June 1, 2025 - Russian Airfields FPV Takedown

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeffb said:
Seeing a lot of talk about Russia being required to park their strategic bombers in the open for NEW START verification purposes and that Ukraine's strike may have very serious consequences.
Click to expand...

That's untrue.

From an arms control expert who has been in the field for decades:

"However, Podvig told Meduza that the agreement places no restrictions on hiding these aircraft under “environmental shelter,” which includes hangars.

The only circumstance under which an aircraft must be displayed in the open, he explained, is when either Moscow or Washington wishes to declare that it has eliminated that particular warplane from its fleet. “There’s a great photograph of one of these boneyards in the United States in Arizona, where these B-52s are lying there, all cut up into pieces neatly,” Podvig said, referring to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson. Asked if Russia might try to claim the bombers destroyed in Ukraine’s drone strikes as warplanes dismantled under New START, he said it would likely be possible under the treaty, at least technically."

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/06/03/untangling-operation-spiderweb
The treaty text is available online for anyone to read: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/04/08/new-start-treaty-and-protocol

And yes, it isn't in effect anymore anyway, so claiming someone interfered with it is of dubious intelligence.
 
SOC said:
A quiet drone, something dark colored to fly at night, a photovoltaic cell on its top to allow it to land and recharge during the day, and various different warhead fits for its underside (something like a Skeet, lightweight but able to penetrate some targets, another could be spools of material to foul power lines, etc). Figure out a way to build 100,000 of them inside the enemy's backyard and then launch them from hide sites deep in the enemy's wilderness. Approach targets from different ranges, so the arrival times are staggered. Launch some weeks or months later from widely dispersed sites. Fly slow, quiet, and at night along programmed routes to avoid detection. Base force protection officers are going to be up at night thinking of stuff like this.
Click to expand...
The same tech enables swarms of drones patrolling constantly, either via their own solar, or recharges off infrastructure thanks to homefield advantage.

That is not saying that an attacker would fail, on that is what the tech have scaled toward and that "sneaking around with guys with rifles" becomes very silly after a while.

And after a while the whole stack of solar-battery/satellite comms/3d printing/etc may reduce critical ground targets to little if one chooses so, except stuff like microchip fabs that probably needs to go under mountains until we get self replicating nanobots worked out.
 
Russia probably won't do anything. This isn't Dragon Ball Z where you get more powerful the angrier you get.
There's no "major response" to this. The planes are lost. That's it.
Worst case, Russia can dig up and execute a plan it deliberately didn't enact because it wouldn't be beneficial. Which means Russia is unlikely to benefit from retaliating.
 
The cycle of russian bot x accounts circulating misinformation targeting specifically certain influential voices in MAGA which eventually will encircle the information space of the very social media active president has begun with this dumb "park in the open treaty" talking point.

This perhaps is the most impressive/resourceful propaganda infrastructure a foreign nation has ever built to influence American policy. Everyone wants to do so, including nation states with much more resources like China, but Russia is clearly the most resourceful and arguably successful. Ryan Mcbeth had an excellent video breaking down how he use OSINT tools to track bots that originate a propaganda point that was first voiced on russian domestic television that then rapidly retweeted by other bots (we know they bots because they would have unusual influx of hundreds of tweets in short spans and well coordinated among various other unnatural characteristics), which eventually saturate the information space of the likes of tulsi gabbard and tucker carlson, which then get retweeted by these high value influencers and shape political opinion within a certain political space/movement which then encircle the white house information space.
 
Last edited:
donnage99 said:
This perhaps is the most impressive/resourceful propaganda infrastructure a foreign nation has ever built to influence American policy.
Click to expand...

Which sort of highlights how biased and full of shit these Russian/Chinese misinformation bot network claims are.

