A Soviet test pilot ejected two seconds before the crash of his MiG-29 (2019) | Hacker News Reader

A Soviet test pilot ejected two seconds before the crash of his MiG-29 (2019)

theaviationgeekclub.com

106 pointsripvanwinkle118 comments

If you like close calls, here's another last second ejection [1]. This one is an F-16 from the US Air Force's "Thunderbirds" demonstration squadron. Ejection was initiated 0.8 seconds before impact.

The cause of this was an error by the pilot when setting up for the show. He got the altitude of the airport wrong, thinking it was about 800 ft (~240 m) lower than it really was.

Here's a video, showing both inside and outside views [2].

[1] http://www.ejectionsite.com/thunderbird6.htm

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo_XWCqNUQ

He fucked up very badly with the altitude, that was a deathly fuck-up, but good that he didn't bail early, you don't want to bail early because you might have made it.

It's comparable to being in a death lock, you gotta go for the marginal chance you can wrest yourself out, tap out just before time stops.

I don't understand how he made full colonel after that. In the Navy, that kind of thing is normally a career-ender.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=46421

https://www.jetlinx.com/chris-stricklin-today-is-the-tomorro...

> Kvochur immediately selected full afterburner for the good engine, but at only 180 km/h (111 mph) he had insufficient rudder and aileron authority to counter the thrust asymmetry and the result was inevitably an irrecoverable departure.

Multi-engine aircraft have a known minimal control speed, below the speed you cannot maintain directional control in case of an engine failure with full power from the other engine.

The theory is that you can only be below that during the takeoff roll and in case of a problem you have to abort the takeoff (close both throttles) to maintain control.

I've never flown military jets, but I expect they have this same concept. Then going full afterburner while below minimum control speed is what put him in an uncontrollable roll.

> The theory is that you can only be below that during the takeoff roll and in case of a problem you have to abort the takeoff (close both throttles) to maintain control.

Or landing. A famous case is the death of Kara Hultgreen, who suffered a compressor stall and subsequent asymmetric thrust while trying to land a F-14 on an aircraft carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen#Death

Those cases are eerily similar in how both pilots immediately selected full afterburner before ultimately ejecting (or being ejected). Hultgreen just did not survive the ejection.

From the Wikipedia article:

> The radar intercept officer in the rear seat, Lt. Matthew Klemish, initiated ejection for himself and Hultgreen as soon as it was apparent the aircraft was becoming uncontrollable. First in the automated ejection sequence, Klemish survived. However, by the time Hultgreen's seat fired 0.4 seconds later, the plane had exceeded 90 degrees of roll, and she was ejected downward into the water, killing her instantly.

It seems that she was just 0.4 seconds too late, otherwise she could have survived like Klemish.

> It seems that she was just 0.4 seconds too late, otherwise she could have survived like Klemish.

Well, the plane was. When either co-pilot or pilot ejects, the other is ejected as well shortly after (on pretty much all planes). The delay is likely there to make sure it goes smoothly.

Ejection motors are powerful. You don't want to eject into the fire of somebody else's rocket and since you have no guidance system a simultaneous ejection would just be asking for a collision. Thus a delay is necessary in a front/back situation. (You could build a system for side-by-side simultaneous ejection, design the seats to fly a little to the outside.)

A yes, for fighter jets on a carrier that’s an issue because they have a high power setting while landing. For civilian aircraft the only high risk during landing is a single engine approach with a go around. You go from idle to full takeoff power, at low altitude and speed, creating serious yaw. It is a standard maneuver in recurrent training, but still in reality it would of course be a lot more stressful.

Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, it sounds like she simply got into a skid after trying to overcorrect on final. This is one of the BIG no-no’s in flying, it gets a lot of people killed every year. Sounds like skids were especially dangerous in a Tomcat since they disrupted airflow to the inside engine. I only read the Wiki but it sounds like pilot error. Sad either way.

Retired naval aviator Ward Carroll did a deep analysis of the Kara Hultgreen mishap for anyone interested in the details.

https://youtu.be/rFUXshaaMQM

> The theory is that you can only be below that during the takeoff roll and in case of a problem you have to abort the takeoff (close both throttles) to maintain control.

