Downing of a US MQ-9 Drone Over Crimea
A warning to the United States and NATO
This week, we had news of a US MQ-9 Reaper drone colliding with a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea. The story from the US is that the drone “collided with a fighter jet” after “unsafe and unprofessional” maneuvers by the Russian pilots. As a result, the US Air Command had to bring the drone down in international waters.
US Air Force General James Hecker said the drone “was conducting routine operations in international airspace when it was intercepted and hit by a Russian aircraft, resulting in a crash and complete loss of the MQ-9.” He says, “In fact, this unsafe and unprofessional act by the Russians nearly caused both aircraft to crash.”
The United States also claims the drone was flying in “international airspace.” Pictures released by western media imply the drone was in the middle of the Black Sea, southeast of Romania and southwest of Crimea, and was no threat to Russia.
As we can see from the US statements, the Russians were reckless, unsafe, and unprofessional. Yet, at the same time, the US acted within international law.
Or is there another story here?
MQ-9 Reaper Drone
According to Janes and western sources, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper drone is a US-designed multi-mission unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for medium-altitude surveillance. The western media wants to ensure we know that the Reaper is a harmless surveillance drone.
However, the MQ-9 Reaper came from the US Air Force’s Hunter-Killer program for tactical unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV). The MQ-9 aims to “execute time-sensitive targets with persistence and precision, and destroy or disable those targets.”
[Grim] reaper: death, especially when personified as a man or skeleton with a scythe.- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Sounds harmless enough.
Why the drone was over the Black Sea
According to the United States, the drone was doing routine surveillance that they have been performing over the Black Sea for years.
However, it is the Global Hawk that the US uses to guard the Black Sea. You can generally follow the Global Hawk flight Forte10 on FlightRadar24. However, since the incident with the Reaper, it appears the Global Hawk is either not flying or has its transponders turned off.
Based on the Russian SMO in Ukraine, the use of the MQ-9 Reaper, and the US supplying targeting information to Ukraine, we know that the drone was doing targeting operations for Ukraine. It is this intelligence gathering for Ukraine that NATO calls “routine operations.”
International airspace
Was the drone in “international airspace?” Well, yes, and no.
The perspective of maps
Maps from western media show the contact area as about halfway between Romania and Crimea. However, their maps are out of scale, or with no scale, and give the impression that the drone was so far from Crimea that the Russians went well beyond their rights in downing it. Maps with a scale are technically more accurate but still give the impression of a great distance.
The distance between Constanta, Romania, and Sevastopol, Crimea, is 470 km (292 miles). Thus, these western maps imply the strike was farther from Crimea than 60km (37 miles).
Rybar has redrawn the map in the proper perspective. I have seen this map called “Russian propaganda” on Twitter. Still, the Russian navy found the drone approximately 60 km from Crimea at a depth of 900 meters (984 yards). That makes the Rybar map correct.
The question of legality
Though international airspace is beyond 12 nautical miles (22 km/14 miles) from a country’s borders, there are other issues to consider.
When there is no military conflict, the drone’s location would have been in international airspace but inside the Simferopol FIR (URFV). This airspace is a disputed area claimed by Russia and Ukraine since 2014. However, NATO has acknowledged Russia’s control over the FIR and recognizes the dangers of flying military aircraft there. But, in 2021, Ukraine permitted NATO to use airspace over Crimea, which may be the US justification for “legality.”
International law requires anyone flying within an FIR to notify the controllers responsible for that airspace. Hence, the United States had to contact air traffic controllers in Simferopol to say the drone was flying in that airspace. Because they did not notify the FIR controllers, the United States was flying there illegally.
Some people say the US did not need to tell Russia because of the conflict with Ukraine. However, they neglect that the United States claims they are not actively involved in the hostilities, negating that argument.
International law also requires active transponders on any flights within an FIR, and the US had disabled the transponders on the drone.
Additionally, during the current Russian Special Military Operation (SMO), the Crimean FIR has been made a no-fly zone. Also, the drone was within the published Russian SMO restricted airspace and closed Ukrainian airspace). Therefore, since the drone was within the no-fly zone, Russia had every right to disable or divert the drone.
Based on the published SMO airspace restrictions and US Notam KICZ A0004/22, the US knew about the airspace closure. Nevertheless, they flew the drone there anyway, with the transponder turned off. Therefore, the US statement that they were flying legally in international airspace is invalid.
The why and how
I will leave the how and why to those with more military experience and contacts than me. But the Russian version that there was no contact between the fighter jet and the drone is incorrect. You can see damage to the drone’s propeller after the jet run in this commentary and video shown by Judge Napolitano.
Scott Ritter discusses the drone strike. Then, if you want more insight into the situation, Douglas Macgregor gives some inside information.
The Russians have simply sent a message “We’re not gonna tolerate it anymore.” – Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Retired
The US drone was, without a doubt, collecting targeting information on Crimea for Ukraine. Though Russia has not acted on earlier US intelligence-seeking runs on Crimea, they are sending a clear message to the United States. “You are currently seen as actively involved in the Special Military Operation.”
We are committed to not put articles behind a paywall. Support from our readers is what makes it possible for us to continue our work. Please consider helping us in one of the ways below.
Donate BitCoin (BTC) to Wallet: 1NDv1i3Lj1LS34bUG9JG9T2JDafQ2AUjAH
Excellent analysis as always, Kevin. I watched the Judge Nap interview with Col. MacGregor as well as several recent interviews with Scott Ritter. I forget which interview he was speaking in, but if I remember correctly, he said that the drone might have been gathering intel on Russian troop locations within Ukraine.
Why do you assume that damage to the drone was caused by the fighter jet?