Starlink, the Spider Web, and Ukraine's Unreachable Air Force

"Web"

As recent experience has shown us, there are no invulnerable targets. Or almost none. Even an adversary with limited resources can strike targets located thousands of kilometers from the border, deep within enemy territory.

There are three ways to destroy targets deep within enemy territory without being on that territory or gaining air superiority over that territory:

- winged rockets (CR) and ballistic missiles (BR);
- long-range kamikaze unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
- by carrying out sabotage.

The range of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles in the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) is currently limited to approximately five hundred kilometers, and their numbers are also limited. True, the UAF is talking about the Flamingo cruise missile with a claimed range of up to 3000 kilometers, but there is no confirmation of such a range yet. Moreover, this missile is not Ukrainian, but a British FP-5 cruise missile from Milanion, so we already have an "official" reason. send the "tin islands" to the bottom of the ocean.

Launch of the Flamingo/FP-5 cruise missile

The range of Ukrainian kamikaze UAVs is up to two thousand kilometers, however, it is necessary to take into account that kamikaze UAVs do not fly to their target in a straight line, but along a complex route, ensuring a minimal probability of detection and destruction of kamikaze UAVs by air defense systems (Defense).

However, the furthest the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) managed to penetrate into our territory was through reconnaissance and sabotage operations, in particular the so-called Operation “Web”, within the framework of which dozens of FPV-drones were secretly delivered to the areas where Russian strategic aviation in the double roofs of trucks, after which the blow was dealt.

We are unlikely to know the real consequences of Operation Spiderweb. It will likely be necessary to add up what Ukrainian official sources say with what Russian official sources say, and then divide Ukraine's successes by two, or even three, given Ukraine's tendency to exaggerate its "victories."

Ukrainian FPV drones hidden in a truck's double roof used during Operation Spider Web

However, it is impossible to deny the fact that Operation Spiderweb was carried out and that it had certain negative consequences.

Unfortunately, nothing is known about the Russian side conducting reconnaissance and sabotage operations of comparable scale; at least, such information cannot be found in open sources.

Despite all this, there are targets deep in Ukraine that need to be quickly and efficiently destroyed, and the existing Russian high-precision weapon can't fully understand them yet.

Today we'll talk about destroying Ukrainian aviation. Our priority is Western-made fighters—the F-16 and Mirage-2000—but we also need to take care of Soviet-made aircraft.

F-16 and Mirage-2000

Inaccessible Air Force of the Ukrainian Armed Forces

It cannot be said that the Ukrainian Air Force has a significant impact on the course of military operations – in fact, for now they are solving only three main tasks:

1. Launch long-range air-launched cruise missiles.

2. They intercept Russian cruise missiles and long-range kamikaze UAVs deep within Ukrainian territory, while the task of countering Russian manned aircraft is accomplished not by Air Force fighters, but by anti-aircraft missile systems (SAMs).

3. They use guided/corrected aerial bombs against the positions of the Russian Armed Forces near the line of combat contact (LBC).

Data on the statistics of combat sorties of Ukrainian Air Force aircraft in January 2026, taken from enemy resources

But, firstly, all of the above tasks carried out by the Ukrainian Air Force cause us damage, sometimes quite unpleasantly, and secondly, the Ukrainian aviation, in a sense, is a kind of symbol for the enemy by the very fact of its existence.

Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that sooner or later the Ukrainian Armed Forces will decide to resort to massive use of aviation in order to solve some local military-political problem, such as ["improving the negotiating environment"] – we must not forget that the Ukrainian Armed Forces' invasion of the Kursk region was clearly doomed to failure, but nevertheless it took place and brought us a lot of trouble. The Ukrainian Armed Forces could pull off something similar as part of a suicidal attack by their Air Force.

There is no doubt that Ukrainian aviation must be dealt with, but how can this be done?

There are a number of factors that prevent the destruction of Ukrainian combat aircraft by Russian long-range precision weapons.

Firstly, it appears that Ukrainian fighter jets are based in protected concrete shelters of Soviet construction, which are most likely invulnerable to kamikaze UAVs, so they can only be hit by cruise missiles or ballistic missiles with a powerful warhead (WH) – By the way, unfortunately, our Air Force ignored the need to build shelters for aircraft for a long time, which led to completely unjustified losses that could have been avoided..

Secondly, it appears that the Ukrainian Air Force is actively using a method of evading enemy aircraft. Upon receiving information that the Russian Armed Forces have launched cruise missiles and kamikaze UAVs, or that strategic aircraft and/or MiG-31Ks armed with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles have taken off, enemy fighters scramble, and the missiles strike only empty hangars. In fact, according to open sources, the Russian Air Force is also actively using this method of survival.

The night of February 3, 2026, in Ukraine turned out to be colorful, however, even with such a massive attack with a wide variety of high-precision long-range weapons, even if it were carried out on enemy air bases, the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft have a chance to evade the "meeting"

By the way, it is possible that this method will become much less effective for the Ukrainian Air Force after the increase in the number of operational-tactical missile systems in the Russian Armed Forces. (OTRK) "Iskander-1000" with a launch range of about 1000 kilometers and the speed of the ballistic missile, comparable to the speed of the Kinzhal missile system, the launch warning will be received too late, and they may not have time to escape.

Thirdly, there is a risk that Ukrainian Air Force fighters may be based in Poland most of the time, landing in Ukraine only for a short time to load ammunition, after which they carry out combat missions and then take refuge in Poland again – we discussed this back in January 2024 in the article "The F-16s are about to strike – we must be ready.".

Starlink is not permanent.

Recently, the Russian Armed Forces began using Starlink terminals to control kamikaze UAVs like the Geranium, as well as other Russian UAVs, which immediately resulted in spectacular footage of the destruction of a Ukrainian Su-27 fighter jet and an F-16 fighter jet. (or, according to some sources, a mock-up of the F-16 fighter jet used for training crews and technicians), as well as other purposes.

However, recently it was reported that, at the insistent request of the Ukrainian side, SpaceX has ensured the shutdown of Starlink terminals traveling at speeds exceeding 90 kilometers per hour over Ukrainian territory. Furthermore, "whitelists" are being introduced for terminals registered in Ukraine, requiring them to be registered in person at the authorities. At this moment, Ukrainian "remote workers" hiding from territorial recruitment centers (TRC) became tense.

Starlink terminal registration procedure in Ukraine

Some sources report that technical workarounds exist, including proxy boards and hardware inserts that spoof the speed data transmitted by the terminal to the satellite to trick the system into believing that the UAV is stationary or moving slower than a set speed limit.

Also, according to available data, information about exceeding the 90 kilometers per hour speed limit is received by the satellite within two minutes, and only then is the lock activated. Accordingly, the UAV can be guided to the target area using the "classic" method—using satellite navigation equipment. A Starlink terminal is then activated in the designated area. The operator then has two minutes to complete a search and engage the target. At a speed of 120-150 kilometers per hour, the UAV will fly 4-5 kilometers before the terminal is locked.

In any case, all of this once again brings us back to the need to deploy a domestic high-speed low-orbit satellite communications system, since communications satellites in geostationary orbit are no substitute for Starlink and its analogues – they are simply much easier to jam.

Russia urgently needs its own equivalent of the high-speed satellite communications system Starlink, and it appears that Bureau 1440 has made the most progress in this direction.

So, if the relevant agencies want to identify traitors, all they need to do is find those who, in one way or another, are obstructing the creation of Starlink-like networks in Russia. Incidentally, this doesn't necessarily require killing specialists or destroying documents; it's enough to simply ensure strict adherence to all procedures regulated by laws and regulations. The bureaucracy will easily nip any promising project in the bud or delay it for decades without any "sharp" actions.

After our kamikaze UAVs acquired Starlink terminals, we were closer than ever to destroying the Ukrainian Air Force, but given the new circumstances, we'll once again have to act on the principle of "necessity is the mother of invention." Well, we're used to it...

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Communication satellites in geostationary orbit are no substitute for Starlink and its analogs – they are simply much easier to jam.

They are not jamming the transmission, but the reception.
The difficulty of jamming StarLink communications is that the jammer must be located fairly close to the StarLink subscriber's antenna—5-10, maybe 15 km. And this, for obvious reasons, would be fatal for an electronic countermeasure system near the LBS.

