Russia Confirms Mass Drone Attack in Syria

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Montu, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. Montu

    Montu [H]ard DCOTM x4

    Messages:
    7,013
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    A first of its kind mass drone attack was confirmed by Russia and they say there may be a Ukrainian connection to this attack. The attackers hand-built 13 drones using plastic sheeting/wrap, wood, model airplane engines and other miscellaneous materials. Each of the drones carried 10 bomblets. However, the attacks were unsuccessful because the Russians either shot them down or used ECM to bring them down. US Forces say they've seen ISIS use drones in the past, but this is the first time so many were used in a single attack. Since drones are so available on the open market is it only a matter of time till we see terrorist use this in Europe and the US?

    He said that unspecified terrorists utilized a total of 13 improvised drones, each carrying 10 bomblets, sending 10 to Russia's Khmeimim air base in Latakia governorate and the other three to its naval base in Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea. The munitions each had an explosive charge weighing nearly one pound, as well as strings of metal ball bearings or BBs glued together as pre-formed shrapnel, which would have made them most effective against individuals out in the open.
     
  2. DeathFromBelow

    DeathFromBelow [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,647
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Did they shoot any of them down with multimillion dollar defense missiles like NATO does? Just one would make the whole operation cost effective.
     
  3. bugleyman

    bugleyman Gawd

    Messages:
    945
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Sadly this is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
     
    Silentbob343 likes this.
  4. thebadgerone

    thebadgerone Gawd

    Messages:
    655
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Seems to be model airplanes, not drones as we think of them (electric powered multirotors)
     
  5. thesmokingman

    thesmokingman [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,782
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
  6. 86 5.0L

    86 5.0L [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,886
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Nah, call them drones, sounds scarier and gets the ratings up
     
    Doward and Gasaraki_ like this.
  7. FlawleZ

    FlawleZ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    435
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Same thing. It's still an unmanned, remote controlled aircraft. Which, we've had this tech for decades the whole "drone" buzz is comical to me. Someone started marketing remote controlled aircraft and slapped a camera on it and suddenly it's this crazy new concept everone wants to label as a "drone."
     
  8. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,511
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Considering that the US used B-17s loaded with explosive as radio controlled drones in WWII, plus usage of surplus aircraft as controlled targets, the usage is correct. The electric multirotors are the ones borrowing the term.
     
    NoOther likes this.
  9. the-one1

    the-one1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,900
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    I prefer the term "Remotely Operated Flying Machine", or ROFM for short.
     
  10. Willypants

    Willypants Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Funny, when my neighbor buzzes my back yard, I refer to them as "Annoying Mother****ers" so, AMF's for short
     
    Montu likes this.
  11. dangerouseddy

    dangerouseddy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    so they're using swarming tactics then?
     
    westrock2000 likes this.
  12. Etherton

    Etherton Will Bang for Poof

    Messages:
    6,806
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
     
  13. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    model airplanes with bombs in them have been used for years, more than quad/multicopter got the name for drone, even though US army drones are mini jets.
     
  14. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    866
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Russia - "It's got to be Ukraine, there's not enough PETN in the Syrian war zone to have come from anywhere else!"
     
    TwistedAegis likes this.
  15. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Gawd

    Messages:
    577
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Bomblets so like firecrackers?
     
  16. Jtal

    Jtal n00bie

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2017
    Dammit they were drones. Printed on a 3D printer powered by lithium batteries payed for with Bitcoin and they attacked from the cloud.
     
  17. atp1916

    atp1916 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,105
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    LOL

    A+
     
  18. Silentbob343

    Silentbob343 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,707
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Looking at that engine and it was not a silent attack. I have family that lives a couple miles from an RC airfield and you can hear the gassers no problem.
     
    travbrad likes this.
  19. travbrad

    travbrad [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,235
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    They failed on both counts then. It was neither silent nor deadly.
     
  20. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,247
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    So....imagining something like this

    [​IMG]
     
    Doward and Krenum like this.
  21. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    866
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    No, repurposed military grade explosives significantly more powerful than black powder.
     
  22. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Probably not a good delivery platform in the US or Europe. Drones are effective in combat zones because the target would be armed and could potentially thwart a land based attack with lives lost on the opposing side. US and Europe soft targets don't really have an armed response ready that could identify a vehicle or person delivered bomb. Since vehicles and people can deliver payloads of much higher yield than a garage made drone could, they would be preferred. Especially when considering ease of access.
     
