In the prior threads some posters were speculating “how do we know the Russians hit it, couldn’t the fuel have done it…” I don’t know how one can watch the jet’s trajectory on both passes and doubt it hit on the second.
1. We don't know the field of view of the camera, which makes it impossible to judge distances and positions correctly.
2. We don't know whether the camera cutting out is actually the point of impact or some time before it (perhaps there is a buffer that got lost, or the US cut it early to mislead).
They are for visual inspection of key flight systems e.g. flight surfaces, rotors and landing gear.
As well as for assisting in non visual range take off approach and landing operations.
The primary sensors are which take the nice photos aren’t designed for that, their optics and sensors itself won’t be able to focus on objects so close and the gimbal and pod location aren’t suited for inspecting the aircraft.
The cutout in the stream is simply because the drone streams via satellite which is extremely sensitive to sharp disruptions in its location in 3D space so a drop in altitude or a rapid attitude change will cut the link. (This is also why the SpaceX stream often cuts out or at least used too).
These cameras have far lower quality than the massive electro optical sensors in the primary sensor package and they also are allocated far less bandwidth than the primary mission package whether it’s ElOp, SIGINT or SAR.
I don't think it's public knowledge how reapers get their video to the ground station (It supports satellite uplink, but I don't know if that's the only mode of operation).
I do generally agree that the video looks consistent with the idea that the drone was either damaged by the fuel or actually hit.
Also I believe the drone itself was configured for a SIGINT/SAR mission so it would have an SAR pod and a bunch of antennas instead of an electro optic sensor payload.
Navy pilots who witnessed the UFOs said they saw much better quality video at the time of the incident.
On the contrary, a mid-air collision that just bends a couple of propeller blades and not the rest of the drone seems like either incredible flying or incredible luck.
Given that just one blade is bent, the contact had to be very fleeting (there wasn't time for the next blade to come around and also strike the Su-27). It's bad luck on the Russian pilot's part to cause something undeniable like this - but this isn't stopping Moscow from making obviously untrue claims.
Cold-war story time. In college I had a roommate who was former Navy, and he told me of the time that they pranked the Soviets. Their group of ships had been shadowed by a Soviet "fishing vessel"[0] and they had gotten tired of them stooging around. At the time it was normal for ships to dump their trash overboard [1] in weighted bags. So they prepared a bag by filling it with the 80's best "adult education material" - only with all the good parts cut out and various insults scribbled on the pages. And topped it off with the messiest of slops from the galley. They intentionally did not add the steel weight, and tossed it off the stern. A gleeful crowd gathered to watch as the Soviets swooped in to collect their floating "intelligence haul".
Moral of the story - pranking is one thing. Intentionally or accidentally causing a collision? Not cool.
[0] Probably one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primor%27ye-class_surveillance...
[1] They now compress and store most waste until they return to port: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpFF6c3C730
Rain does't hurt. Getting nailed in the head with a water balloon hurts.
The density of rain and the density of a fuel dump are not equivalent.
The US military said there was a collision, and with this video there seems no reason to doubt them.
https://www.eucom.mil/pressrelease/42314/russian-aircraft-co...
Example:
The thrust from a propeller blade is typically proportional to the density of the medium it is operating in (plus other factors of course). The density of air at altitude will be somewhat less than 1 kg/m^3. Density of pure liquid kerosene is around 800 kg/m^3, but in this case the kerosene is dispersed as droplets in the air. If we take a hypothetical guess that the air/fuel mixture is around 25% fuel, 75% air, the net density of the mixture will be around 200 kg/m^3. On encountering the fuel mixture of this density, the propeller blade would experience a sudden increase in load by a factor of about 200. A sudden overload of this magnitude would be enough to bend most things. Of course we don't know the actual air/fuel ratio. It could be less or could be more. The velocity of the dumped fuel relative to the drone's airspeed could also be significant. Too many unknowns to be anything like accurate, but appears not impossible for a fuel cloud to bend a propeller blade.
You say "bends a couple of propeller blades and not the rest of the drone" but there's no telling whether contact was made with the drone airframe. We don't get a look at the Russian airframe either (to look for impact marks). The MQ-9 vertical stabilizers are "taller" than the propeller blades. I wonder if the Russian craft struck those, and the propeller was damaged by jet exhaust as the Su-27 pulled away.
Relative velocity of blade tip much faster than jet wing tip.. Wing tip cant traverse bladed plane within 1/4 revolution of prop. Impossible angle to clear elevators and engine cowling and catch a single blade tip. Video is fabricated.