Or disable, without destroying, ALL S-k satellites flying over the country. Using laser or microwave radiation.
With high-orbit systems, the problem is not the ease of suppression, but the size of the transmitting and receiving antennas at the subscriber.

[Foggy Dew]

Not ALL, just the low-orbit stuff. Incidentally, it's not a difficult task, if only there was a team.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Not ALL, but low-orbit small stuff.

Well, I wrote it in short "S-k" - I meant Starlink.

[don_Reba]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The jammer should be located fairly close to the Starlink subscriber's antenna. 5-10, maybe 15 km.

Not closer, but higher.
See DNA.
You can be 300 km away but at an altitude of 20-30+ km.
The receiving path on the satellite also “likes” not 90, but 30-40 to the horizon (both speed and zone)

Or disable, without destroying, ALL S-k satellites flying over the country. Using laser or microwave radiation.

- They “fly” over the entire planet with a rotation period of 90-110 minutes, and not over a country.
-there are no such lasers/microwaves, and there won't be any for 100 years.
To burn (at 500 km) you need terawatts of power from the emitter on the ground.
🥱 At the equator, at the zenith 1 kW/sq.m.: even paper doesn't catch fire.
A magnifying glass is needed: a lens with a diameter of 10 cm can focus about 5-10 W of energy into a point with a diameter of 1-2 mm, which will be 318,471 MW/mm2

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: don_Reba

Not closer, but higher.
See DNA.
You can be 300 km away but at an altitude of 20-30+ km.
The receiving path on the satellite also “likes” not 90, but 30-40 to the horizon (both speed and zone)

Interference is placed on the satellite's receiving antenna, disrupting its alignment with the subscriber's antenna. Since the receiving antenna is phased, it accurately separates the interference from the useful signal, meaning the interference source must be located fairly close to the subscriber's antenna. Height isn't a factor here.

Quote: don_Reba

- They “fly” over the entire planet with a rotation period of 90-110 minutes, and not over a country.

So, will these satellites not fly over a country that has decided to disable enemy satellites? Will they fly around them?

Quote: don_Reba

at the equator, at the zenith 1 kW/sq.m.: even paper doesn’t catch fire.

No one's aim is to set paper on fire. However, the ground surface temperature can reach 70°C. This is already somewhat uncomfortable for electronics. And that's without taking into account heat loss into the ground and air. In orbit, it can reach 127°C in the sun. The overheating problem is solved by increasing reflectivity, adjusting the orientation of the spacecraft, and using thermal insulation.
And here's where the vulnerability to radiation arises: the side of the satellite that always faces the ground... And that's where the transmit/receive antenna arrays are. These arrays are exposed, and are a rather complex system of microelectronic circuit boards. High temperatures won't do any good for their health...

Quote: don_Reba

To burn (at 500 km) you need terawatts of power from the emitter on the ground.

Peresvet's estimated power in 2017 is 1,000 kilowatts. Power losses per 100 km of atmosphere upward range from 40 to 70%; let's assume 30% of the power delivered to the target. With a divergence of 1 second, the best Earth-to-space lasers at a range of 600 km will produce a spot area of ​​only 6,6 square meters. Assuming a divergence of 10 arc seconds, that's 665 square meters. This means 451 watts per square meter of target. So, to deliver 4,5 kW to a square meter of target, only 10 mW is needed.
Let me repeat: incinerating satellites in orbit isn't the goal. But disabling the optics and phased array without shooting down the satellite itself—that's the goal, if you have the will. What's the point of a communications satellite if it can't provide communications?

[don_Reba]

1. About the height: I'm actually talking about the terminal antenna
What does "closer" mean?
You can be 5 meters behind the receiving path, or to the side.
The satellite will only receive signals in the sector < 180-2*20, i.e. < 140
2.

having made a decision

I can't even translate this.
As is known, even to victims of the Unified State Exam, the orbit is closed, lies in one plane, with a shift in the projection of the orbit "over the country" due to the rotation of the Earth.
3.

But the soil surface temperature can reach 70 C

I don’t understand: are you going to fry the terminal or the satellite?
There are no +125 C in the satellite's electronics, despite the fact that the body is exposed to temperatures of +120°C in the light and -150°C...-170°C in the shade.

And these gratings are not covered by anything, and are a rather complex system.

-there are no bars there
- on the outside there is a protective transparent panel (which acts as a heat stabilizer)
-PPM housing
(And underneath it there are “delicate electronics” and a cooling system

Peresvet's projected power in 2017 is 1 MW, which is one thousand kilowatts. Power losses per 100 km of atmosphere upward range from 40 to 70%; let's assume 30% of the target power.

This is complete nonsense.
Take your 1 MW, convert to J.
Next, using the inverse square law (I~1/r^2), divide by 600 km*600 km (in meters, of course) (with at least, since the tarlinks are 550+/- and take into account the elevation angle).
And the result will be: the energy flux density at a given height.
This is a dick.
And neither the K. brothers nor “Colonel” Korotchenko will help.

But to disable the optics and headlights,

🥱 see above.
Until you master GW of power at such a distance, you won't even be able to tickle, and to get to the electronics, you need terrawatts.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: don_Reba

What does "closer" mean?

I recall:

[Don_Reba]5-10, well 15 km.

Quote: don_Reba

You can be 5 meters behind the receiving path, or to the side.
The satellite will only receive signals in the sector < 180-2*20, i.e. < 140

So you think Starlink can be jammed within a 140-degree sector between the subscriber and the jammer? Well, then it's clear where you got the 300-km distance from the subscriber and the 20-30-km altitude from the ground from which you came up with the idea. Even I, when I knew little about Starlink, didn't assume such a wide range.

Quote: don_Reba

having made a decision
I can't even translate this.

Well then learn not to cut quotes.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

having decided to disable enemy satellites, these satellites

Is it more accessible for translation?

Quote: don_Reba

I don’t understand: are you going to fry the terminal or the satellite?

Actually, you were the one who mentioned the kilowatt-hour of insolation at the equator. And I translated it into awkward numbers. What's wrong with you? By the way, it's funny, but Starlink terminals shut down in temperatures above 40°C.

Quote: don_Reba

There are no +125 C in the satellite's electronics, despite the fact that the body is exposed to temperatures of +120°C in the light and -150°C...-170°C in the shade... ...and the cooling system

But you don’t see any connection between temperature changes and the cooling system?
And I didn't write about 125°C in electronics. On the surface, I did. By the way, what would happen to these electronics if the 250°C temperature difference suddenly disappeared? Just the difference, not to mention other factors...

Quote: don_Reba

As is known, even to victims of the Unified State Exam, the orbit is closed, lies in one plane, with a shift in the projection of the orbit "over the country" due to the rotation of the Earth.

Quote: don_Reba

- They “fly” over the entire planet with a rotation period of 90-110 minutes, and not over a country.

Who do you think you are? Or does your own intellectualism rule out satellite overflights of the country? Or perhaps China and Russia aren't even on planet Earth?

Quote: don_Reba

-there are no bars there

Wow, what does FAR stand for? Isn't it a phased array antenna? Even those who have passed the Unified State Exam have known that for a long time...

Quote: don_Reba

-PPM housing

So what is this PPM? Is it a receiving and transmitting module? Yes. And what is it? A piece of wire? No, it's a microwave monolithic integrated circuit. And what does "CASE" mean? There are hundreds of these modules in the GRID... And it's precisely these modules in the GRID that are the very microelectronics that are the first to be hit.

Quote: don_Reba

This is complete nonsense.
Take your 1 MW, convert to J.
Next, using the inverse square law (I~1/r^2), divide by 600 km*600 km (in meters, of course) (with at least, since the tarlinks are 550+/- and take into account the elevation angle).

The problem is that the inverse-square law only applies to isotropic light sources. Lasers have highly directional radiation and therefore don't obey the inverse-square law.
P.S. You can be very clever about the Unified State Exam, but the Unified State Exam is just a form of knowledge testing.

