Russian jet collides with U.S. Reaper drone over Black Sea - drone crashes

Status
Not open for further replies.
collision with what? with fuel?
As we are all fully aware, flying that close will always increase risk of collision, with or without intent and it is quite likely more than fuel was involved in that collision. It is possible to say it was an accidental collision rather than intentional.
Firing a missile or gun is a definite cognitive act.
 
collision with what? with fuel?
As we are all fully aware, flying that close will always increase risk of collision, with or without intent and it is quite likely more than fuel was involved in that collision. It is possible to say it was an accidental collision rather than intentional.
Firing a missile or gun is a definite cognitive act.
I would say accidental, the jet su27 is way faster than the prop powered MQ 9, moreover the propeller is turning at high speed will damage either the nose cone which is also the radar cone, or other parts of the fuelslage that will seriously damage internal modules or break the aerodynamic surfaces, resulting in a loss of aircraft.
I would rather suggest the ways of a chinese interception of australian reconnaissance drone, you drop chaff infront of the aircraft and chaff will be "accidentally“ inhaled into the engine, forcing it to return to base, nevertheless this might still be deadly for a single engined aircraft.
 
Indeed, NATO's support for ukraine has long gone past the limits of reasonable "Neutrality".

Getting well into the "mods gonna drop the hammer" zone, but does this excessive NATO support pre- or post-date the Russian invasion of Georgia and Crimea/eastern Ukraine?
Im saying about the current military operation, which also refers to the mentioned part of NATO intelligence played in the sinking of Moscow. Instead of sending humanitarian aid and civilian equipment like THE asian major does, sending weapons and intel will certainly be an act of agent warfare.

I dont wish to mentioned the roles that NATO intellegence services played before this conflict, but you might want to look for what has happened during the orange revolution, and what agreements the previous gov, was about to sign with whom, if you link this together with the abrupt shift of attitudes you can have a sense that something is off.
 
The bent propeller hints at hitting something much more solid than a fuel dump. Unless Russia's Su-27s use coal for fuel.
Only for their carrier (singular)
 
Considering the angle at which the Su-27 approached the MQ-9; to hit MQ-9's propeller it will also have hit at least one of the V-tail halves. Just an observation...
 
From the Russian's perspective... ;)
:D
 

Attachments

  • Drone1.png
    Drone1.png
    625.8 KB · Views: 37
  • Drone2.jpg
    Drone2.jpg
    760.7 KB · Views: 36
Either way you lean pro or anti Russian conduct, the collision can be brushed off with "It was accidental". A missile launch or gunfire cannot, those are premedidated acts of aggression. Easy to see which way the Russians would prefer things to be seen as.
 
Either way you lean pro or anti Russian conduct, the collision can be brushed off with "It was accidental". A missile launch or gunfire cannot, those are premedidated acts of aggression. Easy to see which way the Russians would prefer things to be seen as.
It does show up as (yet another) lie the Russian line yesterday that there was no collision and the drone fell into the sea after sharp manoeuvring
 
Aerial Ramming​



In 1915, the Russians Alexander Kazakov and Piotr Nesterov, piloting Morane Saulnier Type G scout airplanes, managed to bring down two Austro-Hungarian Albatross B-IIs by the method of ramming. This fighting tactic received such publicity that during the 20s and 30s the intentional ramming of another aircraft was considered a heroic action, especially among Soviet pilots who called it Taran.



During the Spanish Civil War, Republican fighters Nieuport Ni.52 and Polikarpov I-15 performed ramming against Nationalist Fiat CR.32, Savoia SM.81 and Junkers Ju 52 /3m.



In 1938, on the Khalkhin-Gol border, Polikarpov Soviet fighters of the I-152, I-153 and I-16 types exchanged ramming attacks with Nakajima Ki-27 of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA).



At the outbreak of the Second World War, on September 1, 1939, a PZL P.11c Polish fighter rammed a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 B near Warsaw.



During the Winter War between Finland and the USSR, a Fiat G.50 rammed a Soviet bomber over Tampere and a Fokker D.XXI rammed an I-16 over Mansikkala; two Finnish Brewster 239 were rammed by a I-153 and a Yak-7A; a Morane Saulnier MS-406 by a Soviet Hurricane Mk.IIb and two Finnish Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2 by two I-153s.



By mid-June 1940, Italian airplanes attacked some French air bases and, during combat, a Bloch MB 151 fighter of the Aéronavale rammed a Fiat CR.42 over Cuers airfield.

During the Battle of Britain, the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I fighters of the Royal Air Force brought down two Dornier Do 17s, two Messerschmitt Bf 109 E, a Junkers Ju 88, a Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-2 and Fiat CR. 42 by ramming; two Spitfires rammed two Bf 109 E and a transport airplane of the Avro Anson Mk.I type rammed a German bomber Heinkel He 111.



In November 1940, two Greek P.Z.L. P.24g fighters rammed two Italian bombers Cant Z.1007 bis.



In April 1941, three Yugoslavian fighters of the Hawker Fury Mk.II type rammed two Messerschmitt Bf 110s and a Bf 109 of the Luftwaffe, over Rezanovacka airfield. During the Second World War, Soviet aircraft of I-152, I-153, I-16, MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7A, Yak-9, LaGG-3, La-5 FN, Su-2M-82, R-5, IL-2, SB-2M-103, Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIb, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V, Curtiss P-40 and Bell P-39 types rammed between 270 and 636 German and Romanian aircraft, as stated by different sources.



In August 1941, two Romanian fighters P.Z.L. P.11f and I.A.R. 80A rammed a Soviet I-153 and an I-16 over Vakarjani.



On December, two Japanese fighters Nakajima Ki.43 were rammed by an Australian Brewster B-339E and a Curtiss P-40C of the AVG over Kuala Lumpur and Mingaladon. In 1942, a Douglas SBD dive bomber of the U.S. Navy rammed a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero fighter of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the Battle of Coral Sea. On October 25, a fighter Grumman F4F-4 rammed another Zero over Guadalcanal. By the end of December, a Ki.43 of the IJA was rammed by a US photo-reconnaissance airplane of the type Lockheed P-38 F-5 over New Guinea. In 1943, another Ki.43 was rammed by a Curtiss P-40N, and in December of the following year, a Mustang F-6C photo-recce rammed another Japanese fighter over China.



In Tunisia, a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-4 / Trop was rammed by a Spitfire Mk.Vc of the U.S.A.A.F. in March 1943.



Two P-47D Thunderbolt fighters rammed one Focke Wulf Fw 190 A-8 over Germany, on May 13, 1944, and a Messerschmitt Me 410 on July 7.



In December 1943 and April 1944 two Bulgarian fighters Bf 109 G-2 rammed an American B-17 and a B-24 over Sofia and Dolni Passarel.



On May 10, 1945, a Corsair FG-1 of the USMC rammed a Kawasaki Ki.45 of the IJN at a high altitude over Okinawa Island.



During the Second World War, the Japanese planes of Ki.27, Ki.43, Ki.44, Ki.45, Ki.46, Ki.61, Ki.84, Ki.100, A6M, F1M, B5N, J1N and N1K2 types managed to bring down one Blenheim, one Beaufighter and a Hurricane Mk.II of the Royal Air Force, an SBD and FG-1D of the U.S. Navy, a P-38, a P-40, a P-47, a B-25, five B-17s, eight B-24s and fifty-seven B-29s of the U.S.A.A.F.



The ramming sometimes happened accidentally, due to miscalculation of distances by the pilot of the attacking aircraft, or because the pilot had been injured or killed by the defensive fire of the attacked aircraft. At other times, it was a desperate measure consequence to the malfunction of arms in a conventional attack made from behind. The impact used to occur at low speed because both aircraft were flying in the same direction, with the propeller of the attacking plane acting as a circular saw on the tail surfaces of the attacked plane. The rammer usually suffered damages in the propeller, engine bearings and engine cowling and the survival rate of the pilot used to exceed 50% with a good chance of making a glide landing.
 
Culpable, not necessarily intentional. Could be a deliberate close pass that was misjudged, as this researcher suggests. I mean, the fuel dump certainly suggest they wanted to impair the drone, but not necessarily destroy it.

Deliberately "impairing" someone else´s aircraft in international airspace is an intentional act of aggression.
So is active tracking, provision of target coordinates and real time update of target coordinates to inbound active AShM missiles by US PC-8 Poseidon (think Moskva...).

