Not nearly as hard as you think, the Mig could have well shot it down from further away , the only explanation I could cope to agree to some extent is that they wanted to get a visual on the target to be 100% sure that it is infact a UAV.
Russian MIG-29 Shoots Georgian UAV
- Thread starter 341-Phalanx
- Start date
Yeah, would have been an ugly accident if they found out later that it was just a Chessna full of tourists...
But why shouldn't it be that hard?
As I said I am waiting for the pros here to answer this and I am sorry but just one sentence by you which says "it isn't that hard" is not enough for me.
But why shouldn't it be that hard?
As I said I am waiting for the pros here to answer this and I am sorry but just one sentence by you which says "it isn't that hard" is not enough for me.
Well I guess the Georgians were tracking the event on Radar and pointed the camera at the approaching MiG. The Camera seems to be searching for the MiG. The MiG took a nice low approach don't you think, the pilot wanted to be seen.
Since the Georgians had detected the MiG at take off they knew it was coming.
Is it possible to Identify a UAV or any plane solely by its Radar cross section?
I'm sure the Russians had noticed the UAV reconnaissance patrols before and had mapped out it possible patrol routes before taking it out.
If they wanted to take it out without being seen there were other possibilities, my guess is that this was a very pointed message to Georgia and Nato.
Im not a pilot and I was never in the airforce but I know that both Russia and America practice shooting down drones when they test their air to air missiles and they do it well beyond visual range , whats the difference in this case? The drones are slow , I read that a YF-12 a prototype interceptor of the USAF from which the SR-71 was made shot a drone down at 3+ mach speed in the 60's I don't see much of a difference here at all.
You can't but you said the speed seriusly effects shoting down the target but the prototype shot the drone with 3 mach speed , how can you explain that then?
The YF-12 didn't "shoot down a Mach 3+ drone" - instead the A-12 airframe was used as a launcher to shoot a Mach 3+ drone itself.
The D-21A/B drone flew at Mach 4+, and was never intercepted. Only 4 flights were D-21A mated to M12. Fourth flight crashed both drone and launch aircraft, which killed off the M12 program. Subsequent flights were all launched from B-52H.
There were - to my knowledge - never any intercepts of any Mach 2+ target drones (or missiles) except for BMD and ASAT systems. Even supersonic intercepts at all are rare for a distinct lack of available drone systems.
Regular drones and UAVs generally travel at well below Mach 0.5.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
In order to get a good IR lock the MiG 29 would have to get in close. That little UAV wiuld have a tiny IR signiture and the R73 still uses an analouge seeker.
That didnt look anything like a Flanker to me. I'm not a aircraft spotter but those verticle stabs, the wing sweep and the cockpit all scream Fulcrum.
Last edited:
I see. Is it plausible for Abkahzian AD to have shot it down? They don't have much, but they do have a number of Shilka's ZSU-23-4, some ZSU-23-2, and a few MANPADS (Igla style). Georgia has allegedly lost a UAV to "Abkhazian AD" once before. That time the Georgians denied it was their drone, though the wreckage evidence seemed fairly conclusive.
EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is if indeed it was a Russian MiG, is it likely to have been a Russian MiG the first time around also?
EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is if indeed it was a Russian MiG, is it likely to have been a Russian MiG the first time around also?
If an IR sensor on a satellite can detect aircraft 500 km away, why would an IR sensor on a fighter need to get within 500 m ?
PR is everything in todays conflicts, i bet with anyone it had to be confirmed visually that russians dont kill cessna sportplane enthusiasts, or even worse, journalists!
PR is everything in todays conflicts, i bet with anyone it had to be confirmed visually that russians dont kill cessna sportplane enthusiasts, or even worse, journalists!
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Perhapse its the same reason the laser pointer you can buy at your local toy store wont cause the thing your pointing it at to spontainiously combust, when MTHEL would, or the same reason you local cops radar gun cant track an aircraft at 400km's when MESA can. Just becasue two systems use the same general type of detection device, i.e. radar or IR does not (in most cases) that alone does not shed light on the others capability apart from generic limitations (i.e. seeing through solid objects). Its the same for radars, an ARH missiles radar seeker detection footprint may only be 20km, but JORN's is 3500km's+, i mean they're both use radars after all.
Anyway the R73's seeker is analogue and not an Imageing Infra Red seeker used on the lates generation WVR missiles like Python V, ASRAAM or AIM-9X, thus it uses the targets IR contrast against the colder background rather than an IR Image of the target. Therefore it uses a different IR system and isnt really comparable, not to mention the huge size difference and disparity in technological sophistocation.
Dr Freud said:
A Luftwaffe-pilot once stated that against an F-16 the IRST/Archer combination of the MIG-29 is very useful within 10 nm. For sure the-probably piston-engine driven- UAV (anyone knows which type the Georgians operate?) does have a tiny IR-signature compared to that. But did the jockey have to get that close? Yes, if he wanted to be seen, I'd say.merocaine said:
Although I know that the IRST sits on top of the nose I don't think it was neccessary to approach that low. Makes sense though as the the UAV's camera pod is obviously located under the belly of the UAV.
Bullying doesn't have any sense if the victim doesn't know who's bullying- school bully's wisdom...
Yes, possible and being done. I'm not sure, however, if a MIG-29 can do this and, of course, you'd need a reference in your database.merocaine said:
..... yes I saw the video. Several times in fact, as I tried hard to tell if the tails were vertical or slightly slanted. My question was whether it is even possible for Abkhazian AD to shoot down the UAV in question. We need to keep in mind the possibility that the video was fake. We also need to consider that since this isn't the first incident, if this incident proves to be a Russian provocation, the previous one could also have been one.
windscorpion
New Member
The BBC report said it was an Elbit Hermes 450.
Quite simple: estimate.
In the West, pretty much all air-to-air missiles are tested against a single type of supersonic drone - the AQM-37, originally bought in the 70s. This drone has very limited capability to simulate a "real" target - it can fly at very high speeds, however evasive maneuvers and so on are rather limited (since its operated by radio commands).
The Soviet Union had a small number of supersonic target drones derived from 50s-era missiles with similar limitations.
In addition to that, you can fire your missiles against (unmanned) target aircraft of course - however, live missiles are rarely used for that, bit too costly.
Hmm, compare a pen size laser pointer designed to point at something vs a MTHEL that in best case fits in the largest avaliable truck, designed to destroy incoming missiles...or a hand held police speed-radar gun vs AWAC.
This analogue is flawed, they have different goal and purpose.
Both satellite and plane mounted IR detectors will want to be as sensitive as possible, in order to detect at as far range as possible.
This leaves it up to how large is the detector, and what obstacles in their respective environment.
Obstacles such as cloud cover in the observed atmosphere, and the fraction of ultra-high energy cosmic ray events that may be expected to occur in volumes of the viewed atmosphere non-obscured by clouds, and last but not least, background, sky or ground.
It is unrealistic that one of these systems is 1000 times better then the other.
30%, at best, either way, sounds more reasonable.
This analogue is flawed, they have different goal and purpose.
Both satellite and plane mounted IR detectors will want to be as sensitive as possible, in order to detect at as far range as possible.
This leaves it up to how large is the detector, and what obstacles in their respective environment.
Obstacles such as cloud cover in the observed atmosphere, and the fraction of ultra-high energy cosmic ray events that may be expected to occur in volumes of the viewed atmosphere non-obscured by clouds, and last but not least, background, sky or ground.
It is unrealistic that one of these systems is 1000 times better then the other.
30%, at best, either way, sounds more reasonable.
Last edited: