This section will examine these transformative developments, illustrating how the pressing wartime needs have accelerated innovation, collaboration, and institutional adaptation within Ukraine’s defense ecosystem.
Product Life Cycle Analysis
1. Requirements
After the 2022 full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff has remained the primary authority defining MEW requirements. However, in the current context, these requirements increasingly reflect needs reported directly from the front line, even though the exact mechanisms of their collection and translation into acquisitions remain classified.
Another distinguishing feature of this new stage has been the emergence of quasi-governmental initiatives such as Brave1—led by the Ministry of Digital Transformation—which coordinates various stakeholders in identifying and communicating technological demands from the military. Through its activities, challenges, and hackathons, Brave1 enables companies and startups to understand the armed forces’ most urgent needs and propose solutions accordingly.
A particularly noteworthy development has been the direct interaction between military forces and industry engineers. This has allowed firsthand communication of operational requirements from the battlefield and has enabled rapid iteration of new products. This communication bypasses traditionally long requirement cycles within the General Staff and formal requests through the MOD. As a result, engineers can quickly update and refine their products in response to evolving battlefield conditions and adversary capabilities, sometimes even while being forward deployed.
The state-owned Ukroboronprom has also adapted the way it receives requirements, occasionally receiving high-level directives—such as those from the Office of the President—for high-priority programs like long-range missiles or strike drones.
Overall, the timeline for developing and communicating requirements has significantly shortened—often to mere weeks or a few months—in order to match the adversary’s equally fast pace.
2. Concept and Prototyping
The concept and prototyping stage has accelerated markedly as a matter of national survival, with most innovation now arising from the private sector, based on commercial technology.
According to Ukrainian military personnel interviewed by CSIS, private companies typically possess a broader range of ideas, technologies, talent, and resources, allowing them to introduce novel concepts and technology applications. In many cases, personnel told CSIS that such innovations were beyond the expectations and imaginations of military actors, who are often unaware of cutting-edge technologies that have the potential to be transformative. For instance, AI-enabled navigation and targeting software has raised the success rate of low-cost drone strikes from approximately 20 percent to as high as 70 percent by mitigating factors like insufficient operator skill, stress, and jamming by electronic warfare.
There are noteworthy examples in which even state-owned enterprises, traditionally much slower in concept development, have significantly improved their pace. The Ukrainian Palyanitsa cruise missile, for example, progressed from concept to prototype in just a year and a half, likely with the help of pre-existing expertise in engine construction, rocketry, and drone design.
Government sources told CSIS that private-led innovations in software have advanced even more rapidly, with entirely new capabilities emerging within weeks and integrating seamlessly into existing platforms, enhancing navigation, targeting, reconnaissance, and data fusion capabilities.
Interviews conducted by CSIS with representatives of the private sector indicate that, on average, concept and prototype development now requires only a few weeks to six months.
3. Adoption into Service
Following the full-scale invasion, the Armed Forces of Ukraine required immediate access to all available combat capabilities, both military and commercial. Therefore, the government introduced regulatory changes that significantly shortened the process of approval for new weapon systems.
Instead of completing the entire adoption into service procedure, new or experimental systems now only need to obtain operational approval, essentially fulfilling just the final step of the standard procedure. This approval authorizes limited use of new systems in real battlefield conditions, enabling the military to deploy new weapons without committing to full-scale adoption. Nonetheless, the validity of this approval for operation is limited to war time, and government officials expect that all systems will again be required to undergo the full adoption process once hostilities cease.
3.1 Testing and Evaluation
Testing procedures were also significantly simplified to accelerate the evaluation of prototypes against manufacturers’ technical and operational documentation. When manufacturers are unable to conduct these tests independently, the MOD may provide testing ranges, technical support, and scientific expertise. One initiative facilitating this process is the Zaliznyy Polygon electronic system, launched by the Ministry of Strategic Industries and MOD, which enables manufacturers to submit testing applications and get quick access to state-owned testing ranges and military expertise. It also allows testing applicants to track the paperwork process online.
For critical weapons categories such as unmanned systems and electronic warfare equipment, an even simpler procedure is now in place. Manufacturers send requests through the MOD to the Central Directorate of Unmanned Systems of the General Staff, which conducts the necessary tests and directly issues approvals.
