The Ukrainian source:
"The SBU military counterintelligence attacked the airfield in Kursk, Russia, on the night of August 27. Aircraft and air defense equipment of the occupiers are placed there.
Sources in the Security Service of Ukraine told RBC-Ukraine about this .
According to our sources, the Kursk airfield was attacked by the SBU military counter-intelligence at night.
It is known that kamikaze drones have destroyed four Su-30 aircraft and one MiG-29. The S-300 complex's radars and two "Pantsyra" are also among the targets hit.
Almost all SBU drones reached their targets, according to preliminary information, only three of them were shot down by Russian air defense."
The Russian Fighterbomber TG channel:
https:// t .me/fighter_bomber/13797 (remove spaces from the link)
"[Ukrainians] were the first to use Australian SYPAQ UAVs to attack an airfield.
Such a drone can carry 4-5 kg of cargo in the kamikaze version. The engine may be electric. The main feature of this drone is its modularity and disposability, because it is made almost entirely of wax-impregnated paper and rubber bands, which together makes it almost invisible to the radar.
Tonight, [Ukrainians] used them in a bunch, interspersing drones with warheads with empty drones.
I don’t know exactly what engines were on the drones, but if there were electric [they are electric with a 120 km range], then they were not launched from Ukraine.
Protection is standard. Jammers for GPS signal, Starlink frequencies and known drone control frequencies. Machine guns with tracers and night vision sights and teplokami. Searchlights. And of course gabions, sandbags and nets where possible."
Radar return is dependent by orders of magnitude on the frequency of the signal, which is (partly) engineered to be reflective off the specific surfaces of enemy aircraft. Understandably no one designed air defense to work particularly well against wood and paper targets. Outside of that, wood or paper are inherently less reflective than metal or CF.
That's not impassable though really. For a single site transmit-receive radar the detection range is proportional to the fourth root of the RCS. So if the RCS is 1000x lower than a metal plane, it is still detectable at a ~6x shorter range. The largest problems remain the radar horizon itself, and correctly binning the radar return to show it as an output to the user. That's the job of the radar data processor's algorithms, which is the part they're constantly updating throughout the war.
>wax-impregnated paper and rubber bands
I was gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was 3d printed brown plastic but to lose to this....
Modern war is worse than we could have imagined.
3D prints have a lower strength to weight ratio than paper sandwich structures. 3D prints in general shouldn't really be used for structural uses, at least where they represent a large percentage of the structure and where the weight is critical. In fact, paper sandwich panels present a great low cost resource for manufacturing small low cost airplanes, there is a reason cardboard boxes are so popular. Fiberglass with foam filling would be better of course but somewhat more expensive.
>wax-impregnated paper and rubber bands
>Literal billions of rubles in damage
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Shaheed-sisters how can we compete.
Wax, cardboard and rubber bands. All coming together to make a drone that only costs $3000.
>Machine guns with tracers and night vision sights and teplokami. Searchlights. And of course gabions, sandbags and nets where possible."
Kino. Like playing miniature WW2 battles but for real.
Cardboard F-35 when
Honestly this does really make me wonder how visible something constructed in a similar way to a WW1 biplane would be to radar if manufactured with modern computer aides and an electronic power train.
Like, wood and fabric, or even actual cardboard, closed cell poly foam, etc.
>WW1 biplane
metal frame wrapped in cloth, not very stealthy
Might be hard to believe anon, but most WW1 aircraft had wooden frames, not metal.
See picrelated, Sopwith Camel reproduction.
Looks like metal to me.
I assure you that aside from the engine its mostly wood
Wood gun?
unfortunately science does not yet favour such a possibility
Hello, my name is Jörg Spravr and here we have a rubber band powered wooden gun for a wooden plane. Let me show you its features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_mortar
Forgot pic.
The Japanese had a bamboo panzerfaust project late in WW2.
