I'll add that one's able to fire a simple MANPADS type missiles will be comeing soon. The same with a ATGM, even a crude thermal seeker can hit a boat, i don't think that a 1-3 kg missile will do much to a ship but it will make them think twice.

Scrapped!!! What else is new?

In retrospect the idea of using a proven mass-produced cheap platform like Sea Doo, even heavily modified to suit the particular needs, is obvious. I wonder how much does one such system cost.

Didn't the navy learn anything from the attack on the USS Cole? Why was the seewiz system turned off? seems like the radar system of that gun would destroy the attacking vessel.

@@michaelmontgomery5326 That's if the radar system can target it.

​​@@michaelmontgomery5326 I think you meant to say the Russian Navy and the Moskva with regard to your question on CWIS... That said, the Russian Kalshnikov CWIS system is known to have more limitations than the US-Based Phalanx or SeaRAM so they may have not been able to target these vehicles using that system. Also, this didn't take place out on the high seas - it took place in their home harbor. You can't randomly go blasting 10,000 rounds about the place when the base is surrounded with friendly vessels and civilians..

Blow fish can be confused with 'fish' which means torpedo. Maybe 'lamprey' could be used.

Comparing this hobby project to a missile is kind of...

Zombie, methinks.

@@echomande4395 Isn't it basically a torpedo? Before they were made to be self-propelled and operate underwater, torpedoes were attached to a boat that rammed a ship. Then they were wire-guided. This seems like a regression, but with wireless guidance.

@@smatthewson2613 That one is I think also taken. Non-friendly aircraft not proven hostile. It's a bit of a case of all the good names being taken.

Urgent need.

I'm surprised they did not attack the Gurzuf instead. Repair/recovery assets should be among the highest priority targets.

@@greghuey6639 take a look at a map. that bridge where the Gurzuf was working is much further away from Ukraine controlled coastal area than the Russian bases at Sevastopol. Too far for the SUV's to travel. Now the Russians are moving it to Sevastopol and it will be quite vulnerable to attack. Maybe that's the plan. We'll see.

@@castlekingside76 for what?

Are you all aware you're all discussing some terrorist tactics? No matter whose idea's it is, this is terrorism, not only arabs be able to do it. But seems like Americans have the right to plan, use and do terrorism when they don't get what they want... Those perfect white sand immaculated beaches 😇 our lovely global saviors.... 🤣

We had "Sprengboote" in the first 'World War already. So nothing new

@@Harzhopper 5:32

not historical at all lol the ukraines just copy old designs. they aren't very smart people

@@tylerbaldwin1633 Copying is smart.

The Moskva has 4 different radar systems which can each track multiple targets so I highly doubt that a few drones had an effect on its ability to detect the incoming missile.

Thanks

Thanks for inventing both Canada!

How did the idea of swapping the engines work out?

@@markfryer9880 -No one ever did it. These are both beer and yeehaw activities, and time's valuable.

where did that information (swapping?) never heard of that....cdn too

@@Propergator - It was in the ads. Damn, am I old.

Oh, missed the anniversary. Pity, nice little interest point. Thanks

I'm guessing the Ukrainians chose the date intentionally.

Another interesting point: there was speculation that Italian frogmen who served during WW2 were avenging the transfer of the _Giulio Cesare_ or sinking it on behalf of NATO. Very likely nonsense, but a nice bit of psyops (aka trolling) by the Ukrainians, who obviously know their military history 😉

@@mrkeogh Oh I know, which is why I joked about when Russia blamed the fiendish Anglons (on top of the usual jokes that is)

Glad you enjoyed it

Glad it was helpful!

$1 million worth of UNVs vs. a single ship worth $10-500 million. We’re only beginning to see the applications for aerial and naval drones, especially in combination roles. Autonomous semi-submersible UAV launchers (basically stealth drone aircraft carriers) could get drones within range of Kerch Bridge.

or someone is coaching them, lookout for the UK;s submarine drones.

I think its incredibly naive that people think this is all Ukrainians ingenuity, and not literally and figuratively glowing CIA money. But LOL okay.

That someone is coaching them isn't a secret.

Ukraine lol... Good god dude get a brain. This hardware is neither Ukrainian nor Ukrainians are operating them.

this is atesting bed for new weapons by other players

Yeah I was thinking that instead of a contact fuse and a bomb on board why don't they just have one torpedo launcher at the front, then someone informed that a Mk48 torpedo costs 5.4 million dollars... But I'd imagine that someone has or could create a much simpler torpedo design that doesn't have the advanced tracking and wire guidance, just a dumb WW2 like torpedo that goes in a straight line at a set depth, that's all that's needed for a stationary ship in a port. And no one, not even the US has any active torpedo defense, unlike the numerous ways that a surface vessel can be disabled as seen in the video.

