There has been extensive coverage around the world of the recent drone and missile attacks on the cities and critical infrastructure of Ukraine. It seems that Russia launched these fairly indiscriminate, or perhaps poorly targeted, attacks in retaliation for the daring and successful Ukrainian attack on the Kerch Bridge which connects the illegally annexed Crimea with mainland Russia. “Lashing out” by Russia may be the correct technical term.
The choice of weapons tells its own story. Russia’s air force has proved reluctant to stray much beyond its own border for fear of falling victim to Ukraine’s burgeoning air defences. So unmanned rockets and other such Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)have become the means of choice. These UAVs potentially save lives (from the attacker’s point of view anyway), are cheaper by far than a modern fast jet, and are available in numbers. What’s not to like?
Russia boasts many different systems in its inventory, but in terms of missiles it looks as if its stocks are running low. Recently it would appear that they have been using surface to air missiles which are designed for knocking down aircraft and helicopters against ground targets. Systems like the S-300 missile have been utilised, and they do have a secondary ground attack capability, but at a cost of roughly $1mn per missile it hardly seems to be their optimal use.
Drones, both the return-to-base multi-use type and the “kamikaze” variety, offer a better bang-to-buck ratio. While Russia has already used a variety of reconnaissance and attack UAVs in the conflict, its inventory has been boosted by the arrival of imported Shahed 136 drones from Iran (although typically Iran denies this).
These “loitering munition autonomous swarm pusher-prop aerial drones” are designed to be launched in multiples to evade air defences and overwhelm ground targets. In this they seem to have been successful given the evidence of the damage caused, despite large numbers appearing to have been shot down or jammed by the Ukrainian defenders. The Ukrainians use such drones too, and have been supplied with the Switchblade drone by the USA.
Kamikaze weapons have been present since the Second World War
Present dangers aside, though, all this might be seen as old hat by a previous generation. There is a direct line of descent to modern missiles and drones from the Vergeltungswaffen (revenge weapons) deployed by Germany in the latter stages of the Second World War.
Faced with the Allied landings in Normandy in June 1944, the launching of a massive offensive by the Soviet armies in Poland, and the non-stop round the clock bombing of German cities by the RAF and USAF, Hitler unleashed his Wunderwaffen (wonder weapons) against London and other targets in a vain attempt to turn the tide of the war.
These comprised the V1 flying bomb, powered by a ramjet engine, also known as the “doodlebug” or “buzz bomb” because of the sound it made going overhead, which basically flew until it ran out of fuel and plummeted to earth, hopefully on the chosen target.
As with many of today’s drones, its straight and level flight meant that many were shot down as they crossed the Channel and English coast. Of the nearly 10,500 V1s launched against Britain, some 4,250 were brought down. The interception rate rose to over 80% as time passed.
Much more difficult to counter were the V2 rockets. These were in fact the world’s first long-range guided ballistic missiles, rising to above the Earth’s atmosphere and then crashing to land at supersonic speed. There was little that could be done except attack their launch sites which occupied the attention of Allied bomber forces.
Countermeasures against kamikaze weapons
Nowadays there are various countermeasures available against both these modes of attack. The Ukrainians have ably demonstrated how UAVs and loitering munitions can be intercepted and diverted although a proportion still seem to get through. Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems have also been developed, and I witnessed the US Patriot system being used against incoming Iraqi Scud missiles in Riyadh in 1991.
Worryingly, although there is no imminent threat to the UK, Britain does not currently have a dedicated ABM defence. There may be some possible countermeasure in the Royal Navy’s T45 destroyers’ air defence systems, but they seem tentative at best.
Perhaps it is no surprise, therefore, given the experience of Ukraine, that the Ministry of Defence announced an enhancement to those self-same T45 destroyers in May this year to upgrade their missile inventory to true ABM capability. But a likely in-service date? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
[ed. note: This article was originally published in The Express on 19 October 2022 and reprinted with permission of the copyright holder, Lt Col Stuart Crawford]