Please prove the U.S. or NATO is not just providing military intelligence to Ukraine, but they´re also actively guiding Ukrainian missiles or other weapons to their targets. Then please also prove Russia (or the Soviet-Union) never provided (somewhat) secretly intelligence and/or assistance with weapons-guidance to whoever the U.S. and/or it´s allies were fighting a military conflict or a war with.
 
Culpable, not necessarily intentional. Could be a deliberate close pass that was misjudged, as this researcher suggests. I mean, the fuel dump certainly suggest they wanted to impair the drone, but not necessarily destroy it.

Deliberately "impairing" someone else´s aircraft in international airspace is an intentional act of aggression.
So is active tracking, provision of target coordinates and real time update of target coordinates to inbound active AShM missiles by US PC-8 Poseidon (think Moskva...).

Please prove the U.S. or NATO is not just providing military intelligence to Ukraine, but they´re also actively guiding Ukrainian missiles or other weapons to their targets. Then please also prove Russia (or the Soviet-Union) never provided (somewhat) secretly intelligence and/or assistance with weapons-guidance to whoever the U.S. and/or it´s allies were fighting a military conflict or a war with.
Please prove otherwise..!
 
Please prove the U.S. or NATO is not just providing military intelligence to Ukraine, but they´re also actively guiding Ukrainian missiles or other weapons to their targets. Then please also prove Russia (or the Soviet-Union) never provided (somewhat) secretly intelligence and/or assistance with weapons-guidance to whoever the U.S. and/or it´s allies were fighting a military conflict or a war with.
Russia and the Soviet Union are not the same thing.
During the Korean War, the United States had used as a pretext to fly over the USSR with RB-45 and Canberra, the undeclared cobelligerence of the URSS in the conflict.
Today, it is difficult to say that according to the laws of war, NATO is not in cobelligerence with Ukraine.
How do you call "supplying weapons to a nation in war" ?
Forgive me these links in French.:)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSC03_hQ-U4
 
Last edited:
Anyway, NATO should have ceased to exist at the same time as the Warsaw Pact. Alone, NATO becomes a threat, because it is too powerful. The same would have been true for the Warsaw Pact if NATO had collapsed.
In my opinion the pressure of NATO seeks a new Afghanistan and a new economic collapse of Russia, it already went well once. But if this policy fails we will have a long war of no benefit to anyone and the fate of Europe may depend on the least stable leader. Perhaps the Russian leaders are not willing to lose this time and decide to break the game in the worst way. Perhaps American leaders want to create a situation where Europeans NEED protection... and charge for it. Our economy is better than yours.

I don't want a long war to eat up my pension.
 
This time, Russian leaders are absolutely confident that they will not only win in Ukraine, but also destroy the United States. NATO will collapse on its own
By 2028, the political map of the world will change dramatically
It doesn't take a war to destroy the United States, just let them destroy themselves, they've been doing very well since 1968. On the contrary, if they feel threatened, they may initiate reforms that will lead them to a new golden age.
 
This thread should be closed IIMHO.
Many here cannot seem to exercise any personal discipline.
And already jibes thrown at a member who adds value.
It always features the same members attempting to reopen this thread type up by stealth. (Not directed at the topic starter)

All the sophistication of a kindergarten.
 
Aerial Ramming​



In 1915, the Russians Alexander Kazakov and Piotr Nesterov, piloting Morane Saulnier Type G scout airplanes, managed to bring down two Austro-Hungarian Albatross B-IIs by the method of ramming. This fighting tactic received such publicity that during the 20s and 30s the intentional ramming of another aircraft was considered a heroic action, especially among Soviet pilots who called it Taran.



During the Spanish Civil War, Republican fighters Nieuport Ni.52 and Polikarpov I-15 performed ramming against Nationalist Fiat CR.32, Savoia SM.81 and Junkers Ju 52 /3m.



In 1938, on the Khalkhin-Gol border, Polikarpov Soviet fighters of the I-152, I-153 and I-16 types exchanged ramming attacks with Nakajima Ki-27 of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA).



At the outbreak of the Second World War, on September 1, 1939, a PZL P.11c Polish fighter rammed a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 B near Warsaw.



During the Winter War between Finland and the USSR, a Fiat G.50 rammed a Soviet bomber over Tampere and a Fokker D.XXI rammed an I-16 over Mansikkala; two Finnish Brewster 239 were rammed by a I-153 and a Yak-7A; a Morane Saulnier MS-406 by a Soviet Hurricane Mk.IIb and two Finnish Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2 by two I-153s.



By mid-June 1940, Italian airplanes attacked some French air bases and, during combat, a Bloch MB 151 fighter of the Aéronavale rammed a Fiat CR.42 over Cuers airfield.

During the Battle of Britain, the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I fighters of the Royal Air Force brought down two Dornier Do 17s, two Messerschmitt Bf 109 E, a Junkers Ju 88, a Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-2 and Fiat CR. 42 by ramming; two Spitfires rammed two Bf 109 E and a transport airplane of the Avro Anson Mk.I type rammed a German bomber Heinkel He 111.



In November 1940, two Greek P.Z.L. P.24g fighters rammed two Italian bombers Cant Z.1007 bis.



In April 1941, three Yugoslavian fighters of the Hawker Fury Mk.II type rammed two Messerschmitt Bf 110s and a Bf 109 of the Luftwaffe, over Rezanovacka airfield. During the Second World War, Soviet aircraft of I-152, I-153, I-16, MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7A, Yak-9, LaGG-3, La-5 FN, Su-2M-82, R-5, IL-2, SB-2M-103, Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIb, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V, Curtiss P-40 and Bell P-39 types rammed between 270 and 636 German and Romanian aircraft, as stated by different sources.



In August 1941, two Romanian fighters P.Z.L. P.11f and I.A.R. 80A rammed a Soviet I-153 and an I-16 over Vakarjani.



On December, two Japanese fighters Nakajima Ki.43 were rammed by an Australian Brewster B-339E and a Curtiss P-40C of the AVG over Kuala Lumpur and Mingaladon. In 1942, a Douglas SBD dive bomber of the U.S. Navy rammed a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero fighter of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the Battle of Coral Sea. On October 25, a fighter Grumman F4F-4 rammed another Zero over Guadalcanal. By the end of December, a Ki.43 of the IJA was rammed by a US photo-reconnaissance airplane of the type Lockheed P-38 F-5 over New Guinea. In 1943, another Ki.43 was rammed by a Curtiss P-40N, and in December of the following year, a Mustang F-6C photo-recce rammed another Japanese fighter over China.



In Tunisia, a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-4 / Trop was rammed by a Spitfire Mk.Vc of the U.S.A.A.F. in March 1943.



Two P-47D Thunderbolt fighters rammed one Focke Wulf Fw 190 A-8 over Germany, on May 13, 1944, and a Messerschmitt Me 410 on July 7.



In December 1943 and April 1944 two Bulgarian fighters Bf 109 G-2 rammed an American B-17 and a B-24 over Sofia and Dolni Passarel.



On May 10, 1945, a Corsair FG-1 of the USMC rammed a Kawasaki Ki.45 of the IJN at a high altitude over Okinawa Island.



During the Second World War, the Japanese planes of Ki.27, Ki.43, Ki.44, Ki.45, Ki.46, Ki.61, Ki.84, Ki.100, A6M, F1M, B5N, J1N and N1K2 types managed to bring down one Blenheim, one Beaufighter and a Hurricane Mk.II of the Royal Air Force, an SBD and FG-1D of the U.S. Navy, a P-38, a P-40, a P-47, a B-25, five B-17s, eight B-24s and fifty-seven B-29s of the U.S.A.A.F.



The ramming sometimes happened accidentally, due to miscalculation of distances by the pilot of the attacking aircraft, or because the pilot had been injured or killed by the defensive fire of the attacked aircraft. At other times, it was a desperate measure consequence to the malfunction of arms in a conventional attack made from behind. The impact used to occur at low speed because both aircraft were flying in the same direction, with the propeller of the attacking plane acting as a circular saw on the tail surfaces of the attacked plane. The rammer usually suffered damages in the propeller, engine bearings and engine cowling and the survival rate of the pilot used to exceed 50% with a good chance of making a glide landing.

There was also a case of a Soviet bomber ramming a German bomber during Barbarossa... it might have been an accidental collision, but it was interpreted as a desperate attempt to disrupt the enemy bombing of the airfield. I think I recall it being mentioned in one of the famous 'lend-lease interviews' that were published a while back.
 
