Insights from Martynas Gutnikas, Project Manager at RSI Europe
Since the war in Ukraine began, one capability has repeatedly reshaped tactical calculations across multiple theatres: small, operator-piloted FPV (first-person-view) drones. These systems — agile, relatively inexpensive, and effective in contested environments — have rapidly evolved from niche hobbyist platforms into operational tools with real battlefield impact.
NATO allies have reacted quickly, and as Martynas Gutnikas, RSI Europe’s Project Manager with extensive service as an officer in the Lithuanian Armed Forces, notes, this strong early momentum now presents an opportunity to transition from rapid response to long-term capability planning.
“Many NATO and allied military headquarters have expressed interest in integrating FPV drones into their doctrines. Some have acted decisively, purchasing small numbers of drones and beginning pilot training programs. However, comprehensive implementation remains uncommon,” Gutnikas says. “The next crucial step is to develop a coherent plan for how FPV capabilities fit into long-term doctrine, logistics, and training in a way that is sustainable and operationally practical.”
Gutnikas compares the battlefield effects of FPV strike drones to anti-tank weapons, mortars, and even close air support. He emphasizes that FPVs supplement, not replace, these systems.
“In many ways, FPVs today are like the machine guns of the early 1900s: operational, impactful, but not yet fully refined. There is no clear doctrine or specialization yet — light, heavy, or anti-air variants. But just as early machine guns reshaped tactical, operational, and strategic thinking, FPVs are now doing the same. Using them operationally today enables forces to define precise requirements for tomorrow, creating a virtuous cycle of capability development.”
Reactive procurement vs strategic capability planning
The first challenge in integrating FPV strike drones into operational doctrine relates to procurement practices. In many cases, armed forces procure combat-ready FPV strike kits for immediate frontline deployment — then use the same hardware for initial pilot training. This approach delivered urgent capability quickly, but it is not as efficient as it could be with purpose-built FPV strike drones capability building tools.
“Using single-use, battlefield-ready drones as the default training tool is not the best option,” Gutnikas notes. “Training at scale requires different constructions, logistics, and safety arrangements than combat supply.”
A second challenge is doctrinal placement. Militaries are still determining where FPV strike units sit within combined-arms structures. Should FPV teams be organic to manoeuvre units, positioned within engineer or reconnaissance formations, concentrated as a centralized capability or even become a basic capability such as tactical medicine or handling a rifle? These decisions shape procurement quantities, training models, and sustainment frameworks.
“Directly copying doctrinal placement of Ukrainian drone forces is not feasible,” Gutnikas says. “There are many reasons why it wouldn’t fit NATO military models, but two stand out: first, militaries operate differently in war and peace conditions; second, Ukrainian force structures are not yet fully harmonized with NATO principles and organizational standards.”
That said, valuable lessons can still be drawn from Ukraine. By taking inspiration from how Ukrainian drone forces function — partially acting as center of excellence in drone warfare — NATO allies could develop a similar structure under a common framework, adapting best practices to align with alliance doctrine and interoperability requirements.
Third, planning for countermeasures and operational depth remains an emerging requirement. FPV strike systems extend the “grey zone” of influence — pushing contested activity far beyond immediate frontlines. Effective employment requires parallel planning for complementary capabilities: long-range sensors, electronic protection and detection, doctrinal integration with artillery and aviation, and resilient logistics.
Economic and operational consequences
Integrating expendable, combat-configured FPV strike kits into training regimes poses practical challenges that go beyond simple cost accounting. More relevant is that traditional peacetime military structures are not organized to work with relatively low-cost, loss-prone equipment: such systems generate high levels of paperwork, strict disposal and accounting requirements, and bureaucratic friction across a force.
To address these frictions, military command should prioritize pragmatic adjustments to doctrine and logistics — for example, streamlined procedures for writing off damaged or destroyed drones, shorter and more frequent procurement cycles to keep training fleets current, and long-term supplier agreements that guarantee rapid service, spare-part delivery and in-country repair capacity.
Equally important is building basic repair and maintenance capability within logistics and drone units so that sustainment happens close to the point of use.