And the Germans experimented with making panzerfausts and panzerschrecks out of compressed glue-impregnated cardboard in the final days of WWII.
Wood pilot.
Nobody tell Shoigu or he'll pop a boner
>Dogfighting krauts while sitting in a wicker chair
What a time to be alive.
wait until you see the DIY rocking chair setup
gives you +1g tolerance
They make radomes out of polycarbonate, Anon.
Just sayin'.
And it`s only the beginning
>Russia is losing to Origami now
wew
wow its just like the drone mission in call of duty
Flite Test confirmed operating in Ukraine
I'll take it as a yes.
I still can't believe these shits could take out four fighter jets.
Like sure, a truck or a bunch of ziggers out in the open, but not a jet.
because jets are well known for having tons of heavy top armor and no sensitive parts.
It's a lot more likely than you think. Even if it's the same payload used for everyday vatnik removal. The electrical and hydraulic systems inside of a jet are protected by very thin metal. It's a sacrifice that's considered acceptable because the idea is that they're going to be using their countermeasures to avoid any damage to begin with. They're not designed to take punishment. That's not a Russian feature, that's just modern aviation generally. A-10 memes aside, any modern jet is going to, at the very least, be grounded for weeks if not months if it's not outright destroyed by a dropped grenade. And if these were kamikaze drones with the usual RPG payloads? Nope. They're fucked.
(You) retard. Assuming this isn't a famine on your part go look up the weight of a warhead for a MANPADS like Igla or Stinger.
A truck is more difficult to destroy then a fighter jet anon
>actual fucking rubber bands holding it together
The absolute state of this war
And Russians really still think the Ukrainians are just backwoods hicks? The fuckers are geniuses.
Its an australian company that makes them and ships them over
Ukraine relies entirely on gibs. They dont do shit.
Ukraine has much more advanced drones of its own.
They also just blew up one of your much-overhyped S-400 systems with their domestically produced Neptun missile.
Backwoods hicks can jury rig some of the most incredible shit out of nothing.
My university's Aero Eng program had a workshop that looked like this, but with slightly less camo.
>4 kg payload not enough to fuck up fighter jet
Strange how stinger ACKs Russian fighter jets with 3 kg warheads
I think the legit counter to this low tech is really high tech. Put a couple of good LLTV near each potential target (or even along the whole border) and train an AI to spot drones. I don't imagine human operators being particularly good at spotting a small moving clump of pixels, especially after staring at the monitor for hours. Another reason is that you would need a whole lot of operators.
>Just spend billions to deploy technology the Russians don't have that'll only counter (maybe) this one type of attack
>I think the legit counter to this low tech is really high tech.
Call me a retard but if ukraine spends 20$ of someones lunch money and builds 10k of these paper and rubberband jokes, russia does not have enough air defence missiles to shoot them all down?
Or are you thinking what - lasers?
lasers and directed EM weapons are pretty much the only feasible counters to drone spam
Impregnated cardboard does not mean low tech.
To do it right you need proper material science just like any other material, to call something made of cheap materials low tech would mean silicon wafers are low tech.
>4 kg payload not enough to fuck up fighter jet
?t=535
Here's what 85Grams of RDX does to a plane.
Shut the your cockholster pidoruski retard.
>4 kg payload not enough to fuck up fighter jet
how to say you know nothing about explosives without saying it.
4kg of even a shit-tier explosive, like TATP, would DESTROY any air frame that suffered a contact detonation. Probably start a fire too.
i love this lil bro like you wouldn't believe
If you're in a fortification that's easily spotted, why wouldn't you set up radio jammers to reduce your exposure to drones?
Because you're probably also using drones, jamming can (probably) only affect a certain band of frequencies at a time and if they use one outside that band it won't work, because you probably need to talk to people via radio as well, and because a massive radiation source makes a juicy target for something like a HARM. All of this assumes your country isn't a broke shithole who can't afford squad portable electronic countermeasures for their troops. Which Russia is.