By the League of Nation's own rules, and then it's successor the United Nations (UN), any country (A) who supplies another country at war (B) with anything other then food or raw products (Iron, copper, coal etc), automatically declares war against that countries enemy (C). Even supplying medical items are included as declaring an act of war, as these have the ability to place country 'B's' troops back into action against country 'C'.

So we are technically in a 3rd World War according to the UN's own rules and definitions of a World War (4 or more countries involved at the same time), as the US, UK and many other countries have long since absolutley declared war against Russia with their huge supply of high end weapon systems and many other forms of help to Ukraine.

AFAIC - Russia from the very early days of their invasion (yes it is that), was and is fighting against a lot of the West's special forces, embedded within Ukraine. Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').
 
By the League of Nation's own rules, and then it's successor the United Nations (UN), any country (A) who supplies another country at war (B) with anything other then food or raw products (Iron, copper, coal etc), automatically declares war against that countries enemy (C). Even supplying medical items are included as declaring an act of war, as these have the ability to place country 'B's' troops back into action against country 'C'.

So we are technically in a 3rd World War according to the UN's own rules and definitions of a World War (4 or more countries involved at the same time), as the US, UK and many other countries have long since absolutley declared war against Russia with their huge supply of high end weapon systems and many other forms of help to Ukraine.

AFAIC - Russia from the very early days of their invasion (yes it is that), was and is fighting against a lot of the West's special forces, embedded within Ukraine. Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').
By that logic, Korea was the 3rd world war and Vietnam the 4th.
 
Please, the theme of this thread is the crash of a drone due to actions by Russian fighter jets.
It's NOT the raison d'être of NATO, and NOT if behaviour by some countries actually make them
participants in that war, and so on.
Interesting questions indeed, but not to be handled in this forum !
 
Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').

A lot of these weapons don't seem to require all that much expertise and training to operate (the smarts is *inside* the weaponry)... and a Russian tank trundling loudly across an open plain is an *easy* target. A whole lot of the Russian losses have been due less to ingenious tactics than to *stupid* tactics... on the part of the Russians.

This would seem to be kinda what happened here. The Russian pilot tried to be cute, but was either too cocky or insufficiently trained to be able to correctly judge what his aircraft was actually capable of. Neither possibility speaks well of the pilot. Neither speaks well of the military that trained and equipped him. All the evidence indicates that the drone was flying straight and level; all of the blame for the impact goes onto the SU 27 pilot who blundered into it.
 
Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').

A lot of these weapons don't seem to require all that much expertise and training to operate (the smarts is *inside* the weaponry)... and a Russian tank trundling loudly across an open plain is an *easy* target. A whole lot of the Russian losses have been due less to ingenious tactics than to *stupid* tactics... on the part of the Russians.

This would seem to be kinda what happened here. The Russian pilot tried to be cute, but was either too cocky or insufficiently trained to be able to correctly judge what his aircraft was actually capable of. Neither possibility speaks well of the pilot. Neither speaks well of the military that trained and equipped him. All the evidence indicates that the drone was flying straight and level; all of the blame for the impact goes onto the SU 27 pilot who blundered into it.
Agreed, especially with your first paragraph - I should have made that case too - I have also been a little shocked at the Russian's sometime rather silly use or armour and tactics - I'm talking more about many of the more spectacular successes we have seen against the Russians.
 
By the League of Nation's own rules, and then it's successor the United Nations (UN), any country (A) who supplies another country at war (B) with anything other then food or raw products (Iron, copper, coal etc), automatically declares war against that countries enemy (C). Even supplying medical items are included as declaring an act of war, as these have the ability to place country 'B's' troops back into action against country 'C'.

So we are technically in a 3rd World War according to the UN's own rules and definitions of a World War (4 or more countries involved at the same time), as the US, UK and many other countries have long since absolutley declared war against Russia with their huge supply of high end weapon systems and many other forms of help to Ukraine.

AFAIC - Russia from the very early days of their invasion (yes it is that), was and is fighting against a lot of the West's special forces, embedded within Ukraine. Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').
By that logic, Korea was the 3rd world war and Vietnam the 4th.
Yes - you're correct, and you can add a few more - Syria/Iraq/SWA-Angola Border war...etc...etc
 
By the League of Nation's own rules, and then it's successor the United Nations (UN), any country (A) who supplies another country at war (B) with anything other then food or raw products (Iron, copper, coal etc), automatically declares war against that countries enemy (C). Even supplying medical items are included as declaring an act of war, as these have the ability to place country 'B's' troops back into action against country 'C'.

