US releases drone footage from collision with Russian fighter jet

[RooflessVW]

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out.

The fact remains, it appears to have been expertly done to knock it out of the sky without firing a shot.

It was knocked out of the sky because the bozo hit it

 

[RooflessVW]

Done poorly?
The intent appears to be to bring down the drone without firing shots. If that was the intent, dumping fuel on it at high speed and altitude without colliding to my eyes appears to have been expertly accomplished. The drone was in the pilots blind spot, it appears, at some points.

And, as I said above, it did not appear to me to have physically struck the drone. It doused it with fuel, and caused a jet wake sufficient to cripple the drone. Seems the US did something similar x4 earlier this year.

The wake and fuel would not affect the MQ-9. It is not a paper kite.

It was struck.

 

[ms21043]

Done poorly?
The intent appears to be to bring down the drone without firing shots. If that was the intent, dumping fuel on it at high speed and altitude without colliding to my eyes appears to have been expertly accomplished. The drone was in the pilots blind spot, it appears, at some points.

And, as I said above, it did not appear to me to have physically struck the drone. It doused it with fuel, and caused a jet wake sufficient to cripple the drone. Seems the US did something similar x4 earlier this year.

It was done poorly, the guy can't manage the jets energy, that's why he hit the drone. The reason for dumping fuel in front of it is to try and get the drones engine to ingest it and overtemp.

 

[leadcounsel]

So, shooting down a Russian airplane is an act of war, but knocking one of our aircraft down is OK?

I really don’t see any difference between a shoot down and an intentional mid air collision.

They’re both hostile acts.

I think that ship has sailed, about 8 years ago, without delving into the politics of it.

 

[leadcounsel]

It was done poorly, the guy can't manage the jets energy, that's why he hit the drone. The reason for dumping fuel in front of it is to try and get the drones engine to ingest it and overtemp.

Look, I'm not here to argue. These planes are moving in the same opposite direction both traveling at extreme speeds. In my view this was expertly maneuvered and that tap on 1 prop blade (if that was done at all, intentionally, or accidently) it was expertly done or a happy inadvertent accident from the pilots perspective, to accomplish the mission.

Mission was achieved, it was knocked down safely without firing a shot. And, to be blunt, they didn't waste a $5 million missile on a hobby balloon.

Edited: I initially thought they were moving toward each other but apparently the RU was approaching from behind and this drone has a prop on the rear.

 

[leadcounsel]

It was knocked out of the sky because the bozo hit it

I guess that "bozo" might be an extremely good pilot then, huh? Because from my foxhole that's an expert maneuver if he accomplished exactly what he wanted, a fender bender that knocked down the drone, and didn't sustain damage to his jet and made it home fine.

It seems to me people suffer from "my team, their team" bias. If an American pilot did exactly this it would be parades and statues of praise.

 

[RooflessVW]

didn't sustain damage to his jet and made it home fine.

You clearly know nothing about aircraft.

His aircraft may have been able to fly home, but it will take a long time to repair, if it is repairable at all.

That Su-27 hit the MQ-9, period. Wind or fuel did not damage that prop.

 

[leadcounsel]

The more I watch this I am not convinced this is the same video or perhaps I'm not understanding it. I guess the RU was approaching from behind (I initially thought it was coming from the front). But I see big discrepancies between the first part of the footage, and the props look fine, and then it cuts to what appears to be a different drone with a damaged prop. No yellow on the props, the sky looks different, etc. It could very well be a different drone spliced in there and not the drone alleged. The drone "lost signal" but then conveniently regained it to show the prop damage (that was not evident earlier when it should have been immediately after impact??). I find that very bizarre. Perhaps the drone changed orientation so the sky looks different? I'm very skeptical of this video. It appears no prop damage, then a split, then magically there's prop damage?? At this point with so much fake information it's hard to get the real deal.

I thought this was a different drone with the prop in front. but it's apparently a reaper drone; stock picture:

 

[leadcounsel]

You clearly know nothing about aircraft.

His aircraft may have been able to fly home, but it will take a long time to repair, if it is repairable at all.

That Su-27 hit the MQ-9, period. Wind or fuel did not damage that prop.

Look, I'm a member of this forum for community, not here to argue with people. I'm also trying to understand what happened. It's kinda important.

It puzzles me why people take your hostile attitude on forums when folks are trying to have a discussion about what occurred.

 

[RooflessVW]

The more I watch this I am not convinced this is the same video or perhaps I'm not understanding it. I guess the RU was approaching from behind (I initially thought it was coming from the front). But I see big discrepancies between the first part of the footage, and the props look fine, and then it cuts to what appears to be a different drone with a damaged prop. No yellow on the props, the sky looks different, etc. It could very well be a different drone spliced in there and not the drone alleged. The drone "lost signal" but then conveniently regained it to show the prop damage (that was not evident earlier when it should have been immediately after impact??). I find that very bizarre. Perhaps the drone changed orientation so the sky looks different? I'm very skeptical of this video. It appears no prop damage, then a split, then magically there's prop damage?? At this point with so much fake information it's hard to get the real deal.

I thought this was a different drone with the prop in front. but it's apparently a reaper drone; stock picture:

So really, you don't understand anything you're looking at.

Typical.

 

[Mazomopar]

Most of my fighter combat experience came from watching William Holden and Grace Kelly in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri". But if you have two opposite forces approaching each other at speeds those aircraft are traveling and one slams into a fairly large amount of liquid, is that significant? Would that prop blade slicing thru at what ever RPM in addition to its forward velocity suffer? All I can visualize is the slap my windshield takes on the highway when an opposing car slops a big ol puddle on me.

 

[leadcounsel]

Most of my fighter combat experience came from watching William Holden and Grace Kelly in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri". But if you have two opposite forces approaching each other at speeds those aircraft are traveling and one slams into a fairly large amount of liquid, is that significant? Would that prop blade slicing thru at what ever RPM in addition to its forward velocity suffer? All I can visualize is the slap my windshield takes on the highway when an opposing car slops a big ol puddle on me.

I initially made that same assessment thinking the prop was on the front of the drone, but I think this is a drone with the prop on the rear and the RU approached from the rear. That would make for a easier approach for attack, it would seem.

I'm still not really understanding how only a tip of 1 prop blade could be struck. And the video is just odd, b/c after the jet passes, there no evident damage. Then the video splices and we have a different sky, different sun angle, and now we see a bent prop. Looks suspect to me. I'm unconvinced that occurred, but I haven't ruled it in or out either way. The video with the splicing and radical change of direction/sunlight appears suspect to me, but maybe it's legit.

 

[y_p_w]

Look, I'm not here to argue. These planes are moving in opposite direction both traveling at extreme speeds. In my view this was expertly maneuvered and that tap on 1 prop blade (if that was done at all, intentionally, or accidently) it was expertly done or a happy inadvertent accident from the pilots perspective, to accomplish the mission.

Mission was achieved, it was knocked down safely without firing a shot. And, to be blunt, they didn't waste a $5 million missile on a hobby balloon.

It's pretty clear that the Su-27 intercepted it from behind. It didn't meet up head on (the propeller is at the rear of a Reaper).

 

[leadcounsel]

It's pretty clear that the Su-27 intercepted it from behind. It didn't meet up head on (the propeller is at the rear of a Reaper).

Got it. I clarified my posts above after I figured that out. I thought it was a different drone type.

 

[RooflessVW]

Got it. I clarified my posts above after I figured that out. I thought it was a different drone type.

What drone did you think it was?

Because the title.of the video is "US Air Force MQ 9 camera footage"

 

[y_p_w]

I initially made that same assessment thinking the prop was on the front of the drone, but I think this is a drone with the prop on the rear and the RU approached from the rear. That would make for a easier approach for attack, it would seem.

I'm still not really understanding how only a tip of 1 prop blade could be struck. And the video is just odd, b/c after the jet passes, there no evident damage. Then the video splices and we have a different sky, different sun angle, and now we see a bent prop. Looks suspect to me. I'm unconvinced that occurred, but I haven't ruled it in or out either way. The video with the splicing and radical change of direction/sunlight appears suspect to me, but maybe it's legit.

From what I can tell, one of the blades (there are 4) was bent pretty badly while maybe another one was slightly bent. I'm not surprised. When something hits a fan blade, it typically bounces off of it quickly.

It is really weird seeing the camera capture period (electronic image sensors don't need "shutters") and frame rate look like the propeller is moving in slow motion. I'm pretty sure that the human eye would see the propeller as a blur.

FWIW, Astro's favorite YouTube RIO calls it "bad airmanship" on the part of the Russian pilot.

 

[dnewton3]

We're done here.
Too many posts had to be deleted.
Too many argumentative comments.
Locked.