"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...e-barents-sea/
JAS
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that...e-barents-sea/
JAS
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 following users liked this post:
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
"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".
The following 4 users liked this post by pba_target:
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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".
"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".
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.
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..
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.
The following users liked this post:
IMHO you can't compare prop bending on take off (max thrust) with very little thrust at cruising altitude.
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.
The following users liked this post:
