Cheap FPV interceptors have suddenly become part of the air defense conversation. The basic idea is seductive: match a low-cost incoming weapon with a low-cost counter, preserve expensive missiles for high-value targets, and scale by volume. In practice the arithmetic is more complicated. You do not just buy a drone and press go.

What we can count on so far is this. Volunteer and commercial teams in Ukraine have produced FPV-style kinetic interceptors that are being used against Russian loitering munitions. Public footage and coverage show at least one purpose-built platform, the Sting from Wild Hornets, flying high‑altitude intercepts and being promoted as a low-cost Shahed counter. Wild Hornets and several outlets reported speeds and per‑unit price points measured in the low thousands of dollars.

Against those claims you need a benchmark. Credible analyses peg the cost of Shahed-type loitering munitions in the tens of thousands of dollars apiece rather than in the single-digit thousands. Using an inexpensive FPV interceptor instead of an expensive missile therefore can make economic sense on a per‑engagement basis, but only if the interceptor actually connects and if the downstream costs are acceptable. A recent CSIS analysis summarizes the arithmetic and places Shahed estimates in the mid tens of thousands per unit.

Breakdown of the true costs

1) Unit procurement. Componentized FPV interceptors can be built for anywhere from roughly $1,000 to $5,000 depending on sensors, motors, and warhead or capture payload. That is the easy figure to market and fundraise around. It does not include integration hardware, training, or replacement parts.

2) Training and human capital. These interceptors are typically flown FPV or with VR/FPV displays and require practiced pilots and rapid decision loops. Volunteer groups say simple mission readiness can be achieved in days, but real proficiency for night or high-altitude intercepts is measured in weeks. That training time is a recurring cost when you scale up personnel.

3) Support and sustainment. Batteries, propellers, guidance cameras, gimbals, and control stations wear out quickly under operational tempo. A $2,000 interceptor that consumes three flight batteries per sortie and needs a replacement camera every 20 flights will have a higher operational cost than the sticker price implies. Logistic chains and spares then become a budget line you cannot ignore. Practical unit‑level sustainment is what separates a novelty from a sustained capability.

4) Detection and command infrastructure. A kinetic FPV interceptor needs cueing. If you lack radar, passive acoustic, or other detection means, your interceptor sits idle until a human observer or an external sensor cues the launch. Layered detection and a command node raise the overall program cost well beyond per‑drone unit price. Fortem and similar firms have built integrated systems that pair detection, AI classification, and net‑capture interceptors, but those systems are much more expensive than an individual FPV frame.

5) Collateral and recovery costs. A ramming interceptor that destroys a loitering munition in flight turns the threat into falling wreckage. When intercepts occur over populated areas that debris can cause damage and casualties. Net‑capture approaches reduce that risk but add cost and complexity. The choice between expendable kinetic interceptors and reusable net systems is not just technical; it is political and legal.

Where low unit price helps and where it does not

The economic argument works best in saturated, low‑value threat environments. If an attacker launches hundreds of cheap loitering munitions and you can reliably neutralize a meaningful fraction with $2,000 to $5,000 interceptors, you change the math. You force the attacker to raise his price per delivered kill or accept higher attrition. But that requires decent hit probability, ample production capacity, and logistics for replacement.

If hit rates are low or detection is poor the cheap interceptor starts to look expensive. A failed intercept can cost you the interceptor plus still require a missile shot or expose the defended asset. High operational tempo also inflates the cost per engagement via consumables, maintenance, and human training. So the real metric to watch is cost per successful engagement, not unit price. CSIS and field reporting emphasize that nuance when people cite simple price comparisons.

Design tradeoffs: expendable FPV versus reusable net systems

Expendable FPV interceptors excel at speed and simplicity. They are fast to iterate and cheap to manufacture, and they fit an industrialized volunteer model. Reusable systems like Fortem’s DroneHunter add autonomy, tethered nets, and integrated sensing so a single expensive platform can handle multiple engagements. The tradeoff is clear. Reusable systems reduce downstream debris and can be cost efficient where intercept volumes are moderate. Expendable FPV scales cheaply if you have the production and supply chain to feed replaceable units.

Operational cautions from the field

  • Do not treat FPV interceptors as plug‑and‑play missiles. They need a detection and C2 backbone, trained crews, and a supply chain. The sticker price is marketing.
  • Expect diminishing returns as attackers adapt. Smarter guidance, faster airframes, or more decoys complicate intercepts. Low‑cost counters will always be playing catch up.
  • Account for political risk. Using expendable ramming interceptors over civilian areas shifts risk to populations below. Net systems mitigate that but cost more and may be less effective against some targets.

Conclusions and practical guidance

If you are an acquisition officer or a technical manager thinking about FPV interceptors, start with a program of record that measures cost per successful engagement under realistic conditions. Budget for detection, training, spares, and transport. Treat the cheap unit as one line item in a system of systems rather than as a standalone solution. When the mission is high volume and the threat is low value, inexpensive FPV interceptors can be a game changer. When the threat is sophisticated or the defended space is crowded with civilians, cheap becomes expensive in a hurry.

Cheap FPV interceptors are a useful tool, not a silver bullet. If you want short, hard advice from someone who builds and breaks things: buy the cheap frames, but invest in the support chain. If you do not, the hype will outlast your batteries.