Lets not drift off topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has put out a video discussing the June 1, 2025 Ukrainian drone-raid:


Over the weekend, Ukraine carried out a significant drone attack across four air bases deep inside Russia, reportedly engaging more than 40 aircraft with armed FPV drones and photographic evidence now substantiating the loss of at least a dozen long-range strategic bombers. While those figures may continue to climb, the loss of these and other aircraft already represent a significant blow to Russia’s airpower apparatus and even its nuclear posture.
Click to expand...
 
donnage99 said:
The cycle of russian bot x accounts circulating misinformation targeting specifically certain influential voices in MAGA which eventually will encircle the information space of the very social media active president has begun with this dumb "park in the open treaty" talking point.

This perhaps is the most impressive/resourceful propaganda infrastructure a foreign nation has ever built to influence American policy. Everyone wants to do so, including nation states with much more resources like China, but Russia is clearly the most resourceful and arguably successful. Ryan Mcbeth had an excellent video breaking down how he use OSINT tools to track bots that originate a propaganda point that was first voiced on russian domestic tv television that then rapidly retweeted by other bots (we know they bots because they would have unusual influx of hundreds of tweets in short spans and well coordinated among various other unnatural characteristics), which eventually saturate the information space of the likes of tulsi gabbard and tucker carlson, which then get retweeted by these high value influencers and shape political opinion within a certain political space/movement which then encircle the white house information space.
Click to expand...

Russian propaganda is so effective because it is amplified by US conservative propaganda, which amplifies whatever the president thinks or believes at any particular moment and attacks any criticism, even in its own ranks. Russian influence efforts are centered around an extremely susceptible audience of one.
 
Last edited:
I found this to be a rather interesting read:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/06/02/russia-ukraine-drone-attack-response-donald-trump/
As it emphasizes that going from here, a lot of what will happen now depends on Trump and how he handles the situation. Essentially if he can reassure the Russians that this wasn't the doing of the US, which may or may not be true, the response may be less severe than if the Russians are left with the assumption that this had the blessing and support of Washington.

It also goes on about how this is certainly a big blow, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really change much, as the situation on the battlefield only grows more unfavorable for the Ukrainians.

On an unrelated note:

> this proves once again that in any scenario aircraft are the most vulnerable on the ground. And should be another call to any power around the world to improve their airflied security and their storage facilities

> it showcases the viability of this long theorized delivery method, which has previously mostly been brought up in relation to potential usage as a terrorist tactic

> that depending on how aware the US was, that the Ukrainians may or may not act with greater autonomy than previously assumed
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Russian propaganda is so effective because it is amplified by US conservative propaganda, which amplifies whatever the president thinks or believes at any particular moment and attacks any criticism, even in its own ranks. Russian efforts influence efforts are centered around an extremely susceptible audience of one.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that people can’t think for themselves and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is in some way a victim of “propaganda.” In this instance, both sides are employing propaganda and there are no reliable narrators or good guys to cheer for. Truth be known, there were probably more than 12 bombers and 1 obsolete transport destroyed but I wouldn’t automatically believe the 40+ figure without the proof of satellite photos. There have been many lies and exaggerations from both side. Oddly enough, it isn’t necessary to closely identify with either side in the pointless and bloody conflict.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Russia probably won't do anything. This isn't Dragon Ball Z where you get more powerful the angrier you get.
There's no "major response" to this. The planes are lost. That's it.
Worst case, Russia can dig up and execute a plan it deliberately didn't enact because it wouldn't be beneficial. Which means Russia is unlikely to benefit from retaliating.
Click to expand...

The issue is, probably something most aren't aware of, that by the population at large Putin is seen as too soft. Repeatedly reporters and just people in general have raised the question why certain actions haven't been taken over the course of the war (that includes assasinating certain people, targeting certain structures etc.)

So unlike what most would believe Putin isn't a hardliner, he's most comfortable with playing the long game and not antagonizing the people too much that will eventually become Russian citizen. Iskander flying into a crowd would antagonize them, destroying stuff like water distribution, waste management etc. would also hurt the people more than the AFU. So to him it's better to grind down the AFU at the frontline and the thing the Ukrainian witness the most of this war is the Ukrainian government snatching their family and loved ones off the street through the TCC to meet quotas.

