Scratchpad-themed posts briefly introduce ideas and notes that may be followed by a memo or longer analysis at a future date. Posts filed under the scratchpad section/newsletter are only accessible to subscribers, whether free or paid. For the purposes of navigating this site, scratchpad-themed posts are organized under the region-themed topic-themed subsections under "Memos." You will not receive email notifications for newly posted scratchpad-themed posts.
The above video documents the non-destructive interception of a Russian Shahed-136/Geran-2 propeller-driven fixed-wing strike drone by a Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter aircraft. The video is not only notable on account of documenting a successful interception in which the fighter aircraft employed neither a gun nor a missile, but also because it highlights the hazards inherent to the non-destructive and minimally destructive interception of strike munitons that feature an impact fuzed warhead, which can detonate upon impact with the ground, wherever that may be, and fuel, which can deflagrate into a fireball upon impact with the ground, wherever that may be.
Much of the allure of new approaches to intercepting strike drones and similar, above all electrically-powered interceptor drones, results from their low cost. This is, in a world of physical constraints and engineering tradeoffs, a reflection of not only the wonders of the contemporary commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) electrical components market, but also the reality that these interceptor drones have very limited payload-range at such a low price point, and are often not viable at greater payload-range optimizations on account of the limitations inherent to the electric propulsion setup. In other words, interceptor drones employ very small and light warheads, which can damage but not always destroy a strike drone in flight.
If the strike drone’s warhead fuze is not crippled during an interception, then there is a risk that the warhead will detonate upon impact with the ground, wherever that may be. Want to more or less guarantee that the strike drone will be essentially obliterated in flight? Use a larger and heavier warhead and, with that, all else being equal, a larger, heavier, and more expensive surface-to-air (or air-to-air) interceptor. There is no magic associated with employing a solid-propellant rocket motor in a surface-to-air (or air-to-air) munition. Yes, cost and complexity increase, but there are various benefits, whether greater speed/a reduced time to target, a better engagement envelope against a moving target in various parameters, or, not least, the potential to carry a warhead that is large enough to consistently bring about the destruction of the targeted strike drone prior to it crashing into the ground and detonating or deflagrating upon impact.