Executive Summary
Russian sources report the field testing of a new kinetic anti‑drone device designated “Izdelie‑545”. This system’s purpose is to neutralise drones within a 100–150 meter range using a projectile that interferes with their communication and control systems.
The device is for personal or squad-level use, can use standard soldier weapons, and manufacturers say it is inexpensive to produce. “Izdelie-545” remains in the scientific development phase, with no independent verification of operational effectiveness.
“Izdelie‑545” complements existing Russian electronic counter‑UAV measures, notably the AI-enabled portable jammer “Gyurza”, which can operate across multiple frequency bands up to 1,500 metres and autonomously select suppression frequencies. These combined systems create a multi-layered defence, making it harder for drones to operate in conflict zones.
Following tactical guidelines, Russian forces are establishing forward “kill zones” by employing tethered, relay, and conventional UAVs to enhance their strike and reconnaissance abilities. Using kinetic interceptors such as “Izdelie 545” strengthens defences in these areas, increasing the danger and losses for enemy small UAVs, which might force them to change their usage and strategies.
Intelligence Questions
- What are the operational capabilities and limitations of the Russian kinetic anti‑drone system “Izdelie‑545”, and how does it contribute to protecting troops against unmanned aerial threats?
- How does “Izdelie‑545” integrate with existing Russian counter‑UAV systems, including the AI‑enabled jammer “Gyurza”, and what tactical advantages does this provide?
- What impact might these systems have on battlefield dynamics, particularly in the Ukraine conflict?
Information Context
On October 2, 2025, Russian media reported trials of a kinetic anti‑drone device called “Izdelie‑545” under the project “New Russian Technologies”. According to reports, this equipment enables soldiers to disable nearby drones (100–150 meters) by shooting a shell or projectile that interferes with communication and control systems, making the drone crash. The developer stated it is highly effective against all UAVs, describing it as affordable and able to work with standard weapons, but it is still in scientific development.
In 2024, Russian media also publicised the development of the portable drone suppressor “Gyurza”, which is equipped with an artificial intelligence (AI) system that allows the device to decide independently about operating at certain frequencies. The device, which weighs around 25 kilograms, can independently neutralise drones over ten frequency bands, with a maximum range of 1,500 meters. The AI system activates only when it detects signals from UAVs, thereby avoiding unwanted disruption.
In the future, the Russian military forces could deploy “Gyurza” and “Izdelie-545” in Ukraine, boosting their defences and ability to counter Ukrainian drones, which would change the course of the war.
In September 2025, Western media has noted the advancements in Russian tactics, specifically the establishment of preliminary “kill zones” via the organised employment of tethered and relay UAVs. These areas expand the range of reconnaissance and strike missions, making it harder to coordinate and resupply Ukrainian forces. Reportedly, Russian forces have shown they can expand these zones twofold by using UAV relay systems.
Analysis
The development of “Izdelie‑545” represents a tactical innovation in soldier-level UAV defence. Introducing a cost-effective kinetic measure alongside electronic jamming enables Russian forces to impede their opponents’ freedom of movement in active combat zones.
Its short-range, point-defence design targets light and medium UAVs, which are commonly used for reconnaissance or loitering munitions. Even without independent verification of its capabilities, deploying “Izdelie 545” could increase the rate of Russian effectiveness in countering enemy UAV, limit the scope of reconnaissance, and force adversaries to use more advanced platforms or operate further away.
Integration with “Gyurza” creates a layered counter-UAV architecture. Electronic jamming offers both standoff protection and area denial, and kinetic interceptors address any remaining threats. This combination strengthens the forward “kill zones”, allowing Russian forces to disrupt supply lines, degrade reconnaissance, and impose operational costs on opposing forces.
The growing use of tethered and relay drones to expand the scope of front-line operations emphasises the significance of anti-drone defences at specific points. Although “Izdelie 545” alone does not counter advanced UAV systems, its implementation improves front-line unit survivability and operational flexibility, strengthening Russian force protection and tactical advantage in contested zones.
Forecast
- Small-scale deployment. Russian units at the frontline in Ukraine might receive limited numbers of “Izdelie‑545” devices for experimental use, resulting in modest increases in UAV attrition near forward positions.
- Widespread adoption. Rapid production and integration with “Gyurza” jammers and relay UAVs might alter the Ukraine conflict’s military dynamics on the battlefield, favouring the Russian forces.
- Adversary adaptation. Opposing forces can develop faster, larger, or hardened UAVs and employ stand-off or swarm tactics to circumvent kinetic and electronic countermeasures, starting an escalation in UAV complexity and operational cost.
Conclusion
Russian trials of the “Izdelie‑545” show the emergence of a low-cost, soldier-level kinetic anti-UAV capability designed to complement AI-enabled electronic jamming systems.
Integrating kinetic and electronic measures supports the enlargement of the “kill zones”, complicating adversary UAV operations and threatening reconnaissance and strike effectiveness. Despite the lack of confirmed effectiveness, the system’s potential deployment causes opposing groups to change their strategies, spread out their UAV operations, and investigate countermeasures.
Monitoring production, fielding, and battlefield effects will provide critical indicators for assessing operational impact and informing strategic responses.
