The Godfather of Fibre-Optic Drones: An Interview with Troy Smothers
By Matthew Parish
Tuesday 3 November 2026
An American Marine veteran explains how a simple thread of optical fibre is changing the battlefield in Ukraine, why Ukrainian engineers are outpacing Western military procurement and what the United States must learn from a war being fought with inexpensive technology.
There are some extraordinary characters amongst the foreign volunteers who have come to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Some are former soldiers, some are humanitarian workers and others are entrepreneurs, engineers or adventurers who have discovered in Ukraine a purpose that their former lives never quite provided. Troy Smothers, an American former Marine and the founder of American Made Freedom, is an unusual combination of several of these categories. He has become particularly well known for his work in promoting the adoption of fibre-optic drones, a technology that is transforming the relationship between unmanned aircraft and the electronic warfare systems designed to defeat them.
Smothers calls himself the "Godfather of Fibre-Optic Drones", a nickname he acquired through his efforts to persuade Ukrainian manufacturers and military units to embrace an innovation that initially attracted considerable scepticism. His contribution was not the invention of optical communications, a technology with a long civilian and military history, but the practical adaptation and dissemination of fibre-optic control systems for inexpensive first-person-view drones. By connecting the aircraft to its operator through a physical optical cable, rather than relying upon radio transmissions, these systems overcome one of the principal vulnerabilities of conventional drones: their susceptibility to radio-frequency jamming.
The implications are remarkable. A relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft may continue functioning in an electronic warfare environment in which considerably more expensive radio-controlled systems become ineffective. Yet the technology also brings engineering compromises involving cable integrity, aircraft weight, manufacturing reliability and the economics of mass production. These are not merely academic questions. They are practical problems that Ukrainian engineers and soldiers must resolve under the extraordinary pressure of a war in which technological innovations may become obsolete within months.
Smothers first visited Ukraine with the United States Marine Corps in 2005, when American soldiers were training their Ukrainian counterparts in infantry tactics. He returned within weeks of the Russian invasion in 2022, convinced that he had a personal obligation to assist a country whose soldiers he had come to respect. His subsequent work has brought him into contact with Ukrainian drone manufacturers, frontline units and the country's expanding defence technology industry, including the Brave1 initiative.
The Lviv Herald put a series of questions to Troy Smothers about his experiences, the technical foundations of fibre-optic drone technology, the extraordinary pace of Ukrainian innovation and the lessons that Western military establishments may be reluctant to learn. His answers have been edited for clarity and readability without changing their substance.
From the United States Marines to Ukraine
Matthew Parish: Troy, could you begin by explaining your military background and what first brought you to Ukraine? How would you compare the Ukrainian soldiers you encountered in 2005 with those fighting today?
Troy Smothers: I joined the United States Marine Corps in 2001, before 9/11 and before the global war on terror, and served in an infantry reserve unit. In the summer of 2005, our unit travelled to Ukraine, which was our partner country, to train with Ukrainian soldiers. We worked on infantry tactics, and in every one of our training scenarios Russia was the aggressor invading Ukrainian territory.
The difference between Ukrainian soldiers in 2005 and today, particularly in their mentality and command structure, is night and day. In 2005, they operated under the old Soviet doctrine of command and control. Today Ukraine is at the forefront of mobilising its previously civilian population, making the most of people's skills on the battlefield and putting the right people in the right places. They are doing that better than most countries could.
In the drone units I work with, the majority of pilots come from technical and computer backgrounds. That gives them a unique advantage.
Matthew Parish: What made you decide to return when Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022?
Troy Smothers: Like most of the world, I could not believe that Russia would actually invade a sovereign country. We were literally witnessing World War III begin.
When Russia invaded, I knew that if I did not do something, in some capacity, to be on the right side of history, I would always consider myself a coward who had failed to stand up for what I believed in and for the people I believed in.
I got on a plane and was in Ukraine by the third week of the war. It changed everything.
The birth of the fibre-optic drone
Matthew Parish: You have become known as the "Godfather of Fibre-Optic Drones". How did you acquire that nickname, and what was your contribution to bringing this technology into widespread use in Ukraine?
Troy Smothers: It started on 8 March 2024, when Forbes published an article about a Russian fibre-optic drone that had been recovered. When I read it, I immediately understood the significance of what I was looking at.
A simple piece of optical fibre, running for 20 kilometres, could defeat a multimillion-dollar jamming system using a drone costing around a thousand dollars. There was no radio signal to overpower. I knew I had to bring this technology to my Ukrainian brothers.
I was already involved in multiple volunteer groups, so I called some friends and found people with experience in fibre optics. We started building our own version of what we had seen in the photographs. Three months later, I was in Ukraine with a working prototype.
At that time, the concept of fibre-optic drones was known in Ukraine, but it had not yet been widely adopted. I had the privilege of meeting several manufacturers, and thanks to a generous donation, I was able to provide working prototypes to multiple companies and military units.
I did not leave their offices or their units until they had their own drone flying on fibre. That is how I earned the name "Godfather of Fibre-Optic Drones".
For mass adoption, we needed manufacturing. I am proud to say that several of the companies I met are now amongst Ukraine's leading producers of fibre-optic drones. Before we met, they did not have that product line.
Matthew Parish: What was the principal obstacle to persuading Ukrainian manufacturers and military personnel that the technology was worth adopting? Who were your most important Ukrainian collaborators?
Troy Smothers: The main challenge was that fibre optics represented a new concept. Nearly everyone wanted to test the technology at a drone testing range first, which could have delayed adoption considerably.
My theory was simple: "If it flies, it kills." Once you have seen it fly, let's go and kill some Russians. That is what I told them, and that is what we did. The real proof of concept was the battlefield.
My most important Ukrainian collaborator was Anton at BTAC. He was an early adopter, and we had already established mutual trust through previous projects we had worked on together.
How fibre-optic drones work
Matthew Parish: Could you explain, in technical but accessible language, the fundamental difference between a conventional radio-controlled FPV drone and one controlled through an optical fibre?
Troy Smothers: A fibre-optic drone flies independently of a radio signal. Instead of communicating through radio frequencies, the pilot is connected to the aircraft by a physical fibre-optic cable.
That means you can effectively fly the drone along the length of the cable, although no further. The main advantages are that the drone can fly through terrain that would ordinarily obstruct radio-frequency communications and that its control connection is unaffected by radio-frequency jamming.
There are disadvantages as well. At present, the principal problems for some users are cost and cable breakage. The price of optical fibre has increased, and under certain conditions the fibre can break, which interrupts the connection.
Matthew Parish: These drones are frequently described as impossible to jam. Is that technically accurate, or might other means eventually be developed to counter them?
Troy Smothers: There are always solutions to any supposedly "unjammable" or "unstoppable" new development. The real question is whether those solutions are financially scalable enough to be deployed across the battlefield.
It is one thing to demonstrate that a particular technology can be defeated. It is quite another to establish whether the countermeasure can be produced and deployed at a scale that makes economic and military sense.
Matthew Parish: What are the principal mechanical and aerodynamic compromises involved in carrying a fibre-optic cable? How do you address the additional weight and bulk?
Troy Smothers: A traditionally designed fibre-optic drone is noticeably larger than a conventional FPV drone, sometimes twice the size.
Our design has a particular advantage because we incorporated the battery and the spool into one unit. The battery and spool are constants, while the variable is frequently the munition or payload required for a particular mission.
Compared with some conventional fibre-optic designs, this allows us to reduce the overall size of our drone to approximately 45 per cent of the size of a standard fibre-optic drone.
Matthew Parish: Your organisation advertises fibre-optic communications over distances of up to 25 kilometres. How should that figure be understood? Is it the cable length, the actual operational range or something else?
Troy Smothers: The 25-kilometre figure is the rated distance of the spool. In practice, we treat the effective range as approximately 10 to 15 per cent less than that figure, incorporating a safety factor.
That is the approach we use for flights at lower elevation. The rated length of the cable should not be confused with the distance we expect to achieve under practical operating conditions.
Matthew Parish: Maintaining the integrity of a physical communications link while an aircraft is moving must present unusual engineering challenges. What have been the most difficult problems you have encountered?
Troy Smothers: One of our initial challenges was achieving consistency in manufacturing standards, particularly with the media and video board.
We had to find suppliers capable of providing components with predictable and reliable performance. That became easier once proven vendors began delivering consistent, high-quality products.
High-definition video and artificial intelligence
Matthew Parish: One of the potential advantages of optical communications is their capacity to transmit large quantities of information. How does video quality over fibre compare with conventional radio-frequency systems, and what additional possibilities does that open up?
Troy Smothers: In most cases, fibre-optic video is superior to radio-frequency video. You are flying in high definition, and the only thing cooler than killing Russians with drones is doing it in HD.
There is a more important technical advantage as well. The bandwidth and transmission characteristics of fibre mean that we can take data from the drone and perform calculations at a ground station. We do not necessarily have to install expensive artificial intelligence computing hardware inside an aircraft that may only be used once.
The ground station processes the information and sends the results back to the drone immediately. That offers possibilities for extremely rapid automated processing and targeting.
Matthew Parish: Does that mean you see fibre optics as an important enabling technology for artificial intelligence and the next generation of unmanned aircraft?
Troy Smothers: Absolutely. Being able to process information at a ground station rather than placing all the expensive hardware onboard is a considerable advantage.
There is also the question of detection. If the drone is not transmitting a radio-frequency control signal, there is no such signal for the enemy to detect. Fibre therefore reduces some of the electronic signatures associated with conventional drones.
For now, fibre optics have a proven use case, and I believe that remains important as the technology continues to develop.
Matthew Parish: Your organisation advertises payload capacities for its 10-inch and 13-inch drones. What do these figures represent, and how does the deployment of the optical cable affect the aircraft during flight?
Troy Smothers: Our 10-inch drone can carry up to 1.5 kilograms, while our 13-inch drone can carry up to 2.5 kilograms. Those figures describe the aircraft's payload capability.
One factor worth remembering is that the drone becomes lighter as the optical fibre deploys. The weight of the aircraft is therefore not constant throughout its flight.
Matthew Parish: American Made Freedom has reported successful deployment rates exceeding 90 per cent. How is that figure defined, and what data support it?
Troy Smothers: That figure comes from the military units I work with directly in the field. We define a successful deployment as a drone launching from our location and going off on its mission.
The drones have been deployed so many times that I have lost count, and at this stage I cannot calculate an accurate total. The information comes from the units using the equipment.
Why Ukraine innovates faster than America
Matthew Parish: One of the most remarkable aspects of Ukrainian drone development is the ability to produce effective military technology at relatively modest cost. Why do you think Ukrainian engineers have been so successful?
Troy Smothers: Ukraine has a unique advantage. Not every individual component of a drone has to undergo advance testing and pass through a government-approved certification process, as would often be required in the United States.
That means we can use the newest components available on the commercial market. If they work, we incorporate them into our designs.
As far as reliability is concerned, the test is whether the design consistently performs its intended battlefield function. If it flies and achieves its purpose consistently, then it is reliable.
Matthew Parish: To what extent does Ukraine remain dependent upon Chinese or other Asian suppliers for drone components? Is the country developing its own industrial capacity?
Troy Smothers: At the beginning of the war, the majority of electronic components used in Ukrainian drones were sourced from Asia.
As Ukraine has moved onto a war footing, it has continued to develop its domestic component manufacturing capabilities. That is gradually reducing its dependence upon foreign suppliers.
Matthew Parish: What are the most important differences between the way Ukrainian engineers develop new drone technologies and the way the American military procurement system operates?
Troy Smothers: In Ukraine, we can innovate at the speed of war. In the United States, innovation comes with the next government approval for research and development.
That is an enormous difference. Ukraine does not have the luxury of waiting years for a technology to complete a lengthy procurement process when soldiers need solutions immediately.
My recommendation to American procurement officials would be to allow individual military units to take the initiative. Give them a budget to experiment and develop their own solutions to the problems they encounter in drone warfare.
Matthew Parish: You have suggested that the United States and other Western armed forces fundamentally misunderstand some aspects of the war in Ukraine. What do you think they most urgently need to learn?
Troy Smothers: Western armed forces are slowly adapting to the idea that drones costing between $500 and a couple of thousand dollars can potentially be more effective, because of the quantities in which they can be deployed, than weapons systems costing millions.
My recommendation is simple: put aces in their places. Find the people who have the aptitude for drone technology, who want to develop it, and allow them to take the lead.
That is one of the reasons Ukraine has been so effective. It has learned how to make use of the particular talents of people who, before the war, might have been working in entirely different professions.
American Made Freedom: military technology and humanitarian assistance
Matthew Parish: Could you explain how American Made Freedom operates, how your activities in Ukraine relate to those in the United States and what your relationship is with Ukraine's Brave1 defence technology initiative?
Troy Smothers: American Made Freedom is my solution for bridging my efforts in Ukraine with my efforts to bring the lessons learned back to the United States.
I named my Ukrainian activities American Made Freedom so that the positive publicity we receive from military units and successful missions can be connected to the same overall effort, even though we are operating on two different continents.
We were fortunate enough to be approved as a partner of Brave1, bringing our fibre-optic drone solution to its marketplace. More recently, we were also approved for its points system.
In my experience, passing the Brave1 approval process is an important recognition of quality and innovation.
Matthew Parish: Your organisation is involved in both military support and humanitarian assistance. How do you distinguish these activities, and how can donors be confident that their contributions are being used for the purposes they intended?
Troy Smothers: Through our work supporting and training numerous frontline Ukrainian military units, we have also learned about the personal hardships that the war has imposed upon the soldiers' families and the communities left in turmoil.
Donors frequently asked whether they could contribute towards humanitarian needs as well, and we have been able to bridge that gap.
When somebody makes a contribution, they designate whether it is intended for military support or humanitarian assistance. We keep those purposes distinct.