During takeoff, or while performing a high alpha/low speed pass showing off the aircraft's unique high-alpha capabilities in an airobatics display. Closing throttles would have been little more than a way to select the area of impact. Considering how close to the central axis the engines are in twin fighter jets going full throttle was probably the least bad attempt to save the plane.

Could thrust vectoring have saved the day, could eg. a Su-35S recover from a similar situation?

Purely speculation, but I had been wondering about this myself before posting: only if the thrust vectoring included considerable yaw authority. And I'd be surprised if typical designs did, because outside of low-speed engine failure situations (or hypothetical "hover on the tail" maneuvers, spacex style) you just never run out of yaw control. While pitch and roll control fall into the category of "more is always better", yaw control has a sufficiency threshold beyond which adding more has little or no use.

Not just the area of impact but also the attitude then being an upright “normal” landing attitude as opposed to flying it into the ground upside down. So even for an ejection it would be better to close both throttles to keep the aircraft under control and the seat traveling upwards to give you the best chances.

I wonder what would happen if the pilot did an immediate 90 degree roll to put the good engine under the centreline and then went full throttle?

That would create an even more unstable situation. The training on the civilian side in case of Vmc roll is to close both throttles and rapidly decrease pitch attitude to regain control and airspeed. If you’re lucky to be high enough you can then use power to fly out of it. Otherwise it’s at least an upright / forward crash landing so that’s more survivable. But we don’t have ejector seats :-)

A friend of mine in the 90s was there as an F-16 test pilot and saw the accident. He said this sort of problem is a well known risk of being a test pilot so they spend a lot of time on planning how to deal with something bad. He also said they usually left much more daring things to safer places and preferred to keep the air show maneuvers less risky since crashes are not a good marketing plan.

> He also said they usually left much more daring things to safer places and preferred to keep the air show maneuvers less risky since crashes are not a good marketing plan.

Makes sense. Fancy maneuvers at lower altitudes (i.e. Air shows/Public/govt Demos) give less space to correct or safely eject when something goes wrong.

My first flight instructor, an accomplished aerobatics competitor and air-show performer, had a saying: "Make the difficult look easy, the easy look spectacular, and never attempt the impossible."

Since the cause was multiple birdstrikes, I don't know how specific to being a test pilot this episode was. Maybe they do more stuff with higher risk of birdstrike in general, or maybe they didn't yet know the plane's flight envelope, etc., but this would have been a bad day even if the MiG was production at this point, i would think.

edit: I guess this plane was already production at this point. maybe i'm confused about what constitutes a test pilot.

Civilian aircraft are speed limited below IIRC 18,000' because of the danger of bird strikes. Military aircraft are no less vulnerable, they just have ejection seats if the pilot loses the game with the birds.

My friend flew every plane they delivered, sort of a functional test, in addition to practicing/planning for airshows, as well as sometimes showing off for employees at lunchtime.

> crashes are not a good marketing plan

NASCAR disagrees.

Ukrainian pilots ejected after they hit the ground at an airshow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL697AGVDoM

EDIT: Not trying to inflame tensions, just saying there are even crazier "last second" ejections on video

For some context, the pilot was Anatoly Kvochur[0], who was, for my understanding, one of the best Russian test pilot.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Kvochur

More like Ukrainian, given the birthplace. USSR wasn’t Russia.

I have this rule that if you aren't sure where a famous German was born, it was Austria, and if you aren't sure where a famous French person was born, it was Belgium. Maybe I can add a Russia/Ukraine pair to that?...

After your first example I expected the famous French birth prior to be Corsica.

Quite possibly; Ukraine was a major scientific and engineering hub in USSR. Many of the things we recognise USSR for came from Ukraine, from Mriya to much of the space program.

Also, Ukraine is where the civilised part of the Russian civilisation originates - Kyiv is much older than Moscow. I found Kamil Galeev a great resource on all things Russia, see eg https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1553786725025079297 for a random thread.

"where the civilised part of the Russian civilisation originates"

That's was comical. Go on.

Well, comical or not, this is one of the ways Russian propaganda explains the need to occupy Ukraine (and to eventually make it part of Russia).

Except they claim it's the exact opposite way of course.

Of course not.

