Ukraine’s president has called for contracting every effective interceptor drone available against Shahed-type attacks. Ukraine aims to produce 600–800 interceptors a day, with a target of up to 1,000 a day by autumn. A single unit costs $2,000–$6,000, against roughly $1 million for a conventional air-defense missile. This is the largest new UAV category of 2026, and it is exactly where manufacturers most often confuse TS and testing requirements with those of a standard strike drone.
How an interceptor differs from a standard strike UAV
An interceptor is its own functional class: it is not built to hit static or ground targets, but to destroy a moving aerial target — mostly Shahed-type drones. That changes the characteristics that matter: closing speed on the target, the guidance method (increasingly not just manual FPV control but automatic terminal guidance, as with the Last Mile system on Ukraine’s serial LITAVR interceptor), EW resilience of the control link, and the kill mechanism itself.
2026 brought tougher requirements for all drone manufacturers: control-link protection, fast EW-adaptation upgrade cycles, new frequency profiles, integration with reconnaissance and targeting. For interceptors these requirements matter twice as much — their entire job is to catch and destroy the target before the adversary can change its attack parameters.
Two routes to market for interceptor manufacturers
The first is in-house development: a full cycle of TS, testing, and codification, the path taken by known serial products like LITAVR or Air Baby. The second is production under a standardized military design within Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1310: the state provides an already-tested and codified reference design, and the manufacturer launches serial production without repeating R&D or testing — the route taken by UNWAVE’s OCTOPUS interceptor.
The standardized route (Resolution 1310) fits if the goal is to scale up production of an already-proven design quickly. In-house development makes sense if you have a real technical edge — your own guidance system, communications, or a lower cost than the reference design. But then the full TS and testing package has to be built from scratch.
Technical Specifications for an interceptor: what to watch for
Unlike a standard strike UAV, TS for an interceptor need to separately capture: target detection and guidance parameters (range, accuracy), speed and maneuverability relative to a typical target’s speed, the kill mechanism and its safety for the operator and third parties, and the control link’s resilience to EW under the stated operating conditions.
| Test area | What it verifies |
|---|---|
| Target acquisition & guidance | Detection range and accuracy, terminal-guidance performance |
| Speed / maneuverability | Closing speed on a moving target, maneuverability |
| Control & communication links | EW resilience, backup channels, signal latency |
| Kill mechanism | Effectiveness of the kill method, safety for operator and third parties |
| GPS-denied navigation | Accuracy under satellite-navigation jamming |
Live-fire testing — an actual intercept of a moving target — is a stage factory testing cannot replace. Most manufacturers publish footage of real intercepts as proof of effectiveness, which is then backed up by formal testing ahead of codification.
Codification, briefly
Interceptor codification follows the same simplified 2026 procedure as other UAVs: the manufacturer approves its own TS, and proof of urgent state need is no longer required. The cycle can move fast — LITAVR’s development started in autumn 2024, it passed testing and codification in summer 2025, and serial production began that same autumn: under a year from development start to delivery to the troops.
DOPUSK supports interceptor drone manufacturers at every stage — from drafting TS for a specific guidance and kill system to building the test program and submitting for codification. Whether you choose in-house development or a standardized design under Resolution 1310, deciding the route early saves months at the documentation stage.