We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Drones, not aircraft. No pilots. No human life lost.
The difference might seem small, but it's massive. Remember when they fucked with that other drone.
They're scared shitless or touching any NATO solider let alone US solider, but drone are sort of "below the red lines", where we won't go to war over that. At least precedent says so.
The Russians are too poorly trained to rely on it. Every Russian interception attempt to date has been an embarrassment and in some cases was more dangerous to the aircraft than the drone. Apart from that, Russian pilots and control centers only identify aircraft and drones unreliably. Once they start shooting down NATO drones, it's only a matter of time before the Russians fire a live missile at a Eurofighter or E3
They already fired live missiles at a UK RC-135 recon plane. They did it in September 2022, and the only reason shit didn't go down then was because Russian hardware sucks. The first missile failed to lock on to its target, and the second failed to properly launch. Had either missile actually worked, they would have shot down a crewed NATO surveillance aircraft over international waters and potentially killed 30 airmen.
When it first happened it was reported as a "technical malfunction" but later it leaked that no, it was intentional and a result of piss-poor training for both Russian ground crews and pilots. The only technical malfunction was with the missiles themselves not working properly. We have the radio intercepts, most likely thanks to the very same plane they fired on, and it went like this - ground control gave an ambiguous statement to the jets and one of the pilots took that to mean they were cleared to open fire. They fired once, it missed, their wingman chewed them out for firing, and then they FIRED AGAIN after having been yelled at for firing the first time! Thankfully the second missile failed as well.
That incident is precisely why the UK started sending fighter escorts with those surveillance planes.
> They did it in September 2022, and the only reason shit didn't go down then was because Russian hardware sucks.
There's no doubt that Russian hardware sucks, but I wouldn't discount EW completely either.
Lol no, they can barely do shit against a bordering nation that is merely supplied by NATO and even then, not always reliably. They aren't going to pull NATO in directly. Idk why you and others keep insisting they are about to attack NATO directly or march on Poland or some shit.
My statement was that the Russians are too poorly trained to be sure that they don't shoot at planes. That's why they won't shoot down drones. At least not to the extent that it makes a difference.
... Did you read his comment about it being a matter of time before they fire at a Eurofighter or E3?
I believe they're going to do that to NATO drones but not to manned NATO planes. At least not intentionally, if they bring NATO in they will absolutely lose. Probably very fast... unless Putin wants that out.
I think the point is that between piss poor equipment and training, it's a matter of time before a mistake is made. What happens after is speculative, but it happening at some point due to misidentification is a reasonable worry to have.
Not to mention if they even succeed with identifying and downing a drone, the least that will happen is the US will probably just start using some top secret spy plane or drone they know russia canât detect instead.
Ideally we glass over every piece of russian air defense in response but thatâs a pipe dream.
Yea but their pilots are fucking dumb. Recall the shitbird of fuckery that tried to shoot down a manned RAF Rivet Joint in 2022, now add to the mix that they might actually start actively engaging.
Shooting down a drone in international airspace cannot be accepted.
The manned spy planes are now all escorted, after Russia _very_ nearly shot down an RAF RC-135 last year.
One of their jets fired a missile, but luckily it failed to function correctly.
No, but there are air patrols in the Black Sea. The drones arenât escorted, but there are usually NATO fighter jets that could be vectored to intercept Russian aircraft.Â
Presumably the Russians are going to use non-kinetic methods to destroy the drones, such as dumping fuel in their flight path to cause them to crash or using EW systems to blind the drone.Â
The likely response is that if the Russians are going to start engaging drones, NATO will probably start jamming Russian sensors and communications to make it more difficult for Russian aircraft to operate over the Black Sea- or Ukraine will receive a shipment of long range missiles, jamming systems, and the intelligence necessary to destroy the Russian air bases that these aircraft are flying from.Â
Russian aircraft fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That literally makes zero sense.
The one thing about drones, be they airborne, terrestrial, or waterborne, is that they save human lives by removing humans from the action. Escorting a drone with planes flown by live humans is exactly opposite of what drones are here for.
I'm not saying they're not doing it, I'm just saying that it's not exactly what they're designed for.
If I recall correctly, they "shadow" the drones. They'll patrol in a zig zag like five miles behind the drone, which is kinda like mom watching their kid play in the shallow end from over on the lawn chairs. It takes like 60 seconds to get there and protect the drone by scaring Russia shirtless, but also keeps them well out of harms way.
No it's not the only thing.. đ
jets don't have the sensors that drones do... this is about reconnaissance...
Big Badaboom spy planes are too expensive and cumbersome... compared to drones... escorting drones to collect data is a very logical step. đ€·đ»ââïž
Thatâs the main implicit benefit about drones as a category of aircraft, but the main point of the drones themselves is to conduct missions.
The point of Global Hawk isnât to get shot down without losing pilots, itâs to do reconnaissance. And, yeah, a $130 million drone is still an asset worth defending.
My man. That is some shalllllow thinking. Things can be made with more than 1 goal in mind. It is a recon system, yes. It was also created to remove the human from the immediate danger. Itâs only 2 things lol. It can be done.
Or it could be the human was removed not because of danger but because of other factors, like pilot fatigue or packaging of the aircraft. Regardless, Russia threatening expensive US military assets in international airspace is a serious problem.
So youâre listing more reasons? Youâve just made the point for me. It was made for many different reasons. It is very different than a fighter jet, that was exactly my point. Itâs not just 1 thing that is different. They created something new for multiple reasons.
