☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
18

Shutting down US drones with jet fuel

submitted by fritz_maurentod to videos 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 07:01:03 ago (+18/-0)     (www.dvidshub.net)

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/876667/us-air-force-mq-9-camera-footage-russian-su-27-black-sea-intercept



56 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager 13 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 07:43:26 ago (+13/-0)

The warmongers sure are crying about this drone. We’re openly delivering weapons to Ukraine that have killed tens of thousands of Russians, trying to crash their economy, and blew up their pipeline. Dumping fuel on an unmanned drone is more funny than it is an act of war.

[ - ] Belfuro 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:53:22 ago (+1/-0)

And these drones provide targeting data that sets the Ukraine army firing usa himars to kill Russians.

[ - ] mikenigger -4 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 09:01:51 ago (+2/-6)*

you're right, we should've nuked moscow when they blew up an ammo depot in a NATO country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunition_warehouses_explosions

[ - ] Belfuro 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:55:29 ago (+1/-0)

"Although no one saw them in the ammunition depot"

Such a fuckwit to listen to enemy propaganda.

Nukes without proof? Dipshit cunt.

[ - ] mikenigger -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:17:35 ago (+0/-1)

according to the Czech news magazine Respekt, the ammunition stored in the exploded depot was to be sold to Ukraine battling in the war in Donbas through the Bulgarian arms trader Emiliyan Gebrev

might wanna read further and put two and two together, imagine if there was an international investigation instead of cucking out every time

[ - ] namefagsrgay 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 15:24:31 ago (+0/-0)

Your dad

[ - ] ruck_feddit 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 15:56:59 ago (+0/-0)

Nuke whites? Kill yourself.

[ - ] Lordbananafist 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 09:32:18 ago (+4/-0)

Well… it melts steel

[ - ] bobdole9 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 14:13:32 ago (+2/-0)

Turns out it doesn't even need to be on fire!

[ - ] SmokeyMeadow 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 09:21:15 ago (+4/-0)

I'm genuinely surprised the downed drone isn't being reported by US propaganda as a "crash with no survivors." God bless that brave drone crew who gave their lives for freedom.

[ - ] deleted 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:29:34 ago (+4/-0)

deleted

[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:02:30 ago (+0/-0)

Looks like afterburner without ignition of fuel to me.
Didn't know that they could do that

[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:49:13 ago (+1/-0)

Just dumped fuel. It was a really good trick because he would have had to throttle back to keep his own exhuast from igniting it. Good pilot and very well done. Hope he gets a kill credit and they paint a drone silhouette next to his name.

[ - ] Belrial 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 19:49:15 ago (+0/-0)

The fuel will only ignite if they're in afterburner. At military power the fuel just flows out the back of the plane.

[ - ] Fascinus 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:07:47 ago (+2/-0)

Catbox mirror: https://files.catbox.moe/139cmj.mp4

Two Russian Su-27 aircraft conducted an unsafe and unprofessional intercept with a U.S. Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance unmanned MQ-9 aircraft operating within international airspace over the Black Sea on March 14, 2023. Russian Su-27s dumped fuel upon and struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. (U.S. Air Force video)

(Editor's Note: This declassified video has been edited for length, however, the events are depicted in sequential order.)

[ - ] boekanier 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:42:05 ago (+1/-0)

so simple to render it worthless, how much does a drone actually cost?

[ - ] fritz_maurentod [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:52:49 ago (+0/-0)

32 Millions

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 15:10:41 ago (+0/-0)

so simple, just fly a figther jet near it and risk a military response

[ - ] RobertJHarsh 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 14:02:31 ago (+0/-0)

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 10:28:27 ago (+2/-2)

jet fuel can't melt propeller blades

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 07:43:46 ago (+1/-1)

I don't think jets are capable of dumping fuel in such a way. It looks like afterburner wash.

[ - ] FacelessOne 7 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:47:50 ago (+7/-0)

What aircraft doesn't have fuel dump options?

Pretty sure it's a basic safety feature. Landing a damaged craft is already bad enough, dumping the fuel before coming in because we like not blowing up.

[ - ] lord_nougat 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 09:53:21 ago (+2/-0)

Not blowing up is cool.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:32:11 ago (+2/-0)

It's not really about the fire risk. If an aircraft is so badly damaged the fuel tanks might go up then they land it asap, they don't waste time dumping fuel.

The reason for dumping fuel is because aircraft have a maximum landing weight which is lower than their maximum takeoff weight. So if they have to land early they have to dump fuel to reduce weight so they don't screw up the landing gear or overload the wings. It's fairly routine and they do it even in non mechanical emergencies like landing due to weather or unruly passengers.

[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 14:51:21 ago (+1/-0)

I mean in the developing age of air combat we also preffered dropping bombs over the ocean
before returning.

Just an overall reduction of risk worthy of SOP.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 18, 2023 20:04:51 ago (+1/-0)

True. Also for range. I gather bomber crews in WW2 used to dump their machine guns once they'd gotten out of range of enemy airbases, just so they'd be light enough to get home.

[ - ] TheGreatWar 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 15:22:02 ago (+2/-0)

Cessna 152.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:13:00 ago (+0/-0)

Jet fuel is designed to not blow up.

https://youtube.com/shorts/0pFNNpN1c98?feature=share

This is a fuel dump on an f35. Note that it's at the wing, not the back of the plane by the jet exhaust, where the fuel could ignite.

[ - ] fritz_maurentod [op] 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:39:27 ago (+1/-0)

We call things designed to blow up "Explosives".

[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 14:38:16 ago (+1/-0)

Ah so crashing jets don't explode... because of the jet fuel...

[ - ] Belrial 5 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 10:21:01 ago (+5/-0)

That is exactly what a fuel dump looks like.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:08:33 ago (+1/-0)

My aircraft doesn't have a fuel dump. And most don't either. If you need to burn fuel, you fly around until you burn the fuel, you certainly don't dump it out by your jet engines. The potential for ignition would be insanely high.

[ - ] Rotteuxx 5 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:13:51 ago (+5/-0)

Your civilian aircraft that doesn't engage in arial combat doesn't have that option, color me surprised!

''Hold on there Yankee, I need to burn 150 gallons of fuel before I engage you in a fight or you'll have a serious manoeuvrability advantage over me''

[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:19:23 ago (+0/-1)

https://youtube.com/shorts/0pFNNpN1c98?feature=share

F35 fuel dump. Not where it isn't.

[ - ] Belfuro 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:58:16 ago (+3/-0)

Son. Buddy. Pal. Kid. Boyo.

Why oh why are you using civilian aircraft or F35 to refute a su 27 feature?

[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:36:01 ago (+0/-0)

Dunning Kruger effect

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:41:04 ago (+0/-0)

You got a video of a su 27 doing a known fuel dump?

[ - ] Belrial 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 20:00:13 ago (+0/-0)

He must think because he flies a Cessna 172 he's an expert on military aviation. Granted I do not know where the fuel dump mast on an SU-27 is and after a ton of searching I can't even find the answer. It's kind of funny.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:36:14 ago (+1/-0)

The potential for ignition would be insanely high.

Ok, say it ignites, why is that a problem? It's not like the flame could catch up with the aircraft.

[ - ] TheGreatWar 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 15:23:12 ago (+2/-0)

The F-111 could ignite dumped fuel. They did it at airshows. Not a problem.

[ - ] Belrial 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 19:45:09 ago (+1/-0)

Stay in your swim lane. Here's a picture of the fuel dump mast right between the engines of an F-14.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21366/what-is-this-thing-between-the-engines-on-the-f-14-tomcat

Just because your bug smasher doesn't have a fuel dump doesn't mean military or commercial jets don't have that capability.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 20:08:20 ago (+0/-0)

https://youtu.be/UVzLV-R_-kk

Best explanation to date, correct?

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:11:37 ago (+0/-0)

This is a fuel dump from a f35.

https://youtube.com/shorts/0pFNNpN1c98?feature=share

It's at the wing. Not the back of a jet where the fuel could be ignited.

[ - ] Belrial 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 19:38:42 ago (+1/-0)

The fuel dump mast on the F-14 was right between the engines.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 20:09:39 ago (+0/-0)

https://youtu.be/UVzLV-R_-kk

Best explanation to date, correct?

[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:38:18 ago (+0/-0)

Again though, if having a flame behind the aircraft were a problem then afterburners would not exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-loX8NGm0

[ - ] Spaceman84 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 07:51:19 ago (+2/-0)

Depends on the jet. Many can do so to gain maneuverability in the event of a dogfight.

[ - ] fritz_maurentod [op] 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:28:30 ago (+1/-0)

What is afterburner wash composed of?

[ - ] Monica 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 08:31:03 ago (+3/-0)

white woman tears and regret

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 11:09:22 ago (+1/-0)

It is dumping fuel directly into the jet burn in the post compression part of the jet engine.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 12:28:46 ago (+1/-0)

I don't think jets are capable of dumping fuel in such a way.

They have to be able to. Safe landing weight is different from takeoff weight. If they have to land early they either have to fly around until their fuel is depleted or dump it. In an emergency flying around isn't an option so they have to be able to dump.

[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:50:54 ago (+1/-0)

Yes they can. And if you dump it in the intake of a turbofan, it chokes it.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 13:57:39 ago (+1/-1)

Why would you dump fuel in the intake?

[ - ] BulletStopper 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 14:56:04 ago (+2/-0)

It has the advantage of disabling the engine without expending any ordnance on it. What we used to call a "soft kill".

Ever flood your engine? Too much fuel? Wouldn't start would it? A turbo fan engine, (or any engine really) requires a careful balance between air and fuel in order to opreate. Too lean a mix (not enough fuel) and it stalls. Too much fuel and it floods. Dumping raw fuel directly into the intake would flood the engine. With a 66' wingspan, the aircraft has good glide characteristics but if they can't execute a restart in time it will come down.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-04-05/oklahoma-base-prepares-mq-9-reaper-engine-work

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/content/dam/aerobt/en/documents/learn/products/engines/brochures/N61-1491-000-000-TPE331-10TurbopropEngine-bro.pdf

[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 18, 2023 20:07:04 ago (+0/-0)

I think he's saying they might dump the fuel into an enemy's intake.

[ - ] Belrial 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 16, 2023 20:13:57 ago (+0/-0)

JFC you know next to fucking nothing about jets or any heavy aviation do you?