logo
Russia's elite drone unit destroying Ukraine's precious Himars launchers

Russia's elite drone unit destroying Ukraine's precious Himars launchers

Telegraph21-05-2025

Footage captured the moment a Ukrainian Himars rocket launcher was destroyed by an elite Russian drone unit just 10km (six miles) from the front line last month.
In a grainy video filmed just outside Chasiv Yar, in Donetsk, the US-supplied missile system was seen hurtling along a dirt-laden road as a Russian UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) closed in from above.
The feed cut out seconds before impact, but separate footage showed an explosion moments later, confirming one of Ukraine's most valuable rocket systems had been destroyed.
The attack was reportedly carried out by Rubicon, the Kremlin's elite drone warfare unit that Ukrainian soldiers have come to fear.
Previously deployed earlier this year during Russia's brutal campaign to recapture the eastern town of Kursk, Rubicon has now been redirected to hunt Ukraine's most valuable battlefield assets: its US-supplied long-range missiles.
There are signs it is succeeding.
Since the start of the war, Ukraine has received around 40 vital Himars systems from Washington.
The satellite-guided rocket launchers, capable of striking targets with pinpoint accuracy up to 80km away, have played a key role in blunting Russia's advances, allowing Kyiv to pin Russia back by disrupting logistics, command hubs and ammunition depots.
Their advantage lies in the fact that they can sit deep behind the front line, out of Russian reach.
Because of their importance, it is unusual for a Himars launcher to be placed just 10km from the front line. The one that was destroyed near the war-torn town of Chasiv Yar was therefore probably being used to hit a target deep behind enemy lines.
'Himars have remained an important tactical and operational level system for the Ukrainians, particularly as it can hold Russian targets at risk some distance from the front line, affecting Russian logistics and command and control, as well as combat power,' said Tom Withington, a weapons expert at Rusi, a defence think tank.
But, following the latest destruction of the launcher near Chasiv Yar, at least four have now been lost – a small but significant dent in Ukraine's arsenal at a time when US support appears likely to dry up.
Donald Trump's administration has given no indication it will resupply Ukraine with new Himars systems, further raising the stakes for Ukraine over its remaining ones.
The latest method used to destroy a Himars launcher is especially concerning for Kyiv.
Unlike previous losses, which mostly resulted from missile or artillery strikes, the latest attack on one of the systems was reportedly carried out by a first-person view (FPV) drone using a fibre-optic guidance cable – a sophisticated and largely jam-proof design that signals a dangerous shift in the conflict.
Traditional FPV drones are vulnerable to Ukraine's electronic warfare systems, which jam incoming frequencies and render them blind mid-flight.
But fibre-optic drones are physically tethered to their operators via ultra-thin cables that transmit real-time video and guidance signals.
'Fibre optic cables are basically impossible to jam,' Mr Withington said. 'The cables are very small, in some cases the breadth of a human hair, so that makes them incredibly difficult to detect physically.'
Rubicon, established in October 2024 at the personal instruction of Andrei Belousov, Russia's defence minister, has become a test bed for this type of new technology. Its drone pilots now operate in at least seven specialist detachments across eastern Ukraine, carrying out complex, decentralised missions.
The unit's tactics are equally modern. During the Kursk offensive, Rubicon drones reportedly struck short segments of road – just 100 to 300 metres long – from multiple angles at once, catching convoys in lethal ambushes.
Some drones were embedded in road surfaces, exploding beneath passing vehicles like land mines. Others attacked head-on, targeting the front and rear vehicles to trap the rest in a kill zone.
The results were devastating, with the majority of Ukrainian troops pushed out of Kursk after the Rubicon unit destroyed their supply route.
In the process, Rubicon is believed to have disabled hundreds of Ukrainian vehicles, including M2 Bradley infantry carriers and heavily armoured MaxxPro trucks, often with fibre optic cable drones.
Ukrainian drone operators, unable to jam or outmanoeuvre them, began referring to the airspace above Kursk as the 'road of death'.
The redeployment of Rubicon towards high-value weaponry like Himars marks a new and troubling phase for Ukraine.
Russia is no longer just harassing Ukraine's supply lines in Kursk – its sights are firmly set on systematically targeting the strategic backbone of Kyiv's long-range strike capability that it has used so effectively.
The symbolic significance of these losses is not lost on Ukraine. Himars launchers are more than just tools of war; they are symbols of Western support. Their destruction delivers a psychological blow as much as a military one.
For much of 2022 and 2023, the arrival of Himars shifted the balance on the battlefield. Ukraine used them to force Russian withdrawals from key cities, including Kherson, where a strike destroyed a Russian training camp on a beach.
But if stockpiles dwindle further and replacements are in doubt, Ukraine could lose a significant battlefield edge.
The strike near Chasiv Yar – believed to be the first destruction of a Himars launcher by a fibre optic cable drone – suggests that Russia now has the means to reach even Ukraine's most protected assets.
If Kyiv cannot adapt quickly to this new threat, the consequences could be far-reaching.
'Years ago, I spoke to soldiers stationed in Germany during the Cold War. They said there were fields and valleys filled with wire-guided munitions… I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine starts ending up like that too,' Mr Withington said.
'Until a meaningful counter is developed, the uptake will just continue.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Got a Ukraine war question? Send it to Michael Clarke here
Got a Ukraine war question? Send it to Michael Clarke here

