World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I thought maybe the thumbnail was just some generic small plane, but nope. That's the same model that keeps making successful attacks in Russia. The Aeroprakt A-22. That little prop plane. Top speed 127 mph/204 kph. That's what Russia can't find and shoot down.
Girkin is in jail, you know, so now they have issues shooting down civilian aircraft
Which is most effective at evading Russian air defense? The F-35, an exquisitely designed $110M jet with among the best stealth that Lockheed Skunkworks can create, or the Ukrainian equivalent of a Cessna trainer aircraft?
It has always been the Cessna, if anyone has not heard of Mathias Rust. It is worth reading. He flew a light aircraft to Moscow and landed it in the middle of the cold war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
Depends heavily on what air defense it's stacked against and who coordinated the mission.
Low speed, low altitude aircraft are excellent at evading higher end air defenses, particularly if you've scouted out the anti-air surveillance in advance.
Riminder the Bismarck wasnt critically damaged by top of the line aircraft, it was sunk by a bunch of biplanes which were effectively immune to its AA.
A great example, setting aside the fact that battleships have always been more trouble than they were worth.
Although, modern aircraft carriers are approaching that kind of outdated-ness. I'm genuinely curious to see what happens when America loses it's first $50B floating fortress.
Battlships filled roughly the same position heavy tanks once filled, big heavy hitters that could take a beating. But with the march of progress came their downfall, that and the adoption of different fleet tactics.
I suspect that the big Carriers will be replaced with something more akin to smaller carriers, kinda like what Japan uses. Though those are definitely just destroyers no carriers here. But yeah with VTOL large aircraft carriers will most likely end up being decommissioned or turned into portable hospitals or soemthing specifically the nuclear ones.
Saying they were always more trouble than they were worth is a bit of a miss though: They completely dominated for a period, to the point where entire columns would be redirected or kept in port if intelligence arrived saying that a certain battleship had left port and was on the hunt.
As for the "modern" aircraft carrier: I think it will remain viable until we see a fundamental paradigm shift in how naval warfare is conducted. A carrier is at the centre of a carrier strike group, and is probably one of the most well protected places on the planet at any time, and can move at over 40 knots. I have a hard time imagining what could locate and take out an alert carrier in reasonable distance from shore, other than another carrier group.
Bombers and long range torpedos spring to mind, particularly when the carrier is moving through a relatively right corridor, like the Red Sea.
The Houthis have already functionally shut down the Suez against commercial traffic just by threatening from the coast. And they're employing relatively unsophisticated artillery.
I specified "a reasonable distance from shore" because an important part of the point of a carrier is exactly that it can stay easily 100 km from shore and still strike far inland. If a carrier is in range of shore-based torpedoes, they've likely messed up long ago.
As for bombers: They're historically the major threat to carriers, but I don't see any modern developments that make modern bombers any more of a threat to modern carriers than WW2 era bombers were to WW2 era carriers.
Gets farther and farther away as long range artillery improves.
Jet engines have been a BFD for some time. They've forced significant investment in countermeasures, few of which have been tested in combat.
Long range artillery has pretty hard limits, and once you approach the 100km range, time to target becomes a real issue, even for missiles that can be shot down.
Modern anti-air hat a range of several hundred km, and has been combat tested. More short-range systems (< 50 km) are in use (with huge success) every day in Ukraine. Of course bombers have also improved, but I wouldn't put money on the bombers having improved relative to the AA.
Ps. I'm not the person downvoting you, I think you make a decent point, I just disagree :)
The Red Sea is at most 300 km wide, and tightens up quiet a bit as you approach the Suez.
And Iran has supersonic torpedos capable of closing that distance in very short order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(torpedo)
Anything that isn't reflexively nationalist gets an ambient amount of hate on Lemmy.world.
Is this essentially a piper cub or something entirely different?
Similar, yeah. More modern construction and side-by-side seating instead of tandem. But otherwise, similar size and weight.
They must have done something to it, because Wikipedia puts its max range as 680 miles.
Adding a 5 gallons gas tank isn't that hard.
Empty weight 260 kg. So a normal Pilot 70-80 kg adds 25-30% weight on top. Plus the weight for seat, steering wheels etc. So with a small payload they probably safe quite some weight.
Plis adding extra fuel tanks in spota for cargo/pilot etc. prob helps and striping it off anything unnecessary like seats breaks etc...
We aren't talking about the weight of the payload though. Don't you need a fairly hefty bomb to meaningfully damage a refinery?
If the answer is no, I would love to see this strategy implemented in a longer ranged plane. Russia's main tank production factory is about 2000 miles from the nominal Ukrainian border.
Total weight is crucial for how far a plane can fly. So - Pilot weight + Payload weight needs to be considered.
In terms of damage, if you hit the right spot without redundancies you can shut down or severely limit operations of a plant even with only a small material damage. Even if there is no visible damage, reducing the structural integrity of pressure pipes and the like can force a shutdown of that equipment until the damage is properly investigated.
In 2019 Houthis successfully attacked two Saudi refineries with a small swarm of drones, forcing a shutdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack
Good context, cheers
A refinery has a tank with millions of liters of gasoline. It already has the bomb. All you really need is a penetrator and an igniter.
Typically buried underground.
You… got a source for that?
Twenty years in O&G
Fifteen here. Underground tanks are not that common. They are a maintenance and environmental nightmare. But it would be nice if you could provide with any evidence other than “trust me bro”.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2015/10/19/124674/on-edge-of-houston-underground-caverns-store-huge-quantities-of-natural-gas-liquids/
http://www.gazprominfo.com/articles/gas-storage/
Underground salt plumes are some of the most efficient natural forms of liquid and gas storage.
So all you need to do to build a tank is to move your entire facility to where natural geology favors not building a tank?
That still says nothing about the prevalence of above ground vs underground tanks.
Large storage facilities are located where geology makes storing energy underground cheap.
Man, now you’re just moving goalposts. Did they blow up a refinery or whatever you’re cooking up in your head? It’s clear you’re not having an honest discourse here. Goodbye.
It's not clear how much damage they did or if they even fully halted operations. Normally, you want to hit a facility like that more than once.
From the pictures on twitter damage seems pretty minimal.
Depends on where you drop it.
But otherwise, the headline is almost certainly overstated. It makes for some sexy war propaganda, though.
It does also show Russia that Ukraine is capable of bypassing their defenses and successfully attacking infrastructure (or military installations/encampments) several hundred kilometers inside Russia.
And doing it multiple times.
That's never been in doubt. It's been a war of attrition from day one.
The extended range in a gonzo mission is notable precisely because it's so desperate.