apparently this is what this squadron is trained to do.
3 Likes
Of course. That’s how they apply the polonium to the drone they’re pushing out a window.
4 Likes
I remember in roughly 2016 when Russian aircraft entered Finnish airspace for a couple of minutes and then exited. No radio transmissions, no response to any communications. Just long enough to get everyone riled up and then back to business as usual. Again, not an accident. Deliberate as a bully might do.
Of course it’s ‘Rules for thee and not for me’ when the situation is reversed. 
2 Likes
The drone did not enter Russian airspace.
6 Likes
I think I figured out the answer to this question. I suspect that this wasn’t a standard Su24, but rather, was a Su24MR “Fencer”. That’s a reconnaissance version of it, without the cannon. The cannon is replaced with various cameras. It makes much more sense for a recon plane to be flying in that area. It might have had a missile, but obviously, Russia wants to conserve missiles. To me, as a non-pilot, this shows something about the Russian mindset. The pilot came up with a very creative solution to the solving the problem cheaply (dump fuel). The pilot was willing to put his plane, and himself, at risk by coming into contact with the drone, rather than expending a $100k (or whatever) missile.
That balloon was hit with a AIM-9X Sidewinder, which, yeah, is a crazy expensive thing to blow at a balloon. Those missiles cost a couple hundred thousand and up, depending on which model it is. The F35 also has a cannon which would be tremendously cheaper than using a Sidewinder. The AF must have had a very good reason to not use the cannon. They had quite a lot of time to come up with their plan of action. I’m suspecting they saw this as an opportunity to test the platform, something which they need to do anyway.
Edit: I realized after I wrote this, it was an F22, not an F35, which even more makes me think this was an exercise or test mission as much as anything.
1 Like
that is one perspective certainly. (emphasis mine)
1 Like
With the high altitude balloon travelling at a much slower speed than the aircraft a gun attack would have had to deal with several risk factors.
It the jet can’t attack from above the balloon, the explosive cannon shells would end up flying for miles on a arching path, landing miles away. Coming from above the rounds would still impact the ground but the area affected could be better controlled .
At very high altitudes at or near the aircraft’s operating envelope if difficult since the jet loses maneuverability and with the attack having to stay within the effective range of the cannon there is a risk of the jet colliding with the balloon during its attack.
Missiles costs more, but carried a lower risk.
3 Likes
It is - last week I was watching a documentary re UK’s Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier in the Med last year when Russian ships and jets attempted some ‘close encounters’ and the language used by the RN officers (and on radios to the Russians, IIRC) involved deliberate repeated use of the word ‘unprofessional’.
4 Likes
I believe that the Russians have declared some chunks of international airspace to be “Russian airspace” for the duration of the ‘special military operation’.
As far as I know, this has no validity whatsoever in international law, but then the whole ‘special operation’ is a violation of any number of laws and international norms, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯ …
2 Likes
Russia also entered Turkish airspace in 2015 but it did not go so well for the pilot: 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - Wikipedia
3 Likes
In these cases ‘unprofessional’ is used as a catch phrase for purposely endangering another vehicle be it a ship or plane, whatever. The goal is to cause the target vehicle to change course, and potentially lose control, or even crash into the vehicle that is obstructing it so to cause the target damage.
It’s a cold war and there are little consequences to doing it beyond strong words. Most NATO countries and close allies take the higher ground and complain. If they all followed Turkish lead and shot them down, as it endangered the life of the crew or the vehicle, the practice would have stopped or we would now be in a hot war.
3 Likes
I don’t have the link right now, but there’s a news story about Canada shooting down a weather balloon a few years ago. They used bullets and it was ineffective.
A weather balloon is not the same as a party balloon. In the Canadian story, after being shot with many bullets, it just kept floating along like nothing had happened.
A missile may feel like overkill, but it got the job done on time and in the correct location without drama. In the scope of the budget, the cost for one isn’t a huge amount.
In the current Russian interaction, I suspect they didn’t mean to hit the drone, just cover it in fuel. I assume the impact was a mistake and not intentional. The overall interaction was clearly intentional and with ill intent.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Good points about bullets vs balloon.
Yeah, definitely. This was nutty Russian pilot risk evaluation. He came very close to losing his plane and his life. You could see the propeller of the drone got bent, meaning it just barely touched the plane. A few inches closer and it could have smashed the plane.
4 Likes
And quite amazing footage of a very similar jet vs drone confrontation, but this time no collision and both sides lived to fly another day:
Again, the jet tried to take down the drone (this time a Ukrainian operated Bairaktor) using the spraying fuel technique. The video commentator says one reason to not use a missile is to avoid being provokative. That makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe the Russian anti-drone technique really is to spray fuel.
Edit: I’m going to name this unique Russian technique “drone defenestration”.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
