Military technology is developing faster than ever, bringing smart and unmanned robotics solutions to the battlefield, pioneered in Estonia by Milrem Robotics. The company’s founder Kuldar Väärsi explains how software and autonomous systems are changing warfare, why manned units will not disappear and the role of the Estonian defence industry in the international market. Väärsi will talk more about entrepreneurship in the defence industry at the Ülemiste City Future Forum in April. 

What are the advantages of ground robotics in the defence industry? 

The main argument is that the use of ground robotics is more cost-effective than traditional technology, which means that achieving the same effect against the enemy is cheaper with robotics than with traditional technology. It’s also possible to ensure a significantly safer operating environment for soldiers, because if robotic solutions are positioned as the first line and manned units come afterwards, this provides significantly higher safety.  

The third advantage is that it’s easy to reproduce. When a soldier dies on the battlefield, it’s a tragedy for all of society. However, when a robotics solution is destroyed on the battlefield, it’s simply a piece of technology that can be easily replaced.  

What does Milrem Robotics offer to the Estonian Defence Forces today? 

Our focus today is clearly Ukraine. We’ve had quite a lot of new systems in use in Ukraine for a long time now, and they’ve been very successful. Their number will grow significantly, as we’ve received many orders from Ukraine and we’re working on them today. 

What kind of defence equipment does Ukraine mainly need from you now? 

The systems we’ve provided to them by now are smaller machines, the TheMIS ones, and they’re being used in front-line logistics, for bringing ammunition and equipment to the soldiers, but also for evacuating the wounded. A special robotics solution for the removal of unexploded ammunition and mines is also in use.   

The experience of Ukraine has shown us that what people really need are simple things and we’ve kept that in mind when designing our products. Technological solutions have been simplified to a level of difficulty comparable to using a video game console – those who’ve used them before won’t find controlling a robotics platform particularly difficult. However, when we deliver new systems, we always provide training, which doesn’t last longer than two weeks. 

Unfortunately, I can’t talk about new things yet, but I can say that the quantities of unmanned ground vehicles Ukraine is asking for are very large. This comes from their experience, as the war in Ukraine has shown that we must always look for novel and surprising technological solutions against traditional technologies. This is often more efficient in terms of use, but certainly also in terms of cost. 

Ten years ago, no-one really imagined there would a war in Ukraine. Did you make any major changes in the company when the war started?  

The company’s focus didn’t change significantly. It’s the same focus we took before, where we clearly only deal with military applications and defence. We’d analysed robotics solutions in other areas as well – mining, forestry, etc. – but concluded that considering the expenses, using the technology there would not be cost-effective enough. 

What changed was that Ukraine became our most important customer. Not only because they needed our technology, but also because we have the moral desire and will to help Ukraine win the war.  

How competitive is Estonian military technology in general?  

I think Estonia is in a very good position. The development of the defence industry in the last 10 years has made it very clear that the Estonian industry is competitive in the area of new and groundbreaking technologies. We have the knowledge and competence base with a lot of software development, IT, mechatronics and robotics. On the other hand, we don’t really have an advantage in the production of traditional technologies that would allow us to compete in the market. 

In fact, our proximity to Ukraine, both geographically and emotionally, gives us a good opportunity to learn from what’s happening in Ukraine today, and companies here are doing exactly that. For example, we know now that if an attack drone costs in the order of $1,000 and a battle tank or armoured infantry fighting vehicle costs between $10 million and $20 million, it’s clear that the impact of the use of attack drones in military tactics is significant.  

What about your competitors – is competition in the market fierce?  

It’s becoming more and more fierce each year. When we started over 10 years ago, we were one of the very first to work on ground robotics. Today, there are dozens of companies like us, and their number keeps increasing.  

On the one hand, this means that we have to make more of an effort to stay competitive. On the other hand, it shows that the market and the need for these technologies is growing. The lesson we’ve learnt from Ukraine is that ground robotics can and will play a significant role on the battlefield.  

Our advantage over our competitors today is that we’ve been active in the market for almost 10 years and have also built up a pretty strong international position. Although Europe is clearly our focus market, we signed an agreement with Japan a year ago, and we also have a contract in the United Arab Emirates and machines in the US. In total, we’ve now sold to 19 countries around the world, which makes us clearly the most successful on the market. 

