this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
469 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3003 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s the deepest Ukrainian drone strike of the war, so far

A month after Ukraine began bombarding targets inside Russia with explosives-laden sports planes modified for remote flight, one of the do-it-yourself drones has struck an oil refinery in the city of Salavat, more than 800 miles from the front line of Russia’s wider war on Ukraine.

It is, by far, Ukraine’s longest-range raid—and an escalation of Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign targeting Russian refineries, factories and strategic military sites.

And it’s at least the fourth attempted deep strike involving Ukraine’s sport-plane drones. Videos shot by people on the ground in Salavat clearly depict the wide straight wings, fixed wheels and propeller that are typical of an inexpensive sport plane, the kind a middle-class pilot can build at home from a kit costing as little as $90,000.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 106 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

I thought maybe the thumbnail was just some generic small plane, but nope. That's the same model that keeps making successful attacks in Russia. The Aeroprakt A-22. That little prop plane. Top speed 127 mph/204 kph. That's what Russia can't find and shoot down.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 months ago

Girkin is in jail, you know, so now they have issues shooting down civilian aircraft

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Which is most effective at evading Russian air defense? The F-35, an exquisitely designed $110M jet with among the best stealth that Lockheed Skunkworks can create, or the Ukrainian equivalent of a Cessna trainer aircraft?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

It has always been the Cessna, if anyone has not heard of Mathias Rust. It is worth reading. He flew a light aircraft to Moscow and landed it in the middle of the cold war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends heavily on what air defense it's stacked against and who coordinated the mission.

Low speed, low altitude aircraft are excellent at evading higher end air defenses, particularly if you've scouted out the anti-air surveillance in advance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Riminder the Bismarck wasnt critically damaged by top of the line aircraft, it was sunk by a bunch of biplanes which were effectively immune to its AA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A great example, setting aside the fact that battleships have always been more trouble than they were worth.

Although, modern aircraft carriers are approaching that kind of outdated-ness. I'm genuinely curious to see what happens when America loses it's first $50B floating fortress.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Saying they were always more trouble than they were worth is a bit of a miss though: They completely dominated for a period, to the point where entire columns would be redirected or kept in port if intelligence arrived saying that a certain battleship had left port and was on the hunt.

As for the "modern" aircraft carrier: I think it will remain viable until we see a fundamental paradigm shift in how naval warfare is conducted. A carrier is at the centre of a carrier strike group, and is probably one of the most well protected places on the planet at any time, and can move at over 40 knots. I have a hard time imagining what could locate and take out an alert carrier in reasonable distance from shore, other than another carrier group.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I have a hard time imagining what could locate and take out an alert carrier in reasonable distance from shore, other than another carrier group.

Bombers and long range torpedos spring to mind, particularly when the carrier is moving through a relatively right corridor, like the Red Sea.

The Houthis have already functionally shut down the Suez against commercial traffic just by threatening from the coast. And they're employing relatively unsophisticated artillery.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I specified "a reasonable distance from shore" because an important part of the point of a carrier is exactly that it can stay easily 100 km from shore and still strike far inland. If a carrier is in range of shore-based torpedoes, they've likely messed up long ago.

As for bombers: They're historically the major threat to carriers, but I don't see any modern developments that make modern bombers any more of a threat to modern carriers than WW2 era bombers were to WW2 era carriers.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is this essentially a piper cub or something entirely different?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

Similar, yeah. More modern construction and side-by-side seating instead of tandem. But otherwise, similar size and weight.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They must have done something to it, because Wikipedia puts its max range as 680 miles.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

Adding a 5 gallons gas tank isn't that hard.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Empty weight 260 kg. So a normal Pilot 70-80 kg adds 25-30% weight on top. Plus the weight for seat, steering wheels etc. So with a small payload they probably safe quite some weight.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Plis adding extra fuel tanks in spota for cargo/pilot etc. prob helps and striping it off anything unnecessary like seats breaks etc...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)

We aren't talking about the weight of the payload though. Don't you need a fairly hefty bomb to meaningfully damage a refinery?

If the answer is no, I would love to see this strategy implemented in a longer ranged plane. Russia's main tank production factory is about 2000 miles from the nominal Ukrainian border.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Total weight is crucial for how far a plane can fly. So - Pilot weight + Payload weight needs to be considered.

In terms of damage, if you hit the right spot without redundancies you can shut down or severely limit operations of a plant even with only a small material damage. Even if there is no visible damage, reducing the structural integrity of pressure pipes and the like can force a shutdown of that equipment until the damage is properly investigated.

In 2019 Houthis successfully attacked two Saudi refineries with a small swarm of drones, forcing a shutdown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Good context, cheers

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

From the pictures on twitter damage seems pretty minimal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (9 children)

A refinery has a tank with millions of liters of gasoline. It already has the bomb. All you really need is a penetrator and an igniter.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 months ago

This is kind of news I like to read. Go Ukraine!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago

Slavi Ukraini! I hope they can fly 100 of these through.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If Ukraine told me I could bring my own drone over there and blow up an oil refinery in Russia, I’d schedule a vacation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Fr The 400 H War thunder have to pay out after all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

Good. Fuck the blyats.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago

The raids have somewhat throttled Russian gasoline production, but probably not enough to have an immediate impact on the economy—and thus on the long-term war effort. “These are spot strikes,” energy expert Hennadii Rіabtsev told Ukrainian Pravda. “They are painful and affect logistics, but they do not significantly impact annual total refining volumes.”

What? I thought they have reduced their oil refining? Not to mention, they've started to restrict oil exports(refined oil i believe) since these attacks have taken place all while increasing their unrefined oil exports. It feels like this is actually causing an impact, though definitely not something that directs directly to the front line, but this is long term damage and will make it harder for Russia to generate money.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

How come they can't shoot it down before it arrives?

[–] [email protected] 83 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They're flying these in very low and slow, which is hard for SAM radars to detect and lock on to unless you're right up next to them -- and once they're past the front lines Russia doesn't have many (if any) point defense installations.

In fact I imagine that the economic impacts of these attacks may be a secondary goal, and the main intent is actually to force Russia to pull SAM systems off the front line and redeploy them across the Russian interior to defend facilities they thought were safely out of Ukraine's reach. The fewer defenses on the front line, the more capable Ukraine's air force is to support efforts on the ground.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Ukraine playing pro dota and forcing dire to ward their own jungle.

Ideally, they redeploy and still can't shoot the fuckers down lol

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Russia's air defense had a backbone of Cold War era tech before the war started. Ukraine has been consistently plinking away at it. Most of it is naturally positioned near borders to prevent penetration. If you sneak past the coverage thins out quickly. Russia is a huge country so it's also understandable to not have high density coverage throughout.

At one point Russia had a great setup. But that time was long ago. And oil money going to modernization efforts means less yacht money. Air defense also isn't that critical when you're mostly concerned about beating up on small countries like Georgia and Chechnya that can't fight back.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

But have you seen how modern the yachts are.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I imagine it's too small, and perhaps made mostly of plastic and/or wood, so they might not show up on radar

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Wood generally has enough water in it to show up on radar. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a point to expensive composite materials for stealth.

It's made of mostly metal, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Too bad I would have loved to see a nice oak framed fighter jet. We could even skin it with a nice thin birch ply. Put on a little wood oil and a ceramic top coat. That would be a great looking machine. Plus the Amish could become defensive contactors.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

On 24 November 1989, while doing his obligatory community service (Zivildienst) as an orderly in a West German hospital, Rust stabbed a female co-worker who had rejected him.

ffs

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The difference there is that it didn't cross the border of a country where Russia was in the middle of an active invasion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I thought the exact same thing! At the time, I'd heard rumors that the entirety of USSR's air defense was smoke and mirrors. This isn't helping to refute those decades old rumors, if there is anything to refute.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

It is also possible that they chose not to shoot down the plane back then, because they didn't want a third world war and it became clear not to be a war plane.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Slava Ukraini, give them hell.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That moment when anti-imperialism and climate activism align.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›