The advanced S-400 ‘Triumf’ air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service and navy, Ukrainian intelligence sources said The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko said
Ukraine used drones and missiles to take down an advanced Russian air-defence system worth US$1.2 billion early on Thursday, according to multiple reports.
The advanced S-400 “Triumf” air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service (SBU) and navy, the BBC and Reuters reported, citing Ukrainian intelligence sources.
The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the use of aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, per Anton Gerashchenko, a Ukrainian official writing on Telegram.
Yevpatoriya is a coastal city in the west of occupied Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014.
The air-defence system fired its rounds to shoot the drones down, thus revealing its location, Rybar reported. Ukraine waited until it had fired all its ammo, then targeted it with cruise missiles.
Killbots have a hardwired kill limit.
Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own drones at them…
Looks like he was not completely wrong. A valid strategy!
Just so you know, this is a quote from zapp brannigan from futurama
[exasperated Kif noises]
I was talking about him.
my bad
That’s pretty clever
Seems too obvious, though. What protections do other air defense systems use?
They keep a reserve of missiles for defense instead of blowing their load on likely decoys.
Ideally you duct-tape a grenade to each of your “decoys” so it doesn’t really matter either way which target they choose to prioritize
See drones that cheap make everything harder, but you don’t shoot them down if you know your enemy has a serious cruise missile capability in reserve.
Hard math though, hide your position or stop incoming.
Paper and paper derivatives. Like cardboard.
Sellotape?
I suppose that until then you couldn’t saturate such a system, but now with cheap drones this strategy has become possible.
NATO have really good threat analysis so they’d try to target the drones with turret machine guns, small rockets, or air defence drones and leave the big boys sitting ready for larger and faster moving attacks.
Practically though a conflict between major powers would quickly turn into a production race to see who can turn out the most drones
I don’t know what size of drones we are talking about but Australia is sending cardboard drones to Ukraine.
Cardboard drones that have a range of 100km with a 3kg payload.
I feel like cheap done and internet access really changed the way war is done.
That makes a lot of sense especially if they’re essentially loitering munitions, just need a bunker full of operators and you can stick a whole cloud of them in the sky so once an operator has exploded one drone there’s another just coming into range of the battlefield…
Plus you could probably make so many cardboard drones that just flying then randomly over Russian controlled ground will draw fire from air defense and waste ammo, they should make a super simple one that just flies in the direction of the Kremlin until it gets shot down, could cut out most the electronics and if they’re released from a mothership already high up then the motor could be super simple too.
War really has changed a lot, and the scary thing is it’s only going to keep changing
Baited, lawl
They played rust during their down time huh
Why does every news article nowadays repeat itself at least 2 times? There are almost the exact same sentences twice. You don’t even have to read past the abstract because there is no other information at all in the actual text. And besides, you avoid having to scroll past 7 gigantic ads
SEO, AI generated content
I’m so happy. I thought it was just me noticing this. I really dislike when the headline is the headline, summary and first paragraph. By the time I get to the substance of the article I’ve read the first paragraph three times.
I think it’s because the first paragraph is usually preview content for news aggregators and search engines, so it’s used as an appetizer.
Probably stems at least in part from the essay format a lot of us were taught in school.
Intro: tell em what you’re gonna tell em
Body: tell em
Conclusion: tell em what you told em
You probably got taught wrong. At least that’s not what I learnt (early 90s);
Intro: what’s the problem? Background stuff.
Body: here’s a solution and what else we looked at
Conclusion: tie back solution to problem and what further stuff we could talk about.
Less right vs wrong than just the way it was done. It’s the product of word/page requirements that encourages us to fluff the everliving fuck out of our papers.
I also remember being taught this way. It’s why you have people that say “in this essay I am going to tell you”, which is, of course, bad.
Yeah it’s not exactly a highlight of academia.
I took a technical writing course in college, and it delivered the best lesson of any English course I’ve been in:
Assigned your standard 3 page essay with little instruction. Do it, hand it in. Get a grade and the paper back. Next assignment: write that same essay, but this time in 1 page. And again, but this time in a single paragraph, using bullet points to summarize the main ideas.
