The Skynex air defense system, developed by Germany's Rheinmetall, has previously been presented as an effective solution against russian drones and even cruise missiles. However, a new report by the German magazine Stern, citing an internal Ukrainian military assessment, claims the system may have performed significantly below expectations during combat operations.
According to the publication, the incident occurred on April 1, 2026, during a russian attack on an industrial facility in western Ukraine. The report alleges that the Skynex battery experienced multiple technical failures and failed to intercept an incoming attack drone.
Read more: Rheinmetall, South Korea's LIG Partner on Special Missile to Shoot Down Glide Bombs, 20km Range, Skynex Integration, Ready 2028-29
The protected site was reportedly defended by two Skynex batteries, comprising eight 35 mm gun modules, two X-TAR3D radars, and two command posts. Their deployment was designed to provide overlapping coverage, allowing every target within the defended zone to be engaged by at least two gun systems.
During the attack, the radars reportedly detected two UAVs at a distance of approximately 20 km. According to the cited report, one of the drones entered an engagement zone where it should have been covered by two gun modules. However, only a single round was reportedly fired, missing the target. One of the drones subsequently struck infrastructure belonging to an unnamed company and exploded.
The Ukrainian assessment reportedly attributes the failed interception to a combination of technical malfunctions and target-tracking problems. According to Stern, three of the eight gun modules became inoperative within minutes due to hydraulic failures, tracking radar issues, and ammunition loading malfunctions. As a result, only two of the eight gun systems were reportedly capable of reliably tracking the target.
Rheinmetall declined to comment on what it described as specific operational data, citing security considerations. At the same time, the company stated that Skynex has "demonstrated exceptional effectiveness in Ukraine," adding that this assessment had been communicated by the Ukrainian side.
Stern also quoted a German government official who argued that too few Skynex systems have been deployed to draw definitive conclusions about their overall performance. The official also suggested that operator error could have contributed to the reported incident.
According to the magazine, the Ukrainian report concludes that Skynex demonstrated "low technical operational readiness," operated "extremely unreliably," and failed to meet the manufacturer's stated performance specifications. Stern also quotes an eyewitness to the incident as saying, "This is a disaster. It should never have happened."
From Defense Express' perspective, if the reported incident accurately reflects what occurred, such a negative assessment would be understandable. The failure of two modern Skynex batteries to intercept one or two drones because of technical issues would raise serious concerns, particularly considering that a single battery is estimated to cost more than €60 million.
Skynex is primarily marketed as a highly effective counter-UAV system. If the reported shortcomings are confirmed, they would directly affect the system's principal mission. They could also raise questions about the related Skyranger 35 air defense system, which uses the same 35 mm gun concept and is also expected to enter service with Ukraine.
At the same time, this would not be the first case in which a Western air defense system has reportedly performed differently in combat than suggested by pre-service marketing claims. One frequently cited example is SAMP/T, whose performance against ballistic missiles has been debated despite earlier promotional statements. If an internal Ukrainian evaluation of Skynex does exist, such feedback would likely be intended to help the manufacturer identify and address shortcomings.
However, several important caveats should be noted.
First, the published information describes only a single reported engagement. One isolated incident is insufficient to draw broad conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the system. It is also possible that maintenance issues, spare parts availability, or other operational factors contributed to the reported outcome. No information has been made public on these aspects, despite Skynex having reportedly been in Ukrainian service since 2023.
Second, the broader Stern article adopts a notably critical tone toward Rheinmetall beyond the Skynex story itself. Much of the first half of the publication reportedly focuses on accusations that the German government tolerated high prices and delivery delays in Rheinmetall contracts. The article also discusses the cancellation of the F126 frigate program, presenting it as a major setback for the company. This broader editorial context does not invalidate the reported information, but it may influence how it is presented. Without access to the underlying Ukrainian documents, it is currently impossible to independently verify the claims.
Overall, the report raises legitimate questions about the combat performance of Skynex and, potentially, the closely related Skyranger 35 systems entering Ukrainian service. At present, however, the allegations remain based on a single media report citing an internal Ukrainian document that has not been made public, making independent verification impossible. If the reported technical issues are genuine, they would ideally be addressed through further refinement of the system and close cooperation between Rheinmetall and its Ukrainian operators.
Read more: Rheinmetall to Produce Up to 400 Skyranger and Skynex Systems Annually to Counter Shahed Drones in Ukraine and Europe
