Russia has begun attaching what appear to be R-60 air-to-air missiles to its Shahed strike drones, adding a new layer of deception to an already extensive campaign of aerial decoys aimed at exhausting Ukraine’s air defense systems. The modification, first flagged by Ukrainian electronic warfare specialist Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, has sparked debate over whether the missiles are functional weapons meant to threaten interceptor aircraft or simply inert decoys designed to confuse radar operators. Either way, the development represents the latest escalation in a deliberate Russian strategy to saturate Ukrainian skies with objects that are difficult to classify and expensive to shoot down.
Fake Missiles on Strike Drones
According to Ukrainian defense analysts, imagery circulated on social media shows an R-60 missile mounted under the wing of a Shahed/Geran-2 airframe, a configuration that was quickly highlighted by Beskrestnov and later described in more detail by Defense Express. In that assessment, the unusual loadout could be intended to deter or complicate aerial interception by Ukrainian helicopters and fighter jets that sometimes engage slow-moving drones with cannon fire or short-range missiles.
A competing interpretation emerged almost immediately. Ukrainian media, citing the same images and expert commentary, reported that the configuration is more plausibly understood as R-60-shaped decoys attached to Shahed strike UAVs to confuse air defenses rather than to function as live weapons. Beskrestnov himself stressed the need to teach operators how to recognize Shaheds carrying fake missiles, implying that the primary danger lies in misclassification: if radar crews believe a drone might fire back at pursuing aircraft, they may be more cautious about close-range engagements and more inclined to rely on costly surface-to-air missiles instead.
The distinction between a real and dummy R-60 is not academic. A live air-to-air missile would turn an inexpensive one-way attack drone into a crude air-combat platform, potentially threatening helicopters tasked with hunting drones or rescuing civilians after strikes. A non-functional missile body, by contrast, would add weight and drag without increasing lethality, but could still achieve Russia’s objective if it forces Ukraine to assume the worst-case scenario every time such a drone is detected.
The “Parodiya” Decoy Program
The fake-missile gambit sits atop a broader Russian decoy infrastructure that Ukrainian intelligence has been documenting for more than a year. Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence directorate, known as GUR, published an analysis of decoy drones recovered after they crashed in Moldova, identifying them as “Parodiya” (Parody) models. These airframes carry no warhead and are built largely from lightweight materials, but they are equipped with a Luneberg lens and other reflectors to mimic the radar and electromagnetic signature of a real Shahed-136/Geran-2 strike drone.
GUR’s inspection showed that Parodiya drones are designed to appear identical to combat drones on radar scopes and many optical systems, even though they cannot inflict physical damage. The goal is straightforward: force defenders to treat every radar contact as a potential threat, burning through interceptor missiles, ammunition, and operator attention on objects that pose no direct danger. In a dense raid, distinguishing between a warhead-carrying Shahed and a Parodiya decoy in real time can be nearly impossible without risking that a real strike drone is allowed through.
According to GUR’s reporting, approximately half of more than 2,000 UAVs Russia launched in October 2024 were decoys of this type. That ratio effectively turned every engagement decision into a coin flip. For Ukraine, the economic balance is grim: a decoy built from foam, fiberglass, and commercial electronics costs a fraction of a modern surface-to-air missile, yet it can still succeed if it forces the defender to expend that missile—or to reposition scarce systems to chase a phantom.
GUR also noted that these Parodiya drones contain imported electronics and other foreign-made parts. A separate sanctions-monitoring initiative run by Ukrainian intelligence has catalogued how Russian manufacturers continue sourcing critical components through intermediaries, with investigators publishing examples of dual-use items on a dedicated components list. The presence of such parts in decoy airframes underscores that Moscow is willing to spend limited high-tech resources not only on weapons, but also on tools of deception.
