What does modern warfare look like when the technical specifications in the manuals no longer correspond to reality, and the success of a mission depends 70% not on engine power, but on the pilot's skill? Answers to these questions were sought in Kyiv at a unique Combat Experience Forum, held as part of the "Furia_mission_2025" competition final.
The event became the first platform in Ukraine where an open dialogue took place between the manufacturer and pilots of the "Furia" UAV to systematically collect crew experience, generalize it, and transform it into changes.
In an interview for UNN, Artem Vyunnyk, co-founder and CEO of "NVP "Athlon Avia," reveals the "behind-the-scenes" work on the legendary "Furia." Why did the company decide to create its own CRM system to accumulate data from the front? How do drone "logbooks" help to see the real picture of the battle without the "warm baths" of technical specifications? And why is the phrase "demote to instructor" a sign of a deep systemic crisis that needs to be corrected now?
Read about the "gold" of combat experience, the digital transformation of the army, and the new elite of the Armed Forces in our conversation.
Artem, tell us, why does such a large manufacturer of reconnaissance drones need the "Furia_mission_2025" competition?
This competition became an organic continuation of our search for an answer to the question: what is true effectiveness and where exactly can we "extract" it? In fact, the operation of the "Furia" UAV is divided into two components: the material and technical part ("hardware") and the people who use it - the pilots.
It took us more than ten years to finally be convinced: 70% of the success of any operation is the operator. This is a person who knows exactly how to achieve the result, using the tool at hand as effectively as possible.
"Furia_mission_2025" is actually the first tool for collecting individual pilot experience and transforming it into systemic knowledge. This way, we will actually be able to scale these 70% of success to all brigades where "Furia" UAVs are present. This will allow us to organize training and advanced training for people, based precisely on this practice. I think it's incredibly cool when people share such experience.
Will this change your approach to pilot training?
Previously, we thought about one thing: how to make the product better and how to teach a specific person to use it. But with the growth of scale and the number of users, we realized that this no longer works in "manual mode." Even with our own highly qualified schools and attracting cool partner institutions, we realized a simple thing: the main carrier of knowledge is the operator who works with our product every day. And everything must be organized so that knowledge systematically flows to future operators.
Do you plan to scale your approach and, for example, implement such a practice systematically for the entire army?
We have high hopes for the new team of the Ministry of Defense and their approaches to digitalization. Although we collect feedback in any way, I must admit: it is still not systematic enough even within our company. Receiving feedback is only a small part of the work.
The question is about reliability, verification, and determining whether the problem is systemic or a one-time situation. This is a complex mechanism that begins with the collection of "raw" data, its processing, and generalization. Within the company, there must be mechanisms and processes that can perceive these results and transform them into technical solutions and the implementation of new approaches to training, new programs, methodologies, and cases. This is a rather complex, but conceptually clear system.
Alongside this is the question of evaluating the real effectiveness of products on the battlefield. It is important for us to understand how our complexes actually work. This, in my opinion, is very important, although it sounds quite trivial. But if we dig deeper, we will see the real picture.
You mentioned such a solution during the panel discussion using the example of a conversation with a candidate for product manager, right?
Yes, I recently spoke with a potential product manager and asked, "What will you do on your first day of work?" The answer was, "I will study the technical specifications." I gave an example: "the technical conditions state that the flight time of our aircraft is three hours." She says, "That means it's three hours."
I replied that more than ten years have passed since we started, and I still don't know the real flight time of our aircraft. Because in the hands of different people, under different conditions, countless factors influence this indicator. It is impossible to build product, tactical, or training solutions by simply looking at a number in the technical specifications.
Therefore, we introduced a logbook. It took a long time to form the rubricator of the backend - what is behind the scenes. That is, we actually had to create our own CRM system that will accumulate data from the logbooks of all UAVs at the front.
The idea is simple: quick recording of events during a mission. During a mission, the operator may encounter any unforeseen situation: equipment failure, loss of video signal or control channel communication, engine problems - he notes this in the logbook rubricator in a matter of seconds. If the problem was eliminated or disappeared, the mission continues. At the end of the mission, the operator chooses one of three statuses: "Task completed fully," "Completed partially," or "Not completed." After pressing the button, technical support instantly receives a report with a precise link of the problem to time and spatial coordinates. We can analyze: did the communication disappear due to the terrain or due to a technical problem? We are building a system that will objectively answer the question of how our product actually works.
Are you ready to share this data with government agencies to improve the overall situation in the army?
We are ready to provide the customer with full access to this logbook. We don't want to sit in a "warm bath" and think that we are cool and everything seems to be working. We want to know how it really is. We hope that this initiative will be supported by Mr. Mykhailo Fedorov. His tasks on the scale of the entire army are similar to ours, only a hundred times larger. Without the software part and a systematic approach, this is simply impossible. We already have an understanding of how to do this and are ready to share and cooperate in this direction.
Speaking of systematic experience, we cannot ignore the human factor. What role does the profession of instructor play in this system and why does its status require immediate changes?
Perhaps you remember the conflict that was recently fanned on social networks, when some commander was allegedly "demoted" to an instructor? That wording extremely triggered me then. I was shocked.
How can one even say "demote to instructor"? I want us to direct our energy to overcome this problem. In the army, an instructor must be a specialist of the highest level. We have repeatedly appealed to the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff and said that we must create proper conditions for our best specialists.
Do you mean creating conditions for the transfer of experience by those who have gone through the war?
Exactly. A person cannot fight indefinitely - burnout occurs. If a specialist fights for 5 or 10 years, it is a huge merit. We must give him the opportunity to leave the battlefield and become an instructor with a decent salary, maintenance, and respect. This should be the elite, the highest echelon of the Armed Forces.
We can create a foundation, achieve systematic transfer of experience from manufacturer to warrior, but there must be someone who will professionally pass on this experience. And that must be the Instructor.