“…and that’s how you write a work email. Remove ALL the fluff. If it takes longer than 30 seconds to read, it’s probably not going to be read.”
That is:
- Pretty clever.
- clever
👍
Because they don’t care about quality in depth content. They’re just in it for the clicks. Probably had an algorithm fill in the remaining paragraphs
Did you ever have to write a paper in school with a minimum page or word count?
I like it. Most other articles on internet today made on purpose super long to show you 5090 ads even before you get to the first main point.
Ah, I think you just answered your own question. Articles gave a lot less substance in the age of information. “News” outlets still need ad revenue even if they don’t employ journalists any more.
You answered your own question
Ads
AIDS
And it’s also 2 day old news
Also what’s up with the the fact that I need to scroll more than one page down on (even on full-screen 1080p) to get to the actual article? I should be able to begin reading it immediately, and it should appear the top of the webpage. I really hate this horrible UX on “modern” websites.
deleted by creator
Just as a heads up, SCMP is a bit of an iffy source, being owned by alibaba and run as a near state owned paper. At one point, it was also owned by Murdoch as well.
Since the change of ownership in 2016, concerns have been raised about the paper’s editorial independence and self-censorship. Critics including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Atlantic have alleged that the paper is on a mission to promote China’s soft power abroad.
I noticed that the fediverse really isn’t great at noticing unscrupulous people and sources, so it’s heartening to see this.
SCMP is an odd one, as they commonly publish articles critical of the CCP.
They seem to operate along the lines of ‘we can’t stop anti-CCP news, but at least we can soften the blow for select audiences.’ Or something like that. They’re definitely an interesting case, though.
I’ve noticed! I try to help raise awareness of potentially unreliable sources when I recognize them. :)
Is it that people don’t notice the source or that they prefer sources that are open about their biases? How is it any less useful to know that this source is generally pushing a pro-China story when we also know that the NYT, BBC, etc will push a pro-US and pro-NATO bias and then strut around pretending that they are somehow balanced and unbiased?
Talk about eating up propaganda…
A big part of seeing through the bias of an organization is reading around through other sources with different biases and then taking a critical look at all of them so you can get closer to what is actually going on and challenge your own biases. I find the users on Lemmy tend to actually read the sources that are provided whereas people are so bad about reading sources posted to Reddit that commenters not reading the source became a meme on Reddit.
This comment is just another example of the pretentious Redditor attitude that an exudes an air of, “Here, let me grace you all with my superior intellect as you are all a bunch of uncultured swine.” Instead of blindly applying a negative judgement against the community, why don’t you stop and think about why it may be this way? Better yet, ask others why they read outside of mainstream sources instead of assuming you know better.
No source is ever unbiased and to pretend otherwise and place sources that confirm your own bias on a pedestal is pure, uncritical drivel. Be critical of the Chinese media, but don’t pretend that Western sources are any better. Every public communication you see from any organization is propaganda.
Potentially better sources. Somehow in the last couple of days the value of the air defense system went up 700M:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-destroys-russian-air-defence-083306512.html
The South China Morning Post article is a carbon copy of the BI article. That is typical of disinformation outlets. 4/5 of the news is copy pastad from reliable sources, and the other 1/5 is total bullshit. Russia Today operated like that for years, and probably still does.
It’s hardly like China is favouring Ukraine, so I don’t see how the article being from the SCMP matters
Whoooaaa… The South China Morning Post is reporting this in this kind of tone? Now that is a shifting of the tides, they didn’t have to talk up how “prized” it was. No wonder Putin is cozying up to Kim.
Never thought I’d see the day where Russia comes crawling to North Korea, but if Xi’s support is starting to wilt this much, they’re going to need anyone they can get.
They even threw this in for shits and giggles:
This would not be the first time Russia accidentally revealed its location by attempting to shoot down Ukrainian targets.
Last week, Ukraine said it was able to attack Russian soldiers after they attempted to shoot down a Ukrainian flag that was attached to helium balloons and flew into occupied territory.
