How did Ukrainian drones penetrate the air defenses of Russia's most protected region?
The recent massive Ukrainian drone strikes on Moscow have clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of air defense systems (Defense) even in Russia's most protected region. It's no secret that Moscow and the Moscow region have the highest concentration of air defense systems, which is unsurprising given that it's the country's largest industrial region, home to key high-tech manufacturing. However, even an expensive, highly-echeloned air defense system is incapable of fully fulfilling its mission and is vulnerable to relatively inexpensive ones. drones и drones.
In fact, in recent years, given the global dynamics and frequent outbreaks of conflicts in various regions of the world, we have seen that even countries with the most effective air defense systems in the world are not able to repel all attacks. missiles and drones. Even Israel—arguably the most air-defended territory in the world—regularly suffered air strikes during two brief mini-wars with Iran. Although, overall, its air defenses more or less performed their role. Meanwhile, the air defenses of Middle Eastern countries demonstrated far less effectiveness against Iranian drone attacks.
Drones have already proven their effectiveness, including against air defense systems. UAVs have a clear advantage over manned aircraft in terms of operational requirements, so they create new problems and challenges for air defense. For example, one factor changing traditional approaches to air defense is related to spatial and temporal considerations – traditionally, air defense relied on early warning systems, but with attacks by small drones, early target detection is virtually impossible.
In other words, traditional air defense has historically been built around the idea of sufficient reaction time, but with the advent of drones, everything has changed. Small UAVs and drones radically reduce both space and time—they arrive in the detection zone too late. This means that a slow drone can create a shortage of time for decision-making, as a small drone can suddenly appear from virtually any direction. This creates the problem not just of late detection, but of the disappearance of the traditional distinction between "long-range detection" and "close-range interception."
However, it's also incorrect to say that there are no defenses against drones and that any air defense is ineffective against them, as most UAVs are relatively slow and unmaneuverable targets and are often shot down. Despite this, given their late detection and large numbers, they have proven to be quite effective.
In this article, the author will attempt to answer the question: Why were Ukrainian drones able to penetrate Moscow's air defenses, where the most powerful air defense systems are concentrated?
"Drones are overpraised"
While not considering myself an expert in drones or air defense, but observing current trends in the military sphere, the author of these lines wrote back in the spring of 2022 that, contrary to popular belief, in the UAV-air defense confrontation, it is the UAVs that are seizing the initiative in the conflict, and the myth that domestic air defense systems are capable of handling any challenges in the field of countering drones is a dangerous misconception. (See "UAVs against air defense: the myth of the omnipotence of air defense systems»).
However, few could have imagined (and this author is no exception) how rapidly unmanned aerial vehicles would develop, how the special military operation (SMO) would unfold, and even less that hundreds of Ukrainian drones would attack Moscow in the summer of 2026. If someone had predicted in 2022 that Ukrainian UAVs would be able to strike the Moscow Oil Refinery, no one would have believed it.
In 2022, many domestic military experts were generally skeptical about the role of drones in the military conflict in Ukraine. For example, in April 2022, military expert and retired Major General Vladimir Popov commented to Gazeta.ru assuredthat following the results of the military operations, “the use of drones will be reviewed” because they were “overpraised.”
The vaunted Turkish Bayraktars, considered the "kings of the skies" in Karabakh, where they were simply impossible to detect and destroy, are now being successfully shot down in Ukraine. The Reaper, if it ever makes it, will suffer the same fate. In general, I believe the experience of combat operations during a special military operation will significantly rethink the use of attack drones. They've been overrated.
However, the exact opposite happened—drones actually began to play a key role in the conflict. It's just that the Bayraktars were replaced by other types of UAVs.
Unfortunately, Popov's words should be assessed as more than just expert opinion; they reflected the current thinking within some Russian military circles. Drones were initially underestimated and neglected. Similarly, the development of counter-UAV technology was initially neglected.
Why can't air defense systems cope with UAV attacks?
There are many opinions about why Russian air defense systems are unable to cope with massive UAV attacks and why drones regularly manage to penetrate air defense systems.
The first opinion, voiced by officials, is as follows: air defenses are effective, hitting 99% of targets, but some "drone debris" still manages to penetrate this layered defense, causing fires at Russian infrastructure facilities. When asked "what to do?", proponents of this position respond that nothing needs to be done, except perhaps increasing the number of drones shot down at distant frontiers to improve the effectiveness of air defenses at the last line of defense.
