Russia Intercepts and Downs MQ-9 "Reaper" Drone Over Black Sea

[spat]

Well yeah? But they could have shot it down and thye were well within their rights to do it. They did flew past it 19 times but the U.S. didn't change course. So they attempted to spray fuel on it and collided with it. I posted more on this today.

It was international airspace.

If they would be justified in shooting down the drone, then the drone would be justified in shooting down the MIG too.

Not sure they want to play that game.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It was international airspace.

If they would be justified in shooting down the drone, then the drone would be justified in shooting down the MIG too.

Not sure they want to play that game.

I haven't read the law of armed conflict rules lately but I believe it's justified for countries in war to attack military assets being used to harm them. The US is on record as stating they are providing data to Ukrainians.

 

[Mosinitis]

Hostile aircraft approaching Russian territory in time of war. "Unproffesional" would be the last adjective I would use to describe Russian pilots.

 

[spat]

Hostile aircraft approaching Russian territory in time of war. "Unproffesional" would be the last adjective I would use to describe Russian pilots.

If it was hostile, the MIGs would be the ones at the bottom of the ocean.

The reaper can carry sidewinders.

The bottom line is that Russia would not have attempted that if it were a manned aircraft, so they shouldn't have done that with a drone.

 

[spat]

I haven't read the law of armed conflict rules lately but I believe it's justified for countries in war to attack military assets being used to harm them. The US is on record as stating they are providing data to Ukrainians.

Is Russia at war with the US ?

Do they really want to be ?

An *unidentified* aircraft in a war zone is at risk, but unless Russia is going to claim they thought it was a Ukranian reaper drone, then it is not justified.

Also, I thought this wasn't a war ? You don't get to invoke the rules of war if it's just a "special military operation".

 

[Mosinitis]

If it was hostile, the MIGs would be the ones at the bottom of the ocean.

The reaper can carry sidewinders.

The bottom line is that Russia would not have attempted that if it were a manned aircraft, so they shouldn't have done that with a drone.

NATO wants to fight a one-way war with Russia. It doesn't work that way. Both sides can play plausible deniability game.

 

[spat]

NATO wants to fight a one-way war with Russia. It doesn't work that way. Both sides can play plausible deniability game.

Pretty sure there is nothing plausibly deniable about this.

Is Russia going to claim those MIGs weren't theirs ?

Was the video faked ?

If a couple F22s splash some of their MIGs in the same place are they going to be satisfied with the "shit happens in a war zone" excuse ?

 

[tirwin1]

Russian trawlers shadowed our carriers in international waters during the Vietnam war. They would routinely try to interfere with carrier operations by trying to move in front of them, forcing the carriers to change course due to international law. If our drone was in international airspace regardless of it's purpose the Russians had no right to down it. Them's the rules.

 

[Mosinitis]

Pretty sure there is nothing plausibly deniable about this.

Is Russia going to claim those MIGs weren't theirs ?

Was the video faked ?

If a couple F22s splash some of their MIGs in the same place are they going to be satisfied with the "shit happens in a war zone" excuse ?

They didn't fire on it.

 

[Mosinitis]

Russian trawlers shadowed our carriers in international waters during the Vietnam war. They would routinely try to interfere with carrier operations by trying to move in front of them, forcing the carriers to change course due to international law. If our drone was in international airspace regardless of it's purpose the Russians had no right to down it. Them's the rules.

Drones are military aircraft. Trawlers are civilian fishing vessels.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Drones are military aircraft. Trawlers are civilian fishing vessels.

Except Chinese ones...

 

[tirwin1]

Drones are military aircraft. Trawlers are civilian fishing vessels.

Irrelevant. And the trawlers were military spying platforms.

 

[spat]

They didn't fire on it.

So, if the F22s don't fire on the MIGs it would be OK ?

 

[spat]

There are only 2 ways the "it's a war zone" excuse flys.

If they are enemy aircraft, then obviously it's OK.

Or, if it is a genuine case of mistaken identity (fly your civilian plane in a war zone, don't be surprised if it is mistaken for a military one).

If you intentionally down an aircraft it doesn't matter if you use guns, missiles, EW, a fuel dump, or ram it, it's the same as shooting it down.

Just like beating someone to death with a baseball bat is legally the same as shooting them. It doesn't matter if you try to say you were just practicing your swing....

 

[holdover]

Pretty sure there is nothing plausibly deniable about this.