'Kiev is mother of all Russian cities' and all that stuff, but nothing about separating Slavic cultures into 'civilized' and 'uncivilized'.

There's a fundamental difference between "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus its superior culture needs to be preserved" and "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus must be destroyed so that the bastardised Russian derivatives don't look too bad in comparison".

Also, you don't see a problem with using a name promoted by the regime ("Kiev") instead of the proper one?

You won't find any Russian propaganda calling for destruction of the Ukrainian cities.

You don't get to dictate how I write. I don't tell you how to spell Moskva.

>You won't find any Russian propaganda calling for destruction of the Ukrainian cities.

Of course I will; Rashist propaganda has been openly genocidal for a while now: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1643268/Putin-Margarita...

Bucha and Mariupol didn't commit themselves.

>I don't tell you how to spell Moskva, you don't tell me how to spell either.

So you'd be fine with people using names like Koenigsberg, or Theodorichhafen, or Ostland?

Of course you didn't.

As far as I can tell from this clipped fragment, these two talk about absorbing the Ukraine into Russia (or splitting it with Poland and Hungary, this idea is occasionally aired too) and 'denazification'. If you object to calling neo-Nazis 'helminth', I'd agree because no human should be dehumanized.

So, unless you really find a call for the destruction of the Ukrainian cities, please don't make me watch any propaganda.

'Bucha and Mariupol didn't commit themselves.'

Bucha wasn't destroyed and Russian propaganda worked hard to convince Russian population that Bucha is fake news.

The extent of the damage done to Mariupol (a city with 95% of Russian speakers, btw) was hidden by propaganda for some time and then they started showing the city and talking how Russia would rebuild it.

Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:

'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...

> Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:

I don't see any information in your link about your claim. Can you source a link fort your actual claim that "Mariupol was held hostage."

> 'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]

I'd avoid using this link if you want to look credible, this report has been so panned and the backlash so strong that Amnesty International is getting a external review done of it.

its effectively just pro Russian propaganda.

"Can you source a link fort your actual claim that "Mariupol was held hostage.""

What do you think happens when you put your military bases in the city and put you forces in residential areas?

"this report has been so panned and the backlash so strong"

It doesn't make it wrong though, does it? Truth hurts.

"its effectively just pro Russian propaganda."

So you just dismiss any facts if they don't align with Western propaganda?

> What do you think happens when you put your military bases in the city and put you forces in residential areas?

This sounds more like what the Russians are doing, but the Russians also commit genocide and force Ukrainians to fight for them via conscription in the Donbas Luhansk regions.

> It doesn't make it wrong though, does it? Truth hurts.

Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true thought? The backlash was harsh because the report was crazy and ignored a number of different people trying to provide feedback and context around what was happening.

> So you just dismiss any facts if they don't align with Western propaganda?

You have yet to establish them as facts, and id be more wary of Russian propaganda than anything else, its a good thing its become so transparent now.

So what are you saying?

That Mariupol was empty of Ukrainian forces and Russians just shelled it because... what? Or that Russians had entered undefended Mariupol and then Ukrainians shelled it?

How do you explain that Mariupol suffered so much damage?

"Just because someone"

Amnesty isn't 'someone' and their previous reports condemning Russian actions were considered credible.

"its a good thing its become so transparent now"

If you define anything that doesn't align with Western propaganda as 'Russian propaganda' then, yes, it's very transparent and simple.

'So you'd be fine with people using names like Koenigsberg, or Theodorichhafen, or Ostland?'

You seem to be confused.

Kyiv and Kiev are different spellings of the same name. Kiev is traditional for English and Russian, Kyiv -- for Ukrainian language.

Ironically, "a 2015 study by the International Republican Institute found that the languages spoken at home in Kyiv were Ukrainian (27%), Russian (32%), and an equal combination of Ukrainian and Russian (40%)" [0].

And going back in time: "According to the census of 1897, of Kyiv's approximately 240,000 people approximately 56% of the population spoke the Russian language, 23% spoke the Ukrainian language." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv#Language_statistics

So exactly like with Koenigsberg.

What you’re quoting was true before the invasion. Now Russian is obviously associated with Rashists, and so even Russian-speaking Ukrainians are switching away from invaders language.

