That is probably the flattest spin I've ever seen, especially with a plane of this size...

@TennesseeHomesteadUSA

Ай бұрын

If the fly-by-wire system is damaged badly the plane immediately goes out of control.

@blacklake13

Ай бұрын

I was going to try to sh*t on your point by saying Tu-22 isn't that much larger than a Su-27 - like "fighter-plus" sized - but bothered to look it up first and it's a *lot* bigger than I for some reason thought. I was always under the impression it was smallish for a bomber, but that's relative at best. It absolutely dwarfs an F-111. So yeah, that was a big honking flat spin.

@aramos3639

Ай бұрын

@@blacklake13 it’s a strategic bomber that just happens to be fighter jet shaped That or you may be remembering the SU-24 which looks vaguely similar and is much smaller

@NuclearFalcon146

Ай бұрын

@@aramos3639 Was about to say he was probably thinking of the Su-24 as well, which is not much larger than a fighter.

@gohibniugoh1668

Ай бұрын

@@TennesseeHomesteadUSA i dont think they had fly by wire then.

My personal favourite Russian BS was when they claimed they shot their own AEWACs down That doesn’t make you look better than a combat loss that makes you look stupendously incompetent

@concretedonkey4726

Ай бұрын

that particular part allways baffled me, the conclusion was, the average russian grunt KNOWS they are incompetent so that is not news for them, they have trouble admitting the ukrainians aren't though.

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

@@concretedonkey4726 it was 150 miles from the front, the a-50 was maneuvering in defense throwing out chaff and flares and had dived to 8-10k feet at the time of the shootdown, and there is literally a video of a Russian BUK system taking a shot at the A-50 that cam out that day it happened. Why would you think the S-200 a 60 year old system Soviet system could kill targets almost twice as far away as any western air defense system that has ever existed? The claim that it was ukrainian s-200, a old and massive system that takes days to move and setup, that hit a defending aircraft 150 miles from the first Ukrainian trench line is absurd. just listen to what they have you believing. You're claiming the Ukrainians with old s-200 system with 60 year old tech and missiles that are actually 50+ years old can do what the US Navy can just barely get down a the edge of the operational envelope with the brand new RIM-174 SM-6 missile the best air defense missile in the world on their DDGs. Think about how insane what they got you to believe is.

@Castragroup

Ай бұрын

You love bs tho

@kylekyle5438

Ай бұрын

I wasn’t aware Patriots magically had the range to shoot down that AWACS.

@user-jt1gm4qh4x

Ай бұрын

@@kylekyle5438you do now.

The russians also claimed that the cruiser moskva was not destroyed by enemy action This is the caliber of people we’re dealing with

@doomsday9973

Ай бұрын

And if you believe everything Ukraine says which has also been caught in countless lies then you are as much of a fool as believing the russians

@user-pd3gt3tx5e

Ай бұрын

​@doomsday9973 that's why you look at the evidence. The evidence says it was shot down. We don't know by who

@doomsday9973

Ай бұрын

@@user-pd3gt3tx5e you are getting bits and pieces of “evidence” in reality you are making your assumptions on breadcrumbs

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

they admitted it by limiting what they admitted. when they lie they make it a point to not actually lie. they are deceptive all the same but there is a difference. it's almost quaint. where as our DOD will just get up to the podium and tell us the sky is literally green for 50 years straight they dissemble. they said it sank after a fire. they never refuted the allegation it was sunk by the ukrainians. you can't point out where they denied because they never did. the fact they say it sank after a fire without explaining why there was a fire is them admitting it.

@aramos3639

Ай бұрын

@@posmoo9790 that rationale sounds just like ‘PC’ speech that people keep whinging about Besides, lying by omission is still lying lmao. For some dumb reason the russians somehow think that attributing disasters to their own incompetence rather than enemy action makes the outcome better in any way

It was a technical malfunction. The engines failed to work properly because of the ingress of multiple high-speed metal projectiles of unknown origin.