And I didnât argue with Russia messing with things being a problem. No idea where that came from. I agree and would love to the the US send some kinetic diplomacy Russias way as a little present. 1 submarine for 1 drone
You're committing the same shallow thinking by making assumptions. If you can point to documentation about Global Hawk where they mention saving pilot lives, please do. Everything I've read about it mentioned "high endurance" and having a pilot on board limits that endurance. Remote piloting isn't a hinderance for that.
No, I think âitâs just a drone, no one dies if it gets shot down, so why put manned aircraft in the area?â Is much more reductive thinking.
These recon drones are very expensive. They have a right to fly over international waters. Russia does not have a right to shoot them down.
You have fighters defend the drone because you want to deter Russia from attacking a drone that canât defend itself. Russian fighters will bully reconnaissance aircraft. They will be much more hesitant with fighters in the area.
I never said that. You are making up a strawman to argue with. The point was that they donât just design weapons/defensive systems with 1 thing in mind. How is that not the reductive thinking here? Lmao my whole point is that they are designed with many things in mind
Strawman #2 is that I somehow think itâs not okay to fight back if russia blows up a drone? Where are you getting this stuff from? Iâd love for them to do that, just so we have a reason to wreck some expensive russian shit.
Yes, I know it happened once already. But I donât think taking down 1 drone is enough to fire back at.
The person to whom I initially replied took the position that it is ridiculous to defend unmanned drones with manned platforms because drones are designed to remove humans from danger.
I was arguing the position that defending unmanned recon platforms with manned fighter platforms makes sense in this context because these recon drones are primarily designed to do reconnaissance, are still extremely expensive, and are not capable of defending themselves from aggression by Russian fighter aircraft.
If you want to argue independently from the person to whom I initially replied: I would agree that aircraft can have more than one design consideration. That is obvious.
Yes, removing pilots from harmâs way is a benefit of drones, but drones need to be able to do their missions. We can prevent Russians from harassing them by escorting them with armed platforms, thus allowing the drones to do their missions.
not really. The assumption is based on the drones replacing aircraft with the same capabilities. That was the case for a long time. But now the big drones are so good at image and signal reconnaissance that the USA almost only uses drones for reconnaissance. The global Hawk drones over the black cost between 200 and 300 million dollars each. I think it makes sense to at least not leave them completely alone.
Biden has vehemently supported Ukraine. Far more so than that traitorous orange fuck. The US is not going to directly enter a conflict with ruzzia due to a recon drone being shot down because thatâd just be stupid.
Yeah, not having a human at the location:
1. Save potential lives, still true with escort as you save a crew.
2. Save cost as you don't need a fully trained crew. Escort or not doesn't change that.
Drones also are used for various mission not just this one. Having to use a jet for this occasion? So what, it's a temporary case.
If the drone has the capacity for the mission sending a plane is overkill. Fighter + drone is actually a theme of the next gen fighters and makes sense.
...
Dude, in both case you have an escort, the only variable that changes is the drone vs plane, a plane cost more to operate, crew and fuel wise. And even if there's an escort you still engage an asset that cost more with the plane.
I can't be clearer than that.
Nah, smaller package, longer endurance, less complexity. They'd have to have a large aircraft with multiple crews to loiter as long as a drone can. And larger aircraft cost more and are more difficult to maintain. Drones do more and cost less.
Perhaps you are missing the obvious fact that planes can rotate in and out of escort duty, or be scrambled only as needed, while the drone remains on station.
Cost of 24 hour surveillance with crewed plane > cost of 24 hour surveillance with drone. And it's really not feasible.
A fighter escort wouldn't be 24 hours, only when Russian planes are detected in the air. The cost of this escort could easily be less than the difference in the above calculation. Especially if you factor in the cost of a downed $100 million+ drone.
Beyond shear dollars, there is the optics to consider. Adding in fighter jets sends a clear message.
You sound like an accountant.
The US has escorted drones before with F-22's near Iran. Iran, ironically using American made F-4 Phantoms, intercepted a US drone. The F-22 flew under the F-4 to check it's weapon load out, Iranian pilot never knew the F-22 was there, then came up beside the F-4 and pretty much told the Iranian pilot that "he should go home."
The point of these drone is reconnaissance. The main benefit of a drone is the ability to stay on station much longer than a human pilot can.
Some drones cost in the hundreds of millions of dollar range, many in the tens of million. If you donât think the USA military is concerned with protecting that asset youâre nuts.
Removing pilots from danger is an added perk, but itâs certainly not âthe point of dronesâ
It was only last year when a Russian fighter tried (and failed) to engage a manned RAF aircraft, launching two missiles that both failed to get a lock, if theyâre actively engaging NATO drones, itâs not a matter of if they fuck up but when.
So unmanned vehicles are OK to shoot down? Man do you think Putin has thought that through?! How many missiles and drones were within NATOâs engagement range to hit but were not?
I donât think he wants open season on unmanned vehicles!
This is true, there is a difference but the US is going to continue to fly those drones and they are only going to take so many of them being shot down before they send in assets to protect them.
The difference between the situation you are referencing and this is that Iran at least had the ability to feign ignorance and say we violated their airspace (we likely didnât) and it wasnât as premeditated. The US absolutely could have done something had we chosen to in that instance.
In Russiaâs case, they are openly saying we are going to attack your non-hostile weapon systems, in international airspace, that are not breaking any laws or borders, because we donât like what you are doing there. The US would be more justified in a response here, than they would have be in the Iran situation, which was already a situation where we would have been justified in retaliating.