Ukraine also requires us to use a certified bookkeeper, which is wonderful because it allows us to demonstrate an accounting and receipt trail to donors.
The meaning of service
Matthew Parish: You have spent years working with Ukrainian soldiers and engineers. What has the experience taught you personally about Ukrainians, about warfare and about the responsibilities of foreigners who come here to help?
Troy Smothers: People frequently ask me why I have been successful in Ukraine and what exactly I do here. The answer is simple.
You have to come here understanding that you are here to serve the Ukrainian people, and you must not expect anything in return. The satisfaction of victory on the battlefield is the reward, together with knowing that you are on the right side of history.
Ukraine has taught me that the way I was trained to fight a war is not going to be the reality of our next large-scale military deployment. We have to adapt immediately.
When I first set out to promote my version of the fibre-optic drone, I faced two choices. I could pursue profit, which some people on the volunteer team wanted to do, or I could choose service.
I chose service because I wanted to create awareness and encourage mass adoption. I did that by giving away not just the drone itself but the entire list of components and the simple programme we had written at that time to make it fly.
Matthew Parish: Finally, what advice would you give to other foreign engineers, entrepreneurs or volunteers who want to contribute to Ukraine's technological and military development?
Troy Smothers: A lot of people do not understand that they are here as servants to the Ukrainian people.
If you arrive with an attitude that you know everything, even if you are highly knowledgeable, and you start trying to teach people who have already lived through years of successful fighting, you are going to create unnecessary obstacles for yourself.
You have to respect the experience and knowledge of the Ukrainians themselves. That is where successful cooperation begins.
A new kind of military revolution
There is something distinctly American about Troy Smothers's approach to technological innovation. He sees a problem, identifies an apparently straightforward engineering solution, finds people who know how to build it and then works to persuade others that the idea is worth adopting. His impatient attitude towards bureaucracy is characteristic of a particular kind of American entrepreneur, but in Ukraine it has found an environment in which speed, improvisation and practical results are not merely commercial advantages. They may determine whether soldiers survive and whether their units can continue fighting.
Yet the more interesting part of his story is the relationship between individual ingenuity and collective Ukrainian experience. Smothers does not claim to have invented optical-fibre communications, and his account makes clear that widespread adoption depended upon Ukrainian engineers, manufacturers and military personnel who transformed an experimental concept into equipment suitable for repeated battlefield use. His description of his Ukrainian colleague Anton, and his insistence that foreign volunteers must come to Ukraine in a spirit of service rather than self-importance, illustrate a reality sometimes obscured by Western accounts of foreign assistance. Ukraine is no longer simply a recipient of Western military knowledge. It has become one of the world's most important laboratories for the development of modern military technology, and Western countries increasingly have something to learn from it.
There are also legitimate questions about the standards by which such technology should be evaluated. Smothers's account of a deployment success rate exceeding 90 per cent, for example, relates to whether drones successfully launch and proceed on their missions, rather than establishing a verified rate of successful battlefield outcomes. His claims about range, payload and manufacturing advantages likewise need to be understood in the context of specific operating conditions and evolving designs. These distinctions matter because the rapidly developing drone industry has begun to acquire an elaborate language of commercial promotion, sometimes without the independent testing and common technical standards that would allow objective comparisons between competing products.
Nevertheless, the strategic implications of the underlying technology are difficult to dispute. The widespread use of relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft is challenging conventional assumptions about the cost of military power, the vulnerability of expensive weapons systems and the ability of large military bureaucracies to adapt to technological change. A battlefield on which electronic warfare systems costing millions may be circumvented by aircraft costing a fraction of that amount presents an economic and doctrinal challenge that established military institutions cannot safely ignore.
Perhaps Smothers's most revealing observation is that he gave away his early designs rather than attempting to retain exclusive commercial control over them. In an industry increasingly attractive to investors, manufacturers and defence contractors, he presents that decision as a deliberate choice between profit and service. It is an account of his own motivations, of course, but it captures something essential about the foreign volunteers who have made lasting contributions to Ukraine: their most significant achievements often arise not from imposing their own ideas upon Ukrainians but from placing those ideas at the disposal of people whose country and lives are at stake.
The future of warfare may not belong exclusively to fibre-optic drones, which will themselves encounter new countermeasures and technological competition. But the broader lesson of Smothers's experience is likely to endure. Military advantage increasingly belongs to those who can identify a useful innovation, manufacture it inexpensively, learn from its failures and improve it faster than their adversaries can respond. Ukraine has learned these lessons through bitter necessity, and people like Troy Smothers have helped translate them into practical engineering achievements. The question now is whether the more comfortable military establishments of the West are capable of learning the same lessons without having to experience Ukraine's suffering for themselves.
