우크라이나 광섬유 드론 운용 부대장의 인터뷰

[위종민]

우크라이나의 아조프연대 무인체계대대 지휘관의 인터뷰인데, 광섬유 드론은 무선침묵 상태로 운용해서 전자전에 교란당하질 않는게 장점이고, 명중률은 50%라고 하네요. 전파 혼선 및 전자전에 시달리는 무선 FPV 드론은 30%. 사거리 10km급은 가격이 1,200달러인데 공급이 모자라 받으려면 2, 3개월을 기다려야 한다고 합니다. 이 때문에 광섬유 드론의 비율은 5% 미만이라고. 러시아는 30km급 광섬유드론도 굴리고 있고, 자신의 부대는 15km까지 효율적으로 쓰고 20km 타격 성공 사례도 있다고 합니다. 

초기엔 제조사들이 중국산 드론을 되팔아서 문제가 많았다고 하네요. 

러시아의 전자전 때문에 무선드론 운용에 더 강력한 리피터가 필요하다고 합니다. 

간단 요약

우크라이나 국가방위군 아조프연대 무인체계대대 지휘관 ‘야스’는 독점 인터뷰에서, 전자전에 면역되는 광섬유(Fiber-Optic) 유선 조종 FPV 드론의 장점과 약점, 실제 명중률(약 50%), 생산·공급 제약, 러시아 전자전 대응, 무선 드론 대비 성능 차이 등을 상세히 설명했다.



기사 전문 번역 (원문 순서, 평문)

우크라이나의 ‘광섬유 드론 전쟁’ 내부 광섬유 케이블로 FPV 공격 드론을 조종할 때의 장점과 한계를 우크라이나 지휘관이 새로 공개하다 하워드 올트먼 | 2025년 5월 28일 15:28 EDT

전장 전역에서 우크라이나와 러시아는 다수의 일인칭 시점(FPV) 드론을 조종기와 연결할 때 전파 대신 광섬유 케이블을 사용하고 있다. 덕분에 전자전 재밍과 다른 교란에 면역이 되며, 지형으로 인한 전파 장애도 완화된다. 이제 우크라이나 국가방위군 아조프 제12특수부대 무인체계대대 지휘관 ‘야스(Yas)’가 독점 인터뷰에서 광섬유 FPV를 실제 무기로 운용하는 현황을 상세히 밝혔다.

(2025년 1월 29일, 우크라이나 키이우 주에서 우크라이나군을 위해 설계된 광섬유 조종 드론. 사진: 막심 마루센코/NurPhoto via Getty Images) 12특수부대 무인체계대대 지휘관은 “FPV 드론에 광섬유를 쓰면 장점과 도전과제가 공존한다”고 말한다. (사진: 막심 마루센코/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

참고로, 러시아가 2024년 봄 FPV 드론에 광섬유를 먼저 도입했고 우크라이나가 곧바로 뒤따랐다. (자세한 내용은 당사 기존 기사 참조.)

야스의 발언은 메모리얼 데이에 진행된 약 두 시간 인터뷰의 일부다. 인터뷰는 동부 도네츠크주 폐허 도시 토레츠크 일대에서 무인체계대대가 치르는 전투를 다뤘으며, 나머지 내용은 추후 게재된다. 문답은 이해를 돕기 위해 약간 다듬었다.



Q: FPV 드론에 광섬유 케이블을 써 본 경험은?

A: 우리 팀원 덕분에 이 기술을 부대에 도입할 수 있었다. 완전한 무전 침묵 상태로 운용하니 어떠한 수동 레이더 시스템에도 탐지되지 않으며, 전자전 수단도 무력화된다. 동시에 광섬유 드론은 고유한 조작 특성이 있어 조종사가 숙련되지 않으면 장비 손실이 크다.



Q: 광섬유 드론의 목표 명중률은?

A: 정상 작동 상태로 출격한 드론이 목표를 타격할 확률은 약 50%. 기술이 상당히 섬세해 조작 실수로 오폭이나 제어 상실, 심지어 의도치 않은 폭발도 일어날 수 있다. 광섬유 단선 사고도 겪었지만 성공적인 타격도 있었다.

(2024년 12월 26일, 키이우 주 시연 비행 중인 광섬유 FPV 드론. 우크라이나 국방혁신본부가 ‘미래 군대’ 프로그램의 일환으로 육·해·공군 지휘관들에게 선보였다. 일부 모델은 3kg까지 탑재 가능. 사진: 빅토르 프리드숀/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images) 광섬유 덕에 드론은 재밍 없이 작동한다. (사진: 빅토르 프리드숀/Global Images Ukraine)



Q: 광섬유의 다른 단점은?

A: 제조사가 서둘러 제품을 팔려 할 때 문제가 크다.



Q: 구체적으로?

A: 초기엔 대부분 업체가 부품을 직접 만들지 않고 중국산 광섬유 시스템을 사서 재판매했다. 우리는 운용법을 충분히 이해하지 못한 채 구매했다. 제조사들이 세부 사항을 몰라 무선 송신을 우리가 직접 꺼야 했다. 이런 재판매 제품은 비효율적이었다. 그러나 시간이 흐르며 피드백을 반영한 일부 업체는 품질을 개선해 명중률 50% 이상도 가능해졌다.



Q: 부대 드론 중 광섬유 비율은?

A: 가장 적다. 5% 미만.



Q: 왜? 양측 모두 널리 쓰는데.

A: 인기 탓에 수요가 많다. 우수 제조사 대기 기간이 2~3개월인데, 저품질 제품은 선택지로 두기 어렵다.



Q: 광섬유 드론 가격은?

A: 사거리 10km급이 약 1,200달러. 그러나 총공급량 자체가 부족하다.

(2024년 12월 26일 키이우 주 시연 비행. 사진: 빅토르 프리드숀/Global Images Ukraine) 지휘관은 “광섬유 FPV 성공이 커질수록 공급이 더 어려워진다”고 말한다. (사진: 빅토르 프리드숀/Global Images Ukraine)



Q: 광섬유 드론 최대 사거리는?

A: 코일 길이에 따라 다르다. 우리는 15km까지 효율적으로 썼고, 20km 성공 사례도 있다. 적은 이미 30km까지 운용한다.



Q: 그 격차를 어떻게 메우나?

A: 나는 운용 담당이라 국가 차원 계획이 필요하다. 현재 국가는 안정적 공급을 보장하지 못한다. 단순 무선 드론 체계는 마련됐지만 광섬유 드론은 갈 길이 멀다.



Q: 무선 FPV 드론 명중률은?

A: 목표 도달 확률은 광섬유가 50% 이상, 무선은 주파수 혼잡 등으로 30%까지 떨어질 수 있다. 타격 성공은 또 다른 변수다. 적이 이동·엄폐하면 효율이 낮아진다. 빈 야지나 차량 공격은 더 쉽다. 주파수 혼잡은 부대 간 조정으로 완화하려 애쓴다.

(2025년 4월 8일 포크로우스크, 전선 거의 최전방의 도시 도로에 얽힌 FPV 광섬유. 러시아 FPV가 통제해 경찰·자원봉사 진입 불가. 사진: 코스티안틴 리베로프/Libkos/Getty Images) 전장 일부 지역은 광섬유가 거미줄처럼 뒤덮여 있다. (사진: 코스티안틴 리베로프/Libkos/Getty Images)



Q: 무선 드론 운용을 어렵게 하는 다른 요소는?

A: 적 전술, 드론 피격, 적 전자전(EW) 모두 영향을 준다. 국가 제공 드론은 전선에서 5~8km 이상 운용하기 어렵다. 러시아 EW는 신호 억제에 매우 효율적이다. 우리는 더 강력한 리피터로 커버를 늘리려 한다.



Q: 러시아 전자전은 얼마나 강력해졌나?

A: 소련군의 힘은 질이 아니라 양이다. 러시아 EW는 수적 우세로 빠르게 대책을 전파한다. 우리가 채널을 바꾸면 곧 대응한다. 현재 러시아 EW는 세계 최고 수준 중 하나라 평가한다.



Q: 무선 드론 가시선(Los)·비가시선(BLoS) 능력 개선법은?

A: 두 가지. 첫째, 라디오 섀도(음영) 해소. 우리는 리피터 드론을 목표 상공에 띄워 건물 내부 공격처럼 신호 확보를 개선한다. 둘째, 전송 강도 문제. 드론이 늘며 일부 주파수가 과부하된다. 송수신기 실험으로 해결해야 한다. 애어로스태트(기구) 리피터 아이디어는 개인적으로 비효율적이라 본다.



다음 회차 인터뷰에서 야스는 신형 SETH 드론, ‘드래곤’ 열화물 드론 문제 그리고 아조프 부대가 무장 지상 로봇을 쓰지 않는 이유를 설명할 예정이다.

기자 연락처: howard@thewarzone.com

하워드 올트먼 더 워 존 선임 기자. 앞서 밀리터리 타임스 선임 매니징 에디터, 탬파베이 타임스 군사 전문기자 등 역임. 작품은 Yahoo News, RealClearDefense, Air Force Times 등에도 실렸다.

Inside Ukraine's Fiber-Optic Drone War

Inside Ukraine's Fiber-Optic Drone War

Inside Ukraine’s Fiber-Optic Drone War

Ukrainian commander gives us new details on the advantages and limitations of using fiber optic cables to control FPV attack drones.

Howard Altman

Published May 28, 2025 3:28 PM EDT

77

(Photo by Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

Email addressSign Up

Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Across the battlefield, both Ukraine and Russia are using fiber optic cables instead of radio waves to connect many of their first-person view (FPV) drones with their controllers. That makes them impervious to jamming and other forms of electronic warfare and helps mitigate the effects of terrain that can also interfere with radio control. Now, the commander of the 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov of the Ukrainian National Guard’s Unmanned Systems Battalion, who uses the call sign Yas, has given us in an exclusive interview the bottom-line on the current state of play when it comes to actually employing fiber optic FPVs as weapons.

There are benefits and challenges to using fiber optic cables on first-person view (FPV ) drones, says the commander of the 12th Special Forces Brigade of the Unmanned Systems Battalion. (Photo by Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto via Getty Images) NurPhoto

It’s worth noting that the Russians started the use of fiber optic wires on the FPV drone in the spring of 2024 and Ukraine quickly followed suit. You can read more about that in our original story here.

Yas’ comments on fiber optic FPVs are part of a nearly two-hour interview conducted on Memorial Day about the Unmanned Systems Battalion and its fight in and around the rubbled city of Toretsk in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. We will publish the rest of the conversation in the coming days. The questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: What is your experience using fiber optic cables on FPV drones?

A: I’m very lucky, because I have my people, and one of the members of our team, he practically made the implementation of this technology in our unit possible, and the idea is great, because you are operating in total radio silence, so you cannot be detected by any radar system [passive sensors]. And any electronic warfare means that later on, they are just inefficient. At the same time, the use of fiber optic cables, as with any FPV drone, has its own peculiarities of operation, and if the pilot is not skilled enough, that is going to lead to significant losses in such equipment and systems.

Q: What’s the percentage of targets hit with fiber-optic controlled drones?

A:  I would say that there is approximately a 50% probability that a totally functional drone that flies on a combat mission will strike its target. And I would also like to mention that this technology is quite fragile. Any mistake in handling this drone can result in an unintended explosion, for example, or in a loss of control. So that’s quite a surprising thing, but we also had such issues of control loss. Mistakes can result in the fiber optic tearing as well, but nevertheless, we also had some successful strikes with the fiber optic drones. 

Fiber optic cables allow drones to operate without being jammed. (Photo by Viktor Fridshon/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images) VIPAVLENKOFF

Q: Any other drawbacks to fiber optic cables that you can share?

A: When manufacturers are very hasty about selling their technology, selling their recently developed product to us, this is actually the segment of the systems that causes the most problems.

Q: How so?

A: Well, the problem was that at the start of the development of this technology, the majority of manufacturers did not produce the components for the drone themselves; they basically purchased the fiber optic systems from China, and they were just reselling the Chinese components. We were buying the technology without properly understanding how to deploy it. And there was also this issue with radio signals, so we needed to switch off the radio signal ourselves, because the manufacturers did not understand these specifics. And those manufacturers that just resold the components and drones from China proved to be inefficient in terms of their systems. But with time – not all of them, but at least some of them – listened to us, they paid attention to our feedback, and with time, they came to better products, which in turn can lead to a 50% probability of a successful strike, and even higher.

Q: What percentage of your drones use fiber optic cables?

A: This number is the lowest, and if I were to state a percentage, I would say that this is less than 5%.

Q: Why? This technology is widely used by Ukraine and Russia alike.

A: The popularity of this technology is the key reason why we cannot ensure we have a sufficient number of drones using this technology. We understand that in terms of quality, any good manufacturer that provides their clients with high-quality products – and this is just a basic market principle – they will always have a lot of clients. And in Ukraine, there are several good manufacturers of fiber optics for such drones, and they have quite a long waiting list. And then we have a dilemma when waiting for two to three months is quite a long period of time, and purchasing low-quality systems is also not an option for us.

Q: How much do fiber optic cable drones cost?

A: Well, the price is now quite lower at the moment for drones with a range of up to 10 kilometers (about 6.2 miles). It is approximately $1,200. But again, the key problem with ensuring a sufficient number of these drones is they’re deficit in general.

The success of fiber optic cables in controlling first-person view (FPV) drones is making it harder to find supplies, says the commander of the 12th Special Forces Brigade of the Unmanned Systems Battalion. (Photo by Viktor Fridshon/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images) Global Images Ukraine

Q: What is the maximum range of your fiber-optic drones?

A: It all depends on the fiber optic coil that is used. We have efficiently used drones with ranges up to 15 kilometers (about 9.3 miles). I know about successful deployments of 20-kilometer (about 12.4 miles) drones. But at the same time, we know that the enemy already uses drones with up to 30 kilometers (about 18.6 miles) range.

Q: How do you bridge that gap?

A: It’s quite difficult for me to say, because I’m a simple person, I mostly deal with the usage of the systems, and I think that the planning and the scaling of these technologies need to be undertaken at the state level. And I would very much like to say that everything is perfect in this regard, but unfortunately, it is not. So the state, at the moment, doesn’t ensure a steady supply of such systems, such drones. And that is why it is quite difficult for us to catch up with the enemy with regard to most systems. I wouldn’t say with all of them, but at least with many systems, the enemy puts the processes at the state level. So we already have established processes at the state level, with simple drones, with radio control drones, etc, but in terms of the fiber optic drones, there is still much work to be done.

Q: What’s the success rate of your radio-controlled drones?

A: I think that we need to divide this particular issue into two parts. The first is actually reaching the targets. And as you have mentioned, for fiber optic drones, the probability of reaching the target is really 50% and higher. And for radio drones, due to various reasons, including the frequency overloading problem and various different factors, the probability can be much lower. For example, it can decrease to 30% etc. But there is also the story of actually striking the target. So not only reaching but striking targets. And here, other factors also come into play.

The use of fiber optic cables on first-person view (FPV) drones is so preval‎ent that some areas of the battlefield are covered in them. (Photo by Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images) Libkos

For example, we can say that when the enemy is actively moving, when the enemy personnel is taking shelter, when they’re hiding in basements and dugouts, etc, the probability of efficiently striking the target will be much lower than, for example, if we are deploying our drones in the open air. And the same story is true about deploying drones to strike enemy vehicles. So once again, there is a higher probability of reaching the target. So it’s not a problem for a radio-controlled drone to reach a target. But there is, for example, an issue with the frequency overload, and we are trying to solve that through internal coordination, so we coordinate among the units in order not to overload one particular frequency. But there are also other aspects that also come into play.

Q: Such as?

A: If we delve deeper into the smaller details, we can say that these other factors include the enemy’s tactics, the shooting down of our drones, and also definitely the electronic warfare measures that the enemy implements. The drones that are currently provided by the state are usually unable to operate at ranges more than five to eight kilometers (about 3.1 miles to about five miles) from the contact line. In terms of the enemy’s electronic warfare (EW) measures, they have reached quite a high level of efficiency because they are frequently successful in suppressing, jamming our radio signal. We are trying to use better parts, more powerful parts, for our repeaters in order to provide coverage for our drones and to be able to continue efficiently deploying them.

Q: How strong is Russian electronic warfare? And how has it developed over the course of the war?

A: Well, I think that the power of any element of the Soviet army is not in the equipment’s quality, but in the equipment’s quantity. So the Russian electronic warfare has an undoubted advantage in terms of numbers, and this is especially true for the electronic warfare.

For example, they invent a countermeasure, they learn how to jam our control channel, and they quickly scale this decision, the solution, up. They quickly distribute that among their military. So then we change to another channel. We change to other frequencies, but when they find out how to channel those, they also scale this solution up. The same was true about our video transmission. So they learn how to create obstacles at the standard frequencies … and they also learn how to introduce countermeasures to other systems of communication.

I would like to say that at the moment, Russian electronic warfare is undoubtedly one of the leading in the world. So I do not want to underestimate the enemy. We need to accept, to acknowledge, the level of the enemy.

Q: Can you tell me how else you’re trying to improve your radio line of sight and beyond line of sight capabilities of your radio-controlled drones?

A:  I can differentiate it into two parts. The first is dealing with radio shadow. And usually, as for me, the best way to deal with this problem is to launch repeaters and place them directly above the targets to be struck. For example, we use this tactic when we need to deploy our drones inside of buildings. When we send our drones towards a building, we actually land the repeater on top of the building, and then we deploy another drone. The picture was just perfect. The picture was very good because of that repeater placement.

As for your question regarding the line of sight, I think that’s not really an issue of the line of sight, but about the transmission intensity. More and more drones are deployed, and more and more systems are used, and we’re dealing with the problem that some frequencies are overloaded. We need to deal with these issues, and we need to experiment with the emitters and receivers in order to solve this problem, because both us and the enemy, we all will use more and more drones. And as for some ideas that are currently discussed – like the use of aerostats to install repeaters on – personally, I do not like this idea. It’s not really efficient.

In the next installment of this interview, Yas talks about the unit’s new SETH drone, the problem with thermite-spewing so-called dragon drones and why Azov doesn’t use weapons-equipped ground drones.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Howard AltmanSenior Staff Writer

Howard is a Senior Staff Writer for The War Zone, and a former Senior Managing Editor for Military Times. Prior to this, he covered military affairs for the Tampa Bay Times as a Senior Writer. Howard's work has appeared in various publications including Yahoo News, RealClearDefense, and Air Force Times.

•  

[Minowski(김유철)]

뭐랄까 유선유도미사일의 부활이랄까, 아무튼 참신한 혁신인 것은 분명한 것 같습니다. 메티스 계열 운영경험에서 착안했지 않을까 싶기도 하고.... 여하튼 기존 유선유도미사일이 끽해야 10km 사거리였던 것에 비하면 사거리도, 공격패턴도 실로 다양한 응용이 가능할 것 같습니다.

[위종민]

그러고보니 직접 명중 때까지 조종해야 했던 1세대 대전차미사일하고도 비슷하네요. @.@