As you might have heard, a Russian fighter jet is reported to have forced down a US Air Force RPA
over the Black Sea on Tuesday 14 March . According to reports, a US American
RPA [remotely piloted aircraft], specifically MQ-9 Reaper and two Russian Suhkoi Su-27 fighter
jets were involved in this incident. According to a press release by U.S.
European Command, the incident occurred at around 7am local time when the MQ-9 Reaper was flying a
routine surveillance mission in international airspace. As the official announcement reads:
At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9,
causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. Several times before the
collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally
unsound and unprofessional manner. There are many questions that might be
associated with this crash but it is early days so we don’t know much. Instead of speculating,
I’ll sum up the facts and some additional background that helps contextualize this issue.
How did the Russians down the aircraft? According to the release, the first attempt to interfere
with the Reaper was to have one Su-27 fly in front of the reaper by repeatedly dumping fuel on it.
Aircraft are equipped with quick fuel vents that allow for this, although it is usually only used
in emergencies or special circumstances. A second Su-27 then appear to have made
contact with the Reaper, destroying its propeller and thus forcing it down.
This means that the Reaper was not ‘shot’ down but was the victim of an ‘unsafe flight manoeuvre’,
which resulted in the same outcome – it crashed – but carries different legal baggage with it and
at which point there is a discussion whether this was deliberate act or the result of unprofessional
piloting on the side of the Russian pilot – but that currently takes us too far into the realm
of speculation and legal intricacies. It is also likely that the Su-27 may
have been slightly damaged by making contact with the propeller,. However,
beyond the obvious risk such contact poses, the risk of FOD damage to the engines is there. The
Su-27 does have a FOD screen in its engine air intake but this
is linked to the gear being deployed. I have seen some analogies for the World
War 2 missions flown by Allied pilots against German V-1 missiles and the question of why
the Su-27 didn’t just tip over the RPA – well the V-1 had a basic autopilot system allowing
it to fly a preset course but the Reaper is a manned system with a remote piloting link,
thus allowing the operator to potentially recover the aircraft if tipped over.
Now let’s turn to the question of what a MQ-9 Reaper was doing over the Black Sea. Well,
as you know Russia escalated the war against Ukraine last year and this has caused NATO
to step up surveillance in the area to have information on what is going
on in the area. RPAs like MQ-9 Reaper can be used for this. Based usually in Rumania,
they are piloted remotely from stations like the Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy . Acnd as
long as it operates in international airspace, is perfectly allowed to do this and standard
practice for many nations, including Russia. This also requires it to follow the required
safety and standardized procedures of air traffic, for example having its transponder on. In this
case, there is no reason yet to assume it did not do so as typically NATO equipment
does have it on – though Russia claims it didn’t have it on in this case . Even if we were to
entertain this statement by Russia, that still doesn’t mean you can crash it out of the sky.
However, this is not necessarily new. Since a couple of years, the US and NATO have increased
the number of flights on their Eastern flank due to Russia’s increasingly threatening behavior
which only last year escalated the conflict. This also included more reconnaissance flights
by unmanned aircraft like MQ-9 Reaper. For example, icn 20c21, the US positioned the
carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Mediterranean Sea instead of allowing her to pass through the
Suez Canal as intended due to the ongoing tensions with Russia. The Truman was then replaced by the
carrier George H.W. Bush in 2022. Both have been conducting routine operations in the area.
Right now, it is unsure whether the US will be able to recover the wreckage. As
Turkey has closed the Bosphorus Strait, there is currently no access. Of course,
that does not mean that the wreckage can not be recovered through alternative means, for example
by relying on local NATO Allies like Rumania . While there is always the risk of this wreckage
landing in the hands of the wrong people, it is overall unlikely that the Reaper has anything on
board that is big news to an actor like Russia. By now it’s a mature system with more than a
decade of service, so this is definitely not the same as the mad scramble to get
that F-35 back, but still, the US may chave an interest in recovering this wreckage.
There are a few elements to this story that fix it into the broader context.
First off, there is at least some tacit recognition that Ukraine may receive some
intelligence information from the US during the present conflict. This likely causes some anger
in Moscow, although they can’t really do anything about it. A single Reaper, although capable, isn’t
really the most high value asset that gathers this information –c but as an relatively cheap, slow,
unprotected and unmanned system, it is also the most likely to be used to send a message because
within sort of the levels escalation, this is basically sub threshold. Again,
this is speculation but within the picture that is painting itself now, there is a massive difference
between crashing into a Reaper, and shooting at a Reaper, or doing that to some manned ISR system.
Second, Russian pilots have repeatedly been observed flying unsafe flight manoeuvres against
NATO aircraft. This is not new, widely reported and evidenced by video proof.
Third, the US has a general policy – and we are talking in generalities here – but a general
policy of not retaliating against attacks on its drones – again because
it is likely that subthreshold issue, no one really gets hurt, all you lose
is a drone and it doesn’t happen that often . That’s what we know for now, it’s an interesting
event. Make sure to check out your inboxes for a new round of early access videos and the signup
bonuses if you are a Patreon or Channel Member- as always, have a great day and see you in the sky.