10 ms·
Russian aircraft collides into US unmanned system in international waters
- albatross13 4y ago>unsafe and unprofessional I mean we're essentially at war with Russia, how safe and professional should they really be with our tech?
- iancmceachern 4y agoAnd the comment about the environment is ironic. There is nothing more unfriendly to the environment than war, than the military industrial complex. A lot of the US' dominance over world military power has to do with our ability to deliver vast amounts of oil and gas to fighting groups anywhere in the world. Many other nations have the firepower, but not the logistical mite to support it and therefore rely on us. This is all to say, war burns a lot of oil, even in peace.
- benj111 4y agoIs this not an act of war by itself?
- abudabi123 4y agoThe day on the calendar is the middle of Mar
- epolanski 4y agoFlying surveillance aircraft in the black sea? Russia is at war with Ukraine and receives intelligence from US and UK 24/7 that surveillance aircraft is not there defending the coasts of Turkey or Romania.
- benj111 4y agoSo if a us ship were in international waters monitoring North Korea and passing on the Intel to South Korea, it would be ok for North Korea to sink that ship? This was in international waters. The drone had every right to be there.
- epolanski 4y agoNot arguing that it had every right, from what we're told at least, I see no precise coordinates. Just that it seems far fetched that downing a surveillance drone is an act of war.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoNo, because it wasn't intentional. They were harassing the drone and made a mistake.
- localplume 4y ago[dead]
- voakbasda 4y agoThe harassment was intentional. Making a “mistake” during an intentional act does not suddenly wipe away that root intention.
- ericmay 4y agoWe don’t know that it was or wasn’t intentional. Harassing the drone is a problem to start with, running into it intentionally or not an extension of the core problem. Whether it was an accident or not probably isn’t much of a difference. Safer to assume it was intentional since we’d never get the truth out of the Russians. Good news is that incidents like this will increase US military support for Ukraine.
- Ruthalas 4y agoAccording to the article: >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. That seems more intentional than a simple fly-by anyway.
- reneherse 4y agoI'd say it's an act of aggression, but the line of "act of war" is still further off given the fact it was an unmanned aircraft. Hopefully the RF will think twice before similarly harrassing an American pilot, which would be much closer to, if not crossing, that line.
- icegreentea2 4y agoBecause Russia has not explicitly declared war or hostilities, or taken any actual redlined actions, it's up to the US to define if they consider this an act of war or not. It's an obvious provocation, and it's absolutely not in the US (or NATO's) interest to be drawn in in this manner and time. So instead you get this passive-aggressive shit talk.
- yamtaddle 4y agoThis stuff's not black-and-white, and a lot of it comes down to how the two sides choose to perceive it. A bunch of stuff done by both the US and Russia has been an "act of war" against one another and their respective treaty-bound allies, over the last couple decades—in other circumstances, we've (the US) certainly chosen to regard actions smaller-scale than our support for Ukraine as acts of war against us. But, if neither side wants it to be an act of war, it's de facto not. The notion of an "act of war" is largely a pragmatic political tool. To the extent that they exist legally, they're invoked so haphazardly and selectively by e.g. the UN that it would be difficult to justify regarding the rules about "legal" and "illegal" war justifications as, per se, any kind of definitive guide for declaring what is and is not a "real" act of war. Which means we're left with "both sides say it's not, so... it's not". [EDIT] To be clear, if one or the other had chosen to regard this as an act of war, there may be room to debate the truth and justice of that position, or how we might interpret that stance based on international law and precedent—but neither (apparently) did, so it's rather moot. Yes, it probably could be so-regarded with some justification. Yes, there'd be room to, not without reason or basis, counter that a war asset providing intelligence to an adversary in a war is already engaged in war, regardless of who's operating it, et c., et c. It joins dozens of other actions as kind-of unrealized "acts of war".
- benj111 4y agoOh absolutely, it's all about realpolitik. We've already seen how far the west will go to avoid a war with Russia, so I wasn't expecting this to bring about a declaration of war. But if this were a manned aircraft, that would be a major thing. The question is, what's the important element here. It isn't necessarily the killing, if a plane were shot down, and the pilot ejected without harm it would still be a major thing, so there must be some element of, attacking a foreign nations military hardware is a no-no. But then the rhetoric doesn't seem to match that.
- mrguyorama 4y agoBack in the Korean war, US fighters shot down actual Soviet pilots in supposedly North Korean planes. Both sides kept it hush hush because nobody wanted a full war.
- gorkish 4y agoOne would think the pilot would be professional enough not to fly a manned aircraft into a collision with an unmanned aircraft. Such an extreme display of ineptitude speaks enough on its own; the USAF statement reads pretty tongue-in-cheek to me. Edit: This appears to be the most opposed/downvoted comment I seem to have ever made on HN without anyone producing a counterargument.
- genman 4y agoWe are not at war with Russia. At best we are in proxy war with China.
- albatross13 4y agoOh, good. Here I thought we had given hundreds of billions to Ukraine for a war against russia, must have been for their upstanding daycare programs.
- genman 4y agoOh, shut up with this BS. There are no hundreds of billions given and giving military aid doesn't mean that we are in the war. Unless of course you are some Russian troll spreading their fake news here. This we are war with NATO is a message to common Russians just to make then feel warm from the inside and not feel ashamed how their army is getting slaughtered by "inferior khohols". At the same time they are fed with high amount of genocidal propaganda. We are doing too little to put end to this genocidal war against Ukrainians. I believed that "no more again" actually means something.
- idiotsecant 4y agoI mean...we are clearly in a proxy war with Russia. We are dumping a huge amount of resources into ensuring that they lose their conflict with Ukraine, or at least win a pyrrhic victory that will destabilize the regime. You can argue whether it's a good use of resources or not (I think it is a good use of resources right now) but it's clearly silly to argue that the US is not doing this.
- genman 4y agoThe definition of proxy war is quite specific. It requires that a third party is waging war at the instigation or on behalf of us. This is not true. Russia attacked Ukraine and Ukraine is defending itself on its own. We only provide necessary assistance for it to do so. Of course these arguments come up that try to rationalize this support in many ways but it doesn't matter. Ukraine doesn't continue to fight to please us but because it is an existential matter for itself.
- optimalsolver 4y agoThe US needs to escalate to de-escalate.
- meepmorp 4y agoiirc, they can mount sidewinders on the reaper; I bet splashing a flanker or two would change Russia's attitude a bit.
- rbanffy 4y agoThat's how you escalate a conflict into an all-out war. Nobody, not even the dickheads who did this, want that. I hope they spend the rest of the year flying their desks and doing paperwork.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoI'm not convinced Russia doesn't want escalation. The leadership seems suicidally insane - like an old guy who starts a bar fight because he wants to prove he's still one of the Big Dogs, even though he hasn't been sober for decades and can barely stand. It's plain old post-imperial narcissism, Which is not an emotional state known for its rationality and foresight.
- mrguyorama 4y agoRussia's playbook is to threaten escalation to "de-escalate". Putin does not want to actually bring NATO into the fight because then the ONLY option he has is nuclear annihilation. Right now he thinks he can still get Western people to lose support for Ukraine eventually and grind them down into a fine paste. That's why he keeps making nuclear threats on TV, because they are directed at Western citizens to try and scare them into giving up. You can be sure that if Putin ACTUALLY wants to backstop a red line with actual nuclear threats, we won't hear about that.
- meepmorp 4y agoI was joking, but even if the US shot down a couple Russian planes, it doubt it would lead to any more direct US involvement. The US isn't interested, and the Russians definitely don't want any part of that.
- mzs 4y ago>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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoWe 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 ).
- rbanffy 4y agoThe US and Russia have been in a proxy war state since WW2.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoYou are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless. Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.
- rbanffy 4y agoLet's just assume the cold war cooled down for a couple years until Putin got a firm enough hold on his power he could rewarm it. And yes, the Age of Aquarius was remarkably short and I found it severely lacking.
- remarkEon 4y agoReally 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.
- meepmorp 4y agoAlmost certainly not armed. It's there for surveillance, not to hit targets; no point in carrying the weight unless you're expecting a fight
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 4y agoBesides that, I wouldn't expect the US to use an MQ-9 to hit anything discreetly. There are much better tools for that.