Is Russia going to claim those MIGs weren't theirs ?

Was the video faked ?

It can be denied it was an intentional downing, by saying they were attempting to warn away an intruder by flying close to it.

Not that it really matters , either side can justify a call to war if they wanted to. Its just Russia saying mind your business, but we dont really want a full blown war over it. The Us says Ok we dont either.

It might well have been shot down and Washington trying to save face with a bogus story. What would they tell the public? the truth? Russia shot down our drones over international waters ?

Not saying that happened , but Russia would be putting the US in difficult position which could result in a war.


Both sides know that a conflict will inevitably end in a nuclear war . Neither side wants that.

I doubt it was faked but did you see the drone hit or go down?

 

[holdover]

If you intentionally down an aircraft it doesn't matter if you use guns, missiles, EW, a fuel dump, or ram it, it's the same as shooting it down.

Legally, yes. Politically , no.

the reason is that it gives the other side a political Out . the president can come out and say it was just a warning if he wants to ,or He can say its justification to shoot down all Russian aircraft if hes a lunatic.

Since the US doesnt want a direct conflict , they will just let it go. As they should.

 

[RedBreast21]

It was international airspace.

If they would be justified in shooting down the drone, then the drone would be justified in shooting down the MIG too.

Not sure they want to play that game.

Actually yes and no it wasn't. If you look into the ADIZ and the international agreement between 20 countries, you will find that it is an agreed upon identification zone for aircraft and all countries whom are a party to it can, at times of national security, extend beyond their current limit. The United States currently has their ADIZ set at 100 miles off the coast. 88 miles past the international water and air space zone and can push that out further in necessary unilaterally.
The DOD said the transponder (the identity of the aircraft) was in fact turned off. I don't think the U.S. would allow a foreign spy plane or drone to operate within the ADIZ. Do you? The transponder was likely turned off so as not the have the international community tracking it like a passenger flight on google. Yes that is the transponders we are talking about and are in fact required by international law. Doing that provides clear conflicting stories about any incident. The drone was on a sanctioned spy mission. I can accept that. It was buzzed 19 times to clear the area before being struck.

What game don't they want to play?

This stuff went on a lot in the 70' and 80's. You are grossly under estimating the Russian military. They are very capable. You really believe we can defeat them as easily as the goat herding Taliban? Oh, wait that didn't happen. LOL

The U.S. is at war with Russia and you'll get your chance to sign up go soon enough. lol

 

[spat]

It can be denied it was an intentional downing, by saying they were attempting to warn away an intruder by flying close to it.

Not that it really matters , either side can justify a call to war if they wanted to. Its just Russia saying mind your business, but we dont really want a full blown war over it. The Us says Ok we dont either.

It might well have been shot down and Washington trying to save face with a bogus story. What would they tell the public? the truth? Russia shot down our drones over international waters ?

Not saying that happened , but Russia would be putting the US in difficult position which could result in a war.


Both sides know that a conflict will inevitably end in a nuclear war . Neither side wants that.

I doubt it was faked but did you see the drone hit or go down?

If the US wanted to downplay it, they would just not have mentioned it at all.

Order the drone pilot and maybe a couple maint guys to keep their mouths shut and that's it.

 

[spat]

Actually yes and no it wasn't. If you look into the ADIZ and the international agreement between 20 countries, you will find that it is an agreed upon identification zone for aircraft and all countries whom are a party to it can, at times of national security, extend beyond their current limit. The United States currently has their ADIZ set at 100 miles off the coast. 88 miles past the international water and air space zone and can push that out further in necessary unilaterally.
The DOD said the transponder (the identity of the aircraft) was in fact turned off. I don't think the U.S. would allow a foreign spy plane or drone to operate within the ADIZ. Do you? The transponder was likely turned off so as not the have the international community tracking it like a passenger flight on google. Yes that is the transponders we are talking about and are in fact required by international law. Doing that provides clear conflicting stories about any incident. The drone was on a sanctioned spy mission. I can accept that. It was buzzed 19 times to clear the area before being struck.

What game don't they want to play?

This stuff went on a lot in the 70' and 80's. You are grossly under estimating the Russian military. They are very capable. You really believe we can defeat them as easily as the goat herding Taliban? Oh, wait that didn't happen. LOL

The U.S. is at war with Russia and you'll get your chance to sign up go soon enough. lol

We let a Chinese spy balloon hover over the mainland US for a week before we shot it down, so I'm pretty sure we would not shoot down a Russian drone that strayed a little too close to the coast.

The Russian military can't defeat Ukraine, so yes, I'm pretty sure we could curb stomp them. Their conventional forces would cease to exist as an effective fighting force in a week or two and they would have to go nuclear.

In a stand up fight nobody can last against us for any length of time.

We defeated the Taliban as a conventional military in weeks. The fact that they hung on as an insurgency until we got bored and went home says more about the nature of occupation than our ability to wage war. We simply lack the stomach to do what is necessary to eliminate an insurgency.

I am sure Russia could mount an insurgency for decades too, but that's not what we're talking about.

We are very very good at fighting war, and very very bad at pacifying an occupied population. They are absolutely not the same thing, and our leadership doesn't seem to realize that.

 

[tirwin1]

We let a Chinese spy balloon hover over the mainland US for a week before we shot it down, so I'm pretty sure we would not shoot down a Russian drone that strayed a little too close to the coast.

The Russian military can't defeat Ukraine, so yes, I'm pretty sure we could curb stomp them. Their conventional forces would cease to exist as an effective fighting force in a week or two and they would have to go nuclear.

In a stand up fight nobody can last against us for any length of time.

We defeated the Taliban as a conventional military in weeks. The fact that they hung on as an insurgency until we got bored and went home says more about the nature of occupation than our ability to wage war. We simply lack the stomach to do what is necessary to eliminate an insurgency.

I am sure Russia could mount an insurgency for decades too, but that's not what we're talking about.

We are very very good at fighting war, and very very bad at pacifying an occupied population. They are absolutely not the same thing, and our leadership doesn't seem to realize that.

We are only good at occupying a totally destroyed and demoralized nation (e.g. Germany and Japan). We are pretty good at building from the ground up. The only problem is the nation has to be almost obliterated when we start. We had the will back in world war 2 but clearly didn't in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Vinson57]

Seen one of these early drones from this design family in 93 when the only thing they were doing was how to look for scuds. Some GS-17 with a PHD shows up that no one can understand so they make me go talk to him. He wants an SF mission on some targets down on CA, so we deploy but I protest to the command, the comms plan is non-existence to the point of unreliable so therefore we are wasting our time. The rest of the team just wants to go on a trip. I finally got a sat channel and we did really well reported into DC, his target within 5 minutes and this pissed him off really bad. I asked him why and he said he was only doing this as Generals says that human eyes on are still required. He wanted us to totally fuck it all up so he could report shit. I seen that guy in the last big exercise in Korea the next year and we had a new HF radio and told him, this radios also meet his standards and he rolls his eyes with a get the fuck away from me attitude. The Vietnam war era produced a lot of master and phds who avoided the Vietnam war and probably leftists now fucking everything up. So its 2001 and the B2 is being fitted with the same radios SF use to do the same data modes to they can directly receive target reports from our tip of the spear dudes.

 

[spat]

We are only good at occupying a totally destroyed and demoralized nation (e.g. Germany and Japan). We are pretty good at building from the ground up. The only problem is the nation has to be almost obliterated when we start. We had the will back in world war 2 but clearly didn't in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think we're not good at occupying anything.

If you utterly destroy someplace (like Japan or Germany) then there isn't much to the occupation, so we can manage.

The people of those countries probably welcomed the occupation as it meant an end to the war.

But occupying a country that hasn't been ground to dust means that you need to be absolutely brutal to keep the partisans in line, and no, you're absolutely correct, we're not capable of it.

He'll, even the NAZIs couldn't manage that in France of all places, and they're not exactly known for being squeamish.

 

[Grimscale]

If the US wanted to downplay it, they would just not have mentioned it at all.

They are downplaying it only to the degree that "see, Russians are warmongers and we were just peaceably flying along, not doing anything."
They mention it so they can try to score political points from Russia, but don't push it enough to declare war.
Kind of a "they want war but we'll let it slide since we're the 'good guys'". Total bullshit, but what do you expect from the current .gov.

 

[Cavalry]

Seen one of these early drones from this design family in 93 when the only thing they were doing was how to look for scuds. Some GS-17 with a PHD shows up

Similar story, similar time frame, similar highly educated civilians, except they were running unmanned semi-autonomous humvees. Civilians get all pissed when you upshow or break their expensive toys.