Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"

Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:01
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 331
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Sfojimbo
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.
Toadstool is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:05
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 500
Received 50 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Obba
Jeeze, your like kids!
According to Wikipedia the MQ-9 Reaper is an Unarmed Aerial Vehicle - aka UAV.
UAV
noun
  1. an unmanned aerial vehicle (an aircraft piloted by remote control or onboard computers)

Your definition would include almost every airliner and GA aircraft!😳
Cloudee is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:42
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs
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...e-barents-sea/

JAS
Just a spotter is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:47
  #84 (permalink)  
 
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.
UAV689 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:51
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 340
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
golder is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:55
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,238
Received 84 Likes on 45 Posts
Originally Posted by mangere1957
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:56
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 441
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
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:59
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,186
Received 41 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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".


pba_target is online now  
The following 4 users liked this post by pba_target:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 08:14
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Doncaster, England
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
a_ross84 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 09:05
  #90 (permalink)  
 
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!

Originally Posted by pba_target
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".

UAV689 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 09:25
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Alleged footage of SU27 and drone :

https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=dkqkcy
Tiger G is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 09:39
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,186
Received 41 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiger G
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....

pba_target is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 09:55
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 113
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
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.
Recc is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:17
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,891
Received 1,332 Likes on 603 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:18
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 358
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
ChrisJ800 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:25
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Received 15 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
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:


However, the lack of any other markings is suspicious.
Ohrly is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:30
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,891
Received 1,332 Likes on 603 Posts
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..



NutLoose is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:39
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 397
Received 131 Likes on 43 Posts
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.
FUMR is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:47
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 993
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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..


IMHO you can't compare prop bending on take off (max thrust) with very little thrust at cruising altitude.
gearlever is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:50
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by a_ross84
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 donít think the US authorities will be that concerned. I would say they would be more surprised itís taken this long.

You canít 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.

Itís 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.
Flyhighfirst is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.