Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's fairly obvious that they wanted to disable the drone and recover it fairly intact when it came down in the Black Sea.
Otherwise they would have just blown it out of the sky.
Perhaps engineer a copy using the same sensor technology. God knows they've done it before. From the B29 and Sidewinder missile, to the Space Shuttle.
 
Last edited:
I think Stoli may be involved in this incident. I am betting that pilot is now on the front line in Ukraine somewhere holding a Mosin Nagant.
 
It's fairly obvious that they wanted to disable the drone and recover it fairly intact when it came down in the Black Sea.
Otherwise they would have just blown it out of the sky.
Perhaps engineer a copy using the same sensor technology. God knows they've done it before. From the B29 and Sidewinder missile, to the Space Shuttle.
Maybe.

On the other hand, shooting it down would be less deniable. No one will believe them, but this way the official line can end up being that the pilots were just being "playful and overzealous" and did not have permission to crash the American drone. Everyone would be more certain that an actual shootdown would have to be authorized by some higher command and thus would be less plausibly deniable.
 
I saw a news segment on this with General Hertling contributing. He said that he thinks it’s unlikely that a pilot would be ordered or given permission to knock the drone down my bumping it with their jet. They were harassing it and doing things like dumping fuel on it, but actually hitting it would be pretty reckless.

He pointed out that the prop-driven drone is fairly slow, and the jet’s minimum speed is much higher, so the aircraft cannot match speed. It’s not like the jet could just slide up and carefully clip the drone. They would have hit it while doing a fast pass by it, and that probably means an accident, not that they intentionally rammed it at speed, which would be pretty dangerous to try.
 
He pointed out that the prop-driven drone is fairly slow, and the jet’s minimum speed is much higher, so the aircraft cannot match speed. It’s not like the jet could just slide up and carefully clip the drone.
I'm certainly no general but the MQ-9's top speed is close to 200 mph. This would be more than the take-off speed, landing speed and stall speed of fighter jets I know of. I'm pretty sure a good pilot in the right jet could make it stand still or maintain any speed between 0 and mach X. It a matter of ajusting angle of attack and throttle.

Dangerous of course to clip anything intentionally, but considering what we see at air shows, I wouldn't discount it until I hear from an actual jet pilot or Su-27 expert.
 
Last edited:
nothing to say

I'm no general of course but the MQ-9's top speed is close to 200 mph. This would be more than the take-off speed, landing speed and stall speed of fighter jets I know of. I'm pretty sure a good pilot in the right jet could make it stand still or maintain any speed between 0 and mach X. It a matter of ajusting angle of attack and throttle.

Dangerous of course to clip anything intentionally, but considering what we see at air shows, I wouldn't discount it until I hear from an actual jet pilot or Su-27 expert.

I‘m no expert in these things, so I’m just going by what he said. Maybe drones don’t fly at top speed most of the time?

He did not say he knew anything for sure either way about whether it was intentional or not, and this was just his gut feeling. I also don’t think he intended to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. I think his point was that hitting the drone with the jet was a pretty reckless thing to do, and not likely something a pilot would be ordered to do or given permission to do. Why risk your SU-27 to take down a drone?

My thought is if you want to take it down, why not just shoot it down? Why try to douse it with fuel or knock it down by ramming? Is there a difference diplomatically? Maybe they wanted to recover it intact and really did order a pilot to try to disable it and not destroy it. I’m not sure we will find out.

One thing we’ve seen in this war is that no one in the Russian military, from the top to the bottom, seems to be very professional or have much regard for the safety of their own men and equipment. They are all pretty reckless. So maybe a drunk or angry officer did order a pilot to ram the drone.
 
Way back in the '80's when I was in the Air Force flying the C-23 we had a dutch F-16 fly formation on our wing for over 5 minutes. We were doing 170 Kts at 5000 ft. The Su-27 pilot would have no trouble flying formation at that speed. 200 kts would be no problem.
 
I‘m no expert in these things, so I’m just going by what he said. Maybe drones don’t fly at top speed most of the time?

He did not say he knew anything for sure either way about whether it was intentional or not, and this was just his gut feeling. I also don’t think he intended to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. I think his point was that hitting the drone with the jet was a pretty reckless thing to do, and not likely something a pilot would be ordered to do or given permission to do. Why risk your SU-27 to take down a drone?

My thought is if you want to take it down, why not just shoot it down? Why try to douse it with fuel or knock it down by ramming? Is there a difference diplomatically? Maybe they wanted to recover it intact and really did order a pilot to try to disable it and not destroy it. I’m not sure we will find out.

