Authors: Bojan Stojkovski and Bogdan Iordache

Srdjan Kovacevic is the co-founder and CEO of Orqa, one of the world’s leading First Person View (FPV) video headset companies. Orqa’s expertise spans multiple areas, including electronics, optics, mechanical engineering, firmware, and mobile software development, positioning itself as a pioneer in both drone technology and its application in various industries. 

Founded in 2017, Orqa evolved from a company catering to drone enthusiasts into a key player in the defense industry, developing technologies that enable immersive, real-time remote experiences. Last year, the Croatian startup partnered with Turkey’s Baykar Technologies, and as a result, Orqa’s FPV drones should be integrated within Baykar’s renowned Bayraktar TB2 UAVs. 

Additionally, Orqa’s focus on Remote Reality (RR) has changed unmanned systems and telepresence, setting a stage for future innovations in both defense and enterprise applications. We sat down with Srdjan and delved deeper into his founder journey, as seen through the lens of Orqa’s technological development over the past decade.

Underline Ventures: How did you transition from a background in finance and investment to leading a startup in the defense and technology space?

Srdjan Kovacevic: I have always been intrigued by startups, ever since I was a student. I remember being in my first or second year of university and searching the internet as the first dot-com boom unfolded. I always had this inclination to do something entrepreneurial—it just took 20-plus years to act on it.

I graduated as a mechanical engineer but ended up in finance, really without much planning or foresight. After spending a bit more than 10 years in finance, I finally had the opportunity to try something on my own, full-time, for the first time in my life.

That’s how we started the company that eventually became Orqa—together with my two co-founders, Vlatko Matijevic and Ivan Jelusic. We didn’t set out to start a defense company. We didn’t think about that whatsoever. We just started a service business, which grew into a hobby tech company, which then evolved into a defense company. It wasn’t so much that we pivoted into defense—it felt more like the world pivoted around us. The technology we had developed turned out to be one of the most consequential defense technologies of the 2020s. And that’s how we ended up doing what we do today.

UV: You started as an FPV-focused company for drone enthusiasts—what were your original goals or focus areas when developing the product?

SK: We wanted to make the best product in the world in its category. At the time we were launching, there were a lot of grievances about the existing products. It was a niche market—it didn’t have the attention of the big technology players. The market leader in that particular product category wasn’t doing a great job of listening to customers or delivering the types of features they wanted.

So it wasn’t revolutionary as much as it was evolutionary, but it was very formative for the company. We learned to really listen to and respect the customer as the only force that can make or break the company, especially since we were a new entrant in that market. We just listened and aimed to do much better than what was available at the time.

That was the approach with our first product. Later, having done the most difficult thing in the vertical, everything else seemed easier in terms of building other technology blocks for what FPV was back then. It became about getting together with people who had the right mindset and doing things together.

When we launched our first set of goggles, it was a huge success—we made a splash in that market, which was still niche at the time. 

UV: FPV racing was one of the initial use cases. How did that influence the initial direction of the product?

SK: It started with hobbyists flying copters either for racing, freestyle, or to capture footage. Eventually, we ventured into gaming by releasing a drone simulator, which became the most downloaded FPV simulator on Steam by 2019. As we expanded our drone technology portfolio, the company shifted from consumer FPV drones to something that could be used in defense, especially with the war in Ukraine.

We launched the FPV.One on Kickstarter, a move that was controversial in the FPV community. In FPV, customers are very passionate, so you either have fans or you have haters, and our intention to use Kickstarter sparked strong reactions. We felt a deep loyalty to our backers, who trusted us during this controversial time, and this support was integral to the company’s growth. Many of our backers were hobbyists, including a few from Ukraine. When the war started, our relationship shifted from simple product promotion to offering aid. 

By March 2022, shortly after the full-scale invasion began, we sent modest supplies like gear and goggles to our Ukrainian partners, who had joined the defense effort and were using hobby-grade equipment against a nuclear superpower. Recognizing the challenges of this, we began adapting our technology to support their missions and help keep them alive. This marked the beginning of the transformation of both our technologies and the company’s direction.

UV: How did you initially position your product to consumers when it first launched?

SK: When we showed the goggles, we positioned them as being what drone hobbyists wanted the most. The next step, the step beyond what’s currently out there. You have to understand, at the time, the competing products were so rudimentary they didn’t even have an on/off button. The bar was set low, and the level of resistance from brands—or their complete lack of communication with customers—was just appalling.

Then we came in and said, here’s a product that’s current for 2017, which was the year at the time. It has everything you need. One big advantage we had was that when we entered the market, the product only had about 50% of the functionality it would eventually include. But through firmware updates, we were able to add significant new features. That was unheard of in the FPV market back then—real science fiction.

After that, we started thinking: what’s the next thing we could do?

That’s when we crossed paths with Anthony Cake, who founded ImmersionRC, one of the foundational FPV companies at the time. We had complementary product portfolios, so we decided to merge our two companies. We acquired ImmersionRC using Orqa stock in 2022, and that provided both a technological and market foundation to expand and cover all aspects of FPV technology.

UV: What was your product doing better than others at the time—was it lower latency, greater convenience, or a significantly improved user experience?

SK: It was really about the innovation gap. The company that originally defined the category hadn’t evolved much since then. Maybe the form factor changed slightly, but even the image quality remained largely the same. A lot of it was just stuck in time, while the broader technology had moved on.

For example, they were still using LCD panels—we were the first to introduce OLED panels. We also added proper compute capability to the goggles, which allowed us to implement new functionalities. After we completed that high-intensity firmware release cycle, you could even stream directly from your FPV goggles to Facebook Live, which was mind-blowing at the time.

Our DVR was another major improvement. With the competing product, if your video quality was already poor, the DVR would make it even worse. So when people shared footage, it looked terrible. Our DVR brought that to the next level—what you saw in the recording was actually what you saw while flying. So it wasn’t just one thing, but rather several improvements that added up to a much better overall user experience.

UV: Can you explain what Remote Reality (RR) is, how it differs from AR and VR, and how it is redefining the way militaries operate drones and unmanned vehicles?

SK: The whole idea behind Remote Reality came from our attempt, back when we were just a goggle company, to move beyond the niche we were operating in. We had the best product in a small market, but we needed a broader narrative that justified attention from VCs and made clear the potential of the underlying technology.

Remote Reality isn’t AR or VR. It’s about immersing yourself in a real, remote environment in real time—not a virtual one, and not an augmented version of your immediate surroundings. Unlike VR, where you’re placed in a synthetic world, or AR, which overlays visuals on your local environment, RR gives you a live, low-latency video feed that lets you interact meaningfully with a real remote location. The key is latency—lower latency means more dynamic and precise control.

RR is an evolution of the FPV (first-person view) paradigm. When you wear the goggles while flying a drone, you feel like you’re inside it. It doesn’t just transport you—it scales you down, allowing you to go places a human physically can’t. The tight integration of the human pilot in the control loop means that latency must be extremely low. For instance, maintaining level flight on an FPV drone requires continuous manual throttle control, just like balancing on a bike. Once you master it, the drone becomes an extension of you.

That’s the essence of Remote Reality—presence, control, and scaling beyond human physical limits. And the core enabler is low-latency video transmission. As autonomy becomes more widespread, we still believe there’s a critical space for remote operation. Not everything will—or should—be autonomous.

UV: What are the biggest technological challenges in scaling RR for defense applications?

SK: We think human intervention will always be necessary, at least for the foreseeable future. While robotic systems may operate with 99.99% reliability, in a large fleet of robots, you’ll encounter edge cases daily. In these situations, humans will still need to step in and resolve issues that the robot can’t handle.

That’s the essence of Remote Reality—it’s an enabling technology not just for remote operation, but also for autonomy. While I believe this concept still holds, the world hasn’t yet advanced to the point where large-scale autonomy is fully viable. What has changed, however, is that immersive remote video remains at the core of what we do. 

We’ve since expanded our focus, not to a completely different application, but into the broader scope of drone technology, where it’s now becoming something truly brilliant.

UV: Do you receive different product requirements from the defense sector compared to non-defense customers, and does this require developing and releasing separate products for each?

SK: Demand from the defense sector grew immensely as opposed to that from regular consumers, especially over the last couple of years. The nature of the demand and requirements is changing, particularly in the high-pressure innovation environment of the Ukrainian battlefield. The requirements are highly dynamic. Additionally, Western defense end-users are closely watching developments and have refrained from large-scale acquisitions due to the rapid pace of technological advancement.

To touch on a related point, the traditional defense acquisition process is grossly inadequate in terms of velocity. It cannot keep pace with the speed of technological innovation, especially when considering the accessibility of unmanned technology. The pace of innovation in this field is accelerating at an unimaginable rate compared to government procurement cycles. For example, it can take five years from the time a government finalizes requirements for a system to when it’s deployed at scale—something that is typical in traditional defense procurement. 

