In a sharp escalation of its drone campaign targeting strategic industries deep inside Russia, Ukraine seems to have fitted Cessna-style light planes with remote controls, packed them with explosives and flown at least one of them more than 600 miles to strike a Russian factory in Yelabuga, 550 miles east of Moscow.

Ironically, the Russian factory produces—you guessed it—drones.

Russians on the ground recorded the shocking scene as the light plane dove onto the sprawling Alabuga Special Economic Zone industrial campus, where workers assemble Iranian-designed Shahed drones that, just like Ukraine’s DIY Cessna-style drone, can range as far 600 miles with an explosive payload.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Let’s be honest…. Probably less expensive and just as effective as a tomohawk.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      137
      ·
      8 months ago

      A Tomahawk goes about 4 times faster, but it seems it doesn’t matter if your enemy is incompetent.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Perhaps? I worry about this tactic being used in the US against targets. For all anyone knows, they’re a plane that just lost communication.

        • PhillyCodeHound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          But in that case fighter jets here are usually scrambled and if they don’t see anyone in the cockpit, they shoot the damn thing down

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Used by whom? An actual military will need more than a handful of light aircraft to topple the USA and domestic terrorists just use semi-automatic firearms because they’re quicker, cheaper, easier and lower risk.

          Rigging up a plane to be flown remotely is a non-trivial amount of specialised work and you still need to know how to fly a plane when you’re done.

          Crashing it into something without an explosive payload has been done and it killed 2 people, one of whom was the guy in the plane. They’ll never win the approval of their far-right Discord buddies with numbers like that.

          Filling it with explosives isn’t easy either since they don’t have a death cult that insists anyone should be able to buy them for any reason. Start buying up enough to take down a building and you’ll have feds knocking on your door in days (if you don’t accidentally blow yourself up first).

          There are far more dangerous things to worry about than an imaginary plane.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Do you really want to publicly ignore 9/11 as an incident in which “an airplane was flown into things”?

                Considering that most small Cessna’s have between 3-500 pounds of full fuel load, and more if you strip out all the stuff for pilots and passengers, and provided military grade high explosives, you’ve got enough to do the same kind of damage as the Oklahoma City bombing (which was a 5000 pound anfo bomb in the back of a rider truck.)

                • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Do you really want to publicly ignore 9/11 as an incident in which “an airplane was flown into things”?

                  Sure, let’s do it since I’m now genuinely curious what’s going on inside your head. Is your reading comprehension that dogshit or did you ignore all that context because you genuinely thought “airplane did 9/11” was going to get you crowned “smartest person in the room”? Maybe you’re lashing out because I pointed out that the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorists just carry out attacks with their legal firearms? Let’s find out together.

                  The headline and article specifically mention that a light aircraft was used. Everybody in every comment until you arrived is talking about Cessna style aircrafts with a maximum takeoff weight around 7,700kg, not a passenger jet with a takeoff weight around 200,000kg.

                  The person I replied to said they were “worried about this tactic being used in the US against targets”. It doesn’t look like you felt the urge you frothily exclaim “WHAT ABOUT 9/11???” at him, so I guess at that point you hadn’t yet decided we were talking about massive passenger jets.

                  In my comment, I specifically mentioned that filling a Cessna with remote control gear and high explosives is a non-trivial task, making it an extremely unlikely plan for a terrorist and without those things, the damage may not be fatal to anyone but the pilot.

                  Then you burst in with your pants already pissed. “What if they just casually load it up with 500 pounds of military explosives they ordered off Amazon? It could do as much damage as a bomb that was 10 times larger and used materials that are closely monitored!”

                  But fuck, if we’re going for baseless hypotheticals that ignore both the “size of plane” and “no explosives” caveats, why stop there? What if a racist teenager fills an A380 with nuclear warheads and crashes it into New York? Think about how wrong I’d be then – since for some reason, that’s important to you.

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Who said they lost communication.

          The Ukrainians installed a whole remote piloting system, it does not seem too difficult to control the radio remotely too.

          • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            No, I’m saying that’s why you don’t just shoot down a plane. For all you know it’s a civilian, an oligarch who funds your evil deeds with a pilot’s license, or someone from a NATO country who lost communication capabilities in the aircraft. It could be risky to just shoot something down randomly.

        • andrew_bidlaw
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s a serial plane, not that unpopular, and in farmlands people are kinda used to planes since they pepper fields with chemicals. How they crossed the border and no one tried to intercept it from here is a big question, but then it’s just a plane, especially that far from the border.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This is the equivalent of wrapping ping pong balls in tin foil, putting a lighter underneath for a few seconds, and suddenly effective smoke bombs.

      Edit: Yes, you can try this at home. But outside and obviously don’t rip the fumes like a bong.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You forgot the part where the smoke bombs were able to travel a vast distance undetected after you threw them at a low speed.

    • MelastSB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The tomohawk is harder to shoot down I assume, but it’s not worth the cost when the enemy has no air defence

  • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is pretty embarrassing for Russian air defense. Though, I also wonder if they were hesitant to shoot down an unidentified aircraft after multiple cases of friendly fire bringing down VKS aircraft. I’m also amazed that there was seemingly no Electronic Warfare (EW) systems in the area to prevent remote control of drones. Sure, there are EW countermeasures, but this seems like a pretty significant failure that this drone could be flown in from that far away.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      8 months ago

      Having a massive landmass has been a huge boon to Russia historically, but we’re seeing the inverse now with all these long range precision guided munitions. They have too much land to cover with adequate air defense, it seems

        • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Commercial aircraft have IMUs that carefully measure acceleration to get its position, IMUs are more accurate and reliable than GPS so GPS is the backup system.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            “dead reckoning” is the technical term for precalculated navigation, adjusting the path only from sensors like IMUs

            (unless they used stuff like cameras and POI based navigation, but that seems unlikely)

            I don’t think it’s correct to say normal planes use IMU more than GPS, they’re all complementary. GPS tells the general direction and the IMU helps keeping the plane stable (no sudden jerks to turn when the GPS drifts). And ground radar tells the plane when it’s too far off the path.

            • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              “Dead reckoning” as in “dead reckoning” as in “deduced reckoning”. It’s the same kind of navigating people have done on boats for millennia. You start from a known point and move in a specific direction at a known speed for a specific amount of time. Then you change your speed and/or direction for another specific amount of time. And so on. If you have the ability to do so then you update your known position along the way via known landmarks you might pass.

              • Valmond@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah but the errors creep up, so if you don’t see the islands of hope after sailing for 18 days at speed x, you’re fucked :-)

                That’s why you have several systems, like gps to periodically try to get a good signal, or manual override.

            • ours@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              An alternative is terrain mapping. You look at the terrain bellow you and compare in a database. Tomahawks navigate that way.

              That navigation system was originally designed for the US nuclear powered doomsday cruise missile which would have zoomed across the USSR at supersonic speeds, low altitude, spewing radiation as it goes and dropping the occasional nuke. It could have done this for days.

              • Thrashy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                Given what they’ve done elsewhere I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 100% remote-piloted via satellite internet (most of their sea drones are controlled via Starlink, for instance) but in the case of fixed infrastructure, a smart fusion of GPS, IMU, and potentially video image matching for terminal guidance (these aren’t big bombs in the grand scheme of things and it’s important to hit the right part of a sprawling refinery or factory complex in order to knock it out for an appreciable amount of time) could overcome GPS jamming, and be well within the technical capabilities of the Ukrainian arms industry. TERCOM as implemented in the Tomahawk runs on early-80’s computing power, and it’s only gotten easier. Machine vision frameworks are widely available and well-understood software these days, and can run on fairly modest hobby hardware to boot.

          • reddithalation@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            I doubt an imu could have so little drift that it could hit a certain building though. I bet the gps just worked, I mean this was a place that people lived and used tech, not exactly an active warzone with gps jamming.

            • ChaoticNeutralCzech@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              The IMU probably drifts by some small percentge but an intermittent GPS signal every few kilometers should ensure that it never gets too far off course.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            But this thing a particular building at 600 miles. I doubt IMUs can be that good.

      • Naz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        At this point, it seems like whatever Russia declares is definitely true is probably the opposite.

        “We have the most missiles and they’re all in perfect working order”

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        While embarrassing, the environment in which that happened was entirely different. You had Regan and Gorbachev actively working to improve relations. And no one was actively trying to blow up Soviet infrastructure. You’d think the Russian air defenses would be a bit more sensitive to small aircraft coming from Ukraine in this environment.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There were so many moments like that in this war. The grandma giving Russian soldiers sunflower seeds to put in their pockets so they grow when they die. The guy berating Russian soldiers saying “Every other woman here is a witch! All your dicks are going to fall off!” Zelensky saying “I don’t need a ride I need ammunition.”

      Though I don’t know what else I’d expect from people who told the Ottoman Empire to go fuck itself.

  • mindlight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hmmm… SU-27 replica on top of some “cheap” jet… Smoke from second engine… Control it like it was a damaged SU-27 returned home…

    Land it wherever Russia has their temporary airfields… Boom.

    After a while we’re going to see Russia shooting down their own jets 😁

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah pretty sure that’s a war crime under the Rome Statute. Emphasis mine.

      The law applicable in international armed conflict forbids “mak[ing] improper use of … the military insignia and uniform of the enemy …” (Art. 23(f) of the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907; Art. 39 of Additional Protocol I; Art. 8(2)(b)(vii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Not all uses of enemy uniforms are prohibited therefore; only “improper” uses. For example, wearing enemy uniforms in order to flee the fighting or escape capture does not run afoul of the law (U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual § 5.23.1.4). On the other side of the spectrum, engaging in attacks while wearing the uniform of the enemy is flatly prohibited, as affirmed in the treaty law and numerous military manuals (see here, here and here, for example), and is a war crime under the Rome Statute.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s funny that there is an entire branch of law describing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable while mass murdering people.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        If the enemy is stupid enough you don’t even need a false flag, just some confusion

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    I like this direct, in-your-face style they have going. Very refreshing and potentially fatal.

  • rxbudian@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Now that everyone know this can be done, every country in the world needs to worry about terrorists replicating this. Maybe in the old days they need to go through security checkpoint at the airport to hijack large planes for 9/11, but now they only need a large plane and some time.

  • eletes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Huh I saw some video claiming it was a dormitory, killing innocent students. Propaganda machine go brr I guess

  • crazyCat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Slavi Ukraini, hope you can keep getting such successes!