@@msytdc1577 we technically don't have an active torpedo defense but did have anti torpedo torpedoes in the past. But they weren't effective because we lacked the technology at the time........but with today's tech they could fix most of the previous problems. But if we did it would be classified even higher than the ADCAP mk48 is. Also besides the secrets the cost is the main reason we recover all practice shots.

air patrols by ASW A/C and Helicopters with thermals should do the trick.. or just DRONES with or without weapons, and once detected, assets with weapons like helicopters can be directed at the targets.

​@@southjerseysound7340 Anti torpedo defense systems have not been particularly classified, on The War Zone you can read an article from OCT 13, 2016 titled "The Navy Is Quietly Arming Its Supercarriers With Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes" and a follow up from FEB 5, 2019 titled "The Navy Is Ripping Out Underperforming Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes From Its Supercarriers", both with plenty of details. I don't think it's a matter of yesterday's versus today's tech, it seems to me to just be similar to anti-ballistic missile defense, where anti-torpedo defense just needs, oh, 10 billion dollars and 15 years thrown at the problem...

Radars can pick up a submarine periscope, they can find these things. They would likely pop in and out on your display but you’d still know that something was there. Keep in mind that this isn’t the first time Russia destroyed these drones. Anyone wonder why we haven’t seen any video of successful hits by them? Videos of them being shot at but none of them hitting. Why wouldn’t we see videos of them hitting being shared everywhere? Russia says that one minesweeper received extremely minor damage from one being destroyed close to it. We see videos of them being shot up and destroyed but that’s it. Kiev is the only ones claiming success and they’ve offered zero evidence to support such a claim. It sounds a lot like Ghost of Kiev to me.

@@billyparker5974 the primary purpose of a CIWS is AA, but the AK-630 is supposed to depress to -12 degrees. The phalanx can engage surface targets.

Russia has been known to use their AK630s on surface targets during live firing exercises

Hell Ukraine did not build these coats, England and American military did, Russia owes it to its military to nuke Ukraine and England into nothing but a wasteland fit only for rats! Hellbritish stink so bad russia should have smelled these boats!

And they're doing a fantastic job creating some really brilliant equipment, as well as some janky jury-rigged stuff, but hey, it's working very well. It really is amazing to see the Ukrainians come together to kick the invaders out, I am in awe of not just their inventiveness but the massive amount of fortitude and bravery they have.

@@robertharper3754 The only awe I'm in are 3 weeks straight of 100+ daily strategic fire missions committed by slava russya :)

@@maeton-gaming We used to think Russia was great, but they can’t even bully their little brother😂

It's a small boat with a jetski drive system in it. The South is full of them, mostly created when someone either jumps a jetski into the trees or blows the motor. Some guys put 200 hp motorcycle engines in them. This hull looks custom, and the narrator says it's aluminium. That's even easier to build boats from than fiberglass, if you have a MIG welder.

Aluminum

@@DeltaAssaultGaming - I'm Canadian. We say aluminium as a dig at the Brits. We also call potato chips and french fries both chips, or as the British would say, chips and crisps.

Torpedoes would be cheaper, but these are obviously cheaper then a ship or sub.

@@znail4675 Why do you think a torpedo would be cheaper? The powerplant on this is an off the shelf commercial design that runs on gasoline and air, probably costs a few grand if that. Torpedos are either electric (requiring a big battery and/or slow speed vs gas), a specialist monopropellant like the Mk48 (with a special engine too), or something else unusual. Add in the guidance on a torpedo requiring more than a data link with a man controlling it and I would be surprised if even a dumb torpedo (think WW2 era) was anywhere near as cheap. And it isn't even guided. I don't know what the warhead costs, I have no idea what the guidance/data link cost, but using a commercial drive and a basic hull I bet those parts are under $10k once you get set up. Pure speculation but I would expect a dumb torpedo to cost significantly more and a guided torpedo to cost orders of magnitude more.

It sure looks like the cartels could do this if they wanted. They have the boats, they could buy the rest & get it sorted. Still, they seem happy with their manned boats. Putting 3 guys on board will likely still be easier & more effective IMO. We'll see over the next few years.

I think the trick with any sensor system is that it has to be turned on, work, and have someone paying attention who knows what he's doing. Very little chance of all those things happening at the same time in the Russian navy.

Like a lot of stealth capabilities, it's not so much that you can't see it as that you aren't looking for it. A clever Serbian shot down an F-117 with an obsolete system and a lot of thinking: but if the operator isn't switched on no amount of tech will save you.

@@tomhutchins7495 Flying the same route night after night kinda obviates stealth tech. It wasn't cleverness that shot down the F-117 but stupidity.

@@crinolynneendymion8755 To do it with that system was smart. Giving them the opportunity was dumb. Letting your friends fly F-35s in full view of Russian radars for years proves nothing was learned.

they've been talking about drones replacing pilots for a long time now...I guess we can start talking about drones replacing sailors too

ekranoplane drone... its fast and fly very low. except it needs calm water.

"really scary for any Navy" When they rely on cowardice and dishonor to get close enough to their targets to have any chance of success? Not nearly as scary if it's an actual war where the attacked side can actually retaliate openly and evenly. The sole reason this attack reached their target area is because UK exploited that they're supposedly not part of the war, that Russia was actively assisting the "grain corridor" and that UK could use Nato as a shield to cower behind to avoid Russia being able to kill them off before they could do this. Russia KNEW where the British base in Ukraine was LONG before this. They have just been mostly avoiding hitting people not directly involved in fighting. Remove those and this attack becomes almost impossible to perform. Also, you seriously need to remember that the single most important defense in this case was an over a century old invention, a torpedo/submarine NET. Or, over a thousand year old invention if you refer to it as a harbor chain with frills. "I'm fairly certain I could build something like this given funding - which means there are thousands of people in my country - probablu my state that could build similar." So, if you're SMART, you make damn sure you do not give Russia a reason to start sending thousands of Geran II at you. Or perhaps Kinzhal or Zirkon if you make yourself a bigger target. Or did you think just one side can do this?

Making them stealthy is pretty useless when they can be heard coming long before being seen, also they are easily defeated. The most significant impact is that now Russia will have to commit manpower, energy and resources to protect against them .

What you're proposing sounds essentially like a loitering torpedo which is kind of redundant given wire guidance and "encapsulated torpedo" mines have been a thing for decades--the Soviets even deployed wire-guided torpedoes for helicopters.

While vastly more expensive than sitting duck surface craft they already have these; sea mines with encapsulated torpedoes that are anchored to the sea bed and float at a desired depth. They have passive sonar that listens for the unique signatures of enemy vessels, and once one is detected the torpedo is released and it will engage the target autonomously. The Mark 60 CAPTOR was an older model in active service from 1979 through 2001, while currently General Dynamics was awarded a contract in 2021 to deliver prototypes of the replacement model, named Hammerhead. The new model is expected to become operational in 2023/2024.

They could sit on the seabed, with a floating data link. When activated they could be released and go to the surface. Many possibilities.

@@msytdc1577 my question is, can those mines self emplace? These have the advantages of being able to position themselves under their own power. Mines require a mine delivery mechanism.

@@Poxyquotl No, but this video and your suggestion contains a perfectly good inexpensive mine delivery mechanism, a drone boat like this Ukrainian one. Just strap some mines to the top of drone boat, drive to desired location, release mine(s), return to and rearm from mothership or shore, repeat.

lol except italians didnt know it was success and they were still hiding in ports. also they harassed gibraltar but were spotted.

In Alexandria the action was conducted by divers “ryding” slow run torpedoes. It was different. You are probably referring to the action of the same italian corps in Souda bay, Crete, where they used explosives small motorboats, very similar to the ones used in Sevastopol, but with human pilots, jumpin from the boat during the run, at safety distance from target. Heavy cruiser “York” was put out of combat.

"Attacking vessels in harbour certainly offers great opportunities for asymmetric warfare." Attacking ships in port is even more effective when you do it for real. Taranto style. The British appear to think that they are untouchable and can do whatever they wish against Russia under the guise of pretending "Ukraine did it!", i believe that to be an exceptionally stupid assumption.

Unicorns.

In your experience, how would the people of Crimea respond to being liberated from Russia?

@@preserveourpbfs7128 Most war criminals will flee, Sailor families will be upset, normal people will rejoice.

you speak a good english for a crimean

@@ddoumeche I Speak 4 languages and work as translator. Chinese English Russian and Ukrainian, Right now i am learning polish. If you are local You can tell me what was the price of the trollybass pass in 2014?

Why did you flee Sevastopol while after Russian takeover the standard of living increased and corruption decreased?

Put some snap-out diving planes on the front of that boat so it can dive in the last few seconds, and it becomes a torpedo. Yea, the engine will swamp in a few seconds, but by then it has blown itself up under the ship.

@@lwilton Likely far too buoyant to be able to do that. As soon as the engine ingests water, which it will in the first second, it will stop, and the momentum won't drive the boat more than a few hull lengths below the surface, after which it will stop, and pop back up. All within a couple of seconds. It won't get under any ship.

They can be remotely controlled in real time using Starlink and Tesla/SpaceX is giving hundreds of these to Ukraine. One of the reasons the Ukrainian military is so quick and agile. Way faster and better than anything the Russian military has on the battle field.

@@terrysullivan1992 except simple net can deny them entrance to port...

@@jebise1126 AFAIK, they are very lightweight and use pumpjet propulsion, so they might be able to skid over the net, if it's not raised 1m or so above water too.

I have some very basic designs in my old notebook with about the same, but semi-submersible drones. The most complicated, as for me, is to maintain antenas and cameras above the water in a wavy environment. I thought to operate without video link via iridium connection. But there were no starlinks then.

@@konserv what about a pre programmable route while submerged? I’m no expert, this is just a thought

@@richardpatton2502 I'm also not expert. I did build a couple of RC airplanes (for FPV flights) and that's all my experience with remote controlled things 🙂. I was inspired to build some such water toys. But that's just an hobby and you can't build everything you drew. I'm thinking, it's possible, if there are such static targets. For example, docked warships. Only problem they might have - GPS jamming/spoofing. So, cameras / sonars and machine vision looks a bit more reliable, but much more complicated. Or, at least, there should be some backup/checks with compas and speed sensors for jammed environment. Also it looks not complicated to build one, but it might take a couple of months or even years from initial design to some working thing. There are always hundreds of small nuances.

Cell phone in a clear plastic dive box attached to a snorkel. Provides position and communication and even a video feed

@@richardpatton2502 Preprogrammed would probably only work if you have very consistent currents in the area. Also, speed would probably be a lot lower, so easier target when spotted and more time to spot. At least that's what my first idea is. Very slow moving to avoid any detection (probably taking a few hours for the last few kilometers) could be interesting.

That would be the Ansar Allah attacks of 2017. Taking credit for other people's inventions again?

Swedish anti ship missiles turn independent and unjammable as they close in on the target. Also they start navigating irratically on their path to their target, making the missiles even harder to target. (They have so far been sold to 12 countries.)

Maybe, but unless and until they know this threat exists, they might not have been routinely operating that kind of jamming. They probably will now if they can, but the damage is already done. It looks like they're using Starlink as an internet uplink. Not sure how easy this would be to jam at moderate range, since it's LOS with the satellites, so any jamming isn't going to be colinear with the transmitter and receiver, and depending on how good the beamforming is (I imagine pretty good) any off-axis signals will be rejected. Presumably once you're getting to within 100m or so of your target, the drone goes into a "Go forward at full speed until you hit something" mode.

like Florida cockroaches!

​@@Dblue-rhino haha that's a good one

Unicorns.

The warhead wouldn't be that hard to make, hell, most chemists with a bachelor's degree can cook up some really nice boom booms, and there are plenty of people out there who have no degree and can make really nice boom booms. With a decent understanding of chemistry, as well as a healthy amount of respect and safety, it's rather easy to make explosives.

@@robertharper3754 that is somewhat disturbing, though certainly makes sense. My specialty is in electronics and software, and I could probably remember how to weld. So pair a person like me with a person who is quick with engines/fabrication, add an explosives expert and you have yourself a team. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this is exactly how Ukraine's boats came to be. Actually the development would be a cool story, though probably not one they want to tell.

fyi your first sentence was good; it contained the point you wanted to make. the rest of your comment was just fluff.

Yes. I think a lot of these drones just ended up as target practice. We must remember that Ukraine isn't paying the price. Only in lives. Western tax payers are taking it right up the tailpipe.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hsp7nrWQ0ciwfmQ.html might help

@@HISuttonCovertShores Thanks, that’s amazing! Also I think you can drop the unscripted line as personally your unscripted commentary is better than most others scripted ones. Your secret sauce is how understated you present yourself and that translates to your credibility! Keep up the great work!

LOL... there is zero evidence of any damage caused, all it achieved was cost UA $bn in grain exports. Money their soldiers desperately needed for REAL military equipment.

@@sisyphusvasilias3943 The Russians admit there was damage caused.