Why this tangent? Because while Putin himself isn't a hardliner and an oldschool Soviet, there are many influential people in Russia who are hardliners, who couldn't care less about what people they see as traitors think. The issue I that these hardliners will be able to exert more pressure upon Putin the more often such stuff happens, so far it was only the sinking of an old cruiser and a couple bombers, but is there any indication that the Ukrainians aren't becoming more bold in what they're willing to do? That means that eventually he will have to act, otherwise he can say goodbye next election when the people want someone who deals with such issues in a way they see fit. This means that with each event of such a scope it becomes more likely that a big response follows.

Now, I don't think it's in the interest of anyone inside or outside of Russia to have this escalate further and increase the influence of hardliners in Russia. But this is something the Russians and Americans have to work out between themselves at the end of the day.

So thinking it will just be business as usual is a bit uninformed in the face of Russian domestic politics (which to be fair, I also only get a glimpse of through several friends who live and serve there). It's this "Nothing ever happens" trope, until something actually happens.

So yeah it comes down to Putin being able to hold his course, how much influence hardliners have, the willingness of Ukraine to provoke further and the US and their level or lack of involvement.

And so far it's too early to get a clear picture.
 
SOC said:
Well road traffic is going to be all sorts of...interesting...for a while in Russia. They had to know their truck trick would be figured out pretty quickly, so maybe causing transportation issues as a side effect was intentional. Plus now the Californian in the Kremlin has to wonder how many more drone boxes are sitting someplace in Russia. All that aside, these were assets whose locations were known, which were parked in the open, and were obviously vulnerable to this kind of attack. It is possible that while hitting bombers does cause a militarily useful effect (albeit possibly a minimal one), insofar as removing cruise missile shooters from the board, the greater impact intended was to show the kind of operation that is possible. This time they hit large, easy to find bombers. What other targets are out there that are large, static, and easily identifiable? Weapons dumps, power plants, POL storage facilities, or possibly smaller objects, given the degree of precision these appear to have been hitting with.



A quiet drone, something dark colored to fly at night, a photovoltaic cell on its top to allow it to land and recharge during the day, and various different warhead fits for its underside (something like a Skeet, lightweight but able to penetrate some targets, another could be spools of material to foul power lines, etc). Figure out a way to build 100,000 of them inside the enemy's backyard and then launch them from hide sites deep in the enemy's wilderness. Approach targets from different ranges, so the arrival times are staggered. Launch some weeks or months later from widely dispersed sites. Fly slow, quiet, and at night along programmed routes to avoid detection. Base force protection officers are going to be up at night thinking of stuff like this.
Click to expand...
They can even recharge from powerlines now. You could have your drone with the solar cells hang out on top of a building, or hidden out of the way, serve as a "base" for even smaller drones. They need a recharge then head back to base, recharge or hunker down until another target presents itself. Maybe the "base" drone has a Starlink mini onboard and forwards targeting info to the swarm. The possibilities are endless.
 
]
TinWing said:
You’re assuming that people can’t think for themselves and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is in some way a victim of “propaganda.” In this instance, both sides are employing propaganda and there are no reliable narrators or good guys to cheer for. Truth be known, there were probably more than 12 bombers and 1 obsolete transport destroyed but I wouldn’t automatically believe the 40+ figure without the proof of satellite photos. There have been many lies and exaggerations from both side. Oddly enough, it isn’t necessary to closely identify with either side in the pointless and bloody conflict.
Click to expand...

Oh I definitely do not believe anything from either side in this conflict. I have a big bone to pick with western media for taking all Ukraine press releases at face value. But that is a separate issue from the “one man rule” situation that has developed amongst US conservative media and politicians, where every statement or policy of the day must be defended at all costs and no criticism tolerated. That is new and unique for US politics and greatly aids Russian influence operations.

In the context of this attack, the goal is to spin it as destabilizing and escalatory such that the current administration attempts to reign in any future attacks or alternatively cuts off other types of support as punishment.
 
Yeah ukrainians are no angels, related to propaganda. That's part of war ugly business, after all, and is as old as Metuslah.

I use to trust the Maxar optical "spy" satellites, rather than Ukraine claims. Sooner rather than latter we should know. The radarsat already started the job.
 
