This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
Obviously the US and Russia deliver contradicting reports on this incident. The final verdict can therefore not be spoken by now. This is the normality in a war because of the
Fog of War. Therefore, the editors of the Wikipedia should exercise extreme caution in order to be objective and impartial.
One-sided judgements like "damaged the propeller" should not have any place in the introductory paragraph. There, only those statements should be made which are in coherence with both reports.
"On 14 March 2023 in the morning, the Russian airspace control systems have detected an American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle flying over the Black Sea near the Crimean Peninsula in the direction of the state border of the Russian Federation.
◽️ The drone flew with its transponders off, violating the boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation, communicated to all users of international airspace, and published in accordance with international standards.
◽️ Fighter jets of the air defence force on duty scrambled to identify the intruder. As a result of quick manoeuvring around 9.30 a.m. (Moscow time), the MQ-9 drone went into an unguided flight with a loss of altitude and collided with the water surface.
◽️ The Russian aircraft did not use on-board weapons, did not come into contact with the unmanned aerial vehicle, and returned safely to their home airfield."
Maybe he means to indicate that the US-Military is not under the thumb of Biden and therefore more trustworthy than the usual statements from the WH like: "We will bring an end to NS2, but we actually did not do it." ;-) --
Manorainjan13:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Further statement of the MoD "Sergei Shoigu pointed out that the incident was caused by the U.S. actions of non-compliance with the flight restriction zone declared by the Russian Federation, established in connection with the special military operation, as well as increased reconnaissance activities against the interests of the Russian Federation." You can read it in full in English on the official telegram channel "MoD Russia" as usual. Now the question arises what is this "flight restriction zone" which was mentioned by now already twice, the first time as "temporary airspace regime". Since it is said to be "published in accordance with international standards" where would one find this publication? --
Manorainjan20:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Russia cannot unilaterally declare a flight restriction zone, especially in an area which is nowhere near its recognized borders. Russian politicians say a lot of strange things, therefore they need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
BeŻet (
talk)
15:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Regardless of the fact, that this footage is published by a blogger, there can be no doubt, that this is military material. There are simply no other people than military pilots that have the ability to take such a shot at high altitude above the clouds and at speeds much higher than the drone. --
Manorainjan18:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The telegram post says: что и как видит летчик истребителя при встрече с низкоскоростной целью на больших высотах, which loosely translated means "here's a video of what a pilot when he meets a low-speed target at high altitudes". It doesn't say "this is a video of the drone that crashed". I would advise caution when consuming media to avoid misinformation.
BeŻet (
talk)
15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Airspace
The first line states that the drone was mistakenly in Russian airspace, but the source provided only mentions the US claim that it was in international airspace, and doesn't mention even a claim of it being in Russian airspace. Is there another source for such a claim, and for that matter should any claim about the airspace be in the first line?
331dot (
talk)
18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The MoD of Russia mentioned immediately and repeatedly that the drone was "violating the boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation, communicated to all users of international airspace, and published in accordance with international standards." This is not in contradiction with the US calling it "international airspace". Just the US is deliberately omitting the fact of the "
US drone violating boundaries of airspace regime established for special operation". So, with the usual game the US plays with semantics one can say, that the temporary airspace regime (as is in any such case) exists within international airspace. --
Manorainjan11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Although GeoConfirmed debunks the russian statements, he also states that the location given by the air force (via CNN) cant be correct. On a side note: he has posted an
link to the russian NOTAM inquestion, but this is beyond my capabilities. Obviously a simple map seems to be too much to ask.
Markscheider (
talk)
15:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The link to the page of the
NOTAMs registered at the
International Civil Aviation Organization is certainly a step forward. The result of the type "Temporary restricted area Activated" describes a
polygon as a list of
geolocations in the format (x)xxxxxxN(x)xxxxxxE. If You turn this into decimal numbers by inserting a point before the last 4 digits,
Google Maps would show You, where it is. You can get also kind of a line by inserting (x)xx.xxxxN (x)xy.xxxxE to (x)xx.xxxxN (x)xx.xxxxE --
Manorainjan16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change citation of last line from citing a Daily Beast article to the
actual Reuters article the Daily Beast article is referencing.
