"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"

[134brat]

First reports on Radio 4 PM of a 'conflict' between Russian SU27 and US Reaper over the Black Sea. Looks like the Reaper was brought down.

[MJ89]

Drone downed in black sea.

may make interesting video

[Stockportcounty]

First reports on Radio 4 PM of a 'conflict' between Russian SU27 and US Reaper over the Black Sea. Looks like the Reaper was brought down.


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/14/politics/russian-jet-us-drone-black-sea/index.html

[ACW599]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64957792

By Henri Astier
BBC NewsA Russian fighter jet has collided with a US drone, causing the unmanned US aircraft to crash into the Black Sea, the American military says.

It says the drone was on a routine mission in international airspace when two Russian jets tried to intercept it.

The US European Command said Tuesday's crash was the result of an "unprofessional act by the Russians".

Russia said the drone crashed after a "sharp manoeuvre", and denied that the two aircraft made contact.

The Russian defence ministry also said the US aircraft was flying with its transponders turned off. Transponders are communications devices that allow the aircraft to be tracked.

The incident happened at about 7:03 Central European Time, according to the US military.

"Our MQ-9 aircraft was conducting routine operations in international airspace when it was intercepted and hit by a Russian aircraft, resulting in a crash and complete loss of the MQ-9," the statement said.

Several times before the collision the Su-27 fighter jets dumped fuel on the drone in a "reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner".

MQ-9 Reaper drones are surveillance aircraft with a 20m (66ft) wingspan.

White House spokesman John Kirby said Russian intercepts of US aircraft were not uncommon over the Black Sea, but it was the first time that one had resulted in a crash.

Tensions have risen in the region ever since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine the US and the UK have stepped up reconnaissance and surveillance flights, though always operating in international airspace.

[BEagle]

USS Pueblo again?

[uxb99]

Bbc news reporting Russian jets dumped fuel in front of the drone and damaged its prop forcing it down.

Are the Russians planning something? US Escorts for the drones?

[Beancountercymru]

I’m reminded of Spitfires tipping over the wings of doodlebugs

[NutLoose]

Think there will be a rush to recover it?

[Ninthace]

Fit missiles in future for self defence?

[Timmy Tomkins]

The RAF already escort the Rivet joint with Typhoons. Who is going to pick up the debris given that it has ditched??

[SRMman]

Wonder what happened to the Russian jet?

[Timmy Tomkins]

Think there will be a rush to recover it?
And who will do that & how?

[arf23]

So Russia has intentionally attacked and destroyed a NATO asset. Is this was a manned fighter the reaction would.be unequivocal,and I don't see much distinction between that and a drone..

[Brewster Buffalo]

Fit missiles in future for self defence?

or provide a fighter escort?

[tdracer]

or provide a fighter escort?
Sort of defeats the purpose of an unmanned surveillance drone...

[Thrust Augmentation]

Intercepted in an "environmentally unsound" manner - with all that's going on that's a quality statement, dumb a** quality.

[DaveReidUK]

Preceded by the two Su-27s dumping fuel on top of the Reaper, according to the BBC.

Hmmm.

[kilo_foxtrot]

Preceded by the two Su-27s dumping fuel on top of the Reaper, according to the BBC.

Hmmm.
RIP Forte11 ;)

It all seems very sketchy - I wonder if this was a cack-handed attempt by the Russians to bring it down relatively intact in order to retrieve it? Or maybe they got fed up with it and had orders to bring it down without actually shooting it down (which could be interpreted as an overtly hostile act?).

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?

[RAFEngO74to09]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1106x1300/image_2023_03_14_10_03_05_2af47759611f14cb50c3fce0667b8e8eb9 c17278.png

[GlobalNav]

Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?


Well, the MQ-9 operator certainly thought so, and they probably have recorded video of the attempt.

[NutLoose]

And who will do that & how?

Russia, they recovered items off the Moskva, so why not if there is intelligence to be gleaned from it.


​​​​​​…

[Lonewolf_50]

USS Pueblo again? No. There are no aircrew in a drone.
Not surprised that the Russians are doing this, but this does make me wonder at when the next raising of the ante will come. :(
Aside: back in the Cold War we had the INCSEA agreements as a buffer to try and prevent some of the more risky bits of posturing on the high seas, but a few nudges here and there still came about. (Crazy Ivan!)

Back to airborne stuff: back in the Cold War there were Laser events, MIJI aplenty, and other shenanigans.

[atakacs]

Well, the MQ-9 operator certainly thought so, and they probably have recorded video of the attempt.
Not saying it didn't happen (although, as in any war, reliable information is hard to come by) but could have been some purpose built device ?

Dumping fuel - assuming there is such a capability - seems really far fetched. But I guess anything's possible.

[mickjoebill]

Dumping fuel could be journo mis-speak for engaging afterburners?

In the last 36 hours, did the two B52s fly closer to the Kaliningrad coast than ever before? Into Russian airspace? If so, was this the Russian response?
Mjb

[Spunky Monkey]

It would seem the Americans are down playing the event with their diplomatic language and not wanting to escalate the situation.
Surely agreement to do this must have come from a seriously high level in Moscow.

Makes me wonder what the back channel conversations are like at the moment - probably quite sporting.

Also wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't herald in the transfer of F16s, something that could clear the Black Sea of Russian Aircraft and Ships, that would be a delicious own goal.

[Ninthace]

If it is international airspace over the Black Sea for the US, it is international airspace for all. You cannot start clearing it of Russian aircraft any more that they can clear it of Western aircraft without a risking kicking off a full blown shooting war. Giving the ac to the Ukrainians will not alter that.

[212man]

It would seem the Americans are down playing the event with their diplomatic language and not wanting to escalate the situation.

​​​​​​​In contrast with the storm over a balloon!

[For goodness sake]

No fighter jet can match the Reaper's endurance of 22000km. So you'd need a fleet of KC10s as well....

[Lonewolf_50]

So Russia has intentionally attacked and destroyed a NATO asset.
No, that's an American drone. American owned and operated, not like the NATO AWACS...
Is this was a manned fighter the reaction would.be unequivocal, Actually, the manned fighter would have been able to maneuver and avoid.
and I don't see much distinction between that and a drone..
Really? You don't see much distinction between a manned aircraft and a drone?
Orville wept.

For Thrust Augmentation:
I second your motion on the dumbassity of that statement.

[meleagertoo]

Intercepted in an "environmentally unsound" manner - with all that's going on that's a quality statement, dumb a** quality.
Yes but nowadays every silly trigger has to be pushed.
In view of all the ecological catastrophes committed all over the region it does indeed seem petty and trite in the extreme.
The US would be well advised not to trivialise such events so transparently, it is not a good look.
Imagine the "envionmentally unsound" outrage you could invent over chucking tons and tons of phosphorous over the Ukranian countryside!

[212man]

If it is international airspace over the Black Sea for the US, it is international airspace for all. You cannot start clearing it of Russian aircraft any more that they can clear it of Western aircraft without a risking kicking off a full blown shooting war. Giving the ac to the Ukrainians will not alter that.

Even if it’s International Airspace, it’s certainly in somebody’s FIR - most likely Romanian. I haven’t seen any FR24 tracks yet.

[134brat]

Ninthace
l think you might be missing the point here. If a US aircraft is in international airspace, no one has any right to mess with it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Russians should be denied access to international airspace or that the Black Sea should be 'cleared' of Russians. The important thing is that if the Russians want to be there they should be bound by the same rules as everyone else. They can't just behave like the rules don't apply to them.

[SASless]

The US State Department has "Summoned". the Russian Ambassador.....which no doubt has put Putin all atremble!:ugh:

[Ninthace]

Ninthace
l think you might be missing the point here. If a US aircraft is in international airspace, no one has any right to mess with it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Russians should be denied access to international airspace or that the Black Sea should be 'cleared' of Russians. The important thing is that if the Russians want to be there they should be bound by the same rules as everyone else. They can't just behave like the rules don't apply to them.
On the contrary, I was making the point that in international airspace, nobody has the right to mess with anyone's ac.

[JeanKhul]

It's not an aircraft going down, it's just a big model with nobody in it. There is no need to make such a fuss about it.
The Americans laughed with bravado when they shot down a motionless balloon, now it's their turn to lose some costly device.

Important thing is that those long-range drones - which they have been flying without authoristation over countless countries - are now proved to be vulnerable.

There is nothing unprofesssionnal in this story, actually I find it quite smart, like the Spitfires unsettling the V1s with their wingtips in 1944.

[voyageur9]

... nothing unprofesssionnal in this story, actually I find it quite smart, like the Spitfires unsettling the V1s with their wingtips in 1944.

... in a time of war, perhaps.
But causing the deliberate destruction of another nation's military asset in international airspace is an 'act of war' by the agressors, in this instance, the Russians. Doesn't matter if it was shot down or its flight was so interfered with (like the Spits and the V1s) that it crashed.

[GrahamO]

Sort of defeats the purpose of an unmanned surveillance drone...

Not if you have a US Stealth shadowing the drone and can lock onto the SU without being seen ? That would wake them up if they thought the drone was locking onto them.

Didnt the US have F35's shadowing drones near Iran to keep the locals from misbehaving ?

[Uberteknik]

Bbc news reporting Russian jets dumped fuel in front of the drone and damaged its prop forcing it down.

Are the Russians planning something? US Escorts for the drones?

Fighter escorts are costly with that many UCAV and other assets flying ISTAR 24/7 and skimming the Ukraine and occupied international borders. Still the Americans will have to respond and most likely it will increase escort missions.

I note the Pentagon language is coded and saying the Reaper was in 'international airspace'.

Question to be asked: is that the Pentagon definition of international airspace according to international law, or, was it flying in the unrecognised illegally annexed Ukraine airspace claimed by Russia? Seems like the Russkies don't want the peninsula probed for weakness and intelligence given to the Ukraine Defence Ministry.

Indeed, perhaps the Americans were on to something. Or perhaps the Russians did not want to shoot it down for the adverse propaganda it would most certainly attract.
In that case, the attack would be seen as an attempt by the Kremlin to test the response of the US.

Honestly though, it's far more likely the Russian pilot made a serious judgement error. Colliding with the Reaper's prop could so very easily have ended in the loss of the fighter as well as the UCAV.

[alfaman]

It's not an aircraft going down, it's just a big model with nobody in it. There is no need to make such a fuss about it.
The Americans laughed with bravado when they shot down a motionless balloon, now it's their turn to lose some costly device.

Important thing is that those long-range drones - which they have been flying without authoristation over countless countries - are now proved to be vulnerable.

There is nothing unprofesssionnal in this story, actually I find it quite smart, like the Spitfires unsettling the V1s with their wingtips in 1944.
What makes you think they're flying without authorisation? Ove the Black Sea, as stated above, it's not in anyone's airspace.

