Russian violations of airspace across Europe have surged, with reports indicating around 20 recorded incidents in October 2025 alone. They include conventional aircraft such as Su-30s and low-cost drones such as Gerberas (Shahed derivatives made from polystyrene and plywood), triggering repeated Nato Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) scrambles and fueling debate over the proportionality and sustainability of responses. With some drones costing as little as $10,000 yet forcing interception by high-value platforms such as F-35s, Europe faces a dilemma of how to maintain credible yet cost-effective deterrence. The EU has proposed a “drone wall,” but countries such as Italy and Greece oppose it, leaving a capability gap in harmonised, cost-efficient countermeasures. With counter-drone technology offering diverse acquisition options, this briefing examines several available systems and assesses their feasibility for this specific threat environment.
Kamikaze interceptor drones
One promising solution is the use of kamikaze interceptor drones. The US Merops system, recently deployed by Poland, Romania, and Denmark along Nato’s eastern border as part of the “Eastern Flank Deterrence Line,” combines radar, electro-optical/infrared sensors, AI-driven threat detection, and both soft-kill (jamming) and hard-kill (small interceptor drones) capabilities to autonomously engage threats even under GPS or communications jamming. According to Business Insider, it has successfully countered approximately 2,000 Russian attacks in Ukraine with interceptors costing around $15,000 each, which reverses the cost asymmetry. Given the slow, one-way loitering nature of many Gerbera UAVs, Merops’ low-cost detection and hard-kill interceptors are particularly suited to countering massed incursions.
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
Similarly, in December 2025, Bloomberg, TWZ, and the Wall Street Journal reported that the US is fielding a low-cost kamikaze drone unit based on a reverse-engineered Shahed-136. The Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) from SpektreWorks is designed as a like-for-like match for Shahed derivatives. If it can replicate Iranian production cost efficiencies—and if procurement in Europe remains affordable—LUCAS could significantly narrow the current asymmetry with Russian drone incursions.
Low-cost guided missiles and rockets
Another approach is to deploy low-cost guided missiles. For example, Saab’s NIMBRIX is a short-range, hard-kill counter-UAV missile specifically designed to defeat small, inexpensive drones. It’s modular, adaptable for dismounted troops, vehicle mounts, or fixed sites, and integrates easily with broader sensor and command networks. Its main strength is an economical cost per shot, with guidance and a warhead optimised for small UAVs, offering scalable hard-kill protection against the wave of Russian drone violations. While Saab has not disclosed the unit cost, its emphasis on affordability underlines its potential to reduce the cost imbalance that favours Russian incursions.
However, NIMBRIX currently has an operational range of about 2,000m, whereas Gerbera drones reportedly operate up to 3,000 meters altitude—meaning the system may miss higher-altitude threats. Saab claims future variants will reach 5,000m, better covering lower altitude UAVs such as Gerberas. First deliveries are expected in 2026, but the first-generation models arrive with the 2,000-meter limit, underscoring that threats beyond this range remain largely unaddressed.
Additional options
Other possible low-cost responses include directed energy weapons (DEWs) and autocannon air-defense (AAA) guns. DEWs—especially high-power lasers and microwaves—offer extremely low cost per engagement, shifting the asymmetry between Russia and Europe. For example, Defense News reports that Epirus’s “Leonidas” microwave system can destroy drones mid-flight while MBDA claims its Sky Warden laser can neutralise multiple drones in sequence. But DEWs are still under development and aren’t likely to be widely deployed in the near term.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataBy contrast, existing AAA guns—such as the 1970s-era Gepard 35 mm radar-guided self-propelled anti-aircraft gun—are already in use and have proven effective against UAV swarms. The Huffington Post notes that the long-retired Gepard has been redeployed in Ukraine, successfully engaging clusters of drones, including Shaheds, with flak over wide areas. Because a single burst can hit multiple targets, its cost per target is far lower than many modern missiles. Without requiring major new investment, legacy AAA systems provide an immediately available counter to low-cost drone probes. That said, their rudimentary capabilities suggest they work best as part of a layered defence system alongside newer technologies.
Russia’s incursions into European airspace employ both high-tech manned aircraft—such as recent Su-30 violations—and swarms of low-cost unmanned systems. QRA teams remain essential for credible deterrence against manned threats. However, to counter Russia’s flexible mix of platforms, Nato and European allies must adopt a layered defence posture built not just on high-end systems such as Patriot interceptors, but also on abundant, cost-effective alternatives. By accelerating deployment of kamikaze interceptors, improved low-cost missiles, and upgrading legacy systems alongside emerging DEWs, Europe can regain parity and ensure sustainable deterrence against both traditional and asymmetric threats.
