Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dogeimistic t1_ja7cwhn wrote

Watch them blame Ukraine and go to war.

160

autotldr t1_ja7czw0 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)


> Belarusian anti-war partisans claim to have severely damaged a Russian military aircraft in what an opposition leader has called the "Most successful diversion" since the beginning of the war.

> "The front and middle section of the aircraft were damaged, as well as avionics and a radar antenna," said a report attributed to BYPOL. The damage to the aircraft has not been independently confirmed, although both Russian and Belarusian military bloggers have reported explosions on Sunday at the airfield.

> Belarusian cyber-partisans have also been fighting the government since the 2020 protests against the Belarusian leader, Alexander Lukashenko.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Belarusian^#1 aircraft^#2 missile^#3 system^#4 military^#5

102

DramaticWesley t1_ja7s2n4 wrote

Swing as Lukashenko has hinted at sending in Belarus soldiers into Ukraine in support of this failing war, I can’t imagine this will be an isolated incident. I bet the people of Belarus are terrified to be sent to the hell that is the Ukraine battlefront.

133

GreenStrong t1_ja7vpwl wrote

From the article:

>One of the nine Awacs of the Russian aerospace forces worth $330m (was destroyed),

It is a big flying radar platform. In a modern air force, which Russia never had, it serves as the eyes of the entire force, identifying hostile and friendly aircraft at great distances. Ground based radars are limited by the curvature of the earth; they can't see over the horizon. The fact that Russia only had nine to start with is absurd.

It seems like they're trying to develop a new one, and hoping to introduce it to service in 2026. It will probably be like their T-14 tank, which was "completed" in 2014, and so far hasn't entered general production as an actual weapon.

84

nonlawyer t1_ja7xqu5 wrote

Not just protests. The Belarus Army is far worse equipped and less experienced than the Russian army was at the start of the war.

The better equipped and more loyal / trustworthy troops are what keeps Luka in power. Can’t afford to lose them.

The less well-equipped troops are of dubious loyalty and motivation and might even defect. Can’t afford to risk that happening.

What they can do is periodically move troops around and make blustery noises and force Ukraine to keep some troops in the North just in case. That’s basically free. So they keep doing that.

85

isawagoose t1_ja80oqr wrote

>(They have attained) ‘Victory’ and are now safely outside the country. Everyone has escaped.”

I see they adhere to the GWB school of victory conditions.

4

Robmerrrill427 t1_ja83wyi wrote

Hell yeah, great to see more people stand up against that government!

18

DryPresentation3763 t1_ja8446m wrote

> The fact that Russia only had nine to start with is absurd.

Nine is about the same number China has available of their most advanced AWACS. For comparison sake, the US as 31 E-3 Sentry aircraft in service currently. The Navy has an even higher number E-2 Hawkeyes performing the same role for carriers.

26

EagleSzz t1_ja85e31 wrote

you want a video or something ?

Franak Viačorka, an adviser to the Belarusian opposition leader, Sviatlana Tsihanouskaya reported it. so you can believe him or not

23

Jay_CD t1_ja85s4l wrote

How does this happen? You'd think that the security around a bit of kit like this would be water tight.

Nevertheless, great shooting.

I look forward to the stamp being issued to celebrate this event.

127

korovko t1_ja86ljq wrote

Yeah, my gut feeling is that even if there is some planted or real evidence that those were Ukrainians who did it, Lukashenko would cling to the idea it was something that Belarus partisans did. He's as evil as Putin, but without any imperialistic ambitions.

He definitely doesn't want war. Too much risk personally for him without obvious material or 'spiritual' (can't find a better word) benefits.

18

Vineyard_ t1_ja88jyy wrote

See guys, that's how you do anti-war advocacy the correct way.

80

ScottyC33 t1_ja89z61 wrote

I think a lot of militaries are very quickly realizing that swarms of kamikaze drones are an incredible counter to expensive machinery like tanks and grounded planes.

90

OneRougeRogue t1_ja8b97w wrote

>The fact that Russia only had nine to start with is absurd.

And there are unofficial reports that have said of the original nine, only four of them were in flyable condition (the rest have been grounded for years either needing repairs, or cannibalized to repair the functioning four planes).

That four is now down to three.

22

GreenStrong t1_ja8cbfq wrote

Reasonable amateur's reaction to this comment thirteen months ago:

Bullshit. The Soviet/ Russian army is enormous and fairly sophisticated, they probably have dozens of flying radar platforms

Reasonable amateur's reaction to this comment today:

Bullshit. No way they have four working aircraft. Do you know the value of the scrap metal in those things?