[tdracer]

In contrast with the storm over a balloon!
The balloon over flew the US - including 'sensitive' military installations. The drone was in international airspace. A bit different...

[Ninthace]

The balloon over flew the US - including 'sensitive' military installations. The drone was in international airspace. A bit different...
The drone was minding its own business then? Or was it spying too, albeit in international airspace. Perhaps a question of degree rather than an absolute?

[uxb99]

Definitely a win in the Russian column though.

[Lonewolf_50]

... in a time of war, perhaps. But causing the deliberate destruction of another nation's military asset in international airspace is an 'act of war' by the agressors, in this instance, the Russians. Uh, no, it isn't. (But it's certainly an unfriendly act).
I am not sure where you come up with that "act of war" assessment. Please share where that comes from. Or would that be from a place where the sun does not shine?
As a point of comparison, the use of lasers to attempt to blind US aircrew was a far more hostile act, but that goes back a few years ...
The drone was minding its own business then? Or was it spying too, albeit in international airspace. Perhaps a question of degree rather than an absolute? Thank you comrade Ninthace, for your spin in accordance with RT.
To answer your question, it was flying in international airspace.
Had it violated Russian airspace, though, it would be a very different matter.

[rattman]

Question to be asked: is that the Pentagon definition of international airspace according to international law, or, was it flying in the unrecognised illegally annexed Ukraine airspace claimed by Russia? Seems like the Russkies don't want the peninsula probed for weakness and intelligence given to the Ukraine Defence Ministry.



If it was flying in crimean airspace it wouldn't be international airspace it would either be Ukrainian or russian depending on what side of the fence you stand. Western ISAR has not been flying in ukrainian airspace so it would have been flying in ICAO recognised international airspace

[mangere1957]

Has anybody got the FR24 flight track of the drone? Might be interesting.

[BFSGrad]

The drone was minding its own business then? Or was it spying too, albeit in international airspace. Perhaps a question of degree rather than an absolute?Surveillance via space, international waters, and international airspace is a widely accepted practice, codified in many international treaties of which Russia is a party.

[DaveReidUK]

What makes you think they're flying without authorisation? Over the Black Sea, as stated above, it's not in anyone's airspace.

To be fair to the poster, he didn't claim that this particular drone needed authorisation to be over the Black Sea.

[Sfojimbo]

This wasn't an MQ-4 Global Hawk like those we see on FR-24 almost every day flying above 50,000 ft,collecting intelligence.
This was an MQ-9 which carries weapons and flies much lower.

[Flyhighfirst]

Fit missiles in future for self defence?

Why bother with the cost. You know nobody is going to authorise the shoot down of a Russian aircraft in international airspace no matter how hostile they are to a drone.

[Low average]

This wasn't an MQ-4 Global Hawk like those we see on FR-24 almost every day flying above 50,000 ft,collecting intelligence.
This was an MQ-9 which carries weapons and flies much lower.
I doubt it had any weapons at all, which would have been obvious to the fighters before they destroyed it. What point are you making?

[DaveReidUK]

Back on the subject, when I first saw this story, I wondered if it was the Global Hawk that one can see most days on FR24 making its was back and forth across the Black Sea - it apparently wasn't.

That tends to carry oit its missons up at around FL600 so you would think out of reach of even an irresponsibly flown Su27?

Identified as a Reaper in the first post on this thread.

[Professor Plum]

This was an MQ-9 which carries weapons and flies much lower.

Did anybody say it was armed? Only asking as I’ve not seen anything to suggest it was.

[Flyhighfirst]

or provide a fighter escort?

With an endurance of 12+ hours. Good luck with that, and if you are going to send manned fighters with an unmanned drone. Forget the drone and send a manned reconnaissance aircraft then.

[Ninthace]

Why bother with the cost. You know nobody is going to authorise the shoot down of a Russian aircraft in international airspace no matter how hostile they are to a drone.
You did see the word "self"?

[voyageur9]

LW50

"Act of war (https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/act-of-war) means hostile or warlike action, whether declared or not, in a time of peace or war, whether initiated by a local government, foreign government or foreign group, civil unrest, insurrection, rebellion or civil war."

So, this seems to fit the the "hostile or warlike action .... in a time of peace or war" but, in fairness, I couldn't find an equivalent in the various Geneva conventions. So, perhaps my use of a law dictionary definition was too quick on the trigger. My apologies.

In U.S. law .... 18 USC § 2331(4) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331#4) .... an act of war is defined as follows:
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

the interaction over the Black Sea likely falls short of the second definition.
best regards

[Sfojimbo]

I doubt it had any weapons at all, which would have been obvious to the fighters before they destroyed it. What point are you making?
The point that I am making is that it was an an MQ-9, which is designed to carry weapons and flies much lower, as opposed to an MQ-4 intelligence gathering drone which many of us have been following over the last year.

[Flyhighfirst]

What makes you think they're flying without authorisation? Ove the Black Sea, as stated above, it's not in anyone's airspace.

My first thought as well. These come from sigonella in Italy and overfly a number of countries. All of which will have given permission.

I then realised he was talking generally. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, numerous African countries. He was correct in that so chose not to comment on his post.

[MechEngr]

Just curious as to how you know what the drone operator thought. I'm guessing that you don't have reliable remote mind-reading capabilities. I do realise that the CIA once carried out 'remote-viewing'; maybe you are one of the reliable remote-viewers that the CIA identified?
On that basis, we don't know if there was a drone, any Russian aircraft, or Russia exists at all. Perhaps Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Still, if we accept the reports that are being made the Russians made several attempts to disable the drone with a fuel dump until one of them got too close and clipped the propeller. CBS said that Pentagon reps said there were 19 passes. I'd think fuel would be discernible as it liquid-blasted the camera housing, but maybe Ivan just can piss like a race horse.

This will likely influence things as much as when I shake a fist at a cloud. Our diplomats will express concern to theirs and their diplomats will say it was all a misunderstanding that would not be repeated if the US played with their toys in their own back yard instead of butting in.

The biggest problem will be for the pilot who has to explain what happened to the fighter and why there is a ding in it. "It was like that when I signed it out" is unlikely to work.

[Sfojimbo]

My first thought as well. These come from sigonella in Italy and overfly a number of countries. All of which will have given permission.

I then realised he was talking generally. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, numerous African countries. He was correct in that so chose not to comment on his post.
No this one isn't necessarily from Sigonella.

This wasn't an MQ-4 Global Hawk like those we see on FR-24 almost every day flying above 50,000 ft,collecting intelligence.
This was an MQ-9 which normally carries weapons and flies much lower.

[Flyhighfirst]

You did see the word "self"?

Yea I did. For self defense. Again I will repeat myself. No command authority is going to tell a drone operator to shoot down a manned Russian aircraft even in self defense of an unmanned drone. They reason the US has gone down the drone route is they are expendable. Having your drone knocked out of the sky is a minor international incident (what are the US going to do? More sanctions). Knocking down a manned Russian fighter in international airspace even in self defense of again.. a drone is going to make a **** storm international incident.

[meleagertoo]

The drone was minding its own business then? Or was it spying too, albeit in international airspace. Perhaps a question of degree rather than an absolute?
Sorry Vldimir, no one here understands, leave alone that treacherous and ridiculous excuse.
(As long as it was) in international airspace (and we have no reason to believe it was not - so despite any RuZZist conspiricy theorists a verifiable location will soon be published) )the drone is allowed to do as it pleases and its destruction in international airspace is an act overt international aggression, if not of war.

[T28B]

Yea I did. For self defense. Again I will repeat myself. No command authority is going to tell a drone operator to shoot down a manned Russian aircraft even in self defense of an unmanned drone. They reason the US has gone down the drone route is they are expendable. Having your drone knocked out of the sky is a minor international incident (what are the US going to do? More sanctions). Knocking down a manned Russian fighter in international airspace even in self defense of again.. a drone is going to make a **** storm international incident. I think that you have the right of it
... but ...
if a Reaper were to shoot down a MiG or Su with a Hellfire missile, would that not be newsworthy? (More of a "Man bites dog!" sort of headline)
(Yes, the feces storm would soon follow)

[Flyhighfirst]

I think that you have the right of it
... but ...
if a Reaper were to shoot down a MiG or Su with a Hellfire missile, would that not be newsworthy? (More of a "Man bites dog!" sort of headline)
(Yes, the feces storm would soon follow)

Sorry not really sure of the point you are trying to make?

Of course it would be newsworthy. Most definitely not the type of news the US would want to be making at a time they are trying to pry India from Russian influence, and keep China from supplying arms to Russia.

[Sfojimbo]

Has anybody got the FR24 flight track of the drone? Might be interesting.
I doubt that it was broadcasting ADS-b information.

[212man]

I doubt that it was broadcasting ADS-b information.
That call sign was one of the highest followed in all of FR24!

[mangere1957]

I doubt that it was broadcasting ADS-b information.
Thanks. That, too, is interesting. I'd have thought that the Russians would have been able to track it even absent ADS-b, and the possibility that they did in fact do so is supported by the US contention that Russian aircraft did in fact intercept it(and cause it to crash).

I wonder from whom the US was trying to hide the Predator(a Hunter/killer, not primarily intelligence gatherer), if not the Russians. And why: what would be the point? Surely safety, if not aviation law, would call for ADS-b data transmission.

[mangere1957]

That call sign was one of the highest followed in all of FR24!
Thanks for that. If you can be bothered could you post a FR 24 track record of the predator and the Russian fighters(if they were transmitting location)? I've tried to do it, but have only basic FR 24 and been totally unsuccessful in finding out how to do so.

[Sfojimbo]

That call sign was one of the highest followed in all of FR24!
You're thinking of a different drone.
Read post#60.

[Sfojimbo]

Thanks for that. If you can be bothered could you post a FR 24 track record of the predator and the Russian fighters(if they were transmitting location)? I've tried to do it, but have only basic FR 24 and been totally unsuccessful in finding out how to do so.
The fighters, Russian and most NATO don't broadcast ADS-b.
Occasionally an Eurofighter shows up but I've never seen any American types.

[mangere1957]

Originally Posted by mangere1957
Just curious as to how you know what the drone operator thought. I'm guessing that you don't have reliable remote mind-reading capabilities. I do realise that the CIA once carried out 'remote-viewing'; maybe you are one of the reliable remote-viewers that the CIA identified?

On that basis, we don't know if there was a drone, any Russian aircraft, or Russia exists at all. Perhaps Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
...

The biggest problem will be for the pilot who has to explain what happened to the fighter and why there is a ding in it. "It was like that when I signed it out" is unlikely to work.
Thanks for your rapid response. Unfortunately my comment was rabidly deleted, but due to your diligence was saved by the quote feature.*

On cost/benefit analysis the Su27 pilot must be ahead by a factor of at least a hundred and possibly much more. So maybe he will be OK and some fun stuff can continue.

* I'm such an irreverent *as*ard; I joke around all the time. I missed where respectful(but irreverent) comments are not permitted. I guess this whole thread will shortly be deleted, and I'll be gone again for a few years.

[rattman]

You're thinking of a different drone.
Read post#60.

Yeah probably actually forte 11 or 12 which are different drones

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?

Again... asking for a friend :)

I'm sure there is someone here that actually knows.

[mangere1957]

Originally Posted by atakacs View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/651820-russian-jet-collides-us-drone-over-black-sea.html#post11402025)
Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?

Again... asking for a friend :)

I'm sure there is someone here that actually knows.

As far as I can find it seems likely that 'dump'ing is via afterburner nozzles.

[WillFlyForCheese]

This wasn't an MQ-4 Global Hawk like those we see on FR-24 almost every day flying above 50,000 ft,collecting intelligence.
This was an MQ-9 which carries weapons and flies much lower.

The MQ-9 has a published operational altitude of 50,000 ft.

[Sfojimbo]

The MQ-9 has a published operational altitude of 50,000 ft.
And the FORTE MQ-4s from Sigonella fly at 55,000 ft on the later parts of every mission.

[twb3]

I'm reluctant to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It it possible the Russian pilots were ordered to shadow or harass the MQ-9 but collided instead through ham-fisted maneuvering?

[Obba]

Jeeze, your like kids!
According to Wikipedia the MQ-9 Reaper is an Unarmed Aerial Vehicle - aka UAV.

One assumes this $17million USD piece of kit, would have some sort of aircraft vicinity sensors, then I'm sure the US of A will present to the world that indeed a SU27 did get very wery close.
Also, this MQ-9 would have a gazillion amounts of GPS data so I'm sure the US will let us all know exactly where it lost signal (Internation Airspace).
And one would think that the SU27 would have cameras...?

If the SU27 did dump fuel, is it possible that the fuel would ignite on getting around the MQ-9 rear engine? But surely at high speed it would be a feat of aeronautical excellence to work out the depth of the spray and wind diffusion - not something that every pilot would learn in a Fighter Pilots skills to "Burn an enemy plane down, do this...".

[Sfojimbo]

Jeeze, your like kids!
According to Wikipedia the MQ-9 Reaper is an Unarmed Aerial Vehicle - aka UAV.
Not according to the Wikipedia I get. It's unarmed until it's armed.

My Wikipedia includes this:
The MQ-9 carries a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, and the GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Tests are underway to allow for the addition of the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper

[gravedigger666]

Is it possible, fuel in this case is being confused with contrails?

[Toadstool]

Not according to the Wikipedia I get. It's unarmed until it's armed.

My Wikipedia includes this:

The MQ-9 has other roles. It can be equipped for but not necessarily with. Massive distinction in this case.

[Cloudee]

Jeeze, your like kids!
According to Wikipedia the MQ-9 Reaper is an Unarmed Aerial Vehicle - aka UAV.

UAV
noun

an unmanned aerial vehicle (an aircraft piloted by remote control or onboard computers)


Your definition would include almost every airliner and GA aircraft!😳

[Just a spotter]

Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?

There is a report of an incident in 1987 involving an Su-27 and a Norwegian P-3 Orion, where the Flanker's vertical stabiliser and the Orion's #4 engine prop made contact, after which it was alleged the pilot of the Sukhoi dumped fuel on the P-3.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-soviet-su-27-flanker-collided-with-a-norwegian-p-3-orion-over-the-barents-sea/

JAS

[UAV689]

No way does an SU27 have a fuel dumping capability. What fighter does?

They have drop tanks they can drop, which make up a combination of 4.5t hardpoints that can be dropped if required.

The fuel dump is a diplomatic face saving exercise. Most Joe Punters think every aircraft can dump fuel.

[golder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpPEdOMSIgQ

[DaveReidUK]

As far as I can find it seems likely that 'dump'ing is via afterburner nozzles.

Getting fuel emerging from the afterburner nozzles to remain unburnt would be quite some trick.

[chaps1954]

Australian F111 did and showed it.
Most warplanes do show on ADSB until they turn it off which is waht they do as they enter east european airspace or don`t want to be seen

[PPRuNeUser0211]

No way does an SU27 have a fuel dumping capability. What fighter does?

They have drop tanks they can drop, which make up a combination of 4.5t hardpoints that can be dropped if required.

The fuel dump is a diplomatic face saving exercise. Most Joe Punters think every aircraft can dump fuel.

The really nice thing about this thread is that it gives us Mil Forum folks an insight into the level of insight of those outside the forum.

"What fighter does" - the Su-27 does... (Alongside plenty of others, such as but not limited to both the Tornado and the F-111).

See photo - the black and yellow switch down and left of the fuel strip guage is labelled (for those who are a bit rusty) "Fuel Jettison".
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/332x217/psx_20230315_075435_edbe59dd5a4dce87fbc58699d94e1df9e679dfb8 .jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1072x715/08a_on2020_cockpitsu27_live_1d98a5ee32eb32c91edbd01982172e4d 61018682.jpg

[a_ross84]

It's not an aircraft going down, it's just a big model with nobody in it. There is no need to make such a fuss about it.
The Americans laughed with bravado when they shot down a motionless balloon, now it's their turn to lose some costly device.

Important thing is that those long-range drones - which they have been flying without authoristation over countless countries - are now proved to be vulnerable.

There is nothing unprofesssionnal in this story, actually I find it quite smart, like the Spitfires unsettling the V1s with their wingtips in 1944.


The balloon was in us air space. This was in international air space.

Should American tax payer not worry that Russia is downing multimillion dollar aircraft paid for by taxes?

Let's hope for a proportionate response.

[UAV689]

I totally stand corrected!

I did not envisage such a difference between max take off mass and max landing mass requiring dumping, when the stores could be jettisoned.

But after engaging my brain somewhat, these high speed wings are going to be fairly useless at low speed configurations ie landing, so being able to dump would be useful! I was stuck in my 737 driving mindset.


Also I suppose jettisoning stores is pretty dangerous in itself!

Thanks for the pics!

The really nice thing about this thread is that it gives us Mil Forum folks an insight into the level of insight of those outside the forum.

"What fighter does" - the Su-27 does... (Alongside plenty of others, such as but not limited to both the Tornado and the F-111).

See photo - the black and yellow switch down and left of the fuel strip guage is labelled (for those who are a bit rusty) "Fuel Jettison".
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/332x217/psx_20230315_075435_edbe59dd5a4dce87fbc58699d94e1df9e679dfb8 .jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1072x715/08a_on2020_cockpitsu27_live_1d98a5ee32eb32c91edbd01982172e4d 61018682.jpg

[Tiger G]

Alleged footage of SU27 and drone :

https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=dkqkcy

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Alleged footage of SU27 and drone :

https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=dkqkcy
My bet is that's a fake. Either that, or the Reaper had 1234 as it's tail number, which I reckon is unlikely....
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x901/screenshot_20230315_093412_37b0b6bc3113486c67f6ddd68da514f74 9f0292b.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x901/screenshot_20230315_093500_a11a2e27e2a4b92ad9b1ba51e1351b38c faba90a.png

[Recc]

My bet is that's a fake. Either that, or the Reaper had 1234 as it's tail number, which I reckon is unlikely....


Another giveaway is that when you pause the video, the propeller is sharply defined and undistorted. Compare this with genuine footage of an MQ-9 propeller.

[NutLoose]

Getting fuel emerging from the afterburner nozzles to remain unburnt would be quite some trick.

A Jag pop surge would do it, and scare the bejesus out of you when standing next to the nozzle when it then lit it up. :p

[ChrisJ800]

Cant a Reaper operator slow right down? I would think its stall speed is much less than a SU27 and would make russian close intercepts much more hazardous.

[Ohrly]

My bet is that's a fake. Either that, or the Reaper had 1234 as it's tail number, which I reckon is unlikely....



That doesn't say "1234", it is in the same format as this:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/070931_m_5827m_013_1832386820af07ef3d18a507a32c2c085e9d4233. jpg

However, the lack of any other markings is suspicious.

[NutLoose]

Stop the film when the prop is parallel to the viewer, there is no bending of the blade due to thrust, image shows what i mean but its a tractor view i.e pulling, not a pusher one as in the drone, same idea though, just reverse it..


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/301x439/thrust_propeller_bending_3a05ccd530bb45818dfe7e79dd9761fad07 87386.png
https://live.staticflickr.com/2105/1977243932_d301be043a_c.jpg

[FUMR]

Once again the Russians are crossing the line and once again the west is tip-toeing away! What would constitute a "proportionate" response? I know what mine would be, but I'll keep it to myself and let others give their opinions.

[gearlever]

Stop the film when the prop is parallel to the viewer, there is no bending of the blade due to thrust, image shows what i mean but its a tractor view i.e pulling, not a pusher one as in the drone, same idea though, just reverse it..


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/301x439/thrust_propeller_bending_3a05ccd530bb45818dfe7e79dd9761fad07 87386.png


IMHO you can't compare prop bending on take off (max thrust) with very little thrust at cruising altitude.

[Flyhighfirst]

The balloon was in us air space. This was in international air space.

Should American tax payer not worry that Russia is downing multimillion dollar aircraft paid for by taxes?

Let's hope for a proportionate response.


I don’t think the US authorities will be that concerned. I would say they would be more surprised it’s taken this long.

You can’t really blame the Russians. The UK or the US would have done just the same. Imagine you the US are fighting a war in the US and some third party has a drone just off the coast of Norfolk but in international airspace providing intelligence to the enemy. The US would also take it down.

It’s the cost of doing business. They will have already planned for x number to be taken out, or to see how long they could get away with this and then revert to plan B, which may be moving farther south, or sticking with traditional assets. Again they will have expected and already planned for this.

[622]

My bet is that's a fake. Either that, or the Reaper had 1234 as it's tail number, which I reckon is unlikely....
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x901/screenshot_20230315_093412_37b0b6bc3113486c67f6ddd68da514f74 9f0292b.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x901/screenshot_20230315_093500_a11a2e27e2a4b92ad9b1ba51e1351b38c faba90a.png
If you zoom in on your still image ....the first digit is not a '1' ....it looks like the standard coded serial for the US

[pasta]

I don’t think the US authorities will be that concerned. I would say they would be more surprised it’s taken this long.

You can’t really blame the Russians. The UK or the US would have done just the same. Imagine you the US are fighting a war in the US and some third party has a drone just off the coast of Norfolk but in international airspace providing intelligence to the enemy. The US would also take it down.

It’s the cost of doing business. They will have already planned for x number to be taken out, or to see how long they could get away with this and then revert to plan B, which may be moving farther south, or sticking with traditional assets. Again they will have expected and already planned for this.
Agreed, it's a calculated response. They didn't have a pop at any of the manned assets in the area, and they managed to do it without using any weapons. The US, in turn, can respond in a measured way because no personnel have been put at risk.

