Ukrainian outlet's critique exposes gaps in Korea's counter-drone strategy

A Ukrainian defense media outlet questioned the realism of Korea’s first live-fire counter-drone drill, prompting debate over the military’s evolving drone defense strategy. The Republic of Korea Air Force defended the exercise as a first-step test of existing weapons systems rather than an attempt to replicate combat conditions in Ukraine.

Defense Express, a Ukrainian military news outlet, recently analyzed footage from the ROK Air Force’s drill, in which eight M167 Vulcan air defense guns were used to engage 50 low-flying drones.

The outlet argued that the exercise differed sharply from real battlefield conditions, pointing out that actual first-person-view (FPV) drones do not fly slowly in a tight formation. It also questioned the cost-effectiveness of firing anti-aircraft rounds at cheap FPV drones.

The Air Force rejected the suggestion that the drill lacked value, saying it was the first exercise of its kind and was designed to test whether existing weapons could be used against a swarm of drones.

“The purpose was not to reproduce actual battlefield conditions exactly, but to verify our response capabilities against swarms of drones with the weapons systems we currently have,” an Air Force official said. “As it was the first drill, the scenario was based on a swarm of drones infiltrating at low speed and low altitude.”

The official said the Air Force has been analyzing and drawing lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war and recent conflicts in the Middle East, but added that not every drone attack would involve high-speed FPV drones.

“Drone attacks can take many forms depending on the mission and target,” the official said. “We plan to develop future drills by reflecting more diverse scenarios.”

Experts said the Ukrainian outlet’s criticism raised valid questions, but the drill should not be dismissed as meaningless.

Yu Ji-hoon, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, said the criticism should be understood as pointing to the limits of the drill, not as a judgment that the exercise itself was useless.

“The drill was not meaningless. Rather, it fell short of fully testing realistic counter-swarm capabilities,” Yu said. “Compared with how FPV drones maneuver in actual combat, the scenario was simplified. But it should also be viewed as a first live-fire drill.”

Yu also cautioned against judging the drill based on the cost of drones and ammunition.

“Comparing the price of drones and Vulcan rounds has some meaning, but it is too simple to judge the value of the drill only by that,” he said.

“What matters is drawing lessons from this exercise and improving realism.”

Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the main opposition People Power Party, a member of the National Assembly Defense Committee and a longtime military analyst, also said the drill was meaningful as a first attempt, while emphasizing the limits of existing systems.

“The attempt itself was good, as there had not been an actual live-fire test against multiple drones,” Yu said. “But I hope this test serves as an opportunity for the Korean military to realize that there are clear limits in countering drones with existing systems.”

He said Korea needs a more layered counter-drone network rather than relying on one weapon.

“It is difficult to respond with a single means,” the lawmaker said. “We need to build a combined counter-drone system using jammers, guns, shotguns and interceptor drones.”

Military analyst Yang Uk said drones have evolved from supporting into key weapons in modern warfare.

“Drone warfare is no longer a competition over individual platforms. It is a competition over attrition and sustained production capacity,” Yang said.

He said Korea should develop a layered counter-drone network integrating detection, identification, electronic warfare, low-cost interceptors and lasers, rather than focusing on individual platforms.