27

Monkfich t1_ja8dstp wrote

On the surface great, but this can easily be turned around and presented as an attack on Belarus (or its ally - its both the same militarily) by Ukraine. Then that’s just what Putin needed to pressure Belarus to attack.

−29

alghiorso t1_ja8feui wrote

Hoping somebody buys these legends a beer

14

Turmfalke_ t1_ja8g50b wrote

> He's as evil as Putin, but without any imperialistic ambitions.

Oh he definitely has those, he just wants to be the one top and is going to do everything he can to not help Putin. He is probably more thinking about how he can take over Russia when Putin is gone.

6

Uniquitous t1_ja8gvny wrote

It's always a mug's game answering that question in a forum like this. The questioner is most likely being disingenuous and will attack any proof provided. Anyone who really cares to find proof knows how to use a search engine. The only correct answer is to rickroll them.

10

adam_demamps_wingman t1_ja8hbqf wrote

The partisans have entered the boarding gate. Now if the Russian partisans could get busy in Moscow helping Pooty’s friends ascend tall buildings.

11

DrNick1221 t1_ja8i97p wrote

> What they can do is periodically move troops around and make blustery noises and force Ukraine to keep some troops in the North just in case. That’s basically free. So they keep doing that.

Oh, believe me, the Ukrainian border guards in the north and making their thoughts on the bluster very well known.

27

VertWheeler35 t1_ja8kmxb wrote

Lukashenko is in a terrible position right now because he knows that Putin wants him to send Belarusian soldiers into Ukraine but he also knows that if he does that it will cause unrest and possibly his own downfall. He’s really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

41

Dr_Randall_Savage t1_ja8lutt wrote

Provoke outrage, outright

Don't engage, strike by night

Remain relentless 'til their troops take flight

Make it impossible to justify the cost of the fight

Outrun, outlast

Hit 'em quick, get out fast

Stay alive 'til this horror show is past

We're gonna fly a lot of flags half mast

164

Monkfich t1_ja8nqz1 wrote

It’s not inevitable that Belarus gets directly involved, and if they do it opens a huge amount of border to defend against. It’s not a border to go across and bring battles towards the Belarus capital, but instead makes the country need much more manpower to defend than currently, which is better spent defending elsewhere and better still - attacking, and taking back land.

So it’s not a war they can push forward on initially - initially it’ll be an attempted massive push by Belarus and Russia. And if Belarus gets directly involved it will be a massive setback, thinning the Ukrainian defence, ruling out the ability to strike back, and minimising the big morale boosts when towns and cities are retaken.

The article says that Russia has no comment on this, but like every single attack on them, they will use it as an opportunity, e.g. find any non-strategic town that the two Belarusians allegedly fled to, then destroy it with barrages for two weeks.

I get the thumping of the chest, the feeling of striking back, and making the enemy power bleed. But it needs to be coordinated with official forces or it risks everything.

−5

_AutomaticJack_ t1_ja8opd9 wrote

It is important to note here, that 4 is basically the minimum you can have and maintain a constant presence. You drop below 4 and your going to have coverage gaps; in not immediately then intermittently... IIRC at 3 you loose coverage at maintenance intervals and at 2 you can't do 24 hr coverage anymore.

10

disisathrowaway t1_ja8qj5c wrote

Russian partisans have been quite active since the war started. Lots of train derailments, supply depots and factories attacked as well.

Jake Hanrahan of 'Popular Front' did a great release earlier this year after interviewing a number of Russian partisans and highlighting the internal battle that's being executed by a small but dedicated number of Russian anarchists who are trying to do damage to the Russian war machine.

15

The69BodyProblem t1_ja8qw1c wrote

What's the range on those things? How long do they need to hut each target to knock it out? Once someone figures those numbers out it's fairly easy to figure out the number of drones needed to swamp that particular defensive system

3

TheDJZ t1_ja8re9k wrote

The warhead needed to sink something in that tonnage is pretty hefty. You’re gonna need a drone with a lot of payload and kinetic energy to do serious damage. Not to mention CIWS and other defensive countermeasures.

19

Badloss t1_ja8shyz wrote

That's true of any defense, but if the number is high enough then the attack is prohibitive. That's generally also why the high value targets like Carriers are sitting in the center of a web of ships that are all networked together.

7

pushaper t1_ja8t6n3 wrote

what are "partisans"? Is this a Belarus separatist group? Is it what we would consider mercenaries if they were shooting at Ukraine planes?

1

Joltie t1_ja8tu25 wrote

I don't know but it looked realistic until the Steve Jobs stand-in just showed the crowd footage of a robot kill someone who was running away. I imagine if it was real life, there would have been audible gasps.