Last line is "Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said, “We view this incident as a provocation” after being summoned to a meeting with State Department officials, according to Reuters.
Procrastinator acc (
talk)
21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I have not been able to find any information regarding the Su-27 fuel dumping system or nozzle positioning.
However, it sounds unlikely to me that dual fuel jettison nozzles would be positioned so near than the exhaust nozzles due to fire ignition issue, notwithstanding the utility of two nozzles.
Those contrails look to appear suddenly, it may be explained by an increased power setting in an attempt to provoke wake turbulence over the drone.
77.141.63.203 (
talk)
17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The release of fuel during flight AKA
Fuel dumping is a normal procedure which is practiced regularly. Airplanes that are fully loaded for a long flight and have to go down prematurely for any reason often release fuel in order to avoid being too heavy on landing, or because they fear the full tank could ignite and destroy the landing area. It is an emergency procedure that happens often. I remember an incident at
Ramstein Air Base:
where "43 tons of fuel" were dumped in 2018. --
Manorainjan17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not saying fuel dumping is not possible - I am simply saying that doubt is permitted whether what we are seeing is fuel or condensation trails.
77.141.63.203 (
talk)
09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Those nozzles are from commercial jet planes located way behind and outboard the exhaust. Applies to a fighter it would be near the edge of the wings.
77.141.63.203 (
talk)
09:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
You're correct imho, but we're not supposed to see this in the video either, so any spraying would've happened earlier and perhaps not even by the same aircraft. Guess some commentator or press got this wrong. At least now the US claims are also correctly given in the article: "when one of the aircraft flew in front of the drone and dumped fuel on top of it". Seems a rather pointless maneuver even so, approaching like in the video would hardly make more sense. -
82.83.23.141 (
talk)
23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Everybody knows, that we shall not include results of Original Research into the article
It should be true, that only what reliable sources are saying will appear on the article page. In case of a most recent event in connection with
The Fog of War the question arises, where to find this valuable information. Also, context is needed in order to be able to verify if the "reliable source" is reliable indeed and the information provided is factual and relevant. In this case, we got a lot of contradicting statements and do not have any single independent source. Both militaries are heavily invested in the matter. Therefore, a discussion which helps to really understand the matter will most likely lead to finding the reliable source, like the NOTAMs database which can be regarded as independent, factual and neutral.
Manorainjan18:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear BeŻet, saying "we cannot perform original research" is not correct. Everybody of us can perform original research. If You think You must lecture us, You need to be precise. We shall not include into the article the result of original research. Whenever You say or imply that anybody of us would perform original research, You are in that case doing just that about our writings, because You do not cite any "reliable source" who said so. And You are no more or less a reliable source than we are. Therefore, I see no need for You to lecture us about well known facts that every of the registered wikipedians who wrote on this page certainly knows without You repeating it. Such baseless discussions only blow up the talk pages and do not help to improve the article. I explicitly refrain from making assumptions why You are doing this. Tell us something which we do not know already if You can! --
Manorainjan13:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No. There are clear rules, which I already linked to:
WP:OR.
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
(...)"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.
@
Compusolus, you
reverted my edit removing the statement that the incident was part of the Russo-Ukrainian War from the infobox. Per
WP:BRD, I'll expand on my rationale here:
While there is{{Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine}} in the article, the 2023 Black Sea drone incident page is listed under a "possibly related" header, so authoritatively stating that it is "part of" the war may be misleading. Additionally, responding to Arguably, the US wouldn't be monitoring there if not for the invasion, I feel like that only makes it tangentially related.
DecafPotato (
talk)
15:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Reference [2] inaccurate
In the first paragraph, it is claimed that the incident was the first direct contact between the USAF and the Russian airforce since the cold war, and cites a CNN article as its source. When reading the article however, there is no reference to this at all.
HDC 311 (
talk)
07:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yup, checked. It seems that the Deutsche Welle article was the one with the Cold War and the CNN article was the one with "reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional". Switched the two.
Alin2808 (
talk)
08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply