"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
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.
(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.
Administrator
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.
... 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)
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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.
Occasionally an Eurofighter shows up but I've never seen any American types.
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?
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?
Does anyone know if the Su-27 has fuel dump capability ?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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...".
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...".
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/Genera...cs_MQ-9_Reaper