13

YungHantu t1_ja8u37f wrote

Lol this has CIA written all over it.

−16

guspaz t1_ja8uotx wrote

That's why you use naval drones to take out ships, not aerial drones. They're much harder to detect, much harder to hit, have very long range and loitering capabilities, and can easily carry a payload big enough to cause major damage to a warship.

2

chilifinger t1_ja8w1nh wrote

Now that the partisans have become participants, I suppose it's "Former" Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim... etc.

2

TheDJZ t1_ja8wh8w wrote

Ah that’s my mistake I thought they meant a drone swarm as in the switchblades kamikaze drones. I’m not too familiar with naval drones but from my understanding it’s a bit like a waterborne VBIED almost right?

Maybe I’m ignorant of their capabilities but I feel like CIWS should be able to engage it in addition to other weapons systems such as missiles and energy weapons. Would love to read more about these kind of drones either way.

3

MassiveStallion t1_ja8wiac wrote

Drones have limited payloads and are usually one use.

The obvious counter is super all around heavy armor. Not to mention human wave tactics.

"Next guy picks up the rifle" is surprisingly valid with drone attacks. Frankly it's easier to swarm with lightly armed and poorly trained infantry than to build a done.

3

Monkfich t1_ja8x0av wrote

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that europe and the west is doing the wrong thing by only using it’s “bark”. If it were to bite, it would create a huge escalation not just in Russia, but across cities and towns (non-strategic too, Putin like to pick them and blow them up to make a “point”) which would create a wartime population. On the event of decisions to send massive forces to Ukraine, Putin may decide to use heavier weapons , heavier shells, heavier missiles, and we know he likes to throw bodies at a problem.

Arguably Putin wouldn’t surrender/cancel his special operation even if pushed back to the borders by a larger and stronger force. He is an evil fucker but he knows how to play an enemy and wait them out. Or maybe the new Allies push forward to Moscow to topple Putin there? Extra escalation and as an attack has now been made on Russian soil, all Allied countries can expect an attack on their soil too.

And Belarus? Their army will likely support perceived attacks on their own soil, to get them into the wider war. We had that attack today, and Putin can orchestrate more.

We “all” want Ukraine to win, but it won’t win by creating nuke targets inside and outside of Ukraine. The Allied countries maybe aren’t biting directly, but they are sending an awful lot of equipment, weapons, and ammunition to Ukraine.

−1

DeeDee_Z t1_ja8x71h wrote

Should we be able to see that in the attached photo? I don't see anything I recognise as a former airplane, or a radar dome. (I see one plane towards the upper right, but no clear damage and no dome...)

What I -can- see is two (semi?-)trailers with red tops, a dark shadow above them, and a light line below them. Sure look like German flags at first glance!

Was this just a poorly chosen photo, or am I going blind in my old age?

1

The69BodyProblem t1_ja8yo83 wrote

Sure, but human waves aren't very effective against boats, which is what we were talking about. Drones are also a pretty good force multiplier, so if a country doesn't want to, or doesn't have the manpower for human waves they may serve a role there.

1

paul_wi11iams t1_ja8ytyd wrote

> The US Navy has lasers on their ships that could pretty effortlessly shoot down slow fragile drones

Transposing to the current situation, the Belarus/Russians will surely figure out defenses an apply these, but they tie up personnel, generating a cost and a loss of effectiveness on the equipment defended.

This kind of military harassment strategy was used by the WW2 French resistance, and certainly dates deep back into history.

It also creates media noise, attracting attention where the adversary wants to remain discreet. And successfully so in this Russian "AWACS" case

4

The69BodyProblem t1_ja8yxsp wrote

Fair, but drones are way cheaper then basically every other weapon system that could take down a warship. It's not something insurmountable, but will certainly require an adaptation of tactics.

1

theaviationhistorian t1_ja8zkgt wrote

The US Navy has been training for this exact scenario for decades. Just replace drones with a rush of cannon fodder with missile launchers riding Boghammars.

And if a ship is manned by a thousand plus people, that capital ship will have plenty of friends nearby as destroyers & frigates don't need that much manpower.

10

Namika t1_ja9061g wrote

> You'd think that the security around a bit of kit like this would be water tight

I take it you've never been to the poorer parts of Eastern Europe.

Things over there aren't exactly functioning at peak competency.

1

theaviationhistorian t1_ja90gsx wrote

Exactly, something the size of a speedboat. It's why Ukraine launched a raid at the Sevastopol port at night when the Russian guard is down. An ongoing vessel will be constantly on guard and will need to spam the defenses to get even one hit in. And that one hit isn't guaranteed to be lethal to the ship (as seen with the Tanker War & the USS Cole) unless it's fire retention, crew training, & maintenance has been god awful as it was on the Moskva.

5

Namika t1_ja90yba wrote

Partisans are historically defined as locals under occupation that sabotage the occupying force.

Think of like, the French Resistance fighting back against the Nazi's in occupied France in WW2. Or even the Taliban fighting the Americans in Afghanistan, those would technically be partisans because they are locals fighting a foreign army occupying their land.

Anyway, you are correct that this Belarus group probably shouldn't be called partisans. Belarus is not at war.

13

misterwalkway t1_ja917h0 wrote

Lol this is just a bizzare semantic point to get so riled up about. Especially when youre wrong. Its a war caused by an invasion. Even the Ukrainian Government itself refers to what is happening as a war.

In fact its the Kremlin that keeps insisting that this not be referred to as a 'war'. So I guess thats one area that you and Putin agree on :)

> This is why I literally laugh when people like you get fucked up in any way. I fucking love seeing stupid people get hurt.

Holy fuck bro you need to calm down.

1

Namika t1_ja9283m wrote

That's more like a revolutionary group. They are trying to overthrow their own government.

Partisans tend to be more about citizens fighting back against a foreign army that is on their soil.

3

Susan-stoHelit t1_ja94v5b wrote

Hamilton could so easily have been written for this, so far as the feel of the movement and battles and desperation, determination, hope, courage.

Maybe in a year or two we can have the Zelensky musical. Even if Putin is more pathetic and less entertaining than King George.

18

guspaz t1_ja95l0q wrote

CIWS wasn't able to do much with them until block 1B in 2016 added FLIR to help target small surface craft. Even then, it's a challenge, they're harder to see/detect, they're harder to hit, they can be armoured, and you'd probably swarm them.

However, I'd imagine swarms of small missile boats are probably a bigger problem. It's a very cheap way to get a lot of anti-ship missiles in the air to saturate defenses.

4

lancelongstiff t1_ja96dar wrote

I fully support what they did and admire the courage it took.

But we both know these Anti-War Advocates would be labelled Terrorists if we were the ones invading another country and they were blowing our shit up.

2

Matt3989 t1_ja97sah wrote

Competent Militaries have known that, and have prepared for it.

Russia had a front row seat to watch the US use drones to overwhelm Iraq's Air Defenses in 1991... It's not like drones should be news to them.

15

SkiingAway t1_ja9irt5 wrote

That wasn't typically the label used for the run of the mill fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not saying no one called them that, but "Insurgents" or "Enemy combatants" seemed to be much more common labeling.

And targeting unattended military equipment is is noticeably less of a "terrorist" than typical practices from those conflicts.

IS was called that, sure, but that was pretty deserved with their tactics/practices.

13

lancelongstiff t1_ja9nr2o wrote

If Iraqis had been destroying coalition hardware that was being stored in another country - one belonging to our allies - I think we would have called them terrorists.

When we take it upon ourselves to decide who it's right and proper to murder, it becomes a very murky, grey area.

−6

Noblman_Swerve t1_ja9q5zo wrote

I mean there are not many examples of high-tech militaries dealing with significant drone attacks because we haven't seen WW3. Jamming is only effective against commercial drones.

US military has placed countering UAS as a priority, they do not have a coordinated strategy on dealing with them. US still relies on conventional AAA to deal with drones. Every different theater would need many different answers as it currently stands, which is not a problem for the enemy just mass-producing cheap kamikaze drones.

8

Noblman_Swerve t1_ja9ren4 wrote

People keep saying this but have only pointed towards naval answers which are incidental because they are more worried about missiles. There is no comprehensive anti-UAS platform, just a lot of conventional AAA weapons. You don't want single shot overkill weapons for cheap kamikaze drones.

0

SkiingAway t1_ja9t58t wrote

I'm skeptical. I mean, some politician certainly would have, but there's politicians who call everyone they don't like a terrorist.

Destroying military equipment is pretty squarely within the realm of normal/not against international norms as far as actions for forces to take in a conflict.

If you're a country attacks are directly being launched from, it's hard to claim you're out of bounds as a valid target for where those actions take place.

> When we take it upon ourselves to decide who it's right and proper to murder, it becomes a very murky, grey area.

....ok? I don't really understand how this sentence has anything to do with the event or topic. I don't think anyone even died here.

5

jl2352 t1_ja9vwve wrote

Also Israel has been researching military equipment to deal with low cost missiles, and the US has been paying close attention to that.

