March 20 – BLiTZ. The American MQ-9 Reaper drone that fell into the Black Sea had every chance of crashing in Crimea. In this case, the likelihood that Russia will take over US technology increases. It is for this reason, presumably, that the States changed the route of their UAVs, which, after the incident, were again sent to Russian shores to “ensure the safety of navigation in international waters.”
20 years ago, the United States invaded Iraq, devastated cities, thousands of victims and war crimes March 20, 2023 at 09:31
The Pentagon released a video showing a damaged drone propeller. The United States accused the Russian Su-27 of allegedly hitting the propeller of the American apparatus, after which it fell into the sea. The Russian Defense Ministry insists that there was no physical contact between the objects.
Experts do not exclude that the failure of the equipment could occur due to turbulence, and during the planning the UAV could fly to the Crimea, so it was specially taken to the sea. Military pilots believe the Pentagon video is fake or heavily edited to convince the world of their version of what happened.
From the following observations drawn from many replays of this video, I believe the video was almost certainly faked and/or extensively edited for the desired propaganda effect(s):
There seems little to no reason for the sudden video imagery pixelalation and the camera to “cut out” at precisely the critical (and obviously the most “convenient” moment) where any alleged “contact” with the MQ-9 drone might have been made. This leaves the entire complaint open to speculation.
The rearwards-looking camera view shows that, in both “attack runs”, the Su-27 approaches the drone that is flying level (with the horizon astern) from around 30 degrees astern and to starboard of the drone in a shallow starboard banked climb (i.e a gentle climbing right turn).
At this angle, in the first “attack”, as the the Su-27 is about to disappear from view, it is quite clearly going to pass above the drone, as its nose becomes obscured by the wing; its port fuselage is well high and abeam of that of the drone and its port wing-tip passes well over the top of the approximate centre point of the drone’s starboard wing.
The total height of an MQ-9 from ground level to stabilizer tip is 3.8m, so it is around half that from wing-root to stabilizer tip, or 1.9m. The bank of the Su-27 as it makes its first pass is clearly going to pass at a height of more than 1.9m above the centre line of the drone, such that it would contact neither the propeller nor either stabilizer. I have scaled the photo images wrt to the subtended angle between the viewpoint and the 14.7m wingspan of the Su-27 and estimate that it flew no closer than approximately 7.5m or 25′ above the drone as it passed above and banked away to starboard.
In the second pass, the approaching track of the Su-27 is almost identical to that of the first pass, the remaining pixels of the Su-27 show it to pass above the drone at much the same height as in the first pass, although a little closer, possibly around 6m above.
In the first pass, all the greatest degree of sun illumination can be seen on the starboard side of the Su-27, the moving shadow on the vertical underbelly drone fluid drain tube, the bulk of the dumped fuel and on the propeller blades.
In the second run, the greatest degree of sun illumination can be seen on the port nose of the Su-2, the port side of the vertical stablizer and on the alleged prop damage itself. This change in sun angle suggests that the drone made an almost 180 degree turn either under control or due to impact or turbulence. This is further confirmed by the notable change in the land mass and coastline aft of the drone, where the drone is moving away from the land.
At around 0:30 seconds playing time, the Su-27 is increasingly pixellated but the all the surviving pixels show the aircraft in the same position relative to the drone’s wing until they vanish at about 0.33 seconds. The video resumes at 0:38 seconds with the drone in a 20-30 degree staboard bank with the new landmass unfolding as it turns. This is the critical time when if the video had been able to continue uninterrupted, it would have shown the Su-27 passing cleanly to starboard in a climbing staboard turn and above, similar to the first pass.
If the propeller was indeed damaged, it would have created a high degree of imbalance in the engine that if allowed to continue would risk loss of the engine and sudden shift of the centre of gravity forwards, inducing a likely unconstrollable descent.
Jet efflux and wing-tip vortices are quite capable of downing a small light aircraft. If the drone was lost, then this would be the most likely cause. The respective orientations of the two aircraft make it unlikely that physical contact was made between them.
Contrary to current but characteristic US anti-Russian spin, the Russian pilots are well-trained in the most highly maneuverable aircraft of that general type in the skies today and are highly unlikely to engage in any kind of potential “ramming” strategy that would risk loss of their own aircraft.
It is possible that a large mass of fuel being struck by the drone propeller mighty cause a tip bend as shown. There is one blade opposite the damaged blade that is in a feathered position, while the remaining two are still unfeathered.
The only possible resolution of the truth might come if one could view the full video and not the so-called “Classified” version, to which any authority that might be ascribed to it would barely stand up in a court of law, being inadmissible due to tampering.
It is up to the the US to prove their claims and not the Russians to prove they didn’t commit any physical damage. Editing the video was the last thing they should have done.
After the US’ role in destroying the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and so many other set-ups, they should not be surprised if no one trusts their version of the truth these days.