Talk:2023 Black Sea drone incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lack of objectivity[edit]

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.

Why do I have to say this? It should be self understood or not? Manorainjan 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources say. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian statement was shortened[edit]

The full statement of the MoD of Russia was:

"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."

You can read it in English on the official telegram channel of the MoD. Manorainjan 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The report must be taken with extreme caution as this organ is under the thumb of the dictatorial Putin regime (aka, full of propaganda.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HammerFilmFan
"The report must be taken with extreme caution as this organ is under the thumb of the dictatorial Putin regime"
The Russian MoD is under the Russian government? Wow you don't say 31.135.78.18 (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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." ;-) --Manorainjan 13:24, 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? --Manorainjan 20:16, 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]

First real footage[edit]

A Russian blogger published the first real footage of that drone: https://t.me/fighter_bomber/11435 Manorainjan 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It won't qualify as a reliable source. It fails WP:BLOGS because it is self-published. Autarch (talk) 17:33, 15 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. --Manorainjan 18:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YES there can be plenty of doubt. Propaganda videos are rife in the world. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a video of a plane and a drone. That's all we know. BeŻet (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The post does not claim that it is that specific drone. He says this footage is posted as an examle of this type of encouter. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have differing weather conditions and loadout. Either CGI (drone looks very clean) or my guess would be footage from a previous intercept.©Geni (talk) 12:33, 16 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[edit]

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]

Looks like Hanjifi addressed this as I was writing this. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:43, 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. --Manorainjan 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an map of this airspace regime boundaries anywhere on the net? I couldnt find one. Markscheider (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW there has been an attempt to geolocate the thing https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1636551052525813762?s=20 .©Geni (talk) 13:45, 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 --Manorainjan 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

Here’s the video in case anyone wants to migrate it (I’m on mobile otherwise I would):https://www.dvidshub.net/video/876667/us-air-force-mq-9-camera-footage-russian-su-27-black-sea-intercept Victor Grigas (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added to the article. Might be worth pulling a frame for the lead image if we aren't going to go the map route.©Geni (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it would be better to put a frame from it in the infobox, and have the video itself in the article. Alin2808 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, this source probably should be mentioned: https://www.eucom.mil/article/42318/media-advisory-camera-footage-release-from-us-air-force-mq-9-interaction-with-russian-su-2 —Mykhal (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2023[edit]

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]

Done. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel?[edit]

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.

From the video angles, it is possible that it is simply condensation trails, see this image also https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_9163-jpg.970/ 77.141.63.203 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Manorainjan 17:37, 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]
Not sure how the system works on the Sukhoi Su-27, but it can definitely have the jettison nozzels position near the exhaust. See Fuel_dumping#Dump-and-burn Alin2808 (talk) 17:43, 17 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[edit]

It's not our job to do original research. We are presenting what reliable sources are saying. BeŻet (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Manorainjan 18:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we cannot perform original research, or perform synthesis of published material by trying to combine different sources to formulate a statement, which is not presented in full by any of the sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:58, 18 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! --Manorainjan 13:55, 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.

Please consult those rules before making false statements about what is allowed on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War"[edit]

@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[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident&oldid=1215413529"