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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't this be a false flag attack by the Ukrainians to push the US into war ? They still have some Su-27.
And if they didn't use missiles, maybe it's because they were short of them ? :)
No to your first question.
Russia has admitted two Russian Su-27s were involved in the incident. Russia denies physical contact between its aircraft and the downed Reaper.
Most likely it was the most dreaded of all pilot states in aviation, the "Hey, watch this!"
That ^
 
Last edited:
Not a WW3 initiator methinks
I hope...

We managed not to go to war with Iran (just barely) when they downed an RQ-4 back in 2019. And the folks in charge back then wanted a war with Iran much, much more than the folks in charge now want a war with Russia. Ultimately, the US is unlikely to kick off WW3 over the loss of an unmanned drone, intentional or not.
 
Speaking on state television, Russian security council secretary Nikolai Patrushev confirmed Moscow was attempting to find the aircraft.

"I don't know whether we'll be able to retrieve it or not but it has to be done. And we will certainly work on it," Mr Patrushev said.

Senior Washington official John Kirby said the US also wanted to locate the aircraft, but stressed that if Russia beat them to it, "their ability to exploit useful intelligence will be highly minimised".

Speaking to ABC America's morning news program, Good Morning America, he added that there were logistical challenges as it crashed in "very deep water".
Black Sea depth contour chart from https://map.openseamap.org/, depth in metres.
 

Attachments

  • Black Sea near Sevastopol.png
    Black Sea near Sevastopol.png
    629.2 KB · Views: 24
Wouldn't this be a false flag attack by the Ukrainians to push the US into war ? They still have some Su-27.
And if they didn't use missiles, maybe it's because they were short of them ? :)
If Ukraine was able to fly Su-27s out that far into the Black Sea at that altitude, there wouldn't be a Black Sea Fleet to recover the drone, and I'm sure the origin of the aircraft would have been detected by AEW.
 
The absolute state of the Russian Air Force. They struggle to gain air superiority over a smaller, weaker nation equipped with ‘80s vintage aircraft, can’t do basic SEAD/DEAD against outdated versions of their own air defenses, and are now accidentally crashing into large, subsonic drones. I almost feel 2nd hand embarrassment.
"We are spending more than a million dollars to disable a balloon, and Russia is shooting down a million-dollar drone without firing a shot, and the Pentagon describes this as a "lack of competence." - end quote
 
Wouldn't this be a false flag attack by the Ukrainians to push the US into war ? They still have some Su-27.
And if they didn't use missiles, maybe it's because they were short of them ? :)
If Ukraine was able to fly Su-27s out that far into the Black Sea at that altitude, there wouldn't be a Black Sea Fleet to recover the drone, and I'm sure the origin of the aircraft would have been detected by AEW.

I think we can stop talking about that notion, given that the Russians are openly talking about the event, just denying the actual collision.
 
I think we can stop talking about that notion, given that the Russians are openly talking about the event, just denying the actual collision.
My only question is whether Putin ordered this accident? It would be a brave pilot to carry out such an action minus an order, open windows have attacked people for less.
 
"We are spending more than a million dollars to disable a balloon, and Russia is shooting down a million-dollar drone without firing a shot, and the Pentagon describes this as a "lack of competence." - end quote
Certainly implies a lack of competence if Russian missile tech is still so unreliable that ramming things with fighter jets is still the preferred mode of engagement.

I thought that went out of fashion in the early 80s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Armenia_mid-air_collision
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't a Su-27 worth a lot more than an MQ-9? Especially to the Russians at this particular point in time?

Also, isn't it the case that most of the really damaging (from Russia's perspective) intelligence gathering/sharing is happening from long range radar platforms and satellites? A single MQ-9 isn't likely that important.

I find it very hard to believe that the collision was intentional. Harassment was probably intentional... trying to mire optics or get the MQ-9 to change course is definitely plausible... but deliberately ramming it with a Su-27... not as much... I'm honestly a bit shocked that anyone would assume that.
 
"We are spending more than a million dollars to disable a balloon, and Russia is shooting down a million-dollar drone without firing a shot, and the Pentagon describes this as a "lack of competence." - end quote
Certainly implies a lack of competence if Russian missile tech is still so unreliable that ramming things with fighter jets is still the preferred mode of engagement.

I thought that went out of fashion in the early 80s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Armenia_mid-air_collision
I think the Russian air force didn’t want to waste a missile on the drone.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't a Su-27 worth a lot more than an MQ-9? Especially to the Russians at this particular point in time?
Not really, their air force hasn't been effective overall, except at getting shot down.

Is there a reliable source for number of aircraft downed on both sides?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't a Su-27 worth a lot more than an MQ-9? Especially to the Russians at this particular point in time?
Not really, their air force hasn't been effective overall, except at getting shot down.

That line of thinking still makes it recklessness or poor training more plausible than an intentional ramming attack.
 
I think the Russian air force didn’t want to waste a missile on the drone.

Shooting down an American drone with a missile would be harder to explain as 'unintentional' or as 'accidental' or as 'it didn´t happen at all'.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't a Su-27 worth a lot more than an MQ-9? Especially to the Russians at this particular point in time?
Not really, their air force hasn't been effective overall, except at getting shot down.

Is there a reliable source for number of aircraft downed on both sides?
This seems unlikely to me. When we know that some of the victories of the Vietnam war (or even older) are still controversial, we should not expect to get anything reliable now.
When we know that on April 4, 1965, the US claimed a probable victory and the Vietnamese declared having lost 3 aircraft in air combat...
 
Is there a reliable source for number of aircraft downed on both sides?
No, but it's fairly clear that neither side has air superiority (because the war is still going) and there are definitely lots of downed Russian aircraft. At least 71 lost:


Aircraft (79, of which destroyed: 71, damaged: 8)​

 
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.
 
During the weeks preceding the 'D-Day', launched a desperate offensive against the V-1 launch sites and storage buildings built between Cherbourg and Calais. Using all available aircraft, capable of carrying bombs or rockets, they were able to destroy a 25 per cent of the facilities, delaying the release of the first missiles until a week after the Normandy landings.

The British defences had been continually reinforced since 1940. During the weeks preceding the 'D-Day' they consisted of 100 radar stations, some 2,000 barrage balloons and 2,729 anti-aircraft guns shooting proximity-fuse shells. Many batteries located between Dover and Hastings were equipped with a predictor fire-control radar system.

To face the 'robot offensive' the defences of the 'Operation Diver' was formed by four lines: long range fighters, operated from the southeast of England to near the French coast; the anti-aircraft artillery located in the south coast of England; the area between the coast and London, covered by high performance interceptors and the urban areas protected by balloons barrages.

The aerodynamic drag of the V-1 airframe was higher than anticipated, due to low standards of manufacturing, decreasing from projected 900 km/h to the real 640 km/h. Fortunately for the Allies this made the new missile susceptible to be intercepted by conventional fighters.

In the outward perimeter operated the Mustangs Mk.III of Squadrons 129, 306 (Polish), 313 (Polish) and the Mosquitoes FB Mk VI of the 418th Canadian Squadron. By night, Mosquitoes NF. Mk VII of Squadrons 29 and 465 (Australian), the NF. Mk XII of the 488th Sqn (New Zealander), the NF. Mk XIII of Squadrons 96, 264 and 409 (Canadian), the NF. Mk XVII of the 125th Sqn, the NF. Mk XVIII of the Squadrons 25 and 68, the NF. Mk XIX of the 157th Sqn and the Northrop P-61 Black Widows of American Squadrons the 422nd and 425th took part in the operations.

The Spitfires Mk IX of Squadrons 1, 165, 274, 453 (Australian) and 610, Spitfires Mk XV of the 41st Sqn, Tempests Mk V of the Squadrons 3, 56, 80, 274, 486 (New Zealander) and 501 and Meteors Mk I jet fighters of the 616th Squadron operated in the inner area.

The V-1 had a reduced frontal area equivalent to half of the Bf 109, an engine with the diameter of a dish, a mechanic pilot fitted in a shoe box and a steel airframe. It was very difficult to shoot down. As they were camouflaged, it was very difficult to distinguish them from the landscape when over land. Over sea and at low altitude, the estimated height over the surface in diving attack left very little margin to the pilots. By night, the outburst of the pulsejet was visible from 24 km and gave false range measurements. Some Mosquito pilots, dazzled by the shine, shot from 100 m and one lucky P-61 survived the blast of a V-1 just 46 metres from its nose.

Flying at 725 km/h, a Tempest had just two seconds to dodge the debris produced by the explosion of the V-1 which had just shot from 275 m. Some pilots preferred to cross the centre of the explosion where there was less shrapnel, but the inflamed fuel affected the engine, the paint and the fabric covered control surfaces. To avoid this, a Mosquito FB VI of the 418 Squadron destroyed a V-1 by simply cutting the missile trajectory and putting it out of control with the trail turbulence. On the contrary, a Meteor of the 616th Squadron stroke the missile wing with the fighter wingtip, decontrolling the gyroscopes. This technique, called 'Tipping', required speed and piloting ability and was only used on 17 occasions.

For the Spitfires the game was even more dangerous, due to its lower structural resistance. They used to start the attack with a dive to gain speed, moving on to horizontal flight at 230 m behind the missile to be able to shoot it. The calculation of relative speeds was complicated, and some pilots died when firing from a too short distance.

It was necessary to modify the fighters to make them fast enough to intercept the V-1. Some Tempests and Spitfires Mk XIV were tuned to operate at 11 and 25 psi boost pressures; the Mustang III changed their exhaust by those of the Spitfire engine that generated less drag; the P-47 M Thunderbolts, with 2,800 hp war emergency power boosted engines, were modified halving its armament and fuel capacity and the armour plates were also stripped. To reduce the drag on some Spitfires, wingtips, rear view mirrors and armoured glass windscreens were replaced by those of the P.R. versions of curved type. The camouflage paint was also removed to gain some speed. During the 'Operation Diver', between June 1944 and March 1945, sixteen squads of interceptors used the new aviation fuel '150 grade' produced in the USA. Out of the 3,957 V-1 destroyed during the 'robot war', 1,785 were shot down by fighters.
 

Attachments

  • 062.jpeg
    062.jpeg
    541.4 KB · Views: 15
  • 063.jpeg
    063.jpeg
    339.6 KB · Views: 13
  • 064.jpeg
    064.jpeg
    394.1 KB · Views: 19
During the demolition of the Desford Airfield hangars, it was discovered one schematic arrangement for returning pilotless aircraft. The 11 June 1944 print shows a plan for fitting Spitfires LF Mk XIVe with a device for capturing V-1 flying bombs, turning them round and releasing them in the opposite direction. There is no record of it ever having been attempted.



It would be a great propaganda success for the Russians if they managed to capture a spy robot using a similar method. And funny news about this stupid war, for a change.
 

Attachments

  • 124.jpg
    124.jpg
    630.1 KB · Views: 20
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...).
 
During the demolition of the Desford Airfield hangars, it was discovered one schematic arrangement for returning pilotless aircraft. The 11 June 1944 print shows a plan for fitting Spitfires LF Mk XIVe with a device for capturing V-1 flying bombs, turning them round and releasing them in the opposite direction. There is no record of it ever having been attempted.



It would be a great propaganda success for the Russians if they managed to capture a spy robot using a similar method. And funny news about this stupid war, for a change.
Justo,
Interesting, '44 equivalent of making explosive-laden drones revert to RTB mode, but
a) is that the original drawing?
b) If so, was it prepared by an American?

Reminds me of the mad Miles Rammer

Thanks

Chris
 
where's paralay when I need him to make sense of putin's masterplan in all of this?
 
So conundrum. Suppose there is no response this time, what happens next time?

In October 2022, a RAF RC-135W was involved in an incident where a Su-27 "accidentally " released a missile, the consequence being subsequent Rivet Joint flights were escorted by Typhoons.
So the logical answer would be to escort the MQ-9 too? Or equip them with Sidewinder as a deterrence?
If you escort a "drone" then theres no point in sending a drone.....
 
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...).
Indeed, NATO's support for ukraine has long gone past the limits of reasonable "Neutrality". By WWI standards this is equal to direct particiation of War. And that's even before they started giving out for "free" military equipment....
 
During the demolition of the Desford Airfield hangars, it was discovered one schematic arrangement for returning pilotless aircraft. The 11 June 1944 print shows a plan for fitting Spitfires LF Mk XIVe with a device for capturing V-1 flying bombs, turning them round and releasing them in the opposite direction. There is no record of it ever having been attempted.



It would be a great propaganda success for the Russians if they managed to capture a spy robot using a similar method. And funny news about this stupid war, for a change.
Justo,
Interesting, '44 equivalent of making explosive-laden drones revert to RTB mode, but
a) is that the original drawing?
b) If so, was it prepared by an American?

Reminds me of the mad Miles Rammer

Thanks

Chris


Unknown source.

It is probably an original drawing but I have no more information.
 
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...).
Indeed, NATO's support for ukraine has long gone past the limits of reasonable "Neutrality". By WWI standards this is equal to direct particiation of War. And that's even before they started giving out for "free" military equipment....
NATO's intervention in a region that was Soviet territory during the Cold War seems to me to be a dangerous political manoeuvre, unless both sides agree to keep a senseless war going solely for the purpose of justifying the existence of totally obsolete military organizations.
 
During the demolition of the Desford Airfield hangars, it was discovered one schematic arrangement for returning pilotless aircraft. The 11 June 1944 print shows a plan for fitting Spitfires LF Mk XIVe with a device for capturing V-1 flying bombs, turning them round and releasing them in the opposite direction. There is no record of it ever having been attempted.
Justo,
Interesting, '44 equivalent of making explosive-laden drones revert to RTB mode, but
a) is that the original drawing?
b) If so, was it prepared by an American?

Reminds me of the mad Miles Rammer

Thanks

Chris


Unknown source.

It is probably an original drawing but I have no more information.
Ta,

Perhaps the other draughtspeople and engineers on the forum can ponder this? The only folk I've encountered who refer to what I call 'drawings' as 'schematics' are Americans and oilfield folk (usually due to working with or for Americans). First time I was asked for a schematic, I hadn't a clue what the bloke was on about! Please feel free to correct this assumption.

Could that be a clue to that drawing's provenance? But Desford and a Spitfire, in 1944, two days before the offensive began?

Perhaps this needs its own thread because it is verrrry interesssssting.

Chris
 
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?
 
The following is a summary of the video:
00:00: [Start of video] A Russian Su-27 approaches to the rear of the U.S. Air Force MQ-9.
00:05: A Russian Su-27 begins to release fuel as it passes.
00:09 A Russian Su-27 passes over the U.S. Air Force MQ-9 while releasing fuel. As the Su-27 passes over the top of the MQ-9, it also disrupts the video transmission.
00:11: The propeller of the U.S. Air Force MQ-9 can be seen and remains undamaged.
00:22: A Russian Su-27 begins a second approach toward the MQ-9.
00:27: A Russian Su-27 begins to release fuel on the approach toward the
MQ-9. The Su-27 proceeds to pass even closer.
00:29: A Russian Su-27 collides with the MQ-9 and the MQ-9's camera feed is lost for approximately 60 seconds.
00:39: The MQ-9's camera feed has returned to working order. At this time the propeller can be seen again and one of the props can be seen damaged.
00:42: [End of video]
MQ-9 Su-27.jpg
 
1. Use a missile or gun, definite act of aggression/war.

2. Ooops, we just hit the drone while attempting to prevent inteligence gathering.

Which is more useful in terms of deniability?
 
It is interesting to see how these Su-27 are armed: 2 R-27R between the engines, 2 R-27T and 2 R-73 under the wings. Nothing in wingtips. In short a light configuration.
Su27-MQ9-Black-sea.png
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom