MQ-9 Reaper collision with SU-27

BobDDuck said:
Ok Tucker.
Click to expand...
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don’t know what this means. I don’t watch any cable news shows.
Click to expand...

If you didn’t know what this means, why did you jump to the conclusion it was about a cable news show and not an actor famous for saying “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?” or a 1940s failed automobile corporation ?

Your trolling isn’t very good.
 
CFI A&P said:
If you didn’t know what this means, why did you jump to the conclusion it was about a cable news show and not an actor famous for saying “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?” or a 1940s failed automobile corporation ?

Your trolling isn’t very good.
Click to expand...
CNNs latest ratings came out, they're averaging about 400K viewers, that's not even podcast numbers. MSNBC is slightly better. Tell us who has the late night show with the most viewers.
 
CFI A&P said:
If you didn’t know what this means, why did you jump to the conclusion it was about a cable news show and not an actor famous for saying “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?” or a 1940s failed automobile corporation ?

Your trolling isn’t very good.
Click to expand...

Because Hannity and Tucker are two Fox news name I know. DOESN'T mean I watch their shows.

I got the Chris Tucker reference. Shoot, I gotta look up the car!
 
Boris Badenov said:
Uh, uh, uh! *wags finger*. You presented it as a moral case.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the argument. Why would WE bomb China?

The argument is if Poland supplies Ukraine with fighter jets, then Russian can be justified to attack Poland. To use the Chinese analogy, if China supplies jets to Russia, then Ukraine can be justified to attack China.

See how that works? Both cases, we stay the eff out.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I think Ivan just isn't very good at the flying. Last rational-sounding report I read suggested that they're getting year, and I'd lay good money that zero of those involve a safe intercept of a *much* slower target. Not that they were trying for "safe", in the first place, obviously.
Click to expand...

So I don’t know about the Flanker, but the Fulcrum with similar stupid high AOA authority and thrust has a glaring fault as explained by one of our pilots that flew it (and Viper/Phantom/Eagle). At low speeds the Fulcrum’s roll is abysmal. I can’t imagine what it takes to get a Phantom guy to call a low speed roll authority bad.

Given the speed that they would be flying at to try and get in close with the Reaper and dump gas on it, they may be in a similar position where some control regimes are critically limited and trying to get in formation against a slow aircraft with small visual ques just left them in a bad rejoin with no where to go anywhere with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I flew the fat dump truck tanker enough times in my life to recognize that approach. Can almost tell the moment the guy went heads down to throw on the stupid dumps for effect before losing SA and crashing his dumb russian plane. Classic low to high join with closure not even close to under control......great time to stop looking outside. F***king amateurs
 
///AMG said:
No, it is a stupid circus trick that might be useful if trying to annoy a manned airplane. To be fair, the Su-27 has a lot of excess fuel, so it probably in of itself doesn't hurt them much. Crashing into another plane probably does though.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I"ve been trying to figure that out all week.

I can only imagine the aircraft's crew chief: "Comrade! What did you do to MY jet?!"
 
AFAIK, the international "signal" during an intercept would be flares. Fuel is just dumb. It reminds me of lazy JTACs in Fallon who (in training) would request a "squirt" of gas so they could gain visual on us during an ingress to the target. No thanks, I barely had enough when the wheels got into the wells. Happy to try some other methods of making myself more visible to the enemy though :)
 
Pilot Fighter said:
My father used it against Soviet trawlers interfering with carrier ops in the Tonkin Gulf.

Things got so contentious that the Soviets finally agreed to stop their antics.
Click to expand...

There may have been a few of our jets (sorry guys, I said it) that harmlessly, and unintentionally (of course) "didn't" dump gas on top of Iranian and russian trawlers that had posted themselves under the carrier landing pattern overseas some years ago. That being said, it wasn't then, and isn't now, a "tactic". Unless we are talking about tactics to annoy. Which didn't happen. In international waters, allegedly.
 
///AMG said:
There may have been a few of our jets (sorry guys, I said it) that harmlessly, and unintentionally (of course) "didn't" dump gas on top of Iranian and russian trawlers that had posted themselves under the carrier landing pattern overseas some years ago. That being said, it wasn't then, and isn't now, a "tactic". Unless we are talking about tactics to annoy. Which didn't happen. In international waters, allegedly.
Click to expand...

Whales could afford to be generous.
 
///AMG said:
There may have been a few of our jets (sorry guys, I said it) that harmlessly, and unintentionally (of course) "didn't" dump gas on top of Iranian and russian trawlers that had posted themselves under the carrier landing pattern overseas some years ago. That being said, it wasn't then, and isn't now, a "tactic". Unless we are talking about tactics to annoy. Which didn't happen. In international waters, allegedly.
Click to expand...

If they were going to take it down anyway, why not just get a guns kill. Not that difficult against the slow, non maneuvering duck of a Reaper drone.
 
MikeD said:
If they were going to take it down anyway, why not just get a guns kill. Not that difficult against the slow, non maneuvering duck of a Reaper drone.
Click to expand...

I mean, didn't some of you Hog guys like to say that about us guys......."just get a guns kill.......it'll be easy" :) (as you tear into a 1500 ft radius turn with your Hershey bar wing)
 
///AMG said:
I mean, didn't some of you Hog guys like to say that about us guys......."just get a guns kill.......it'll be easy" :) (as you tear into a 1500 ft radius turn with your Hershey bar wing)
Click to expand...

i hated carrying AIM-9s. Total waste of a weapons station. Would’ve rather carried Motorola AGM-122s (before your time :) ) on the dual rail adapter, but the USAF never bought them, only the USMC. If I needed to go air to air, thats what the gun is for. Just requires a little more lead when in-plane and in-range, due to it being boresighted at 41 mils.
 
MikeD said:
i hated carrying AIM-9s. Total waste of a weapons station. Would’ve rather carried Motorola AGM-122s (before your time :) ) on the dual rail adapter, but the USAF never bought them, only the USMC. If I needed to go air to air, thats what the gun is for. Just requires a little more lead when in-plane and in-range, due to it being boresighted at 41 mils.
Click to expand...

I had to google that. Kinda cool. I assume this was, based on vague description, a gun dish (or similar) killer? Standard Navy/China Lake ingenuity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top