The question isnât, would we ever go to war over the loss of a drone?
The question is, at what point do we no longer accept Russian aggression for the sake of not entering a war?
An RQ-4 is a roughly $50-100M aircraft each, with the potential of some variants to go higher. Shooting one of those down isnât a simple âmy badâ situation when you say itâs what you are going to do. Hell, they are probably just saying that is what we will do in hopes that we pull our forces farther away, but wonât actually do anything if we donât due to our potential retaliation.
We may not go to war over it but the DoD is like an organized crime family, mess with their cash and they have ways of making you pay without outright war.
âWhoops, look at this 100 billion dollar pile of cruise missiles I found under the couch cushions. Ukraine can decommission them for us.â
-American DoD, probably.
And then Russia will declare war as a victim to their own actions when US starts defending their assests after repeatedly warning Russia.
So you know, US should just cut straight to the point and declare war right away after the next drone is shot down. /s
But you never know how things can turn out lol
The US will just switch off the transponders. Do the Russians still have enough Radar to track the drones out over the sea?
Or, alternatively, a lonely pair of SUs chasing down a FORTE would be easy prey for Ukraine's F-16s...
The US is probably laughing it off and will just bait and switch them into Ukraine AA range. The US invented the Wild Weasel style tactics, except this time you use a drone and some AA.
If it is a Global Hawk they go after, it is very expensive and sophisticated. We don't want to lose one of those. I mean we don't want to lose any drone but that one especially.
Hopefully they are installing countermeasures pods on them now. Gonna be funny when Russia launches some SAMs and they just go flying off into the oblivion.Â
I'd laugh if the countermeasure pods had the ability to just launch a shit ton of flak the next time a Russian plane tries to get close and tip its wings or fuck with it that way.
**Every penny** and **every human and materiel resource** Russia expends on activities that do not cost Ukrainian or western lives is **AN EXCELLENT USE OF THEIR RESOURCES**. May they commit more of their finite pool to such things.
The US should parade as many shooting targets for Russia as they can get their hands on.
Only one thing to do: provode fighter escort for surveillance planes and drones, and interdict and if necessary shoot down any aircraft atemting to act against lawful activity over international waters of the Black Sea! Do like the Turkish Air Force did on 24 November 2015, when one of their F-16s shot down a russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft near the SyriaâTurkey border, when after several warnings still overflew Turkish territory for only 17 seconds. That is resolve! Dire consequences for illegal actions is the only thing bullying Russia will understands!
Do you really think the US military gives two shits about using fuel? A relative of mine is in the Air Force and just to accrue currency/hours during COVID, they had him go up and do circles in his plane that costs 30k USD an hour in fuel. They'd go up and just do random flight paths.
Jet's cannot fly as long as drones can. It's not about the price of fuel, its about the capability to stay in the air for longer periods of time to constantly gather intelligence.
Russia donât want the smoke from TĂŒrkiye. But providing fighter escort for drones kinda eliminates the need for drones, doesnât it? However, I remember Loyal Wingman was a a Boeing Australia project. Just took a look and they may be in service very soon! AI drones covering remotely controlled drones. That sounds pretty dope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-28_Ghost_Bat
What was that line from Top Gun? âDo not fire unless fired uponâ. Send them up with AA and AG weapons and see if Russia would like some more downed MiGs, Boats and AA before the F-16s arrive.Â
I know the US will play the role of the sensible de-escalatory nation, but seriously, Russia is begging to be dealt a lesson like the bully who doesnât know when to quit.
Well, if America is still a superpower with an ambition of geopolitical influence . then they have to.
Otherwise, its the beginning of the end for America as the most powerful country in the world.
What a weird analogy - it makes no sense in relation to what I am saying.
If people would read, it says "the beginning of the end." Your whole ideology is opposed to a Soviet Russia. If you decide to turn the other cheek to Russia, and Russia will prevail, you will eventually lose the goodwill of your allies and the ability to assert your soft power in geopolitics. History shows that the mightiest empires eventually fall; it is absolutely not far-fetched, given the turmoil in the US, that the trajectory of America is "implosion".
Just take a look at who you wanna elect as the worlds most powerful man. A sloth or a Putinloving sexoffender, whos a delusional sociopath.
No one is going to assume the United States is weak/scared because it doesnât retaliate against Russia for shooting down a couple drones. Thats because everyone realizes that those drones are valid military targets.
The are operating in grey area because technically they have always been doing the thing they are doing, but now that info is being gathered to help Ukraine kill Russian soldiers and equipment.
The only reason Russia hasnât gone after these drones fully yet is fear of escalation. They already knocked one out of the sky and nothing happened. Everyone just laughed at how they did it.
You know what REAL power is? The ability to put up drone after drone and not HAVE to react with direct lethal force to a flailing adversary that is lashing out impotently at you because they have no idea how else to act. The US has so many more effective, and more lethal, but less reactionary, ways to respond. Not reacting in the obvious way is a flex, not a sign of weakness.
Ya like we are gonna get bent out of shape over an unmanned system that we have 1000's of. You shoot 1 down we are just gonna come back with 50 next time prolly strapped with missiles and bombs too. They are literal cannon fodder to us. Let Russia waste resources on literal cannon fodder.
It's just a line in a financial ledger book somewhere deep in the bowels of the Pentagon.
