US releases drone footage from collision with Russian fighter jet

[y_p_w]

Definitely looks like the fuel dump was intentional. Might have even been the pilot hot dogging and then clipped the Reaper before it lost contact.

I haven't seen a Reaper, but I remember handling a Predator once at an air show. It was on one set of wheels and I found that it was amazingly light where I could lift it easily with the wheels as the fulcrum. A Reaper is considerably heavier though.

 

[atikovi]

Fuel dump? Looks like exhaust vapor after he just floored it at the last minute to avoid a collision.

 

[Dave1027]

I'm surprised the Russian pilot would take a chance on crashing his own aircraft. I'm thinking they were trying to force down the drone (so it could be reverse engineered) but one pilot got too close. The question is, who will get to the downed drone first? US/NATO or Russians?

 

[Krieg]

Yahoo (Verizon) stated today that the U.S. brought down the drone into the Black Sea after damage to prop. Found this interesting.

 

[JohnnyG]

I think when you dump fuel, it prob. goes to the afterburners too.
Said they wiped the software, but personally I'd have self destruct on these things.

 

[Astro14]

That was fuel dump, not AB. AB plumes don’t linger in the air like fuel. Those lingered.

Two passes, getting very close, looked to me like he was trying to “thump” the drone with his wake/jet wash.

But he got too close.

 

[Tdog02]

I would be willing to bet that happens more often than we have been told. This time the ruskie just underestimated the distance.

 

[PimTac]

Would the fuel dump at that speed have enough velocity to damage the Reaper?

Until the thing is recovered we really don’t know if it was hit or not and I would think a fighter pilot would avoid hitting anything.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Astro nailed it. The maneuver was done in such a manner as to lose sight of the target (yep, that's what a drone is), almost guaranteeing a collision. Definitely was dumping fuel. No torching involved.
I had previously thought the Russian had intentionally struck the drone. After seeing the video, I suspect the strike was accidental, just unavoidable because the maneuver was executed so poorly. If he would have just "hot nosed" the drone by flying under and pulling up hard, he would have put the drone in his dumped fuel trail and his vortices. Wouldn't take down the drone, but would probably fog the cameras with a film of jet fuel.
Definitely was a strike. You can see the prop damage afterwards.

 

[Astro14]

Yeah - I think the dump was to try and contaminate sensors, and/or cause engine problems. It appeared to be a deliberate effort to bring it down without actually shooting it. But hitting it nearly accomplished the same thing.

People assume that other countries pilots are like ours - highly trained, highly experienced. But the Russian Air Force doesn't have the money to let their pilots fly many hours/month. So, career pilots, but often without a lot of actual flight time.

This was poor airmanship, lousy flying. A mistake made by a slightly inept, and highly overconfident fighter pilot.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

FWIW, U.S. fighter pilots execute a procedure called a "join up" on a daily basis (if not multiple times a day). In this procedure (with 2 fighters) #2 joins with #1 in an expeditious manner. If the join up is done too aggressively with too much of a crossing angle, a beginning pilot may want to bank hard, losing sight of #1 under his wing. Due to the danger of a collision, new pilots are taught to "suck it up" and overshoot lead, passing under rather than risk losing sight and colliding. Better to get chided in debrief than lose 2 aircraft.

This is hammered into their heads at an early age. To see a Russian pilot do the same stupidity executed maneuver losing sight of the target twice, the same way, tells me we may be spending too much on new fighters, at least with the Russian threat (or lack thereof).

 

[y_p_w]

Definitely was a strike. You can see the prop damage afterwards.

The combination of "shutter speed" and frame rate are kind of cool - making it look like the prop is barely moving. But yeah it's pretty apparent that a couple of the blades are bent after the collision.

 

[y_p_w]

FWIW, U.S. fighter pilots execute a procedure called a "join up" on a daily basis (if not multiple times a day). In this procedure (with 2 fighters) #2 joins with #1 in an expeditious manner. If the join up is done too aggressively with too much of a crossing angle, a beginning pilot may want to bank hard, losing sight of #1 under his wing. Due to the danger of a collision, new pilots are taught to "suck it up" and overshoot lead, passing under rather than risk losing sight and colliding. Better to get chided in debrief than lose 2 aircraft.

This is hammered into their heads at an early age. To see a Russian pilot do the same stupidity executed maneuver losing sight of the target twice, the same way, tells me we may be spending too much on new fighters, at least with the Russian threat (or lack thereof).

I doubt that countering the Russians is the reason why the US fields combat aircraft.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

I doubt that countering the Russians is the reason why the US fields combat aircraft.

Yeah, that was meant to be an insult to tha Russian Air Force rather than commentary on procurement.

 

[y_p_w]

Yeah, that was meant to be an insult to tha Russian Air Force rather than commentary on procurement.

I fully understood the reference to the Russian military industry's dumpster fire.

 

[MParr]

I hope the Russian pilot is alright.

 

[RooflessVW]

Yeah - I think the dump was to try and contaminate sensors, and/or cause engine problems.

Which is funny because it would do neither.

 

[FishFry]

I don't buy the propeller story - if you look at that drone, it's pretty much impossible to hit the prop without crashing into the rear fins.
I don't think any pilot would risk that - let alone the probable damage at his own aircraft.

Also you don't see any impact in the video, and that color bar glitch at the end is also pretty cheesy - that's not what video cameras do - and I'm a cinematographer since over 30 years. I crashed several cameras during that time, so I know.

I just heard that the drone had its transponder turned off, which of course is a violation of international law.

 

[IndyFan]

My son has thought about going into the service after college to be a fighter pilot. I almost worry as much about him getting near unprofessional Russian or Chinese fighter pilots whose goal is to get a Darwin Award as much as I'd fear him being in a shooting war.

 

[y_p_w]

I don't buy the propeller story - if you look at that drone, it's pretty much impossible to hit the prop without crashing into the rear fins.
I don't think any pilot would risk that - let alone the probable damage at his own aircraft.

Also you don't see any impact in the video, and that color bar glitch at the end is also pretty cheesy - that's not what video cameras do - and I'm a cinematographer since over 30 years. I crashed several cameras during that time, so I know.

I just heard that the drone had its transponder turned off, which of course is a violation of international law.

Who said that it didn't hit the rear fins? They're not in the picture. And who says that transponders are required to be on? My reading is that the Russians are claiming a temporary restricted airspace over international waters.