Gutnikas puts it plainly:
“Building FPV strike capability is not only about acquiring equipment — it’s about adapting systems and habits to match the pace of modern warfare. By involving industry early, forces can reshape procedures, logistics, and sustainment models to work efficiently with fast-evolving, expendable technologies. That’s how readiness grows — not through perfection on paper, but through practical adaptation in the field.”
He adds:
“Lessons learned from implementing FPV strike drones within Lithuanian and Ukrainian Armed Forces doctrine can support military command in other countries, helping them accelerate adoption while improving efficiency and reducing friction.”
Better practices: design, training, and procurement principles
Below are operational concepts that address strategic needs without entering technical detail.
Separate training and combat inventories
Treat training fleets and combat kits as distinct.
Training hardware should emphasize:
- Reusability
- Safe feedback for learning
- Training efficiency
- Cost efficiency for training
Combat kits should prioritize:
- Reliability
- Mission effect
- Cost efficiency for combat use
To build FPV strike capability effectively, forces need a diverse ecosystem: training drones, multiple categories of combat drones (at least five distinct operational types), and the ability to rapidly customize equipment for specific missions. This requires more than hardware — it demands a close, responsive relationship with a technology partner capable of adapting designs, producing and delivering equipment quickly, and addressing integration issues that inevitably arise during capability development.
Define clear operational requirements by role
Military command should develop role-specific operational requirement lists (e.g., reconnaissance units, urban assault support, engineering teams). These requirements guide procurement so units receive systems tailored to their operational profile rather than a single general-purpose configuration.
Invest in non-destructive scoring and simulation
Realistic training must measure effects without requiring expendable ordnance. This includes integrating:
- Non-destructive scoring systems
- Digital mission-rehearsal tools
- Training instrumentation that maps tasks to real combat outcomes
Emphasize modularity and portability in logistics
Logistics for FPV adoption should prioritize lightweight, modular, transportable solutions that reduce burden on frontline units and enable rapid deployment. Practical measures could include detachable propellers, modular batteries, and standardized integration points so airframes, guidance stations, and payloads from different manufacturers can interoperate. Such modularity ensures flexible logistics, faster field preparation, and more resilient, provider-agnostic operations.
Differentiate training roles within cohorts
Not every trainee must master all drone-related tasks. Training pipelines can separate:
- Pilots
- Navigators/mission controllers
- Technical maintainers
This specialization improves efficiency and supports scalable training.
Build industry-military command partnerships early
Industry understands production dynamics, sustainment costs, and design trade-offs. Structured consultation enables planners to leverage this insight without diminishing procurement autonomy.
“A dialogue with manufacturers can prevent expensive mistakes,” Gutnikas says. “We can model lifecycle costs for training programs and propose practical trade-offs, having in mind solution scalability, deployment time and logistics constraints.”
What military command should ask of industry
To make such partnerships productive, armed forces should provide suppliers with clear, operationally framed requirements:
- Mission profiles
- Expected training throughput
- Logistical constraints
- Desired capability building outcomes
Suppliers, in turn, translate those operational needs into:
- Full range of systems, including reusable training platforms
- Simulator and training programs integration
- Modular logistics and maintenance packages
- Capability building package oriented to accelerate the system integration and scaling
Without prescribing tactical employment.
Toward a sustainable FPV ecosystem
FPV strike drones are here to stay; their tactical effect is already reshaping modern battlefields.
“If we do this right,” Gutnikas says, “we can scale capability, control costs, and ensure training prepares forces for real operational challenges — not just rehearsing what is already on the shelf.”
For governments and militaries, the question is no longer whether to adopt FPV technology, but how to adopt it intelligently and at pace required by current geopolitical situation:
- Align doctrine, procurement, and training
- Separate combat and training inventories
- Engage industry early
- Apply structured lessons-learned from early adopters
- Identify and address critical gaps that prevent rapid system integration and scaling
Doing so builds a force that is not only equipped — but sustainably prepared.
RSI Europe provides consulting, integration and capability building support to armed forces seeking to incorporate FPV strike systems into doctrine, training, and logistics planning. For enquiries or to discuss capability development, contact Martynas Gutnikas, Project Manager, at [email protected].