[VTOL Helicopter]

It's probably impossible to jam it from the ground because the signal is coming from the opposite direction, so if the jammer is satellite (or stratospheric), then perhaps the effect from it will be much greater

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: VTOL helicopter

It's probably impossible to jam it from the ground because the signal comes from the opposite side,

What opposite?
They don't suppress transmission, they suppress reception.
Figuratively, someone is flashing a flashlight in your eyes. The reception is excellent. But what if someone starts flashing a spotlight in your eyes from the side of the flashlight, or even behind it, would the reception be excellent?
Another issue is that with phased array antennas and Starlink software, such interference is calculated and rejected. This is calculated precisely based on the difference in position, since a phased array antenna can act as a fairly accurate direction finder.

[ASSAD1]

It's IMMEDIATELY needed! Everyone will agree that this complex has been needed for a long time. Ever since the days when Musk was ridiculed.

[Foggy Dew]

They were right to laugh. It's a purely military development, with Musk as a figurehead for Pound, who was already laughed at in The Golden Calf. And by the way, the Pentagon didn't approve the creation of this network, so it had to be cut into the gray area.
Want to object? Easy! Describe the market for this network and why it should be overpriced by an order of magnitude compared to traditional networks. By the way, it doesn't work in the city, in high-rise buildings—even trees aren't radio-transparent, let alone high-rise buildings.

[ASSAD1]

What difference does it make, the system works.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Describe the market for this network and why it should command an order of magnitude premium over traditional networks.

Firstly, I personally saw how both Starlink variants were sold quite intensively (more intensively than TVs) at Walmart and Home Depot in the US and Mexico. So they are buying – there's a market. But the internet in the US is very peculiar – in some places it's 10 GB, in others it's practically dial-up. That's precisely why Max received government funding for Starlink development.
Secondly, it works fine under a tree, even in a parked friend's minivan. But in "the city, in a high-rise building," there's usually decent internet, if it's not a bummer. Although I've seen it work in 3-6-story buildings.
And $100-150, given current prices in the US and Canada, doesn't seem like much at all. Unless you have fiber, of course. But working from home via a cellular network—that's something I've only seen here.

[Foggy Dew]

The US is the US... They're even "developing" unprofitable green energy, pardon the pun. The Pentagon's funding is absolutely ridiculous, considering they've already given away the Cape Canaveral spaceport and who knows how much of the budget for Starlink itself.
There's a simple fact. On the ground, wire is always cheaper than a communication terminal, which is completely unnecessary for a traditional network. Then you add in the need for space launches, a developed communications control center, and that's it—the cost has plummeted several orders of magnitude. And now the icing on the cake: it doesn't work in cities, the sky is completely blocked, it doesn't work in forests or mountains, for the same reason: it works poorly in bad weather, it works poorly during magnetic storms/thunderstorms, and so on...
Nobody needs it. Fixed installations are cheaper than wired ones, mobile installations are just that—mobile ones—and even long-haul trucks and trains don't need it.
Even the military doesn't need it, which is why the Pentagon couldn't launch the network in the White House—Congress logically pointed out that it was a waste of funds. But for the mattresses, there's at least some explanation in the fact that they have bases all over the planet; a single center is logical. Our theater of potential combat operations is Eurasia. There's no need to seed the entire orbit with tens of thousands of satellites for that—the country's budget would burst! For a local theater of combat operations, AWACS are needed, and by the way, they're fundamentally no different.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Nobody needs him.

Well you give!
I need to pass this on to my friends who use it.

Stationary - cheaper than wired,

Do some research online about landline internet in rural America! For a taster, check out: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/08/nx-s1-5575723/a-look-at-the-latest-effort-to-get-more-americans-in-rural-communities-online
Add almost all mobile homes.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Foggy Dew

had to be sawed into gray

Can you voice these grey schemes?
Where did you even get the information about Starlink's funding source?
Have you heard of private equity? A company like Google? Venture capital funds? The RDOF program? The BEAD program? The Starshield project?
Starlink was funded by a combination of private capital, SpaceX's internal resources, and government support.

[Foggy Dew]

Oops... Let's start from the end.
* What kind of "internal resources" does this ridiculous company Spice-Xa have, when it was officially founded out of thin air to fulfill a Pentagon project to launch a Boeing space bomber into orbit. Ironically, the project was called Falcon; they weren't even smart enough to change it? Let me remind you that NASA officially admitted that the government paid for most of the cost of the supposedly commercial launch as part of lobbying, meaning the project was unprofitable?
* It gets even more amusing – what government involvement is there? Now tell me that siphoning off budget funds into private hands and giving away a state-owned spaceport at Cape Canaveral isn't a shady scheme or embezzlement. Are they handing out spaceports to everyone there? A drug addict with a proven history of fraud came along, wanted to rip off the US budget for Solar City – supposedly a solar-powered city, though it was actually powered by two diesel generators – and said, "Give me the spaceport. What the hell do you need it for? Are you going to launch Challengers?" Go ahead and take it!
* And then tell me how the Starlink satellite, supposedly developed by an African ignoramus, appeared at the Pentagon's presentation as the new spy satellite?
Well, I'm listening to you!

[Intelligence]

Do you seriously think I'm going to respond to this nonsense?
Sorry, I'll stop respecting myself.

[Foggy Dew]

I see. I responded to your nonsense. And I presented the facts.
It's funny with cultists in general - they always DEMAND proof, but they themselves are incapable of providing any proof a priori. A cult is a cult. And Elon Musk is its prophet))) Mavrodi and Navalny are gone, they found another one, who, by the way, was also convicted of large-scale fraud by a US court.

[Mustached Kok]

It started out "from scratch," when it was only developing launch vehicles. They began working on Starlink when they launched the launch vehicle into production and began offering commercial and government payload launches. Starlink development began in 2015, and the first prototype satellites were launched in 2018 (almost 10 years ago; time flies). Meanwhile, the Falcon 9 launch vehicle began commercial launches around 2010, and since 2014, it has been launching regularly and frequently. The number of Falcon 9 launches has only increased since its entry into service and receipt of all certifications. Each success of the launch vehicle (the first successful launch, the first landing of a special payload in orbit, the first manned flight) was accompanied by an increase in the company's share price, and therefore, the company's internal capital. The arrival of Starlink also contributed to the rise in stock prices. Although the Starlink project was developed primarily by SpaceX, it was created with significant investment and in collaboration with other major companies in the telecommunications and digital technology industries. Therefore, the cost of development and launch was shared among the participants. Meanwhile, the Starlink website publicly displays how many countries are already using the network. The current monthly connection fee for the European segment is €40 per month via a station. The EU population, for a moment, is half a billion people (446,700,000 people, as of the 2019 census), and that doesn't include pro-Western European countries or neighboring Asia that actively cooperate with the EU. Meanwhile, the average salary there is higher than ours. And there are MUCH more people who have connected or are planning to connect to the Starlink network. I won't even mention the market in North and South America, where the combined population is another half a billion. With Europe included, that's 1-1,5 billion people. Starlink also officially received a license and began operating in several countries in Asia, Oceania, and even some CIS countries (Starlink officially operates in Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan). As a result, the Starlink system's reach is approximately 2-2,5 billion people.
As of 2025, the company has 8-9 million active users. Considering the average global user pays $50 per month (the minimum, but most common speed, taking into account currency exchange rates), we get that the company is already earning $425 million per month and $5,1 billion per year. Meanwhile, the network continues to expand both across countries and among populations (more and more users are online). Now imagine how much money SpaceX would make if at least 1% of the population in countries where Starlink officially operates (remember, that's 2-2.5 billion people) connected to the system. That's 25 million new users, which would generate $1,25 billion per month and $15 billion per year.
At the same time, no one has yet canceled orders for cargo launches on their launch vehicles. Musk also owns the PayPal payment system.
So yes, SpaceX has had money for a long time. Because Max has established a global monopoly in several markets.
And the fact that once upon a time (about 15-20 years ago) his company survived on state subsidies no longer means ANYTHING. Those days are in the past. Those days are over, Max is a monopolist and he has money. The fact that some are worried about his meager fortune in the distant past doesn't bother Musk (or his investors). It would be better if they were so concerned about our space industry, because we don't have even a fraction of what Musk now controls. All our space industry has are remnants of the achievements of the Soviet space program, to which the current government and Roscosmos have very little and indirect connection. What WE fly now is the merits and achievements of our great-grandfathers and grandfathers. And in modern Russia, we've been sitting on a mountain of technology inherited from the USSR. And our crisis in space and satellite technology has arisen, in part, because the Soviet legacy is exhausted, and now we need to do something ourselves.

