Breaking News
Economic Inefficiency of Using Russian Strela-10 Air Defense System Against Ukrainian Reconnaissance Drones.
The use of the Strela-10 air defense system to neutralize reconnaissance drones raises questions about the economic efficiency of this practice. The Strela-10, designed to intercept low-altitude aerial targets, is equipped with missiles whose per-shot cost is quite high. In contrast, reconnaissance drones, often simple in design and mass-produced, have significantly lower manufacturing costs. When we see footage on social media of a drone being destroyed by a Strela-10, it’s natural to question the economic efficacy of such an action.
The Strela-10 ( or SA-13) is a Russian air defense system. (Picture source: Social Media)
While precise data on the per-shot cost of the Strela-10 is limited, it is widely known that surface-to-air missiles of this kind entail substantial expenses, including production, maintenance, and logistical support. These high costs are justified when dealing with major aerial threats, such as fighter jets or attack helicopters.
Reconnaissance drones, especially commercial or makeshift models, are relatively affordable. For example, the Leleka-100, a reconnaissance drone made in Ukraine, costs between €37,500 and €60,000, depending on the source. Other commercial drones used for military purposes can be even less expensive, with some models available for only a few thousand or even a few hundred euros. The exact manufacturing cost of a Strela-10 missile is not publicly available, as such information is typically classified or undisclosed by manufacturers and governments. However, based on similar missile systems, it’s possible to estimate a price range. It can thus be inferred that a missile costs at least tens of thousands of euros, making the targeting of a Leleka-100 seem proportionate but less so when it comes to smaller, lower-cost drones.
Using a Strela-10 missile to shoot down a reconnaissance drone that costs significantly less may not be economically sound. This approach leads to a disproportionate expense relative to the threat being neutralized. Furthermore, using expensive missiles against low-value targets can rapidly deplete ammunition stocks and drive up operational costs.
The emergence of drones in modern conflicts, especially in Ukraine, has revolutionized reconnaissance and attack methods by offering armed forces low-cost observation and strike capabilities. These drones, often inexpensive and sometimes constructed from commercial models, allow for close-range surveillance of enemy positions, making opposing lines vulnerable to more precise strikes. Faced with this threat, the question of how to effectively take down these drones at a lower cost becomes crucial to avoid the disproportionate use of expensive defense systems like the Strela-10. Various solutions have been proposed to counter this threat in a cost-effective way. Among them are electronic jammers to disorient drones, directed energy weapons for instant neutralization, and even interceptor drones specifically designed to take down these craft without the need for costly missiles. These alternatives aim to provide a flexible defense capable of addressing the diverse characteristics of drones while optimizing financial and material resources—a priority in managing modern asymmetric conflicts.
The disproportionate use of costly resources against low-value targets can also have strategic implications. It can reduce the availability of defense systems for more serious threats and affect long-term operational capacity. Additionally, the frequent replacement of missiles used against low-cost drones may present logistical challenges and increase additional costs.
While the Strela-10 is effective in intercepting aerial targets, its use against low-cost reconnaissance drones is not economically optimal. It is essential to develop and deploy defense solutions that match the nature and cost of the encountered threats, ensuring efficient resource utilization and maintaining robust defense capability against more significant threats.