Strikes at 60 km, mining of rear areas and air evacuation of the wounded. All about our drone bombers that scare the Russians

Previously, these devices watered Ukrainian fields with fertilizer, and now they water the occupiers with fire. Converted agricultural drones have become one of the most formidable tools of the Ukrainian resistance in 2022. The Russians called these drones "Baba Yaga" because of their characteristic operation at night and the terror they inspire in military personnel who come under attack.

In Ukraine, they are simply called bombers. These are large drones that fly much further and carry much more explosives than standard Chinese "mavics" with dumps.

Bomber technology has changed dramatically over the past three years and continues to evolve. Previously, they could hit targets at distances of up to 20 kilometers, but now operators can reach enemy vehicles at distances of up to 60 km and carry significantly more explosives.

The range of tasks for these drones has also expanded – bombers are increasingly doing work instead of people: delivering cargo, mining territory, and right now they are being tested for evacuating the wounded.

Operators also have enough challenges on the battlefield, as the Russians have relatively recently learned to intercept Ukrainian bombers en masse.

The 412th Nemesis Regiment is one of the largest Ukrainian bomber operators, one of the top three UAV units with the highest combat performance. What is the secret of the effectiveness of Ukrainian bombers, is it difficult to fly them, where is the technology heading, how the Russians learned to intercept them, and what the manufacturers are doing wrong – Defense talked about all this with the deputy commander of Nemesis, Pavel Laktionov.

"Russian soldiers are dying already scared"

What is the most original use of drone bombers you have seen during your service?

From what I can remember, it was the evacuation of another drone by our drone – we flew in and picked it up. There was also a moment when the logistics at the position were particularly complicated. Then, there was an order from the positions, we asked "What to bring?", and in response we heard – "We have everything except cigarettes". Well, we all gathered cigarettes and then handed them over in a bomber.

What do you think about the name "Baba Yaga" that the Russians invented?

Well, you know, there was also the name "chertolyot", but it didn't stick. We just call them bombers.

Why are the Russians so afraid of these drones anyway? If you look at their posts, this is one of the most mentioned Ukrainian weapons.

To understand this, you have to be nearby when it flies. It has big propellers, it is very noisy. If we can hear even a small Mavic well, then a bomber is even better. And when a drone arrives that can carry a 10 kg projectile, conventionally from a mortar, it is truly scary. Russians often die already scared.

"A bomber is closer to aviation than a drone"

How long does bomber training take? Can a trained "mavic" pilot fly a bomber?

No, it can't. But will it be easier for a Mavic pilot to master a bomber? Yes. Anyone who has experience flying helicopters will do it faster.

There are models of bombers where pilots say to each other: "You flew a Mavic? So you can fly here too." In some cases, the controls are indeed similar. But in general, not.

A bomber is closer to aviation. It 's not a remote control from a Mavic, but rather piloting a Boeing. You sit down, set up a program, an autopilot, and use your hands only when you're hit or when electronic warfare interferes. That's why heavy bombers are more like serious civil aviation.

How long does it take to become a pilot?

It's very individual, and it's not a fact that it will work out at all – it's not given to everyone. Those who have already flown on Mavics or FPV drones have it easier, because they know how to navigate and have navigation skills. And those who are stronger in IT learn programming faster. But you can basically train a pilot in 30–40 days.

I always draw an analogy with aviation. We graduate a basic-level pilot from school, he comes to a combat unit. There he is told: "Start with the simplest tasks and move on. Here is the program, here are the training and combat tasks."

After completing training tasks, the pilot is granted access to combat. But not everyone who graduates from school reaches the level of a professional, capable of performing the full range of tasks.

We try to use bombers to the maximum. Sometimes other units say: "We thought, it can't be done like that," and we answer: "We thought so too, but we tried – and it worked."

What does pro level mean?

This is, for example, a long-range hit: when the technical specifications say the combat radius is 25 km, but we hit at 57 km. Or hitting a moving target. These are the moments where the skills, talent and talent of the pilots are very decisive.

What else is needed to launch a bomber besides a trained crew and a drone?

Everything is like in aviation: electronics, communications, remote control. It's not "just take it out of the box and fly it." The unit must have a workshop that checks the platforms, conducts test flights, and puts the equipment into operation.

The unit has its own routines: charging, training, pilot checklists, launch algorithms — all of this is spelled out. Each drone has a serial number, each takeoff and return is recorded in reports, technicians check and tell when technical procedures and checks need to be carried out.

"Defeats at 50-60 km are already a regular practice"

In what direction is the technological evolution of bombers taking place?

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the requirements have been almost unchanged: fly further, carry more weight, and have jam-proof communications.

A year ago, an article in Ukrainska Pravda said that your drones were flying a record 20 km. Now you say that you hit a target at 57 km. What is the working distance of the drones now?

Then we destroyed the BUK-M3 (air defense system). It was an absolutely unattainable figure in terms of distance. But war constantly drives progress. We force their equipment to retreat further to avoid defeat. They withdraw it deeper and deeper and carefully camouflage it.

Because if they don't take them away, then "Baba Yaga", FPV or attack wing will fly and destroy them. Therefore, progress pushes us to fly even further. Now, defeating at 50–60 km is already a regular practice for us.

Did the recent destruction of 4 Koksan self-propelled guns also occur at a long distance?

Well, it won't be a secret if I say that the "Koksan" was hit at a distance of its own fire damage. It's easy to Google this (the "Koksan" self-propelled gun, depending on the ammunition, is capable of firing at a distance of 40-60 km).

Which goal is the most difficult for you?

This is trailed artillery: howitzers and cannons. This equipment is very simple in design, without electronics or attachments – even if a shell explodes nearby and there are fragments everywhere, it often remains operational. They fired back, removed all the sights, ran into cover, and the howitzer is covered with logs or in a pit. Therefore, if the ammunition that was dropped on the howitzer flies by – nothing will happen to it and it will fire again the next day. Therefore, this is a massive, very strong target, which is still a challenge to destroy.

How much time passes between the first shots of a howitzer and its destruction?

This is a very individual process, sometimes it happens that an artillery piece fires and it is hit instantly, that is, the wing is hanging online, we saw the way out, and the response has already flown. And sometimes it happens that we have, let's say, complaints from customers.

The brigade, which is standing in the defense zone, says: "We are constantly being shelled, turn off the artillery." Because of this, it is impossible to maintain a normal defense, logistics are disrupted, evacuation is also disrupted, so all intelligence resources are already being used here. Aerial reconnaissance, intelligence, analytics - a lot of information.

In addition, the enemy is constantly moving, because if they stand still, the FPV will fly in and burn them. Therefore, it happens that the wing has just noticed, and the operator is already waiting to destroy the target, and it happens that it is a titanic work of all links, that is, intelligence, planning, analysts, decoders, aerial reconnaissance, means of destruction. And we don’t even mention how many models they have.

Do you use artificial intelligence (AI) to detect and engage targets?

Yes, AI is used, but as a support tool. It is used to better track moving targets and to build approach trajectories for strikes.

To hit complex, hidden positions, AI alone does not work. You need to involve intelligence, check the target, and put a point on the map — then the AI can fly to this point and strike. If communication with the bomber is lost in the process, the reconnaissance UAV provides confirmation of whether there was a hit.

That is, AI is useful for some automation, but the final decision and coordination rests with the human.

The "Perun" unit hung 155-mm shells on bombers — did you do that? How effective is it?

That's what they did. If it helps destroy manpower or equipment, it's effective. But let's be honest: this is a forced measure due to the lack of standardized ammunition for UAVs. I take my hat off to our explosives engineers for their unconventional thinking, because they often make masterpieces out of existing ammunition.

However, hanging artillery shells is a temporary solution that requires additional work by an explosives engineer to make the charge safe for transportation and the crew. Perhaps it was just an experiment, and they had nothing to hit the same howitzer with, so they decided to hang the shell.

Ideally, you need a ready-made product that the crew can simply take from the warehouse, bring in, screw in the fuse, hang it on the bomber, remove the check, and fly. The crew will prefer such a ready-made solution, rather than something that needs to be reworked.

Many drones now use fiber optics for communication to eliminate enemy electronic warfare. Does it make sense on bombers?

Well, this is just my opinion, but I don't see any point in it. I prefer duplicated, jam-proof communication. Previously, there was an ATGM (anti-tank guided missile) — the operator shoots, sits still, brings it to the target and hits. In my opinion, an FPV drone on fiber optics is a kind of ATGM. You fly, control the drone and your range of tasks expands.

But for bombers flying 20–50 km, you need a suitable cable, and this adds weight, reduces the payload, and the fiber itself can break. There is high-strength fiber, but it is expensive and economically impractical for mass use. Perhaps one day it will become more affordable — but for now, fiber has its niche, and it is definitely not for bombers.

"Manufacturers should listen to the military, not impose their ideas"

At a recent Brave1 forum, Taras Chmut, director of the Come Back Alive charity, and Kyrylo Veres, commander of the K-2 regiment, talked about how manufacturers very often position their product as ideal, and if it has problems, they blame the military. How do you assess manufacturers in our market and their interaction with units?

I heard this interview, I know both speakers, and I think they said everything absolutely correctly. I always tell manufacturers: you must have a customer for your products and technical solutions. The problem is that most manufacturers think that they know better what the military needs and how to implement it. Often they present some developments, but I always ask: "who orders this and for what?"

Manufacturers may have their own customers with narrow requests, but this is not enough. They need to work with different, especially inconvenient, divisions, because it is they who form the real tasks and requirements.

This is essentially marketing research of the market, only military: you need to ask what is needed, what is not needed, what are the application scenarios, what problems arise.

Because it turns out like this: the manufacturer comes and says, "Here we have made a new version, the state has purchased 100 thousand drones." And we answer: "Why? Everything worked better in the previous one." If manufacturers want to be useful, they need to listen to the military, and not impose their ideas.

Don't you think the market is oversaturated? New bomber jacket manufacturers appear at every exhibition. Do we need so many manufacturers?

No, there is no such feeling. Oversaturation would mean that I don't have enough people to use the drones I have, and we currently have the opposite - fewer drones than people.

Is such a large number of manufacturers needed? I am very calm about this and believe that the market will regulate everything. If the product is of high quality, it will find its user and replace the poor-quality product. If the product is of poor quality, it simply will not enter the market.

Competition keeps companies in good shape — a large number of manufacturers drives the market forward and gives customers choice. Again, the problem is not the number of manufacturers, but their R&D resources and production capacities — many lack the resources to make not one or two, but three to five different models for different tasks.

What should be the ideal line of bomber jackets for different tasks?

There should be different categories: simple inexpensive drones with a large payload for mining the leading edge; long-range "strikers" for hitting targets at long distances; or someone needs intermediate platforms for hitting artillery or lifting heavy ammunition.

I am sure that manufacturers would like to expand the range, but for now the primary task is to stably meet the needs of the army.

The military says that outdated FPV drones often reach the front lines and need to be modified to work with them. Is it the same with bombers?

Bombers generally remain relevant longer than FPV. In FPV drones, the main variable is communication: frequencies change often, and the state does not keep up with this, so they need to be redesigned more often. But all bomber manufacturers need to build in the possibility of upgrading — so that either the manufacturer or the unit's workshop can update the drone and bring it to the needs of the front. In general, manufacturers must be able to work with units and maintain equipment in combat readiness.

"Bombers will be able to evacuate the wounded"

How much have the tasks performed by the drone bomber expanded? You've already mentioned delivery and destruction of targets, but what else?

Well, what can be said has long been known to everyone: defeat, reconnaissance, logistics, engineering and sapper work. I remember my years in the infantry, and how in 2022-23 they said: "here are our positions, here in front there should be anti-tank mines, here anti-personnel mines, here we should create an obstacle."

And who does it? Sappers who manually laid mines on the front line. Today, this is too risky a task, so drones have taken on some of these tasks: mining, transporting ammunition, preparing assaults. Some models are better suited for certain operations in terms of performance characteristics — this is their permanent task.

There have been rumors that the defense forces are testing the evacuation of the wounded using heavy drones. How realistic is this?

This is absolutely realistic. There is a customer and certain executors — the process is already moving towards practical implementation. Evacuation is very risky: if earlier the threat was artillery shelling, now the key risks are drones. However, if a bomber is prepared and adapted to lift a wounded person, it can quickly evacuate a person. Of course, there are risks of interception, but the probability of evacuation is real.

And what should such a drone be like, what are its characteristics?

Well, the one who does this knows what it should be like. Theoretically, evacuation from the front line is relatively simple, if you don't take into account the weight of the person and the size of the drone. The plane doesn't fly long distances, communication is better, the distances are shorter. Of course, if the task is to evacuate someone 50 km from the contact line, then it's a challenge. But if evacuation from the front line is, theoretically, it's not elementary, but much simpler.

You said you already have a customer.

Yes — as far as we know, there is a customer from the state and there are executors who offer solutions. Some manufacturers are already saying: "We have the technical ability, and we are ready to test." I think that in any case we will come to this.

"Wherever the Russian Rubicon is present, it is palpable"

Now many military personnel are talking about the increase in the losses of our bombers due to Russian interceptor drones. Accordingly, one drone flies fewer missions. Is this true?

Interception is the evolution of countermeasures, so yes, there is a challenge with enemy interceptors. We got there before they did, and we used and adapted different drones for interception.

But now the enemy has done the same. This is a challenge that must be overcome: changing tactics, technical approaches, and planning for use. We have already gone through a similar path with the Shaheds: first they shot down with missiles, then there were MVG, aviation, and interceptor drones. Now the enemy is repeating these evolutionary steps.

We hear a lot about the Russian Rubicon unit, which is involved in interception. How much do they bother you?

They are problematic. Where they are present, it is noticeable: they learn quickly, adapt technologies, work with technical progress. This is a progressive, creative unit, but not some extraordinary phenomenon — they simply apply new technologies more quickly.

Physics is the same for everyone: to find a UAV in the air, optical search alone is not enough. There is a radar field — any vehicle raised into the air "glows" on the radar depending on the antenna and power. They have small radars, stations, lighting networks — and this gives a picture of the air situation, warning and guidance of interceptors. For us, there is nothing fundamentally new in this — everything that appears with us is sooner or later repeated with them.

And what is the countermeasure to this?

The only effective response is to destroy their crews.

"There are not enough bombers in the army"

Is the state coping with replenishing the losses of bombers after the enemy deployed their interceptors?

I hope it is doing everything it can. But, in my opinion, there are not enough bombers in the army. If I had so many of them that there were not enough personnel to use them, then I would say that the state is "overdoing" the task. Now there is none, so I would like more.

Do you feel the amount of funds coming in is increasing? Compared to last year.

I will say this, the manufacturers have increased the pace and more funds are coming in. But we as a regiment do not feel this, because we are also growing, in terms of the number of crews. Therefore, although in absolute numbers the revenues are increasing, we still cannot cover our needs.

Now, state marketplaces DOT-chain Defence and Brave1 market are emerging for the purchase of drones to speed up the supply of weapons to the military. Do you like this idea?

We used Brave1 Market. Let me tell you, do you like the idea of a military marketplace? Yes, I really like it. We are constantly trying to buy weapons there. Is it a good idea? Yes.

Is it possible to buy everything you need there, even if you have this resource? No, there is no way.

What's wrong?

Well, imagine that you go to Rozetka where there are a bunch of products that you want to buy and see "temporarily out of stock." Perhaps demand exceeds supply, or manufacturers need a greater presence on the platform.

But in principle, it's a good idea. We're for any digital solutions that can reduce human communication and translate everything into a program — that's great.

What could be the further development of bombers?

The challenges are the same: fly further, carry more, be resistant to interference. Bombers have a great future — they are a separate direction of the armed forces of any country, which will be widely used.

I know that our Western partners are also interested in these weapons. We communicate with them — many partners are still at the beginning of their journey in understanding the specifics of modern warfare. Sometimes it seems to me that some of my civilian friends ask more professional questions than our partners.

They don't understand everything, but we explain: forget about war with tanks and fleets — today drones dictate the rules of the game.