[don_Reba]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Outline the market for this network and why it should be

Unfortunately, they have everything written in black:
“Starlink’s key goals and objectives are:
Global Coverage: Providing high-quality internet where terrestrial infrastructure is absent or poorly functioning (rural areas, oceans, remote areas).
High speed and low latency: Using thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit (approximately 550 km) allows for speeds of up to 400+ Mbps and latency comparable to terrestrial providers.
Critical Infrastructure Support: Providing communications in crisis situations, war zones, and supporting hospitals, banks, and government agencies.
Direct-to-Device (D2D) Development: The new goal is to provide direct communication with smartphones in “dead zones”.
👉Funding interplanetary missions: Profits from the project are planned to be used to finance SpaceX's development of a flight to Mars.
(I just removed the "digital divide")

[Foggy Dew]

None of the mentioned destinations justify this network's cost. Incidentally, geostationary communications are better by default at sea. In other areas, there are cheaper options; there are no villages without coverage, even in Africa now. And the remaining options aren't affordable enough for even a single terminal. And even for them, geostationary communications are cheaper. As for latency, the signal from the subscriber necessarily travels to the provider's control center, through a chain of repeaters across the globe, only then to the network, and then back across the globe to another subscriber. There are no advantages for this network; its clients are a small percentage of troops in the trenches, where landlines are more reliable and cheaper, geologists, and a forester's hut on the summit of Mount Ararat. Even maintaining the sect of Saint Mask on social media isn't worth it.

[Artunis]

It might not happen in Africa, but here in Russia we have plenty!!! When was the last time you moved your ass from a city (which one?)? I won't even read any more of your nonsense.

[bk0010]

Quote: Foggy Dew

A purely military development, with Musk as a figurehead for Pound, who was laughed at back in the Golden Calf. And by the way, the Pentagon didn't approve the creation of this network, so it had to be cut into the gray area.

The Pentagon doesn't use Starlink—it's not allowed. Musk is proposing to create a military Starlink called Starshield. So far, everything's quiet (at least, I haven't heard anything about the system's development).

[qwertyui_1]

In the city, in a high-rise building, it doesn't work at all.

The Starlink antenna automatically selects the satellite to work with and switches to another satellite if necessary. Considering there are approximately 8000 satellites in the system, there will always be a satellite (or more) at the zenith that will be clearly visible even behind high-rise buildings. Therefore, the city is not an obstacle for operation. Furthermore, no one prevents base stations from being placed on rooftops.

Even trees are not radio-transparent.

- trees are radio-transparent by definition.

[Foggy Dew]

Yes, yes, go and look for a plate in Moscow aimed at a tree.
What kind of love do people have? They don't know a thing about it, but they're still eager to teach?!
Starlink's antenna doesn't select, but rather targets the strongest satellites based on signal strength—8000 satellites—which is useless at low altitudes. Step outside and see what part of the sky you can see. It's definitely a cliff-bound connection.
By the way, targeting the most powerful signal on the same frequency means wild instability to interference - any source closer than 600 km from the satellite is automatically stronger than a low-power one in orbit

[iommy]

Let me remind you that the web worked only on SIM cards without any satellites.

[Moneron]

Is there anyone willing to develop a Starling-like system? Is there anyone willing to make thousands of satellites a year? Will they have time to do anything before their deadline?
You need to be a patriotic realist. Everything will be...but then in the next or subsequent decade, if it is needed in the future.
so we'll have to do it the old-fashioned way... send gunners with radios into the depths...or fire missiles at squares.
There are no miracles. There is no Russian mask. There are no billions of free dollars. There is no preparation for a multi-thousand series.
There is Courchevel... and there are big-faced oligarchs... Russian Starling is needed like air, but not everyone in our country needs it.

[Russian jacket]

There's supposedly a developer. Some bureau with some Chifirs. But, as always, the devil is in the details. By 2025, there was supposed to be a working network, albeit a small one. As a result, only ONE satellite is hanging around. There are no manufacturers for the rest. And the most ironic thing is that a request for private investment was voiced. Think about such idiocy. To build something like Starling, billions would have to be poured into the work, like Musk's shadowy contractors, like the Pentagon, keeping people like nano-redhead out of reach. And personal responsibility. But, with all this, our vertical is simply afraid that if you ask one person, they'll ask you later, and that's unacceptable. Otherwise, how can we live? Khuzhenetovich's daughter, now a Mendelian psychologist won't let you lie.

[papas-57]

"To achieve something like Starling, billions must be poured into the work, like Musk's shadowy contractors like the Pentagon, keeping people like the nano-redhead out of reach. And personal responsibility." We have major problems with personal responsibility; it's somehow awkward to hold friends and family accountable.

[Russia2014]

...the thing is that almost everyone there is like "nano-redhead"...if we were to "cleanse" everything there, then our victory would have ended long ago...!

[nepunamemuk]

If everything there was "cleaned up", then the whole thing would have ended long ago.

or it wouldn't even have started...

[Russia2014]

... yes, that may be so..

[alexoff]

Quote: Russian quilted jacket

The most interesting thing is that the desire for private investment was voiced.

That's what the government said—the state doesn't have the money for it; the interest rate is too high. That's why they're not launching anything. The state didn't have any money for the sector in 2018 either. Putin advertised it, allocated several billion rubles for several hundred satellites, and then they were left to their own devices.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

There are Russian "Musks." But they usually end up in the West after a while, working for "that" Musk. It's all about being in demand and getting decent pay.

[Intelligence]

Quote from moneron

everything will be...but then in the next or subsequent decade

Possibly. Although doubtful.
But the question immediately arises: why wasn't this the case before? In the previous decade? Before the SVO? When we giggled at Falcon, Starship, and Stalin? What was missing? Money? When the country was awash in petrodollars? Or realistic, objective, and competent analysis within the structure of our glorious Republic of Kazakhstan?

Quote from moneron

There is no Russian mask.

I'll add: and there won't be. Under the current system.

[MrFox]

Well, you still remember the World Cups and Olympics. But there's no one left to work—the best specialists fled abroad in 2022 and have no plans to return.

[Hole puncher]

It's enough to find those who, in one way or another, are preventing the creation of Starlink network analogues in Russia

And who is this? A hidden enemy of the people, undetectable by the state's punitive organs?

❝ - Just don't look for scapegoats now...
- Why not look?!

Let's do some research. To do that, we need to delve into history. A long time ago, in 1998, a company called "Gonets Satellite System" was founded to deploy and service communications satellites of the same name. Its director was a certain Alexander Galkevich, a doctor of engineering sciences and a communications systems designer. The satellites were supposed to provide online communications, for which 24 were to be deployed; the communications services were purchased by the state. The project was quite profitable, and... in 2011, Galkevich was replaced by a young manager, a certain Dmitry Bakanov, who was 26 at the time and an economist by education, had absolutely nothing to do with communications or space. As the press reports, Bakanov immediately uncovered violations at the company. A criminal case was opened against the previous director, Galkevich, for hiring his son shortly before his dismissal, assigning him a salary of 33 rubles. Upon dismissal, he was paid 20 times his salary, as per the employment contract. The outcome was unclear, but given that Galkevich continued to publish technical articles, it was clearly not his work.
The most important thing. Before his dismissal, Galkevich was working on a satellite internet system, attracted Chinese sponsors, and the issue of the Ministry of Defense allocating frequency bands for a low-orbit satellite system planned to be built on the Gonets satellites arose. After Galkevich was dismissed, this project was abandoned, as Bakanov created OneWeb LLC in partnership with the well-known OneWeb to access the latter's communications system. Everyone knows how it all ended. As a result, for the fourth year now, we've been lamenting the lack of native satellite internet and cursing Musk, who took up the satellite internet project much later than Galkevich did at Gonets.
Did we find him?

