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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] [S] 129 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 87 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Killbots have a hardwired kill limit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own drones at them...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Seems too obvious, though. What protections do other air defense systems use?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They keep a reserve of missiles for defense instead of blowing their load on likely decoys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 121 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 79 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I noticed that the fediverse really isn’t great at noticing unscrupulous people and sources, so it’s heartening to see this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 51 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Here's how it went:

    1. Few waves of drones were sent
    2. AD spent their ammo on cheap drones
    3. Missile strike before AD was reloaded
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    They should have had two so that they could protect each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›