BLACK SEA RIVET JOINT INCIDENT: A Narrow Escape But The Reality Of Air-To-Air Missile Performance
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2023
- In the last couple of days more detail has started to leak out about a hair-raising incident over the Black Sea last year. If you missed the story, on the 29th of September last year an RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint was intercepted by two SU-27 Flankers.
One of the Flankers apparently deliberately fired two missiles at the unarmed RAF aircraft.Fortunately both failed to hit the Rivet Joint. If either had done then it's hard to imagine how NATO would have avoided a shooting war with Russia.
Because it involves three of my favourite topics, Cold War aircraft, interception and air-to-air missiles, I had a few thoughts about what happened. This video looks into the Flanker-B, the AA-10 Alamo and the statistics of beyond visual range engagement with radar homing air-to-air missiles. I hope you find it an interesting deviation from my usual material. Normal service resumes soon!
Sources:
BBC article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
Excellent War Zone article: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...
Allied Force F15C statistics: theaviationgeekclub.com/f-15-...
When talking about the relative effectiveness of missiles, I always remember a quip from a US aviator who was being interviewed on the show ‘Dogfights’, who said something to the effect of: “Always fire two missiles at your targets. They’re called MISSiles, not HIT-tiles!”
I think it might have been the great Robin Olds… but whoever it was, it’s a brilliant quote!
This was often considered a important reason for the low hit rate of sparrow missiles during Vietnam because the base number was increased significantly. If the first missile did not guided probably or lunched out side parameter, the second missile would be just the same and you just wasted 2 missiles. The idea was clearly just hoping by increasing the number of weapon you throw at the target you would get a higher change of hitting you target. For guided missile, it really makes no sense. US navy pilot was trained to fire a missile first, observe and then decide what to do next. The result rely heavily on how skillful the pilot. So USAF just teach their pilot to just fire 2 missile at a time to keep thing straight forward.
And how was that quip received?
@@notapound I just remember reading that quip in Marshal Michel's book 'Clashes': "Boys, they're not called HITtles".
@@ohredhk again, per Marshall Michel's book, 'Clashes': USAF pilots during 'Linebacker' (before improved training via 'Red Flag') were instructed to toggle off all four of each type of missile, either the AIM7s or the AIM9s, due to the poor performance of said missiles. So, Michel observed USAF pilots had only two firing passes, while the 'Top Gun' trained USN pilots had 8 chances to fire (AND I'm not even going to talk about the Navy's "fighting pair" formation vs the USAF's '"Fluid Four" formation. )
Just imagine being the second pilot going "oh hey we're gonna do a routine fly-by to intimidate the NATO guys, just the usual, y'know?" and your flight commander decides it'd be a great time to start WW3. That guy must have been seething.
Literally the story in the lyrics for "World War Three" by Dos Gringos.
You don’t start WW3 by shooting down a Rivet Joint. Soviets shot one down before and no WW3. Israeli’s bombed a U.S. Navy intelligence ship and North Korea captured one and no WW3.
@@zeitgeistx5239 A bunch of important people were shot and it didn't start WW1. But one of them did. Just because a similar event had no consequences before doesn't mean the next one won't either.
They always work fine in DCS, this real life isn't very realistic. Needs a patch, two weeks ?
My chuckle for the day.
he just had high ping
Rivit had the lag shield of desync @@hertzwave8001
That was another nice thing the Strike Fighters series had besides at times scary AI enemies and triple ace allies. The stock game the missiles had horrid reliability, it's something you could mod as well.
@@hertzwave8001…one ping only Vasili 😊
Remember the mission of the Rivet Joint platform. It is VERY likely the crew was listening to the Russian crew’s communications. They knew exactly what radar modes each Flanker was in. Considering that circa-1990 U.S. fighters had deception repeaters, wouldn’t it be logical to assume a U.S. national asset has capabilities far more robust? I don’t know, so I am not talking out of school here, but I don’t think those AA-10s just “went stupid” on their own.
Yes. The main postscript to this incident for Russia is them trying desperately to analyse exactly how their missiles were defeated (if indeed they were (probably)). For Russia this incident is ultimately a positive: they didn't start WW3 but they have some much needed intelligence; at the least they will know there is work to be done but possibly more specific intel will have been gathered. On the flip-side NATO may have revealed a capability. All that said, let's hope they get their loose cannons under control, can't end like this every time.
50-50% this vs. just Russian junk.
For what it's worth, if some sort of classified ECM/Jamming system was at play in why the missiles failed, that would be consistent with the US and UK not wanting to talk much about the incident.
That said, assuming there was some ECM system at play, even the air crew can't be 100% sure if that's why the Russian missiles failed, or if the missiles failed for unrelated reasons. Russian gear is certainly capable of not working without any outside help.
@@guaposneeze Well there is also the larger geopolitics of not wanting the escalate into WWIII... Even if successful, this wouldn't have been a "Lusitania moment" but it would have been a step towards it.
@@guaposneeze I can say for sure that Rivet Joint sucked up EVERY BIT of electronic data involved in the event.
