>At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional.
This USAF aircraft in international airspace was almost certainly indirectly involved in an ongoing military conflict. It's not there for no reason. It's very likely providing intelligence to the Ukrainian military, which will cause deaths in the Russian military.
I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just that we should not be surprised they are expressing their displeasure with us being there. They avoided using missiles for diplomatic reasons, but given that this is clearly an aircraft aiding a combatant in a war, it's understandable that they could just shoot it down. The only reason they are not is because they're being cautious about expanding the war, but we're already provoking an expansion of the war by using our aircraft in this way.
We have been in a proxy war state for at least a year ( some could credibly argue that it was longer than that ), so this accident is hardly a surprise and more along the lines of 'it was bound to happen'.
I have my own opinions and, for several reasons, I don't want Russian army to succeed in takeover of Ukraine, but, uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago ( re-institution of new axis of powers and effectively forcing Puting into the arms of XI, who, if no one remembers, has become defacto main target of future US policy ).
> uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago
According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target.
How again is it the US's fault that Russia invaded a sovereign country and refuses to leave even as his forces are repeatedly repelled and he even doubled down by """annexing""" another country's territory in a sham referendum?
We will also continue moving towards a bad place if we just let Russia do what it wants in Ukraine (and beyond). It will cost the West one way or the other.
He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.
The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.
Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.
There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.
I'm not sure I'd interpret this as incompetence. It seems to me like a successful attempt to bring down a drone "by accident" with enough plausible deniability, because shooting it would be too overtly an act of war.
Flying a manned aircraft into a collision with an unmanned aircraft is pilot incompetence.
Ordering a human pilot to fly into a collision with an unmanned aircraft is command incompetence.
The attempts here to backsplain this ridiculousness is maddening. Why is a plot-twisting-conspiracy easier to accept than the far more likely explanation that an undertrained russian pilot decided to risk his plane and his life to fuck around and buzz the unmanned drone he ran across?
Russia can't afford to give it's airforce ample practice time in the jets, so they are really not well trained. Several aircraft have been captured on film crashing during takeoff, from either lacking maintenance or pilot error.
That being said: This stunt is not good evidence of anything good or bad. Intercepting air assets is normal procedure, and things likely get harder when the actual aircraft itself has no fear for its own life, so the pilot of the unmanned vehicle might be a little more bold at testing limits, and the same for the Russian pilot.
The description reads like made up propaganda. And it's funny how quickly I got downvoted for mentioning that eucom.mil might not be the most trustworthy of sites. It's almost like there is a one-sided propaganda war waged all over social media.
This is probably a deliberate escalation on Russia's part, authorized at a high level. Since near the beginning of the current war, NATO has been operating a variety of manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft just outside of Russian and Ukrainian airspace, then passing actionable targeting data to Ukrainian military forces in near real time. This has been a huge force multiplier for Ukraine and allowed them to stop multiple Russian offensives.
Now the Russians are getting desperate because they are literally running out of deployable troops and vehicles. So they are trying to push the surveillance aircraft back from the battle area. If they continue to escalate then the next steps will be similar aggressive harassment of manned aircraft and actively shooting down drones. We can afford some attrition losses of Predators but the manned aircraft will now need heavier and continuous fighter escort.
Bullying 101: maximize damage (emotional or physical) while remaining technically not liable. To increase damage further ramp up the frequency of such incidents. If other side retaliates - make them liable.
It is of course an escalation relative to previous Russian actions. Call it bullying if you like, that won't make any difference to the course of the conflict. Liability is a meaningless concept in situations like this; what matters is how much further they're willing to escalate.
> passing actionable targeting data to Ukrainian military forces in near real time.
Source? I suspect this as well but I don't think I've seen it confirmed. The flights seem too far for that but can probably warn them about incoming missiles when they cross horizon.
There were numerous news stories about the downed Russian ship being hit based on NATO targeting data from US spy planes. Granted, that was some time ago, but I see no reason to think the practice stopped.
Mighty Russian 80s aircraft heroically damaged a US unmanned, pretty much disposable drone. Didn't have the balls, or ammo, to shoot at it, mind you, just flew very close.
I suppose for lack of actual military success in Ukraine, this makes for some headline.
> Mighty Russian 80s aircraft heroically damaged a US unmanned, pretty much disposable drone.
While its more disposable than a manned fighter (because not risking a pilot), its not really anywhere close to disposable. The MQ-9 costs roughly the same as an F-16.
Really curious if the MQ-9 was armed. I don't think they'll tell us, but that would help color the incident a bit better if we did have that level of detail.
Whether or not the MQ-9 was armed is so far down the list of logical arguments about why a Russian pilot would go kamikaze on and collide with an unmanned aircraft, it's not even a sensible question to ask.
A better question to ask is what would provoke a Russian pilot to act so recklessly? Here are three ideas:
1) Lack of pilot training
2) Command has no authority
3) Command is incompetent
Back during WWII, British pilots where known to use their wingtips to destabilize and crash the German V1 cruise bombs. Maybe the Russian pilot had the same thought. Shooting down a drone is a hard thing to deny or handwave away as a justifiable act, but accidentally contacting it while trying to intercept it and direct it is an acceptable incident.
Unmanned MQ-9 aircraft that was operating within international airspace over the Black Sea today.
International waters could be up to as close as 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the coast of Russian land. And at the same time no less than 6000 km from U.S. land.
There are roughly 750 U.S. foreign military bases; they are spread across 80 nations. After the U.S. is the UK, but they only have 145 bases. Russia has about 3 dozen bases, and China just five.
I will close comment with whataboutism about Chinese balls deliberately shot down by U.S.
No, we didn't track the MQ-9 Reaper over the Black Sea. But we often track RQ-4 Global Hawks over the Black Sea.
Readit News
Ok, so just a strongly-worded letter in response to a deliberate attack on a USAF aircraft in international airspace?
I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just that we should not be surprised they are expressing their displeasure with us being there. They avoided using missiles for diplomatic reasons, but given that this is clearly an aircraft aiding a combatant in a war, it's understandable that they could just shoot it down. The only reason they are not is because they're being cautious about expanding the war, but we're already provoking an expansion of the war by using our aircraft in this way.
Wait until you learn about Gary Powers’s “civilian” U-2, or the USS Pueblo, or the USS Liberty, or Korean Airlines 007 and Congressman Larry McDonald.
I'll take strongly worded letter.
I have my own opinions and, for several reasons, I don't want Russian army to succeed in takeover of Ukraine, but, uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago ( re-institution of new axis of powers and effectively forcing Puting into the arms of XI, who, if no one remembers, has become defacto main target of future US policy ).
According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM
He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.
The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.
Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.
There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.
Dead Comment
Seeing as how they have almost given up attempting air superiority in Ukraine, it makes one wonder how many competent airmen Russia even has.
Ordering a human pilot to fly into a collision with an unmanned aircraft is command incompetence.
The attempts here to backsplain this ridiculousness is maddening. Why is a plot-twisting-conspiracy easier to accept than the far more likely explanation that an undertrained russian pilot decided to risk his plane and his life to fuck around and buzz the unmanned drone he ran across?
That being said: This stunt is not good evidence of anything good or bad. Intercepting air assets is normal procedure, and things likely get harder when the actual aircraft itself has no fear for its own life, so the pilot of the unmanned vehicle might be a little more bold at testing limits, and the same for the Russian pilot.
Suspect this will win praise and the only victim was a US drone.
Now the Russians are getting desperate because they are literally running out of deployable troops and vehicles. So they are trying to push the surveillance aircraft back from the battle area. If they continue to escalate then the next steps will be similar aggressive harassment of manned aircraft and actively shooting down drones. We can afford some attrition losses of Predators but the manned aircraft will now need heavier and continuous fighter escort.
Bullying 101: maximize damage (emotional or physical) while remaining technically not liable. To increase damage further ramp up the frequency of such incidents. If other side retaliates - make them liable.
Source? I suspect this as well but I don't think I've seen it confirmed. The flights seem too far for that but can probably warn them about incoming missiles when they cross horizon.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/flying-with-nato-awacs-1.66194...
I suppose for lack of actual military success in Ukraine, this makes for some headline.
While its more disposable than a manned fighter (because not risking a pilot), its not really anywhere close to disposable. The MQ-9 costs roughly the same as an F-16.
Deleted Comment
A better question to ask is what would provoke a Russian pilot to act so recklessly? Here are three ideas:
1) Lack of pilot training 2) Command has no authority 3) Command is incompetent
There are roughly 750 U.S. foreign military bases; they are spread across 80 nations. After the U.S. is the UK, but they only have 145 bases. Russia has about 3 dozen bases, and China just five.
I will close comment with whataboutism about Chinese balls deliberately shot down by U.S.
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1635699476898643977I hope they spend the rest of the year flying their desks and doing paperwork.