  23. Wolf-R1

    Wolf-R1 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,953
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    You win! LOL
     
  24. viper1152012

    viper1152012 Gawd

    Messages:
    600
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Happy they failed but seriously, couldn't wrap them in basic emi foil.... LosErz
     
  25. jojo69

    jojo69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,412
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
  26. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    381
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Maybe that is what happened, but why is the source that you quoted asserting that is the case, when the story comes directly reported from Russia, and Russia presents an entirely different picture of the event?


    Edit: I didn't fully read the OP article before posting this, and it actually reports many details coming from Russia's perspective.


    Once Russia reported the event, the US government was quick to issue a hypothesis that the drones in question are available on the open market (without giving evidence), and Western media seems to have run with the US' 3rd-party re-framing of the story, rather than with the story as Russia has been conveying it.


    Russia says that:

    - The attack could only have been carried out by a group that had access to satellite navigation technology
    - There are signs of high-level technology in the drone, and Russia says that the drones could only have come from a country possessing state-of-the-art technology, including the ability to trigger remote-detonation of the drones at certain geographical coordinates
    - A US surveillance plane was suspiciously circling the area at the time of the attack

    https://www.rt.com/news/415374-drones-syria-terrorists-russian-defense/
    https://www.rt.com/usa/415314-pentagon-syria-isis-drones-concerns/
    https://www.rt.com/news/415641-putin-syria-base-attack-turkey/


    Clearly, Russia is treating the case as though the US is likely involved, if not directly (less likely), than by giving technological assistance to a group that carried it out (more likely).


    I make no claims about what the truth of the incident is, but I see that the report you quoted, Montu, like many others being presented in Western media, has entirely whitewashed the story of all details implicating US or other technologically-advanced country involvement, and of Russia's own perspective.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  27. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    5,495
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Russia can treat the US as the shadow aggressor based on the technology all they want, but China will sell that stuff to anyone- on a corner market.

    There's nothing advanced going on here.
     
  28. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,842
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Don't quote or link propaganda sites like RT please. Its like quoting or linking OAN which is every bit as bad.

    The few bits of useful info. there can be trivially gotten elsewhere anyways.
     
    scan13 and IdiotInCharge like this.
  29. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    381
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Not at all. RT is much less propaganda than most US MSM sources, and they're quoted or referenced all the time. And I will continue to quote and link to RT because RT consistently provides important subject-clarifying details that other news outlets do not. And further, this story is directly about Russia, and is coming directly from Russia, and so the information presented by RT is going to be more first-hand than information presented by US or Western news sources.

    And all of that is fully proven in this very case, since the RT articles I linked to above present many additional details of the incident, and Russia's own report of it, while the OP-quoted report omitted those things, and crafted an alternative, re-worked narrative that is not really in-line with the source of the story.

    What you've just done is literally request that a more accurate report not be quoted or linked-to, and instead that a proven propaganda re-framing of the story, should be left unchallenged. You're literally condoning and promoting the spreading of propaganda, while arguing that non-propaganda sources should not be presented and represented.


    Not even close, and the fact that large relevant bits of information about this story were omitted by the OP report, while provided by RT, immediately proves your assertion wrong and false. If you were familiar with RT vs Western news reporting, you'd know how ridiculous and false a statement that is. But you're just knee-jerk reacting out of being brainwashed - and the fact that your assertions are proven wrong in this very instance underscores that.


    There's a reason why RT is the 2nd most-watched news in the world (after the BBC), according to Western pollster Ipsos. And if you dare to venture outside of the US' propaganda information bubble, you might discover why for yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  30. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    5,495
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    ...ever wonder if those 'extra details' are the exact propaganda that you're being warned about?

    No?

    Lol.
     
    scan13 and mesyn191 like this.
  31. SighTurtle

    SighTurtle [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,277
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    I don't get why the U.S would want to attack Russia in the first place. Directly or indirectly.
     
  32. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,842
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    A casual google easily brings up articles showing this to be BS.

    And there is nothing particularly special about it being "direct from Russia" either since any of the large news organizations have competent foreign desks that do a good job there too. (edit) And Syria isn't in Russia either last I checked.

    Whether or not such details as the construction materials and methods are accurate or not is besides the point since the conclusions that are being drawn by that article (ie. "somehow the US was involved! ISIS =US!!!") are clearly made up BS which is why RT is a shitty propaganda site that shouldn't be linked or quoted.

    Do you not know how to google stuff or what? This information is available on crappy "me to" car sites. You can get it anywhere. Why the other article didn't give it is besides the point, you do not have to go to, link, or read anything RT to get this information.

    Popularity is no indicator of quality or evidence. Crap tier tabloids are also fairly popular too.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    scan13 and IdiotInCharge like this.
  33. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    381
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Do you ever wonder if your conditioning to pre-emptively shut out additional details from other sides is the result of being brainwashed by propaganda?

