6 ms·
Video Shows Russian Fighter Hitting USAF Drone
- garyclarke27 4y ago[flagged]
- Rebelgecko 4y agoScramble fighters and ask them to leave, like we do when they regularly approach the coast of Alaska
- rainworld 4y agoNot if the US was at war with Mexico and Russia was doing reconnaissance for them.
- Larrikin 4y agoIs there any reason to think that the US would be going to war with Mexico, that Russia would support Mexico, or that Russia would even have the capabilities to do reconnaissance so far away from Russia and close to the US? Is there a point to this hypothetical besides trying to garner sympathy for Russia and their war?
- rainworld 4y agoThe point of this hypothetical is to illustrate the reality of the situation: Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US has been doing extensive reconnaissance for them, for over a year. The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.
- belorn 4y agoAccording to Russia it is not a war. If it was a war then it would mean that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that would be illegal.
- justin66 4y ago> The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation. "Patience" isn't an accurate characterization of what's happening here. Of course Russia would be delighted to shoot down those drones, or any manned reconnaissance aircraft in the area as well. They refrain from doing this because there would be unwelcome consequences, not because they're carefully observing some law or principle. You can certainly tweak your strained hypothetical in such a way that the US would be bound by similar constraints. (that's not even difficult, it's just a matter of examining the hypothetical a little more closely - imagine how much would have gone wrong for the United States military in order for it to even be in a real war with Mexico) It's just a matter of hypotheticals like this not being very useful.
- iosono88 4y ago[dead]
- rainworld 4y ago“Patience” is a good characterization because (as you have observed correctly) they’ve refrained from doing so in the past to avoid the consequences of such actions, but now, crucially, the are taking them down. imagine how much would have gone wrong That’s funny because just days ago some US congressmen have demanded (CW: euphemisms) the “authorization” of “military force” against “the cartels”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/9/mexicos-president-slams-calls-for-us-military-to-target-cartels https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/9/mexicos-president-sl... Now, invading Mexico is still a remote prospect at this point, but if you think the US wouldn’t “defend their interests” there, you’d better read up on the Monroe Doctrine and 19th and 20th century history of the Americas.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- avmich 4y ago> The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation. Why do you think so?
- pphysch 4y agoAlaska is right next to Russian airspace. Ukraine is not right next to American airspace.
- odd_perfect_num 4y agoIt is right next to NATO airspace as well as an active war instigated by Russia. Also, do you really think the Russians scramble their strategic bombers to Alaska because it is next to their borders? They don't do the same to China or North Korea.
- pphysch 4y agoPRC and DPRK don't have nuclear first-strike policies/histories nor have publicly advocated for the overthrow of the Russian government. Again, apples and oranges.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> PRC and DPRK don't have nuclear first-strike policies/histories DPRK does in fact have an overtly stated nuclear first strike policy.
- pphysch 4y agoCan you provide an official source for that claim?
- Rebelgecko 4y agoArticle 6 of the 핵무력 법제화
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- BMc2020 4y agostart feeding it fake intel.
- expertentipp 4y agoLike shift the GPS location 1km or rather upload gay porn with Lukashenko?
- BMc2020 4y agoWhat would the US do if Russia was flying a sophisticated drone in the Gulf of Mexico 24 Miles from the US coast? What kinds of deception are up to the people who do this for a full time job. (If it was me I would send two of our drones, one to stand off a bit and record video, then the other drone would attempt to 'mate' the Russian drone midair.) But that's just me.
- distances 4y agoI'm sure you know already but Russia consistently not only approaches, but violates the airspace of neighbouring countries.
- nwellnhof 4y agoApproach certainly, but actual violations of airspace are extremely rare.
- computerfriend 4y agoThey've been doing it continuously for a year in Ukraine.
- maximinus_thrax 4y agoYeah, so 'extremely rare' they can actually be considered part of their foreign policy https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/russia-has-long-history-of-airspace-violations/436331 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/russia-has-long-history-of... There are actual political scientists writing studies on Russian airspace violations.
- nwellnhof 4y agoYes, there are many incidents but the vast majority aren't airspace violations in the strict sense. Just some aircraft coming close to territorial waters or harassing other aircraft or ships.
- partiallypro 4y agoFor starters Crimea isn't Russia, it's Ukraine. Secondly, Russia flies close to US borders and assets all the time and we don't recklessly do things like this.
- maximinus_thrax 4y agoYour question is loaded and has two implications which are based on wrong premises. The drone was not 24 miles from the Russian coast. It was 75 miles southwest of Crimea, which is the Ukranian coast. The Russian jets were very very far away from home, they weren't in any way protecting Russian airspace. When Russians violate airspace (like they often do in Europe) or come dangerously close to doing so in the USA, they are intercepted by fighter jets and asked to leave. Dropping fuel on their planes and flying like an idiot and then lying about it is generally not part of the NATO response.
- melling 4y agoWith all the discussion of “AI”, someone at the DoD is now asking how to add more intelligence to drones Five years from now the drone will be constantly evaluating collision probabilities: “Probability of collision 80%. Take evasive maneuvers.”
- Nextgrid 4y agoI would be surprised if it wasn't already capable of that (doesn't even require AI, basic heuristics would be enough), but I guess that outside of a full-on war, they'd rather not disclose that capability even if it means losing a few units here and there.
- jmpman 4y agoA better strategy is for it to self destruct immediately and violently with a continuous rod warhead.
- meghan_rain 4y agoHow is this not an act of war? This is 100%, no doubts whatsoever, a deliberate approach and fuel dump. Did the Russians go completely insane now?
- nkurz 4y agoYes, this was obviously a deliberate attempt to disable or at least disrupt the drone. But the drone was almost certainly conducting surveillance to benefit Ukraine. As such, the Russian actions are not necessarily an act of war against the US. The US seems to be reacting as the Russians expected, hence the Russians may not be insane. See the closing paragraph of this article: Mary Ellen O’Connell, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on international law and the use of force, noted that by dumping fuel and downing the drone, the Russian pilot was “further polluting the fragile Black Sea”, but she noted the US had not called the interception “unlawful”. “In all likelihood the Reaper was conducting surveillance for Ukraine. Under the laws of armed conflict Russia may disrupt such assistance,” O’Connell said. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/russian-fighter-jet-collides-us-drone-black-sea-crash https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/russian-figh....
- dralley 4y agoNobody is going to go to war over a drone, even an expensive one. They were clearly intending to take it down or at least render it useless, though the collision was probably unintentional.
- ThalesX 4y agoI saw this video earlier today. I'm not versed in flying machines, but how certain of a collision is it? From my layman's viewpoint I've only heard the people on CNN calling it a collision, and now this guy, but honestly I can't tell.
- roseway4 4y agoAfter the second, closer, approach of the Russian fighter, a blade on the drone’s propeller is badly bent.
- bennettnate5 4y agoWhat else could have caused that magnitude of propeller damage to the drone? From what I could see, it was bent out of shape pretty badly immediately after that second pass.
- justin66 4y agoI don't know how rapidly those fighters dump fuel, but it doesn't seem impossible to me that just getting whacked with a literal ton of jet fuel might do a propeller a lot of harm.
- expertentipp 4y ago[flagged]
- partiallypro 4y agoNot all videos of war or military assets are "war propaganda."
- massinstall 4y agoIt appears curious that you consider video evidence of an incident “war propaganda”.
- expertentipp 4y agoIt's "our" propaganda but still it is. We'll never learn all circumstances of this encounter and we are repeatedly balancing on the edge of Article 5.
- anonymousnotme 4y agoJust to play devil's advocate. The video does not show an actual collision. Also, how do we know the video of the bent propeller was from the same drone soon after the Russian jet got close and dumped the fuel? I can't tell whether the background of the clouds and so forth is identical or close enough to the same background to know whether it is old stock video or not. How can one tell? The drone needs to be enhanced to show the actual collision; a camera from underneath probably is not going to show the collision. Unless I am missing something, these drones seem very weak in regards to combat with a typical jet fighter. I assume that the drone is slow , so pretty much any jet fighter can catch up to it. I assume that it can't go to such a high elevation that a typical fighter can go to the same elevation. So, seems like pretty much any fighter jet could take it out; whether that be with ordinanace, dumping of fuel or an "accidental" collision. Perhaps the US needs to escort the drone with a fighter jet or 2 to protect it or at least modify the drone to show an actual collision. (Not sure whether Russia would care whether the actual collision could be captured. I suspect that they will keep doing this to drones in the area. Curious what is capture by the drone that can't be captured from satellite. Perhaps radio waves. I am curious whether even with a bent propellor the drone could have gotten farther away from the conflict zone to be easier to recover by the US. Perhaps, they felt it was risky because it would have to go over or near populated areas. I would think Russia is likely to recover the drone, which seems like a loss.
- webshit2 4y agoThe best evidence for a collision is that Russia said there wasn't a collision
- fswd 4y agothe "bent propellor" could just be an optical illusion due to camera FPS vs reality.
- ranger207 4y agoThe bent propeller blade at for example 1:39 is significantly different in appearance than other propeller blades around the same time, indicating that it's not a camera artifact.
- litoE 4y agoI don't understand the purpose of dumping fuel on the drone. Were the expecting to kill its motor? Go out of control and crash? Catch fire?
- nkurz 4y agoI was guessing that the goal was to smear the lenses with something greasy, thereby reducing its ability to do long range surveillance. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene, which usually leaves a waxy residue. But maybe there's a better explanation?
- IAmGraydon 4y agoI'm pretty sure they were attempting to cover it with fuel and then ignite it with their afterburners. They wanted to take the drone down but also be able to say that they never fired upon it. I think the idea was to get the US to respond militarily in some way so they can further portray the US as aggressors. Basically the Russian military acting like the scum they are.