The Russia-Ukraine war has been characterized by extensive drone usage, with counter-drone technologies playing an equally significant role. Both sides have repeatedly introduced new drone technology onto the battlefield, only for it to be rendered obsolete by counter-drone advancements within a few months. This cat-and-mouse game has escalated, particularly as Ukraine has significantly expanded its domestic defense industry, deploying drones with increasingly advanced capabilities, including higher levels of autonomy. In response, Russia has somewhat deviated from conventional counter-drone systems, opting instead for fairly simplistic, unconventional approaches to minimize the effectiveness of Ukrainian drones.

Conventional counter-drone systems are categorized as either kinetic or non-kinetic. Kinetic solutions typically involve shooting down drones using methods such as surface-to-air missiles or machine guns. Non-kinetic approaches, on the other hand, entail disrupting the drone’s control signals or onboard navigation systems through electronic warfare techniques such as jamming, spoofing, or hacking. While Ukraine has used a combination of kinetic and non-kinetic solutions, Russia has relied primarily on non-kinetic solutions. Indeed, the Russian military has an extensive array of electronic warfare equipment that includes counter-drone capabilities, which notably neutralized over 10,000 Ukrainian drones in May 2023.

As the conflict progresses, Ukraine has gained a significant advantage due to its growing defense industrial base. Leveraging commercial technology and expertise, Ukraine is able to rapidly develop and deploys new drones for its military. Each new drone incorporates new capabilities and enhanced autonomy, often increasing their resistance to Russian counter-drone systems. While the Ukrainian defense companies are moving at the speed of technology, the Russian defense industrial base is moving at a slower pace, constrained by a rigid acquisition structure. Given these issues and the rapid pace of Ukrainian drone developments, Russia has opted to adopt several low-tech, unconventional methods to counter Ukrainian drones. While not as advanced as their electronic warfare systems, they are proving to be effective.

For example, Russia has implemented anti-drone nets to safeguard critical facilities, such as oil refineries, from Ukrainian drone attacks. These large metal nets can entirely enclose a building and are supported by mooring lines anchored to metal stakes in the ground. With Russia’s shortage of air-defense assets capable of protecting every potential target, and many existing systems proving ineffective against Ukrainian drones, these nets have become invaluable. Moreover, several Russian companies now offer anti-drone nets, which have demonstrated significant effectiveness in halting drone incursions. Indeed, these nets are difficult for drones to detect, often causing them to crash upon impact. Even if a drone manages to detect the net, it would still be unable to reach its intended target.

On their front lines, the Russians have introduced “turtle tanks” – tanks equipped with large protective shells. Facing artillery shortages, the Ukrainian military has resorted to using drones carrying small explosive payloads to precisely target vulnerable parts of Russian tanks, effectively disabling them. These “turtle shells,” made of a combination of wood and metal, are positioned offset from the tank’s body. This design ensures that when a drone strikes the shell, the explosion does not harm the tank itself. However, these bulky and heavy shells come with drawbacks, reducing the tank’s functionality by limiting firing angles and slowing down its movement. Regardless, this counter-drone approach appears to have been fairly effective, with an increasing number of Russian tanks sacrificing their lethality and mobility for this enhanced survivability.

At a more strategic level, recent Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure are also part of a broader counter-drone effort. Counter-drone technology exploits the vulnerabilities of drones; in this case, the vulnerability is that Ukrainian defense companies require electricity to develop and manufacture their drones. Earlier this month, Russian president Vladimir Putin explicitly stated that the primary objective of these strikes is to have “influence on the Ukrainian military-industrial complex.” By targeting energy infrastructure, they effectively hinder Ukrainian companies’ ability to deploy new drone technology to their armed forces. By slowing down the Ukrainian drone develop effort, Russia will have the time necessary to develop and field new counter-drone technology, providing their forces a key advantage on the battlefield.

The Russian military has historically led in counter-drone technology, having pioneered the use of electronic warfare in modern combat. However, as the conflict persists, conventional Russian counter-drone methods are falling behind Ukrainian drone advancements. Consequently, the Russians have adopted a series of low-tech, unconventional tactics to mitigate the threat posed by Ukrainian drones. These include implementing drone fences, employing “turtle shells” on their tanks, and targeting the Ukrainian power grid, all aimed at minimizing the growing threat of Ukrainian drones. These measures appear effective for the near term, at least until Ukrainian drones evolve to render these Russian counter-drone techniques obsolete.