Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Drones Are Not Shells: Why Procurement for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Is More Complex Than for 155mm Ammunition

Fedorov promises tender purchases of drones by summer — but the same tool that saved 16% on artillery poses a separate challenge for unmanned systems: drones become obsolete faster than a procurement process is completed.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 21, 2026 · 2 min read

Drones Are Not Shells: Why Procurement for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Is More Complex Than for 155mm Ammunition
Михайло Федоров (Фото: пресслужба Міноборони)

Mykhailo Fedorov, presenting the priorities of the Ministry of Defense for the coming months, named a specific target: summer 2025 — the time to transition defense procurement to tender procedures. The step following artillery ammunition will be drones.

«We have already conducted the largest competitive procurement procedure for long-range 155mm artillery shells and achieved savings of over 16%. The next step is to transition drone procurement to tenders. Our task is to build a transparent, competitive, and fast procurement system without corruption risks».

— Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense of Ukraine

Where Artillery Is Not a Precedent for Drones

A 155mm shell is a standardized product with fixed characteristics. A tender makes sense here: there is a specification, there are manufacturers, there is a price. With drones, it's different. As analysts in the field of defense procurement have noted, unmanned systems become obsolete morally faster than they manage to complete competitive procedures — especially in conditions of constant radio-electronic countermeasures by Russia, which forces manufacturers to update models every month.

This is precisely why the previous system of decentralized procurement — when military units could purchase drones through a simplified scheme in a few days and often twice as cheap as through the central channel — existed for two years. It was not a corrupt workaround, but a response to the actual pace of combat needs.

Tender — Not a Guarantee, But a Tool

The regulatory framework has already changed: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 1450 from December 2024 approved a new procedure for procuring unmanned systems and electronic warfare equipment at the tactical level. However, as public procurement specialists note, fragmentation of departmental acts and the lack of a systematic approach are themselves a source of corruption risks — regardless of format: tender or simplified.

In parallel, Nashi Hroshi drew attention to another signal: in the first month after Fedorov's appointment as minister, the Defense Procurement Agency conducted purchases of Chinese drones for 11.4 billion hryvnias — almost as much as for the entire second half of 2025. This happened before the announcement of the tender transition, and outside competitive procedures.

Anti-Corruption Track Without a Control Mechanism

Fedorov also announced anti-corruption changes in the field of research and development work and state quality assurance — two areas where corruption schemes are traditionally least visible from the outside. Details regarding verification mechanisms for results were not provided.

Tenderization is the right direction if the procedure does not become a brake. The question is specific: if a tender for drones takes longer than the cycle of the opponent's model updates — what will be the priority: the transparency of the procedure or the relevance of the procured equipment?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026