conditions for adaptation. This includes changing the legal landscape and procurement processes for COTS technologies. At the operational level, the main effort must shift to integrating FPV-drones into the ISR network, artillery, electronic warfare, and C2 structure. This requires standardising TTPs and creating specialised FPV-units. Under the leadership of a centre of excellence attached to a research department of a military education institution, the implementation of FPV-drones can be coordinated in an Austrian manner rather than copying tactics from other nations. At the tactical level, soldiers must develop a basic understanding of drone threats, camouflage and electromagnetic discipline. Therefore, the Theresan Military Academy plays a crucial role in long-term adaptation. The academy must emphasise its efforts to train future officers to apply and adapt drone capabilities in operations.
Introduction
When the dust settled after NATO’s Hedgehog 2025 exercise in Estonia in May 2025, the debriefings began. It became clear that they had not been able to wage a war like the one currently underway in Ukraine. A total of 16,000 NATO troops had faced an enemy that fought like both warring parties in Ukraine. The attacker was represented by ten drone pilots from the Ukrainian drone unit NEMESIS. With their attack drones and in combination with the DELTA command and control system, they had brought an entire NATO brigade to a standstill within a short period of time. After just half a day, 17 combat vehicles and a total of 30 other targets had been destroyed. The soldiers’ training had not been sufficient to survive on the battlefield.[1]
The Ukrainian drone pilots exploited the weaknesses they had identified in the organisation of NATO forces, as well as the capability shortfalls of the NATO troops deployed. Furthermore, the exercise scenario and execution plans did not account for the deployment of enemy drones from the contact line deep into the rear area. The Ukrainian NEMESIS team was assigned to an Estonian unit as a Red Team. The Ukrainians independently planned the reconnaissance, attack, and logistics missions for their drones.
Consequently, from the very outset, the deployments of the two NATO battalions designated for the attack were specifically targeted. Vehicles and command posts were either barely camouflaged or not at all; they lacked a dispersed vehicle formation and had no adequate C-UAS capabilities or electronic warfare assets. Vehicles parked side by side could thus be destroyed one at a time. Furthermore, the attacking NATO forces failed to check the roads along their axes of attack for mines – roads which the Ukrainian team had blocked with mines dropped by drones. This further disrupted the concept of operation of the two attacking NATO battalions. Further losses were sustained throughout the attack.
Tanks and armoured and unarmoured vehicles were detected, attacked, and neutralised by drones. Here, too, the lack of C-UAS capabilities was the primary cause. Whilst in Ukraine, even platoon-level units possess C-UAS capabilities, the attacking NATO companies suffered as a result of having scarcely any comparable capabilities at their disposal. The first C-UAS teams available at the battalion level were insufficient to ensure comprehensive protection. The exercise demonstrated that the organisational structures and operational procedures currently typical of NATO forces urgently need to be adapted for drone warfare.[2]
The war between Russia and Ukraine, which began in 2014 and continued in February 2022 with Russia’s massive attack, has fundamentally changed the way wars are fought. In particular, the role of modern technologies and the fusion of traditional tactics with digital innovations are shaping this conflict. However, warfare itself has also been taken to a new level by the war—a mixture of conventional forces, sophisticated weapons and drone technologies, and the ever-increasing importance of information and cyber warfare. These developments must be taken into account in future military training.[3]
A key feature of the conflict in Ukraine is the massive use of drones and electronic warfare. Drones have become one of the most important types of weaponry. At the tactical level, tens of thousands of them are deployed simultaneously in every conceivable form and with every conceivable capability: as reconnaissance drones, as kamikaze drones that fly directly at enemy targets, and as drones equipped with specialised capabilities to precisely destroy military infrastructure.[4]
Particularly noteworthy is the use of so-called FPV(first-person view) drones, which originally came from the hobby and racing drone scene but are now used in warfare as high-precision weapons. Both sides now use both wired and unwired attack drones, with ranges of up to 50 kilometres at the tactical level. Their use currently prevents any deployment or manoeuvring on either side. What barbed wire and machine guns did in the First World War, drones are doing in the 21st century. They create a “transparent battlefield” and thus destroy any attack, especially mechanised ones, before it even begins. Although environmental factors, particularly the weather, can be limiting, concentrated efforts can yield significant results. Furthermore, a comprehensive situational picture provided by drones requires a corresponding assessment, prioritisation, and immediate deployment. Drones offer opportunities that must not only be understood but also utilised.[5]
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) is another decisive factor in warfare. AI is increasingly being used to improve military systems and increase the efficiency of weapons. The use of increasingly autonomous weapon systems capable of identifying and destroying targets without human intervention is a growing trend. These developments show how far this technology has already come and how it can also influence military decision-making and the execution of attacks. In particular, the use of AI-controlled drones, which can search for targets autonomously and destroy them with high precision, has changed the course of warfare. The latest example was the Ukrainian Operation Spiderweb against Russian strategic bombers.[6]
Drones swarm the battlefield in Ukraine. Although they still communicate with each other to a limited extent, the next evolutionary step is only a matter of time. A significant example of the use of AI in warfare is the improvement of targeting accuracy and the analysis of aerial photographs or satellite images. Through machine learning, large volumes of information from various sources can be processed in real time, enabling faster and more precise responses to enemy movements and targets. This significantly shortens the targeting cycle, increases the effectiveness of weapons, and makes warfare more precise and faster.[7]
The war in Ukraine is a classic example of asymmetric warfare, in which a far superior military power is fighting against a smaller, more flexible, and technologically innovative force. Ukraine has achieved remarkable results in this regard and has made steady progress by integrating Western technologies and responding flexibly to the constantly changing dynamics of war. This has been particularly evident in the fight against Russian manoeuvre groups and the use of drones. However, this conflict follows the grammar of a war of attrition. This means that there is a need for a large number of well-trained soldiers.[8]
The traditional factors also apply to this war: force, space, time, and information. Whoever can influence these factors in their favour with new weapon systems will remain victorious. At this point, a positive example for Ukraine should be mentioned: it has managed to push back the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the western Black Sea (space) in just a few months with fast-moving, long-range unmanned surface drone systems (power), based on a “real-time” situation picture (information) provided by the West. This is a clear success–and it happened so quickly (time) that the Russians have not yet come up with a real response.[9]
The Russian-Ukrainian war is– for the moment – shaping contemporary warfare. The increasing importance of technology—from drones to electronic warfare to artificial intelligence—shows that military conflicts are no longer decided solely by traditional means, but also by the integration of new digital and technological elements. At present, the use of drones is leading to a stalemate at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. Just as in the First World War, machine guns, barbed wire and artillery forced both sides into a stalemate. It was only the development of the tank that provided a way out. It remains unclear how this situation will be resolved in the 21st century. It is highly likely that the solution will lie in a combination of combat techniques and technological means. The war highlights the need for military forces to continually evolve and adapt to the latest technological innovations to succeed on a modern battlefield.[10]
Future wars will increasingly be shaped by a combination of conventional and digital warfare elements. The war in Ukraine has shown that the ability to effectively use technologies such as AI and drones can dramatically influence the course of a war. At the same time, the fundamental principles of warfare, such as tactical flexibility and rapid response, must not only be maintained but also emphasised even more strongly. The war between Russia and Ukraine is seen in many ways as a test run for the warfare of the future, in which information technology and digital warfare will play a central role. These developments must be taken into account in soldiers’ training.[11]
Characteristics of FPV-Drones
Drones are changing how wars are fought. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) responded quickly to this trend. More than 200 drones have been approved by the Ministry of Defence since 2022 through a bottom-up-driven adaptation to this new technology amid increasingly sophisticated electronic warfare threats. On the tactical level, FPV-drones rule the battlefield. They are controlled by an operator with a remote control. The soldier is piloting the drone by observing what the camera sends to the goggles. The origin of those drones is in the drone-racing scene. They are fast, agile and allow precise manoeuvres.
