Tactical FPV drones have rapidly emerged as a distinct and highly disruptive capability on the modern battlefield. The pace of development is extraordinary: dozens of manufacturers experiment with different architectures, components, and operational concepts, observing what survives contact with real combat conditions. This form of accelerated evolution is typical for a new class of weapon systems. However, while it benefits innovation, it also creates growing challenges for the end users — armed forces.
FPV drones are consumed in large numbers during combat operations and training. When platforms, components, and ground equipment originate from multiple manufacturers, interoperability issues become unavoidable. Airframes are incompatible, spare parts cannot be shared, and “cannibalisation” of damaged drones is limited to systems from the same supplier. Ground control stations produced by one manufacturer often cannot operate drones produced by another. The integration of FPV drone capability into battlefield control systems of armed forces is complicated.
Many NATO armed forces, drawing on lessons from Ukraine, have responded pragmatically by building and modifying drones in-house — soldering, assembling, and adapting platforms from whatever components are available. This workshop-driven, DIY approach delivers short-term flexibility, but it is not a sustainable model for long-term capability development. As scale increases, the burden on technical personnel grows, logistics become fragile, and system-level coherence is lost. This is where the question of standardisation becomes unavoidable — but it must be approached carefully and at the right levels.
System-Level Integration: FPV Drones as Part of the Battlespace
The most consequential layer of standardisation lies at the system level. FPV drone teams cannot operate as isolated elements with their own closed interfaces and situational awareness tools. Their data — video feeds, target information, mission status — must be integrated into broader battle management environments such as ATAK or SitAware. FPV units should operate within the same digital battlespace as manoeuvre units, artillery, and ISR assets.
If armed forces aim to reduce reliance on constant improvisation and move toward mature, scalable capabilities, interoperability must be addressed at this level first. According to RSI Europe’s UAS analyst Liudvikas Jaškūnas, this is where standardisation delivers the greatest operational return.
This principle underpins the development work at RSI Europe. The company is advancing open-architecture solutions designed for integration into existing command-and-control ecosystems. RSI Europe is currently preparing its hardware and software stack for interoperability with ATAK, ensuring that FPV drone operations can be fully embedded within standard mission command frameworks rather than functioning as parallel, disconnected systems.
Device-Level Interoperability: Designing for Attrition and Disruption
In prolonged, high-intensity conflicts with degraded supply chains, FPV drone teams cannot rely on complete, manufacturer-specific ecosystems. It is entirely plausible that drones from one supplier must be operated using ground stations, antennas, or relay equipment from another.
For this reason, device-level interoperability becomes critical. Ground control stations, external antennas, and relay platforms must be built on open technologies and common interfaces. RSI Europe has adopted this principle across its portfolio. The company’s relay drone, for example, is designed with a modular architecture: all key modules are replaceable, allowing operators to adapt the system to available equipment without redesigning the platform.
This approach prioritises resilience and adaptability over vendor lock-in — a consideration that becomes decisive under wartime conditions.
Component-Level Standardisation: Trade-offs and Priorities
Component-level standardisation presents the most complex trade-offs. Discussions often begin here — airframes, mounting points, motors, batteries, flight controllers, radios — because these elements are tangible and familiar. Component interoperability is important, particularly under constrained supply conditions. Yet focusing on components alone addresses only part of the problem.
Effective component-level standardisation requires deliberate choices by armed forces themselves, particularly regarding how far they are willing to move away from a workshop-centric culture. While retaining technically skilled personnel capable of improvisation is valuable, scaling such improvisation is inefficient.
At the same time, rigid standards risk freezing technology in a field that is still evolving rapidly. As Liudvikas Jaškūnas notes, poorly timed standardisation can inhibit performance gains and lock forces into suboptimal solutions. A balance is required between clarity and freedom of action.
Mechanical standardisation illustrates this dilemma well. Common mounting points for batteries or payloads appear attractive, but they introduce additional cost and weight. A standardised plastic battery housing may be inexpensive in isolation, yet it adds mass — potentially reducing payload capacity by around 100 grams. In FPV platforms, this trade-off is operationally significant. Until performance envelopes stabilise, such compromises may not be justified.
Not all elements carry equal operational weight. Battery attachment methods — strap-on versus clip-on — affect preparation time, but the difference is typically measured in seconds. A 10–20 second increase in launch preparation is rarely decisive. As Jaškūnas notes, specific requirements are determined by the use case or mission scenario, not by the manufacturer.
Electrical interfaces, however, are far more critical. Connector standards such as XT60 versus XT90 directly determine compatibility. Some battery manufacturers’ products cannot be used at all if connector standards diverge. In RSI Europe platforms, XT60 connectors are already insufficient for operational demands. Battery chemistry — Li-Ion versus LiPo — introduces another unresolved standardisation question with significant implications for performance and logistics.
Payload integration is even more consequential. At present, payload mounting remains highly fragmented. Some manufacturers address it superficially; others ignore it altogether. RSI Europe has addressed this by introducing Picatinny rail mounting for payloads, while retaining alternative attachment options for flexibility. However, without clear requirements from armed forces, market fragmentation will persist.
Armed forces must define what payloads they intend to employ and communicate those requirements consistently — not only to drone manufacturers, but also to munition designers and ESAD (Electronic Safety and Arming Device) suppliers.
One area stands out as an obvious candidate for early standardisation: the interface between ESADs and flight control units. Standardising this interface would significantly improve safety, interoperability, and clarity for manufacturers, while imposing minimal constraints on innovation.
Conclusion
FPV drone standardisation is not a single technical decision but a layered process, spanning systems, devices, and critical interfaces. The central challenge facing armed forces today is no longer training or availability, but the integration of FPV capabilities into the broader battlefield control framework. Without interoperability across these layers, FPV units remain operationally isolated and difficult to scale.
RSI Europe works with military organisations to address this challenge at its root — integrating FPV drones into existing command-and-control environments while supporting open, modular architectures at the device and interface level. This approach enables standardisation where it delivers operational value, while preserving the flexibility required for continued technological evolution.