Another possible factor is a self selection effect - someone who has their head on straight isn't nearly as likely to err on the side of shooting in this sort of situation. So conversely, someone whose mental judgement is off may be more likely to make mistakes executing the missile attack.
considering that it's a decently high altitude shot and there wouldn't be much to interfere, it's most def a missile and guidance error. It's an embarrassing show of ineptitude on russia's part to not be able to shoot down a slow moving massive target lol
@@felis_8906 See Above - That assumes the real purpose WAS to shoot down the RAF's Rivet Joint. *It may have been a Dog & Pony show with dummy missile & old drainpipe for 'plausibility' as missile 2 in order to force ECM intel from the Rivet Joint* .
Russia's AF may be 'unsavoury' (Cf Syria & Chechnya). BUT - They ain't totally stupid.
@@felis_8906 moreso poor maintenance. Missiles are quite delicate so poor maintaince practices increases likelihood of failures this compounds as a missile ages.
Holy crap dude! You are cranking out the long, detailed, EXCELLENT content!!! And i do not use the E word lightly. Thank you so much!
In 2023, I expect air-to-air missiles to work. I have no idea how the British aircraft survived.
Missiles miss, AIM-9X missed a virtually point blank shot on a Su-22 from rear aspect over Syria in 2017 when the Syrians were bombing ISIL . The F/A-18 had to use an AMRAAM to finish the job. Unlike the Rivet Joint the Su-22 from 1970s lacks much of the electronic counter measures and sensors
I had read something about the Xs being overrated.@@Archer89201
@@Archer89201 to be fair its countermeasures were so old and poorly optimized that they created such a tremendously dirty ir burst that it blinded the 9x across the whole ir spectrum as it uses an ir camera, not a seeker and by the time it was able to see it lost the target.
You shouldn't even today they aren't extremely reliable. The only reason certain missiles are more reliable is due to different practices and some modifications learned through tough experience. Its why by the end of their service sparrows were so relatively reliable. Vietnam was not a kind place to them
RC-135V/W is one of my favourite aircraft in service today. In my previous life, I was a systems engineer and provided support to Airseeker, Cobra Ball and Rivet Joint processing systems. As challenging as that job was, I look back on it with satisfaction.
Content Idea: Speaking of technical systems, how about a study of the offensive radar systems used in the Korean War night fighters? The USN/USMC had the F3D, which, as much as it was built for air-to-air, the Marines used it in a limited fashion for air-to-ground. Old habits are hard to break even when you're flying a plane that was not a pound for ground.
Excellent reporting and analysis. Always enjoyable! Thank you!!
Defensive systems
The infrared countermeasures was not limited to flares, but directed energy from the AN/ALQ-157 system.[4] The aircraft has an AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System [CMDS], is a "smart" dispenser that connects directly to infrared and radar warning receivers, release expendable and towed/retrivable decoys, as well as helping the pilot with situational awareness of the threat.
Could you take a look at air to air missile warheads? In particular expanding (or continuous) rod warheads? And maybe some air to ground too, like the Hellfires specialized for assasination?
How are you not at 100k subs is a mystery to me another great video :)
Thank you! That is very kind :)
I was surprised it was the flight leader that went rogue, the kind of error you expect from a junior.
Very well done! Really good insights. Thanks!,
Another great job, keep it up.
I don't think it's too far fetched to speculate that the Rivet Joint would have some electronic countermeasures / chaff and flares that could have helped the situation in their favor. Those things are national assets, not having several layers of countermeasures would be silly. However I do agree that missile construction, age, handling, and pilot error could have played a part. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the second missile was fried by an EW capability.
I 100% believe this was down to countermeasures of various types and not "Russian junk".
The aircraft was playing a very dangerous game in the middle of a conflict, there isn't a chance on earth that those crews were not always ready for a potential attack
The first missile may have caught them by surprise and they reacted in time, but they will have been expecting the second!
@@richardwillson101 Highly doubt they have the technical ability to make the second missile just fall of the rails. I'm sure they defeated the first missile and the second one was likely just a Russian dud.
@@theflyinggasmask true, you can't make it "fall off the rails" but without being there, we won't know if that means the rocket motor didn't fire, or if it broke lock almost immediately and lost all guidance.
There is certainly a chance it was a dud, or the pilot failed before the system was ready.
Modern countermeasures are very effective against older weapon systems. Especially if deliberately tuned to meet specific threats where they are operating.
Read: war was avoided with Russia because Russian equipment is crap.
Holy cow what a close call.
It’s such a shame that planes as gorgeous as the SU-27 are meant for death and destruction. I look at the F-15 and the Mig25/31 and they’re just stunning.
It is incredible how close a call that was. Fortunate that the pilot decided to use the most complicated and failure prone weapon available to him in that moment.
😂
You believe that propaganda.
You will probably find that it was the swift action of the rivet joint crew that prevented the first missile downing them and the readiness for the second.
I fully believe those missiles were 100% serviceable and a viable threat.
But I also believe that the Rivet Joint is more than equipped to handle them.
After all. They have been flying around watching a war take place.
The know the threats and how to handle them!
@@richardwillson101 Both things could easily be true.
I find it interesting that event after the war has dragged on for years now, with example after example of how Russia's culture of corruption has hampered military readiness at every level you still think it is "believing propaganda" to think there is less than a 100% chance that extremely complex military hardware was not properly maintained and ready to perform to spec.
