In 2025, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense admitted 60 ground robotic complexes into service with the Defense Forces. In just the first five months of 2026, that number already passed 50 new models — and the pace keeps accelerating. The UGV market is scaling faster than a settled practice for preparing the underlying documentation has had time to form.
Why ground robotic complexes are their own category
Legally, ground robotic complexes go through codification as a distinct type of defense equipment — under the same track as drones (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems, rather than the older procedures used for conventional vehicles or armored equipment. That means the 2026 simplifications that apply to unmanned aerial systems apply here too: manufacturers now develop and approve their own Technical Specifications, and procurement can proceed without state quality-assurance procedures.
At the same time, practice for this category is still being formed. Unlike small arms or ammunition, there is no established set of template TS or unified testing methodologies for ground robots yet — each platform class (logistics, casualty evacuation, combat, demining) is effectively reviewed as a first-of-its-kind case.
Technical Specifications for ground robots: what to watch for
The main complexity in TS for ground robotic complexes is modularity. Most platforms come in several configurations: a logistics module, an evacuation module, an armed combat module, a reconnaissance module. Each configuration is effectively its own set of tactical-technical characteristics, and each needs its own testing evidence.
If a manufacturer plans to codify a platform in several configurations at once (say, logistics and evacuation), that needs to be built into the TS and the test program from day one. Adding a configuration to the TS after the fact means repeating the testing — and losing the time that comes with it.
Testing ground robots: why the proving ground isn’t the whole story
Units operating ground robotic complexes at the front report a consistent pattern: a platform that passes factory testing flawlessly can fail on its very first combat deployment — from overheating electronics, deep mud, long routes, or weather conditions a proving ground simply doesn’t reproduce.
That doesn’t make factory testing pointless — it remains a mandatory condition for codification. But the test program should be built around real operating conditions, not the minimum formal checklist.
| Test area | What it verifies |
|---|---|
| Mobility / off-road | Behavior on rough terrain, unpaved roads, slopes |
| Control & communication links | EW resilience, range, signal latency |
| Environmental & protection | Water/dust ingress protection, performance in extreme temperatures |
| Durability & reliability | Mean time between failures, electronics behavior under load |
| Functional / payload | Rated payload mass, module deployment time |
Codification, briefly
Once TS and testing are complete, ground robotic complexes are codified under the same track as UAVs and EW systems — Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1275, as amended in 2026. A codified product receives a NATO stock number and can be supplied to centralized buyers. Codification is technically no longer mandatory for direct supply to military units, but in practice most units still prefer codified equipment as proof of quality.
For manufacturers entering the UGV market for the first time, the real risk isn’t codification itself — it’s having to redo TS and testing because a platform configuration or a climate-testing requirement wasn’t accounted for from the start.
DOPUSK supports UGV manufacturers at every stage — from drafting TS for a specific platform configuration to building the test program and submitting for codification. Since practice for this equipment category is still forming, getting the documentation right from the start saves months at the review stage.