"lacking", well yeah, that describes just about all aspects of the Russian armed forces, so no surprises there. And for a helicopter to take out a slow moving surface vessel without any anti-air armament (aka no one is shooting back) it should not be that difficult. I've seen video of drug enforcement helicopters carrying snipers who use regular rifles to take out specifically only the outboard motors to disable drug runner boats without inflicting any casualties on the manned craft. So taking out an unmanned craft with automatic machine guns should be a piece of cake.

This scene will stay with me as one of the more unique images of the war.

US destroyers in the pacific were unable to track large merchant veksels on a collision course, a few years back.

Actually only two axis. No vertical, just surface.

@@terrysullivan1992 Heli height variable > 3rd dim. ?

The standard Starlink dishes are capable of working while on the move, as was tested by people in both the US and Canada (you can find videos on KZfaq easily). Starlink simply disabled that functionality via a recent software/firmware update, though they are reported to still work in motion just as long as the speed is 10 MPH or less. As far as this particular case Starlink could very easily enable mobile functionality either for the entire geographic area or by enabling it for specific dishes used by the military while keeping the restriction in place for civilians.

@@msytdc1577 Yah, I just found this blurb on Google... "As of June 30, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission authorized SpaceX to provide Starlink internet service to vehicles in motion, including boats". Not that Ukraine needs the FCC permission for their own territory, but it might have limited what kind of service Starlink allowed thru their network previously.

@@TB-zf7we Yes, as of 5 days ago you can purchase the flat high performance dish for $2,500 and have Starlink in motion service. There is currently no additional charge above the normal RV plan, but who knows if that will change in the future, as also 5 days ago Starlink quietly updated their terms of service to add a data cap before performance is deprioritized in any times where bandwidth is limited (i.e. evening hours), which is something they previously indicated they would not be doing, so yeah.

It is 100% NOT starlink. No coverage, no reason to use it, too traceable, just no.

@@maflones This is an incredibly ignorant statement, no idea why you felt the need to share it. Starlink has been used extensively by Ukrainian armed forces, there is coverage. It has been widely reported that Russian jamming efforts against Starlink have been ineffective. The directional nature of an Active Electronically Scanned Array as used by Starlink dishes means that, no, they are not easily detected unless there is an aerial surveillance platform in between the dish and whichever satellites the dish is communicating with at that time. And seeing as Starlink hops from satellite to satellite across a vast swath of sky, good luck with that.

This is how we took out the Tirpitz\forced it to land. By hiding torp.charges in a shipwreck they floated into the ships path. (well,almost)

@@Rolf-farmedfacts-supervisor It seems to me that small island nations would be better defended from naval attack by having 1,000's lurking kamikaze submarine drones rather than a small fleet of real subs that will be out of date by the time they are made.

@@timtelemark907 Nations like Taiwan for example...

Most military ports have sub nets so that wouldn't work. A low profile boat like this can go over the nets.

@@timtelemark907 I think loitering marine dronesystems would be far more effective than aerial systems. Its easier to "chill out" in water, UAVs need to spend power on keeping themselves in the air

Yeah. If the enemy is caught utterly and completely unawares with virtually zero fixed perimeter surveillance/monitoring deployed, I'm sure Ukraine will be able to repeat this process over and over and over again because the Russians can't adapt to anything in a timely manner.

And an anti ship missile costs over a million $$$, while these likely cost less than $ 30,000. One thing is for sure; these will keep the Russian fleet well within their protected bases or much further away.

@@Veldtian1 lmao

@@Veldtian1 There’s a video where Russian helicopters and patrol boats blow one of these drone torpedos out of the water from the attack a couple days ago

@@robberbarron7602 That fact they have to dedicate resources time and manpower to this threat is a win

we know the attacker wasn't Russia, propaganda had a couple days of delay

Because there is no evidence that any Russian vessel was hit.

@@sisyphusvasilias3943 the fireball was close enough to talk about though

Ukraine doesn't have satellites like that and I don't think the US or its allies are going to give out any such info to the general public. I think part of the reason it was done in daylight is the guidance control is using cameras and also I think Ukraine wanted this to be seen. IMO the main objective of this attack is to make the Russians either keep there ships in protected harbors and/or move them out of range. Thus nullifying their effectiveness. Especially with their blockade of ships transporting Ukrainian grain. This attack comes just days after Russia cancelled the agreement allowing grain ships.

Seems it had to be towed by two tugs, and since the last seconds from the drone video show it targeting the area beneath exhaust stacks (engine room)...

You could fit a heck of a lot of explosive into one of those narco subs...