India has a lot of Su-30s and they are just beautiful. Unlike, the Russians, however, the Indians are very skilled pilots. If you think I'm saying that look up Red Flag exercises US versus India. Also in the 60s when Iraq got it's first Mig -21s Saddam didn't hire Russians to teach his pilots. He hired Indians.
@@16rumpole that's because many Indian pilots were combat veterans...
Who better to teach fighting than combat veterans?
It's also why Indians have done so well at Red Flag, fighting US pilots who have never even flown into contested airspace, let alone seen an enemy.
Why is it frightening? Consider: when the soviets were supporting North Korea during the war by flying sorties for them, US F-86 Sabres attacked a Soviet air base just north of the border. And it was NO ACCIDENT. The result? Russia stopped overtly flying sorties over NK. They kept sending pilots to NK but made every effort to hide that and to this day don't admit that their pilots were flying for the NK air force during the war.
It's just a matter of time before the Russians attack some NATO asset close to the Ukraine war zone. They'll claim it was a mistake and apologize profusely, but will insist that NATO keep all their assets far away from the front. And NATO will comply.
This kinda proves what an old artillery officer told me. The more expensive and sophisticated the weapon is, the more likely it is to misfire or just plain miss.
All automatic weapons must instantly jam then since theyre so much more expensive and sophisticated than a flintlock
They do if you don’t handle them right. And mathematically the cost of a good firearm back then would cost almost as much as a good one today once you figure inflation and production costs. Even today a cheap replica musket from India will run you $800.00 dollars. cheap AR-15 clones will run $600.00 to $800.00 dollars @@thelordofcringe
@@kennethhummel4409 nah, 500ish is pretty average for a cheap ar. Got one for only 300 recently lol. US gun prices are historically wacky.
So that makes the AR-15 cheaper than a musket if you adjust for wages and inflation .@@thelordofcringe
These are the kind of messages that need to be drummed into the heads of aerospace engineers...as in "yes, Dummy, we also need a gun."
If you need a gun then you need a super maneuverable jet.
You mean kinda like a Flanker?
the Flanker has a gun. This isn't Vietnam where they handicapped our pilots but not putting guns on early Phantoms
Given that we've only got one side of the story, how do we know we're not being lied to? I know, the British MoD would never lie to its people, but we're very quick to take uncoroborated information for fact.
I assume the first part of the second sentence in your comment is sarcasm, and I chuckled.
@@wubuck79 Would Mr Wallace lie to an entire nation? Nnnnaaaaaaah
Rivetoints carry AN/ALE-39 countermeasure suites in us. Since the us maintains the British ones its likely they are equipped with similar or uograed versions.
Interesting - thanks for that detail. The UK sources didn’t mention that but it did seem strange to me. Chances are that there are some countermeasures… but even so, it must have been a stressful couple of minutes for that crew
Great video
That’s crazy. Ol’ TOPCAP02 was over my American Indian reservation July of that year. I still want to know what it was doing here, and why didn’t it pick up the police operating way outside of regs. Or maybe it did.
There was an MC-130 launching and recovering drones here a couple years ago. They all died when it crashed in the southern US a couple weeks later. I just think it’s odd.
Thank you for this story. I didn’t recall the incident and am grateful to hear the details. With regards to Russian aviator skills, I read or heard something in the last year that said Russian combat pilots get very little practice flight time compared to European and US combat pilots. Sounds like they get very little time on the radios, too.
Ah! You swallow all the western propaganda too!
Didn't know about this. Woah.
Another shining example of why I would love to share a pint with you! If you are ever in Seattle I would be happy to pay for a night of drinks to pick your brain. Right now you are my favorite aviation buff on RUclips.
As I heard from the people related some of our P-2s had experienced similar affairs in the 70s and 80s
It seems strange the Rivet Joint didn't have any warning it was being locked up.
Could you do a video please on British missiles like the Red Top and Firestreak?
The Russians shoot first and ask questions later. They shot down KAL 007 which was over Soviet airspace accidently due to a navigation error. The Russians committed a similar error by thinking the airliner was an RC-135. But, this was at night and there was a lot of confusion. The pilot was also ordered to shoot down the target. Why they tried to shoot down this RC-135 in international airspace can only be determined by asking that pilot. Since his wingman was asking him what the hell he was doing means they had no orders to fire on that aircraft. We were lucky the incident didn't get worse thankfully. As for missile performance, I knew they were bad in Vietnam, but not that bad.
Can you do a larger video on the r27 missile?
That's a good idea. I have plenty of information from the Cold War era, so I will probably keep the video to the period until 1990. Also thinking about videos on the 'Aphid' and 'Alkali'
@@notapound I love that you focus on the cold War and especially the earlier part. It really was a golden age, for example those crazy 1973 air wings compared to today's boring all-Hornet deck
Great video which firing a Fox-1 atleast with US craft is less about hitting the right sequence of switches which should have been hit already and more about irading the target and having and sustaining a lock... Something the report you read did not mention.
do you mean irradiating?
Who else noticed the wooden railings at 5:40?. In 2019 an East German university professor told me what it is about, but I forgot the details. I seem to remember some flexibility issue with the original railings.
The U.S navy did a hard study into why so many sparrow missiles fired were duds, they found that in some cases missiles loaded onto a Phantom might well stay on the aircraft for weeks without being needed, weeks of daily carrier take offs, high manuvering followed by a carrier landing had turned nearly every missile tested into a dud.
I think that may have been what happened to the missiles on the SU27, they were left on the rails for lord knows how many months or possibly even years, add to that, the average Russian pilot gets only a handfull of actual flight hours per year, their landings are probably going to be a little on the rough side due to lack of actual practice.
Yes but you forgot to mention the most important thing, the pilot has to be sober.
"It's just not real until you see it on the Telly".
Idk why but made me think of that inccindent were during an training exercise a US f14 ahot down an RF-4 phantom
In the 80s su-27 if you break lock to the target, the r-27 would not guide. It could be that the first one the pilot simply broke lock. Another explanation is that the target had countermeasures and jamming on, making the missile loose lock. The second one simple dropping might be explained by hardware failure; heck even the first missile failure could have been hardware failure. So far the only Russian missile that I have seen used successfully has been the r-73.
Fun plane to fly in DCS, missiles seem to be a bit more consistent there than irl lol
Up until this war, Russia and its weapons seemed to be a credible threat. Its gonna be kinda awkward from now on for game designers thinking about making the Russians the bad guys. How do you make them threatening if their missiles just drop from their fighters' pylons or can't hit airliner sized targets? The Russian invasion of America in the old Modern Warfare 2 and 3 looks even more ridiculous than before 😂.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 well the weapons that seem to work the best that the Russians have are either hyper modern super limited supply or late soviet
The consequences of the 90’s and early 2000’s haunt them
@@sam8742 The reason for that is that they allow their stuff to fall into disrepair. New stuff works well because its fresh from the factory. Incompetence and corruption ensures that even the hyper modern stuff will eventually degrade and become a total meme.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694
Well said mate, well said
Would have been a straight up article 5
Opto electronic has been termed optronic for almost half a century
I am unclear - does Rivet Joint have ECM? I would be surprised if it doesn’t .
Active ECM is a bad idea for Rivet Joint missions. The aircraft is covered with tons of VERY sensitive antennas. (Combat Sent is worse by an ungodly amount. )
In short, think of it as listening for conversations at a party. If you are carrying around a speaker blasting music, will you do better or worse?
If it had an IR seaker... those have other ways to be degraded. Without messing up the EM spectra where the RJs are listening.
This is why I hated the fact that they pulled the tail-gun/gunner off the B-52. Give us at least some chance to protect ourselves while your other Fighter-Mafia buddies are going for another kill over there...
This could have very easily started a major issue. The type that gets lots of people dead.
Russian equipment is good on paper but the entire personnel structure aroud it is rotten.
I worked with Russians alot and realy like the people, when they told me what the conscription was like i was shocked.
My friend from Saint Petersburg severd with the national guard he was payed $30 a month showered once a week and slept in a room with 100 guys and in a year he shot once as a soldier and mostly was rented out to do construction work like clearing forrests.
You treat people like shit then expect them to do thier job while the boss is also stealing you get this.
Corruption is a trickle down economy that rots the military and when a guy is so fed up and doesnt care about his equipment he just steals for him self or doesnt work.
We’re there any differences in the Soviets and Russians in terms of military power?
@@swenhtet2861 Well Ukraine was the only place the could build and maintain big ships like the Kuznetsov what was built in mykolaiv. They lost a lot of talent and facilities at the fall of the union
Soviets flew combat missions and engaged in a2a combat gaining a2a kills in both Eqypt and Afganistan... at least and there maybe some other cases too, Angola and Vietnam come to mind.
With this in mind, about how unreliable missiles are, it’s amazing the kill rate achieved by Sea Harriers in 1982 in the Falklands, with much older tech missiles. I wonder what the launch/kill ratio was there. I know they downed 20+ Argentine planes. Thoughts?
I know that the AMRAAM has a Pk of around 77% with almost every kill against an obsolete or non maneuvering target (inlcluding a US helicopter !). I think that no matter how high tech the missile actual Pks in actual combat will never exceed 50%, especially against a target that values its own life than the mission success.
@@rags417What's that got to do with the Sea Harriers in the Falklands.
Aim-9L was a very very good missile
@@Twirlyhead OP was wondering what the Pk was for AIM-9Ls in the Falklands War, I pointed out that it probably wasn't greater than 50% since almost every missile ever made has a less than 50% kill rate vs a maneuvering target, AMRAAMs included and they are for some reason taken to be the gold standard in AAMs
@@rags417 And there was I thinking you mistakenly thought the Sea Harriers were equipped with AMRAAMs in the Falklands in 1982 when they only were equipped with them from the 1990s FA2 version which also had the vastly improved Blue Vixen radar and the AMRAAM itself being only available from 1991. Altogether much more capable than the Sea Harriers of 1982. Just shows how wrong I can be, thanks for explaining to me.
Great episode! I was stationed at Riyadh AB in 2003 where we had a Wing of Rivet Joints. That's all I'll say about that. I had no idea the RAF flew these. The unprofessionalism of these Russian pilots is a bit scary. I wonder if they copied the Sparrow's guidance system like they did the Sidewinder? If so it's no wonder the missiles went dumb.
The Su-27 is a 46 year old fighter design, yet it still serves as a front line fighter. Sure there are other more advanced fighters, but the Flanker is still good enough to be competitive in a fight. It is still a functioning weapons system, Assuming Russia is not the operation.
