The Last Mile Problem: What the Redut-UR Drone Interceptor Can Do

8 620 16

Russia has developed the Redut-UR air defense system to protect oil refineries and other last-ditch facilities. It has fundamental differences from other defense systems, most notably its low interception cost.

The Kalashnikov Concern's development is capable of destroying enemy UAVs at a range of up to 800 meters with a salvo of unguided missiles. This system is designed for fixed deployment, but can also be mounted on a truck or ship. This latter feature is particularly important, as it allows for extending the defense line to the open sea and more reliably protecting ports and other coastal infrastructure from drones attacking from the waters.



However, the most important advantage of the system, as experts explain, lies in the interception principle itself, which prioritizes not high accuracy, but the creation of a continuous destruction zone with inexpensive missiles.

The system's platform includes two launchers with 49 launchers each. This means a total salvo of 98 missiles can be fired. The munitions are 60-mm unguided rockets with enhanced accuracy and a high-explosive fragmentation warhead or a directional warhead.

The main feature of these air interception systems is their low cost of production compared to expensive homing missiles.

As we know, any war is primarily a matter of mathematics. When an adversary is capable of attacking with hundreds of drones daily, in the long run, the one with air defenses that are not only effective but also inexpensive wins. The Americans, for example, quickly exhausted their high-precision homing missiles in the war with Iran and were forced to make concessions. Now, all countries are looking for new ways to affordably defend themselves.

It's important to understand that even the cheapest modern homing missile currently costs tens of thousands of dollars, while more sophisticated air-to-air interception systems cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Furthermore, producing such missiles takes a long time, and the supply chain for components is scattered across the globe and can be disrupted at the most inopportune moment.

The unguided rocket on the Redut-UR is a simple and inexpensive solution. To launch, all that's needed is a standard tube, stamped on basic equipment. The missile itself has no complex electronics; its only job is to fly along a predetermined trajectory and detonate at the right moment.

However, as experts note, the price of such simplicity is low accuracy. An unguided missile cannot change its trajectory mid-flight, but this is compensated for by the presence of 98 missiles in a salvo. They create a continuous field of destruction through which a drone cannot fly intact.

However, even in this case, the system's operator must know where and when to fire. And this is the main intrigue of the Redut-UR. According to published data, its optoelectronic modules continuously scan the upper hemisphere in the visible and thermal ranges.

The system detects, identifies, and tracks targets measuring 50 by 50 centimeters. The targeting system automatically calculates the target's trajectory, determining the impact point within a few seconds. The launcher aims at the target and fires a salvo, creating a dense fragmentation kinetic energy field. Simply put, the system can operate in automatic or semiautomatic mode.

It's worth remembering, however, that despite all the advantages listed above, there can't be a single, universal weapon against air attacks. A system can only work effectively as a whole. Russia has all of these capabilities, but the so-called last-mile problem remains the most pressing for both us and the enemy.

The Redut-UR is designed to address precisely this need and is designed to destroy those isolated targets that manage to break through previous defensive lines. The system's true effectiveness, it seems, will soon be possible to assess in more detail, as it has already been combat-tested and proven effective.

16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    17 July 2026 10: 44
    An unguided missile cannot change its trajectory in flight, but this is compensated by the presence of 98 units in a salvo.

    Attention, question! Yes, one missile is cheap, but 98 missiles?
    1. +1
      17 July 2026 10: 58
      Are they going to fire all 98 missiles at one or two UAVs that break through? Maybe three or four would be enough? Yes, I think even ninety-eight unguided rockets would be cheaper than rebuilding the refinery.
      1. 0
        17 July 2026 13: 31
        First of all, read the article -

        98 units in a salvo at once

        Secondly, you have the wrong evaluation criteria - the means of protection should not be comparable to the price of the protected object, they should be cheaper than the means of attack.
        1. +1
          17 July 2026 15: 42
          I suggest you don't read the article, but rather flip the switch in your head. We're talking about a full salvo. But all air defense systems—Pantsir, Buk, and S-300—can operate in different modes. I have no doubt that the new system can also fire in more than just a salvo. I live near a Yaroslavl oil refinery, and drones fly toward it in groups of one or two (they've flown over my dacha in the Yaroslavl region several times). So what's the point of firing the entire magazine? What if a couple more are flying behind you? Do you reload in the meantime? So constantly firing the entire salvo is simply impractical.
          It's a different matter if a target is attacked by a swarm of 25-30 drones, some of which are "dummy" drones designed to overload the air defense system. Then, yes, a salvo is advisable.

          You have the wrong evaluation criteria - the means of protection should not be comparable to the price of the protected object, they should be cheaper than the means of attack.

          ???????????????????-Are you serious about this???
          Tell me, then, what are the objectives of any country's air defense? As a serviceman who dedicated 25 years to the Russian Navy, I can answer for you—first and foremost, protecting strategically important facilities. And the cost of SAMs doesn't even matter here. There's only one criterion, and it's the most important one: protecting our strategic facilities. If SAMs aren't even cheaper, but at least comparable in cost to UAVs, that's fantastic.
          1. -2
            17 July 2026 16: 55
            Judging by your comment, you are as much a military man as I am a Tibetan monk.
            I won't even respond to your nonsense. This conversation is over. hi
            1. +1
              17 July 2026 18: 46
              Goodbye, Tibetan monk))) You'd be better off staying a monk if you seriously believe that the most important thing about air defense systems is the cheapness of ammunition, and not their ability to solve the assigned task of defending a particular object)))
    2. -1
      4 August 2026 08: 57
      Anything is cheaper than an oil refinery.
      1. 0
        5 August 2026 06: 26
        Quote: anclevalico
        Anything is cheaper than an oil refinery.

        So, just think about it: a slightly cheaper protection measure worked once, then a second time, then a third time. And how much will it cost in a month? Like ten oil refineries, and in a year, like a hundred? There's no point in making protection more expensive than the object being protected; that's basic security economics.
  2. +1
    17 July 2026 11: 01
    More air defense systems, good and diverse. But the best air defense is to strike similar targets of those who supply weapons to Ukraine. This will make the Europeans think that for every shell they give away, they could very well get a counterattack.
  3. +1
    17 July 2026 11: 16
    So, I take it they've reinvented the ancient Soviet Kolos MANPADS, which has its roots in the German Abwehrrakete Luftfaust-B?
  4. +1
    17 July 2026 12: 11
    Why would a system designed for the permanent protection of stationary objects be mounted on a vehicle? Apparently, to reduce costs, simplify, and speed up production. Couldn't it be mounted on the roof of a building or a stationary tower?
    What fools the Americans are who put their Patriots on an autonomous trailer!
    1. 0
      17 July 2026 15: 58
      Ahahaha. You can't see the brain, but its absence is immediately noticeable))

      Quote: prior
      What fools the Americans are who put their Patriots on an autonomous trailer!

      Each autonomous trailer has its own tractor, which brings the trailer to and from its designated location. Smart people say that positions need to be changed periodically.
  5. +1
    17 July 2026 15: 58
    It's a good product, but I prefer the Citadel 30mm.
  6. 0
    19 July 2026 09: 16
    Not all objects can be protected
  7. +1
    21 July 2026 10: 56
    Not a word about programmable detonation. And that's the main thing. And it wouldn't be too cheap, given the number of missiles per target, the need for an optical or radar locator, an electronic computer, and precision electromechanical guidance systems. It would be better to mass-produce a 30mm cannon charge with programmable detonation.
  8. 0
    4 August 2026 08: 58
    Another exciting release? There's a bad omen: if something gets hyped up before it's even fully released, it's all over.