Submitted by Caratteraccio t3_11d9r6y in worldnews
Comments
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
[deleted] t1_ja7he7k wrote
[removed]
callipygiancultist t1_ja7hfqn wrote
Lukashenko is afraid of domestic protests if he does that
jeeepblack t1_ja7hzj9 wrote
Belarusian Wolverines
joho999 t1_ja7i4x0 wrote
They would have a hard time justifying it to the people, over russian property guarded by russians.
[deleted] t1_ja7irt0 wrote
[removed]
Patient-Lifeguard363 t1_ja7ixtm wrote
Wasn't any Plane but a AWAS
Lee1138 t1_ja7mhn4 wrote
Especially now that the Russian army seems quite occupied elsewhere.
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.
chehov t1_ja7u9q7 wrote
True heroes.
gualdhar t1_ja7v9lj wrote
The partisans are supposedly out of the country.
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.
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.
Brigadier_Beavers t1_ja7z8kx wrote
This seems to be their thing. Make a dozen~ of the new 'super weapon' or machine and call it a day, then freak out when its shown to be decent at best and they need hundreds of them and cant make them quickly.
[deleted] t1_ja7zkuo wrote
[removed]
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.
isawagoose t1_ja80ykj wrote
>Ground based radars are limited by the curvature of the earth; they can't see over the horizon.
Same with these. They just make the horizon further away.
Robmerrrill427 t1_ja83wyi wrote
Hell yeah, great to see more people stand up against that government!
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.
shkico t1_ja84gw7 wrote
any proof?
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
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.
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.
basaltgranite t1_ja874ml wrote
A lot farther away. At 10 ft, the horizon is ~4.2 miles (6.8 km) away. At 35,000 ft, it's ~230 miles (~370 km) away.
Fuduzan t1_ja88buc wrote
Turns out it wasn't kamikaze-drone-tight. Whoops!
nagrom7 t1_ja88fqt wrote
Yeah but they look good at parades and PR events though.
Vineyard_ t1_ja88jyy wrote
See guys, that's how you do anti-war advocacy the correct way.
flamehead2k1 t1_ja89nxo wrote
You mean they don't defy the laws of physics?
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.
[deleted] t1_ja8ai9f wrote
[deleted]
shkico t1_ja8atlq wrote
of course having a concrete proof would have more credibility than having none. you dont have to feel personally attacked for a question
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.
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?
[deleted] t1_ja8deqc wrote
[removed]
lancelongstiff t1_ja8drav wrote
By blowing shit up.
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.
dabenu t1_ja8eqb4 wrote
I was wondering what the benefit of claiming such an attack would be. But I guess this is the answer.
[deleted] t1_ja8eun9 wrote
[removed]
SuperSpread t1_ja8fcbz wrote
They managed to stand on the right tiles at the end of the turn.
alghiorso t1_ja8feui wrote
Hoping somebody buys these legends a beer
[deleted] t1_ja8fxwt wrote
[removed]
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.
Uniquitous t1_ja8g5m9 wrote
Like the Moskva? Lol, too soon?
Uniquitous t1_ja8gkct wrote
I think he would've managed somehow. Better to just go ahead and fight the war that will inevitably wind up involving them anyway.
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.
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.
weedz420 t1_ja8hend wrote
A good chunk of the Belarusian military has already said they will just go AWOL if ordered to invade. Almost none of the civilian population would be okay with it.
adam_demamps_wingman t1_ja8hhqk wrote
Not just any shit. When all you have is explosives, everything starts looking like Russian plane.
adam_demamps_wingman t1_ja8hu4h wrote
The US Navy is going to learn several thousand men in a tub might not be as impervious as they used to be. Time on target works with drones.
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.
korben2600 t1_ja8k70r wrote
Reminds me of that scifi vid "Slaughterbots". And also Black Mirror "Hated in the Nation" with the autonomous bee-sized drones and "Metalhead" with the killer drone dog. Oh and of course Angel Has Fallen with Gerard Butler.
I'm sure this sort of autonomous drone tech will be a very real thing by the end of this decade. Focus then will be on jammers/ewar/kinetic counters.
Badloss t1_ja8k982 wrote
The US Navy has lasers on their ships that could pretty effortlessly shoot down slow fragile drones
[deleted] t1_ja8kmqj wrote
[removed]
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.
