OT good flying, but risky

[old mart]

That US drone which was brought down by Russian jets was reputedly hit on its propellor. So the jet would have to had flown right up its rear to do that, more danger to the Russian than to a drone. And dumping fuel in front of it at the speed it was likely to have been going would have been close to the jets stalling speed. I would like to see some of the drones camera footage.

[mikey553]

It appears from looking at the photo that this drone has its camera just under its nose. It's unlikely it will have a good footage of the incident. I wonder how its propeller got damaged. Nobody said anything about shooting.

[JRouche]

It appears from looking at the photo that this drone has its camera just under its nose. It's unlikely it will have a good footage of the incident. I wonder how its propeller got damaged. Nobody said anything about shooting.

Drone was damaged so unsafe to fly and we brought it down. Probably just ditched it for recovery. JR

[mikey553]

Was watching TV this evening and they said Russian plane clipped the drone propeller with its wing. If that is true, it cannot be intentional. Also Russian sources say it did not happen over international waters. You can choose who you want to believe.

[jmm03]

the russki's wouldn't lie would they???

[Mike Amick]

The fighter pilots said that the only reason the thing was damaged was that it made an unexpected maneuver into the jets. This rings true to me, no pilot would use his plane to damage a drone. If the jet fighter's intention was to bring it down, they could have easily done so with on board systems. As far as what airspace, we'll never know.

[Joel]

There is a good bit of information available, so there is less to speculate about.

no pilot would use his plane to damage a drone.

They were making close passes, 19 of them, and dumping fuel directly in front of the drone in hopes of 'accidentally' taking it out (or whatever you want to call it). I suppose they might have been trying to buffet it with their engines also. Take it out or at least have some fun, accidents happen.
They have real-time camera footage of what transpired.

If the jet fighter's intention was to bring it down, they could have easily done so with on board systems.

Shooting it down seems pretty much an act of war, with little ambiguity. This, nobody wants (at this point in time, anyway), especially Russia.

Also Russian sources say it did not happen over international waters. You can choose who you want to believe.

They are international waters, but Russia says that, since they took Crimea, it is now their airspace. [This is my understanding from a network news source, but I did not check up on it elswhere.]
If they were truly comfortable that the airspace was undisputed, one could expect that they would have shot it down immediately. They are at war, after all.

This is definitely not the first time Russia has done this sort of thing.

[Mike Amick]

Thanks for straightening that out Joel, good info.

[Doozer]

No one cares. Lock thread.

[Glug]

Does anyone have a small boat, winch and ROV I can borrow? I'd really like to salvage that drone.

[mikey553]

No one cares. Lock thread.

You are wrong. I care.

I have seen the released video footage this morning. It does show what looks like fuel dumping from the Russian jet. After that the screen was blank for about 60 seconds. Then video came back with the same quality level. It shows a 4 blade propeller turning very slowly and later showing one blade bent, but still intact. The moment of impact was missing.

[CarlByrns]

The fighter pilots said that the only reason the thing was damaged was that it made an unexpected maneuver into the jets. This rings true to me, no pilot would use his plane to damage a drone.<snip>

Maybe, maybe not. During WWII, Marine pilot Robert Klingman intentionally sawed the tail off a Japanese Nick with his Corsair's propeller. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Di...-pilot-legend/

[A.K. Boomer]

This of course was an "intentional act", it cannot be looked at any other way, whether they screwed the pooch on the intentions getting a little more "involved" and out of hand or not is the real question, but at that point it really does not matter,

Their intentions were absolutely to bring the drone down without firing a single shot, they pushed it - they got caught and they would have gotten caught regardless, had the dumping of the fuel worked it would not have been any less "lethal" to the drone,

It's just a damn shame that the jet and pilot got to land safely.

[mikey553]

Maybe, maybe not. During WWII, Marine pilot Robert Klingman intentionally sawed the tail off a Japanese Nick with his Corsair's propeller. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Di...-pilot-legend/

I have read about quite a few cases like that happening during WWII. But it was done because nothing else could be done. Some pilots sacrificed their lives to save their comrades because they have no ammunition left or they were critically wounded.
There is no official war between USA and Russia. Why would a pilot risk his plane and his life to intentionally hit the other plane?

[A.K. Boomer]

There is no official war between USA and Russia. Why would a pilot risk his plane and his life to intentionally hit the other plane?

The video footage i seen this morning looked like they were going for yet "another" fuel dump before the impact occurred --- so the question would be, why would you be going for a fuel dump BEFORE trying to collide with the drone?

I think the answer is obvious - the "impact" was not "intentional" the pilot screwed up... still - does not remove initial "intentions" as they were trying to bring the drone down - and they succeeded....