@gohibniugoh1668

Ай бұрын

the cope cage around the aircraft failed?

@T-SUS

Ай бұрын

Is it better to tell us how the Ukrainians could have shot him down at a distance of more than 190 miles just from the line of combat contact? This is the story of this delirium when a month ago Ukriants shot down 1-2 Su-34s almost every day in their reports.

@mattd6931

Ай бұрын

@@T-SUS You realise that 190 miles isn't that far, right? An S-200 has a reported range of 190 miles in air-defence mode. It's entirely possible that Ukraine shot it down. But even if they didn't, and Russia shot themselves down (again), or had an aircraft suffer a catastrophic mid-air explosion, it doesn't look good for them, or their military.

It was technical issues. A missile taking off the tail is technicaly responsible for the crash.......

@mertc8050

Ай бұрын

best case supoorting thecnical issue claim could be is it got hit it didnt go down for a while, then the tail burned off or hydrolic loss probably both and loss of control made it go into flat spin. whiich still means it got shot down buuut stll....

@NathanIrizarry1

Ай бұрын

@@mertc8050 In the famous “stroke 3” video I believe stroke 1 or 4 got shot down in a way very similar to your description. If that counts as getting shot down, then this Tu-22 definitely got shot down as well.

@S300V

Ай бұрын

Where are the marks created by the fragments of the warhead? Cant be seen on the plane.

@TKSubDude

Ай бұрын

@@S300V Could you read the stencils on the plane?

@S300V

Ай бұрын

@@TKSubDude Ukraine claims it used an S200... Its warhead would have created clearly visible holes even from a distance.

Technically they had an issue with being struck by a projectile.

@S300V

Ай бұрын

With what missile? Beyond radar horizon...

@randomuser5443

Ай бұрын

@@S300Va very fast one

@S300V

Ай бұрын

@@randomuser5443 radar horizon would still be a problem... not to mention range. Laws of physics are a bit in the way...

@abdior6961

Ай бұрын

@@S300Vif it was air launched , the range would be much greater

@S300V

Ай бұрын

@@abdior6961 air launched what? What air to air missile has 400km range?

Completely omit that fact it was ""shot down"" 300k+ inside Russia. The patriot range is 70k. At least the other guy had some healthy skepticism.

@mattd6931

Ай бұрын

The story says "around 300km" and the S200 has a reported range of 190miles in air defence mode. It's possible, but it'd be the outer edge of range of the missile. The aircraft may also have continued to fly for a distance before entering the flat spin and crashing.

Given the constant use of those TU-22s it might have been a technical fault that led to it becoming vunerable to getting shot down. If that's the case maybe both sides are right. All of those aircraft are high maintenance in terms of engines being used at combat speeds. Especially if they are accelerating to launch those hypersonic missles every other day.

This is pretty pedantic, and it may have been before you guys' time, but the Just Plain Tu-22 (NATO: Blinder) and the Tu-22M (NATO: Backfire) are even less similar to each other than the Legacy and Super Hornets. Compared to the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is bigger and heavier, its engines are in the fuselage instead of on top of the fuselage, and it has swing wings instead of the earlier type's swept wings.

@blacklake13

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that's a confusing one. Completely different airplane. Supposedly the Blinder was an absolute pilot's nightmare (and it only had one). On the bright side: Its cockpit air conditioning system resulted in production of a highly toxic waste material: generous amounts of pure ethanol alcohol. As we're talking about Russians here, illicit disposal of said chemical came to be a significant issue amongst flight crew and maintenance personnel associated with the type.

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

I mean they don't actually even look alike like the hornet and super hornet at least do. I don't think there is anything that's the same on them.

@doyouwanttogivemelekiss3097

Ай бұрын

However, isn't the tu-22m the only kind of tu-22 that still flies?

"Technical malfunction"....yeah, when a missile impacts, detonates, and destroys an engine and flight controls, that does tend to create malfunctions.

