quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
"Maverixky, you did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! You don't own that plane! The people of Mother Russia do! Comrade, your ego is writing checkskys your body can't cash!"

You win the interwebs today

NHRacer. I must have rattled you. I mentioned a story the HRK posted yesterday, and it isn't until I cite it that you go hysterical. Still waiting to see where YOUR facts come from. But I have a few guesses. But keep sticking with YOUR propaganda, I'll keep sticking with the facts and real news. But I don't care. GOing to do something I've never done in 20 years here: use the ignore feature. I don't have time for stupidity.

Maybe they'll make the guy fly rubber dog shit out of Vladivostok for the rest of his career.

Nah, that pilot will be given a medal for destroying a spy plane. Maybe even turn it into a movie.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
NHRacer. I must have rattled you. I mentioned a story the HRK posted yesterday, and it isn't until I cite it that you go hysterical. Still waiting to see where YOUR facts come from. But I have a few guesses. But keep sticking with YOUR propaganda, I'll keep sticking with the facts and real news. But I don't care. GOing to do something I've never done in 20 years here: use the ignore feature. I don't have time for stupidity.

I'm NOT pushing propaganda, I'm merely pointing out propaganda. Facts and 'real news'...That's funny right there! Feel free to ignore the truth though...

It's amazing that you are so 'dug in' that you aren't even willing to actually read all the words that are posted (or comprehend them), and then jump to conclusions, regarding things not even posted! That, and an overwhelming reliance on conjecture as the basis to refute whatever, or whoever disagrees with the propaganda that comforts you!

Just another day in the 'Idiot Biden War Propaganda' thread...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nhracecraft,

There are several other ways the Russian pilot could have approached and passed the drone without being blind. He could have accomplished the fuel dump without the crazy risk. Interesting that he did not have decent training on intercept and pass techniques.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

Opinions may vary but I don't think ramming is an effective method of intercept, if you want your own aircraft back.

Ramming is an excellent method of intercept. It worked, right? Not the first time it’s been done.

Dropping landing gear and ramming SUAS is a thing, and surprisingly one of the easiest methods to bring them down. Of course, MQ-9 is not a SUAS and this Russian pilot appears lucky more than skilled. I’m just pointing out that if it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Also, does anyone here actually believe this happened in international airspace? The Reaper video always has symbology showing its current location; it was sanitized for public release which means we are intentionally not saying where the event happened.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Maybe they'll make the guy fly rubber dog shit out of Vladivostok for the rest of his career.

The shortest BansheeOne post that I recall.

And this incident took place about 120NM miles SSW of Sevastopol, well outside Russian airspace.
Edit to fix distances to Sevastopol.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: IrishWind,

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
And this incident took place 40-50NM miles SSW of Sevastopol, well outside Russian airspace.

Is it an act of war to intentionally take down our aircraft in international airspace?

I saw the video, and it was not taken down by mistake. It was clearly intentional.
Sure, it may not have been "safe and professional" to clip the propeller. That part may have been an accident. But if flown perfectly, dumping fuel on it to blind it was an intentional act to bring it down.

So, what's our response?

We give a press conference, at the Pentagon, with a "strongly worded" rebuke. We said the Russians would have to be "more professional":

quote:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin vowed on Wednesday that U.S. aircraft will continue to "fly and to operate wherever international law allows," one day after Russian aircraft hit a U.S. drone over the Black Sea, forcing it to be brought down in international waters.

"This hazardous episode is part of a pattern of aggressive, and risky, and unsafe actions in international airspace," Austin said at the beginning of a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. "So make no mistake, the United States will continue to fly and to operate wherever international law allows. And it is incumbent upon Russia to operate its' military aircraft in a safe and professional manner."

So, is Lloyd Austin saying, in effect, it's OK to take down our aircraft in international airspace as long as you do it in "a safe and professional manner" ... without so much risk to your own aircraft or pilot?

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
And this incident took place 40-50NM miles SSW of Sevastopol, well outside Russian airspace.

Well outside of Russian airspace but is it within the airspace of a warzone? Honest question.

If it's within that airspace and Russians have assets floating around outside of Crimea, and knowing that Ukraine has been given "Western Support", is it not unrealistic for them to consider that drone a threat?

The other option is that the Russians knew it was a US asset and took it down anyway. A calculated chance that it won't start a shooting war with the US?

I just heard on our local MSM News that it is now only "Harassment". That sounds much better don't you think.

quote:

The other option is that the Russians knew it was a US asset and took it down anyway. A calculated chance that it won't start a shooting war with the US?

They have calculated correctly... this time.
But isn't that how escalation happens?

quote:

Originally posted by RGRacing:
I just heard on our local MSM News that it is now only "Harassment". That sounds much better don't you think.

Someone should notify HR, harassment will not be tolerated.

I just plotted the approximate location of where the incident happened. It is more like 120nm from Sevastopol. The nearest land referred to in the graphic is actually Turkey.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

They have calculated correctly... this time.
But isn't that how escalation happens?

100%. However, is that why the US is responding with a strongly worded rebuke? The drone was flying around in a warzone?

At the end of the day it won't matter though, right? Doesn't matter who started it, a shooting war is pretty much going to trigger some real bad mojo for everyone.

Maybe we should just say: President Zelenskyy, the answer is no more.
Ask the Germans for help.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Maybe we should just say: President Zelenskyy, the answer is no more.
Ask the Germans for help.

For as long as it takes?

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
Nah, that pilot will be given a medal for destroying a spy plane. Maybe even turn it into a movie.

Called it! Awards given to the two pilots.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rus...ilots-094828825.html

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
Nah, that pilot will be given a medal for destroying a spy plane. Maybe even turn it into a movie.

Called it! Awards given to the two pilots.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rus...ilots-094828825.html

Russians give medals for ANYTHING.
Those Wagner mercenaries in Syria, who's column got annihilated by us in 2018 Battle of Conoco Fields, those survivors received medals in Moscow.

As to the larger issue...drones are supposed to be inexpensive options compared to manned aircraft. A medium sized surveillance drone getting knocked-down, is no different than a large-size drone like what Iran shot down back in 2019 Is it worth going to war over? The Chinese got stupid back 2001 with the Hainan Island incident, that would've been a bigger reason to trade paint and destroy property than this. If a manned platform is a full-step on the escalation ladder, is a unmanned platform a half step-up?

Like the U-2, surveillance tech doesn't require the platform to be directly overhead, you can skirt the perimeter of the zone you're investigating. The crux is that the drone tech doesn't get so damn expensive and exquisite that decision makers twist themselves into knots figuring out if they should continue. Keep sending them up, drones are supposed to be expendable.