[golder]

It's not their first, nor will it be the lastRecord number of UAV shoot downs prompt new USAF tactics ... (https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/record-number-of-uav-shoot-downs-prompt-new-usaf-tactics-and-countermeasure-pod/138908.article)30 June 2020 — After holding steady at a few instances per year, the number of suspected or confirmed downings of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) grew to 14 ...

[Less Hair]

You can’t really blame the Russians. The UK or the US would have done just the same. Imagine you the US are fighting a war in the US and some third party has a drone just off the coast of Norfolk but in international airspace providing intelligence to the enemy. The US would also take it down. It’s the cost of doing business.

What a strange assumption, troll farm style. When did the US or UK ever "take one down"? Russia does flights like that all the time off the UK coast and elsewhere, however manned ones.

[fdr]

Stop the film when the prop is parallel to the viewer, there is no bending of the blade due to thrust, image shows what i mean but its a tractor view i.e pulling, not a pusher one as in the drone, same idea though, just reverse it..


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/301x439/thrust_propeller_bending_3a05ccd530bb45818dfe7e79dd9761fad07 87386.png
https://live.staticflickr.com/2105/1977243932_d301be043a_c.jpg

Props make a mess of aluminium planes when they hit... The flanks of the flanker will be a bit worse for wear.

Re bending of props under load... the prop thrust per blade to cause out of plane bending its not that much, An extra is able to generate a high level of thrust, but relative to the radial load, it is going. to be fairly low, around 2.5% that's about a degree and poofteenth, however, the load ain't uniformly spread, the center of the distribution is around 0.8r, and the in plane load at that point is considerably lower, and the underlying modulus is lower still, but overall the bending is predominantly around 0.75r. Its not that big. Same for fan blades. but all bets are off when they go chomping bits of tin nearby.

Seems the EP3A now has a stable mate for outmanoeuvring soviets finest cookware.

[Ninthace]

What a strange assumption, troll farm style. When did the US or UK ever "take one down"? Russia does flights like that all the time off the UK coast and elsewhere, however manned ones.
There's a balloon club that might disagree. :)
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/hobby-clubs-missing-balloon-feared-shot-down-usaf

[Less Hair]

That was around the chinese airspace intrusion and overflight mistaken for another one over the US, not in international airspace over international waters like the drone.

[NutLoose]

Awaiting the UAV pilot applying for his Goldfish club badge ;)

[Heidhurtin]

Guys, forgive the possible naivety of the question, but what effect would dumping fuel in the drone's path actually have? I wouldn't imagine the airframe would be affected, possibly some sensors would be degraded, but have no idea of the effect on the engine given the fuel would be fairly dispersed (or would it?) by the time it was ingested.

[Less Hair]

It might get blown into the air intake, clog things or start to burn inside?

[Ohrly]

Guys, forgive the possible naivety of the question, but what effect would dumping fuel in the drone's path actually have? I wouldn't imagine the airframe would be affected, possibly some sensors would be degraded, but have no idea of the effect on the engine given the fuel would be fairly dispersed (or would it?) by the time it was ingested.

If you could get the quantity correct perhaps there would not be enough oxygen to ignite the fuel and you could cause a flameout.

[uxb99]

Do we know if the drone has any inbuilt evasive, defence measures? Surprised the drone didn't just evade the jets. It must be considerably slower and more nimble.

As an aside I remember hearing a commentator remark about the F111 dump and burn "can't think of any valid combat reason for that manouver". Now we know.

[Ninthace]

I wonder what their ROE were? If they had been sent to down it, then dumping fuel in front of it or hitting the prop seems to be an odd way of going about it. A couple of Rodneys getting carried away perhaps?

[uxb99]

A Jag pop surge would do it, and scare the bejesus out of you when standing next to the nozzle when it then lit it up. :p
F111 could dump, then burn.

[DaveReidUK]

F111 could dump, then burn.

See posts #85/#87.

[uxb99]

I don’t think the US authorities will be that concerned. I would say they would be more surprised it’s taken this long.

You can’t really blame the Russians. The UK or the US would have done just the same. Imagine you the US are fighting a war in the US and some third party has a drone just off the coast of Norfolk but in international airspace providing intelligence to the enemy. The US would also take it down.

It’s the cost of doing business. They will have already planned for x number to be taken out, or to see how long they could get away with this and then revert to plan B, which may be moving farther south, or sticking with traditional assets. Again they will have expected and already planned for this.
I wonder how far you would go if the aircraft was manned. Destroying a drone is not as politically sensitive as killing a crew.

[NutLoose]

Self destructed?

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1635962761837518848?cxt=HHwWgIC90drdjbQtAAAA

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1635962761837518848?cxt=HHwWgIC90drdjbQtAAAA

have they recovered parts of it? Scroll down, it says the US are going to release film of the incident.


https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1635750783546171400?cxt=HHwWkICxpfmqrbMtAAAA

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1635750783546171400?cxt=HHwWkICxpfmqrbMtAAAA

[chevvron]

Australian F111 did and showed it.
Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows the fuel dump nozzle of an F111 is positioned between the jet effluxes so the fuel can either be dumped with the engines 'dry' or ignited by the 'burners being lit.

[pasta]

Self destructed?
Makes sense. One of the drone's USPs is that you might be willing to lose one from time to time; designing it so that the wreckage isn't particularly useful to your adversary seems a pretty obvious thing to do. The airframe's probably not very interesting, and I'd have thought the sensor package wouldn't be that hard to destroy if the capability's designed-in.

[guided]

if you pause the video just after the 0:00:02 marker you can see the wingtip and an extended slat. Does it look like a Su-27?

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/558x190/wingtip_c615cdea3730b69a3fdb585ffcb3be5e6d3691d0.jpg
wing, wingtip and slat

[Ohrly]

if you pause the video just after the 0:00:02 marker you can see the wingtip and an extended slat. Does it look like a Su-27?

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/558x190/wingtip_c615cdea3730b69a3fdb585ffcb3be5e6d3691d0.jpg
wing, wingtip and slat

Yes.
http://data4.primeportal.net/hangar/mario_krijan/su-27_blue_30/images/su-27_blue_30_001_of_139.jpg

[DuncanDoenitz]

How is SU-27 Guy supposed to be filming this? Helmet-cam? Rear-seat occupant of a 2-seater?

Just wondering about the practicalities of fly-the-airplane and pan-the-camera on a very close flyby. The recent U-2/balloon air-to-air selfie was with the target to the right, so stick in the right hand, camera in the left, and a good deal of separation between interceptor/target.

[chevvron]

Cant a Reaper operator slow right down? I would think its stall speed is much less than a SU27 and would make russian close intercepts much more hazardous.
Not at 50,000ft; its stalling speed would be very high. I understand you only have about 30kts between stall speed and mach buffet at that sort of level.
Gary Power's U2 was brought down because with the U2 in those days he only had about 10 knots to play with, probably less.

[DaveReidUK]

Leaving aside the dubious provenance of that clip, the wingtip looks nothing like an Su-27's.

[57mm]

The UAV in the video has winglets; does a Reaper have them?

[chevvron]

Do we know if the drone has any inbuilt evasive, defence measures? Surprised the drone didn't just evade the jets. It must be considerably slower and more nimble.

As an aside I remember hearing a commentator remark about the F111 dump and burn "can't think of any valid combat reason for that manouver". Now we know.
Yeah so someone with guns gets on your tail and the F111 lights a burst of fuel in his face; does that count?

[gearlever]

According German Media Russia is about to recover the wreckage.

[Flyhighfirst]

I wonder how far you would go if the aircraft was manned. Destroying a drone is not as politically sensitive as killing a crew.

If it was a manned asset I don’t think this would have happened. Same for my scenario of the situations were reversed. I don’t think the US would have taken down a manned asset in international airspace. Much easier to get away with taking out a drone. Especially when you are already under as much sanctions as the other side is willing to do.

There should have been much more severe sanctions imposed in Russia months ago, but since they haven’t I can only presume they have gone as far as they will go. This will change nothing.

[uxb99]

Yeah so someone with guns gets on your tail and the F111 lights a burst of fuel in his face; does that count?
but killing a drone is a valid combat tactic as demonstrated by Russia.

[pr00ne]

but killing a drone is a valid combat tactic as demonstrated by Russia.

What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out? Downed? The US says that it was downed by them following a collision, the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea. It was in international airspace, there was no combat, and all that Russia seems to have demonstrated is yet another example of their ineffective and incompetent armed forces.

There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Lots of talk about an 'act of war'. This was not an act of war, and I shall tell you why - because the 'victim' decided it was not. It does not matter what Russia does to the USA, it will only be an act of war if the US says it is, and indeed vice-versa.

This is important. The US is absolutely terrified of confrontation with Russia, and not because the US would lose, but because they would most likely very quickly start to win. The fear is what Putin would then do, with the obvious spectre of use of nuclear weapons. To that end, the US will, quite understandably, do everything they can to avoid such a scenario. However, the logical path of this argument tells us that even if the offence by Russia is more egregious, such as firing weapons on a manned US aircraft, and killing the crew, then the US will do everything it can to avoid it being seen as an 'act of war' which it could not allow to go unanswered by a military response.

My personal view is that in such a circumstance, the US would call it an 'accident', 'the actions of a rogue pilot', 'a weapons malfunction'... etc - they would deny that an overt act of war was indeed such, so terrified are they of the potential armageddon that could follow, and maybe they would have a valid point. I believe that Russia can do a lot worse that bringing down a drone, and that the US will find any excuse to not retaliate. Just my personal view.

[NutLoose]

As I believe they have a self destruct on board, perhaps next time fire it as the Russian aircraft does its slow close pass. then blame it on the Russian. ;)

[Ohrly]

Leaving aside the dubious provenance of that clip, the wingtip looks nothing like an Su-27's.

Would you like to demonstrate how they should look?

[DaveReidUK]

Would you like to demonstrate how they should look?

No shortage of Su-27 photos on the net - if you can find one with a wing that resembles that in the video, feel free to post it.

[DaveReidUK]

The UAV in the video has winglets; does a Reaper have them?

They do nowadays (I believe retrofittable):

gL7uxgJ8CP4

[Two's in]

My, my, what short memories we all have. The Russians took down Korean 007 with the loss of 269 lives, and still only got a strongly worded memo from the State Department. Quite the hysteria being being generated by the media here. Try not to help them.

[magyarflyer]

but killing a drone is a valid combat tactic as demonstrated by Russia.
indeed, this morning there is no unmanned drone in the black sea .......

[melmothtw]

No shortage of Su-27 photos on the net - if you can find one with a wing that resembles that in the video, feel free to post it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrQrksRWAAAMRdU?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRnFkhWAAA3QXB?format=jpg&name=small

[Tengah Type]

Heidhurtin # 109

Fuel dumping in front of the Reaper could easily cause a flameout. It has happened (inadvertently) during AAR when the
AAR equipment has malfunctioned. We did it to a Vulcan at night over the Bay of Biscay returning from ASI in May 1982.
The Probe Nozzle/ Drogue failed to operate correctly while disconnecting and dumping fuel down the intakes.
Does the Reaper have relight capability?.

[uxb99]

These Russian jets were obviously harassing the drone. I suspect deliberately trying to bring it down (they succeeded).
What would be the ramifications of downing the drone with gunfire? Result is still the same.

[melmothtw]

These Russian jets were obviously harassing the drone. I suspect deliberately trying to bring it down (they succeeded).
What would be the ramifications of downing the drone with gunfire? Result is still the same.

There would likely be no ramifications, beyond an increased NATO fighter presence in the Black Sea I'd imagine. See the Iran shootdown of the Global Hawk in 2019.

[uxb99]

What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out? Downed? The US says that it was downed by them following a collision, the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea. It was in international airspace, there was no combat, and all that Russia seems to have demonstrated is yet another example of their ineffective and incompetent armed forces.

There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow.

Q"What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out?"
A"The US said it brought down the damaged drone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64960384) after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.

A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.

"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.

I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.

[212man]

There would likely be no ramifications, beyond an increased NATO fighter presence in the Black Sea I'd imagine. See the Iran shootdown of the Global Hawk in 2019.
There is quite a presence already. Constanta is pretty busy!

[uxb99]

Yeah so someone with guns gets on your tail and the F111 lights a burst of fuel in his face; does that count?
Irrelevant in this discussion. It's still a valid combat tactic to down a drone with fuel if that works. After all Spitfires and Typhoons used their wings to destroy V1's and were given those V1's as kills. It also wasn't meant to be taken literally and was just a quip on the commentators remark kind of coming to fruition.

[uxb99]

The US is absolutely terrified of confrontation with Russia.
Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.

[melmothtw]

There is quite a presence already. Constanta is pretty busy!

Post the Global Hawk shootdown the US moved F-22s into theatre. I would suspect a similar response following this.

[uxb99]

There would likely be no ramifications, beyond an increased NATO fighter presence in the Black Sea I'd imagine. See the Iran shootdown of the Global Hawk in 2019.
I wonder if Russian `Rules of engagement` if there is such a thing prevents them doing so?

[Buster15]

RIP Forte11 ;)

It all seems very sketchy - I wonder if this was a cack-handed attempt by the Russians to bring it down relatively intact in order to retrieve it? Or maybe they got fed up with it and had orders to bring it down without actually shooting it down (which could be interpreted as an overtly hostile act?).

Sounds highly plausible.
It will be interesting to see whether the US does anything about it.

[uxb99]

Post the Global Hawk shootdown the US moved F-22s into theatre. I would suspect a similar response following this.
What sort of fatigue life, flying hours do these modern jets have? I would imagine this war is using them up rather quickly at the moment.

[m0nkfish]

The balloon was in us air space. This was in international air space.

Should American tax payer not worry that Russia is downing multimillion dollar aircraft paid for by taxes?

Let's hope for a proportionate response.

It might have been in international air space but it was also right in their back yard so hardly surprising. Wester leaders are constantly banging their drums now and declaring that China and Russia want to end the 'rule based order' so why be so surprised when they show scant regard for an autonomous vehicle that was almost certainly aiding their enemy and operating only a short distance outside the 12nm boundary of their airspace, or maybe even inside it?

If American tax payers are really worried about the lose of a vehicle that is 0.0009% of their annual defence budget then maybe they should not be operating military equipment a fraction outside of the 12nm territorial border and 6000+ miles away from America.

End of the day it was a drone, and if Biden is calling it out as 'Environmentally unsound' then I would suggest they don't really give a toss, so neither should we.

[Sfojimbo]

What sort of fatigue life, flying hours do these modern jets have? I would imagine this war is using them up rather quickly at the moment.
Technology generally evolves faster than planes time out.
The F-22 might be seen as an exception because it was never made in much more than prototype quantities, so it is a very maintenance heavy item. Too costly to continue maintaining.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.

I can only say 'wow' - I am almost speechless. You believe the USA is 'respectful' of potential nuclear war?

Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war? Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it, but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the capabilities of our advesary'.

To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing.

[Less Hair]

They are just more diplomats than you. They don't let an event dictate how they want to react.

[GlobalNav]

Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.

I would not commit US forces to "defend a drone", it's hardly a defense of freedom and democracy, hardly worth a single American life, let alone starting an armed conflict over.

On the other hand, if an effective means of defense can be fitted to the drone, I'd be for making MIG pilots think twice.

[m0nkfish]

I can only say 'wow' - I am almost speechless. You believe the USA is 'respectful' of potential nuclear war?

Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war? Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it, but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the capabilities of our advesary'.

To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing.

So where is the line drawn? I don't believe anything remotely resembling a line has been crossed here, it's just a drone after all and is essentially expendable. I think the previous poster was correct though, and the appropriate term is 'respectful'. People who are 'terrified' don't act rationally. I'm not sure the idea of a USA that is terrified of the consequences of escalation is something that is helpful to anyone. What about article 5? Would a terrified USA come to the aid of an ally?

I don't believe Gen Milley shut the question down because he, or his country is terrified of the consequences of escalation. I think he shut the question down because this is a none event, and a cost of doing business right now.

[Baldeep Inminj]

I did not suggest comitting US forces to defend a drone, I suggested that the US was refusing to commit forces to prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, and this is is a fact. Ukranians are being slaughtered by a military force that the US could annihilate in short order, but they refuse to do so. Why? Do you believe the US want Ukranians to be slaughtered? If not, then ask why the US refuses to do so...it's because they are terrified of the Russian reaction. This is a fact. There is almost nothing Russia cannot do that the US will not ignore, deflect or otherwise describe as anything other than an act of war. The facts speak for themselves - the US is absolutely petrified of conflict with Russia and will allow them to do almost anything in an attempt to prevent it. Watch mark Milley today - he point-blank refused to answer if the drone attack was an act of war - he was too scared to even go there ...the chairman of the joint chiefs FFS. The US is now just nothing but a hollow voice.

[sycamore]

It would be interesting to see any video from the drone,especially how a Sukhoi was able to `chop the prop`,if that`s what happened,without ending up with a faceful of Reaper......
Global..it can be fitted with `defensive stuff`,depending on model/task..

[Flyhighfirst]

Q"What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out?"
A"The US said it brought down the damaged drone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64960384) after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.

A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.

"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.

I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.

100% agree. Although I am in the camp of “the only good Russian is a dead Russian” it is a valid strategy. It is enabling their enemy. They know nothing will come of it. Just surprised they haven’t been taking them down daily. I think they would think twice and then a third or fourth time if it was a manned aircraft though.

[Snafu2]

If you zoom in on your still image ....the first digit is not a '1' ....it looks like the standard coded serial for the US

I'm a new account so I can't post images. If you go to the original source on Telegram (Fighterbomber) for the uncompressed video it clearly shows the number is 294. It's MQ-9 15-4294 in the video if we fill the blanks between known serials. The uncompressed video doesn't look nearly as odd either. I think the video is very much real. Apparently the drone was downed around 7AM local time, which would mean the drone in the video wasn't shot down that day judging by the lighting.

[Sea Plane Driver]

A horrific accident some time ago had US fighters intercept on a private twin plane that had wandered into a restricted space off the coast of Florida.

Don't remember this one.
What year?
Inbound from Cuba, or....?

[albatross]

I can envision someone being awarded “The Order of Heavy Industry” and sent to a hard-rock mine deep in Siberia.

[Magnetomick]

Top Gun 3

“Too close for missiles, switching to A/B”

[Keith.]

If that drone design is accurate, that prop is well protected.

[Cedrik]

It was an unmanned aircraft just like the ballon was, It's not like it was an airliner over the Persian gulf with the loss of many innocent people.

[uxb99]

Q. "Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war?"
A. I do live in a country that ISNT terrified of nuclear war. Terrified implies that it consumes our every waking moment to the point of being irrational. No, I am not terrified of the prospect of a nuclear war because there is nothing I can do about it and quite frankly I doubt it will happen.
I may be terrified during a nuclear war but that's a different matter.

Q. "Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it"
A. A country doesn't have to be terrified, i.e. having it consume their every rational thought to be engaged in actively trying to prevent one. Trying to prevent nuclear war, or any war is the default position of most democracies.

Q. "but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?"
A. Yes I am aware. So is America and the West. Not intervening with direct military action is more about avoiding escalation into a bloody conventional or nuclear conflict rather than being terrified, Terrified implies an irrational behaviour that doesn't include calm and calculated decision making. USA is a democracy. It requires consultation and agreement at a political level to engage in conflict. Again rational decision making not terror. If the USA was `terrified` why would it give considerable amounts of military equipment to Ukraine including intel from drones?

Q "The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the consequences."

A. This is a fallacious statement. The USA and the West is avoiding escalation. This is a rational thought process using calm and calculated decision making. It's not born out of terror or being terrified.
"the US is permitting ", no it isn't. Russia invaded without the USA's or anyone's prior permission. It was an aggressive act.

Q "To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing."
A. This is just your opinion. You have no way of knowing what the feeling is in the White house but I would suggest no one is `terrified`. Concerned for sure but no one is hiding under their desks.

[pattern_is_full]

I did not suggest comitting US forces to defend a drone, I suggested that the US was refusing to commit forces to prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, and this is is a fact. Ukranians are being slaughtered by a military force that the US could annihilate in short order, but they refuse to do so. Why? Do you believe the US want Ukranians to be slaughtered? If not, then ask why the US refuses to do so...it's because they are terrified of the Russian reaction. This is a fact. There is almost nothing Russia cannot do that the US will not ignore, deflect or otherwise describe as anything other than an act of war. The facts speak for themselves - the US is absolutely petrified of conflict with Russia and will allow them to do almost anything in an attempt to prevent it. Watch mark Milley today - he point-blank refused to answer if the drone attack was an act of war - he was too scared to even go there ...the chairman of the joint chiefs FFS. The US is now just nothing but a hollow voice.

Have you actually asked anyone in the US if we are terrified?

Bottom line: Russian propaganda even before the invasion claimed that the The West/NATO/US already had designs and plans to attack and destroy Russia. This dates back at least to the most recent expansion of NATO. "NATO is out to get us, so invading Ukraine is our only defence."

Therefore, the US is being very careful to disprove the Russian/Putin Party Line - by never making a direct attack on Russian forces with NATO or US forces. Why reinforce Russian propaganda?

If Russia resorts to using nuclear devices against Ukraine, then the US might use that as the justification to directly attack and (easily) wipe out Russian conventional occupying forces with conventional forces of our own, but not before. The US wants to make sure that Russia is always - always - "the bad guy" in any escalation, for diplomatic/political/historical reasons.

Until then, the US and NATO will not make a military move directly against Russian forces. Russia will have to attack a NATO member's territory first. That is the realpolitik that will put the blame for any conflict between US/NATO and Russia, up to and including WW3, on Russia's tombstone, not ours.

It is quite possible that Russia's attacks on civilians are intended exactly to goad NATO and the US into crossing the line into direct warfare with Russia - which seems to be what you desire. Thereby proving Putin's propaganda claims and making the West "the bad guys." Or they may simply be intended to terrorize Ukraine into submission (a forlorn hope - but possibly the only tool Putin has left in his arsenal, short of nukes).

The - whatever it was - involving the UAV may also have been a ploy to force an ill-considered move against something Russian by forces other than Ukraine's.

Fortunately, we are smart enough to avoid such temptations, and just keep providing Ukraine with the defensive tools to protect themselves, and enough short-range offensive tools to clear their territory of Russians, without being an actual military threat to Russia itself (outside of Putin's fantasies).

[Rockie_Rapier]

According German Media Russia is about to recover the wreckage.
Given that Putin had to get a Dutch salvage company to recover the Kursk submarine I'd be a little surprised if they could do that without putting the job out to tender.
This makes an interesting watch though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syf3VxfGw8E

[DaveReidUK]

Apparently the drone was downed around 7AM local time, which would mean the drone in the video wasn't shot down that day judging by the lighting.

Yes, I think the fact that the video, while circulating widely on social media, hasn't (AFAIK) been officially posted by the Russians is significant.

The Russians have acknowledged that the event took place, albeit they are putting a very different spin on what happened, and the video doesn't actually disprove (nor prove) their account, so why haven't they posted it ?

Presumably because, given that the identity of the drone is visible, it would be very easy for the US to demonstrate that it's old footage - either by showing that the Reaper in the video is still intact, or with evidence that it had perished on a previous occasion.

[jolihokistix]

If Crimea's 2014 takeover by Russia was never recognized internationally, that could make anywhere over the Crimean peninsula international airspace. If the drone had its transponder turned off, though that means we have no basis for believing the US announcements. Russia however is not disputing the 'international airspace' claim, however, which might mean that part of the story is true.

Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net) (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1-Black-Sea-bathymetry-http-wwwgridunepch-bsein-images-bs-bathygif_fig1_314089191)

[ORAC]

The USA won’t go to war over losing a drone - they use drones because of the risk and accept the losses as the cost of operating where they use them.

Iran shot down an RQ-4 in 2019 and the USA did nothing except protest.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2023/03/15/downing-of-mq-9-reaper-is-latest-us-drone-lost-in-contested-zone/

[melmothtw]

Yes, I think the fact that the video, while circulating widely on social media, hasn't (AFAIK) been officially posted by the Russians is significant.

The Russians have acknowledged that the event took place, albeit they are putting a very different spin on what happened, and the video doesn't actually disprove (nor prove) their account, so why haven't they posted it ?

Presumably because, given that the identity of the drone is visible, it would be very easy for the US to demonstrate that it's old footage - either by showing that the Reaper in the video is still intact, or with evidence that it had perished on a previous occasion.

I think there is some question as to whether the video is of this particular incident or of a previous encounter, but I would say the evidence it quite conclusive that it is genuine footage of a close encounter between a Russian Su-27 and a US Reaper.

[fdr]

If Crimea's 2014 takeover by Russia was never recognized internationally, that could make anywhere over the Crimean peninsula international airspace. If the drone had its transponder turned off, though that means we have no basis for believing the US announcements. Russia however is not disputing the 'international airspace' claim, however, which might mean that part of the story is true.

Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net) (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1-Black-Sea-bathymetry-http-wwwgridunepch-bsein-images-bs-bathygif_fig1_314089191)

Not unless Ukraine declares it so. It is Ukrainian territory, and has been since the vote of the supreme soviet in Feb 1954.

On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.

"Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR".

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/886x841/the_transfer_of_crimea_34af168b9766bb28697aad03a42b6a6de4f1c 3d5.jpg

[Ivor Fynn]

Nice video now available on Sky News, difficult for RU to deny what happened.

[NutLoose]

It shows the fuel dumping and then the collision, when you lose the feed and get the coloured bars let the video run as it comes back on showing the wrecked prop. Surprised they didn't dump fuel head on, not come at it from the rear.
I wonder if it headed for Odesa to bring any Russian recovery vessels under the range of Odesa's missile systems ;)

Linky

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-64974825

[57mm]

Looks more like a screwed up intercept.

[ZH875]

Looks more like a screwed up intercept.

perhaps the pilots vision was obscured by his own fuel dump

[culzean12]

I can’t imagine that the Flanker pilot would have been intending to collide. But to fly on a collision course with a high rate closure and rely on a last second break away while belly-up to the target…. that’s gross ineptitude. They wouldn’t last a minute in a shooting match. I hope Putin realises that.

[Ohrly]

It would be interesting to know which part of the SU-27 made contact, possibly the tail boom or one of the stabilisers on the underside of the fuselage? I'd have thought a shredded stabilator would make flying home a challenge.

[atakacs]

I can’t imagine that the Flanker pilot would have been intending to collide. But to fly on a collision course with a high rate closure and rely on a last second break away while belly-up to the target…. that’s gross ineptitude. They wouldn’t last a minute in a shooting match. I hope Putin realises that.
From the footage I would agree that there was no intent to ram the Reaper but just botched it big time.
Seems both sides try to minimize the incident.

[FullWings]

Put it this way, I doubt it was an intentional collision unless they’re so short of missiles they are using aeroplanes instead. Footage more embarrassing (for Russia) than anything else...

[Low average]

It's a useful reminder that every single Russian statement should be assumed to be a lie by default. What a messed up culture!

[biscuit74]

I can’t imagine that the Flanker pilot would have been intending to collide. But to fly on a collision course with a high rate closure and rely on a last second break away while belly-up to the target…. that’s gross ineptitude. They wouldn’t last a minute in a shooting match. I hope Putin realises that.

Since this was also (presumably) at high altitude - hard to tell from the video - the Flankers would be struggling to maneouvre precisely I suppose. It looked as if both Flankers came in 'mushing' somewhat, and as you say an extraordinary thing to do belly up to the target, making it even harder to judge distance and separation, ignoring any tactical implications which are outwith my competence! Certainly not a controlled 'intercept', but then I don't suppose ultra close passes at high altitude often feature in their training?.

Not clever thinking and both inept and bloody dangerous for the Flanker drivers. I'd not like to risk hitting something the size of that drone. Sheer luck the Flanker wasn't also brought down.

[Cedrik]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

[Argonautical]

I would actually say that it was bad luck the Flanker wasn’t brought down.

[melmothtw]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

A total non sequitur.

[Ohrly]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

Did the internet and social media exist in 1988?

As for the first part, I'm sure if you are particularly talented you could fit either the end of the tail cone, or an underside stabiliser through that little gap. Are you related to one of the pilots?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x668/reaper_73e64b8f08c46406360415f378c994c968a00cb0.png

[uxb99]

Having reviewed the footage I think it was `cock up` by the Russian pilots behaviour that brought down the drone.
I believe he was trying to bring it down but his closure rate was way too fast. Hew tried to go belly up and over the drone while covering it in fuel and actually hit it. btw are we certain that's fuel and not just the Russian adding power?
As others have said shame the Russian wasn't brought down. I suspect it just touched.

[uxb99]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

I don't think there is a lot of fuss over this. No one I know is talking about it. We are because we are aviation geeks.

Trying not to get political, start a flame war or drag this thread too far off topic I do agree that we have in the past been very nationality centric.
Like that old "Not The Nine O'clock News" joke. An airliner crashed today and the fatalities in order of importance were two Brits, three Americans and a Belgium but his accent wasn't very good.
We have in the past thought of foreigners as not as important as us. I think that attitude is changing but it is still there.

[a_ross84]

It might have been in international air space but it was also right in their back yard so hardly surprising. Wester leaders are constantly banging their drums now and declaring that China and Russia want to end the 'rule based order' so why be so surprised when they show scant regard for an autonomous vehicle that was almost certainly aiding their enemy and operating only a short distance outside the 12nm boundary of their airspace, or maybe even inside it?

If American tax payers are really worried about the lose of a vehicle that is 0.0009% of their annual defence budget then maybe they should not be operating military equipment a fraction outside of the 12nm territorial border and 6000+ miles away from America.

End of the day it was a drone, and if Biden is calling it out as 'Environmentally unsound' then I would suggest they don't really give a toss, so neither should we.


So the next time Russia comes anywhere near UK airspace can we just them shoot down.

[Ninthace]

Just piss poor airmanship.

[chevvron]

Having reviewed the footage I think it was `cock up` by the Russian pilots behaviour that brought down the drone.
I believe he was trying to bring it down but his closure rate was way too fast. Hew tried to go belly up and over the drone while covering it in fuel and actually hit it. btw are we certain that's fuel and not just the Russian adding power?
As others have said shame the Russian wasn't brought down. I suspect it just touched.
I was wondering that; what if the Su27 pilot went to 'burner but for some reason the 'burner either failed to ignite or there was a delay before it ignited pumping excess fuel out of the exhaust.
I've seen it happen when watching a jet dragster so it can happen.

[NutLoose]

When you see the first pass, in the distance you can see his wingman turning in, I do wonder if he was the one that hit it and had problems with the first aircrafts fuel dump, so used a slightly different lower and closer approach?

[Flyhighfirst]

So the next time Russia comes anywhere near UK airspace can we just them shoot down.

If for instance we were in a shooting war with Ireland, and Russia was supplying intel to Ireland from drones off the Yorkshire coast then yes, I would say we would shoot them down. After taking into account the repercussions of doing so. There isn’t much that can be done diplomatically, or financially that isn’t being done already so not really any deterrent to
stop Russia doing it.

[Ohrly]

I was wondering that; what if the Su27 pilot went to 'burner but for some reason the 'burner either failed to ignite or there was a delay before it ignited pumping excess fuel out of the exhaust.
I've seen it happen when watching a jet dragster so it can happen.

Twice in two separate passes? What a coincidence.

[Flyhighfirst]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

I don’t think there is much “fuss”. I’m not even sure the UK has acknowledged it happened?

The US has given few press briefings and that’s it.

The media are making more of it than anyone else.

I would guess that more than one US official said something along the lines of “well that took longer than we expected” when first hearing the news.

[ORAC]

Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?
Nobody got overexcited when Iran shot down a RQ-4 in 2019.

No one is overexcited about the USAF losing another MQ-9 than when they lost their previous 4.

What has got people worried is the fear of the USA/NATO getting directly involved in a shooting war with Russia - whether it’s their shooting down a NATO drone or being arrested conducting recce/sabotage on Polish territory*

* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64971691
​​​​​​​

[Ninthace]

Nobody shot the drone down, they failed to miss it.

[PointMergeArrival]

Not the first time a Flanker pilot has botched a close pass..
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-norwegian-air-force-p-3-orion-that-was-damaged-in-a-collision-with-a-soviet-su-27-flanker-over-the-barents-sea/

[TEEEJ]

No way does an SU27 have a fuel dumping capability. What fighter does?

They have drop tanks they can drop, which make up a combination of 4.5t hardpoints that can be dropped if required.

The fuel dump is a diplomatic face saving exercise. Most Joe Punters think every aircraft can dump fuel.

Yes, Flankers have a fuel dumping capability. Regularly used as a party trick at airshows and flypasts.

vvwqj85zuJM

EvaQZEhlhA0

[golder]

The video has been released
The newly declassified video (https://www.dvidshub.net/video/876667/us-air-force-mq-9-camera-footage-russian-su-27-black-sea-intercept) has been edited for length, running 43 seconds. As expected, the footage is from the MTS-B sensor ball below the nose of the MQ-9, which was looking behind the drone as the Su-27 approached it. Approaching from the right-hand rear quarter, the Russian fighter begins dumping fuel, which U.S. officials had already said was one of the more aggressive maneuvers performed by the jet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsSYp-51Hs

[Winemaker]

I was wondering that; what if the Su27 pilot went to 'burner but for some reason the 'burner either failed to ignite or there was a delay before it ignited pumping excess fuel out of the exhaust.
I've seen it happen when watching a jet dragster so it can happen.
Except that jet dragsters don't actually have afterburners. I believe it is illegal in the U.S. for a private citizen to own one and they are removed by the military when equipment is sold. All the jet cars do is dump a bunch of extra fuel into the exhaust stream for visual effect.

[henra]

Nice video now available on Sky News, difficult for RU to deny what happened.
And this video pretty much confirms the assumption of a co*k- up leading to the final demise of the drone. The dousing was clearly deliberate, the collision looked quite like a misjudgement. Looking at the way they collided (pretty much belly first) I would expect major damage if not a write-off of the Su as well.

As a kind of retaliation maybe just give another Batch of GLSDB to Ukraine. Everytime they do stuff like this, double the amount of Kit given to Ukraine. And let the Russians know that this will happen. That way they can themselves decide how much damage they want to incur for some fun and PR.

[chevvron]

Except that jet dragsters don't actually have afterburners. I believe it is illegal in the U.S. for a private citizen to own one and they are removed by the military when equipment is sold. All the jet cars do is dump a bunch of extra fuel into the exhaust stream for visual effect.
They're legal in the UK.

[Tailspin Turtle]

Getting fuel emerging from the afterburner nozzles to remain unburnt would be quite some trick.

Actually, the afterburner trick is getting the damn thing to light on demand, match in a hurricane, so to speak. However, the dumping is usually separate as has been discussed and fairly standard on jets in order to reduce weight if necessary to land back soon after takeoff.

[gearlever]

What is exact location of this incident? Sorry if this has been answered already. Can't find it.
Thx

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1636067916599705604?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​"Turkey is ready to let US warships pass through the Bosphorus, because of the "incident" with the MQ-9 and Su-27" - Turkish Defense Minister

[Flyhighfirst]

"Turkey is ready to let US warships pass through the Bosphorus, because of the "incident" with the MQ-9 and Su-27" - Turkish Defense Minister

I doubt the US would send much a presence there anyways. Too much risk of escapism for not much gain.

[clareprop]

The aviation version of a Crazy Ivan. Obviously 30 minutes past the hour as he turned starboard.

[ORAC]

I doubt the US would send much a presence there anyways. Too much risk of escapism for not much gain.


An Aegis cruiser would be an easier way to provide AD cover for the various drone & ISR orbits in the area than providing 24/7 tanker and fighter cover - and less of an obvious provocation.

As a reminder, the RAF started providing fighter cover for their Rivet Joint flights in the area after a Russian fighter launched an AAM in their direction last October.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-continues-monitoring-russian-forces/

[lefty loose]

It's a useful reminder that every single Russian statement should be assumed to be a lie by default. What a messed up culture!

In Russian culture a distinction is drawn between two kinds of lies, vranyo and lozh which do not have exact parallels in English. Vranyo has been claimed as uniquely Russian, and seems to consist of telling untrue but credible stories, a practice not condemned by those who recognize what is going on. Indeed, for success in vranyo-telling, there must be a listener who pretends to believe in the truth of what is being said. [...] Lozh, on the other hand, implies a conscious intention to deceive.

"A Russian friend explained vranyo this way: ‘You know I’m lying, and I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, but I go ahead with a straight face, and you nod seriously and take notes."

I am unsure of the corresponding (American) English or (British) English equivalent of vranyo or lozh …… or, am I vranyo-telling.

[albatross]

How did the fighter strike the prop disc without taking out the tailplane which is considerably higher?
Why all the fuss?
The western world wasn't as outraged when American military shot down an Airbus killing 290 people, hypocrisy?

I well remember that event.
As I recall the “Western World” was very outraged by the event. Including most people in the USA.
Care to comment on KL007 ?

[beardy]

I wonder if the fuel dumping was to provide a visual marker for the target location.

[The Helpful Stacker]

A total non sequitur.

Whataboutism is the preferred weapon of disgruntled despot apologists.

[GlobalNav]

It's a useful reminder that every single Russian statement should be assumed to be a lie by default. What a messed up culture!

In Russian culture a distinction is drawn between two kinds of lies, vranyo and lozh which do not have exact parallels in English. Vranyo has been claimed as uniquely Russian, and seems to consist of telling untrue but credible stories, a practice not condemned by those who recognize what is going on. Indeed, for success in vranyo-telling, there must be a listener who pretends to believe in the truth of what is being said. [...] Lozh, on the other hand, implies a conscious intention to deceive.

"A Russian friend explained vranyo this way: ‘You know I’m lying, and I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, but I go ahead with a straight face, and you nod seriously and take notes."

I am unsure of the corresponding (American) English or (British) English equivalent of vranyo or lozh …… or, am I vranyo-telling.

We (USA) may not have the terminology, but politically we have the reality.

[Sailvi767]

I wonder if the fuel dumping was to provide a visual marker for the target location.

Fuel will snuff out a turbine engine or even cause it to explode. Ask any old A4 drivers what happens when a burst of fuel goes down the intake. I have no idea what you mean by visual marker as the fuel will dissipate in a few seconds and the drone is moving.

[Two's in]

It's a useful reminder that every single Russian statement should be assumed to be a lie by default. What a messed up culture!

In Russian culture a distinction is drawn between two kinds of lies,...I am unsure of the corresponding (American) English or (British) English equivalent of vranyo or lozh …… or, am I vranyo-telling.

The western equivalent of someone who deliberately lies for personal gain or out of some sociopathic disorder is "politician".

[henra]

I wonder if the fuel dumping was to provide a visual marker for the target location.
They did try to shower the drone in a way that it gets ingested into the engine. The first one was close miss.
The fuel dump was quite clearly an attempt to down the drone in an only semi- violent way. So that there would be no trace of explosives / shrapnel. I wonder if they forgot that these drones have cameras.

[Stuff]

We (USA) may not have the terminology, but politically we have the reality.

Sounds a lot like Alternative Facts.

[GlobalNav]

Sounds a lot like Alternative Facts.

Yes, we even have a “news” network devoted to it, which unfortunately, too many fully aware listeners are completely devoted to.
Welcome to democracy.

[pasta]

They did try to shower the drone in a way that it gets ingested into the engine. The first one was close miss.
The fuel dump was quite clearly an attempt to down the drone in an only semi- violent way. So that there would be no trace of explosives / shrapnel. I wonder if they forgot that these drones have cameras.
Remember the Russians have this concept of utterly implausible denial; downing it without a weapon enables them to claim it was an accident even though no-one except the most credulous State TV devotee actually believes it.

I do wonder whether, if the operators still had control authority, they tried to glide it within range of land-based anti-shipping missiles :E

[beardy]

Fuel will snuff out a turbine engine or even cause it to explode. Ask any old A4 drivers what happens when a burst of fuel goes down the intake. I have no idea what you mean by visual marker as the fuel will dissipate in a few seconds and the drone is moving.
There was provision, many years ago, for tankers to dump a squirt of fuel to aid visual acquisition by receivers during silent procedures. I'm probably wrong, but I just wondered if something similar may have been going on here with a squirt of fuel drawing eyes to the right part of the sky.

[ORAC]

The wingman will have had eyes on the lead anyway.

[john.wb]

[QUOTE=ORAC;11403327]An Aegis cruiser would be an easier way to provide AD cover for the various drone & ISR orbits in the area

I believe the Bosphorus is closed to warships.

[Rovertime]

Is is me, or is there a significant heading change between the two shown passes? Where is the sun in pass 2 vs pass 1? Just asking questions, and wondering why.....

[unmanned_droid]

Great thread, peak pprune. Very enjoyable read.

[Ohrly]

Is is me, or is there a significant heading change between the two shown passes? Where is the sun in pass 2 vs pass 1? Just asking questions, and wondering why.....

Because the drone changed course I would suggest.

[DaveReidUK]

I would actually say that it was bad luck the Flanker wasn’t brought down.

Out of interest, is there any confirmation that both Su-27's made it successfully back to base ?

[NutLoose]

Is is me, or is there a significant heading change between the two shown passes? Where is the sun in pass 2 vs pass 1? Just asking questions, and wondering why.....

It had turned through 90 degrees, the head up display has an N for North on it, on the first shot N was on their six, so they were heading South, the second pass it was heading about 270 degrees West and turning as N was on the left..

[ORAC]

Is is me, or is there a significant heading change between the two shown passes? Where is the sun in pass 2 vs pass 1? Just asking questions, and wondering why.....
Depends.

There are a variety of track/orbit patterns depending on the type of data to be acquired and whether it needs a stationary position or a long baseline for triangulation etc. Plus depending on winds it might just be for repositioning etc.

Regardless, the MQ isn’t manoeuvring during the actual intercepts, wings straight and level, so it isn’t evasion.

[JanetFlight]

Only 24 hours after the event and USA releases a ton of pics and videos... But why almost one month has passed and not even a single pic or clip about those three "objects" downed by US?

[Ohrly]

Only 24 hours after the event and USA releases a ton of pics and videos... But why almost one month has passed and not even a single pic or clip about those three "objects" downed by US?

One may contain sensitive information, the other is a video of two well known aircraft types colliding?

[GreenXCode]

Range v Resolution - the midair is pretty incontrovertible esp as the w@nker went belly-up at closure. Clearly, formation was not a strong suit in BFT - helmet on for incoming…

[mahogany bob]

GUESS - what MIGHT have happened ?

2 Flankers intercept Drone
Spent 20 mins + ( a long time )fooling around it intercepts/ formation / passes
Difficult because of speed difference )
Got bored so perhaps tried to dump fuel on it ?
(ROE stopped them shooting it down. ?)
Tried low speed intercept ( with fuel dump ?) from rear raised nose and put on full power (afterburner ?)
to perhaps try to blow it off course with jet wash ?

Sunk a few feet by mistake and accidentally nicked prop with tailplane ? - as discussed earlier lucky not hit Drone tailplane causing more damage.
Drone loses power and ditches.

The Flanker pilots would be tempted to take much more risks with a Drone than with a manned aircraft - ROE ?

Qs

What altitude were they at ?

What is the minimum speed of the Drone and the Flanker at that altitude? - the Drone’s would be much lower - 150- 170 kts ?
Why did the Flanker not use flap to lower stall speed?
Would the drone manoeuvre to make life difficult?
Would fuel soak worry the Drone and stop the turbo prop ( seen lots of fuel spillage during AAR but never a problem )

PS if US ships enter the Black Sea ( authorised by Turkey ? )to search for wreckage is there a risk of confrontation with Russian Navy?

[Recc]

if US ships enter the Black Sea ( authorised by Turkey ? )to search for wreckage is there a risk of confrontation with Soviet Navy?

Fortunately there is zero chance of that!

[GreenXCode]

GUESS - what MIGHT have happened ?

2 Flankers intercept Drone
Spent 20 mins + ( a long time )fooling around it intercepts/ formation / passes
Difficult because of speed difference )
Got bored so perhaps tried to dump fuel on it ?
(ROE stopped them shooting it down. ?)
Tried low speed intercept ( with fuel dump ?) from rear raised nose and put on full power (afterburner ?)
to perhaps try to blow it off course with jet wash ?

Sunk a few feet by mistake and accidentally nicked prop with tailplane ? - as discussed earlier lucky not hit Drone tailplane causing more damage.
Drone loses power and ditches.

The Flanker pilots would be tempted to take much more risks with a Drone than with a manned aircraft - ROE ?

Qs

What altitude were they at ?

What is the minimum speed of the Drone and the Flanker at that altitude? - the Drone’s would be much lower - 150- 170 kts ?
Why did the Flanker not use flap to lower stall speed?
Would the drone manoeuvre to make life difficult?
Would fuel soak worry the Drone and stop the turbo prop ( seen lots of fuel spillage during AAR but never a problem )

PS if US ships enter the Black Sea ( authorised by Turkey ? )to search for wreckage is there a risk of confrontation with Russian Navy?

Quite a few ideas here. Firstly, AEGIS cruisers and Type 45s r perfect for Black Sea AD, depends upon political signalling-I’d stick an NFZ over Crimea and ‘politically intend to extend’ in view of this ‘tactical aberration.’ Probably FL300_FL500, lower from the colour of the video. Speed 220kts so well achievable by SU27. He was too busy losing visual and dumping fuel to dump flap; drone was not (and can never be) aggressive c/w what SU27 can do. Highly likely fuel was to interfere with sensors - did a nice flyby of a Type 42 in the 80s with fuel dump; did not like the paint bill after the fact. ROE has nothing to do with risk at the tactical level; almost certain ROE on both sides is to prevent WW3.

[Nick H.]

I choose to believe that the pilot delitberately bent one prop blade with an astonishingly precise and brave bit of flying. I hate Putin and his pilots for killing Ukrainians. He and they should die. But what a video. As an aviation achievement it's historic.

Edit: actually the vid shows damage to two prop blades.

[Cedrik]

I well remember that event.
As I recall the “Western World” was very outraged by the event. Including most people in the USA.
Care to comment on KL007 ?
Yes, 007 wasn't flying where they said it was, a lot of unexplained anomalies with it's flight path. Ghosting with an American military aircraft close to the Korean aircraft was more than dangerous. At least the Americans were using an unmanned aircraft this time instead of using an airline full of innocent pax to gather intel.

Why not show the full video? If indeed the prop was damaged then the unbalanced prop would have shaken the aircraft badly. I still maintain if the prop was hit the tailplane would have been taken out. Either the attacking fighter was skilfully flown to avoid any impact apart from the prop or as most say here it flew into the drone by bad flying.

Interesting they said they decided to land the aircraft after seeing the prop damage, no thrust they would have had no choice. If indeed the fighter hit the prop then there would be minimum damage of no tailplane one side or both. The "Landing" would then be vertical. If the fighter was damaged video would be released of the damaged fighter. Lets see unedited video, much chance of that? How does an impact hook a prop blade? Just one blade damaged indicates the prop was rotating very slowly if at all. A 20 ton fighter impacting a prop disc that's doing 2000 revs would do more damage than hooking one blade.

[GreenXCode]

Yes, 007 wasn't flying where they said it was, a lot of unexplained anomalies with it's flight path. Ghosting with an American military aircraft close to the Korean aircraft was more than dangerous. At least the Americans were using an unmanned aircraft this time instead of using an airline full of innocent pax to gather intel.

Why not show the full video? If indeed the prop was damaged then the unbalanced prop would have shaken the aircraft badly. I still maintain if the prop was hit the tailplane would have been taken out. Either the attacking fighter was skilfully flown to avoid any impact apart from the prop or as most say here it flew into the drone by bad flying.

Interesting they said they decided to land the aircraft after seeing the prop damage, no thrust they would have had no choice. If indeed the fighter hit the prop then there would be minimum damage of no tailplane one side or both. The "Landing" would then be vertical. If the fighter was damaged video would be released of the damaged fighter. Lets see unedited video, much chance of that? How does an impact hook a prop blade? Just one blade damaged indicates the prop was rotating very slowly if at all. A 20 ton fighter impacting a prop disc that's doing 2000 revs would do more damage than hooking one blade.

Monty Python - The Black Knight - Tis but a Scratch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

[Flyhighfirst]

I choose to believe that the pilot delitberately bent one prop blade with an astonishingly precise and brave bit of flying. I hate Putin and his pilots for killing Ukrainians. He and they should die. But what a video. As an aviation achievement it's historic.

Edit: actually the vid shows damage to two prop blades.

Don’t mean to sound condescending.. actually I do. You’re an idiot. Not even superman could manage to just damage blade 2.

The fact that even auto spell check doesn’t clue in with you lends weight.

[Flyhighfirst]

Quite a few ideas here. Firstly, AEGIS cruisers and Type 45s r perfect for Black Sea AD, depends upon political signalling-I’d stick an NFZ over Crimea and ‘politically intend to extend’ in view of this ‘tactical aberration.’ Probably FL300_FL500, lower from the colour of the video. Speed 220kts so well achievable by SU27. He was too busy losing visual and dumping fuel to dump flap; drone was not (and can never be) aggressive c/w what SU27 can do. Highly likely fuel was to interfere with sensors - did a nice flyby of a Type 42 in the 80s with fuel dump; did not like the paint bill after the fact. ROE has nothing to do with risk at the tactical level; almost certain ROE on both sides is to prevent WW3.

There is less than zero chance of the US trying to impose a no fly zone. They will let Ukraine loose before that would even enter a conversation. This is a proxy war. There is no way the west gets sucked in to a conflict they initially thought would last weeks. And truthfully don’t really care about the outcome other than giving the Russians a good dressing down.

[Flyhighfirst]

[QUOTE=ORAC;11403327]An Aegis cruiser would be an easier way to provide AD cover for the various drone & ISR orbits in the area

I believe the Bosphorus is closed to warships.

Its just been opened.

Your first point, there is 100% no way the US is going to “provide AD cover” in a conflict they aren’t in, and against a nuclear power. If they send any ships it will be a lightly armoured, defensive platform rather than An offensive platform. Remember this is a proxy fight. Not something anyone (even the Russians) want turning hot.

[ORAC]

Having received the offer from Turkey it would be militarily and politically impolite to refuse.

And you don’t send someone with a knife to a gunfight.

[NutLoose]

In the second pass, the Aircraft was at a high angle of dangle, so lost sight of the UAV and if you watch the clip, the UAV hud shows it initiates a turn into the path of the SU 27 so contact was made. The pilot with it in his blind spot wouldn’t see it.

Watch it frame by frame and follow the N for North.

[spankmcnasty]

I can see all the chemtrail idiots citing this video as 'proof'.

[jolihokistix]

Just noticed this difference in the airspace interpretation west of Crimea.
From the BBC, Video shows moment Russian fighter jet hits US drone over Black Sea - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64975766)

Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said the drone had "violated boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation".

But Mr Kirby said the airspace was international and not restricted.

[MechEngr]

Has anyone mentioned ICAO 101.33?

[rattman]

Its just been opened.


Its always been opened it only closed to warships of the combatants, Ukraine and Russia. Other countries entry only restricted by the Montrouex agreement, which limits how many times a specifics countrie that is not a black sea power can enter the black sea and for how long.

[ORAC]

Geolocated position of the drone.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1071x612/image_d9d764bc28952715c015eca9c149ad2aa727b3ef.jpeg

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1422x1056/image_4c88c19f51a8b2d5babe1719ccdb926b631683c1.jpeg

https://twitter.com/geoconfirmed/status/1636551035039744001?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
​​​​​​​

[meleagertoo]

There is less than zero chance of the US trying to impose a no fly zone. They will let Ukraine loose before that would even enter a conversation.
An illuminating piece from someone who's just launched a diatribe against another poster for not using a spellchecker (I for one hadn't realised it was mandatory).
Few of us were aware that the USA is somehow restraining or holding Ukraine back, so in what sense could they ever "let them loose"?
Pot-kettle chum, and in spades as Nick H's error - such as it was - was clearly no more than a single misplaced finger on a keyboard aka a typo and not apparently an absolutely cringe-worthy third-grade linguistic howler.
I'll refrain from commenting on your dogmatic 'appraisal' of America's tactical intentions and especially your extraordinarily self-contradictory comments on the nature of the conflict, but added to further multiple errors in punctuation and a random capital letter this all merely adds to the altogether thoroughly third-grade impression.

ps you did intend to say "let them lose", didn't you? Please tell us you don't really think the USA is holding Ukraine back on a leash?
...do you?

[ORAC]

Your first point, there is 100% no way the US is going to “provide AD cover” in a conflict they aren’t in,
To repeat the obvious, they are more than entitled to protected their own assets from attack when flying in international airspace - as the RAF are already doing.

The only thing that would change is the means of doing so.

https://www.itamilradar.com/2022/10/21/new-raf-rivet-joint-mission-escorted-by-typhoons/

Typhoons is are now regularly seen on patrol over the Black Sea when RAF ISR flights are in the area.