@doomsday9973

Ай бұрын

@Belgua_ZOV he has zero evidence

@VanekK30

Ай бұрын

Can you tell us which air defense missile is capable of shooting down targets at a distance of +500 kilometers? Isn't it funny yourself?

@Turboy65

Ай бұрын

@@VanekK30 Can you explain how a "technical malfunction" can do that much damage to the plane and send it down in a perfect flat spin on fire? Or are you going to believe Russian propaganda, which NEVER admits that they took losses in combat, NOT EVER?

@doomsday9973

Ай бұрын

@@VanekK30 Bingo

@user-jt1gm4qh4x

Ай бұрын

@@doomsday9973it’s self explanatory.

Looking at the map, I'm struggling to find a spot where a Ukrainian SA-5 with a publicly stated range of 300km could reach a target in the Stavropol region. Even giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, any measurement I can make comes closer to 400km. What has Ukraine been spiking those missiles with?

@user-lw8vn7zx2b

Ай бұрын

Not to mention the fact that the bomber was receding which would reduce WEZ of any potential missile launch, the fact that SA-5 was decomissioned back in 2013 and there hasn't been any evidence (photo or video) that is operational now, the fact that SA-5 is not a mobile system and cannot be easily moved and concealed near the frontline and the fact that SA-5 has to be supported by radar continuously during the engagement.

@StephenAngelico

Ай бұрын

@@user-lw8vn7zx2b I think the evidence that it's operational is the last time they claimed to use it. Also there are mobile SA-5 systems but I don't know how much that changes their engagement envelope.

@mmarsh1972

Ай бұрын

The Scuttlebutt is that it was a modified S-200

@StephenAngelico

Ай бұрын

@@mmarsh1972 SA-5 = S-200. My question is still: How "modified" was it to reach so far?

@mmarsh1972

Ай бұрын

@@StephenAngelico I am not 100% sure, I couldn't find any articles saying how they did it (only that they did). I have a feeling the Ukrainians arent going to say either, at least not for a while. I have a few theories like extending the fuselage to increase fuel storage, or upgrading the rocket motor to something more fuel efficient but it's just only a guess. I will say that the Ukrainians have done this before with the Neptune antiship missile which was based off a Kh-35.

An uncontained turbine failure could easily look like that, but I'm not exactly a TU-22M technician. At least there's no question that the plane is no longer serviceable. I'd tend to believe UKR on the cause of rapid disassembly. Large parts landing in other locations would favor the UKR statement.

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

" Large parts landing in other locations" unsurprisingly no evidence of that occurring.

Ukraine accomplished every first mission in Ace Combat

Technical malfunction as result of rapid unexpected disassembly after sudden impact from foreign object.

well, TECHNICALLY, planes do malfunction when big chunks of their flight controls get blown off

Is the Tu-22 the one with ejection seats that go out the bottom of the aircraft?

Russia, "It was Gremlins".😅

@justinmoody6721

Ай бұрын

maybe just like in Twilight Zone the movie..........

@dougrobinson8602

Ай бұрын

@@justinmoody6721 We need Bill Shatner to confirm.

@Ventura60kts

Ай бұрын

"There's..... Someone on the wing!… Some..... Thing!"

@DonWan47

Ай бұрын

@@dougrobinson8602top comment.

Downward firing ejection seats make sense but not if you’re in a flat spin

“Ukraine claims” is the new “they say.”

I don't know what's worse, them telling the truth that their aircraft are being shot down by the enemy, or that everything's down to technical malfunctions. If it's all down to technical malfunctions, then it means their weapons are crap!

I might've mentioned this before, but the York office of Hiscox Insurance has an S200 in the foyer pointing to a hole in the ceiling. Because reasons.

An S-200 is an enormous SAM. The ane also went doen hundreds of kilometres from the Frontline. Maybe it got hit with a near miss and was trying to get home or maybe the engine finally hard enough and caught fire and destroyed control linkages.

The Russians will either claim it's a technical malfunction or someone was smoking! :-)

can't wait to hear you guys talk about the two felons which were destroyed in the past couple days.