From a military perspective, those characteristics allow attacks on stationary, moving, and flying targets. Furthermore, FPV-drones are applicable for tasks such as ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and transporting goods. With ongoing conflicts, many more uses for FPV drones were developed. When an FPV drone equipped with explosives is flown into a target and destroyed, it is referred to as a “Kamikaze” Drone.[12]
FPVs can be deployed for a wide variety of missions, such as screening areas, precise attacks on single soldiers, moving vehicles or buildings, and coordinating ground forces.[13] The drones’ advantageous attributes include lethality, flexibility in configuration, and low cost.
When comparing the FPV-system to an ATGM (Anti-Tank-Guided-Missile) “Bill 2000” of the AAF, another positive aspect can be highlighted. The drone can attack a target from 360 degrees, whether or not there’s an obstacle between the operator and the drone. Such obstacles can be outflown, allowing the drone to engage the target.[15]
FPV-drones are primarily used to restrict the enemy’s freedom of movement. A secondary effect is the attrition of the enemy forces. According to Open-Source-Intelligence (OSINT) sources, 60-70% of all damaged and destroyed Russian and Ukrainian equipment is related to the use of FPV-drones. A shortage of artillery shells can be cited as a reason for those numbers.[16]
FPV-drones have proven most effective when combined with artillery. Artillery suppresses enemy air defence, engages regardless of the weather, and reacts faster. Aerial reconnaissance conducted by drones, in close coordination with artillery, can take out several tanks in just a few minutes.[17] However, in the current conflict, coordinated engagement is often constrained by shortages of artillery ammunition. It should be noted that these observations are largely due to the ongoing operational environment, in which both militaries follow largely land-centric doctrines inherited from the former Soviet Union and exhibit limited jointness. In contrast, NATO doctrine emphasises airpower, electronic warfare capabilities, and jointness. Such differences in doctrine would likely alter the employment of FPV-drones, and must therefore be considered when drawing conclusions from this conflict.[18]
Besides their lethality, a major advantage of FPV-drones is their cost-effectiveness. Drones worth around 400€ can destroy targets like a T90 Main Battle Tank (MBT) worth 3-4.500.000€. According to statistics of the War in Ukraine, a 15% hit chance can be assumed. With that, 34 drones are needed to achieve a 90% probability of neutralising a target. The resulting procurement-cost ratio is 1:221, significantly in favour of the drone. This means – in purely arithmetic terms – an ATGM system like the FGM-148-Javelin, worth around 72.000€, is five times more expensive than the 34 drones.[19] One can conclude that FPV-drones enhance operational capabilities, increase efficiency, and above all, enable a resource-efficient war.
However, this representation is inherently reductive and should not be interpreted as a direct comparison of weapons systems. The cost relations illustrated in the figure reflect a narrow analytical perspective under assumptions and do not capture overall military effectiveness. In particular, systems such as the FGM-148-Javelin and FPV-drones fulfill distinct operational roles and exhibit different performance characteristics.[20]
How Warfare is Changing on the Tactical Level in Response to Mass FPV-Drone Usage
FPV-drones are deployed at the tactical level and should be considered for the armed forces in the future. The following conclusions were drawn using the NATO-capabilities-grid to identify what is required to not only successfully utilise FPV-drones, but also to fight against them. The NATO-capabilities-grid covers all areas of military operations and is therefore ideal for taking a holistic view of the effects of FPV-drones.[21]
Prepare
The “Prepare” capability describes the comprehensive mission preparation. In this setting, it describes how to successfully utilise organisational lessons identified and lessons learnt from the Ukraine War in Western training and doctrine. For FPV-drone teams, this primarily means hands-on training of all team members. According to Ukrainian reports, 4-6 weeks of combat experience are necessary to adequately prepare the team for a mission.[22]
Safety is ensured primarily by passive protection measures. Due to the imminent threat posed by artillery and FPV strikes, strong concealment and alternate positions must be identified in advance. Moreover, preparation also includes thorough equipment checks.[23]
To conduct realistic training for FPV-Teams, a clear legal framework is necessary in peacetime. Experiences of the British Army show that their restrictive aviation laws limit operational combat readiness and harm training. Accordingly, aviation laws must be adapted, especially when unmanned and manned aircraft operate in the same airspace.[24]
Standardising TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) optimises engagement procedures of FPV-Teams and increases their efficiency. Establishing centres of excellence plays a crucial role in enhancing the training quality. Several NATO countries are leading the way in this regard.
Project
This refers to the ability to deploy and move troops correctly on the battlefield. It includes the facilities necessary for stationing troops.[25]
An FPV-Team consists of up to four soldiers: a commander, pilot, technician, and a driver/assistant. The team is mounted on an off-road vehicle with equipment for field repairs. During mission planning, a wide variety of weather conditions, including humidity, temperature, and the likelihood of rain, must be considered. This allows for accurate estimation of flight duration, altitude, and range.
In addition, enemy reconnaissance can locate their own troops by emitting signals. Any unnecessary use of electrical devices must be avoided from the start of the mission onward. The transport phase is the most dangerous due to the constant threat to FPVs. Precise route selection is mandatory, and lines of communication and supply routes must be avoided.
To project FPV-teams safely, they need to be equipped with highly mobile, low-signature off-road-capable transport vehicles. In addition, movement planning must emphasise concealment and strict electromagnetic discipline. For this phase, nighttime is always preferred.
Engage
This ability describes the deployment of the right reconnaissance and weapon systems, including their coordination during missions.[26]
FPVs can carry a wide variety of explosives or other payloads, depending on mission requirements. The PG-7 warhead of an RPG is commonly used. Open-source intelligence reports show that this warhead has been used to destroy highly valuable assets, including MBTs and MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) worth several million euros.[27]
In addition, mines, trench cleaners, bomb bays, pressure-, projectile-, or thermite charges can be attached. Thermobaric warheads, directional fragmentation charges, and several improvised 3D-printed warheads have also been used in the Ukraine War.[28]
Protect
This describes what needs to be protected. It also describes how to protect and shows a connection between prevention and active protection.[29]
The FPV-Team operates from covered positions. To establish the necessary connection between the operator and the drone, additional equipment is needed. If no covered position is available, the team needs to locate a concealed position. Camouflage plays a crucial role on the modern battlefield.[30]
Electronic warfare equipment and the commercial software “DJI-Aeroscope” enable the location of a DJI drone and its operator from up to 50 kilometres away. Within two minutes after the position is detected, the team could be under artillery or mortar fire. Therefore, the electromagnetic signature must be minimised. In addition, electronic support measures can be used to mask the team’s location.[31]
Another example of adaptation to the imminent threat of FPV-drone strikes is the use of nets to protect supply routes. First used in 2024, these fishing nets are nowadays dozens of kilometres long. The following figure shows a common structure.
To sum up, visual camouflaging needs to be perfected on the one hand, and electromagnetic camouflaging on the other. Therefore, camouflage must play a crucial role in training, and additional equipment must be procured, such as antenna cable kits, to help hide stationary teams. Lastly, soldiers must have basic knowledge of Electronic Warfare to plan their actions without endangering others.
Sustain
“Sustain” describes the ability to keep up the combat readiness of troops. This involves logistics and resupply.[33]
The “transparent” battlefield and its resulting drone attack threat make it difficult to evacuate wounded personnel. Therefore, it is essential for all soldiers to be well-trained in Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) and carry sufficient medical equipment. Specialised personnel usually support the Medic via radio.[34] Moving into and out of position takes place under the cover of darkness. For this reason, FPV-Teams are deployed for 24 or 48 hours and carry a corresponding number of drones and warheads. Reports state the use of around 30 drones per day.[35]
This means to shift the focus in training from only basic medical skills to advanced ones. Moreover, the legal aspect must be adapted to these new challenges, as casualties may require strong medication that is prescribed only by doctors. After specialised training, restrictions on medication usage have to be lowered to a minimum.
Inform
This refers to the ability to provide soldiers with the necessary information at any time. It can be divided into the collection, analysis, and distribution of information.[36]
In intense combat situations, the FPV team should be close enough to receive precise target assignments but far enough to avoid enemy fire. This refers to the distance from the FPV team to the commander of the foremost troops. The commander designates targets for the FPV team to avoid blue-on-blue incidents.
To remain operational in the event of a loss of communication with the superior command, framework conditions such as target prioritisation, restrictions on the area of operation, or the exact behaviour in the event of communication loss must be clearly defined in advance. Briefings with electronic warfare troops and rear-area forces must be conducted.
C3 (Consult, Command, Control)
This ability describes communication between command levels and troop coordination, providing them with the necessary information. It also includes ensuring superiority in the frequency spectrum.[37]
Ukrainian forces rely heavily on Starlink. Tethering allows a phone or tablet to be securely connected to the internet. Video Conferences are held on this device for speed and convenience, but are not secure against sophisticated interception via platforms like “Discord”. Targets are assigned to the FPV-teams, and Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) is done via ISR-drones. It should be noted that Starlink can also be affected by jamming attacks.[38]
First of all, Western militaries need to develop and improve resilient, flexible, and redundant communication networks to increase real-time coordination. Tactical units should be equipped with secure digital communication tools. Furthermore, one’s own communication needs to be protected by strengthening electronic warfare and spectrum management capabilities. Training and doctrine should therefore emphasise network-centric operations, decentralised decision-making, and the ability to maintain C3 even in heavily contested environments.
Training FPV-Drone Builders, Operators, and Decision Makers
In 2024 and 2025, the Theresan Military Academy conducted two-day-long lectures on UAS and C-UAS technologies and tactics for AAF officer cadets. This aims to provide upcoming leaders with a shallow yet broad overview of UAS-centric warfare, regardless of their future specialisation.
These lectures were intended to inform about the intricacies of drone-centric warfare in a peer-to-peer, asymmetric battlefield. Acting as a decision guide when reviewing non-altered doctrines and tactics, that still depict a battlefield without constant surveillance and abundant strike drones. This education also reflects the state of the war in Ukraine, where common tactics still work but need to be significantly altered to succeed. Additionally, the lectures’ goal is to highlight the key facts that make drones an efficient weapon system and why they are here to stay, as discussed above.
Training FPV-Drone Operators
The current FPV ecosystem requires niche skills for drone pilots to exert a meaningful influence on battlefield dynamics. Compared to conventional weapons systems, the training process is relatively straightforward because FPV drones are COTS. Thus, the FPV racing community has developed a substantial knowledge base over more than 15 years, providing a mature foundation that can be adapted for effective military training. However, its effectiveness is driven less by the platform itself and more by the operator’s ability to adapt and integrate rapidly evolving techniques, unlike conventional weapons systems.[39]
A way of training pilots was tested in Austria by active-duty and reserve soldiers with different specialisations and has evolved into this 4-Step process:
- Step 1: Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Racing Simulators
Commercially available FPV simulators offer a nearly life-like representation of FPV-drone flight dynamics. These are low-cost solutions to gain “stick time” – a term for the flight experience measured by the hours spent actively controlling a drone via the control sticks on the remote controller. These COTS-simulators are low-cost, immediately available solutions to start gaining experience. Often used simulators are “Uncrashed” or “Liftoff”.[40]
In this part of the training, the pilot gains the ability to effectively control drones into basic flight patterns and manoeuvres. This serves as the base for the next step, in which the pilot learns how to execute combat manoeuvres.
- Step 2: COTS Strike Drone Simulators
Similar to generic FPV simulators referenced above, dedicated strike-drone simulators have emerged that, while presented as conventional video games, model strike-drone flight behaviour with significant fidelity and often include realistic payload employment mechanics. These environments enable pilots to rehearse complex mission profiles, such as engagements against moving vehicles, dismounted infantry, and low-flying helicopters.[43]
This training step is critical: beyond baseline piloting proficiency, effective strike execution depends on timing and terminal approach techniques. The reliable employment of a warhead is difficult to achieve through basic stick-time alone.