"So exactly like with Koenigsberg."

You are mistaken, Königsberg means 'King's mountain' and Kaliningrad means 'Kalinin's city', these are two different names.

Obviously, the comical bit is 'the civilised part'.

Kvochur was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Russian by ethnicity, and Soviet and now Russian by nationality. And he is a Russian test pilot who has worked for Sukhoi and MIG.

[0] https://warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=4276

I get that we all don't like Russia because of the war but this propensity to try and remove the attribution of anything remotely positive from them is incredibly annoying.

Well, even long before the war I saw how on the BBC World News three British journalists talked about British astronaut flying to the ISS without even once mentioning that he got there on the Russian rocket. They mentioned Kazakhstan though and showed the rocket flying up.

Before which war? Because while it took the genocide in Ukraine for the world to realise Russians become literal nazis, it's been Russian modus operandi for quite a while now.

Also, see how you just called it a "Russian rocket" despite the fact that things like guidance were Ukrainian? It wasn't Russian - it was Soviet, from back when USSR consisted of a number of republics, including Russia and Ukraine.

It's not "technically correct" but I don't think it's far from the truth to think of the USSR as Russia and the land they annexed. Plus, was it "Ukranian" or was it built by Russians with Russian money on the order of Russians in Ukraine?

Like, were Americans killed by Jewish bullets in WW2 because it was Jews in the Nazi factories?

>It's not "technically correct" but I don't think it's far from the truth to think of the USSR as Russia and the land they annexed.

Not land - countries. Differently from, say, British colonialism, you can’t claim with a straight face that Russia brought with it the technology or culture. In fact it was pretty much the opposite.

>Plus, was it "Ukranian" or was it built by Russians with Russian money on the order of Russians in Ukraine?

It was Ukrainian, that’s the point: the brains part came from Ukraine, not Russia.

"the brains part came from Ukraine"

The brains that developed it worked in Moscow in the 80s[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurs_(docking_navigation_syste...

But the brains that made it work were in Kyiv. It took Russia over ten years (and probably tons of imported electronics) to replace it.

I don't see what point you are trying to make.

Russia has almost completely replaced obsolete Soviet electronics of both Soyuz spacecraft and Soyuz rocket with modern tech.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2-1a.html http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms.html

Given that Russia can’t even manufacture ordinary cars (or phones, or computers…), I’m not convinced about this “modern” replacement. They probably just figured how to replace custom technology with COTS stuff bought from the West. Especially given Russian fakes like the Sputnik vaccine (“clinical tests” were made up), or their hypersonics (which are just a plane-launched ballistic missiles), or drones.

And yet it delivers cosmonauts to ISS in 3 hours [0], something that is out of reach for Western tech.

"their hypersonics (which are just a plane-launched ballistic missiles)"

You are confusing Zircon [2] with Kinzhal [1].

[0] https://www.space.com/soyuz-makes-fastest-space-station-crew...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

Well, sure it did, it’s a good old Soviet design. Too bad it’s dead now, but hey.

As for confusing - nope, both “hypersonics” are hypersonic by name only. We could see their fantastic performance on that barn.

Soviet rockets weren't capable of such accuracy.

Indeed, hitting a random barn was never more accurate :-D

You must be a child.

> Not land - countries.

Yes, most (all?) land belongs to countries. You're being weirdly pedantic. But then, once it's annexed, it's just part of the USSR. Remember how we don't say "the Ukraine" anymore? The reason why we _used_ to say that is because it _used_ to be accurate because there wasn't a country, it was a region of the USSR.

> you can’t claim with a straight face that Russia brought with it the technology or culture

That's not really the claim I'm making. The claim I'm making is that the USSR space program being called a "Russian" space program isn't really egregious (and, I think, colloquially true). The technology that space program developed is appropriately called Russian, even if each individual working on it isn't Russian, even if every component wasn't made by Russia. The program is a Russian effort and the result was a Russian rocket.

> the brains part came from Ukraine, not Russia

NASA doesn't only employ natural born Americans. The guy who developed the Russian guidance system was Ukrainian. It's still Russian.

>Yes, most (all?) land belongs to countries.

