DJI DRONES, UKRAINE AND RUSSIA — WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT AEROSCOPEAfter the start of the war, Ukraine accused DJI — one of the world’s leading drone manufacturers — of enabling Russia to use DJI drone technology for military purposes. “Are you sure you want to be complicit in these killings?” Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov wrote last Wednesday. “Block your products that help Russia kill Ukrainians!”
Reading these words, you might think that DJI is supplying combat drones to Russia, or that Russia is using DJI drones as spotters for its missile systems. But that is not even remotely what Ukraine is referring to. The issue is DJI AeroScope — a system designed to detect drones and their operators, which Russia may now be using to locate and target Ukrainian drone pilots.
DJI AeroScope was originally developed for public safety: if an unauthorized DJI drone approaches an airport runway, a crowded stadium, or a rally, authorities can detect and respond to it. With AeroScope, each DJI drone transmits a signal that specialized receivers can decode to reveal the drone’s location and its pilot’s position. Law enforcement can deploy a receiver and monitor drone activity in an area in real time.
Even in peacetime, this concept raises concerns: what if a malicious actor gains access to an AeroScope receiver and begins tracking or targeting drone operators? That is why DJI states that these systems are sold only to law enforcement and security agencies.
However, DJI did not anticipate what could happen in wartime when such technology is combined with military targeting systems. Now that Ukrainian civilians use consumer drones for defense, AeroScope could create dangerous unintended consequences. If it reveals the exact location of a drone operator, that information could potentially be used to strike them.
There are no confirmed reports of this happening, although the claim circulates online. DJI has acknowledged that some Ukrainian AeroScope units have malfunctioned, and Ukrainian officials are urging DJI to disable Russian-operated systems.
This situation is also politically complex, as DJI is a Chinese company, and China is widely seen as aligned with Russia rather than Ukraine. DJI has faced scrutiny from the United States, including sanctions and allegations related to surveillance technology.
Below is everything we know about AeroScope based on interviews with DJI representative Adam Lisberg, drone forensic expert David Kovar, Aerial Armor COO Brandon Lugo, and DJI reseller Taras Troyak.
The AeroScope system consists of two main components:
DJI sells two types of receivers: a portable short-range unit and a fixed long-range system that connects to large external antennas and network infrastructure.
There are also different deployment options: public cloud (AWS), private cloud, or fully offline setups. According to Lugo, even internet access is not strictly required for portable units, which operate locally.
Pricing varies widely, from around $10,000 for portable units to up to $150,000 for larger systems.
Yes. According to experts, drones transmit data as part of their normal communication process. However, DJI claims the data is encrypted and only accessible to authorized receivers.
Some Ukrainian officials claim Russia uses an enhanced version with greater range, possibly originating from Syria. DJI denies knowledge of any such military version.
Ukraine has accused DJI of disabling systems, but evidence is inconclusive. DJI denies intentional interference, stating that issues may be due to power or internet outages.
Signals cannot be remotely disabled, as they are transmitted locally between drone and receiver. Disabling them would also disable core drone functionality.
Ukraine is requesting data access and the ability to block Russian-origin devices, not simply disabling AeroScope signals.
DJI states it does not centrally track drones unless users voluntarily upload data.
Some components rely on digital certificates, which may expire, but there is no confirmed remote shutdown mechanism.
AeroScope is considered useful for law enforcement but controversial in warfare. It highlights the unintended consequences of dual-use technology.