>>510883600 (OP)these aren't that scary and I'll explain why as an army guy.
loitering munition drones, especially the shahed and geran variant, have about a 10% average operational success rate. this can further drop to 0.1% against specialized ADS as proven in the iran-Israel war.
with a focus on being cheap mass production, the electronics used are unsophisticated to the point they are actually improvised from off-the-shelf items like calculators and pumps, naturally this means barely any back up systems or jam protection. as for the warhead, it is too small (50kg) to cause collateral and infrastructure damage, so when they hit they will kill but rarely cause big damage. for example take all the pictures of apartment buildings with single rooms blown out in Ukraine-the building itself is fine.
it is my belief that the east misunderstood the role of LMs from conception. they saw their success in American campaigns but missed the point that this weapon type is heavily reliant on having a technological advantage over your enemy. because of this the weapon does not achieve meaningful strategic results against modern military targets, as it's easy to disable with electronic/kinetic countermeasures that were already deployed side by side with modern military assets.
this inability to penetrate defenses forces loitering munitions into a terror attack role on undefended civilians. but even this is not a good application, as you pay approx $50-200k+launch cost to destroy a single apartment or a car and maybe kill a few civilians-so it's still not economically or strategically viable unless you're gambling on winning a war through civilian attrition, which efficacy is also debatable as studies into the effects of attacks on civilians suggest they entrench pro war sentiment, not scare the population into peace.
in essence LM drones are the military equivalent of throwing a tantrum and hitting the drywall with your fist because you're too short to reach your opponent.