Last edited:
It the Russians didn’t want someone attacking their military assets, they shouldn’t have started a war. You don’t get to spend two years trying to grind someone down through trench warfare and nighttime missile and drone strikes, then try and call time out and appeal to the referees when it turns out that the people you’re fighting can use their proximity to strike at viable military targets that you think exist in some special, protected category. Are Russian domestic politics complicated? Sure? Might they end up pressing for some precipitous action that none of us want to end up reading about? Also, sure. Is that entirely their problem? You betcha. They could have stayed home. It’s not too late to pack it all up and go back to Svetlana in Novosibirsk. Sometimes the other guy gives you a bloody nose and you look like an asshole and you just have to live with it.
 
SOC said:
The "damage" they show on the three ramps at 2:14 has in fact been there for a while, as he speculates. Clearly visible in 3 May 2025 imagery, for example.
Click to expand...

It also would be a little surprising if Il -76 was even a target. It is not a particularly important type in this conflict or strategicly. But that A-50 is never going to play the violin again; that level of fire damage definitely torched the electronics and probably compromised the airframe structure. I would score that as a kill, assuming those black marks are truly fire damage.
 
MrTopaz said:
It the Russians didn’t want someone attacking their military assets, they shouldn’t have started a war. You don’t get to spend two years trying to grind someone down through trench warfare and nighttime missile and drone strikes, then try and call time out and appeal to the referees when it turns out that the people you’re fighting can use their proximity to strike at viable military targets that you think exist in some special, protected category. Are Russian domestic politics complicated? Sure? Might they end up pressing for some precipitous action that none of us want to end up reading about? Also, sure. Is that entirely their problem? You betcha. They could have stayed home. It’s not too late to pack it all up and go back to Svetlana in Novosibirsk. Sometimes the other guy gives you a bloody nose and you look like an asshole and you just have to live with it.
Click to expand...

What do you think would happen if for example ISIS struck USAF bombers in CONUS through drones all the way back in the 2010s.

It has long been established that certain things are off limits, the US and USSR/Russia agreed on that. And as the biggest backer of Ukraine the US has a certain responsibility to keep them from escalating into certain directions, I doubt the US and it's citizens are quite fond of the prospect of an all out nuclear exchange with Russia.

That's the pretense, now there are nuances, as previously outlined by others and myself included politics plays a big part, US involvement or lack of it is another.

Something that should also be mentioned is that for lack of a better term, Tu-95s and Tu-22M3s are second rate delivery platforms in a sense. The main airborne nuclear deterrent is the Tu-160, being the most modern, most capable and arguably most effective strategic bomber used by Russia in a peer conflict. So the loss of the 95s and 22M3s could be downplayed internally, as a blow against the VKS, but not really making a dent in the nuclear triad of the nation. That's also why the Tu-160 isn't consistently taking part in conventional missile raids, while Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 together with Iskander and Geran are the primary platforms used. So despite production having started again, the Tu-160s are being kept in the back, because they're strategic assets meant for very different scenarios.

But that's all theory crafting. We have to wait what Moscow and Washington say and do in the next couple days or weeks.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Cjc
I doubt organizations like ISIS have limits. Perhaps the biggest service Ukraine has done for the U.S. is highlight exactly how vulnerable its home based aircraft are. Organizing such an attack in the U.S. would be simply for anyone with a couple hundred thousand dollars and an in graduate degree in engineering, or just someone self taught and talented. And it seems unlikely U.S. bases are any better defended.
 
shin_getter said:
We can see that sufficient mass of sufficient equality of flying vehicles and munitions can over come all known defenses on the ground, active or passive. Any surface based direct fire weapon short of ultra cheap megawatt plus "Area wipe" energy weapons can be swarmed.
Click to expand...
Have we really seen that though? Most often it seems like when the best Russian AD systems get hit by drones it is because they were caught on the move without coverage from other supporting systems, or because someone was "asleep at the wheel" and caught unaware.
 
EmoBirb said:
What do you think would happen if for example ISIS struck USAF bombers in CONUS through drones all the way back in the 2010s.