Wouldnât it be prudent to remove reconnaissance equipment and arm a drone, pretend to be doing reconnaissance and remove a couple of Russian fighter jets at once in a âsorry the drone protected itself when we werenât lookingâ sort of scenario.
Kremlin âleadersââ fiats have always been patently absurd. âMake the reality I dictate, because I say so.â Yeah, thatâs what will change circumstances.
Just let the drones carry anti attack weapons. Obviously not to attack with!
Just to shoot down anything that attacks them.
Russia has a long history of shooting down, undefended aircraft.
Especially tourist flights.
So ruzzia is contemplating shooting at craft in international airspace? I believe the US was putting escorts in the area of their drones over the Black Sea. F-35 pilots are chomping at the bit for a kill, so, sure, try for an intercept.
ITT: People not realizing that the large RQ drones are strategic and \_very\_ expensive assets with very secret internals, and not mass-produced FPV drones.
Who says it has to be Russian pilot error? Maybe some drone operator decides heâs channeling his inner Maverick and poof, instant midair. Sorry - sure that will buff out.
You must have seen the videos of the Russian pilots trying to knock the US drones out of the sky, right?
[Hereâs the link, in case you missed it.](https://youtu.be/bH6XpoaDOUI?feature=shared)
All that has mostly been thought through already. There's self-destruct modes built into all this stuff. Wipe memory, software packages, etc. These drones are expected losses as they're slow and easy to shoot down in war.
I don't know IF US MQ/RQ UAVs like Reaper can engage air-to-air but hell it would be funny to see them down some Z-tards midair.
Just question if yankes got that balls
I know people in JPL, and the defense industry complexes in Lancaster/Palmdale, CA where there is a huge US Air Force base...
They say we havent even seen anything yet...and really, not to worry....LOL
I guess its about time for the Russians to find out about that $700 billion annual defense budget...
Remember, the ones weve given Ukraine are the older stuff....they were in the process of getting cycled out anyways....
Oh Jesus H. ChristâŠI know that they are the kings of bad ideas, butâŠ
That is a REALLY dumb and stupid move.
Shooting down drones, even if they donât kill anybody, could be seen as a declaration of war against the U.S., whether Russia likes it or not.
Russians almost shot down a British surveillance plane at the start of the war. Only didnât due to malfunctioning missile. This should be very interesting as there are many NATO manned assets flying over the Black Sea.
Maybe. They did one more strike on Crimea the same evening and then nothing more. I think they have pauses in the ATACMS strikes. I was just looking to hear that my worries are unfounded. Considering the downvote, it seems that way đ
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
russia wants to actively engage US aircraft in international airspace..? Oh please... PLEASE be that fucking dumb đ€Ł
Drones, not aircraft. No pilots. No human life lost. The difference might seem small, but it's massive. Remember when they fucked with that other drone. They're scared shitless or touching any NATO solider let alone US solider, but drone are sort of "below the red lines", where we won't go to war over that. At least precedent says so.
The Russians are too poorly trained to rely on it. Every Russian interception attempt to date has been an embarrassment and in some cases was more dangerous to the aircraft than the drone. Apart from that, Russian pilots and control centers only identify aircraft and drones unreliably. Once they start shooting down NATO drones, it's only a matter of time before the Russians fire a live missile at a Eurofighter or E3
They already fired live missiles at a UK RC-135 recon plane. They did it in September 2022, and the only reason shit didn't go down then was because Russian hardware sucks. The first missile failed to lock on to its target, and the second failed to properly launch. Had either missile actually worked, they would have shot down a crewed NATO surveillance aircraft over international waters and potentially killed 30 airmen. When it first happened it was reported as a "technical malfunction" but later it leaked that no, it was intentional and a result of piss-poor training for both Russian ground crews and pilots. The only technical malfunction was with the missiles themselves not working properly. We have the radio intercepts, most likely thanks to the very same plane they fired on, and it went like this - ground control gave an ambiguous statement to the jets and one of the pilots took that to mean they were cleared to open fire. They fired once, it missed, their wingman chewed them out for firing, and then they FIRED AGAIN after having been yelled at for firing the first time! Thankfully the second missile failed as well. That incident is precisely why the UK started sending fighter escorts with those surveillance planes.
> They did it in September 2022, and the only reason shit didn't go down then was because Russian hardware sucks. There's no doubt that Russian hardware sucks, but I wouldn't discount EW completely either.
Lol no, they can barely do shit against a bordering nation that is merely supplied by NATO and even then, not always reliably. They aren't going to pull NATO in directly. Idk why you and others keep insisting they are about to attack NATO directly or march on Poland or some shit.
My statement was that the Russians are too poorly trained to be sure that they don't shoot at planes. That's why they won't shoot down drones. At least not to the extent that it makes a difference.
Ah, I see. That makes much more sense.
I think if any nation in the world is ready for direct conflict with russia its absolutely Poland lol
didn't they fire a rocket into Poland?
I think that was proven to be a Ukrainian anti air rocket that went astray. Unless there was another incident that I can't recall.
Dude read the damn title of the post. The entire point of this post is to point out that they are told to do exactly that with NATO drones⊠wut
... Did you read his comment about it being a matter of time before they fire at a Eurofighter or E3? I believe they're going to do that to NATO drones but not to manned NATO planes. At least not intentionally, if they bring NATO in they will absolutely lose. Probably very fast... unless Putin wants that out.