A Systematic Strategy, Not a Field Hack
The decoy campaign is not an improvisation by local commanders. Recovered debris and expert analysis reviewed by the Associated Press indicate that Russia runs an organized deception effort internally designated as a “false target” program, in which dedicated design teams modify Shahed-family drones for specific roles. AP’s reporting describes how engineers have integrated thermobaric warheads, onboard cameras for battle damage assessment, and even experimental jet propulsion into some variants, turning what began as a relatively simple Iranian design into a modular platform for ongoing adaptation.
Separate AP coverage, based on officials and physical evidence from downed drones, confirmed that Russian specialists have also added anti-jamming systems and encrypted radio links to certain Shahed models. Those enhancements are deployed alongside explosive-free decoy variants, suggesting that each wave of attacks doubles as a live-fire test of new countermeasures. Another AP investigation into the same family of systems detailed how engineers are experimenting with alternative propulsion and guidance as part of a broader Shahed upgrade effort, confirming that deception is only one element of a larger modernization push.
In this context, bolting an R-60 body to a Shahed looks less like a one-off field hack and more like another iteration in a systematic campaign. Whether the missile is live or inert, its presence forces Ukraine to adjust tactics, update identification manuals, and potentially reserve certain aircraft for safer missions. Even if the modification proves impractical and is abandoned, the experiment itself yields data on how Ukrainian defenses react.
Decoy Ratios Remain High Into 2025
The scale of decoy use has remained high well beyond the October 2024 spike documented by GUR. Open-source analysts tracking official communiqués from Ukraine’s Air Force Command have compiled monthly tallies of drone incursions and interceptions, showing that decoys still made up a substantial share of targets through late 2025.
The persistence of these high ratios over more than a year suggests that Russia views the tactic as cost-effective enough to sustain at scale. Every Parodiya that triggers an air raid alert, pulls a mobile launcher away from a critical site, or forces the launch of an interceptor accomplishes its mission even if it never reaches a target. For Ukrainian planners, the cumulative effect is corrosive: air defense systems originally intended to counter aircraft and cruise missiles must now sift through mixed swarms of real and fake drones, often while also guarding against ballistic missiles and glide bombs.
Ukraine has responded by refining engagement rules and investing in cheaper countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft guns, mobile teams with man-portable systems, and electronic warfare units that can jam or spoof drones without expending missiles. Coordination between these assets is managed in part through a national situational awareness network run by the Ukrainian government’s coordination headquarters, which disseminates alerts and guidance to military and civil defense actors. Even so, the sheer volume of targets ensures that expensive interceptors remain a key part of the mix, preserving the economic advantage of Russia’s decoy-heavy approach.
Western Components and Supply Chain Gaps
GUR’s teardown of recovered Parodiya drones and other unmanned systems has highlighted the extent to which Russia still relies on foreign-made electronics, chips, and navigation modules despite extensive sanctions. Ukrainian intelligence has responded by launching a dedicated sanctions monitoring portal that names manufacturers, part numbers, and intermediary firms implicated in supplying Russia’s military-industrial base. By mapping these supply chains, Kyiv hopes to persuade partner governments to tighten export controls and close loopholes that allow sensitive technology to be re-exported through third countries.
The presence of Western components in decoy drones is particularly striking because it shows that Russia is not reserving scarce imported hardware solely for high-end missiles or aircraft. Instead, those parts are being embedded in expendable platforms whose primary purpose is to waste the enemy’s time and money. For policymakers in sanctioning states, this raises uncomfortable questions about enforcement: every microchip that ends up in a Parodiya or a modified Shahed represents a failure to prevent diversion, and every such drone that forces the launch of a Western-supplied interceptor effectively turns that failure into a financial and strategic loss.
As Russia experiments with R-60-equipped Shaheds and continues to field large numbers of decoy drones, Ukraine’s air defenders are locked in a contest of adaptation. Each new variant forces changes in tactics, identification procedures, and resource allocation, while every successful interception teaches Russian engineers how to refine their designs. The outcome of this duel will depend not only on Ukrainian skill and resilience, but also on whether international efforts to disrupt Russia’s access to critical components can keep pace with a deception strategy that treats even fake missiles and empty drones as valuable tools of modern war.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