- somat 4y agoI stumbled on a video yesterday about the battle of Khasham, after a bit of research it is probably mostly hyperbola but there are some truths in there, one of which was that the first shots to stop the convoy were via mq-9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viuUzGGac5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viuUzGGac5M It is a dark subject but I admit I laughed when the video got to the part where a b-52 was involved, a hulking monster of a strategic bomber, "Ahh man you tactical bombers get to have all the fun. Ok, get your lumbering ass over here, we are trying to send a message, so you get to drop some bombs too."
- gibspaulding 4y agoI love that we're still flying B52's. That plane first flew closer to the Wright Flyer than to today. (By a lot!)
- some_random 4y agoSeeing as it was over the Black Sea monitoring the invasion of Ukraine, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would have been armed.
- benj111 4y agoNext step. Give Ukraine a couple of these airframes loaded up with explosives. And let them fly them around international waters.
- legitster 4y agoThe description of their actions sounds like more of a joyride than an actual engagement. Seeing as how they have almost given up attempting air superiority in Ukraine, it makes one wonder how many competent airmen Russia even has.
- frozenport 4y agoSounds like they pissed on the aircraft? Suspect this will win praise and the only victim was a US drone.
- brwck 4y agoThe 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.
- mediumdeviation 4y ago.mil is the US military's TLD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mil. EU COM is the US European Command. It is about as primary a source as you can get.
- brwck 4y ago[flagged]
- mitthrowaway2 4y agoI'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.
- gorkish 4y agoFlying 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?
- nradov 4y agoThis 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.
- IngvarLynn 4y agoNot an escalation of course. 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.
- nradov 4y agoIt 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.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> 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.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThere 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.
- TheNotToo 4y ago[flagged]
- vorpalhex 4y agoGiven the amount of dead Russians on Ukrainian soil with nato weapons and ammo in them, I don't think the US is being humiliated here. I do suspect the US will retaliate in some small way though. Likely stop and board a few Russian vessels in international waters or something equally silly.
- adriancr 4y agoThat's pretty funny considering the utter humiliation russia continues to endure. US could just send airplanes to Ukraine or more military aid in response and Putin will be fuming.
- mcphage 4y ago> total humiliation of the US Russia crashed a manned airplane into a drone, and the US is the one is supposed to be humiliated?
- selivanovp 4y agoNobody crashed into that drone. Su-27 returned to base intact.
- mcphage 4y agoIt did crash into the drone (at least from the report) it just didn’t take the Su-27 down with it. Which like… if that’s how you’re taking down drones, well… okay then. It doesn’t seem like a great plan to me but you do you.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> and total humiliation of the US It’s not at all humiliation to the US. > which the US cannot do anything about in return The US could just up the tempo of drone operations in the region, if the Russians want to keep hitting them with fighters, well, even with a pretty Russia-friendly by-unit-count success ratio, the impact isn’t like to favor Russia in the long term. Heck, the US could just make a comment about the incompetence and recklessness it displays and largely ignore it for the same reason. > because it is no longer a feared superpower. If it isn’t a feared superpower, why is everything that Russia does framed in fear of the US?
- rich_sasha 4y agoMighty 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.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> 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.
- ianburrell 4y agoThe MQ-9 costs roughly the same as Su-27.
- rich_sasha 4y agoInteresting thread. Are these marginal costs? Or with R&D amortisation?
- ianburrell 4y agoFor MQ-9, the $30 million is current unit costs. It has gotten more expensive over time, the early ones were $18 million. I found places that listed $30 to 47 million for Su-27. No sources or years for the estimate. But it is comparable to similar planes of same vintage. The latter is probably closer to current export price.
- ghostwriter 4y agoUnit Cost: $56.5 million (includes four aircraft with sensors, ground control station and Predator Primary satellite link) (fiscal 2011 dollars) (Current as of March 2021) [1] [1] https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1044...
- ethagknight 4y agoCurious what part of the Su hit the MQ's prop, which is mounted on the tail as a "pusher." How did the Su survive? Wingtip to the prop?
- justin66 4y agoThe possibility doesn't seem to have been brought up here, but I wouldn't take it as given that Flanker made it home.
- diimdeep 4y agoUnmanned 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. https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1635699476898643977 https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1635699476898643977