[Foggy Dew]

Satellite internet wasn't deployed until who knows when. The pioneer was Gazprom, a private company with state participation, and the Yamal satellites were designed specifically to collect data from oil and gas pipelines, as well as provide satellite internet and communications. Later, satellite TV was added to them, and satellite internet was sold to private companies. The new Yamal series satellites are still operating successfully today. For example, the provider IP-Net has been operating in Russia for almost 25 years, and previously in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and now. Satellite internet is not popular due to its fundamental lack of profitability.
Learn the ropes. Your idiot was bound to go bankrupt. He needed a government contract, or a government budget cut, with the Ministry of Defense involved, like what happened with Starlink in the US.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

The NEW satellites of the Yamal series are still operating successfully today,

How wonderful! The expert on the subject forgot to describe the subject.
1. Number of active satellites
2. Satellite platform
3. System perspective
Tell the truth...

[Foggy Dew]

I'm an expert in this field; I've been working in networks for about 30 years, including satellites. The hardware is publicly available, and the coverage area is all of Russia and below, to the equator. Three satellites are enough for this; currently, it's either four or five—you find the answer yourself.
But the payback is absolutely nonsensical. Even the Russian military doesn't need them. UAV and AWACS repeaters are cheaper and, surprisingly, less vulnerable—simply because the signal source is closer, and therefore more powerful. And Russia has no need to provide military communications all over the world—they simply don't exist anywhere. And in Syria and throughout Russia, even balloon-based repeaters will do the trick.

[gromila78]

If it's so simple, what was stopping you from creating your own Starlink and selling your services to the world? After all, it's a commercial enterprise first and foremost.

Can we create thousands of satellites and put them into orbit, create millions of terminals?

[Foggy Dew]

Once again, this is NOT a commercial venture, because it will never pay for itself. This is a rip-off of the Pentagon under the guise of "horns and hooves." I already explained this in this thread.

[asterisk200]

This is the sawing up of the Pentagon under the sign of Horns and Hooves.

All your rants about Elon Musk and the Pentagon's embezzlement stem from one fact: the Zelenograd and Skolkovo embezzlements don't work, but Starlink does.

[Foggy Dew]

The point is that they're all embezzlement. And embezzlement is bad because it doesn't strengthen defenses. For example, starlink has only proven itself against weapons types unusable in real wars. UAVs and naval drones aren't relevant in real wars; the former are targets like the U-2. They were able to shoot down UAVs back in WWI, while the latter were used en masse by the Germans at the end of WWII. For example, Le Havre was home to a fleet of kamikaze boats and human-controlled mini-submarines with torpedoes—they're also UAVs, an elusive submarine launching a torpedo. They haven't proven themselves at all.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

Well, it turns out that SVO, according to your logic, is unrealistic, because it's computer graphics... And killed soldiers respawn, as a friend of mine who's played too many games used to say, "on the curb." What, then, is your definition of real war?

[Black cat]

We can't make a cell phone. Any cell phone, even a push-button one. What Starlink? Cell phone operators' equipment is 100% imported, all the microelectronics are imported. And no matter how much money they pour into our mighty business, it has had exactly zero effect.

[Last centurion]

Why is pouring in useless? Because they'll move it offshore... and why will they move it offshore? Because as soon as things start to develop a bit, local tycoons and certain gentlemen start squeezing out businesses (although no... that's the same bullish thinking from the 90s that's now "resurfaced"). And tomorrow there might be an increase in VAT... or a tax break... or a raise in the retirement age... or a rise in the interest rate on loans, so development is basically impossible. And all this is random... So people go... anywhere... so that the effect is not zero.

[bk0010]

Quote: gromila78

If everything is so simple, what was stopping you from creating your own Starlink and selling services to the whole world?

Well, you'll be allowed to sell these services in Africa, but the ROI there is poor. And where ROI is good, it will be the same as with Starlink in Russia or China.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

look for yourself

Wait, what do you mean, "find it yourself?" You were the one who gave the example of the Yamal satellite system as a functioning communications system, weren't you? As in, "You don't know, but it exists, so learn the ropes."
No, it’s not difficult for me, I certainly followed your advice, but what I discovered does not in any way correspond to the topic raised by the author of the article.
1. The five Yamal communications satellites are located in geostationary orbit and are of no interest to the Russian Ministry of Defense since their data transfer speed is very low, 1 Mbps.
2. The Yamal satellites are based on the Spacebus platform from Thales Alenia Space, and the last one was launched 7 years ago.
3. The system has no prospects because the communication system based on satellites located in geostationary orbit is not capable of providing the required data transfer rate for UAV control.
And most importantly, the satellite manufacturing plant in Shchelokovo was built for Gazprom by the Italians Rizzani de Eccher in cooperation with Thales Alenia Space (until 2022), and the equipment the French supplied was intended for building satellites on a French platform. Since its supposed launch in 2024, not a single satellite has been built there (at least, I couldn't find any data).
That is, having studied the technical details on your advice, I did not see any prospects for the Yamal satellite system to be used as a UAV control system.
If you knew the technical details, then why did you bring it up?

[Foggy Dew]

That's what it means: open a search engine, type in "Yamal," and read on. I won't retype it for you.
What you cited there is complete bullshit. Geostationary satellites aren't designed to last a year, and they're currently just sitting there in reserve. One. Two, the communication channel there is sufficient for telephony, satellite TV, and both private and corporate internet—it's enough for the military to keep up. As for "a thousand gigabits per second speed at my home," I'm going to disappoint you. Your provider has been physically allocated, God willing, 10 gigabytes for ALL subscribers. FOR ALL. For a good dozen districts within the coverage area of ​​the local branch. It's an old joke, legal entities always disappear—like, I have gigabit internet at home for 600, but here for the whole office, 30 Mbps is 10 times more expensive. ))) Find out what speed you have in your office—that's just the speed stipulated by the provider's contract.
So, for the military, geostationary satellites are more than enough. And the throughput of low-orbit repeaters is EVEN lower—there's more interference in the transmission chain, and the signal strength of the satellites is negligible.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

So, for the geostationary warlords, it's more than enough.

For UAV control, right? With real-time video transmission?

[Foggy Dew]

Did you read anything?! I'm telling you in plain English that it's enough, for example, for high-quality satellite TV throughout the country. And yes, it's enough for UAV image transmission and control; traffic is light there, so the picture is just ugh.
And again, all oil and gas production, pipelines, compressor stations, and so on have long been connected to these satellites—and nothing has been down for over 30 years. And there's more traffic from anywhere. And in the 2000s and 2010s, they loved to connect cash registers and video surveillance at all gas stations outside the city to them—and nothing happened. Now, by the way, they've abandoned it because there are cheaper options, and Starlink isn't needed there, again.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

I'm telling you in plain English that it's enough, for example, for high-quality satellite TV throughout the country. And yes, it's enough for UAV image transmission and control; traffic is light there, so the picture is just peanuts.

So, the MORF and those on the front lines don’t know that they have an analogue of Starlink and that’s why they used it, and not the Yamal-601 Satellite Internet Kit?

[Foggy Dew]

But we don't usually include gray schemes in the country's defense. And the command from above hasn't been given.
What, you think there's no such connection, Russian? Google is your friend—search it, you can order one, but why the hell do you need one? And for the battlefield, it's more logical to hang a transmitter—there are countless options, and it would be better on an airplane, a drone, or even a hot air balloon. Not to mention that it's orders of magnitude cheaper. And the signal is better purely due to the distance, while for a landline, you can connect from a command post via satellite. But the regulations don't allow it, which is logical.
The US is a poor example in this regard. They don't even have military couriers, for example, so they send ICBM launch keys by mail, and they've been lost many times.
But if there's an order, setting up secure communications with the command post and the General Staff, even on existing civilian communications satellites, would be a piece of cake. And if TV has known about this for a long time, then the Ministry of Defense knows about it too. Have you ever seen a world-class vehicle with an antenna on the roof during live broadcasts from the scene? Even in the 90s? That's it. By the way, it transmits a picture much better than a measly drone. And that's mobile internet. It was implemented back in the 90s. It transmits perfectly while moving, but the antenna there is larger, it won't fit on a Geranium.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

The antenna there is bigger, it won't fit on Geranium

Stop. The issue discussed last week was the use of Starlink terminals on the Geranium UAV to reduce flight altitude without losing contact with the operator. This sparked excitement, "efficiency has increased!" Then it was blocked. This sparked sadness, "we need to find other options."
This gave birth to this article, which concluded, "We need our own Starlink, where is it already?"
In the context of all this, you disagree with everything? Like it's not necessary because a repeater is enough?

