Re: [GZG] [Real World] Russian Mig 29 shoots down Georgian UAV

[Sylvester Wrzesinski <xveers@xxxxxxxxx>]

sax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>You can easily rule out an F-16.  The twin vertical stabilizers is
>clearly seen, and the F-16 only has a single vertical stabilizer.
>
>--Greg
>  
>
My mis-type, then. I was referring to the F-15 that another poster had 
referenced. I think that has vertical stabilizers.

Also, link presented lower is for the same UAV type as in video. Article 
on BBC mentions it's the same model

>
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Sylvester Wrzesinski wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Adrian1 wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Two questions.
>>>
>>>Whose airspace was it?  If it wasn't Georgian they don't have any say.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Assuming enough time and aireal recon, one could probably ID the section
>>of coast that is in the footage to some degree of certanty. There's only
>>a small portion of coast it could be, realistically.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Is it standard procedure for jet fighters to attack airborne targets
>>>from the front?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Okay, without knowing the exact model of UAV, just the fact it was
>>"purchased from Israel" and coupling that with this link :
>>http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/hermes_450/Hermes_450.html
>>Which has multiple pictures of a UAV that seems to have had some export
>>success, I believe that the fighter aircraft approached low and to the
>>left of the UAV, probably 7-8 o'clock or so (estimated from apparent
>>position of cams on the UAV and the shot of the landing wheel in said
>>footage, including it's support strut). So I don't think the fighter was
>>making an attack from the rear. From his maneuvering, he probably came
>>up from the rear and then hooked "left" (from the orientation of the
>>UAV's nose) before swinging right into an attack position. Granted he
>>did approach quite closely, but it is also possible he wanted to eyeball
>>the target and confirm it was a UAV. (assumption is that it had the same
>>radar signal as a small civillian plane. Last thing you want to do is be
>>responsable for that kinda thing...)
>>
>>That beign said, it seemed damn ballsy to do it. The missile might be a
>>bit of overkill, but assuming that they wanted it down quick and for
>>sure, it's the best way to do it.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Is it possible the owners of the airspace had Russian aircraft?  They do
>>>seem to pop up everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That's another good question. They're rather decent sellers IIRC to
>>anyone with the cash who isn't going to be pointing them right back at
>>them... However, it is possible that they might be able to amplify the
>>picture and perhaps pull some more identifiers on the aircraft.
>>Additionally, they might be able to do some photo analysis to identify
>>the specific aircraft. Granted they do look similar (varions migs, F-16)
>>I imagine the actual geometry is somewhat different. Given the
>>relatively small amount of distance from cockpit to tail rudders, they
>>could work out some general measurements and compare them to known
>>geometry of the fighters in question. If the geometry dosen't match that
>>of the F-16, but comes very close to the MiG-29, well....
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gzg-l mailing list
>>Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l