"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
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 [email protected] events, MIJI aplenty, and other shenanigans.
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 [email protected] events, MIJI aplenty, and other shenanigans.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th Mar 2023 at 21:34.
Dumping fuel - assuming there is such a capability - seems really far fetched. But I guess anything's possible.
Last edited by atakacs; 14th Mar 2023 at 19:08.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
It would seem the Americans are down playing the event with their diplomatic language and not wanting to escalate the situation.
No, that's an American drone. American owned and operated, not like the NATO AWACS...
Actually, the manned fighter would have been able to maneuver and avoid.
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.
Is this was a manned fighter the reaction would.be unequivocal,
and I don't see much distinction between that and a drone..
Orville wept.
For Thrust Augmentation:
I second your motion on the dumbassity of that statement.
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!
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Noumea
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Originally Posted by JeanKhul
... nothing unprofesssionnal in this story, actually I find it quite smart, like the Spitfires unsettling the V1s with their wingtips in 1944.
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.
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 ?
Didnt the US have F35's shadowing drones near Iran to keep the locals from misbehaving ?
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.
Last edited by Uberteknik; 14th Mar 2023 at 21:25.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