But countries are more than land. It's not that Ukrainian land was part of USSR - the Ukrainian nation was part of USSR. Same with Russian nation.

>The program is a Russian effort and the result was a Russian rocket.

No, that's the point: the program was Soviet, and the result was a Soviet rocket. Russia was just one part of that. And if you look at the last two decades, you'll see what while Ukraine was able to build a functioning country, Russia failed to achieve anything apart from selling out what's left by USSR and oil/gas extraction using foreign-bought technologies.

What exactly was functioning in the Ukraine?

Russia has built new types of aircraft, new rocket, new nuclear icebreakers and power stations, its own internet search engine that can stand up to Google, and what not.

Stop learning about the world through BBC.

>Russia has built new types of aircraft, new rocket

This would be a valid argument six months ago. Now we know those "new types of aircraft" were vaporware, and missiles work really fine only if you can claim that a random barn is a valid military target. Some of the things that did materialize - like the new military telecom system - turned out to be rebranded Chinese products.

>new nuclear icebreakers

Which were co-developed with Ukraine. Btw, do you know Russia's only aircraft carrier was literally stolen from Ukraine?

>its own internet search engine

This one is actually true, but on the other hand Ukraine had wider success with Whatsapp.

Not to mention that Korolev, “von Braun of the Soviet space program”, was Ukrainian.

Korolev was born in the Ukrainian SSR and let me quote wiki [0]:

"His father, Pavel Yakovlevich Korolev, was born in Mogilev to a Russian soldier and a Belarusian mother. His mother, Maria Nikolaevna Koroleva (Moskalenko/Bulanina), was a daughter of a wealthy merchant from the city of Nezhin (now Nizhyn, Ukraine), with Ukrainian, Greek and Polish heritage."

There is something very indecent in talking about nationality or ethnicity of great people as if it really matters. Please stop it, okay?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev#Early_life

>There is something very indecent in talking about nationality or ethnicity of great people as if it really matters.

You do realize that this thread started with you misappropriating Soviet achievements to Russia?

Of course, rocket built in Russia 25 years after the USSR dissolution is Russian rocket even if it's an upgraded version [0] of Soviet design.

And there is nothing about people, nationality or ethnicity in my comment, just the name of country which built and launched the rocket.

[0] http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2_lv.html

Isn’t this “rocket built in Russia” not just a technological refresh of the one built in USSR?

Also, can’t help but notice it’s neither modern (when you compare with eg SpaceX) or very successful.

What is the point you are trying to make?

The BBC journalists uttered neither 'Russian' nor 'Soviet', and arguing that a rocket made in Russia 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union cannot be called 'Russian rocket' is just silly.

Oh, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Russified_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_22220_icebreaker

"Which were co-developed with Ukraine."

Of course they weren't.

"Ukraine had wider success with Whatsapp"

WhatsApp was created by two American programmers, one of whom is Jewish and was born in the Ukraine. If you insists that WhatsApp is Ukrainian software, please count Google as Russian, because Sergei Brin is of Russian origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

Yeah, right, Russians are 'literal Nazis' but somehow even Reuters publishes picture captioned 'A local resident inspects a damaged van following a military strike' and it shows a thug with Swastika on his arm (pic. #4) [0].

If you use the word 'genocide' now, why didn't you use it when Ukrainian nationalists burned alive 42 pro-Russian Ukrainians [4]?

'it's been Russian modus operandi for quite a while now'

I think this bold statement deserves to be elaborated.

"things like guidance were Ukrainian"

The only thing that was Ukrainian-built was the Kurs guidance system[2]. It was developed by the Research Institute of Precision Instruments (Moscow) before 1985 and manufactured by the Kiev Radio Factory[1]. In 2016 that Soviet analog system was replaced by modern Russian Kurs-NA[3].

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/battle-ukraines-east-ra...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurs_(docking_navigation_syste...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)#Soyuz_TMA-M...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)#Soyuz_MS_(s...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odesa_clashes#Trade_Union...

>even Reuters publishes picture

There are - or were - a few nazis in Ukraine, sure. But in case of Russians all of them are nazis, because that's their state ideology: to destroy a (clearly superior, if you look at the history, eg the achievements over the past two decades) Ukrainian nation.