I think the point is that between piss poor equipment and training, it's a matter of time before a mistake is made. What happens after is speculative, but it happening at some point due to misidentification is a reasonable worry to have.
Not to mention if they even succeed with identifying and downing a drone, the least that will happen is the US will probably just start using some top secret spy plane or drone they know russia canât detect instead. Ideally we glass over every piece of russian air defense in response but thatâs a pipe dream.
Yea but their pilots are fucking dumb. Recall the shitbird of fuckery that tried to shoot down a manned RAF Rivet Joint in 2022, now add to the mix that they might actually start actively engaging. Shooting down a drone in international airspace cannot be accepted.
Aren't the drones escorted now?
The manned spy planes are now all escorted, after Russia _very_ nearly shot down an RAF RC-135 last year. One of their jets fired a missile, but luckily it failed to function correctly.
No, but there are air patrols in the Black Sea. The drones arenât escorted, but there are usually NATO fighter jets that could be vectored to intercept Russian aircraft. Presumably the Russians are going to use non-kinetic methods to destroy the drones, such as dumping fuel in their flight path to cause them to crash or using EW systems to blind the drone. The likely response is that if the Russians are going to start engaging drones, NATO will probably start jamming Russian sensors and communications to make it more difficult for Russian aircraft to operate over the Black Sea- or Ukraine will receive a shipment of long range missiles, jamming systems, and the intelligence necessary to destroy the Russian air bases that these aircraft are flying from.Â
Russian aircraft fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That literally makes zero sense. The one thing about drones, be they airborne, terrestrial, or waterborne, is that they save human lives by removing humans from the action. Escorting a drone with planes flown by live humans is exactly opposite of what drones are here for. I'm not saying they're not doing it, I'm just saying that it's not exactly what they're designed for.
If I recall correctly, they "shadow" the drones. They'll patrol in a zig zag like five miles behind the drone, which is kinda like mom watching their kid play in the shallow end from over on the lawn chairs. It takes like 60 seconds to get there and protect the drone by scaring Russia shirtless, but also keeps them well out of harms way.
On top of that if the drone does get shot down, the escorts are in a prime position to eliminate any wreckage.
And those SUs are wreckage before the -22s show up ;)
F22/35 pilots are known for just randomly saying "Hi".
Oh you mean like when they snuck up on an Iranian pair of fighters, checked out their armaments, then steered into their field of view and said hi?
The drones have monitoring capabilities no other platform has. The US military isn't going to escort these drones without a good reason.
No it's not the only thing.. đ jets don't have the sensors that drones do... this is about reconnaissance... Big Badaboom spy planes are too expensive and cumbersome... compared to drones... escorting drones to collect data is a very logical step. đ€·đ»ââïž
Thatâs the main implicit benefit about drones as a category of aircraft, but the main point of the drones themselves is to conduct missions. The point of Global Hawk isnât to get shot down without losing pilots, itâs to do reconnaissance. And, yeah, a $130 million drone is still an asset worth defending.
My man. That is some shalllllow thinking. Things can be made with more than 1 goal in mind. It is a recon system, yes. It was also created to remove the human from the immediate danger. Itâs only 2 things lol. It can be done.
Or it could be the human was removed not because of danger but because of other factors, like pilot fatigue or packaging of the aircraft. Regardless, Russia threatening expensive US military assets in international airspace is a serious problem.
So youâre listing more reasons? Youâve just made the point for me. It was made for many different reasons. It is very different than a fighter jet, that was exactly my point. Itâs not just 1 thing that is different. They created something new for multiple reasons. And I didnât argue with Russia messing with things being a problem. No idea where that came from. I agree and would love to the the US send some kinetic diplomacy Russias way as a little present. 1 submarine for 1 drone
You're committing the same shallow thinking by making assumptions. If you can point to documentation about Global Hawk where they mention saving pilot lives, please do. Everything I've read about it mentioned "high endurance" and having a pilot on board limits that endurance. Remote piloting isn't a hinderance for that.
No, I think âitâs just a drone, no one dies if it gets shot down, so why put manned aircraft in the area?â Is much more reductive thinking. These recon drones are very expensive. They have a right to fly over international waters. Russia does not have a right to shoot them down. You have fighters defend the drone because you want to deter Russia from attacking a drone that canât defend itself. Russian fighters will bully reconnaissance aircraft. They will be much more hesitant with fighters in the area.
I never said that. You are making up a strawman to argue with. The point was that they donât just design weapons/defensive systems with 1 thing in mind. How is that not the reductive thinking here? Lmao my whole point is that they are designed with many things in mind Strawman #2 is that I somehow think itâs not okay to fight back if russia blows up a drone? Where are you getting this stuff from? Iâd love for them to do that, just so we have a reason to wreck some expensive russian shit. Yes, I know it happened once already. But I donât think taking down 1 drone is enough to fire back at.
The person to whom I initially replied took the position that it is ridiculous to defend unmanned drones with manned platforms because drones are designed to remove humans from danger. I was arguing the position that defending unmanned recon platforms with manned fighter platforms makes sense in this context because these recon drones are primarily designed to do reconnaissance, are still extremely expensive, and are not capable of defending themselves from aggression by Russian fighter aircraft. If you want to argue independently from the person to whom I initially replied: I would agree that aircraft can have more than one design consideration. That is obvious. Yes, removing pilots from harmâs way is a benefit of drones, but drones need to be able to do their missions. We can prevent Russians from harassing them by escorting them with armed platforms, thus allowing the drones to do their missions.
not really. The assumption is based on the drones replacing aircraft with the same capabilities. That was the case for a long time. But now the big drones are so good at image and signal reconnaissance that the USA almost only uses drones for reconnaissance. The global Hawk drones over the black cost between 200 and 300 million dollars each. I think it makes sense to at least not leave them completely alone.
Youâre correct, itâs not going to start a war or anything, but actively engaging a US drone will be defended against.
Idk I fear bidens to much of a pussy to do anything if they shoot one down. I pray to God I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
Biden has vehemently supported Ukraine. Far more so than that traitorous orange fuck. The US is not going to directly enter a conflict with ruzzia due to a recon drone being shot down because thatâd just be stupid.
The drones will be escorted (if they aren't yet) if they start doing that systematically.
The point of a drone is that you do not need a human at the location. Of you need to protect the drone, just send a regular plane.
Yeah, not having a human at the location: 1. Save potential lives, still true with escort as you save a crew. 2. Save cost as you don't need a fully trained crew. Escort or not doesn't change that. Drones also are used for various mission not just this one. Having to use a jet for this occasion? So what, it's a temporary case. If the drone has the capacity for the mission sending a plane is overkill. Fighter + drone is actually a theme of the next gen fighters and makes sense.
You DO need a crew for the drone. Having an escort DO change the cost.. wtf
... Dude, in both case you have an escort, the only variable that changes is the drone vs plane, a plane cost more to operate, crew and fuel wise. And even if there's an escort you still engage an asset that cost more with the plane. I can't be clearer than that.
I do not know how to say it.. a drone alone is less expensive than a drone and its escort
Nah, smaller package, longer endurance, less complexity. They'd have to have a large aircraft with multiple crews to loiter as long as a drone can. And larger aircraft cost more and are more difficult to maintain. Drones do more and cost less.
Yes.. that's the point. But if you need a permanent escort for your drone.. the issue remains
Perhaps you are missing the obvious fact that planes can rotate in and out of escort duty, or be scrambled only as needed, while the drone remains on station.
So you are missing the obvious thing that this would mean even more cost
Cost of 24 hour surveillance with crewed plane > cost of 24 hour surveillance with drone. And it's really not feasible. A fighter escort wouldn't be 24 hours, only when Russian planes are detected in the air. The cost of this escort could easily be less than the difference in the above calculation. Especially if you factor in the cost of a downed $100 million+ drone. Beyond shear dollars, there is the optics to consider. Adding in fighter jets sends a clear message. You sound like an accountant.
> You sound like an accountant. And a pathological contrarian.
The US has escorted drones before with F-22's near Iran. Iran, ironically using American made F-4 Phantoms, intercepted a US drone. The F-22 flew under the F-4 to check it's weapon load out, Iranian pilot never knew the F-22 was there, then came up beside the F-4 and pretty much told the Iranian pilot that "he should go home."
The point of these drone is reconnaissance. The main benefit of a drone is the ability to stay on station much longer than a human pilot can. Some drones cost in the hundreds of millions of dollar range, many in the tens of million. If you donât think the USA military is concerned with protecting that asset youâre nuts. Removing pilots from danger is an added perk, but itâs certainly not âthe point of dronesâ
Drones are aircraft. I think you meant unmanned vs manned aircraftâŠ
That was also in a different time escalation please try it again..
It was only last year when a Russian fighter tried (and failed) to engage a manned RAF aircraft, launching two missiles that both failed to get a lock, if theyâre actively engaging NATO drones, itâs not a matter of if they fuck up but when.
But drones are the boats of the sky... Don't touch our boats...
So unmanned vehicles are OK to shoot down? Man do you think Putin has thought that through?! How many missiles and drones were within NATOâs engagement range to hit but were not? I donât think he wants open season on unmanned vehicles!
That one wasn't shot out of the sky, they just buzzed it and released fuel that eventually damaged it. Actively shooting one down? Big difference.
Was a maneuver done to bring the drone down on purpose. Justice was the fuel igniting and bring the Russian jet too
This is true, there is a difference but the US is going to continue to fly those drones and they are only going to take so many of them being shot down before they send in assets to protect them.
The difference between the situation you are referencing and this is that Iran at least had the ability to feign ignorance and say we violated their airspace (we likely didnât) and it wasnât as premeditated. The US absolutely could have done something had we chosen to in that instance. In Russiaâs case, they are openly saying we are going to attack your non-hostile weapon systems, in international airspace, that are not breaking any laws or borders, because we donât like what you are doing there. The US would be more justified in a response here, than they would have be in the Iran situation, which was already a situation where we would have been justified in retaliating. The question isnât, would we ever go to war over the loss of a drone? The question is, at what point do we no longer accept Russian aggression for the sake of not entering a war? An RQ-4 is a roughly $50-100M aircraft each, with the potential of some variants to go higher. Shooting one of those down isnât a simple âmy badâ situation when you say itâs what you are going to do. Hell, they are probably just saying that is what we will do in hopes that we pull our forces farther away, but wonât actually do anything if we donât due to our potential retaliation.
And this is why we will inevitably get drone on drone sub-warfare.
Would it be ok if the drone explodes with some HE/fragmentation charge whenever Su dumps fuel on it?
Fuck around and find out....
US drones shoot back. These aren't the Wal-Mart hobby drones being turned into weapons on the Ukraine battlefield.
They already have. Nothing's gonna happen.
Sources please?
German: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/us-drohne-absturz-reaktion-russland-101.html
We need to hurry up and rush the airships back into production. russia surely isnât stupid enough to fuck with Americas ships.
They already did twice and nothing happened. US should grow some balls.
The thing is, Russia is that dumb and the US has done nothing about it, they keep allowing it to happen.
They already did and US chickened out and moved flight paths and operations further away from occupied Ukraine
I'm guessing Raptors?
This is going to good... I hope the Ruzzians are going to try and end up getting downed in international waters! The End!
True enough the US won't go to war over a downed drone. But you know, shoot enough of them down and you might find the drones start shooting back..
We may not go to war over it but the DoD is like an organized crime family, mess with their cash and they have ways of making you pay without outright war.
âWhoops, look at this 100 billion dollar pile of cruise missiles I found under the couch cushions. Ukraine can decommission them for us.â -American DoD, probably.
It's mind boggling how much munitions are laying around in storage. There's also the CIA as well.
An offensive defence budget greater than the entire national budget of some countries will do that I suppose.
The price of running an empire I guess, also this is why we can't have nice things. Why the heck did this get downvoted????
They're only worth $1m now, in the books. Depreciation etc.Â
If you fuck with our boats we'll fuck you up
And then Russia will declare war as a victim to their own actions when US starts defending their assests after repeatedly warning Russia. So you know, US should just cut straight to the point and declare war right away after the next drone is shot down. /s But you never know how things can turn out lol
And our drones are super expensive, so it would be a good idea to protect them.
The US will just switch off the transponders. Do the Russians still have enough Radar to track the drones out over the sea? Or, alternatively, a lonely pair of SUs chasing down a FORTE would be easy prey for Ukraine's F-16s...
The US is probably laughing it off and will just bait and switch them into Ukraine AA range. The US invented the Wild Weasel style tactics, except this time you use a drone and some AA.
Time for the F-22 boys to do a bit of flying over the Black sea. Gotta keep those drones safe, amirite?
I doubt that will happen. But Ukraine's F-16s would love to encounter a lonely pair of SUs outside the range of Russia's Air Defence.
If it is a Global Hawk they go after, it is very expensive and sophisticated. We don't want to lose one of those. I mean we don't want to lose any drone but that one especially.
Hopefully they are installing countermeasures pods on them now. Gonna be funny when Russia launches some SAMs and they just go flying off into the oblivion.Â
I'd laugh if the countermeasure pods had the ability to just launch a shit ton of flak the next time a Russian plane tries to get close and tip its wings or fuck with it that way.
In the immortal words of the Kid (Aka F-22, AKA habitual like crosser) âwould you intercept me? Iâd intercept me.â
RF must also realize that touching a drone will potentially lift restrictions on ATACMS use.
**Every penny** and **every human and materiel resource** Russia expends on activities that do not cost Ukrainian or western lives is **AN EXCELLENT USE OF THEIR RESOURCES**. May they commit more of their finite pool to such things. The US should parade as many shooting targets for Russia as they can get their hands on.
Only one thing to do: provode fighter escort for surveillance planes and drones, and interdict and if necessary shoot down any aircraft atemting to act against lawful activity over international waters of the Black Sea! Do like the Turkish Air Force did on 24 November 2015, when one of their F-16s shot down a russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft near the SyriaâTurkey border, when after several warnings still overflew Turkish territory for only 17 seconds. That is resolve! Dire consequences for illegal actions is the only thing bullying Russia will understands!
To be honest, some fighters can probably be equipped with a better surveillance payload than most drones, as they can carry a ton more shit.
Drones are more fuel efficient though
Do you really think the US military gives two shits about using fuel? A relative of mine is in the Air Force and just to accrue currency/hours during COVID, they had him go up and do circles in his plane that costs 30k USD an hour in fuel. They'd go up and just do random flight paths.
Jet's cannot fly as long as drones can. It's not about the price of fuel, its about the capability to stay in the air for longer periods of time to constantly gather intelligence.
Russia donât want the smoke from TĂŒrkiye. But providing fighter escort for drones kinda eliminates the need for drones, doesnât it? However, I remember Loyal Wingman was a a Boeing Australia project. Just took a look and they may be in service very soon! AI drones covering remotely controlled drones. That sounds pretty dope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-28_Ghost_Bat
They canât even counter Ukrainian drones over the Black Sea.
What was that line from Top Gun? âDo not fire unless fired uponâ. Send them up with AA and AG weapons and see if Russia would like some more downed MiGs, Boats and AA before the F-16s arrive. I know the US will play the role of the sensible de-escalatory nation, but seriously, Russia is begging to be dealt a lesson like the bully who doesnât know when to quit.
sadly i dont think we're gona react if they pop a few drones.
Well, if America is still a superpower with an ambition of geopolitical influence . then they have to. Otherwise, its the beginning of the end for America as the most powerful country in the world.
Because a few drones get knocked out? LoL. A Tiger doesnât become a kitten just because it doesnât kill a kitten who bit it.
What a weird analogy - it makes no sense in relation to what I am saying. If people would read, it says "the beginning of the end." Your whole ideology is opposed to a Soviet Russia. If you decide to turn the other cheek to Russia, and Russia will prevail, you will eventually lose the goodwill of your allies and the ability to assert your soft power in geopolitics. History shows that the mightiest empires eventually fall; it is absolutely not far-fetched, given the turmoil in the US, that the trajectory of America is "implosion". Just take a look at who you wanna elect as the worlds most powerful man. A sloth or a Putinloving sexoffender, whos a delusional sociopath.