Mover - are you still racing? Is there any new videos of you on the track?

Mover, keeping in mind I don’t know shit from apple butter, it seems to me the flat spin would indicate the plane was defensive and maneuvering to avoid the missile. Or would it have pitched up after getting hit in the ass?

I mean, being hit by a missile will cause technical malfunctions.

Was that a Blinder or Backfire bomber? TU-22 is used for both with TU22M designating Backfire bomber, I think.

Lmao... Gonky "yeah that sucks" 😂

It suffered a FOD incident involving the rearward ingestion of small metallic objects.

Looks like they got a wing off light followed by a ground proximity warning.

If it was a missle to the rear should it not have been able to keep 1 of the other engines running?

@pogo1140

Ай бұрын

The plane was not hit where it crashed. It was hit closer to the west and tried to limp home. It did not make it.

@CyberBeep_kenshi

Ай бұрын

when a missile hits, it explodes near the plane, shooting shrapnel. its never just 1 hole. that rear got shredded

@donkeysunited

Ай бұрын

​@@pogo1140Very likely. I would guess the plane was damaged but flyable and then on the way back to base, an essential part of the engine or wing fell off and the plane could no longer stay in the air.

The Tu-22 suffered a technical malfunction after being hit by the S-200.

I always thought Janes' USAF got the post shoot-down flat spin physics wrong. Where the (same make/model) aircraft downed would flat spin while intact, with a strange fireball located at one end, all behaving strange. But now I see, all these (25) years later, that Game had it right!

Iirc it was the tu-22 that had/has issues with titanium fires in their engines leading to a total loss much like the early tf-30s turning 111s and tomcats into roman candles. I can't really tell from the video if the tail is missing or not.

@billdewahl7007

Ай бұрын

Or maybe it was the su-24...who knows

fun fact it has downwards ejection seats which in 2021 actually caused 3 crew members to die because of an accidental ejection. i imagine that must’ve been brutal

Let me ask a simple question. With what Ukraine shot down that plane 500 km from the front line? Even the article is lying, so is Ukraine most of the time.

Speaking hypothetically, could a missile cause a "technical malfunction"?

Gonky would fly for China if they offered

Mr. Lemoine could you please do Stargate Continuum Eagles and Migs vs Death Gliders? The movie used actual Eagles and a submarine from the Navy.

At some point they will start saying they were hit by meteorites

How long ago did all this happen?

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

April 19th. Filmed April 22.

This is a TU 22M, not a TU 22,. Those are totally different aircraft...

"Gooskie, weeesky headed outsky to seasky"

Planes when hit by a missile tend to provoke malfunctionS!

I suppose all shoot downs are technical malfunctions in that the aircraft failed to satisfactorily avoid a missile and then ceased functioning as an aircraft immediately after.

Two survived and two did not out of the 4 man crew.

… on April 19th…. 🥱

Handheld device no doubt.

It's pretty odd that the Russians would rather call themselves incompetent, over acknowledging that their enemy scored a hit.

was landed by mod C-200

Personally, I think it was shot down. But it is possible that an engine failure (ala DC-10 in the cornfield thing) could have caused it. And I've been up close and personal with three variations of the Tu 22M.

And juts like that I have the song "Freefalling" stuck in my head lol

@AndrewinAus

Ай бұрын

'Free-fallin' probably would work better with regards to the 2021 incident with a TU22M3 where the ejection seats on one of these aircraft were initiated during a preflight none of the crew members survived that one, there parachutes obviously did not have sufficient altitude to open.

@hoghogwild

Ай бұрын

Yes, the seats didnt have enough forward component, the KT-1M seats in the TU22M3 require 81mph at altitudes below 200 feet. If this had happened in an older TU-22, the downward firing ejection seats would have been more problematic.

Although I do not believe the Russian excuse. The current state of Russian equipment gives it the edge of truth.

T-wheel failure?

Everything according to plan. As always.

How come nobody's invented a datalink-guided SAM that just goes active in the terminal phase?

@MartinSKNDE

Ай бұрын

I mean, thats essentially how many radar guided missiles work, they guide by external (aircraft/sam) radar until they are close enough to guide by their own (weaker/smaller) radar.

@HamSandwich277

Ай бұрын

@@MartinSKNDE Yeah, but those external aircraft/SAM radars are a huge warning to aircraft being targeted and gives them a source to try and evade. What if a missile could be brought onto a target by AWACs or ground based EWR (from a completely different direction than the missile is launched from) via datalink? The target aircraft wouldn't even know its being targeted until the missile went active.

@timgosling6189

Ай бұрын

This is pretty much how S300/S400 work. A radar detects a target, it remains in surveillance mode while a missile is launched from somewhere in the battery. The target can only see the surveillance radar, with no change to a tracking or guidance mode. When the missile is close enough it itself goes active and homes directly onto the target, with very little time for the target to evade or counter it.

@absolutmauser

Ай бұрын

AWACS and other aircraft can also provide targeting info to AEGIS and SM-6 systems. And Patriot can receive targeting info from other sensor platforms.

@absolutmauser

Ай бұрын

​@@HamSandwich277assuming you manage to have assets in two totally different directions from a target aircraft, it's definitely possible to do this with a number of modern SAM and AAM systems. But there are also strategies to limit the warning the target receives. Radars can use scan and track capabilities to show the target a normal search spike but be calculating a track that is used to guide a missile. You can also launch SAMs on a general intercept course and wait to turn on active guidance until the last second.

You can only repackage 1980's and 1990's technology 'X' amount of times, calling it new, before it just starts falls apart with or without the assistance of other outside factors.

@Turboy65

Ай бұрын

LOL. Depends who's doing the work. Meanwhile, our fleet of B-52Hs, the newest of which was built in 1962, are heading for new engines, other upgrades too, and will be redesignated as B-52Js when the work is done. They'll be with us for at least until the 2050s. It's fair to speculate that American upgrade programs are better than Russian upgrade programs.

@jes2731

Ай бұрын

@@Turboy65 Yes, and probably but multiple magnitudes.

Technically, getting hit by a missile will result in a mechanical failure of some variety...

"There are no navy in Murmansk!"

I didn't see a missile

Where did it fall down? I've read that it happened very deep into Russian territory.

S200 at 300+m I don't think so

How are they able to use glide bombs every day

@Misophist

Ай бұрын

They copied that trick from the US. They already have the bombs in stock as leftovers from the Cold War. Adding a kit with Wings + Glonass + inertial navigation capabilities, and presetting the intended target coordinates, is pretty cheap. And doesn't even require an update of the aircraft, that carries them. All the pilot has to do, is to drop them in range of the intended target, roughly pointing in the direction, the bomb's navigation will do the rest. I assume, that it is also pretty straight forward, to adapt the sleeve to every type of ordnance in stock. Shouldn't take more than tailoring the sleeve, adjusting the software, and verify by using some tests with duds that have the same weight distribution. The chips required for that can likely be manufactured in Russia (they _do_ have a limited capacity for that, and Glonass is their variant of GPS, so they know all about it), but if need be, may also be pilfered from most smartphones out there, even used ones bought up in bulk.

@keysersoze1855

Ай бұрын

maybe because the Ukrainians lack a cohesive AAAD network?

That plane looks like it was hit by something, surely not by bird.

PING PONG ....Floating BALLS in theeee SKYyuyyyy😮😮😮

Seems like I saw that same video a couple of weeks ago, not sure if the DoD determined it is official at this point in time or not.

According to Russian MOD 1 pilot survived.

The bomber did have a system failure...the countermeasures failed to deter an incoming missile. (Is saving face that big a deal to Russians?)

ukraine doesn’t have the equipment to shoot down something that far away lmao

@Savage_Viking

Ай бұрын

They have modified their S series missiles for extended range. Been in the news for a while now.

I mean, engine failures resulting in fires is nothing new to aircraft. I aint jumping to the conclusion that the Backfire went over the border, especially since Russian bombers typically launch cruise missiles from within Russian Airspace. We saw the same thing happen to a Foxhound a while back, it fell out of the sky with fire shooting out the engine and nobody claimed it was a Ukrainian missile that hit it. Russia has had a LOT of non-combat air losses during this war. So that Backfire could have easily had an engine fire amd we just got to see the tail end of the ordeal when the fire had fully engulfed the tail

I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a Bomber of that Size shot down? I think only Russia China and the USA fly huge bombers?

Happened like a week or so ago.

Russia wouldn’t accurately tell you the colour of an orange

Boeing makes TU-22s??? I had no idea.

@edwardfletcher7790

Ай бұрын

Tupolevs reliability rating makes Boeing look like Toyota ! LoL

The TU-22m3 went down a few miles northwest of a Russian region called Stavropol 250 miles away from the closest position held by the Ukrainian Army in the Donbas, a place called Vuhledar. Not even a Russian s-400 system could take down a TU-22m3 at that distance, nevermind a S-200 system which the Ukrainians claimed hit it. The TU-22m3 has flight characteristics like the B1 bomber. Fairly maneuverable as far as massive bombers go with swept wings & supersonic capability. These are fully modernized bombers, refit in the last decade (about 22 of them I think in total were refit) with new long range radars (250 miles range), avionics, MAWs, and I believe even new defensive electronic and physical countermeasures (and the Russians make very good electronic countermeasures as they focused on these as a poor mans stealth) As Lemoine knows max range for air to air and ground to air missiles are theoretical (read:marketing) limits against cooperative targets that don't know the missile is coming, flying at high altitude, and do not maneuver so the air defense missile can take a straight line and remain high in the thin atmosphere for as long as possible. It's also unlikely that the S-200 radar system could see the bomber at that range never mind paint the bomber with enough em energy at those distances so that the s-200 missile could home in on it even if it somehow had the range. Furthermore the S-200 air defense system to get to that improbable 250 miles range would have been had to be brought up to the very front line of the combat zone a mile from the front line in the the middle of the day, in the middle of the war, in middle of Vuhledar city, an area with literal constant drone surveillance. the s-200 system is absolutely massive and cannot be hidden and even worse it takes a very long time to set up for operation. The chances the Ukrainians actually brought down by the Ukrainians approaches impossibility. It was almost certainly mechanical failure or a russian missile that brought down the TU-22m3. The Russian army have their own Air Defence Troops (which possesses BUK short to medium range air defense systems, TOR SHORAD, and even big s-300v ABM systems) responsible for defense of army HQs and depots and the army combat elements in the war itself and according to Russians they have had enormous problems integrating into the VVS IFF Systems (VVS = Russian air force which is responsible for territorial and strategic integrity - they have the really modern systems like s-350, s-400, and panstirs)) I believe this is the reason there have been so many FF shootdowns of Russian aircrafts. It's a big problem and is actually a more embarrassing one to admit than that your enemy shot down your own aircraft with your own missiles because it indicts the Russian military leadership itself. Apparently it is the BUK air defense system that is responsible for most of these incidents. In fact I'm not aware of any evidence that anything but the BUKs have been responsible. This is important because the BUK-M the Russian army is mostly using now are, disregarding the IFF problem for the moment, is the most all around capable air defense system on the battlefield. It has high ceiling, high maneuverability missiles, capable of targeting extremely high kinetic threats (5,000 knots - so capable of AT LEAST targeting lower end ballistic missiles like HIMARS), it has a never PESA radar, a 45 mile range, it's tracked, and most importantly it's ready for operation within 5 minutes of stopping and can stop operation and move in 5 minutes as well, so it is the most mobile AD system on the battlefield with something approaching medium range which is vital if you want your AD to survive this environment and keep enemy air power off your front line troops. Furthermore it appears the US Navy has rated the BUK's missile as having the highest probability of hit among any Russian air defense missiles (along with the new s-350 missiles) because of the high maneuver. And this is where I think the Russian Command really finds itself in a massive dilemma of its own making. For some reason it is very difficult to get this BUK-M integrated into the IFF because they failed to do it when they should have when it was being designed in the 2010s. Now it is the most capable and most important AD system on the battlefield for the actual combat troops, the system that (along with the combat air patrol) actually keeps the Ukrainians from effectively using all those JDAMs were sent in the way that the Russians are using glide bombs to break up the Ukrainian front lines right now and its also shooting down their own aircraft regularly, but they absolutely can't do without it. BTW there was also a video of a BUK system shooting in the direction of that A-50 AWACS that went down a few months ago - the video shows the BUK crew taking a shot while the A-50 was diving and releasing flares.