3.2 Codifying, Approval for Operation
The codifying and approval process for new MEW has also notably changed. In 2024, the approval for operation timeline was reduced from 20 days to 10 days by eliminating unnecessary steps.
Under the revised system, manufacturers need to submit only five documents containing descriptions of the equipment’s purpose, technical specifications, testing results, and design parameters. If these requirements are met, an MOD commission reviews the submission and issues an approval act, granting NATO codification and authorizing operational use by the armed forces.
Despite the official timeline targets, approvals can still take up to three months in practice. However, for unmanned systems and electronic warfare solutions, the entire process is often completed within two weeks.
4. Contracting
The defense contracting process begins with manufacturers submitting commercial proposals to the Defense Procurement Agency, an entity under the MOD responsible for lethal systems acquisition. Contract terms and pricing are determined during subsequent negotiations, where both parties must reach consensus on commercial and operational details. Once an agreement is achieved, a state contract is signed, followed by financial arrangements and an opening of treasury accounts through which the manufacturer receives advance payments.
In the case of unmanned systems and electronic warfare equipment, the procurement process involves distinct requirements to ensure transparency and efficiency. Manufacturers must submit detailed cost calculations and secure expert evaluations from the Research Institute of Forensic Examinations to determine a system’s estimated value. Advance payments can reach up to 70 percent of total costs for 12 months, while profit margins are capped at 25 percent of production costs. Recent regulatory adjustments enable domestic drone procurement through the Prozorro public procurement platform, following a closed procedure that conceals sensitive contractor information. After the state customer issues a framework announcement specifying technical requirements, suppliers submit applications with cost assessments, expert evaluations, and proof of successful testing. An auction then determines a winner, who must provide the required documentation within four days to finalize a state contract.
Additionally, military units can now procure certain items without relying on annual procurement plans, instead using a list of required items approved by the unit commander. This decentralization allows units to rapidly acquire technologies that address immediate needs in specific segments of the front line. Although most weaponry and equipment is procured through negotiation rather than open auctions—a fact that raises transparency concerns—this approach accelerates delivery.
In December 2024, the government allowed the transfer of funds directly from the state budget to military units for drone procurement and allocated $650 million for this purpose over the next 11 months. Local authorities may also fund these acquisitions, quickly reallocating their budgets in response to requests coming from military units.
Overall, the contracting timeline ranges from one to six months, depending on the procurement procedure selected and the speed of the negotiation process. This more decentralized and flexible system aims to accelerate procurement, adapt to evolving frontline requirements, and increase the responsiveness of defense acquisition in a rapidly changing security environment.
5. Contract Execution
In cases involving private manufacturers, it is not common practice for military representatives to oversee production to ensure compliance with quality standards. Interim quality checks may occur during production, and contract terms can be adjusted if surplus production or increased unit costs arise. Logistics arrangements, including transportation costs, are determined by contracts. Training provisions are typically included in contract prices, ensuring that end users receive instruction. Upon delivery, manufacturers provide formal quality guarantees.
Although contract execution has accelerated, timelines vary considerably. Interviews conducted by CSIS suggest an average of three months to one year. This variation is due to factors such as supply chain reliability, system complexity, and component availability. While acquiring large quantities of foreign-made components remains challenging, Ukraine’s efforts to localize production have helped mitigate some delays.
6. Maintenance and Operational Support
In the current environment, all equipment is deployed immediately to the front lines, eliminating the need for maintenance. Repairs are made as required, but timelines are difficult to estimate. To enhance operational resilience, manufacturers invest in training fighters not only in equipment use but also in basic repair and maintenance, allowing more effective and sustained performance on the front lines.
Summary of the Post-2022 Invasion Period
The Ukrainian government has achieved its immediate wartime objectives by fundamentally restructuring long-standing procurement and research practices. By outsourcing development from the state-owned conglomerate to private firms and civil society organizations, the military leadership has unlocked broader pools of expertise, talent, and technological innovation.
Simultaneously, the government has streamlined testing and adoption into service processes—particularly for unmanned systems and electronic warfare—to reduce administrative barriers and shorten timelines from months or years to mere weeks. New flexible contracting procedures and expanded use of advance payments have further accelerated the delivery of urgently needed military capabilities.
Figure 3 displays the overall timeline for the full product life cycle before and after the 2022 invasion.
