It really frustrates me that this article doesn't emphasize how much more expensive jet powered aircraft like this are than propeller driven shahed aircraft.

Beskrestnov sees no technical or economic pressure driving the volume drop, with only a deliberate Russian reorientation of production capacity toward the more expensive, more foreign-dependent jet models.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/07/06/ukraines-interceptors-got-so-good-that-russia-is-changing-gasoline-drone-tactics-says-expert/

The cost of sophisticated jet engine powered flying bombs is far faster approaching the cost of traditional MANPADS shoulder fired anti-air missiles than I think people really realize, there is still a big cost gap but in terms of these jet powered shaheds posing a danger to air air defense systems, traditional AA guided missiles (or new ones that are perhaps sized down to account for smaller targets*) already decisively shut down this option over the longer term.

The more and more expensive russia has to make each flying bomb, the less and less effective this strategy is for russia.

The opposite can be seen with Ukraine's drone campaign in russia, air defenses have been supressed adequately to the point that slow moving, genuinely cheap propeller powered flying bombs can be used by Ukraine in a dominating fashion.

Jet powered shaheds are not cheap, they are not cost effective, they are a solution that involves building a tiny custom fighter jet for every target, which is a maximally wasteful strategy and is not sustainable for russia.

See these prices for small turbo jet engines, they are seriously expensive and require much more expensive associated equipment as well as a much more robust and expensive air frames.

https://electronics.alibaba.com/product/jet-engine-uav-drones

I refuse to let russia back itself into building expensive cruise missiles while the media reflexively categorizes them as cheap.

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The initial cost of a jet engine is significant, but they also suck back fuel like mad. That seems like a problem for a nation struggling with fuel supplies...

Definitely an unsustainable tactic for Russia.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Good point!

There will be more and more cases of jet powered shaheds making spectacular hits, possibly on helicopters or slow flying fixed wing aircraft even, but no matter how physically scary this developing "cheaper cruise missile" category is, it isn't a strategic solution for russia as it gives up the advantage that made building a massive swarm of drones make sense in the first place.

Russia can't sustain this on multiple levels!

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It would be a surprise if Russia doesn't give the military priority access to fuel. Maybe the elites get higher priority, but in any case so long as 5% of the pre-war fuel supplies are available the military has enough and doesn't care. The people hurt (until/unless they get mad enough for a revolution - but the military has the fuel in this situation).

In Crimea and scattered parts of occupied Ukraine there is less than 5% of pre-war fuel available in specific places where the military needs fuel and that has an effect. However for the majority of military fuel uses there is more than enough.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago

of course they give priority to military fuel use. but that does not mean that this is not causing problems.

also: keep hitting the gas tanks, and and Russia will need to prioritize within the military use.... Not that this is trivial, but Ukraine is certainly on a good path regarding this.

[–] Tuuktuuk@piipitin.fi 3 points 2 months ago

@bluGill @supersquirrel @Darkassassin07

No economy without fuel.
No war without an economy.

If the military gulps all the fuel, it will not have any resources (other than fuel).

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah; I'm not saying the military won't have fuel to run these things, just that it deepens their fuel supply problems.

Civil unrest is building in Russia, and further fuel restrictions caused by the military hogging all the remaining resources won't help that.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

not only this, but infrared homing solid fuel rockets, with a small warhead, designed to enter the exhaust and detonate, with really cheap and crude IR sensors should be easy and cheap to produce. These shaheds don't have any sort of evasive or decoy capacity.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Ukraine might already have a effective counter-measure. Some of their intercepter drones with an initial speed boost from a model rocket motor. These can get going fast enough to catch them.

What's interesting is that jet powered shaheds can go up to 600km/hr but they consume too much fuel at those speeds. This limits their range significantly. So they are being intercepted at slower speeds to conserve fuel.

https://thedefender.media/en/2026/07/jet-powered-shaheds-intercept/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/ukraine-unveils-estonian-drone-interceptor-built-to-destroy-shahed-drones/ar-AA24eTiu

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not clear on why you're in favor of Russia back out of an expensive strategy on this forum. Don't interrupt an enemy making a mistake, and all that.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I am making the point that we need to stop narrativizing this process as an indicator russia is winning. It is nonsense unintentional propaganda.

Russia is being forced to build sophisticated cruise missiles at a massive scale, and it cannot afford to do so.

[–] rayyy@piefed.social 7 points 2 months ago

Great. Ukraine is already the premier drone warfare source for the world. They will develop counter measures and Russia will be back to square one, sending thousands of their young men into the meat grinder.