    No?

    Lol.

    If you shut out the consideration of information in order to believe that you're not being propagandized against, then you're already propagandized against, and are not in a position to know whether certain information is propaganda or not, because you haven't considered it. Your argument is self-debunking, and is basically akin to saying that you think your're smart because you don't think for yourself and believe whatever your overlord propaganda sources tell you to believe. It's stupidity.


    Because the US and Russia support opposing sides in the conflict in Syria. For the US to achieve its goals in Syria, it has to defeat Russia's goals in Syria.
     
  34. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,842
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    And yet helping ISIS won't serve the US'es goals here either.

    Reminder that this was fairly small amount of drones loaded with a small amount of bombs that could've killed or injured several trucks or teams of men but weren't going to change the course of the conflict or even just a single battle.

    Also reminder that the RT article tries to build a US+ISIS conspiracy out of "well there was a US plane sorta near here so maybe who knows?".

    That was your big and obvious tip off that its propaganda BTW.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  35. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    5,495
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    You're posting from RT, as a sole source. Your ignorance is fair game, if it is indeed ignorance and you're not a part of the propaganda mouthpiece that you're trying to defend.

    Also, I haven't posted a source, and I don't intend to- and you cannot draw any conclusion, logically, without evidence. Because that would be self-debunking and stupid.


    If you believe that there are only two sides to the Syrian conflict, you might want to look up the definition of 'ignorance'.
     
    mesyn191 likes this.
  36. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    5,495
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    'The US' didn't; that was Hillary Clinton, and it's one of the many reasons she lost the election. She was more Republican than the Republicans in terms of imperial foreign policy, and she had a personal bone to pick with Putin.
     
  37. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    381
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    You're strongly showing that you're reacting in knee-jerk fashion, not knowing anything about what actually is, but from personal assumptions, and from having believed propaganda as gospel.

    There is strong evidence that the US has helped ISIS in Syria, as RT and the BBC have both reported.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
    https://www.rt.com/news/414446-isis-raqqa-exodus-details/
    https://www.rt.com/news/404365-us-special-forces-isis/
    https://www.rt.com/news/405699-us-isis-syria-russia/
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404311-us-pentagon-arms-exports-syria/
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404438-us-hardware-terrorists-syria/
    https://www.rt.com/usa/413252-report-isis-weapons-syria/
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  38. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    381
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    You're making a fallacious argument that posting information from a particular source, one with a better track record in recent years than most US MSM sources, at that, invalidates the information presented. Your bias and disingenuousness is on full display.

    And I have not argued that RT should be a sole source. I don't know where you're getting that from.

    And you also cannot pass a judgment without first considering information. Yet, your premise, like mesyn191's, is a determination to deny the considering of information from a source.

    The only people here trying to force a conclusion are yourself, and mesyn191. I specifically said "I make no claims about what the truth of the incident is". You're being a hypocrite, and are doing all the things that you're alleging I have (which I have not done). It appears that your only goal is to force a perspective that RT = propaganda - in contradiction of the information presented, and without purpose.

    If you don't understand that Russia and US interests represent two sides, then you might want to look up the definition of reading-comprehension.
     
  39. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,842
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Nope. I'm applying critical thinking skills and lessons learned from RT's past reporting practices. Did you read the article I linked? I bet not.

    That isn't what the BBC article reported on or was about at all. You either haven't read it or are being dishonest.

    The BBC article was about a deal to let some ISIS guys escape because the US didn't want to have to destroy the rest of the city to kill them which the US got (surprise!) screwed over on. Making a dumb deal and then trying to cover it up because the US got screwed on it isn't the same as helping ISIS.

    That you then link to a bunch of RT articles, which I've already said are propaganda, is ridiculous. There are plenty of other sources out there to link if you want to.

    Eeeehhhhh her foreign policy was more of a minor sideshow at best and what she would've done is largely not even brought up even more. What sunk her had more to do with several decades of vilification by Repubs + the fact she came off as dishonest even to Dem voters. Basically too many disliked her or distrusted her.
     
  40. SighTurtle

    SighTurtle [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,277
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    I mean, Why do this specific action? What does actively attacking Russian forces in Syria in this manner, that Russia could trace to the U.S, accomplish? Nothing to me, and everything to empower Russia. Theres no reason for U.S forces to do this, or order U.S supported rebel forces to do so. Now, the U.S has given lots of support towards rebel groups in intelligence, munitions and equipment, so maybe one of these groups decided to attack Russia with U.S , but I can't see the U.S ordering or directing this attack.
     
    mesyn191 likes this.