One thing we’ve seen in this war is that no one in the Russian military, from the top to the bottom, seems to be very professional or have much regard for the safety of their own men and equipment. They are all pretty reckless. So maybe a drunk or angry officer did order a pilot to ram the drone.
I'd guess that the drone would fly at cruising speed to maximise duration.
Physical attack might be possible. In WW2 the RAF would fly alongside V1 and tip their wings. Another mode of attack could be electronic as a l;ocal jamming signal could swamp the receiver.
I have no special knowldge on this, but I'm sure there are more ways of taking out a drone than shooting at it.
 
......... dumping fuel on it a few times, presumably in hopes of getting it to catch fire. Story developing, may be updated with better info.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics/russian-jet-us-drone-black-sea/index.html

That's not to get it to catch on fire, it's to knock out the motor. Massive raw fuel ingestion by internal combustion engines, be they recip or turbine, is usually not conducive to continued operation. Since it would just pretty much damage the power plant, it speaks to them wanting to capute the electronics package intact.
 
That's not to get it to catch on fire, it's to knock out the motor. Massive raw fuel ingestion by internal combustion engines, be they recip or turbine, is usually not conducive to continued operation.
Thanks for the fact check from someone who knows. I hadn't thought about that, though I probably should have.
 
Maybe drones don’t fly at top speed most of the time?
Unless they're escaping danger or on somekind of attack run, I don't see why they would. I suspect this one was on a pre-planned route and the jet adjusted its speed.

Why risk your SU-27 to take down a drone?
Maybe to save on the cost of a missile. The ability to clip another plane safely might actually be a useful skill/tech if results are predictable. Mastering this sounds interesting. Would be quite entertaining in a movie. Low cost in real life, and somewhat like a cop car ending a car chase. I don't like the conclusion that the Russian pilot made a mistake. I'd rather explore the idea that everything was under control, and to think of ways this could actually be a "close quarters weapon". Like a movie character pushing an enemy off a mountain instead of using a weapon.

My thought is if you want to take it down, why not just shoot it down? Why try to douse it with fuel or knock it down by ramming? Is there a difference diplomatically?
I think there's a diplomatic difference and it touches on Peartree's "plausibly deniable", or ambiguity.

Maybe they wanted to recover it intact and really did order a pilot to try to disable it and not destroy it. I’m not sure we will find out.
That too. Definitely. Perhaps the main reason.
 
Unless they're escaping danger or on somekind of attack run, I don't see why they would. I suspect this one was on a pre-planned route and the jet adjusted its speed.
Don't confuse or conflate the terms "drone" and "autonomous."

I'm certain that Reaper drones are piloted and, in the middle of the Black Sea, the pilot would have been alert and focused. While a Reaper drone may not be capable of dogfighting a jet fighter, I'm sure that some evasive action was likely.
 
Maybe to save on the cost of a missile. The ability to clip another plane safely might actually be a useful skill/tech if results are predictable. Mastering this sounds interesting. Would be quite entertaining in a movie. Low cost in real life, and somewhat like a cop car ending a car chase. I don't like the conclusion that the Russian pilot made a mistake. I'd rather explore the idea that everything was under control, and to think of ways this could actually be a "close quarters weapon". Like a movie character pushing an enemy off a mountain instead of using a weapon.
I don't know how much credence to give it, but there was a talking head saying that the Russian plane was flying kind of wildly before the collision. That kind of tracks with a plane being on the edge of control. Another thing to note is that Russian pilots don't get nearly the number of air hours of training that US ones do. Whether that's critical or not? Others know more than me.

Those mist nets that they use to catch birds for banding might be pretty useful in this situation and for taking down quadcopter-type drones.
 
I don't know how much credence to give it, but there was a talking head saying that the Russian plane was flying kind of wildly before the collision. That kind of tracks with a plane being on the edge of control. Another thing to note is that Russian pilots don't get nearly the number of air hours of training that US ones do. Whether that's critical or not? Others know more than me.

Those mist nets that they use to catch birds for banding might be pretty useful in this situation and for taking down quadcopter-type drones.
I should think that after a certain point of experience in lead-in fighter trainers and two-steater variants of mainline fighters, Russian fighter pilots will be capable of basic stick-and-rudder airmanship even while having only minimal continuous training. An equally speculative guess says that air combat maneuvering, weapons training, and military-specific protocol are the skills that will erode quickest for combat pilots. This would explain why the Russians still haven’t knocked out Ukraine’s anti-air defenses.

Lots of edits went into this posting, please don’t shout at me for the earlier versions if you saw them.
 

I would be really interested to hear comments from the actual pilots here on this video. To me, it looks like the Russian screwed up on a fuel dump pass and that the approach seemed weirdly active (ie, not a steady reduction in range with constant bearing). I am admittedly not an expert.
 
Bingo boatgeek.

It's clear the Russian pilot lost visual with the drone at the end of the video. The pixelation is most likely the signal loss as the SU/fuel cloud blocked the satellite link (also the drone getting rocked by wake turbulence and contact) . The fact that the last frame clearly show the SU VERY close, it looks like contact occurred, the bent propeller confirms this.

EDIT:

At 28 sec into the clip you can no longer see the cockpit of the SU-27 and the increasing bank/pitch makes it almost 100% that the pilot could not see any of the Reaper. This breaks the cardinal rule of rejoins/interceptions. Never lose sight of the target while joining.
It looks like the drone is flying straight and level. The actual position of the Reaper is well know and recorded so there should be no question that it was over international waters.

Lastly, It's an unmanned drone. All of the intel/data was downloaded. The sensors are sensitive, but not greatly so and were probably destroyed during impact with the ocean. We can build another.

I'm guessing the SU has at least minor damage to the aft fuselage/tail area.
 
Last edited:
Don't confuse or conflate the terms "drone" and "autonomous."

I'm certain that Reaper drones are piloted and, in the middle of the Black Sea, the pilot would have been alert and focused. While a Reaper drone may not be capable of dogfighting a jet fighter, I'm sure that some evasive action was likely.
Piloted yes, but the pilot(s) would have pre-planned the route before the flight and appear to have stayed on the planned course, not reacting to the jet.

("pre-planned route" and "autonomous" are also different terms.)

In any case, I probably won't try to explain what happened any more than that. Trying to think of ways to safely shove a plane out of sky with a shoulder check is more interesting to me. Off to the drawing board! Mouahahahaha! (Hey DARPA? You out there? 😆)
 
Last edited:
Poland is the first country to say they will send fighter jets to Ukraine.

They are going to send 4 MIG-29s that are fully functional and ready to go in the next few days, and then about a dozen or so total after being fully serviced. That’s obviously helpful, but not a huge game changer.

Poland is in the process of updating their Air Force with F-35s and South Korean FA-50s, so the MIGs are becoming surplus. Hopefully other NATO nations or other allies will do the same.

Ukraine wants 4th generation fighters, like F16s, and hopefully in the future they can get them for their long-term defense. But I think in the short term, providing Soviet-era planes that Ukraine already knows how to fly and service make sense. Hopefully, like with the tanks, Poland will break the logjam by sending these planes, and others will do the same.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64975770
 
Poland is the first country to say they will send fighter jets to Ukraine.

They are going to send 4 MIG-29s that are fully functional and ready to go in the next few days, and then about a dozen or so total after being fully serviced. That’s obviously helpful, but not a huge game changer.

Poland is in the process of updating their Air Force with F-35s and South Korean FA-50s, so the MIGs are becoming surplus. Hopefully other NATO nations or other allies will do the same.

Ukraine wants 4th generation fighters, like F16s, and hopefully in the future they can get them for their long-term defense. But I think in the short term, providing Soviet-era planes that Ukraine already knows how to fly and service make sense. Hopefully, like with the tanks, Poland will break the logjam by sending these planes, and others will do the same.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64975770
The MiG-29 is part of the fourth generation, but getting parts, maintenance support, and training from Mikoyan is understandably going to be impossible.

It also denies its pilots the kind of situational awareness that the Western 4.5th-generation provides for.
 
Caption contest....
1679418281653.png

Xinnie the Pooh: "Putlet, did you happen to find any honey in Ukraine?"
Putlet: "N-n-no Pooh."
Xinnie the Pooh: "Oh bother!"

“We’ll be friends forever, won’t we, Pooh?” asked Putlet.
“Even longer,” Pooh answered.

Next time in Taipei, or Hague?
 
Caption contest....
View attachment 570149

Xinnie the Pooh: "Putlet, did you happen to find any honey in Ukraine?"
Putlet: "N-n-no Pooh."
Xinnie the Pooh: "Oh bother!"

“We’ll be friends forever, won’t we, Pooh?” asked Putlet.
“Even longer,” Pooh answered.

Next time in Taipei, or Hague?

So, Pooty, my friend. I‘m sorry I can’t send you any tanks, but what I can do is I can send you 37 million extra horny guys to knock up your 10 million extra lonely women, so you can stop stealing babies. Would that help?
 
Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?
Same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world.
Sure, but which one is Pinky and which is Brain?

What boggles my mind is that the highest ranking Russian official to meet Xi on the tarmac when he arrived was ... the deputy minister of tourism. Not the foreign minister or Putin himself. That's gonna get noticed and recorded, even though everyone is all smiles in the pictures that get published.
 
Back
Top