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
Green_Message_6376 t1_ja8n2h0 wrote
Nice one doc. I love a good Poet.
jhorred t1_ja8nakq wrote
What did GWB refer to in this context?
Green_Message_6376 t1_ja8nbk4 wrote
It was water tight, just not fire proof.....
[deleted] t1_ja8nf2p wrote
[removed]
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.
isawagoose t1_ja8nwbo wrote
Bush Jr. and his "mission accomplished!" farce.
polaroppositebear t1_ja8oe8n wrote
Raise a glass 🍺
_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.
Infamous_Employer_85 t1_ja8p27f wrote
> Lukashenko
He is a dead man walking, I see no way out of an early death for him
Infamous_Employer_85 t1_ja8pgyl wrote
> Belarus
ain't doing shit, the military would go AWOL immediately if Lukashenko ordered them into Ukraine.
drogoran t1_ja8pjr5 wrote
then so be it
perhaps then europe and the "west" will stop their ineffective barking and actually start biting
Gryphin t1_ja8pyf9 wrote
I'm sure he'll see his way out of a window in a few months, sadly
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.
[deleted] t1_ja8qnj6 wrote
[removed]
Gently-Weeps t1_ja8qoiq wrote
It’s from Hamilton lol
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
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.
buzzsawjoe t1_ja8rt0d wrote
This website shows one of these aircraft, picture taken 2023b19
mrsphukov t1_ja8ry3p wrote
Raise a glass.
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.
Its_a_me_marty_yo t1_ja8slv2 wrote
You think the US military hasn't been aware of drones and planned how to defend from and attack with them since before you ever even heard of them?
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?
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.
YungHantu t1_ja8u37f wrote
Lol this has CIA written all over it.
truthdemon t1_ja8u9z3 wrote
Because there's even less appetite among the Belorussian public for getting involved in the war than there is in the urban centres of Russia.
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.
[deleted] t1_ja8uwy3 wrote
[removed]
Draag00 t1_ja8v7fl wrote
Thankfully*
chilifinger t1_ja8w1nh wrote
Now that the partisans have become participants, I suppose it's "Former" Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim... etc.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_ja8wz4z wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_ja8x6of wrote
[removed]
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?
[deleted] t1_ja8y1ba wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja8yicu wrote
[removed]
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.
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
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.
Vineyard_ t1_ja8zccd wrote
By blowing really expensive and important military equipment that belongs to the attacker up.
[deleted] t1_ja8zf8u wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_ja903qe wrote
[removed]
No_Foot t1_ja905kn wrote
Brave people on the right side of history.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pushaper t1_ja918b5 wrote
thank you for some clarification. Would the FLQ be an example?
Plastic-Kangaroo1234 t1_ja91hyp wrote
These people are heroes.
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.
LouisBalfour82 t1_ja92np9 wrote
And if Chechen partisans could get back to doing what Chechen partisans did in the 1990s...
[deleted] t1_ja93cp1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja94r0f wrote
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.
teeth_lurk_beneath t1_ja94z8a wrote
I highly doubt a suicide drone could take out a warship. You'd have to sneak it into ammo storage or something extremely precise.
RandomCandor t1_ja95dl9 wrote
We need a killer metal riff to go with this
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.
Crazy_Reborn t1_ja95qqw wrote
Lol. You have no idea what you are talking about
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.
kilkenny99 t1_ja96jwt wrote
Yeah, a lot more hangars are going to need to be built & stop leaving aircraft out on the tarmac or apron.
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.
The69BodyProblem t1_ja9anc1 wrote
The Ukrainians have had some pretty good luck with drones vs the Russian navy.
Not a uav, but a drone none the less.
lollysticky t1_ja9arv8 wrote
If you hit the 'i' icon on that picture, it tells you this is just a picture of the airbase (where this plane was stationed). It does not show the plane itself
DeeDee_Z t1_ja9c56i wrote
OK -- that's actually good news (for my ego).
adam_demamps_wingman t1_ja9dytb wrote
Ty for the info. Must read up.
Omega-pod t1_ja9eyk1 wrote
Drones are positively horrifying now. They're only going to get more insidious, tiny, and deadly.
lollysticky t1_ja9f7cm wrote
I am glad to have contributed to saving your ego!
sync-centre t1_ja9fi8h wrote
Russia is also a large country to cover. They will now have to decide which front they want to patrol.
adam_demamps_wingman t1_ja9frjj wrote
“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.”