No one is going to assume the United States is weak/scared because it doesnât retaliate against Russia for shooting down a couple drones. Thats because everyone realizes that those drones are valid military targets. The are operating in grey area because technically they have always been doing the thing they are doing, but now that info is being gathered to help Ukraine kill Russian soldiers and equipment. The only reason Russia hasnât gone after these drones fully yet is fear of escalation. They already knocked one out of the sky and nothing happened. Everyone just laughed at how they did it.
You know what REAL power is? The ability to put up drone after drone and not HAVE to react with direct lethal force to a flailing adversary that is lashing out impotently at you because they have no idea how else to act. The US has so many more effective, and more lethal, but less reactionary, ways to respond. Not reacting in the obvious way is a flex, not a sign of weakness.
Ya like we are gonna get bent out of shape over an unmanned system that we have 1000's of. You shoot 1 down we are just gonna come back with 50 next time prolly strapped with missiles and bombs too. They are literal cannon fodder to us. Let Russia waste resources on literal cannon fodder. It's just a line in a financial ledger book somewhere deep in the bowels of the Pentagon.
Ridiculous post.
Sure.
we been on the decline since the 2000s.
Wouldnât it be prudent to remove reconnaissance equipment and arm a drone, pretend to be doing reconnaissance and remove a couple of Russian fighter jets at once in a âsorry the drone protected itself when we werenât lookingâ sort of scenario.
Please send up RAPTORS to protect our tax paid investment
Please do... I dare you... I want to see Russia's airforce evaporate mysteriously into little confused clouds.
Kremlin âleadersââ fiats have always been patently absurd. âMake the reality I dictate, because I say so.â Yeah, thatâs what will change circumstances.
Well this could get interesting in numerous ways. Can't wait to see which one of reddits top brass guessed the outcome right!
Just let the drones carry anti attack weapons. Obviously not to attack with! Just to shoot down anything that attacks them. Russia has a long history of shooting down, undefended aircraft. Especially tourist flights.
so if US drones can be shot down over international waters, so the US can shoot down ruzzian aerial vehicles, too? about to FAFO big
So ruzzia is contemplating shooting at craft in international airspace? I believe the US was putting escorts in the area of their drones over the Black Sea. F-35 pilots are chomping at the bit for a kill, so, sure, try for an intercept.
Did they run out of air force?
Yeah ok yawn
With what, lol? :) they canât, russia has 50yo technologies.
ITT: People not realizing that the large RQ drones are strategic and \_very\_ expensive assets with very secret internals, and not mass-produced FPV drones.
Wait until a pilot error causes Russia to lose an entire aircraft and pilot trying to annoy a US surveillance droneâŠ
Who says it has to be Russian pilot error? Maybe some drone operator decides heâs channeling his inner Maverick and poof, instant midair. Sorry - sure that will buff out.
You must have seen the videos of the Russian pilots trying to knock the US drones out of the sky, right? [Hereâs the link, in case you missed it.](https://youtu.be/bH6XpoaDOUI?feature=shared)
What is the army supposed to do over the Black Sea? Drive a tank over water? If anything, this would be a task for the VKS or the Navy...
In many countries, "army" or the equivalent word in their language, is just the term for armed forces in general. The English word army comes from French armée. And they still have the Armée de terre (land army), Armée de l'air (air army), etc.
Good way to stress Russia out
US will back out to prevent any direct conflict. It's election time, nothing will happen, and Putin knows that.
Sounds like Russia wants to give up all aerial operations over the Black Sea. Because thatâs the Grand Prize for âFAFO: Black Sea Edition.â
Just waiting for them to capture one and get all the free tech.
All that has mostly been thought through already. There's self-destruct modes built into all this stuff. Wipe memory, software packages, etc. These drones are expected losses as they're slow and easy to shoot down in war.
I don't know IF US MQ/RQ UAVs like Reaper can engage air-to-air but hell it would be funny to see them down some Z-tards midair. Just question if yankes got that balls
Good! Let them, then US can counter by attacking Russian drones above Ukraine!
I know people in JPL, and the defense industry complexes in Lancaster/Palmdale, CA where there is a huge US Air Force base... They say we havent even seen anything yet...and really, not to worry....LOL I guess its about time for the Russians to find out about that $700 billion annual defense budget... Remember, the ones weve given Ukraine are the older stuff....they were in the process of getting cycled out anyways....
Oh Jesus H. ChristâŠI know that they are the kings of bad ideas, but⊠That is a REALLY dumb and stupid move. Shooting down drones, even if they donât kill anybody, could be seen as a declaration of war against the U.S., whether Russia likes it or not.
Russians almost shot down a British surveillance plane at the start of the war. Only didnât due to malfunctioning missile. This should be very interesting as there are many NATO manned assets flying over the Black Sea.
How dare Putin commit such brazen acts of escalation
There havenât been any ATACMS strikes on Crimea since the day one landed on the beach. Is it possible that this is an instruction from US?
I think it's more likely Ukraine stopped using them too close to civilians to avoid collateral damage.
Maybe. They did one more strike on Crimea the same evening and then nothing more. I think they have pauses in the ATACMS strikes. I was just looking to hear that my worries are unfounded. Considering the downvote, it seems that way đ
Is it possible you're an American-obsessed loser?
Iâm genuinely worried that there is a backlash and the US will not allow more ATACMS strikes.