>If you use the word 'genocide' now, why didn't you use it when Ukrainian nationalists burned alive 42 pro-Russian Ukrainians

Because the offenders turned out to be pro-Russian, and quite a few of the victims turned out to be Russian-sponsored operatives. Killing own people for propaganda purposes seems standard in Russia, see the Theatre crisis. And even if it hadn't turned out that way, there would be a fundamental difference between a random terrorist attack and a planned genocide.

"(superior) Ukrainian nation"

Speaking like a Nazi now, aren't you? Ukraine über alles, right?

No, it's just that while USSR was a proper country with a diverse and often beautiful culture, the main achievement of post-USSR Russia was selling off things inherited from USSR. Can you quote any other major post-1990 Russian achievements? Of course I'm asking about those that actually exist, not vaporware like the Armata tank, or Su-57, or "Sotnik".

Of course I can - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32398991

Now please quote any achievements of post-Soviet Ukraine.

>Now please quote any achievements of post-Soviet Ukraine.

How about establishing a country its citizens care for? Ukrainian army is revered; compare this to Russians who consider (not without a point) their army to be a bunch of losers and criminals; nobody goes to army in Russia unless they got no other options (cf https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1499377671855292423 and other threads there). Same about the military industry; let me remind you Russia can’t manufacture tanks anymore - and not because of electronics, but metallurgy.

"How about establishing a country its citizens care for?"

What does it even mean? Try googling the pre-war numbers of Ukrainians who left the country to work abroad.

"Ukrainian army is revered"

Yeah, so much that the Ukraine immediately banned Ukrainian men from leaving the country [0] and Ukrainian ministry of Defense wanted to disallow movement of potential conscripts around the country [1].

"Russians who consider (not without a point) their army to be a bunch of losers and criminals; nobody goes to army in Russia unless they got no other options"

That was true 20 years ago in Eltsin's time and right after him, your information is seriously outdated. Please don't post the links to random people on twitter, post links to polls instead.

"Russia can’t manufacture tanks anymore - and not because of electronics, but metallurgy"

That was funny. Where do you get these jokes?

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-rules-keeping-men-...

[1] https://visitukraine.today/blog/611/the-ministry-of-defense-...

Russia is forcing conscripts into being contract soldiers and signing up people from prisons because their army is so good and everyone wants to be a soldier.

You are misrepresenting a couple of isolated cases in the beginning of the war and what looks like fake news as full picture.

Meanwhile in the Ukraine: "According to a July 11 report in Ukrainian media, Ruslan Onishenko, commander of the now-disbanded Tornado Battalion, was freed as part of President Zelensky’s scheme to release prisoners with combat experience. Along with an unwavering commitment to fascism, Onishenko is known as a psychopathic sadist who was involved in sexually assaulting children, brutally torturing prisoners, and murder.

Onishenko’s release follows a February 27 order by Zelensky to free other convicted former Tornado members like Danil “Mujahed” Lyashuk, a fanatic from Belarus who has openly emulated ISIS and boasted of torturing captives for sheer enjoyment. According to Zelensky‘s decree, prisoners with combat experience would be allowed to “compensate for their guilt” by fighting in the “hottest spots.”" [0]

[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/30/zelensky-militants-convic...

I’d avoid using the gray zone as a source they are effectively just used to relabel RT and other Russian propaganda.

And unless you seriously believe that Ukraine has genetically engineered super soldiers and black magic battalions you’d be a bit of a fool to believe what RT says.

But if your fine to use the gray zone I’ll be happy to use RFERL and they are reporting that hundreds of people are being recruited from Russian prisons[0].

Vice is also reporting that Russian conscripts are being forced into contract soldiers because you cannot send conscripts to Ukraine[1].

Doesn’t sound like a couple isolated cases to me, sounds like a country in a meat grinder that’s desperate for soldiers.

[0] https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-penitentiaries-recruitment-...

[1] https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/5dgqen/russia-conscripts...

I'd recommend to follow the links in the article and read Ukrainian reporting through google translate[0] and the dailymail reporting too.[1]

"genetically engineered super soldiers and black magic battalions"

What?

I have no problem with RFERL if it cites its sources and I can judge their credibility. I'd recommend you do the same instead of picking the news source you like and blindly believing any bs it feeds you.