The big worry however are the seaborn drones. It's not so much the cheap drones, but having them attack in timed swarms together. That makes the drones significantly more effective, and is why Russia's Navy now mostly stays away from Ukrainian shores.

7

Matt3989 t1_jaa20nh wrote

You'll probably also be surprised to learn that we were using radio controlled unmanned aircraft as early as WWI.

And prior to that the Austrian military used balloons with timers to drop bombs on Venice.

3

MrFacepalm_ t1_jaa2tp1 wrote

Technically, they are fighting a foreign army. Whatever the position of Belarus "officials" might be, those are still Russian military force residing on a Belarusian soil and using it as a launching pad for attacks on Ukraine.

2

IceNein t1_jaacjzl wrote

If anyone is unfamiliar with AWACS and what they do, this is huge. Like, a really big deal.

AWACS aren’t just big RADARs on planes, they are command and control for air forces. They’re the ones that vector fighters to incoming threats.

In fact one of the enormous advantages that the US has is our sheer number of AWACS. Like, each carrier deploys with two. So considering the Air Force is also going to have them up, if you shoot one of ours down, we’ll have another ready to go.

Russia has nine. Now eight I guess. Really big deal.

3

Outlander_-_ t1_jaahffq wrote

I think a certain 3 letter agency has amazing intel. Props to them.

1

thetasigma_1355 t1_jaahhws wrote

Somehow it never occurred to me that underwater drones were a possibility even as I’ve literally watched underwater robots do things.

Probably a hell of a lot easier to build and don’t have nearly the same weight challenges as it doesn’t have to, you know, fly.

3

guspaz t1_jaaocoj wrote

I was referring more to small stealthy surface drones, like Ukraine's can carry a 200kg warhead and have a one-way range of 800km, but underwater drones... I mean, that's pretty much the literal definition of a torpedo, no? A modern Mark 48 torpedo has an estimated max range of 38 km at 55 kt or 50 km at 40 kt, probably even farther if you ran it slower... or if you weren't trying to fit it into a 21-inch-wide tube.

3

Stercore_ t1_jaaq72i wrote

Lukashenko has desperately avoided going to war so far. If he wanted to be in the war already, he would have. But he can’t. He knows it would be so wildly unpopular at home, it might just be the thing that finally shakes him of the throne. iirc, even the belarusian military is very against it. They are the one group he can’t piss off, especially now that the russian military is struggling with other things

1

SapperBomb t1_jaasjn5 wrote

I'm aware of drones being used for reconnaissance and after some searching I found an article that mentions using 3 drones as part of a SEAD/strike package to get enemy SAMs to light up. Is that what you are referring to?

3

SapperBomb t1_jaasy2b wrote

>You'll probably also be surprised to learn that we were using radio controlled unmanned aircraft as early as WWI. > >And prior to that the Austrian military used balloons with timers to drop bombs on Venice.

....?

So anyway, I did some searching and I'm not coming up with what you are talking about. Do you wanna point me in a direction or drop a source?

1

CryptoOGkauai t1_jab7tap wrote

This is one solution that’s already being tested on Navy destroyers as a close in weapons system against drones, boats, jets and missiles: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43795/navy-is-betting-big-on-high-power-microwave-weapons

The nice thing about this solution is it’s much cheaper than kinetic weapons and it can cover a wide area cone to get multiple targets at once. Another advantage: the microwave beam travels at light speed so it cannot be dodged.

4

SapperBomb t1_jabairq wrote

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

The "...?" was me being puzzled as to why you started talking about Austrian balloons and WW1 when I questioned your claim about "American drones over whelming Iraqi air defenses", during the gulf war

And the reason I followed that with " so anyway...", was due to the condescending nature of your comments and I didn't want to engage you on Austrian fucking balloons and WW1 as it had nothing to do with what I was asking about and frankly, I don't care anymore.

2

SapperBomb t1_jabdz2y wrote

Well I don't really give a fuck what you think because you didn't even have the consideration to read any of my replies otherwise you would have answered them coherently instead of trying to dazzle me with your faux take on history.

You have still yet to back up your original claim, which I attempted to verify myself but could not, presumably because your full of shit. Stick to Austrian balloons kiddo

1

2-Legit-2-Quip t1_jabjaju wrote

Too bad they couldn't ya know get rid of their dictator sometime during the last 30 years.

1

EdgeLord556 t1_jac93i0 wrote

Did they drink all the (totally not vodka) alcohol based coolant from the aircraft?

1

Omega-pod t1_jad3mms wrote

Exactly. Skies darken and the mist of nano-drones descends like fog. Take a breath in, and the nanobots will create a different way to exit your body. You die of course...H.P. Lovecraft kinda stuff, but real.

2