Sounds like one of the SU27's managed to run into the propeller of the drone, which is what brought it down.
We are not talking about a huge propeller here BTW:
Where it was hit:
Sounds like one of the SU27's managed to run into the propeller of the drone, which is what brought it down.
We are not talking about a huge propeller here BTW:
Where it was hit:
j_tso said:Shashank Joshi, defence editor for the Economist magazine, said the Russians may have been trying to intimidate the drone as it was hoovering up their communications.
That's like kicking and yelling at a vending machine.
aircooled said:"unprofessional act by the Russians".
The engagement began with the Su-27s fighter jets dumping fuel on the drone in a "reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner".
Uhm, yeah. That is pretty much an attack.... in international airspace.
Talk about escalation. Not super surprising based on the level of professionalism that has historically been seen from Russian pilots (regularly getting way to close to western ships / planes)
Meh. The Soviets intentionally shot down numerous US recce flights in international airspace during the Cold War, as well as a certain KAL 747 that they mistook for a recce flight. More recently, think about the Chinese collision with the EP-3C off Hainan. The US has zero reason to do anything escalatory in response - this is minor, and only serves to make the Russians look worse than they already do. Hell, if this is how the Russians want to play it, the US could just send up a flock of drones (use up some of those outdated Predators) and tempt the Russians up over and over again. Burns flight hours that could otherwise be spent over Ukraine, and might just take down a Flanker or two if the Russians get sloppy again.
Yeah, I don't think the US will do anything about it, it's just a bit funny considering how Russia is always talking about the US escalating things (indirectly) and they attack a US Military aircraft. What they did is really not any different than shooting it down with a missile. They were clearly trying to take it down.
The Ruskies must not have any ammo in their jets. Too bad the drone didn't have any sidewinders.
aircooled said:Yeah, I don't think the US will do anything about it, it's just a bit funny considering how Russia is always talking about the US escalating things (indirectly) and they attack a US Military aircraft. What they did is really not any different than shooting it down with a missile. They were clearly trying to take it down.
No question they were trying to take it down. Firing a weapon is a very deliberate act, and very tough to downplay, but a collision opens the door to plausible deniability. It gives them the opportunity to shrug it off as a simple accident ("Oops. We bump.") or even to play the victim ("Drone make sudden turn. Is your fault for flying close to us. Where we send bill to fix airplane?")
Probably drunk russian pilots.
DarkMonohue said:aircooled said:Yeah, I don't think the US will do anything about it, it's just a bit funny considering how Russia is always talking about the US escalating things (indirectly) and they attack a US Military aircraft. What they did is really not any different than shooting it down with a missile. They were clearly trying to take it down.
No question they were trying to take it down. Firing a weapon is a very deliberate act, and very tough to downplay, but a collision opens the door to plausible deniability. It gives them the opportunity to shrug it off as a simple accident ("Oops. We bump.") or even to play the victim ("Drone make sudden turn. Is your fault for flying close to us. Where we send bill to fix airplane?")
Yep, this. You arm, uncage, and trigger the weapon, that's on you. You run into something that just happens to be flying in the same chunk of sky you happen to be currently occupying? That's totally an accident. Million to one shot, doc, million to one....
The Tu-22 carried up to 450 litres of pure grain alcohol to service its hydraulic and de-icing systems. The ground crews, who predictably drank a lot of it, nicknamed the Tu-22 the 'booze carrier'
Apparently a pretty horrible plane to fly BTW.
The big advantage to a UAV is there's no delicate, expensive meat ballast onboard. So yeah, "fight" it if you think that's going to give a tactical advantage.
You wanna stick the nose of an expensive jet fighter in the spinning Cuisinart on the back? Sure, just don't complain when shrapnel gets sucked into both your jet intakes.
I'm actually happy that a Russian jet didn't go down in the black sea with the loss of aircrew, because that would have been an attack by a hostile American combat aircraft.
Apparently the US has a video..... to be released soon.
aircooled said:Apparently the US has a video..... to be released soon.
I was wondering about that. I mean, it's a surveillance drone. It's likely going to have cameras pointed in almost every direction. Should be interesting to see the actions the Russians were taking.
To avoid the possibility of "escalation" equip the Predators with a few gallons of blue and yellow paint, and a gallon of fart spray making the skunk variant. Much hilarity should ensue.
Rons said:To avoid the possibility of "escalation" equip the Predators with a few gallons of blue and yellow paint, and a gallon of fart spray making the skunk variant. Much hilarity should ensue.
Much better than my idea of the drone exploding on contact. An exploding drone would just become "you shot down our plane".
Noddaz said:Rons said:To avoid the possibility of "escalation" equip the Predators with a few gallons of blue and yellow paint, and a gallon of fart spray making the skunk variant. Much hilarity should ensue.
Much better than my idea of the drone exploding on contact. An exploding drone would just become "you shot down our plane".
I'd think a drone would have a self-destruct charge for sensitive tech...
DarkMonohue said:It gives them the opportunity...to play the victim ("Drone make sudden turn. Is your fault for flying close to us. Where we send bill to fix airplane?")
And in a complete surprise to nobody at all:
Source: AP News: What's known and not about US drone-Russian jet encounter
Noddaz said:Rons said:To avoid the possibility of "escalation" equip the Predators with a few gallons of blue and yellow paint, and a gallon of fart spray making the skunk variant. Much hilarity should ensue.
Much better than my idea of the drone exploding on contact. An exploding drone would just become "you shot down our plane".
Wouldn't that just be a missile?
Interesting how wide a berth commercial aviation is giving the conflict zone. Nobody wants any of that action. Checking Google earth, it looks like they're giving Crimea about a 250 km buffer.
I wonder what wizardry the US has in the Javelin that makes it not care about Russian tank netting which the Lancet doesn't have.
tuna55 said:
I wonder what wizardry the US has in the Javelin that makes it not care about Russian tank netting which the Lancet doesn't have.
probably velocity
Most modern anti-tank missiles have a two stage warhead. The first explosives, meant to go off RIGHT before impact, is intended to set off any reactive armor the tank might have (which explodes into the missile, disrupting it), leaving the tank open for the second warhead. In this case the primary explosive would just punch through any covering. If the covering is light enough (like the chain link above), I don't think the missile will even notice it. A light drone of course will just hit the fence.
Also of note is I believe most of these anti-tank explosive are not necessarily contact explosives, they primarily work by shooting a tight spray of molten metal to penetrate the armor. In the old days (all the way back to WWII) these where called HEAT, high explosives anti-tank. Obviously it can't be to far away when it explodes.
As someone noted: "You can tell when China or Russia does something wrong... they blame it on you"
It sounds like the Defense Department is trying to figure out how to declassify the video they have (they don't want them to know what they know or can know)
Some notes on the drone. It is rumored it was carrying a Gorgon Stare pod and potentially ARGUS (which I think is another pod?), which is a pretty high tech surveillance pod although maybe slightly old at this point (but maybe upgraded?)
Gorgon Stare is described as a revolutionary intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) technology, made its combat debut in December 2010, flying over undisclosed locations in Afghanistan on board MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Air Force plans to install a wide-area airborne surveillance sensor under its MQ-9 Reapers that lets troops look at more of the battlefield from more angles. Ten of the service's Reapers started getting the sensor in spring 2010.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/gorgon-stare.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems//argus-is.htm
Of note is that the Russian Black sea fleet is scrambling now to recover the wreckage. I am sure they would like a look at that pod (if it didn't self destruct of course).
Of note on the escalation front. If the Russians are going to harass and potentially shoot down these drones in international airspace, the US is likely to escort them in the future with fighters...
aircooled said:Of note on the escalation front. If the Russians are going to harass and potentially shoot down these drones in international airspace, the US is likely to escort them in the future with fighters...
oh please please please please can we get another F22 "you guys should go home" moment...
aircooled said:Of note on the escalation front. If the Russians are going to harass and potentially shoot down these drones in international airspace, the US is likely to escort them in the future with fighters...
I don't think so. One of the big advantages of drones is endurance on-station, so to keep up an escort you'd need either relays of fighters or a tanker nearby. I don't think there's much argument for sustaining the cost and hours on the airframes, particularly given the relatively low number of aircraft the USAF operates these days. It also needlessly ramps up the possibility of escalation for no real gain. The US didn't escort its recon ships during the Cold War (even vulnerable prop-driven stuff) in spite of numerous shoot-downs; I don't see them starting now.
You'll need to log in to post.