The author, as a lecturer at the Theresan Military Academy, observed that a key lesson is the precise execution of approach profiles. Most drone payloads impose specific employment constraints, such as impact angle, vehicle weak-point strikes, release envelopes, and low-speed manoeuvring. Consequently, effective training must emphasise repeatable, well-controlled approaches that require substantial time.
- Step 3: Practical Flight Training via Micro Drones
After roughly 30-40 hours on the two simulators, pilots were able to perform their first flight. Small training drones were used to minimise damage after a crash, thanks to their low weight. Making them the perfect starting point to train real-life flight dynamics without risk.
These drones are often called “tiny whoops” and are well-suited for indoor flight training due to their low maximum speed and small size.[45]
- Step 4: Practical Flight Training on Strike Drone Dummies
Lastly, the pilot must experience the weight and slow response of a fully loaded strike-FPV. This is the final barrier before mounting active payloads and flying combat missions.
This is also a crucial step for iterating on and training the payload-mounting and arming procedures, as well as on the command structure and coordination within the strike drone team. Experienced UAF drone pilots state that at least 6 weeks of combat-environment training is needed to achieve full combat readiness.[47]
While being an important step in the training process, it is also the most difficult to realise due to the legal aspects of aviation law and the strictly limited use of non-official drones in the AAF. As a result, the practical training was purely theoretical.
Training FPV-Drone Builders
Drone building is a long-established hobby within a small community. As a result, extensive open-source documentation is readily available, covering component selection, configuration, assembly practices, and iterative design choices.
Constructing these systems typically hinges on a small set of core competencies: soldering, fine mechanical assembly, and basic electronics integration and troubleshooting. These skills are widely distributed across the general population, creating a comparatively large pool of individuals who already match much of the required baseline skillset. This allows the consolidation of a workable number of specialised soldiers to establish an AAF-internal baseline for drone production teams.[48]
During an AAF trial, these very factors enabled the rapid formation of a soldier-led team that designed, assembled, configured, and ultimately operated a combat-capable attack drone to an effective standard. Proving that the results seen in Ukraine can be effectively replicated in Austria.
The Importance of Training Soldiers
The rapid technological development of modern warfare, particularly the widespread use of FPV-drones, places new demands on military training. These systems alter the tactical environment and require soldiers who are not only physically fit and mentally resilient but also technologically skilled. Training, therefore, becomes the decisive factor in transforming emerging technologies into effective military capabilities.[49]
Officers are expected to act as tactical leaders, decision-makers, and multipliers of knowledge within their units. Therefore, the Theresan Military Academy is challenged to integrate emerging technology into basic officers’ training. In a battlefield characterised by surveillance, electronic warfare, and an imminent threat of precision strikes, officers must understand the basics of technological systems such as drones, sensors, and digital C2 systems. Without this understanding, leadership decisions risk being detached from operational reality.[50]
For the AAF, the relevance of FPV systems extends beyond the country’s mountainous terrain. Potential operational scenarios are likely to focus on eastern Austria, where critical infrastructure, major mobility corridors, and densely populated areas are concentrated. In such contexts, FPV-drones provide low-cost, rapidly deployable reconnaissance and enable small units to monitor, secure, and quickly respond to both hybrid and conventional threats. Given the AAF’s limited manpower and resources, drones expand the range of possible courses of action and act as a force multiplier. Furthermore, training soldiers to build, maintain, and operate FPVs enhances interoperability in multinational operations and enables effective cooperation with partner forces.
Another key aspect is adaptability. Modern conflicts demonstrate that technology is evolving faster than traditional procurement cycles. Soldiers trained to understand technological principles can adapt much faster to new threats following technological adaptation and improvisations by enemy forces.[51]
This highlights the growing importance of technological understanding among officers who shape TTPs and tactical-level training.
Conclusion
The proliferation of FPV drones, driven by the rapid evolution of COTS technology, has fundamentally changed how war is fought. These systems provide a paradigm-shifting cost-effect ratio, enabling the destruction of high-value assets. Furthermore, its adaptability, lethality, and procurement speed are crucial in an ever-changing, electronic-warfare-stimulated battlefield.