"they are reporting that hundreds of people are being recruited from Russian prisons"

There is no support for these numbers in the article and in the materials it links to. But it's possible that it is happening, the source (gulagu.net) is somewhat famous for exposing torture and rape in Russian prisons and deserves not to be rejected out of hand. It may be unwittingly retranslating disinformation anonymously reported to it, or it may be true.

"Vice is also reporting that Russian conscripts are being forced into contract soldiers"

That is an article from the first weeks of the war describing those isolated episodes.

"a country in a meat grinder"

It is meat grinder there, there is war there in case you haven't heard. Since there is no mobilization in Russia, Putin is conducting the special operation with contract soldiers and shady private military.

[0] https://focus-ua.translate.goog/uk/amp/ukraine/521825-osuzhd...

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10559879/Zelensky-r...

> What?

That is what RT unironically posts, the gray zones hires a lot of people who work / worked for RT.

> There is no support for these numbers in the article and in the materials it links to. But it's possible that it is happening, the source (gulagu.net) is somewhat famous for exposing torture and rape in Russian prisons and deserves not to be rejected out of hand. It may be unwittingly retranslating disinformation anonymously reported to it, or it may be true.

We just got today screen shots from a Russian telegram account that says nearly 200 people from a prison in Moscow have been killed in the war in Ukraine (2 are left, injured).

https://twitter.com/Haruspexut/status/1558072715776368640

> That is an article from the first weeks of the war describing those isolated episodes.

Why do you think its changed? if Russia is already trying to get lots of prisoners (easily over 200) into the war why do you think they'd stop trying to force conscripts?.

Theres reports that there is tonnes of pressure from the conscription officers[1] and we know that 'volunteer' brigades have been made up from cities[2].

[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-illegally-detaine... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/29/europe/russia-recruits-vo...

'screen shots from a Russian telegram account'

Seriously?

'why do you think they'd stop trying to force conscripts'

Because there was a huge scandal and reportedly many officers involved in sending conscripts into the Ukraine were punished.

'there is tonnes of pressure from the conscription officers'

The article doesn't say anything about conscripts being sent to the Ukraine.

"'volunteer'"

Why did you put volunteer into quotes? A lot of people in Russia has been pissed by the Ukrainian 'anti-terrorist operation' in the Donbass.

> Seriously?

Yes a large amount of this war is broadcast on telegram primarily

> Because there was a huge scandal and reportedly many officers involved in sending conscripts into the Ukraine were punished.

Your trying to tell me that the army that rapes and loots with impunity is having their officers punished for pressuring conscripts into being contract soldiers and going to Ukraine?, I find that hard to believe.

> Why did you put volunteer into quotes? A lot of people in Russia has been pissed by the Ukrainian 'anti-terrorist operation' in the Donbass.

Maybe if Russias little green men and FSB officers didn't enter Donbas, shoot down a civilian airliner and start a civil war there wouldn't have to be fighting in Donbas.

"Maybe if Russias little green men ... there wouldn't have to be fighting in Donbas"

Yes, of course. Just like if the US hadn't 'mid-wifed' a coup in the Ukraine [1], [2], [3].

It's a spiral of escalation which was started by the US which was increasing its military influence in the Europe through NATO expansion and bilateral military agreements.

It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU&t=448s [2] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-foreign-aid-ukraine_n_4914...

> It's a spiral of escalation which was started by the US which was increasing its military influence in the Europe through NATO expansion and bilateral military agreements.

There’s a reason Russia considers the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat, because it threatens there ability to go empiring again like they are trying to in a Ukraine.

> It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.

I know that it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone but Russia for the invasion but the truth is, the responsibility lies solely with Russia.

Russia choose to start the civil war with there FSB and GRU officers, Russia choose to shoot down the civilian airliner and Russia choose by themselves to invade Ukraine and commit genocide.

No one forced their hand, the usual excuse of using the maiden revolution(it lacks certain aspects to be a coup I’m afraid) is totally false.

The reason they invaded is because massive natural resources where found in Crimea and Donbas and Russia saw that as a threat to their ability to hold the world hostage with oil and gas.

> It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.