It’s like Looney Tunes, but with blood
I want to upvote you twice: once for the apt comparison, and again for spelling “Tunes” right.
There’s also the map incident, where China redrew the map and put islands that had already been agreed between the two countries as their own. I suppose china is smelling blood and like every dictator it only respects force.
I never thought I would see the day when Russia and China, previously fighting Nazi Germany and Japan would become so like the countries themselves back then, but here we are.
Russia is the modern day Nazi Germany and China is the modern day WW2 Japan. Japan and Germany? Well they’re the good guys now, literally swapped places.
One thing that worries me regarding that… If you consider the past couple thousand years, a very large number of different peoples have tried to conquer the world, from Alexander the Great leading the Macedonians to Napoleon and his European conquests. They all failed, and their works were often ruined after their deaths. If not ruined then, then within a few centuries.
Much like how an individual can make mistakes and learn from experience, so can a culture, society or organization. The peoples that tried to conquer the world learned lessons from that experience, that altered their behavior moving into the future.
China, specifically, is a proud, rich and prosperous land. They were extremely insular for most of history, they actually never once tried to conquer the world to demonstrate any objective superiority they may believe in. So they never learned this cultural lesson in the same way that others did.
The idea of this lesson needing to be learned the hard way, in the modern world, with modern technology, worries me significantly.
I don’t think there was any support from China in the first place it’s just that China didn’t want to cross Russia publicly. They probably did remind Russia of the nuclear guarantees they gave to Ukraine in private, which is why we hear Russia threatening the west but not Ukraine, and then sat back while Russia dug its own grave. Publicly opposing Russia might have stopped Russia from doing that. Generally speaking, you can expect the Chinese to be shifty just as you can expect Yanks to whip their dick around and the Swiss to profit by harbouring money.
And while some Chinese munition was found in Russian stockpiles it’s overall quite little, probably arriving there via third parties. If China actually backed Russia up with hardware things would look quite different.
…and the Russia went straight ahead practically days after doing egregious shit that China is not cool with, never has been, having misconstrued talk for willingness to walk. Russian diplomats should know the Chinese well enough to know, but when has Putin ever listened to people.
You only hear Russia threaten the west, but not Ukraine? You don’t remember when they pushed through the vote to annex the Donbas area, because making it officially Russian territory gives them the excuse to nuke to defend it?
Here’s a more recent reminder: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/europe/medvedev-russia-nuclear-weapons-intl-hnk/index.html
I’d also be interested in seeing any evidence of Chinese guarantees of Ukraine, if you got any handy. Only fools trust rumors.
Your last paragraph was actually accurate, surprisingly. I suppose a little bit of truth seasons a bunch of random-ass claims like salt, doesn’t it?
Nuclear threats in particular. “Attack with nuclear weapons or threats thereof”. They stopped just short of calling it a nuclear umbrella, considering it simply an expression of their non-proliferation doctrine, “make sure nuclear blackmail isn’t a thing so states don’t feel the need to acquire nukes”.
The text of the unilateral declaration is apparently here but I don’t read Chinese and google translate doesn’t like pictures.
Fair. Maybe someone can come by and read it. I’ll point out though, that Ukraine had similar “guarantees” with the US, the UK and Russia.
Statements without explicitly requiring a delineated mechanism of response can be empty words, even when signed as a treaty. As Ukraine’s experiences should clearly demonstrate, though it shouldn’t be hard to think of other times when treaties proved to be mere empty words.
Article is misleading. These systems are never a single unit. There’s parts spread around where radar is separate from launchers, and other components etc. It’s not clear in the article what exactly was destroyed.
This was a triumf
I’m making a note here, huge success.
It’s hard to overstate Russian incompetence
Lack of real science.
They die as they must,
Because,
Put(a)in
But not anymore.
They should have had two so that they could protect each other.
Also s300 and s400 did protect each other. Didn’t help.
Doesn’t work
3?
They don’t have that many left.
2.5?