However, in Ukraine, the pace of innovation moves almost weekly. The war in Ukraine is a “war of one-day ideas”—what works one day may not work the next, and the speed of military innovations outpaces the actual building of defense products. In light of these challenges, the way defense requirements are approached will need to change, especially as wars are increasingly fought using accessible technology.

UV: Go-to-market strategies in defense tech differ significantly from those of typical startups. Have you explored other channels, such as selling through integrators or forming partnerships? 

SK: The landscape of unmanned technologies in defense has rapidly expanded over the last few years, driven by the war in Ukraine. It has dramatically changed how defense customers absorb technology, creating urgency and opening new avenues that didn’t exist before. The urgency came from the disruption these technologies demonstrated on the battlefield, which redefined how defense technology is acquired.

Before, there were some programs in the U.S. and Europe to help SMEs address defense challenges, but these were relatively slow and dysfunctional. They didn’t fully unleash technology innovation in the defense sector. The war has opened many eyes to the fact that technology moves fast, and militaries need to adapt quickly.

What worked before is no longer as relevant. Today’s situation is urgent, with many steps being skipped and decisions made more quickly. However, this urgency won’t last forever. The future will likely bring a more regulated environment with improved public procurement processes. We can expect changes, but exactly how it will evolve is uncertain. Experience is valuable, but the future is unpredictable.

UV: What lessons can European defense tech companies learn from Ukraine’s use of technology on the battlefield?

SK: What war in Ukraine proved to us is that unmanned technologies are inherently dual-use. Looking at the workhorses of the war—specifically the vehicles deployed at large scale and the effects they can achieve—it’s clear that much of the technology being used is civilian. DJI drones, for example, are the de facto gold standard for short-range reconnaissance with multicopters. FPV drones are being used as strike vehicles, and even fiber optic drones are essentially consumer-grade networking technology, often improvised with other drone tech.

Much of the unmanned technology in use today was not classified as dual-use before the war, but it has proven to be so in practice. I believe general regulations will need to adapt as a result.

UV: How can European governments collaborate with defense tech startups to guarantee people’s safety?

SK: This is also something that will evolve. We’re seeing more unified actions, such as joint procurements happening more frequently, often facilitated by the European Defense Agency. Some policy documents show how member states should cooperate more closely and procure certain capabilities. A broad range of incentives is being laid out for the private sector on how to pursue these opportunities, promoting more cross-border cooperation.

Before the war, the European defense ecosystem on the private side was fragmented into national silos, with national champions often backed by their member states through direct equity ownership. European defense heavily relied on the U.S. supply chain, but this reliance is being dismantled, with an increasing push for greater self-reliance. We’re witnessing this shift unfold.

Within the context of these policies, we’re seeing these silos merge, leading to more cross-border cooperation—not just within the EU, but also among European countries, whether EU members or not. Increased cooperation is expected with the UK, Norway, and other European states outside the EU. This shift will open up more opportunities for European defense startups to collaborate with both large brands and sell directly to end users.

Another highlighted policy change is the focus on improving the path from research to adoption. Programs like the EDF-funded projects are now being incentivized to have a higher likelihood of being adopted by end users in defense. This should make the commercialization process more reliable, offering startups a better chance of success if they follow the proper steps.

In terms of policy, efforts are being made to improve the process, which will help startups see their technologies commercialized. The future approach to acquiring technology is expected to resemble past methods more closely than the current, more disjointed process. There will be a more programmatic approach, which should help things progress more smoothly in the future.

UV: What innovations in the defense sector are you most excited about?

SK: Larger strides in communication systems for unmanned technology will lead to significant advancements in autonomy. This dynamic will fuel the progression of unmanned technology and its adoption, even as the global security situation normalizes. If we remember the world before the war, defense was relatively boring—it was a very stable, conservative space with unattractive financial multiples. But now, it’s all about innovation and new developments. Eventually, when the war ends or the security situation stabilizes, we’ll return to a more normal state. However, it may take one or two political cycles for markets to forget everything.

Once that happens, we’ll see wider adoption of advanced systems in enterprise and industrial applications—something that hasn’t occurred at scale before. Drones, for instance, were once confined to pilot projects or modest fleets in industries, but we’ve never seen their widespread adoption in the hundreds or thousands across various industries. This process is still on the horizon.

I strongly believe that as defense interest starts to wane, the technology that matured in the defense space will pour into enterprise, leading to much larger adoption of robotics, not just aerial but across all sectors, in industrial and broader civilian applications.