For Austria, the decisive factor is not access to FPV technology but the ability to understand, integrate, and continuously adapt it within the AAF’s structures and mission profile. This is particularly important because Austria’s security challenges are closely tied to the protection of critical infrastructure, transport corridors, and urban areas, especially in the country’s eastern regions. Effective integration, therefore, ensures that FPV-drones can serve as a force multiplier in territorial defence, improve resilience against hybrid threats, and strengthen interoperability in multinational operations.
Training, therefore, emerges as the critical element linking commercial technology with military effectiveness. Soldiers and Officers must develop technical literacy, tactical awareness, and procedural competencies to exploit FPV capabilities. The tested four-step training model demonstrates that effective operator and builder competence can be achieved with relatively limited resources.
Ultimately, FPV-drones illustrate a broader lesson of modern warfare: innovation cycles move faster than doctrinal adaptation. Armed forces that successfully encourage decentralised problem-solving, flexible training structures, and educate adaptable leaders will be able to maintain operational capability. Conversely, militaries that cannot adjust their concepts, doctrine, and leadership education to this accelerated technology cycle risk being overwhelmed by the pace of development and may not be able to close this gap.
[1] Melchior, J. K. “NATO Has Seen the Future and Is Unprepared – A Simulation of Drone Warfare Shows How Far the Alliance Has to Go to Learn the Lessons of Ukraine.” Wall Street Journal, 2025. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nato-has-seen-the-future-and-is-unprepared-887eaf0f.
[2] Melchior, J. K. “NATO Has Seen the Future and Is Unprepared.”
[3] Watling, Jack. The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century. London: Royal United Services Institute, 2025, 95.
[4] Antal, John. 7 Seconds to Die: A Military Analysis of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Future of Warfighting. 2022, 55.
[5] Reisner, Markus. “Das gläserne Gefechtsfeld und seine Herausforderungen: Ableitungen und Folgerungen zur derzeitigen russisch-ukrainischen Kriegsführung.” STRATEG Brief 25, 2025.
[6] Reisner, Markus. “Operation Spiderweb – Der ukrainische Angriff auf die strategische russische Bomberflotte.” 2025. https://www.bundesheer.at/aktuelles/detail/operation-spiderweb-der-ukrainische-angriff-auf-die-strategische-russische-bomberflotte.
[7] U.S. Army Europe and Africa. How Russia Fights: A Compendium of Troika Observations on Russia’s Special Military Operation. 1st ed., March 2025.
[8] Reisner, Markus. “Ukraine-Krieg – Neue Phase.” Truppendienst, no. 2 (2025).
[9] Salinas, A., M. Askw, and J. P. LeVay. “From Tactical Trench Killers to Strategic War Winners: Doctrine, Operational Art, and Tomorrow’s Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare.” 2025. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-tactical-trench-killers-to-strategic-war-winners-doctrine-operational-art-and-tomorrows-drone-enabled-maneuver-warfare/.
[10] Watling, Jack. The Arms of the Future, 95.
[11] Banjo, Jacob. “Die FPV-Drohnenrevolution und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Bodenkriegsführung und andere Dimensionen.” 2025. https://www.inss.org.il/he/publication/fpv-drones/.
[12] Molloy, Oliver. Drones in Modern Warfare: Lessons from the War in Ukraine. Occasional Paper No. 29, 2024.
[13] Molloy, Oliver. Drones in Modern Warfare.
[14] Hernandez, Marco, et al. “A Thousand Snipers in the Sky.” New York Times, March 3, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-drones-deaths.html.
[15] Böhm, Moritz. “Wesen und Wirkung der First Person View Drohne.” Bachelor’s thesis, Theresian Military Academy, 2025.
[16] TopLeadEU. “FPV-Drones Destroy 64.7% of Russian Equipment.” X (Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/topleadeu/status/1870437155191116089.
[17] Matlack, Jon-Wyatt, Sebastian Schwartz, and Oliver Gill. Ukraine’s Drone Ecosystem and the Defence of Europe. 2025.
[18] Kagan, Frederick, and Kimberly Kagan. “Ukraine and the Problem of Restoring Maneuver in Contemporary War.” Institute for the Study of War, 2024. https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine%20and%20the%20Problem%20of%20Restoring%20Maneuver%20in%20Contemporary%20War_final.pdf.
[19] Center for Strategic and International Studies. “FGM-148 Javelin.” https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/fgm-148-javelin/.
[20] Böhm, Moritz. “Wesen und Wirkung der First Person View Drohne.”
[21] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).” NATO ACT, October 3, 2017. Accessed February 2, 2025. https://www.act.nato.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/171002ws8-combined-outbrief.pdf.
[22] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[23] Böhm, Moritz. “Wesen und Wirkung der First Person View Drohne.”
[24] Böhm, Moritz. “Wesen und Wirkung der First Person View Drohne.”
[25] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[26] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[27] Voichuk, Iryna. “Ukraine Develops Armor-Piercing Ammunition for FPV Drones.” Euromaidan Press, January 15, 2024. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/01/15/ukraine-develops-armor-piercing-ammunition-for-fpv-drones/.
[28] Voichuk, Iryna. “Ukraine Develops Armor-Piercing Ammunition for FPV Drones.”
[29] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[30] Hambling, David. “Russians Lash FPVs Together to Make ‘Frankenstein’ Heavy-Lift Drones.” Forbes, February 25, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2025/02/25/russians-lash-fpvs-together-to-make-frankenstein-heavy-lift-drones/.
[31] Watling, Jack, and Justin Bronk. Protecting the Force from Uncrewed Aerial Systems. RUSI, 2024.
[32] Epstein, Jake. “Ukraine’s Front-Line Road Nets Are Catching Russian Drones.” Business Insider, September 16, 2025. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-anti-drone-road-nets-effective-russian-pilots-finding-holes-2025-9.
[33] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[34] The Economist. “How Could FPV Drones Change Warfare?” August 3, 2023. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/08/04/how-could-fpv-drones-change-warfare.
[35] Toroi, George-Ion. “Integration of First Person View (FPV) Unmanned Aerial Systems in Romanian Ground Forces Operations.” 2024.
[36] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[37] Pleijsant, Rik. “Framework for Future Alliance Operations (FFAO).”
[38] Korniyuk, Taras. “Über FPV aus einer Kampfposition.” 2023. https://censor.net/ua/resonance/3432324.
[39] Matlack, Jon-Wyatt, Schwartz, and Gill. Ukraine’s Drone Ecosystem and the Defence of Europe.
[40] Rosenkranz, Martin. FPV – Drohnen als Waffe. Spartanat Black Book 13. Klagenfurt: DGMedia, 2024.
[41] Rochette, Louis. “Uncrashed: FPV Drone Simulator.” https://store.steampowered.com/app/1682970/.
[42] LuGus Studios. “Liftoff: FPV Drone Racing.” https://store.steampowered.com/app/410340/.
[43] Böhm, Moritz. “Wesen und Wirkung der First Person View Drohne.”
[44] HFM Games. “FPV Kamikaze Drone.” https://games-stats.com/steam/game/fpv-kamikaze-drone/.
[45] Voice of America. “Ukraine Opens New Training Center for Drone Operators.” 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V_ljaea9O0.
[46] Voice of America. “Ukraine Opens New Training Center for Drone Operators.”
[47] Rosenkranz, Martin. FPV – Drohnen als Waffe.
[48] Rosenkranz, Martin. FPV – Drohnen als Waffe.
[49] Watling, Jack, and N. Reynolds. “Tactical Developments During the Third Year of the Russo-Ukrainian War.” RUSI, 2025.
[50] Banjo, Jacob. “Die FPV-Drohnenrevolution und ihre Auswirkungen.” 2025.
[51] Toroi, George-Ion. “Integration of FPV UAS in Romanian Ground Forces Operations.”