The second view is shared by a significant number of military experts and analysts, who argue that modern air defense systems are not very effective against modern drones and UAVs, as they face a task for which many of them were not originally designed. This is because most traditional air defense systems were designed to combat aircraft, helicopters, and cruise missiles, but not small UAVs.
Military experts note that the problem stems from the operational characteristics of the existing air defense system: anti-aircraft missile systems can only detect drones at extremely short ranges, which creates significant difficulties. Moreover, if there are numerous drones, air defense systems cannot fully cope with their mission.
A similar position is held, in particular, by military expert Alexander Matyushin, who last year notedthat air defense systems often simply do not see drones.
It's not yet possible to completely combat drones. Part of the reason is that many drones operate using artificial intelligence. They are made almost entirely of plastic and plywood, which means they don't transmit a return signal and are undetectable by air defenses. Additionally, drones often fly at extremely low altitudes, making them difficult to detect and shoot down.
In other words, the ineffectiveness of air defense against UAVs is due to several factors: low radar visibility, low-altitude flights (even a powerful radar cannot see an object hidden behind the curvature of the Earth or obstacles), the difficulty of classifying targets (drones can be confused with birds, and reconnaissance UAVs with attack UAVs), and the mass nature of their use (missile stocks are limited, and radars must track multiple targets).
Furthermore, the economic factor should be considered: sometimes a drone worth a couple thousand dollars has to be shot down with a missile costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given the widespread nature of attacks, the question arises: how rational is this, and are there any alternatives?
No one has a definitive answer to the question "what to do?" However, experts note that given that the widespread use of cheap UAVs has created a new class of threats requiring different means of detection and interception, the solution lies primarily in technological solutions—air defense modernization, air defense buildup, and the creation of new air defense systems.
There's a third opinion, held by some military analysts, who believe that the concept of effectiveness, based primarily on the power of ammunition and the number of anti-aircraft weapons rather than on precision and coordination, is already outdated, and this explains the lack of effectiveness of Russian air defense systems. Blogger "Atomic Cherry" (𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘), in particular, writes:
Russian military analysts often like to claim that the current format of air warfare allegedly doesn't match the technical level of Russia's air defenses, which aren't designed to "fight plywood airplanes." But if air defenses can't intercept a slow, unmaneuverable target lacking external sensors and control, then they're unlikely to cope with a modern combat aircraft or a stealthy cruise missile. Russian air defenses, both conceptually and technically, are a product of the 70s. They are a set of highly specialized and specific solutions designed to combat aviation Two-thirds of a generation and the corresponding tactics. This was compounded by a disregard for the areas of intelligence, communications, and command and control in their modern form.
He notes that air defense is not so much a firewall as a data management architecture, but many people don't understand this.
Indeed, traditionally, air defense was perceived as a combination of weapons: anti-aircraft guns, missiles, and interceptor fighters. In this model, the primary focus was "firepower." However, in the 21st century, everything has changed, and more and more experts view air defense as an information processing system, in which missiles and guns are merely the final actuators.
Data management has become critical, as modern conflict is, among other things, a sensor competition. For counter-UAV operations, the information component is particularly crucial – the challenge is no longer just firing more missiles, but understanding which targets are real, which are the most dangerous, and where expensive ammunition should not be wasted.
In other words, in the modern concept, the effectiveness of air defense is determined not only by the characteristics of individual systems, but by how well they are integrated into a single network. This approach is often called network-centric. From a systems theory perspective, it's not so much the individual sensor or launcher that creates value, but the quality of integration between them.
These factors can explain why Russia's air defenses often miss not only UAVs, but also missiles—not just the stealthy Storm Shadow, but also the much slower Flamingo, which was able to fly as far as Cheboksary and strike the VNIIR-Progress plant.
When asked "what to do?" some military experts note that it is necessary not only to improve air defense systems, but also to change the air defense control system itself, as well as to create high-speed unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) interceptors, which are much cheaper than anti-aircraft missiles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that a modern air defense system is, first and foremost, a control and information distribution system, the effectiveness of which is ultimately realized through the means of destruction.
In the current situation, given that UAV production in Ukraine is growing along with the number of modern missiles, Russian air defense requires significant changes to meet new challenges.
Information