Full Breakdown
Ukraine’s “Pelican” Weapon in the Moscow Refinery Strike
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
In a large-scale strike on the Gazprom Neft Moscow Oil Refinery in the Kapotnya district, Ukrainian forces hit three processing units, igniting fires that burned through the night of September 19. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy listed ten home-grown weapons used in the attack, the previously unknown “Pelican” being the last. Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, reported that more than 1,600 drones were intercepted across the city, with 450 heading directly for the capital. Ukrainian officials said the strike damaged an AVT-6 crude distillation train and an isomerisation unit, both essential to the refinery’s output.
Background & Context
Ukraine’s defence industry has expanded dramatically, with the ministry reporting a fifty-fold increase in production capacity to roughly $50 billion. The firm Fire Point, which also produces the FP-5 “Flamingo” cruise missile, unveiled the FP-7 tactical ballistic missile in September 2025. The FP-7 is ground-launched, carries a 150-kg warhead, reaches speeds of about 1,500 m/s, and is advertised to strike targets 200–350 km away. Zelenskyy has announced plans to field Ukraine’s first domestically produced ballistic missile in the autumn, though no official link between the FP-7 and the “Pelican” has been confirmed.
Official Statements & Responses
- Sergei Sobyanin described the attack as “unprecedented” and asserted that the enemy’s aim to disrupt the parliamentary elections “did not succeed.”
- Vasyl Pekhno, a military analyst for Radio NV, expressed doubt that a missile with a 350-km design range could reach Moscow directly, suggesting the weapon may have been used against a radar site nearer the front.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Identity of the Pelican: Ukrainian media (The Kyiv Post) and Fire Point have linked the Pelican to the FP-7 missile, while the RBC-Ukraine agency cited unnamed sources describing it as an “aircraft-type drone.” Al Jazeera could not independently verify either claim.
- Range vs. Target: The FP-7’s stated maximum range does not cover Moscow, leading to speculation that a longer-range FP-9 variant or an intermediate model may have been used, though no official confirmation exists.
- Interception figures: Moscow’s mayor, the Russian defence ministry, and independent analysts provide divergent counts of drones intercepted, making the true scale of the aerial assault unclear.
- Casualty numbers: Official death tolls are consistent, but injury counts vary between six and twenty, and the total number of displaced residents remains unconfirmed.
What’s Next
Ukrainian officials have indicated ongoing development of interceptor drones and further domestic missile production, but no specific future operations or timelines have been announced. The ambiguity surrounding the Pelican’s classification and capabilities is likely to persist until Ukraine provides formal technical details.