The evolution of unmanned aerial systems—commonly referred to as drones—and the simultaneous race to discover effective means of neutralizing them are progressing at a pace that far exceeds the rhythm of conventional weapons development programs. According to one company specializing in counter-drone technologies, this acceleration in innovation has effectively rendered traditional defense procurement and upgrade cycles obsolete. Matt McCrann, the Chief Executive Officer of DroneShield’s United States division, emphasized in a discussion with Business Insider that the industry now finds itself engaged in what he described as an active “counter-counter struggle,” a dynamic back-and-forth where each new advancement in drone capability is met by an equally determined wave of defensive innovation. The tempo, he noted, has fundamentally transformed—development cycles that were once measured in years, or at best in months, are now condensed into mere weeks.
This transformation has given rise to what can be characterized as a rapidly shifting drone battlefield. The swift modernization of aerial threats means that defense contractors and military strategists can no longer rely on static systems that address only the immediate problems of today. Instead, McCrann argues, the true need lies in designing systems that not only meet current operational demands but also possess the inherent flexibility to evolve alongside tomorrow’s challenges. To keep pace with this environment, the industry is increasingly prioritizing modularity, adaptability, and software-centric design principles. Software, as he explained, can be iterated and upgraded with far greater ease than hardware, enabling a responsive approach to threats that shift and proliferate overnight.
In this context, technologies initially crafted for singular, well-defined functions have become multi-role tools—systems deployed to perform one or two missions are now dynamically repurposed to confront entirely new kinds of threats. McCrann highlighted how DroneShield’s existing platforms are producing far more operational value than originally envisioned when they first left the factory. DroneShield’s portfolio includes advanced systems capable of detecting, tracking, and disabling hostile drones by disrupting their communication links through radio frequency jamming. Headquartered in Australia, the company operates extensively across Europe, maintains lucrative contracts with the U.S. military worth millions of dollars, and has fielded multiple systems on the frontlines of Ukraine’s ongoing defense. These deployments have spurred a surge in Western demand, as governments and defense organizations confront the mounting reality of a rapidly expanding drone threat landscape.
That threat has become alarmingly diverse. McCrann observed that the range of potential targets vulnerable to drone operations has grown dramatically. The conflict in Ukraine offers a stark illustration: Russian drone strikes have not only devastated military positions but have also inflicted substantial damage on civilian infrastructure and energy networks. These attacks underscore the capacity of drones to inflict strategic and psychological harm far beyond the traditional battlefield. The effects are being felt across Europe as well—airports have been periodically disrupted by both Russian and unidentified drones, prompting emergency responses and air defense alerts across the continent. Even within the United States, incidents involving drones have rattled military facilities and major public events, forcing authorities to confront the domestic dimension of this evolving threat.
Both Ukraine and Russia continue to engage in a frenetic cycle of technological competition, each developing not just novel drones but innovative methods to counter them. McCrann noted that Western defense planners are now compelled to broaden their conceptual frameworks for potential threats and reconsider how to safeguard critical assets effectively. He acknowledged a rapidly growing consensus across Western militaries and defense industries that existing counter-drone defenses are insufficient—a realization that he described as “snowballing.” The countries most directly engaged in the conflict, Ukraine and Russia, are demonstrating remarkable ingenuity in producing domestic solutions for interception and retaliation. Newly developed systems, such as autonomous interceptor drones and artificial intelligence–guided turrets, are being deployed to neutralize aerial threats that would have been difficult even to imagine at such scale a few years ago.
Within this brutal technological race, the pace of obsolescence is unforgiving. Oleksandr Yabchanka, who oversees robotic systems for Ukraine’s Da Vinci Wolves Battalion, remarked that technologies considered advanced and effective only six months ago have already become outdated. Western defense officials are closely monitoring this continuous laboratory of warfare. Allied countries within NATO, seeking to absorb these hard-earned lessons, have begun incorporating Ukrainian battlefield innovations into joint military exercises. Ukraine’s record of rapid adaptation has not gone unnoticed among its partners; its resourcefulness has earned respect from commanders who now recognize that conventional Western militaries are perilously unprepared for the scale and frequency of drone assaults witnessed in Eastern Europe.
Indeed, former commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi, warned earlier in 2024 that not a single NATO army currently possesses the capability to repel mass drone attacks effectively. A central weakness identified within Western doctrine lies in its persistent dependence on high-cost missile systems, which, while technologically sophisticated, prove inefficient and economically unsustainable when used against swarms of inexpensive drones. This imbalance between cost and practicality has emerged as one of the most pressing strategic dilemmas for Western defense establishments.
Across both sides of the Atlantic, governments are grappling with broader geopolitical anxieties. European nations remain apprehensive about the possibility of future Russian offensives elsewhere on the continent, while the United States continues to evaluate the risk posed by China’s increasingly advanced drone technology and its potential incorporation into large-scale military operations. Although any such future conflicts would differ structurally from the war in Ukraine—given NATO’s superior logistics and supply chains—the centrality of drone technology would almost certainly persist. The alliance’s current defense infrastructure, however, remains ill-suited for the task at hand.
McCrann himself acknowledged that while no two conflicts will appear identical, one fact has become undeniable: the drone threat is permanent and rapidly evolving. Defense companies, he emphasized, must accept this reality and pivot away from the outdated assumptions that guided weapons development five or ten years ago. That means embracing a philosophy of continuous reinvention rather than periodic modernization. This sense of urgency is echoed by many within the defense technology ecosystem. The Chief Executive Officer of Ukrainian robotics firm Ark Robotics pointed out that some Western-produced systems are already lagging behind on the battlefield because their makers continue to rely on multi-year production cycles, a tempo that has become unsustainable. Technologies that proved effective a year earlier can lose relevance within months, if not weeks.
Western policymakers have begun to internalize this message. Luke Pollard, the United Kingdom’s Minister for the Armed Forces, recently commented that NATO’s traditional operational rhythms are fundamentally out of date, particularly in how they manage procurement and technological integration. He observed that new iterations of drone designs are appearing every two or three weeks along the front lines, representing not just a faster tempo of innovation but a fundamentally new model of warfare itself. This recognition has spurred a broad chorus of warnings from military strategists, legislators, and defense executives throughout the West: if nations wish to remain secure in an age defined by exponential technological change, they must revolutionize how swiftly they design, produce, and deploy their weaponry. That will likely require a paradigm shift—from the historic emphasis on possessing smaller numbers of cutting-edge, high-cost systems toward maintaining larger volumes of adaptable, lower-cost equipment capable of meeting the swarm-based challenges of tomorrow’s wars.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/drone-war-moving-too-fast-old-school-weapons-development-ceo-2025-11
