Reports :- SU-27 & MQ-9 “incident” over the Black Sea

[Agent K]

So the sheer mass of the fuel dump bent two of the props and the two aircraft didn't actually touch.

You seem to be the only one sticking with your wacky theories despite (video) evidence to the contrary?

[cat1]

Was it actualy mentioned in offical reports that the loss of power was caused by damage to the prop?
Edit:
For clarification I was wondering if it hit any other parts of the aircraft

[Col Nago]

The Open Source geolocation geeks are all over this:

https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status ... 3489418241

[POL]

So the sheer mass of the fuel dump bent two of the props and the two aircraft didn't actually touch.

Ok, I need to ask, what's your agenda here?

[James Cutting]

So the Russians have given the pilots awards for what they did, so there's your deliberate attempt.

[cat1]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1r0xvK13eS0&t=13s

A good watch

[quid21]

It reminds me of the tragic airshow crash in the states between two warbirds, in this case the Flanker pilot cannot see where the drone is in each pass as it's under his field of view, it's not surprising he collided eventually! I'd agree with the US, it was reckless and poor airmanship.

[Richard B]

From what I can find is the su27, fuel dump valve is 1 in the rear cone,
My view is that jet engaged both afterburner and used the force of the burners and thrust to make the drone unstable, force thou bent the rear prop instead.
Not convinced it was fuel dump from 2 dump valve inside the rear engine nozzles.most aircraft have 1 dump valve.
With it being very high up the afterburner as created a big contrail.

[T_J]

From what I can find is the su27, fuel dump valve is 1 in the rear cone,
My view is that jet engaged both afterburner and used the force of the burners and thrust to make the drone unstable, force thou bent the rear prop instead.
Not convinced it was fuel dump from 2 dump valve inside the rear engine nozzles.most aircraft have 1 dump valve.
With it being very high up the afterburner as created a big contrail.

Flankers dump fuel direct from the engine nozzles.

Ground fuel dump test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvwqj85zuJM

Footage from Syria of Flanker dumping fuel during a close pass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvaQZEhlhA0

Video from Soviet era showing Su-27s dumping fuel. See 2:06 and 2:22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv7IFQAJF3c

[Thunder44]

So the sheer mass of the fuel dump bent two of the props and the two aircraft didn't actually touch.

You seem to be the only one sticking with your wacky theories despite (video) evidence to the contrary?

Nope. Only thing wacky around here is you and your tone to be honest.

Its simple physics. If a SU-27 vectoring in at 45ish degree angle hitting some prop which will be spinning at 100/1000 ish RPM they it'll be more that one blade being bent and other being feathered the wrong way. They would all be destroyed and the drone would be knocked violently and would be clearly visible on the camera to see. Clearly this wasn't the case.

It was clearly the mass of the fuel dump that would have bent the prop and would have dissipated afterwards.

So the yanks aren't really correct here.

Ok, I need to ask, what's your agenda here?

Common sense.

Seems that if anyone questions anything in regard to this war then you are automatically called a "Russian bot" or some tripe like that. The west MSM even admitted that the whole 'russian troll' concept is fake and the while bot idea was a way of covering up the pro trump supporters or again anyone questioning anything.

[FrankTSussex]

From what I can find is the su27, fuel dump valve is 1 in the rear cone,
My view is that jet engaged both afterburner and used the force of the burners and thrust to make the drone unstable, force thou bent the rear prop instead.
Not convinced it was fuel dump from 2 dump valve inside the rear engine nozzles.most aircraft have 1 dump valve.
With it being very high up the afterburner as created a big contrail.

Don’t know enough about the impact of the weight of the fuel/ force of the burners on the props. I did see that the video immediately became pixelated or u/s rather than showing the drone spiralling downwards out of control. Surely that indicates impact damage.
Either way we are effectively dancing on a pin head. It was a hostile act by Russia intended to bring down a USAF aircraft and requires a response by NATO. Otherwise the message to Russia and others is clear ….

[Nighthawke]

A diplomatic response of course. Anything else and Putin's hand will creep closer to the nuclear button - maybe too close!

[Red-Eye-Knight]

It's funny how 1 person says this about the incident and another says that when in reality nobody knows the full and real story behind it unless you happen to work for the US or Russia which I highly doubt anyone on here does?

[Philly1971]

It looks like the US are looking to retire a few MQ-9s anyway, so I would be tempted to pack one full of explosives so when the Su-27 decides to dump fuel or pass a few feet away just detonate the explosives, take out the SU-27, and then just do what the Russians do, and lie and say the Su-27 flew straight into it.

[raptor9]

Really???. !!!, Then that would make the West as bad as the Russians then!!. I don't want to be like them.

[Richard B]

Another look into this, the fact it was in international airspace or waters, why was no other nato or Ukraine fighter in the area .
Given the time the SU27s was around this drone , it does ask questions why these 2 aircraft was not picked up .
Must have known the location of said drone and SU27s heading its way and 15 plus minutes buzzing around said drone.

[POL]

I'm sure both sides knew about the location of both aircraft, but as you said, it's international airspace and they each as the same right to be there.

[seven]

Really???. !!!, Then that would make the West as bad as the Russians then!!. I don't want to be like them.

I don't recall NATO's doctrine to contain consistent strikes on civilian infrastructure, or mass use of rape and deportation as a weapon. The west is not like Russia.

Another look into this, the fact it was in international airspace or waters, why was no other nato or Ukraine fighter in the area .
Given the time the SU27s was around this drone , it does ask questions why these 2 aircraft was not picked up .
Must have known the location of said drone and SU27s heading its way and 15 plus minutes buzzing around said drone.

Not quite as simple as that. It can be clearly seen in the on-board footage that the event took place within sight of land (an Island to the east of Crimea IIRC). No manned NATO aircraft operate anywhere near that close to Russian occupied territory.
Plus who said any NATO fighters were airborne and able to assist at the time?
Plus any actions of that nature would be viewed by the west as provoking direct contact with Russia, which has been a no go from the start-and there lies the problem.

[seven]

Another look into this, the fact it was in international airspace or waters, why was no other nato or Ukraine fighter in the area .

Also this was well within range of S300/S400 systems in Crimea, any Ukrainian fighters wouldn't have made it anywhere near the area, asuming of course they didn't have more important things to worry about back home.