"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
The following users liked this post:
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?
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 ...
To answer your question, it was flying in international airspace.
Had it violated Russian airspace, though, it would be a very different matter.
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.
Surveillance via space, international waters, and international airspace is a widely accepted practice, codified in many international treaties of which Russia is a party.
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.
This was an MQ-9 which carries weapons and flies much lower.
The following users liked this post:
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?
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?
That tends to carry oit its missons up at around FL600 so you would think out of reach of even an irresponsibly flown Su27?
LW50
"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) .... 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
"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) .... 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
Last edited by voyageur9; 14th Mar 2023 at 22:55. Reason: typos
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
