A commander from Ukraine’s GUR naval drone unit says NATO countries are adopting lessons from Ukraine’s Black Sea drone campaign, but he is uneasy about how some allies translate combat experience into technical requirements for shipbuilders—because many Europ
A Ukrainian naval drone unit has one advantage many NATO shipyards don’t: years of hard-earned combat experience built directly into the systems.
That’s the point Ninth—an intelligence commander with Ukraine’s GUR who oversees a naval drone unit—makes in a recent interview, while explaining why watching NATO militaries build new naval drone fleets after observing Ukraine’s success leaves him feeling “uneasy.”
Ukraine’s campaign in the Black Sea has pushed the conflict far beyond the idea of drones as simple tools. Ukrainian naval drones have been used to devastate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. damaging and destroying its warships and forcing Moscow to relocate much of its operations from the occupied Crimean peninsula to the other side of the region. NATO militaries. Ninth says. have watched closely and moved to equip their own forces with naval drones that could deliver similar effects in combat alongside traditional warships.
What gives him satisfaction. Ninth says. is seeing other countries adopt elements of Ukraine’s experience and the practical lessons learned in combat. He also describes a shift among NATO states: “Many are now revising their doctrines to recognize the necessity of equipping their fleets” with naval drones.
Yet his unease comes when that doctrinal shift turns into procurement specifications.
Ninth says NATO countries’ technical requirements for shipbuilders and defense companies often reflect designs that do not carry the same combat logic Ukraine had to develop in real time. In his view. European nations tasked with building these systems “simply lack this experience.” They may respond to NATO-issued specifications. but “they do not fully understand the realities of combat conditions because they have never encountered them firsthand.”.
He declined to specify exactly where NATO’s naval drones were lacking, but said the issues primarily concern design, system behavior, and electronics, among other attributes.
The contrast he draws is stark. Ukrainian naval drones, he says, have been modified continuously to match the changing security situation in the Black Sea. At the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. the drones were built to speed into a target and explode on impact. Now, Ninth says, they are armed with machine guns, surface-to-air missiles, and other weapons—making them more dynamic platforms.
NATO naval drones, by comparison, are not built on the same kind of battlefield experience. European nations have used them for maritime security patrols. The US Navy has often used drones for surveillance purposes in the Middle East. though earlier this month. a US Navy drone carried out a first-of-its-kind rescue mission after Iran shot down an American helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz.
Ninth also points to the limits of training environments. NATO has been incorporating naval drones into maritime exercises, but complex combat operations are “very different.”
For him. the engineering challenge isn’t only about getting a drone to move; it’s about making it work under chaos. He says naval drones must be able to operate in rough sea states. which requires the correct weight distributions and structural calculations. Hull construction and materials are not the only considerations.
He adds that a naval drone’s “true value” lies in its electronics—especially the ability to communicate. If operators lose their signal. he says the boats need autonomous functions: the ability to cruise on autopilot. use artificial intelligence to avoid obstacles. and make independent decisions about target selection.
That is where his broader point lands—Ukraine’s advantage comes from combat-driven validation, not hypothetical testing. Ninth attributes Ukraine’s naval drone prowess to the combat experience it has accumulated over the years, describing strikes on Russian warships and ports across the Black Sea.
“We should never forget that one working day for our engineers and programmers equals roughly 10 working days for specialists in countries that are not at war,” Ninth said. “When we make changes, we do not validate them hypothetically. We validate them in combat. Within hours.”
Armed conflict, he stresses, doesn’t follow office schedules. “It is a round-the-clock affair,” Ninth said. “We understand the enemy’s tactics and constantly adapt our own methods accordingly,” he added, saying that whenever Ukraine identifies a weakness, it moves to eliminate it.
“That,” he said, “is the pace at which wartime innovation takes place.”
For NATO planners and defense industries trying to translate Ukraine’s lessons into new drone fleets. the message is uncomfortable in its clarity: doctrine can be updated quickly. but the experience embedded in combat-tested electronics. behavior. and system design can take far longer to replicate—especially when shipyards have never faced those conditions firsthand.
Ukraine NATO naval drones GUR Black Sea Fleet Crimean peninsula drone autonomy wartime innovation maritime security patrols US Navy rescue mission Strait of Hormuz