Electronics under pressure: how real-world conflict is reshaping design assumptions

That logic no longer holds.

The war in Ukraine has exposed a different reality – one in which electronic systems are not entering stable environments, but highly dynamic ones, where adversaries adapt continuously and where technological cycles are compressed under operational pressure. In such conditions, the distinction between development and deployment begins to blur.

“In the war between drones and countermeasures, change is constant: frequencies, protocols, signal amplification, and guidance logic are all evolving,” says Yaroslav Filimonov, CEO of Ukrainian counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) manufacturer Kvertus, in an interview with Evertq. “As a result, designing today is no longer about creating a final product meant to last for years, but about maintaining a continuous update cycle.”

This shift has implications that go far beyond individual technologies. It challenges one of the core assumptions of engineering: that a system can be finalised, validated, and then deployed as a stable solution.

Instead, systems are increasingly expected to evolve throughout their lifecycle – not as a matter of optimisation, but of survival.

As Filimonov told Evertiq, the challenge is no longer simply technological.

“It is not enough to create a complex and expensive solution. The key question is whether it can be quickly adapted, updated, and scaled.”

At the centre of this transformation is the role of time. It is no longer measured only in development cycles or certification timelines, but in how quickly a system can respond to a changing threat.

“The question is no longer only how long development takes, but whether the solution will still be relevant by the time it enters production and is deployed at scale,” Filimonov explains. “In this war, advantage goes to the side that can find a response to a new threat faster and scale that response faster.”

This acceleration is not limited to one theatre. Recent developments in other regions, including the growing use of UAVs in Middle Eastern conflicts involving Iran, point to a broader shift. The assumption of a predictable, slowly evolving threat landscape is being replaced by one characterised by rapid iteration, adaptation, and feedback loops between opposing systems.

As a result, the frontline itself becomes part of the development process.

“In real combat conditions, the adversary is constantly changing its approach: new firmware appears, data transmission protocols are modified, frequencies shift, and tactics evolve,” Filimonov explains. “In that sense, the frontline has become part of the development cycle: it does not just test solutions, it continuously forces them to evolve.”

This has also exposed the limitations of earlier design approaches. Systems that were effective under initial conditions may quickly become insufficient when the operational environment changes.

One example is the shift from directional, operator-controlled countermeasures to more distributed and coordinated approaches. Early in the war, solutions such as anti-drone rifles were considered effective. But as UAVs became more agile, operated in groups, and approached from multiple directions, these assumptions no longer held.

“What proved most vulnerable was not only individual components, but also the initial assumptions about what the threat would look like,” Filimonov notes.

At the same time, the lack of coordination between systems has emerged as a critical weakness. When multiple solutions operate independently within the same environment, the result is not only reduced effectiveness, but also the risk of interference.

“When each system operates separately, without a shared control logic, this creates not only gaps in protection, but also the risk of mutual interference,” he says.

This is one of the factors driving a broader shift in system design – from standalone solutions to integrated, software-driven architectures. In this model, hardware is no longer sufficient on its own. Its effectiveness depends on the ability to update, coordinate, and manage systems dynamically.

“The most critical areas will be those where hardware is tightly integrated with software,” Filimonov explains. “Strong hardware alone is not enough if a system cannot be quickly updated to respond to new frequencies, protocols, and threat scenarios.”

This integration also changes how scalability is understood. Expanding system coverage is no longer only a matter of deploying more units, but of managing them within a unified control framework – often with remote operation and centralised decision-making.

At the same time, increasing system complexity does not translate into increased complexity for the operator. On the contrary, real-world conditions place a premium on simplicity, clarity, and speed of use.

“A system may be complex internally, but for the operator it must remain simple and intuitive,” Filimonov says. “In real-world conditions, training time is limited, unit composition changes, and the equipment is not always operated by someone with deep engineering expertise.”

This introduces another layer to the concept of reliability. It is no longer defined only by long-term durability or failure rates, but also by how quickly a system can be repaired, reconfigured, or returned to operation.

In parallel, the balance between speed and certification is also shifting. While the pressure for rapid deployment has increased, it does not eliminate the need for reliability or compliance, particularly in a highly regulated sector such as defence.

“The challenge is to shorten the development and delivery cycle without losing control over system performance,” Filimonov notes. “Some procedures are being simplified, but that does not remove responsibility for the end result.”

Taken together, these changes point to a broader transformation in how defence electronics are conceived. The focus is moving away from static solutions and towards systems that are adaptive, interconnected, and continuously evolving.

In this context, technologies operating in the electromagnetic domain – including electronic warfare – are gaining renewed importance. While often less visible than kinetic systems, their role in countering large volumes of low-cost threats is becoming increasingly central.

“They are often underestimated because their effect is less visible externally,” Filimonov says. “At the same time, the experience of this war shows that such systems are becoming not a supporting tool but a foundational element of defence.”

This is not only a technological shift, but a conceptual one. It challenges long-standing assumptions about how systems are designed, validated, and deployed – and replaces them with a model in which adaptability, speed, and integration define effectiveness.

And in that model, there is no final version. Only the next iteration.

Filimonov will expand on these topics during his presentation at Evertiq Expo Kraków on 7 May, where he will focus on how such systems can be designed not as isolated solutions, but as part of integrated, adaptive architectures capable of operating under continuous pressure.

His perspective is shaped by real-world deployment. Kvertus, the company he leads, develops and manufactures signals intelligence (SIGINT) and electronic warfare systems that are currently deployed by the Ukrainian Defence Forces and continuously updated based on operational feedback.