[Foggy Dew]

Yes, a repeater will do. It's lighter, harder to jam, and much cheaper, just pennies.
If you really want to, you can use the same Starlink with the same terminal. The only difference is that the transmitter is not on a satellite, but on a UAV/balloon at 25 km, there will be no difference at all.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Yes, a repeater will do. It's lighter, harder to jam, and much cheaper, just pennies.

And Starlink was used in connection with:
1. "Sawing up the money"
2. "When I was a child, my mother dropped me head first."
3. "It's a fashion trend!"
4. "Was that even possible!?"

[Foggy Dew]

Does the word "embezzlement" mean anything to you? All the questions go to Congress—why didn't they give the green light to such a wonderful Starlink, huh? The Department of Defense had to screw up the presentation of the newest spy satellites, which suddenly looked like Starlink satellites. Not the Pentagon ones.
So, choose your options from the list. Why did Congress ever fall head over heels?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Foggy Dew

then Congress would be dropped head first!

I'm not talking about the country of manufacture, but about our operators.

[Foggy Dew]

Manufacturer of WHAT? If that's why OURS used it—there are no repeaters—that's a question for the Ministry of Defense. Logical answers: no, because they shouldn't be wasting their time on bullshit, but rather building an AWACS. They're not only against it. Ukrainians They'll help. And with these collective farm Starlinks, it won't be long before you're left without pants and without a weapon. I remember how they sang about how good the Bayraktars are.

[S. Viktorovich]

The atmospheric repeater is vulnerable to Ukraine's existing air defenses. Starlink repeaters and similar ones in space are inaccessible to air defenses, as they are someone else's property—Trump's—and cannot be touched.

[andranick]

Quote: Puncher

So, the MORF and those on the front lines don’t know that they have an analogue of Starlink and that’s why they used it, and not the Yamal-601 Satellite Internet Kit?

They know it and they use it. It's just not as convenient as Starlink: the dish needs to be pointed at the satellite. The equipment costs 130 rubles on marketplaces. The connection speed isn't 1 MB, it's an order of magnitude or two faster.

[S. Viktorovich]

Operating through repeaters in geostationary orbit (including Yamal) requires a large antenna and a relatively powerful transmitter. This isn't suitable for carriers like Geranium. Starlink is optimal in this regard: a compact antenna, a jam-resistant channel (directional antenna), a distributed repeater system with multiple transceivers and adaptation to electronic interference.

[andranick]

Quote: S. Viktorovich

This is not for Geranium type carriers

In no case for Geraniums, we are not talking about UAVs, but about

Quote: Puncher

in the MORF and on the front lines they don't know

It's not just the weight and size or the 2.5-watt power supply, but the fact that precise satellite targeting is required, which is not feasible for a UAV in this case. A fixed installation is the only option.

[Xenofont]

Surprisingly, I read yesterday on Rozhin that our troops on the front lines, and elsewhere, are using Gazprom's communications. This is in light of the problems with Starlink.

[bk0010]

Quote: Puncher

So, the MORF and those on the front lines don’t know that they have an analogue of Starlink and that’s why they used it, and not the Yamal-601 Satellite Internet Kit?

Military personnel are not allowed; departmental documents would prohibit it. At a minimum, they would have to undergo FSB certification, but Gazprom wasn't bothered by that, and it's not a given that they'll pass—the satellites were built using imported components for which no approval had been obtained.
Why do they use Starlink? They didn't think to ask the Russian Ministry of Defense's front lines, otherwise they would have been banned, of course.

[Dmitry Rigov]

Starlink's key feature is its low signal latency (20-40ms). It's one thing to receive a signal from 35000 km away (Gazprom) or 550 km away. Furthermore, the Starlink terminal can be located on Geranium and control the UAV in real time, unlike Gazprom with its huge antenna dish, which requires 220V and is vulnerable to electronic warfare.
Now imagine if Starlink allows Ukrainian Armed Forces terminals to operate over Russian territory; it would be a complete disaster.

[Foggy Dew]

Starlink's trick is suitable for terrorist attacks; normal military munitions use completely different guidance systems. The signal delay is also the same. You're mistakenly thinking that the signal path there is subscriber 1-repeater-subscriber 2. In fact, subscriber 1-repeater 1-//-repeater n-Communications Control Center-internet-Communications Control Center-repeater m-//-repeater l-subscriber 2. In short, the signal is carried via a chain of repeaters to the communications center, where the subscriber is authorized—and only then is they allowed into the network. It's the same story the other way around. If the Communications Control Center is located in the other hemisphere... It's all clear.
And also, there's no need for 220 V there. Even before PoE, power was transmitted via twisted pair cables, originally wired 7 and 8. And StarLink requires 220 V just like a satellite modem or router—they can be called different things—in geostationary radios. And because the signal direction is strictly defined, the connection with a geostationary radio is less sensitive to electronic warfare—it doesn't look for signals from other directions; StarLink immediately switches to the strongest signal on the same frequency, just like that.

[gromila78]

I have always liked militant illiteracy. There is a technical failure in the country, in the auto industry, aircraft manufacturing, space, communications, but there will always be those who claim that black is white.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: gromila78

There will always be those who claim that black is white.

For money yes, for money yes...

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

For some reason, I thought of Chonkin while reading this fascinating discussion. And the local "Kulibin" Puzyrkov... This guy claims to be an expert, but regarding the effect of signal latency on UAV control—"no, I haven't heard of it." The argument is that it can broadcast TV, and therefore attack the enemy... And kamikaze UAVs that strike armored vehicles (often while moving) clearly require a latency much lower than 600-700 ms from a geostationary satellite... Starlink has 20-50 ms...

[alexoff]

Quote: Puncher

A young manager named Dmitry Bakanov, who was 26 years old at the time, came in. He was an economist by education and had NO connection whatsoever with either communications or space.

You forgot to mention that Bakanov is now the head of Roscosmos. For the first time in the history of the planet, an economist is leading a space agency.

[Hole puncher]

Quote from alexoff

You forgot to write that Bakanov is now the head of Roscosmos.

I suppose everyone knows about this... In fact, some people even have high hopes for it...

[alexoff]

I'm sure they do. His relatives, the British, the Ukrainians, the Americans...

[BAI]

Satellites need to be destroyed. The Chinese made one to destroy other satellites. And it can jam communications.

[Ross xnumx]

After our kamikaze UAVs acquired Starlink terminals, we were closer than ever to destroying the Ukrainian Air Force, but given the new circumstances, we'll once again have to act on the principle of "necessity is the mother of invention." Well, we're used to it...

And the worst part is, we'd already been launching spaceships for 14 years when Elon Musk was just born... Wasted time is the reason for our failures! We're always preparing, always planning, always assuming...

[foxes]

Some were preparing for future wars, while others were giggling. When the war happened, the "gigglers" ended up looking like fools.

[alexoff]

He may be a fool, but at least he has money.

[Last centurion]

and some, even with money, didn’t go to jail in Israel...

[Kuroneko]

Incidentally, unfortunately, our Air Force ignored the need to build shelters for aircraft for a long time, which led to completely unjustified losses that could have been avoided.

Ah, it's a pity the author isn't at the General Staff. He could teach those fools there a lesson, right?

The shelters were not built due to a joint agreement with the United States. (the so-called "Clear Sky"), which is now dead, but was still in effect, required that our bomber aircraft be clearly accessible for American inspection.

The contract has now been successfully scrapped, and construction is already underway. But of course, this isn't a quick process. So don't rush into cheap shots without fully understanding the circumstances.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Kuroneko

The shelters were not built due to a joint agreement with the United States (the so-called "Clear Sky")

And in what year did we withdraw from the agreement?

[bk0010]

Quote: Puncher

And in what year did we withdraw from the agreement?

In December 2021.

[Dedok]

Ah, it's a pity the author isn't at the General Staff. He could teach those fools there a lesson, right?

When I was little, my grandmother always told me the following: "It is not the gods who burn the pots"...
And in the General Staff, do people work/serve who were born in an incubator on some planet Zeis?
and by what principle/what qualities are they selected there?

[alexoff]

Firstly, the contract doesn't prohibit having hangars. Secondly, there were no shelters for anything – not for bombers, not for fighters, not for attack aircraft. And money was allocated for shelters at least twice under Shoigu. They probably allocated it, decided it was impossible, and kept the money in their pockets. They did it again. They started building it after Shoigu was ousted. Maybe they'll bring it back and tear it down again.

[Foggy Dew]

By the way, just a joke.))) A network registered as Starlink has been operating in Moscow for 25 years (i.e., much longer than Musk), providing radio communications.))) So, there's every reason to sue for the name, under any law. Incidentally, it's precisely because networks like Moscow's Starlink are unprofitable, while mattress-based Starlinks are unprofitable – the equipment is cheaper, more compact, and the principle is the same whether it's a radio broadcast or not.)))

[Ray]

This isn't a question of profitability or unprofitability. It's a question of safety.
And regarding Starlink's profitability, there are quite a few operators around the world. I watched a program about Indonesia. As you can imagine, it's a country made up of thousands of islands, and a poor one at that. There's no way to lay fiber optic cable across the seabed, connecting the islands to each other. So, there are many "internet cafes" there that operate via Starlink.
But again, I think resilience is secondary here. The first is that some unmanned aerial vehicle or cruise missile equipped with a Starlink terminal moves and transmits high-quality images at high speed in real time anywhere on the planet.
This is what we're talking about, this is what they're trying to explain to you. And you're all Yamao, Yamal.

[Dedok]

Here's another fresh fact on the topic under discussion:

The Panama-flagged container ship MSC Giada III, en route from Belgium to St. Petersburg, caught fire in the Gulf of Finland. An explosion occurred in the engine compartment, spreading fire to the deck. There were 22 Russian crew members on board. The rescue vessel Spasatel Karev and the icebreaker Semyon Dezhnev were dispatched from St. Petersburg to meet the container ship. The fire has been extinguished, and the ship is being towed to its destination.

[Soldatov V.]

Basically, everything in the article is correct. The question is who is carrying out the strikes, conducting reconnaissance and targeting, and who is on our side in Ukraine. The strike areas are roughly the same. We strike from the west to the Urals, while we strike from east to west over an area of ​​1000 by 500 km.
NATO's entire space and air reconnaissance network, as well as Ukraine's ground reconnaissance, are targeting us. We're using our own forces. Another issue is our targeting decisions. In my opinion, there's no single decision-making center for which targets to destroy. It's preferable to launch simultaneous, comprehensive strikes, horizontally and vertically. Attacking senior leadership, air defense forces, airfields, air bases, the power grid, and transportation systems, at least in specific directions. There should be a scorched earth strip along the western border, 50-100 kilometers long, with no bridges or foot crossings across the border.
To combat space and aerial reconnaissance, if not shoot them down, then disable them with high-frequency and laser weapons. We really need to liberate all of left-bank Ukraine by summer and reach the western border by the elections.

[alexoff]

Quote: V.

In my opinion, there is no single center for making decisions about which targets need to be destroyed.

The center rather issues lists of what can't be touched. Things like 750 kV transformers are off-limits, politicians are off-limits, Western Ukraine is off-limits. Licenses are occasionally issued on major holidays.

[Andrey M]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

They are not jamming the transmission, but the reception.
The difficulty of suppressing communication via Starlink is that the jammer must be located quite close to the Starlink subscriber's antenna. 5-10, well, 15 km

Not to argue, but out of technical interest: how did they supposedly block all the opposition/rebel Starlinks in Iran?

[UA3QHP]

And how did they allegedly block all the opposition/rebel Starlinks in Iran?

The cell diameter of one Starlink antenna channel, if memory serves, is approximately 24 km. If the subscriber terminal and the interference source are in the same cell, the terminal is easily blocked by the interference.

[Andrey M]

Quote: ROSS 42

Wasted time is the reason for our failures!

I look at you, the Putinists, and am amazed that you stubbornly fail to see the obvious cause of this general degradation and stagnation: sometimes your effective managers are to blame, sometimes Naebullina, sometimes Chubais, sometimes Shoigu, sometimes this, sometimes that...
Hmm... that's sad.

[Stanislav Chernov]

Ukraine will never send aircraft on a suicidal attack. As the author himself wrote, this is a symbol in itself. Downed aircraft cannot be hidden, unlike ordinary soldiers, who can go unnoticed. The main problem with such sabotage is the detection and direct control of aircraft. If we could track them "live," no sabotage would be necessary; Iskander missiles with cluster munitions would be enough to cover the distance.

[alexoff]

Quote: Stanislav Chernov

The main problem with such sabotage is the detection and direct control of aircraft.

What's stopping us from dragging a container of drones to the Starokostiantyniv airfield and detecting aircraft there live? After deploying Kalibr-Geranium-Dagger missiles, we'll get everyone running around the airfield?

[Stanislav Chernov]

The problem is that dragging drones to an empty airfield is pointless, and drones at such a distance can't be controlled directly without access to a Starlink-type communications system. They need direct targeting from a satellite or high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. The Ukrainian Armed Forces aren't stupid; their aircraft are constantly being redeployed and dispersed across many locations, and fortunately, many airfields remain from the Soviet era.

[alexoff]

The problem is that it’s useless to drag it to an empty airfield.

What makes you think it's empty?

Drones at such a distance cannot be controlled directly without access to a Starlink connection.

Tell me, how were the VSUK drones controlled when they attacked our airfields via direct communication without a Starlink?

there must be direct target designation from a satellite or high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft

nonsense

The Ukrainian Armed Forces are not fools; their aviation is constantly being redeployed and dispersed across many points.

Three or four at a time. What's stopping you from finding a guy at every airfield who'll just listen—three planes have arrived, it's time!

[Stanislav Chernov]

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have a decent satellite constellation. What makes you think the attack was carried out without a Starlink? You don't need one on every drone; a base station in the back of the aircraft, through which the control signal is transmitted, is sufficient. Where did you get the information about the three points? With an extensive airfield network, it makes sense to distribute the aircraft among two or three aircraft to avoid mass coverage. Do you think the direct connection is magical? Or an ethereal astral plane?
Target designation must be done with minimal delay for successful coverage, otherwise it is possible to bombard them with missiles and drones indefinitely.

[Stanislav Chernov]

To counter your comment: what's stopping them from deploying a drone-equipped hull at every airfield and shooting down planes every month? Because it's not as easy as you imagine.

[alexoff]

They're sending saboteurs there with gasoline, they've burned about ten planes. Drones have done even more. And nothing's stopping them. But we can't do that; we don't have targeting information or Starlink, and without that we can't even begin, otherwise everything will be over.

[Stanislav Chernov]

Just like you said, will you provide evidence? What gasoline? If you believe such nonsense, I feel sorry for you.

[alexoff]

What evidence is there that Starlink was used? Besides your own speculation? Images of drones and containers being assembled are available online. Starlink doesn't work in Russia at all. What's your evidence?

[alexoff]

What gasoline? If you believe such nonsense, I feel sorry for you.

So you're not aware that saboteurs have repeatedly infiltrated airfields and set planes on fire on video? What do you even know about then?

[Stanislav Chernov]

This is just a baseless assertion. Where's the evidence? You said yourself that nothing happened without the video. Or doesn't that apply to you?

[alexoff]

What makes you think that the attack was carried out without Starlink?

Because no one installed any StarLink stations there; they worked through regular SIM cards. There's a video report on how everything was prepared, but StarLink doesn't work in Russia. All those drones are still in Russia. To prove there was a StarLink station there, please send photos. Or you can make up whatever you want.

Where did you get the information about 3 points?

How many? A hundred? Two hundred? Which airfields are they hitting with daggers? Why did the Axis powers attack four points simultaneously, while we have to either attack all the airfields or do nothing?

Do you think the direct connection is through magic? Or the ethereal astral plane?

What's the connection? What are you talking about?

Target designation must be done with minimal delay for successful coverage, otherwise it is possible to bombard them with missiles and drones indefinitely.

Either zero ping and absolute targeting, eliminating every single plane with 100% certainty! Or we won't even do anything. What if we embarrass ourselves? It'll be like if some bastards were shooting off our generals in Moscow and they got away with it!

[Stanislav Chernov]

A Starlink analogue? You're either a dreamer or unaware of the state of our space industry. Since 2018, we've fallen hopelessly behind the US and China in launches. Deploying and maintaining a group of at least 3000 satellites (which is the first stage of Starlink, where it's starting to operate more or less decently) would take eight years. That's if we abandon the launch of everything else, not to mention finding a place to manufacture such a large number of communications satellites. The modest capabilities of our microelectronics industry won't allow for it.

[dragon772]

Bureau 1440 planned to launch the first operational satellites into orbit in 2026, and by 2027, expand the constellation to 250 satellites and begin commercial operations. Starting in 2025, the company planned to launch 150-180 satellites per year, increasing that number to 730 by 2030, and then over 900 by 2035.

[alexoff]

Due to the Central Bank's high key rate, the aerospace company Bureau 1440 (part of X Holding) will not receive preferential government financing at a 3% rate in 2025 for the deployment of a low-orbit satellite constellation. This follows from a letter from Ruslan Khairullin, Director of the Department for the Implementation of Infrastructure Projects at the Ministry of Digital Development, sent to the Digital Economy ANO on May 7. "Since the Bank of Russia's key rate in 2025 is 21%, it is not possible to provide a loan in 2025 at a preferential rate, given the proposed financial model," the official wrote.
https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2025/05/23/1112093-byuro-1440-mozhet-ne-poluchit-lgotnii-kredit

[Stanislav Chernov]

The key word is "planned," and the main question is what these plans were based on. According to their own press releases, they don't have the required 565 billion rubles, having received only 37,000 in state subsidies. There's no private investment. In fact, as of the end of 2025, there are only six satellites in operation, no launch reservations, no mass production of satellites, and the technology that seems to work on that basis exists. And 250 satellites won't provide global coverage with low latency, something similar to Starlink, which is precisely what the article is talking about. A minimum of 1600-2400 satellites are needed; all similar projects worldwide are based on these exact figures.

[dragon772]

Without preferential financing, there can be no projects. But the army and navy really need it!!!

[sdivt]

The Ukrainian Armed Forces are talking about the Flamingo cruise missile with a claimed range of up to 3000 kilometers, but there is no confirmation of such a flight range yet, and this missile is not Ukrainian, but British.

If a missile isn't Ukrainian, is it less dangerous? Does it explode more gently? Are there fewer consequences from a hit?
Even if it is Martian, what difference does it make?
Or was all this written only for this final conclusion:

...so we already have an "official" reason to send the "tin islands" to the bottom of the ocean

We already had 100500 confirmations of the participation of all European countries (and not only European ones) in the production and supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine.
Will it become 100501 - will something change?

[ALEKS112233]

This story smells awful! And the "writer"—Andrei Mitrofanov—reminds me of another "writer" in many of his expressions!

[multi-category]

IMMEDIATELY needed

Instead of consistent work, there is again a rush job.
and instead of solving the causes of complications - an emergency correction of the consequences.
The author needs to be given a rake so that he learns something.

[stone]

What we need to do then is not create an analogue of Starlink, but develop drones with built-in satellite antennas, such as, for example, the latest versions of the famous Israeli kamikaze UAV Harop

[gromila78]

You understand that for a satellite dish to work, there needs to be a satellite in orbit? Whether it's built-in or not is another matter. Starlink is primarily several thousand satellites, not terminals.

I am constantly amazed at how the technical level of education has fallen recently, because this is basic knowledge.

[stone]

So, raise your technical level. First, let me explain to you that satellites are certainly necessary, but thousands of satellites, just like Starlink, are not required. Adapting Starlink is a makeshift solution. American and Israeli UAVs have been flying 1000 km without any Starlinks, long before Starlink was created, for decades. Harop is a relatively compact drone similar in size to Shahed, but it has an electro-optical seeker and is controlled via satellite with a jam-resistant, broadband channel capable of transmitting the required signal.

[gromila78]

I'm certainly not the developer of Harop, but here's what's written about it:

In turn, the flight control, communication and data exchange system ensures reliable communication – within the permissible range – with the ground or naval command post of the complex.

The Harop has the following performance characteristics: maximum length – 2,5 m, wingspan – 3,0 m, maximum takeoff weight – 135 kg, and high-explosive fragmentation warhead weight – 23 kg. Moreover, thanks to its more powerful engine and larger fuel capacity, according to foreign specialized sources, the Harop's maximum range can reach almost 1000 km. Moreover, this warhead is capable of conducting combat patrols in the target area for up to six hours.

At the same time, it should be noted that there is a limitation on the use of the Harop-type BB in crew-controlled mode, as the radio communication link has a range of only approximately 200 km, and the aircraft apparently does not have satellite communication and control equipment installed. This is likely due in no small part to the bulky size of the antenna for such a system, especially for an aircraft of this class.

The difference between existing satellite surveillance systems and Starlink is the data exchange speed. Starlink has minimal latency. Gerani flew only according to pre-set coordinates, but Starlink made it possible to convert it into a guided weapon. Something must have prevented us from immediately installing domestically produced equipment to use domestically produced control and communication systems. Could you tell me why?

[stone]

I wrote in the latest version that they installed a satellite dish https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/1017256.html.
I can imagine how Geraniums fly
Regarding the data exchange speed, I'm telling you, Harop has electro-optics, which requires a corresponding signal with a video stream.
Why isn't this question addressed to me? I simply wrote what, in my humble opinion, needs to be done to turn UAVs into precision weapons. A Starlink-like system is also needed, but most likely for different purposes.

[Arslan Ali]

, and the British cruise missile FP-5 from Milanion, so we already have an “official” reason to send the “tin islands” to the bottom of the ocean

What is the reason for this?
Then everyone who suffered from various AK, BM, T, MIG, SU, TU, etc., etc., has the same reason to be upset and want revenge.
The arms market is a business of buying and selling, with the goal of making a profit. Where and against whom the weapons will be used is of little interest to sellers and suppliers, unless we are talking about weapons of mass destruction.
If you have enough money for a submarine, you'll also be offered torpedoes and missiles as a tuning upgrade.

[Dragon]

Why is it impossible to get enough Ukrainian planes? The answer is very simple: they're not considered Ukrainian. They need to be found at nearby foreign military airports, and some are frankly turning a blind eye to this. There's no trick involved. As soon as a plane flies there, Oreshnik immediately flies there, and there's immediate peace. Whoever's at fault won't complain.

[kriten]

We're making decisions slowly because we were preparing for the wrong war, and the one we were preparing for is a thing of the past. We have to adapt as we go.

[Phoenix Point]

Another load of crap. The author claims the Russian army didn't notice the Starlink shutdown. Because it was considered hostile to the Russian army. And all those LGBT+ fishermen, majors, and other scum who feed off this topic lost another trough. Hence the howl from the swamps. And if the author is touting Starlink or its analogues as a panacea, that's a diagnosis. Don't confuse placebo with cure.

[AC130 Gunship]

There are no air battles between fighters, as neither side enters the other's air defense zone. There are isolated instances of long-range air-to-air missile launches.

[AC130 Gunship]

Interestingly, Russian hasn't been used at all in official correspondence in Ukraine for several years now. Government officials there even refuse to give interviews in Russian. Where did the author get this "document" from?

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

While someone named Batutny was mocking Musk to the approving laughter of the entire country, Musk was working. And now Musk is laughing, and we're screaming like victims, like, how dare he deprive us of his Starlink?

[Phoenix Point]

Nonsense - "After Starlink terminals appeared on our kamikaze UAVs, we were closer than ever to destroying the Ukrainian Air Force, but given the new circumstances, we'll have to act again according to the principle of "necessity is the mother of invention." Well, we're used to it..." I just had to write it down - I don't know, that's all. They read it at the military chicken coop and then pass on other people's nonsense to others.

[acetophenone]

To create an analogue of StarLink we need
1. Hundreds of satellites.
2. Dozens of starts.
As far as I know, none of this exists.
And what is there?
1. Unknown development quality.
2. Individual production of satellites
3. 10-15 starts for everything.
So, we should certainly dream about a low-orbit constellation. And work towards it. But we shouldn't count on it, no matter what or who the Kremlin tells us.