So we are technically in a 3rd World War according to the UN's own rules and definitions of a World War (4 or more countries involved at the same time), as the US, UK and many other countries have long since absolutley declared war against Russia with their huge supply of high end weapon systems and many other forms of help to Ukraine.

AFAIC - Russia from the very early days of their invasion (yes it is that), was and is fighting against a lot of the West's special forces, embedded within Ukraine. Don't think all the expert ambushes, destroying of tanks/troops/AWACs aircraft etc by highly skilled drone operators are always Ukraniane soldiers at work (not to particulaly detract from them, they are certainly highly skilled and capable - just some of the actions seen are highly planned and skilled operations, normally conducted by SF operators, who would need to be very familiar with what is 'Western equipment').
By that logic, Korea was the 3rd world war and Vietnam the 4th.
Yes - you're correct, and you can add a few more - Syria/Iraq/SWA-Angola Border war...etc...etc
Small earthquakes relieve pressure and delay the appearance of the BIG ONE.
 
I have often heard that shooting down a very slow aircraft is a very difficult exercise. Many pilots have lost control of their aircraft by descending below the stall threshold.

In particular a F-94B Durand the Korean War against a Po-2. And a Cuban MiG-21PFM against a PZL-104 during training for the anti-drug operations and infiltration of the Cessna of "Brother to the rescue".
Many highly skilled pilots have collided with their targets during close passes.

Besides, if the goal of the Russians was to shoot down this drone with cannon, I believe that they would have sent an aircraft with a lower stall threshold. (Su-30/35, or MiG-29M2)
 
Last edited:
Either way you lean pro or anti Russian conduct, the collision can be brushed off with "It was accidental". A missile launch or gunfire cannot, those are premedidated acts of aggression. Easy to see which way the Russians would prefer things to be seen as.
With respect is there currently a fighter pilot in the world well trained/ skilled to the extent that their superiors would send them out with orders to intentionally ram another country’s aircraft or drone in a manner to disable/ force to crash and in a manner that would look like an accident/ misjudgment and not in manner that looked intentional and suicidal, and that these superiors would have real confidence in their ability to do so?

And if they do exist what are the odds any of them are Russian given their lower average flight hours versus their Western airforce equivalents?

To me the odds are approx. 99.9 percent that the Russian airforce didn’t send out that Flanker and its pilot to intentionally ram a US drone. And seriously thinking they did is potentially a surrender to essentially irrational conspiratorial thinking that, unfortunately, is increasingly common on this forum and elsewhere.
 
It looks like the SU-27 was trying to "gas" the drone, Pilots get into trouble when fueling around like that. Gotta love it, the human race is truly de-evolving on so many levels.
 
I have often heard that shooting down a very slow aircraft is a very difficult exercise. Many pilots have lost control of their aircraft by descending below the stall threshold.

In particular a F-94B Durand the Korean War against a Po-2. And a Cuban MiG-21PFM against a PZL-104 during training for the anti-drug operations and infiltration of the Cessna of "Brother to the rescue".
Many highly skilled pilots have collided with their targets during close passes.

Besides, if the goal of the Russians was to shoot down this drone, I believe that they would have sent an aircraft with a lower stall threshold. (Su-30/35, or MiG-29M2)

With guns, it can be. With missiles, not so much.
 
Incidents such as this were almost routine during the Cold War with US air crew ending up prisoners in the Soviet Union.
At least the use of UAVs avoids that.
I am reminded that Meteror pilots in WW2 would tip the wings of V1 Doodlebugs to send them off course.
A V-1 is a cruise missile though.
 
To me the odds are approx. 99.9 percent that the Russian airforce didn’t send out that Flanker and its pilot to intentionally ram a US drone. And seriously thinking they did is potentially a surrender to essentially irrational conspiratorial thinking that, unfortunately, is increasingly common on this forum and elsewhere.
The intentions were certainly to down it judging by the video, you simply don't fly like that for any other reason. If someone of any given nationality did that on a civil airliner in their own country, in the US or EU say, they'd face trial and be found guilty with 100% probability.
 
Collision with what, the TRD I ejected into their intakes your honour?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom