this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
687 points (99.3% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2718 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 130 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 125 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 52 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Your comment made me go do the math and a TCM is, in fact, between 3.5 and 4 times faster than the fuel efficiency speed of a Cessna 206.

Kudos to you good Person.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

And kudos to you for reporting that, so we all learn something new.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, a Tomahawk is really only a little faster than a Cessna

/s

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Surely the speed of the tomahawk depends on how hard you throw it?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 48 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 20 points 7 months ago

How many coconuts did it carry?

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You mean an Indigenous Peoples Hatchet Missle?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago

Yes, although I believe they are incompatible with the First Nations Attack Helicopter.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (4 children)

It shouldn't be, though. The Russian military should have shot it down long before it got to the target.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What a wild and spotted life that guy lives

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I knew about him landing the plane. Didn't know that he stabbed a girl almost to death because she wasn't interested in him.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just one of those things you do growing up

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Anywhere can be a bathroom if you're brave enough

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, that kinda already happened

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but not using much smaller, easily rented or more accessibly purchased planes.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The world isn't very safe when you start getting creative.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The world isn't very safe when you start getting creative.

Inspirational af.

Get this printed as a motivational poster and sell it.

[–] phillycodehound@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] BastingChemina 9 points 7 months ago

They had this eventuality covered !

an inflatable pilot from the movie Airplane!

[–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Bad time for the pilot to be in the bathroom.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think most Cessnas have bathrooms.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

If you're peeing out the window, you're still in plain view of the intercept fighters.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The openable part of the window on a Cessna is tiny and high up. There’s no way anyone could contort like that plus it’s likely to come back at you.

I can see opening the door, but you’d likely need a copilot: I don’t know if a simple autopilot could handle that configuration

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Probably best to put a camp toilet in the back seat and then just toss the bag out the window then.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Plus then they’d have the opportunity to pee bomb various parts of Russia! You’d get volunteers lining up, drinking tons of water before the flight

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

And thats when you put down your mask, give hand signals saying radios out, and then veer the plane into the fighter jet and shoot it up with the machine gun!

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This concept was in season 2 of Slow Horses.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’ve never heard of this show. I might have to check it out!

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It’s fantastic and so is Gary Oldman.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Crashing planes into things has killed way more than 2 people.

9/11 comes to mind.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you really want me to publicly explain to you the difference between a small Cessna and a Boeing 737?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 9 points 7 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.

[–] HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe that one reason they took a cessna less suspect so less chance to get shot down ?

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Original plans called for a Boeing, but Ukraine knows better than the FAA.

[–] Natanael 0 points 7 months ago

The Boeing would drop its payloads with the wrong timing

[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

As another commenter said

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

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I feel like that's easy enough to fix with flint and some kindling/match heads.