Sky News

time26 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Got a Ukraine war question? Send it to Michael Clarke here

06:05:48 Send in your Ukraine war questions It's Wednesday, which means our security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke is back to answer your questions on the Ukraine war in his weekly Q&A. Hundreds of you have already sent in your questions after a very significant few days on the battlefield in the three-year conflict. Ukraine has pulled off three daring attacks - on two bridges and Russia's bomber fleet over the weekend and on the key Kerch Bridge linking Russia to Crimea yesterday - and the world is waiting to see how Vladimir Putin responds. Watch: Ukraine strikes Russian bombers Watch: Kerch Bridge explosion And there are reports Moscow is launching a summer offensive as peace talks make little sign of progress. Teams from Kyiv and Moscow met for a second round of direct talks in Istanbul on Monday, agreeing only to another prisoner swap and exchanging terms for a full ceasefire, which still appears a long way off. And all the while, the usually vocal Donald Trump has remained quiet. So what does it all mean? Michael is here at midday to help make sense of it. Submit your questions to join in - and you'll be able to watch the Q&A live on this page.

Abramovich billions may never reach Ukraine – and ‘Government knew it' from day one
Abramovich billions may never reach Ukraine – and ‘Government knew it' from day one

Telegraph

time41 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Abramovich billions may never reach Ukraine – and ‘Government knew it' from day one

The row centres on the interpretation of a 'deed of undertaking' between the Government and Abramovich in which he agreed for the money to be committed to charity 'for the purposes of helping victims of the war in Ukraine'. When putting Chelsea up for sale, Abramovich publicly stated that he wanted the proceeds to be used 'for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine' – including those from his native Russia, something successive governments have refused to countenance. An official involved in the negotiations in 2022, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Telegraph Sport: 'Day one, we were concerned. We went eyes open with the fact that this was a possibility. But there genuinely wasn't an alternative.' The official said the danger of Abramovich blocking the release of the Ukraine fund had taken a back seat to fears he 'would let Chelsea go to the wall' if a deal was not struck to sell the club before the end of that season, or that he would try to 'legally get the money back himself' if sanctions against him were lifted. 'The decision was to put it in a place where we knew he couldn't get at it, and then there was a principle that this charity would be formed and that it would spend the money wisely,' the official added. 'That it's dragged on to this point is just as much a testament to the fact that the Government hasn't invested financial pressure, resources or political capital in dealing with what was, from day one, very clearly going to be a problem.' Three-year delay 'incomprehensible' Indeed, Reeves and Lammy have taken until this week to threaten legal action, something Telegraph Sport has been told the previous Conservative government had ruled out. That is despite a report by a House of Lords committee in January last year finding it 'incomprehensible' the issue had not been resolved and urging ministers 'to use all available legal levers to solve this impasse rapidly, so that Ukraine can receive much-needed, promised, and long overdue relief'. The report was published by the European Affairs Committee, chaired by cross-bench peer Lord Ricketts, a former permanent secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British ambassador to France and national security adviser. He told Telegraph Sport it had taken too long for the Government to act upon the report's recommendations and acknowledged an acrimonious legal battle could delay things much further when it comes to accessing a fund likely to have accrued more than a hundred million pounds in interest. 'It's getting ridiculous that this delay should be dragging on and on,' Ricketts said. 'I'm not a lawyer and I can't explain exactly what the Government are going to do, but I think it's now really urgent to get this sorted. And I think 'incomprehensible' is still a pretty good word to describe why, three years later, we're still waiting for the money to go to the people who really need it in Ukraine.' Concerns over the delay had been raised even earlier, including by Mike Penrose, the former chief executive of Unicef UK, heading the independent foundation set up to administer the fund. He was joined two years ago by Oxfam, Save the Children, Kyiv-based charities and UK families hosting Ukrainian refugees in calling for then prime minister Rishi Sunak to urgently break the deadlock. That was after the European Union, like the Government, ruled the money could only be spent within Ukraine's borders, an edict the charities urged Sunak to ignore. Labour peer Lord Foulkes also wrote to then chancellor Jeremy Hunt in September 2023 over the 'unacceptable delay' in releasing the funds, adding in his letter: 'The only barrier, as far as I can tell, seems to be bureaucracy, and it strikes me as ridiculous that we should let a matter of paperwork confound these efforts, when our Ukrainian allies overcome incredible adversity on a daily basis.' Foulkes told Telegraph Sport: 'The trouble is we've been playing by the rules that the Russians never acknowledge, never play by, and we have been trying to get some agreement on it. 'That was always likely to fail – and certainly take a long time. I'm glad that, at last, they're now taking action and I think it's the right thing to do, and they should press ahead with it as quickly and as forcibly as possible.' Seizing of Russian assets 'politically explosive' Telegraph Sport has been told the previous government ruled out legal action after concluding there were too many downsides, including the risk investors could shun the UK. Various sources with knowledge of negotiations with lawyers for Abramovich have branded the ongoing row as a 'nightmare issue', describing the seizing of Russian assets as 'politically explosive'. Explaining the difference between freezing and seizing assets, a source said: 'Seizing assets is a whole new ball game. There's a sizeable chunk that is frozen in Britain that are Russian-state assets. There are huge numbers of countries and lots and lots of lawyers who would explain to you that if you even try taking it and just seizing it and say that money is now ours, you are facing intense pressure.' The source said that could include 'lobbying' from other countries which invest in the UK who might say: 'OK then, we're pulling out billions of billions from your economy now.' Bart De Wever, the Belgian prime minister, also warned in March that confiscating almost €200 billion (£168 billion) of frozen Russian assets would be 'an act of war' and would carry 'systemic risks to the entire financial world system'. Telegraph Sport has also been told the last government was split on whether to compromise on Abramovich's demands, with Andrew Mitchell said by one source to have discussed ways ministers could 'cut a deal' with the oligarch when he was at the Foreign Office. Explaining the power Abramovich currently held over the frozen Chelsea sale fund, a source said: 'He can't access the money. He can't spend the money, but he can stop the trust spending it and, at the moment, he's always hidden behind, 'No, the terms that I agreed to the sale are not quite the same as the terms that the British Government are now insisting on'.' Telegraph Sport has approached a representative for Abramovich for comment on the Government's legal threat against him. A book entitled Sanctioned is being released next week in which he is expected to be quoted about the sale of Chelsea and the sanctions imposed on him.

Inside No 10's new dysfunction
Inside No 10's new dysfunction

New Statesman​

timean hour ago

  • New Statesman​

Inside No 10's new dysfunction

Keir Starmer's Downing Street was dysfunctional from its earliest days. Labour, senior figures often say, had a plan to win but not a plan to govern. Blame for this was attributed to Sue Gray, who resigned as Starmer's chief of staff after just four months in office and whose tenure still 'casts a long shadow' in the words of one government source. No 10 has strived ever since to recover from this false start. As well as the appointment of Morgan McSweeney as Gray's replacement, two Blair-era figures joined last November: Jonathan Powell as national security adviser and Liz Lloyd as director of policy delivery and innovation. In his memoir A Journey, Tony Blair writes of the latter that she brought 'order and discipline' and 'had an excellent temperament too: lovely to work with, honest and, underneath all the English feminine charm, quite steely. Above all, capable.' Powell, who was No 10 chief of staff from 1997-2007 (making him the longest-serving Blair aide), is regarded as one of the government's most successful hires. He is credited with helping to broker the US-Ukraine détente and overseeing a wider foreign policy reset (with Britain striking trade deals with the US, Europe and India). But Lloyd, who served as Blair's deputy chief of staff from 2005-07, is proving a more divisive figure. Insiders speak of tensions between herself and Stuart Ingham, the head of the No 10 Policy Unit and Starmer's longest-serving aide, who joined as a senior parliamentary researcher in December 2016. Ingham, who has consciously eschewed a media profile, is described by those who know him well as a cerebral social democrat (his PhD dissected the debate between the liberal philosopher John Rawls and the Marxist intellectual GA Cohen). 'If there's one person in the country who can define what Starmerism is, it's him,' an ally told me. Cabinet ministers liken his relationship with Starmer to that between a father and a son (Ingham survived an attempt by Gray to remove him). Yet during Labour's fraught early months in government, grandees such as historian Anthony Seldon and former cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell complained that loyalty had come at the expense of experience. 'I do think there is a need for No 10 to have a lot more heavyweights in there – a lot more policy heavyweights,' said O'Donnell after Gray's resignation, recalling past Policy Unit heads such as David Miliband, Andrew Adonis and Geoff Mulgan. Such critiques helped prompt the appointment of Lloyd who is close to Pat McFadden, Starmer's chief Whitehall fixer ('what does Pat think?' the Prime Minister will often ask). But government sources speak of a difficult marriage between Lloyd – who is unashamedly Blairite in her outlook – and a broadly soft left Policy Unit (No 10 denied claims that Ingham, who now reports to Lloyd, threatened to resign over her arrival). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before her return to government, Lloyd held roles including group company secretary of Standard Chartered Bank and chief investment officer of British International Investment. Though some praise her aptitude and experience, others speak of a clash of worldviews. In one meeting on growth at the start of this year, Lloyd is said to have raised concerns over the government's abolition of non-dom tax status. 'People who operate with assumptions from 20 years ago are different to the people who were in the guts of this election campaign and who understand how we built our coalition,' a senior Labour source told me. Lloyd is also said to have expressed concerns over Bridget Phillipson's school reforms, which impose new requirements on Blair-era academies such as employing qualified teachers and following the national curriculum (a Phillipson source insisted that talk of divisions was 'nonsense'). The recent appointment of Oli de Botton, who co-founded a free school former Blair aide Peter Hyman, as Starmer's education adviser was viewed as a shift in emphasis. But intermittent speculation that the Education Secretary will be moved at the next cabinet reshuffle is downplayed. 'Keir really, really likes Bridget,' remarked one insider. A recurrent critique of Starmer's government, intensified by the recent U-turn over winter fuel payment cuts, is that it has lacked a clear philosophical direction. Both Blairites and the soft left, for different reasons, have been disappointed by Labour's first year in office. Some believe this is exacerbated by the marginalisation of the Policy Unit, which one observer described as 'demoralised, lacking purpose and cut out of the loop left, right and centre'. Two advisers, Tom Webb (health) and Nick Williams (planning and infrastructure), left last month and a third, Ravinder Athwal, who oversaw Labour's manifesto and led on the economy, will depart in July. Some on the party's soft left – which has openly challenged Reeves' fiscal approach in recent weeks – hope that a new economic adviser could serve as a counterweight to the Treasury but others contend that 'there isn't an economist in the world who could come in and persuade Keir to go against Rachel'. As Starmer's government strives for direction, insiders believe that relations between Lloyd and Ingham will be a key litmus test. 'He's a great survivor,' said one Labour source, predicting that the original Starmerite would ultimately outlast his new Blairite boss. [See also: Andy Burnham has made his leadership bid] Related

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store