That applies to more than one initial engagement, including future ones.
elliam t1_ja9g0ql wrote
What nonsense. They are just more advanced than ground radar and can see farther. There’s no curve.
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.
Green_Message_6376 t1_ja9kino wrote
Thanks, I feel real bright this Monday!
csnopek t1_ja9ls7v wrote
Jesse!
James!
Korvanacor t1_ja9m9ub wrote
How does an actor, comedian, son of a geer and a computer scientist…
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.
_dirt_vonnegut t1_ja9ov6y wrote
"partisan" is the word you use when you don't want to say "anarchist"
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.
[deleted] t1_ja9qk3a wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
Vineyard_ t1_ja9t7ce wrote
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Actions are not separated from their outcomes or their intents.
OldManRainey t1_ja9ts72 wrote
You know it will have to include his infamous piano bit:https://youtu.be/oua0Puihrkc
[deleted] t1_ja9ugdt wrote
[deleted]
DetectiveFinch t1_ja9unzc wrote
This happened 9 years ago and could have been a successful assassination:
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying it should have been an assassination, just pointing out how powerless everyone was to stop that little drone.
LeftLane4PassingOnly t1_ja9vgf1 wrote
Or a rocket launcher.
LeftLane4PassingOnly t1_ja9vo5j wrote
You seem to overlook the part where it's 50/50 that Belarus militants are actually Belarus military.
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.
Monkfich t1_ja9xp4g wrote
I’m not overlooking it, it could be a false flag and probably was, with the military working out what they could destroy as bait. Or maybe nothing was destroyed at all.
SapperBomb t1_ja9y64h wrote
> the US use drones to overwhelm Iraq's Air Defenses in 1991...
Im sorry what?
spacenerd4 t1_ja9z036 wrote
…to freedom, something they can never take away!
[deleted] t1_jaa0ou0 wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_jaa30de wrote
[removed]
GunpowderLad t1_jaa41a2 wrote
Beer-can launcher?
[deleted] t1_jaa5lnc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jaa7eon wrote
Mydogsblackasshole t1_jaaapog wrote
Had drones fly over/around Iraqi air defense radar sites to saturate their view and leave them unable to determine what was a drone, and what was a manned aircraft.
mothtoalamp t1_jaabibq wrote
Given the report on the Moskva's readiness prior to its sinking, it likely was riddled with holes and marketed as water tight and fire proof anyway.
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.
Outlander_-_ t1_jaahffq wrote
I think a certain 3 letter agency has amazing intel. Props to them.
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.
VertWheeler35 t1_jaahmil wrote
Sadly for him.
CryptographerOdd299 t1_jaajbpf wrote
The only effective defense seems to be things like the German antidrome cannon
surSEXECEN t1_jaam1gy wrote
Or buildings. There was a bunch of fires started in Russia at the start, we need more of that!!
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.
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
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?
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?
DisastrousOne3950 t1_jaazfjx wrote
Well, shit. That leaves, what... a dozen?
[deleted] t1_jab2csb wrote
[deleted]
Zombie_Harambe t1_jab3hkm wrote
Someday we'll have nanite swarms.
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.
TheMerryMosquito t1_jab9gm1 wrote
Do you by chance have a link? I’m having trouble finding it that sounds like an interesting read, or watch
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.
[deleted] t1_jabceez wrote
[deleted]
FlipskiZ t1_jabdfg3 wrote
Would there have been if you were told they were ISIS level of evil, though?
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
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.
[deleted] t1_jabw76f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jabxkbs wrote
[removed]
coldfu t1_jac10g3 wrote
I see that more as - They are gone. Don't look for them. They are gone. Also, there is no need to up security. They are gone.
EdgeLord556 t1_jac93i0 wrote
Did they drink all the (totally not vodka) alcohol based coolant from the aircraft?
[deleted] t1_jacd6gy wrote
[removed]
magistrate101 t1_jaci2gh wrote
And if everyone in the audience was keenly interested in funding or getting their hands on the technology
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.
Green_Message_6376 t1_jad3mvt wrote
You are an honorable doc.
Green_Message_6376 t1_jaefwml wrote
Well now they have another submarine! /s
dogeimistic t1_ja7cwhn wrote
Watch them blame Ukraine and go to war.