If The Russian Intercept Of A U.S. Drone Was Intentional, Was It Unprofessional?

On Thursday, the Pentagon released declassified video from the MQ-9 Reaper drone it says a Russian Su-27 fighter downed two days previously over the Black Sea. In a Wednesday press briefing, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called the incident, “dangerous and reckless and unprofessional.” But if it was intentional, was it unprofessional?

In a joint briefing with Austin, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, affirmed that the U.S. concluded that the intercept was not improvised or executed by the Russian pilots without authorization. “We know that the intercept was intentional. We know that the aggressive behavior was intentional. The physical contact of those two [aircraft], we’re not sure yet,” he said.

Milley’s comment contrasts with (and perhaps overrides) an unnamed U.S. Air Force official who reportedly told ABC News that they do not think that one of the two Russian pilots who hit the drone did so on purpose. ABC reported the official said the Russian pilot was simply “incompetent and flat-out dumb.”

The released video shows the Su-27 Flanker approaching the Reaper in what looks like a classic lead-pursuit curve maneuver. Apparently, the Flankers made 19 close passes by the MQ-9 over a period of about 30 minutes, dumping fuel in its path multiple times according to the Pentagon. On the last pass, one of the Su-27s reportedly clipped the Reaper’s pusher propeller.

This is not discernable from the footage shown, which pixilates as the fighter closes to within feet of the drone. When the picture resumes, damage to the pusher propeller is visible. While a collision certainly looks possible, it has not been positively confirmed. On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesperson, Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, said that the Su-27 “essentially ran into the MQ-9.”

Russia has denied the aircraft came “into contact” with the drone. A statement from U.S. European Command said the damage to the prop prompted the drone’s remote pilots to ditch the MQ-9 in international waters.

I spoke on-background with recently retired USAF pilots with experience in the F-22 and F-15 about the difficulty of making close intercepts, dumping fuel on the MQ-9 or otherwise seeking to alter its flight path or control stability. It is difficult they say, even with the Reaper flying in a fashion that the video indicates is straight-and-level.

Air Force Special Operations Command operates approximately 50 Reapers. The MQ-9 is a large aircraft with a 66-foot wingspan. It typically cruises at about 170 knots (196 mph – 315 km/h), similar to light piston aircraft speeds.

In Homeland Defense operations, USAF pilots sometimes intercept light aircraft that (unintentionally) stray off course into restricted airspace. One pilot described approaching and intercepting such aircraft in a fast-flying tactical jet as “friggin hard.” Pilots say their standard training emphasizes intercepts and formation join-ups at far higher speeds – 0.7 to 1-plus Mach (518 mph-800 mph).

At such speeds Air Force fighters are relatively “co-energy” and “co-maneuverable” with the fast jets they’re intercepting, a scenario for which their pilots have well practiced muscle memory and visual reference experience. Intercepting a loitering aircraft at slow speed is an uncommon-to-rare experience they described to me as “attention-getting” and sometimes “white-knuckle” thanks to the rate of closure and the potential unpredictability of such aircraft.

Despite the professionalism of the USAF Reaper operators, the Russian Flanker pilots would have to have anticipated unpredictable moves from the MQ-9. Even when a target is flying straight and level, flight-path correction and reaction time is very short, the American fighter pilots said. And when they’re forced to slow their heavy jets down, things change.

A fighter becomes more sluggish, less responsive to control inputs, challenging a pilot’s ability to adapt to the different rate of closure. Airspeed control becomes a concern for the fighter pilot. The F-22 reportedly stalls at speeds of 160-180 knots. The stall speed also correlates to the airplane’s angle of attack, G-force and control inputs. One pilot told me it is deceptively easy to “pull” too hard in a fighter at such slow speeds, resulting in an unintentional stall.

Given the Pentagon’s assertion that the Russian pilots acted with intent and on-orders (U.S. officials told NBC News that the Kremlin leadership had approved the aggressive actions of two Russian fighters) and that they made 19 close passes, a number of which were so close they could dump fuel from the tails of their aircraft on the Reaper, their airmanship would appear to be quite good in view of the challenges described above.

Even if a collision occurred, the unnamed USAF official’s contention that the Su-27 pilot was simply “incompetent and flat-out dumb” sounds hollow.

Arguably, so is characterization of what is “unprofessional.” The pilots I spoke with generally agreed that if the Russian pilots did what they were instructed to do with some semblance of control, skill and success, their actions – at a high level – could be considered professional.

Almost no one in the West would argue that their marching orders were detrimental, potentially destabilizing and overly-aggressive. But these realities do not necessarily make their execution unprofessional. The U.S. pilots consulted for this article agreed that the Russian aircrews likely briefed the mission fully, considered intelligence on the MQ-9’s performance, standard flight operations and specific tasking over the Black Sea.

The point was raised that Russian fighter pilots patrolling in northwestern Europe over the North Sea have in the recent past flown in very close proximity to manned U.S. intelligence-gathering aircraft from RC-135s to P-8s, flying aggressively into the path of these aircraft, even trying to put their exhaust streams into the intakes of the American planes’ engines. U.S. aircrews do consider that dangerous and unprofessional but the Russians need not share the same view or values.

Dramatic though it is, the Black Sea incident is also not the first example of Russian fighter-U.S. drone interactions. In 2017, Russian jets intercepted American MQ-1 Predator drones over Syria on at least three occasions. At the time, U.S. officials described the Russian fighters as having flown “intercept tracks.” One official was quoted saying “the Russians flew very close but did not impede the drone flight.”

Secretary Austin’s description of the incident as “dangerous and reckless” can be parsed as well. Dangerous or risky it may in fact have been but if the Kremlin decided (as reported) to fly the sortie with disruptive intent, then it was willing to accept the risk.

It surely put its pilots in harm’s way – the Pentagon asserts that the Su-27 in the video incurred damage to itself but successfully managed to land – but fighter pilots are in a dangerous business and they often take calculated risks that many of us might consider reckless.

In extraordinary circumstances and relatively modern times that would include American pilots. On 9-11, Air Force Colonel Marc Sasseville and Lieutenant Heather Penney scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, D.C., to intercept the hijacked Flight 93. Without time to arm their F-16s but with orders to shoot down the airliner full of American citizens, they improvised a plan to ram into the 757. Sadly, Flight 93 rammed into the Pentagon.

We do not know if the Russian aircrews were instructed to make contact with the Reaper but however unlikely, we cannot rule it out.

The language used in the Defense Department’s description of the event and in Secretary Austin’s characterization is obviously designed to defuse the incident – a case in which the Russian Air Force intentionally took provocative (and in the case of dumping volatile/flammable jet fuel on the Reaper, plainly hostile) action against an American aircraft in international airspace.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, “It is possible that this was just a reckless, incompetent piece of aviation by the pilot.” This and the anonymous Air Force official’s comments may be intended to throw shade on the Russian Air Force. But they also let Russia off the hook.

As unpopular a view as it may be, the Russian pilots’ actions could be said to be “depressingly professional.”