The only side capable of stopping this is Russia, no one else. If Russia gives up and leaves the war is over.

I suspect due to Russias inability to make themselves adhere to past agreements (like the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to never invade or threaten the territory of Ukraine) will mean that Ukraine will be in some sort of mutual defense pact with a western country or someone like Poland if this ends diplomatically.

"the expansion of a defensive alliance"

From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]?

"it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone but Russia"

You even quoted me: "It could've been stopped at any moment by any side". Do you read what you quote?

"Russia choose to shoot down the civilian airliner "

No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1].

"The reason they invaded"

Usually people say that the shining success of the Ukrainian democracy was threatening Putin's regime. This one is new for me. The problem is you'll fail to substantiate it with numbers.

'The only side capable of stopping this is Russia, no one else.'

Obviously it's not true. Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular.

"Russias inability to make themselves adhere to past agreements"

The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion.

"Ukraine will be"

I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Post-tour_...

> From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]?

NATO will never attack Russia but Russia sure loves to attack countries that try and join NATO.

Russias aggression in countries nearby is the number one reason for NATO expansion around Russia.

> No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1].

Your whataboutism is commendable my friend by this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

> Obviously it's not true. Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular.

Ukraine was willing to negotiate, but then Bucha happened. When Ukraine saw the rape and genocide of its citizens at the hands of the Russians all bets where off.

> The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion.

Even if it was legally binding Russia wouldn’t care they play politics only to their own benefits.

The idea of peace in Europe was collectively destroyed by Russias numerous brutal wars of conquest over the past 30 years.

Seems Russia cannot let go of the Soviet Union, it would be smart for every post soviet state to join NATO to counter Russias seemingly unlimited aggression.

> I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process.

Lots of Ukrainians will die but plenty more Russians will die. Russia has no counter to the advanced weapons being sent to Ukraine by the west and lately it looks like Russia cannot even secure Crimea let alone other regions.

There’s a reason that Russia has rolled out T62s to the front line, they are running out of more advanced heavy armour.

"Forcing conscripts" was a thing a couple of months ago. Now they are literally kidnapping people.

Ukrainian, not Russian.

Kvochur was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, he is Russian by ethnicity, and Soviet and now Russian by nationality. And he is a Russian test pilot who has worked for Sukhoi and MIG.

[0] https://warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=4276

Can’t access this page on mobile, seems to go into an infinite refresh loop.

Yep, same here.

It works on Chrome/iOS but refresh loops on Brave/iOS. Both are forced to use the same browser engine by Apple so the main difference is that Brave has a built-in adblocker.

I didn't bother to test it with devtools on desktop, but they almost certainly have js on the page that attempts to load analytics/ads and refreshes the page until it succeeds.

Loads fine with no ads on Android with Firefox + UBlock Origin

I remember an Air Force training video (from youtube, not my professional career sadly) encouraging pilots to eject sooner rather than later. You don't want to be cooked by the fireball of your own jet, after all.

Seems to me that the big news from this air show wasn't the crash, but the MiG's IR tracking sensor. It led to a lot of speculation about Soviet countermeasures for stealth aircraft.

This is impressive, but the loud music over the video's commentator was very frustrating. Still, amazing to see the pilot's quick reaction in milliseconds.

A similar accident for the B2 - pilots ejected mere seconds before impact AFTER their wing was already scratching ground

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B...

the article you linked says it was moments after take-off, so it's maybe less surprising that the wing would be near the ground

It was. But it was also moments before a fiery crash. They got airborne and then came down due to a stall due to a few wet sensors and a bad algorithm

You can eject… from a B2??

At least on the B-2 they eject upwards. On the B-52 the navigator and radar operator eject downwards (the other crew members eject upwards like you'd expect). The ejection process on the B-52 is complex - it even moves the control columns and work tables out of the way before the seat launches.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm

Nerves of steel.

Title makes it sound like this happened 3 years ago. This accident is from 1989.

The Soviet part wasn't a giveaway?

No, i thought the soviet part was wrong, 2019 the time the accident happened.

By HN convention, a year in parens indicates the year of the article, not the topic.

cause of accident was bird strike, the plane was already mere feet from the ground when the engine failed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com