It has long been established that certain things are off limits, the US and USSR/Russia agreed on that. And as the biggest backer of Ukraine the US has a certain responsibility to keep them from escalating into certain directions, I doubt the US and it's citizens are quite fond of the prospect of an all out nuclear exchange with Russia.

That's the pretense, now there are nuances, as previously outlined by others and myself included politics plays a big part, US involvement or lack of it is another.

Something that should also be mentioned is that for lack of a better term, Tu-95s and Tu-22M3s are second rate delivery platforms in a sense. The main airborne nuclear deterrent is the Tu-160, being the most modern, most capable and arguably most effective strategic bomber used by Russia in a peer conflict. So the loss of the 95s and 22M3s could be downplayed internally, as a blow against the VKS, but not really making a dent in the nuclear triad of the nation. That's also why the Tu-160 isn't consistently taking part in conventional missile raids, while Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 together with Iskander and Geran are the primary platforms used. So despite production having started again, the Tu-160s are being kept in the back, because they're strategic assets meant for very different scenarios.

But that's all theory crafting. We have to wait what Moscow and Washington say and do in the next couple days or weeks.
Click to expand...
Genuinely, though, I'm really worried how Putin might escalate. We could see anything from large-scale drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities to a grinding mechanized offensive to try and take the Donbas to a VDV drop to capture Kyiv. The Kremlin might even order a special military operation.
I know we all like to joke, but guys, really, take things seriously. The Russian Federation could go to war with Ukraine over this.
 
MihoshiK said:
Genuinely, though, I'm really worried how Putin might escalate. We could see anything from large-scale drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities to a grinding mechanized offensive to try and take the Donbas to a VDV drop to capture Kyiv. The Kremlin might even order a special military operation.
I know we all like to joke, but guys, really, take things seriously. The Russian Federation could go to war with Ukraine over this.
Click to expand...

While I'm aware that this is a lame attempt at trolling, I personally expect, if a dedicated response will actually follow:

> attack against the remaining nuclear facilities active in Ukraine, severing them from the grid.

> use of conventional IRBMs against the government district in Kiev.

and my personal favorite

> use of chemical warheads on Iskander-M during the next missile attacks against urban targets. (Chemical weapons are far more digestible than even tactical nuclear weapons, in 3 years nobody would talk about it anymore. A couple thousands dead and a couple more wounded would be a clear warning, but that's a hardliner approach, obviously)

But all of this depends on Putins willingness to attack Ukrainian people to increase pressure on the Ukrainian government. And this hasn't really been his playbook so far. Which is why except maybe the second option, these are rather unlikely. Although it would be undoubtedly entertaining.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Cjc
EmoBirb said:
What do you think would happen if for example ISIS struck USAF bombers in CONUS through drones all the way back in the 2010s.

It has long been established that certain things are off limits, the US and USSR/Russia agreed on that. And as the biggest backer of Ukraine the US has a certain responsibility to keep them from escalating into certain directions, I doubt the US and it's citizens are quite fond of the prospect of an all out nuclear exchange with Russia.

That's the pretense, now there are nuances, as previously outlined by others and myself included politics plays a big part, US involvement or lack of it is another.

Something that should also be mentioned is that for lack of a better term, Tu-95s and Tu-22M3s are second rate delivery platforms in a sense. The main airborne nuclear deterrent is the Tu-160, being the most modern, most capable and arguably most effective strategic bomber used by Russia in a peer conflict. So the loss of the 95s and 22M3s could be downplayed internally, as a blow against the VKS, but not really making a dent in the nuclear triad of the nation. That's also why the Tu-160 isn't consistently taking part in conventional missile raids, while Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 together with Iskander and Geran are the primary platforms used. So despite production having started again, the Tu-160s are being kept in the back, because they're strategic assets meant for very different scenarios.

But that's all theory crafting. We have to wait what Moscow and Washington say and do in the next couple days or weeks.
Click to expand...
If isis had dropped some frag grenades on a bunch of b-2s, I don’t think we would have nuked any part of Syria or Iraq, and the assumption that we would have automatically done so is… not convincing. We didn’t nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, and three thousand civilians were murdered in two of our major cities.

I don’t think you’re wrong to be concerned about the dangers of escalation, I just think the way some people have been expressing those concerns have been missing the forest for the trees. The nearly breathless tweets about what a dangerous line the Ukrainians blundered over, it’s nonsense. If, as you say, it’s been long established that certain things are off limits (with which I have some minor quibbles, but I’ll largely grant you), it has been even longer established, like, going back to the beginning of warfare, that if you hit me, I hit you back. A Bear can carry a nuclear weapon, of course, but it can also carry many kinds of conventional munitions and it can be pressed into maritime patrol duties, and possibly any number of other, comparatively mundane military roles in which guise it is simply one more target in a time of war. The idea that is put inside a glass case out of bounds of the rest of Putin’s Ukrainian Misadventure stops being compelling after two years of open, destructive warfare that is bound less by active restraint and more by the fact that neither side is strong enough to act without concern for outside interference.

Yes, I find it concerning, as an American, that my country might be called to back up it’s role as security guarantor, but if “Russia is a nuclear power and the concerns of nuclear realpolitik mean that fighting her isn’t simple,” is a foundational truth we have to keep in our minds when analyzing the situation, then “Ukraine is its own country with a right to defend itself from invaders, including striking at all valid military targets it can reach” is also a bedrock concern. It’s been two years of casualties, missile attacks, tank assaults, civilians dead in the street and pov drones racing across no man’s land to blow up in some poor bastard’s lap. It’s not a small, limited war, and the sort of political niceties that we all (myself included!) expect to keep things from flying off the rails simply can’t be relied on. And since the Russians started it, I’m not going to be heart broken if their birds get broken.
 
Last edited:
MrTopaz said:
If isis had dropped some frag grenades on a bunch of b-2s, I don’t think we would have nuked any part of Syria or Iraq, and the assumption that we would have automatically done so is… not convincing. We didn’t nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, and three thousand civilians were murdered in two of our major cities.
Click to expand...

I don't think Russia will nuke Ukraine over a few bombers either, especially with better ones back in production. My point was that it was something that has previously been considered off limits by either side of the Iron Curtain (which may have shifted geographically, but still exists today).

Which is why I assume there's currently a lot of talk between Russia and the US in the background. And also why I suggested and the article I linked previously too, that any decision from this moment on comes down to Russian internal politics and what role the US played in this ordeal.
 
Arjen said:
Even more?
Click to expand...

Compare Russias War against Ukraine to Israel's War against Palestine and look at the number of civilians killed over any given timespan and you'll see that Russia isn't deliberately targeting civilians, especially in the east, given that they are planning to integrate these people into their own population. While Israel is pursuing a policy of genocide, aka a war of extermination.

So yes, there is a lot of play towards increasing the number of civilian casualties. That can include the deliberate targeting of necessary infrastructure (water treatment and distribution, waste management, nuclear power plants, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, food distribution and production etc. etc.) as well as just bluntly deploying indiscriminate weapons at a larger scale, like cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, chemical weapons.

It also depends a lot about which area is to be targeted, the Russians aren't really concerned with keeping people in Kiev and Lvov safe because these aren't going to be incorporated into their planned territories either way.
 
I very much doubt the current US government is really interested in the fate of Ukraine.
EmoBirb said:
Russia isn't deliberately targeting civilians
Click to expand...
In that case, Russia is being remarkably careless about collateral damage to the point of not caring at all. I would in fact argue Russia IS deliberately targeting civilian targets.
 
Arjen said:
I very much doubt the current US government is really interested in the fate of Ukraine.

In that case, Russia is being remarkably careless about collateral damage to the point of not caring at all. I would in fact argue Russia IS deliberately targeting civilian targets.
Click to expand...

I don't think that call is easy to make, the US government isn't a single person, but many people with many interests. It's something we simply cannot state with absolute certainty just now.

And you could argue that, but I think it would be a strawman argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom