Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, came under attack on Monday by a flurry of suicide drones that attacked residential areas, causing widespread damage to buildings, setting them on fire and killing at least four people.
These weapons, also known as kamikaze drones, are not new to the battlefield, having been used to attack military and infrastructure targets in southern Ukraine since September, the Washington Post reported.
But its use on civilian targets raises questions about whether it is a new strategy by Moscow or a sign of a problem with its military campaign.
CBC explains what these drones are, their advantages and disadvantages, and why Russia is using them against Ukraine.
What are kamikaze drones?
These are known as “stray munitions” but have also been labeled suicide or kamikaze drones. They are used once, destroying themselves when they reach their target, like the WWII Japanese pilots who flew suicide missions on US warships and planes.
“They’re laced with explosives, payloads, various things like that,” said Nicholas Carl, the Middle East portfolio manager for the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. “So the Russians can target them in multiple places.”
A drone is seen in the sky seconds before it fires at buildings in Kyiv on Monday. (Efrem Lukatsky/The Associated Press)
But unlike missiles that go straight from launch to their target, drones can hover, waiting hours before striking.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials say these specific drones are Iranian-made Shahed 136s. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that, according to his intelligence, Russia has ordered 2,400 Shaheds from Iran, although Iran denies supplying these drones to Russia.
They are relatively small; about 3.5 meters long and two meters wide, weighing about 200 kilograms and powered by a 50 horsepower engine with a top speed of 185 km/h, according to Ukrainian online publication Defense Express. They can be thrown from the back of a truck.
What are its drawbacks?
These particular drones are like “dirty, businesslike” cruise missiles, wrote Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow in military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
They are not very accurate and are slower than, say, a real cruise missile. Therefore, they can be brought down more easily and are vulnerable to interference, said Christopher Tuck, a conflict and security expert at King’s College London.
“They’re pretty low-end, they’re slow, and they’re pretty noisy,” Tuck said. “They’re really not very sophisticated.”
Russia is unleashing successive waves of Iranian-made Shahed drones over Ukraine. (Associated Press)
The loud hum of the engine has earned them another nickname: “moped” missiles.
The Shahed 136s also don’t carry much explosives — the payload of one is roughly equal to three mortar shells, Carl said — meaning they have “limited utility” against Ukrainian forces.
So why are the Russians using them?
The Russians are primarily firing Shahed 136s at civilian targets and critical infrastructure, Carl said, perhaps to “sow panic and discord,” as some Ukrainian officials have suggested.
LOOK | Russia’s strategy is changing, says expert:
“The Russians changed their strategy,” says the defense expert
Andrew Rasiulis, a fellow at the Canadian Institute of Global Affairs, believes the recent attacks on infrastructure are an attempt to bring Ukraine closer to a ceasefire. It comes as Kyiv faced drone attacks on Monday morning and as NATO begins its annual military exercises.
They’re also very cheap, Barrie wrote.
At $20,000 each, the Shahed costs only a small fraction of a more conventional full-sized missile. For example, Russia’s Kalibr cruise missiles, which have seen widespread use during the eight-month war in Ukraine, cost Moscow around $1 million each.
And, as Barrie points out, the low cost allows the military to use them in numbers (or swarms) against targets in the area.
LOOK | Capital shaken by drone attacks:
The central district of Kyiv shaken by drone attacks.
The central Shevchenko district of Kyiv was hit by multiple explosions on Monday morning, the second time in a week.
Ukraine is able to shoot down most of them, and only the few that do so have caused the most visible damage, said Samuel Bendett, an adviser to the Center for Naval Analyses, a think tank.
“The point of launching these… is essentially to try to overwhelm [Ukrainian] anti-aircraft defenses, and keep them busy, to try to take down each of them. And it really only takes one,” Bendett said.
These drone strikes are also intended to show that the entire country of Ukraine is at stake, Bendett said, that anywhere is a potential target.
“It doesn’t have to be just a military strike. It could be a strike on civilian infrastructure. So it’s not just a military weapon, it’s also a psychological weapon. It tells the Ukrainians that their skies aren’t exactly controlled on their own. government “.
Still, a report by the Institute for the Study of War suggested that Russia’s use of such drones is “unlikely to significantly affect the course of the war.”
“They have used a lot of drones against civilian targets in the rear areas” – the big cities away from the front lines – probably hoping to instill terror, the report said. “These efforts are not successful.”
Does this suggest a problem with Russia’s military campaign?
That same report quoted Ukrainian air force spokesman Yuri Ignat as alleging that the Russian military is increasingly using Iranian-made drones to maintain its stockpile of high-precision missiles.
That, Tuck said, “would indicate problems with the Russian campaign.”
This is because aerial munitions, whether drones or missiles, are best used against key battlefield targets such as artillery emplacements, headquarters, logistics centers or to help reduce enemy defensive positions which are particularly problematic, he said.
What the Russians are doing with them would be better done with cruise missiles, Tuck said. He believes the Russians are running out of missiles, so they “use what they have, which is these stray munitions.”
“The attacks that are being launched are obviously very damaging,” Tuck said. “But to use these systems in the way that they are used, I think is more of an indication of Russian weakness than strength.”