The Su-27 is meant to go against 4th Gen fighters like the F-14 or the F-15. This generation is around 50 years old. Can you imaging the Sopwith Camel still being operated in the skies over Vietnam in 1966?
It would probably do ok in a 1 circle.
don't underestimate the Super Flankers though, they are amazingly good at dogfighting.
I wish I were as confident as you that, had the missile hit its target, NATO would have actually responded.
Not WW3 bit they'd have been a measured response.
there would have been strong statements but as usual the left wingers in NATO would have done nothing. What I am curious about is what would have happened if it was an AWACS that got hit. If it was Trump, he would have said that the next Russian fighter or bomber that would have entered US airspace even for a second, was going down. Obama would have said nothing like that.
The Rivet Joint unit likely compromised the missiles electronically as soon as they were in range.
Are the craft at 1:29 MiG 29s?
No.
I may be mistaken but as far as I know an R27 is a rail launched missile. Meaning for it to leave the aircraft it has to have its rocket motor ignite. Most older missiles work like this. For a missile to just drop off an aircraft would imply its a more modern type like an R77. The R77 is more like the American AMRAAM in that it drops off the pylon before its motor is ignited. Just looking at pictures from other times Russian jets have shadowed and harrassed US planes they always seem to have R77's on board.
Comparing the effectiveness of cold war and earlier missiles to modern missiles is a mistake. Modern missiles are far more effective than older types. No doubt the Rivet Joint has effective electronic warfare capability and can deal with an incoming missile, especially at longer ranges.
The RAF Rivet Joint jammed the missiles.... that's what happened to the missiles. If they were able to listen in on the Russians secured radio channels the idea that they can jam the missiles seems plausible.
you can't just 'jam' a missile which doesn't have active radar homing, that's the whole point. The missile is not transmitting any signal. If the RC135 was sending out signals to detect radar the missile would have homed in on it, in fact I'd say a major reason for missing was that the pilot had fired the missiles without locking-on to the target, which from beyond visual (and therefore also IR) range would leave the missile's guidance system without any point of reference
@@ViscountAlbany You can jam/render useless any electrical device... any. I have a Flipper zero and it will render any electrical device useless and/or give me control of it. It happens in seconds, not minutes, not hours. I bought it on Amazon, what do you think the military doesn't have something better?
"iPhone security warning issued over Flipper Zero attack that renders your iPhone useless"
If it can do it to a phone you does it seem absurd to you to be able to do it to a missile?
Maybe next time, slugger.
@@LilSebastian_ are you insane? A flipper zero (funnily enough a Russian invention) is a tool which interacts using short range comms networks such as bluetooth and NFC. It is not capable of "jamming any electrical device" only those emitting a wireless signal. The entire video is predicated on the Su-27 using semi active homing missiles which DO NOT transmit their own signal. Why is this so hard to understand?
@@LilSebastian_ this is an old comment but no you cant just "jam" those things as the launcher has to guide them in anyway and the su 27s radar can work well in ecm environments and they were close enough that they could burn through any jamming the fact you compare a flipper fucking 0 to a million dollar aircraft baffles me its not even the same thing
@@doggy2601 Yes... yes you can just jam a missile. Any object that relies on electronics can in fact, be jammed with EW. You're a moron deluxe and did a fantastic job proving it. Congratulations.
“Arab airforces trained by Soviet pilots took a dim view of their instructors”
I never knew that, and I think it is telling. As someone who has attended (and given) hundreds of hours of military instruction, I can tell you that students will know when they have good, competent instructors who are SMAs in their area of instruction, and when they have some yutz on their hands who is “winging” it or has no clue. I would not discount or dismiss arab pilots coming from military cultures developed from tough lessons dished out to them by skilled Israeli pilots fighting with very good equipment.
Admiral Josh Painter : "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." Hunt for Red October 1990.............
But what is the real range, delta speed, 50-100% chance of hit? So many variables
"Тrust me bro" story. They always have footage but not with this one.
The lack of professionalism shown by the Russian air crews says a ton. Not knowing or obeying the rules of engagement, screaming and cursing at each other over the radio like a bunch of teenagers playing an MMO video game, etc. All of that plus the quality control we've come to expect in Soviet/Russian high tech hardware.
that is why US should provoke Russia into nuclear war even more !!
Screaming and swearing in shock at your wingman, at least, is a normal reaction in this situation, not a lack of professionalism.
it was the other way around, the video says that the wingman was the one screaming at this leader who was the one who launched the missiles.@@wubuck79
So the F-14 crews involved in the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident were unprofessional?
The myrmidons of AI ought to watch this video and re-think their expectations.
As they say in dcs: dont shoot down awacs or you will be banned
This Russian guy reminds me of the USN RIO who essentially took it on himself to shoot down the MiG-23 over the Gulf of Sidra in 1989. Apparently his front-seater and wingman were freaking out because they didn't believe the Rules of Engagement had even come close to being reached. Afterwards the Navy ran damage control but the RIO was apparently shunned by the rest of the F-14 community who knew what a douche he had been ... our RIO was apparently unabashed as he was crowing back at the carrier to a shocked squadron and was later spotted driving around a MIGKILLER license plate at Oceana.
Missiles do usually use solder, or the kind you are thinking of. Sorry national secret.
Signed a guy feom Great Britain
It's a shame their SAMs work well against civilian Malaysian Air Lines flights.
Russian fighter pilots are obviously poorly trained. Recently there was an article in Novaya Gazeta about a pilot who accidentaly fired live rounds instead of simulated ones during a training dogfight, shooting down other two guys in Su-30SM. He was piloting a Su-35S, which is given only to the best of the best pilots. This happened on 22 Sep 2020, the pilot shooting down his colleagues is major Saveliev. Saveliev by the time of accident was 34 years old and was a flight commander. That said, easy calculations tell us that he had around 17 years of service provided that he became a cadet at 17 (typical age). And in this time he only flew 904 hours, including only 100 on the Su-35S. Imagine what level of training do lieutenants and captains have, if this is a major.
And the world lucked-out of WWIII _again._
RC-135 is a USAF aircraft not an RAF platform….it could have been flying NATO mission with joint crew
well it's also an E-war plane so magic maybe
Its not an Electronic Warfare plane. Its a surveillance plane. Hence why its called "RC-135" and not "EC-135" (Thats the E-3 btw).
The RAF use the RC-135?
You should compared missile use of the Israeli Air Force for accuracy.
I do have a question about the dos and donts in international airspace. what if a tu160 would release a weapon in such an airspace? would you be allowed to intercept the bomber if you would suspect it is armed with long range weapons and moving at say mach 1.4?
I personally think it's very dangerous to keep poking an enemy close to collapse for the crew of those EW Aircraft... launching a dumb missle is one thing... but they guy could also have gone for the gun... 30mm Rounds are no fun...
So the second pilot saved the spy plane by throwing a fit 😂😂
Interesting historical point, but there's somenthing that doesn't add up. If we look at modern or even relatively modern SAM missiles, their hit probability against non-evasive targets is ~90%. Therefore moden air-to-air missiles should be more or less on par. I tend to belive this incident was a dud. Russians ain't that crazy to shot down NATO craft in international space.
Or the pilot could have reconsidered his decision and cancelled the track.
I did think about that, but he would have had to do it twice. And the flight time at that range was about 10-15 seconds from trigger pull. Most indecisive Russian pilot?
It was a narrow escape for Russia IMO !
I’m thinking those Alamos were license built by Boeing…🤔
Sounds like a knife in the teeth situation!
It is unconscionable that western nations would not escort an asset like this, even in international waters! To think that your enemy will follow the rules, leaving your soldiers unprotected, is irresponsible. In short, the planners and those giving approval for this mission should have been court-martialed.
RC-135s have an endurance of 11 hours without refueling and escort planes have a max 2 hours.
Considering what was at stake, that RC135 should have been escorted even if it meant replacing the escorts in shifts every 2 hours.
There wasn't much at stake. Firing on the aircraft couple be perceived as an act of war, there was no reason to assume such an action would take place.
I reckon all airliners should be escorted too, plus if you have to drive anywhere there should a soldier to make sure you're safe
I don't think you understand everything associated with what you're proposing. Also, the Russians would probably take even greater exception to armed NATO aircraft in that area and the situation could have been much worse. There is a time and place for what you are proposing. It is neither the time nor the place.
A brilliant video.
I wonder if the pilot was awarded a medal or stationed in the Siberian Arctic? A very close call indeed for everyone.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
judging by how russia has acted to soldiers who have accomplished nothing but retreating from Bucha and committing war crimes - he'll get a medal. (like those war criminals)
Glory to the malfunctioning Missile 😂
One suggestion ive seen for the second missile is that it was aborted mid launch, but i'm not even sure thats possible and don't know how you'd find out.
Missiles, aside, do not underestimate the Flanker series. In the mid 2000s the US and India had military exercises. India won over 80%of simulated dogfights. India has a ton of Su-30s and Mig 29s. Luckily, Russia has crappy pilot training and inferior weapon systems.
Thanks for the comment. I've gathered a lot of early 90s material on the Cold War Flanker and am planning a video. Listening to F-15 pilot interviews, you can see that it changed the game in a way that the MiG-29 didn't. I'm planning to try and look into whether it would have been enough to gain air superiority in a European war in the '80's.
the function of sending up small numbers of manned aircraft against potential intruders approaching your aerospace is to show that you're watching and can shoot at them, not because it's actually the easiest way to down an aircraft. Both US/UK and Russian interception forces do this. In the absence of detailed information about what those missiles actually were, I'd say the Russians deliberately fired missiles which weren't or couldn't be homed on the target to scare away the RC135. If they'd wanted to down it without making visual contact they would have just used a shipborne missile or SAM
So the wingman didn't get the memo or something? He was screaming at his flight lead.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 if the leader decided to do this there would be no way of his wing man telling that the missiles didn't have a lock on to the target, so it would look scary, yes
Why did it fail?....because its Russian build quality (both missile and aircraft).🤣🤣🤣🤣
Russian can make good stuff but then they dont maintain or look after it.
The corruption is insane and trickles down to the guys maintaining these things dont give a shit because there boss treats them like slaves and steals too
@@SweetVids2010 and thats my piont...for example even the poorest of countries can buy modern fighters but buying them is only the start...no piont buying them if you cant afford to maintain, fuel,arm or fly them
@@jaws666I believe that recently, some African country stopped second hand Su-27* deliveries because the aircraft were junk, mainly due to poor maintenance.
* = or derivatives, I can’t remember
@@pjotrtje0NL exactly again my piont...its all good and well having them on the airbase sitting there looking impresive but looks can be deceptive...if they are junk ,as you say,then its piontless having them
saved by incompetence
Well, they are called MISSiles not HITtiles aren't they
6:45 How can it miss? It's Russian.
The ECM did its job . That’s all there is to say .
It is possible the British aircraft has counter measures unknown to both the general public and the Russian air force.
HANG ON
RAF crews may have been trusting / gullible enough to fly the lethally lousy Nimrod BUT
Do you *really* think they're so gormless they would climb into a Rivet Joint - which has all the stealth, agility and fleetness of foot of an airliner - and amble into range of potentially hostile forces if it *doesn't* carry ECM?
Be beggerd (typo) if I would ! Would You?
Yeah, I think that's a fair statement. I don't have any information about what sort of ECM they might have. The Sword/ Alamo combination is supposed to be able to work in an ECM environment but it is 40 year old technology now. Maybe one day we'll find out!
This is precisely what they did do, as the MoD didn't think Russian forces would be stupid enough to directly engage the aircraft of a nation they're not at war with. RJ crew wear "Flanker Bait" patches on their arm for a reason, because they know they'd be the first thing to get hit if Russia suddenly changed its mind.
Following this incident, they now fly with escorts. It was incredible luck that no lives were lost that day.
Just as I was being stationed in Okinawa, Kadena AB, I was told that the shooting down of KAL 007 was because the Russians were trying to shoot down a Hog, RC-135. The Hog would be able to "Jam the shit" out of a plane targeting it. They said the Hog was in the same area as KAL 007. The Hog is a very clever girl.
It was in the same defence zone but it had disappeared from Soviet radar screens shortly before KAL 007 came on. The Soviets thought it may have been coming back and this time trying to overfly Kamchatka. Incidentally, the confused radio traffic discovered by the investigation sounds quite similar to what passed in this incident.
Great video, but the way Putin behaves does anyone think this could've been preplanned? Such that you had a trigger happy pilot and one trying to stop him? Non the less a RAF plane and 30 people? Wouldve been lost and the west wouldve been less inclined to gather intelligence
Ummmm...
You deliberately snuff 30 limeys in an unarmed intelligence gathering platform in INTERNATIONAL airspace?
I don't think that's going to result in "less" intelligence gathering... might result in a half dozen 2000 pound JDAMs landing on the tarmac/buildings of the airbase that those fighters came from.
BZ
Two corrections and another possibility.
The target aircraft is not, remotely an airliner. It is a spy aircraft and a legitimate military target that does not require a declaration of war to intercept and interfere with. Its purpose is to gather electronic data and its mission is unambiguously military operation against a foreign state, political interpretations of which range from abject military aggression to reasonable apprehension, however it is undeniably invasive with intent to compromise classified military information of the state involved in its mission. The nature of these aircraft type is what, in fact historically defined the meaning of Cold War, in being blatant military operation against a state whilst presuming an ambiguity about it being an act of war and expressing a reluctance to enter a shooting war. The fact this is like slapping someone you say you don't want a punching fight with is what created a "cold" war. A default state of war, including military activity but just without the shooting part and a whole big bunch of contemptuous bullshit tossed all over every UN meeting like a smokescreen for morons. "Technically I didn't enter their airspace" isn't an excuse to the state you are compromising, they objectively have an imperative to interfere with such operations by any means and aren't concerned with what an aggressor state thinks their rules should be.
Don't want to get shot down? Don't do it.
Second, all the Su27S in Russian service have been upgraded to the Su27SM updated version as an interim measure as industry and economy was unable to replace them all with 4.5 gen Su30SM and Su35 as had been planned. Some systems have been upgraded on all the Su27 fleet since their original inception, so the inference of ageing Cold War fighters with unreliable systems isn't really an accurate one, this was a state the VVS was bereft to in the late 90s to early 2000s due to the crashed economy however has been singly of greatest concern over the last twenty years to their national security. I'm not saying many cliches aren't true about contemporary Russian avionics in field distribution lacking parity with front line US/NATO examples, the MiG-29S fire control bus inability to handle any significant data transfer for example compromising its real world BVR capabilities, but giving the public impression that a typical Russian intercept will involve unreliable and obsolete equipment in 2020s or that it will be a most likely explanation for the course of this event isn't being intellectually honest.
To describe the more plausible characterisation of the event I should have to point out a technical and a cultural matter. The modern VVS is not the Soviet Union and abandoned all its ideology in training and operations in the successive sweeping reforms of military culture and organisation under Putin, the most recent of which was in 2016. Earlier reforms of the military structure weren't just prudent but politically necessary because of the nature of Soviet era military districts to form local fiefdoms under an oligarchy, as was the case in the Black Sea and Caucasus region, around Georgia in the 90s. Senior officers of the general staff going rogue with their absolute local authority and arms stockpiles of nuclear warheads and 4th gen Soviet equipment, Tom Clancy liked to write novels about it. The entire military structure and organisation had to be altered with two primary reasons given the need to adjust from Soviet mass assault actions philosophy to a much more realistic, post-Soviet small unit action philosophy more similar to the west. It involved changes to OOB as well as officer training and military culture, designed mainly to compensate for the fact Russia simply could not produce industry on a Soviet scale. Officers and pilots for example could no longer afford to have the Party mentality of collectivism and required far more active leadership, independence and initiative the west doesn't traditionally associate with Russian infrastructure. Bluntly, they're not communists anymore and combat pilots are basically trained just like American/NATO ones with similar standards at varying levels, in fact the Guards squadrons were expected to field highly independent and qualitive pilots even during the Soviet era so the mindless communist drone cliche about this is really inaccurate to start with and more a misunderstanding about the PVO special air group under command of the rocket forces (strategic), which is akin to the US-ADF that also used GCI with little to no pilot autonomy during the Cold War. It never described the VVS.
Another point is the avionics automated systems in Russian 4th gen fighters had manual overrides since the 80s, whether the FCS or importantly here, the electronic launch authorisation. Most intercept alert Flankers (not long range patrol), whether performing exercises or on mission tend do tend to carry a pair of R27R and R73 on the wings, regardless of the capacity for many more and the extended range ER type. Generally, just two R27R and R73 seem to be the thing I presume to take advantage of its remarkable climb performance, a world record holder in several categories such as 55 seconds from runway brake release to maximum range launch altitude, can't remember height off the top of my head 7-10km somewhere. Rarely I've seen a pair of R77 as well but usually just the other four. The original Su27S can't carry the R77 btw, only the Su27SM but as mentioned they're all updated.
In order to fire the R27R normally the pilot needs to acquire the target, then lock it for SARH guidance, enter aspect/altitude range of the missile and an electronic launch authorization allows him to fire it. Without the launch authorisation pressing the fire control does nothing.
However, and here is finally the most likely explanation for what happened. Specifically for the purpose of firing a missile outside its parameters of a firing solution the pilot can override the electronic launch authorisation, invariably firing a dumb missile towards a target, that is one that either won't track or is outside its capabilities to hit the target.
One of the main reasons a pilot would do this is a warning shot without starting a war.
And it might not be the correct explanation but my concern is this: your premise is they're all idiots and their equipment uselessly unreliable. Why would you pick that explanation when there is a perfectly plausible one with a loose parity overall. I mean yeah a Eurofighter Typhoon is a different world from a basic Flanker but if the RAF were still in Tornados they don't suddenly turn into a Laurel and Hardy episode with missiles falling off the rails and temporary psychosis. Quite frankly that explanation I find utterly ridiculous, possibly true but utterly ridiculous, worthy of ridicule. Why choose that one?
A pretty good comment. thanks for your time typing it.
Electronic intelligence is not a legitimate target.
I've personally seen Russian ones off Cape Cod and Goose Bay Canada
Nope, it was god saying... let's nobody get dead today...😅
One might ask oneself why the Rivet Joint was flying over the Black Sea
Its a NATO aircraft monitoring a conflict NATO has a great deal of interest in. Like come on, its not that deep.
No different than Russian intelligence aircraft and trawlers off our coast.
If one was a fucking idiot, yes.
The hand of The Most High is everywhere i look. To your point, i am thankful indeed. Look to the Cuban Missile Crisis where boots allegedly had the keys to nukes. KAL comes to mind. Numerous lethal accidents like you have covered, broken arrows, etc. Our military personnel are always in danger, whether hot or cold wars, regardless being or facing the professional or conscript. It is nasty but necessary business that I hope most people give more than a passing glance to. Thanks again for what u share with us. I have truly enjoyed all your work. Love and respect from The Great Plains.
...and the UK/RAF would not have done a single thing in response. Not a damn thing in response. At least not without the USAF taking the lead.
...I trust the bbc about as much as I trust tass. The propaganda war is so thick I think assuming anything said by anyone about this conflict is highly foolish. I have seen some of the best minds in the "osint" community lose all objectivity in this conflict. Ironic as I also remember members of my generation ten to fifteen years ago being beyond cynical concerning any institution that agreed with neocon/neolib talking points... I just dont get it. Apparently my exceedingly moral and intellectual generation is no different from those generations before us. Who could have figured?
Also I have yet to find any actual evidence on the existence of an active radar homing variant of the r-27.
@@jamesmandahl444The R 27EA is active. But I agree, this whole incident sounds like bollocks, because the UK would’ve kicked up a massive fuss
It would be interesting to know wwhich country has had the most success firing air to air missiles. I would guess Israel.
Doesn't seem all that narrow to me: the first missile's tracker failed (sending it on a path to nowhere) and the second one's rocket motor failed (literally just fell off the plane). 🤣 And to think the US was once afraid of these people's technology.
At this point, I presume ~50% of Russian ordnance and equipment to be faulty in any given scenario. It's rarely far off.
The mainstream media article cites unnamed sources. It's clickbait for the simpletons who don't question the prevailing narrative.
Can it be that missle was fired to miss a target on purpose? Or it's not possible?
Good question. My understanding is that the fire control system enabled the missile to be fired unguided. Master arm would have to be 'on' though and therefore the warhead and proximity fuse would be live. It could also be jettisoned from the pylon.