"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
There would likely be no ramifications, beyond an increased NATO fighter presence in the Black Sea I'd imagine. See the Iran shootdown of the Global Hawk in 2019.
Guest
What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out? Downed? The US says that it was downed by them following a collision, the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea. It was in international airspace, there was no combat, and all that Russia seems to have demonstrated is yet another example of their ineffective and incompetent armed forces.
There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow.
There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow.
A"The US said it brought down the damaged drone after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.
A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.
"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.
I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.
Last edited by uxb99; 15th Mar 2023 at 19:42.
Guest
Irrelevant in this discussion. It's still a valid combat tactic to down a drone with fuel if that works. After all Spitfires and Typhoons used their wings to destroy V1's and were given those V1's as kills. It also wasn't meant to be taken literally and was just a quip on the commentators remark kind of coming to fruition.
Guest
Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.
The following users liked this post:
Guest
RIP Forte11 
It all seems very sketchy - I wonder if this was a cack-handed attempt by the Russians to bring it down relatively intact in order to retrieve it? Or maybe they got fed up with it and had orders to bring it down without actually shooting it down (which could be interpreted as an overtly hostile act?).
It all seems very sketchy - I wonder if this was a cack-handed attempt by the Russians to bring it down relatively intact in order to retrieve it? Or maybe they got fed up with it and had orders to bring it down without actually shooting it down (which could be interpreted as an overtly hostile act?).
It will be interesting to see whether the US does anything about it.
Guest
The following users liked this post:
If American tax payers are really worried about the lose of a vehicle that is 0.0009% of their annual defence budget then maybe they should not be operating military equipment a fraction outside of the 12nm territorial border and 6000+ miles away from America.
End of the day it was a drone, and if Biden is calling it out as 'Environmentally unsound' then I would suggest they don't really give a toss, so neither should we.
The following users liked this post:
The F-22 might be seen as an exception because it was never made in much more than prototype quantities, so it is a very maintenance heavy item. Too costly to continue maintaining.
Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.
Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war? Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it, but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the capabilities of our advesary'.
To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing.
They are just more diplomats than you. They don't let an event dictate how they want to react.
Terrified is not the appropriate term to use here. Neither the USA nor Russia is `terrified` of war with each other. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to say both countries, but certainly the USA, are `respectful` of each others capabilities and aware of the ramifications of a war.
On the other hand, if an effective means of defense can be fitted to the drone, I'd be for making MIG pilots think twice.
I can only say 'wow' - I am almost speechless. You believe the USA is 'respectful' of potential nuclear war?
Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war? Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it, but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the capabilities of our advesary'.
To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing.
Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war? Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it, but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the capabilities of our advesary'.
To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing.
I don't believe Gen Milley shut the question down because he, or his country is terrified of the consequences of escalation. I think he shut the question down because this is a none event, and a cost of doing business right now.
The following users liked this post:
I did not suggest comitting US forces to defend a drone, I suggested that the US was refusing to commit forces to prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, and this is is a fact. Ukranians are being slaughtered by a military force that the US could annihilate in short order, but they refuse to do so. Why? Do you believe the US want Ukranians to be slaughtered? If not, then ask why the US refuses to do so...it's because they are terrified of the Russian reaction. This is a fact. There is almost nothing Russia cannot do that the US will not ignore, deflect or otherwise describe as anything other than an act of war. The facts speak for themselves - the US is absolutely petrified of conflict with Russia and will allow them to do almost anything in an attempt to prevent it. Watch mark Milley today - he point-blank refused to answer if the drone attack was an act of war - he was too scared to even go there ...the chairman of the joint chiefs FFS. The US is now just nothing but a hollow voice.
It would be interesting to see any video from the drone,especially how a Sukhoi was able to `chop the prop`,if that`s what happened,without ending up with a faceful of Reaper......
Global..it can be fitted with `defensive stuff`,depending on model/task..
Global..it can be fitted with `defensive stuff`,depending on model/task..
Q"What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out?"
A"The US said it brought down the damaged drone after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.
A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.
"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.
I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.
A"The US said it brought down the damaged drone after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.
A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.
"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.
I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A horrific accident some time ago had US fighters intercept on a private twin plane that had wandered into a restricted space off the coast of Florida.
What year?
Inbound from Cuba, or....?