Jammers don't discriminate. They just jam a specific bandwidth. That means your drones or communications are fucked too. The simple answer is that Russia doesn't expect Ukraine to launch masses of drones at the airfield to hit a few aircraft. After the 'no aircraft were damaged' last year (when it was up to 21 or so) Russia only has minimum amounts in airbases without drone range for this exact reason.
Why would you set up radio jammers in a fortification if you can set up radio jammers in your dacha's backyard?
Jammers are easily traceable... think shouting like a fucking madman in a field somewhere; nobody will understand you, but they will know exactly where you are.
Then comes the attack to get you to quit shouting.
The assumption is that everybody knows you're there anyway.
Don't fuck with /po/
The war was a cover for the 4chan vs /po/ war all along
Aircraft are not heavily armoured things, anon. They kinda avoid that so they can go fast and go further.
>le AC-10 is le flying tank
Not really.
Anyway, 4kg will absolutely rekt an aircraft if it hits. It won't atomise it, but it will damage it sufficiently to render it useless.
Planes aren't exactly durable, especially if they're grounded and you can hit them right in the engine without much effort.
You don't have to peg them in the engine. An AIM-9 only has a 9kg warhead and even that much is because it's supposed to just vomit fragments nearby rather then directly hit the plane.
I was more thinking in terms of the minimum payload you could get away with. I figure if you were able to fly a suicide quadcopter directly up a plane's ass you could get away with 30 grams or so of RDX and still ruin the airframe.
where is proofs???
Took a few days for the satellite images of the latest strategic bomber hit to come out, give it time.
>grounded Russian jets got blown up by militarized Nintendo Labos
I want out of this clown battlefield.
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
OI OI OI
whats stopping them from literally sending hundreds at a time for the fear factor?
or better yet. Imagine sending 300 fake ones for every one with an actual payload
Payload is cheap, anon. There's no reason to send fakes when you can put 10 bucks of explosives in it and suddenly it's a major threat. Quantity is a result of the low manufacturer output, since the cardboard wings and stuff still require a reasonably powerful engine, sensors, and control unit.
Must be frustrating knowing that a couple of cardboard toy planed can do a better job in one attack that all the missile and drones you launched so far.
>Russia is losing assets to literal African-tier origami drones
Of course it's Australians who came up with this shit. Fuckin deranged.
>Of course it's Australians who came up with this shit.
They literally copied it from FliteTest.
You morons doubted Flitetest. Look where we are now.
no rudder or elevator ?
seems to only have elevons
No, fuck off. Bullshit.
We are not fighting the most recent land war in europe with fucking cardboard weapons.
We can't be.
It do, tovarisch
Impresseeve.
Weeth thiies maowst recent achievaement, fyte hahs, in a seengle stroke, mahked the decloine of russia and spaelled a new era of wawndrous prawspaerity and globul payce faw the Austruylian roo, wheech prawmisses t' stahnd in shahp cawntrahst t' the heestoricohly incawnvaenient ascent of oligahchy and its cruel loimituytions on the cunts of the wohld. The blaesseengs of boomeruyng meessoiles, deesappointin defaense news faw the fraench, hoypuhs'nic cahdboahd drones, invuyseeve emu ahmees, and sahltwottah crocodoile submahsibles weell be the instruments boy wheech austruylees affuhms its nawble stewahdshiiep of 21st saenturay wohld poloiteecs and offahs the cunts of the waest an ooltuhnuyteeve t' the depreduytions of russian suhfeesm and the oppohtunity faw moah profih'able and sekyuah multiluyteruyleesm.
Russian Airforce vs some cheeky cardboard cunts, who would win?
Same answer as "Russian tank force vs some pissed-off old guys defending their homes".
A WEAPON TO SURPASS METAL GEAR
>the west has cheap disposable drones literally made of paper
Holy shit is there anything we aren’t the best at?