At the same time, there are international defence industry giants in the world, who are so big that I sometimes joke that their coffee budget is bigger than our annual budget. In other words, the competition is very varied and is becoming increasingly fierce. 

What helps Estonian defence companies become export-ready? 

The situation that has arisen thanks to the actions of the Estonian Defence Industry Association is that Estonian defence companies don’t actually see each other as competitors. On the one hand, yes, we do different things, for example, someone makes ground robots and someone else works on cyber defence solutions, but in a broader sense, we make similar products. We’re like partners helping each other make it internationally. When you get involved in the defence industry in Estonia, you have to set your sights on the international market from the beginning, because Estonia alone is too small.  

It’s therefore a somewhat strange sector without any clear opposition. The customer, who’s looking for a solution and carries out a procurement, determines what’s needed. It may happen that two companies are competitors in one procurement, but in another procurement they submit a joint tender to the customer.  

In terms of export capacity, at least in our experience, partnership with the international defence industry has been essential. For example, the European Defence Fund was launched a few years ago, allowing Estonian companies to showcase their knowledge, capabilities, competences and become part of an international network. Each year, the European Defence Fund announces the most important areas of technological development in Europe and offers the opportunity to apply for the projects proposed.  Companies in the defence industry form consortia and can apply to become project promoters through them.  

What is important to customers of the defence industry?  

Before a purchase is made, very thorough questions are asked about the company, the standards it follows, whether it’ll still be sustainable in 15–20 years, etc. This is important, because by purchasing products or technologies, the Defence Forces determine part of the future defence capabilities of the state, and the offered solutions must therefore be available in the long term. So you must take into account that a good product alone is not enough. You have to work on credibility so that the customer has the confidence to buy your product in the first place. 

What is the main thing lacking in the defence industry in Estonia and Europe today?  

In today’s security situation, Europe as a whole lacks, above all, the capacity to produce more conventional equipment. Secondly, we must speed up our innovation cycle in Europe, because the area of defence and defence industry have historically been very inert and slow. The whole process, from an idea to the deployment of a technology, takes 10 years or more. In Ukraine, however, innovation is measured not even in months, but sometimes in weeks. Europe should also cut the red tape and speed up procurement procedures.  

Technologically, we need to look at what works in Ukraine. It sounds bad, but there’s no better place to gather knowledge than Ukraine today. It’s important to learn our lessons there. In Europe, for example, NATO has very strict standards that defence technology products have to meet, in terms of electromagnetic waves, security, etc. When we now look at the tools and products that Ukraine itself is producing and using today, they meet very few NATO standards and it’s likely that nobody has even thought about it. However, they’re effective in the fight against Russia.  

A solution should be found, and sooner rather than later, to reach rational agreements at European level. We should review whether all these standards that have popped up over the decades are serving their purpose today, or whether some of them are simply slowing down innovation and the introduction of new technologies. This is something we should learn from Ukraine – what are the really essential standards and requirements for products that need to be followed, and what are the ones that don’t really mean anything on the battlefield anymore? 

What could the defence industry of the future look like? For example, will automated solutions dominate after 20 years and will soldiers be in the background? 

On the one hand, I would like to say that not very much will happen in the area of defence in 20 years, but on the other hand, a lot can probably happen if you look at how fast innovation is in Ukraine. Electronic military equipment is becoming increasingly important, as they can be used to deter enemies without physical impact. It’s also a clear trend today that software is playing an increasingly important role, and AI is becoming more important over time with the emergence of smart solutions that can detect enemies faster and from further away. 

Today, it’s still very much in its infancy, but the use of AI in battlefield management is developing increasingly more, for example in predicting where enemy units might be located. It’s possible to calculate probability models and this is much easier thanks to AI.  

Everything concerning unmanned systems is certainly becoming more and more important in the air, on land and in water. The main motivation is not just having fewer people on the battlefield, but the fact that unmanned systems will be significantly more cost-effective than manned systems in the future.  

However, with all this, the soldier will remain on the battlefield. I see that in the future, the front line will be unmanned and only the next line will be units with soldiers. Nor will kinetic weapons, such as cannons or machine guns, disappear. Obviously, their use will become smarter and more accurate thanks to software solutions, but they won’t disappear. All in all, I believe that in the next 20 years, the battlefield will become more and more software-centric – software will enable faster and more accurate choices and be more effective on the battlefield.