@Savage_Viking

Ай бұрын

Looks like the downing took place at a range of 180 miles, well withing the reported modified S-200 range of 191 miles.

Ryan McBeth regarding misinformation. 🇺🇸😎

This is quite old. Why are you debating this weeks after it happened?

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

Why don't you look at the date?

@Echo30Mike

Ай бұрын

@@CWLemoine I saw this video about 10 days ago. It's old.

@cfisher11

Ай бұрын

@@Echo30MikeI believe this happened on April 19th

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

The date we talked about it is literally posted at the top left on the screen. If you watched it live, cool. Thanks. If not, it’s new to you.

@Savage_Viking

Ай бұрын

People still debate things happening in Roman times.

Better not be click bait 😅

Mechanical failure or shot down? It doesn’t matter. Russia inventory decreased.

Why is the guy on the right so hesitant to say it looks like it was shot down?

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

He's become aware of just how many lies are spread by the western media in wars in his lifetime so he is hesitant to believe anything without actual evidence. He said he thought it looked like it was indeed shotdown. And btw he was correct to doubt the story. This incident occurred a hundred miles beyond where any Ukrainian air defense system could have reached.

@UsedToaster

Ай бұрын

@@posmoo9790 LMFAO because Russian MEDIA is SOOOOOOOOo trusthworthy right Ivan?

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

@@UsedToaster Why would I care about the Russian media? I'm not Russian. Why do you care in fact? I care that we're constantly lied to and in fact we wouldn't even be in this mess with the Russians but for the lying media. I wish I never had to think about them at all, and I shouldn't have to. It's people like you that make it necessary.

Russia doesn't Like the word "Loose"😅 Edit: they well always think about them selfs instead of admitting their "Losses"

Поговори со мной, Гусь! 🤣🤣🤣

-- How do we know its not DCS!? Its all over Russian news!!!

Old New's, Good morning team C.W.

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

It’s from last week’s show. Look at the date.

That is old news, guys.

Wasn't the second crew member, who was "missing" for a day, found dead? For context Tu-22M* has 4 crew members. Also, worth adding that S-200 used by Ukrainians are somehow modified/upgraded. Maybe with help from Poland? Poles had their own S-200 upgrade program.

The pilot was smoking?

definitely not DCS. Those flames are too real. And the picture afterwards is an even bigger clue. But Gonky's question is fully understood - that game has seriously realistic graphics.

@Karibanu

Ай бұрын

Also there's something of a history of Ukraine publishing DCS images ( pre war ) :)

Did they get it before or after it spent it's payload? It's paydirt nonetheless as I doubt Russia will produce more TU-22s. Seems like Russia is still using the "Spend the Trash First" doctrine. Goo says the last TU-22 produced was in 1969 and now has perhaps 26 in inventory.

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

These are TU-22M. They are completely different aircraft from the TU-22s they shouldn't have retained the same designation but they did so for obscure political reasons. They were produced until 1993. But these ones are deeply modernized versions of those original TU-22Ms, called TU-22M3s. New avionics, new radars, new defensive systems, They only had about 20 modernized versions when the war started but there are apparently 40-50 more in good shape many awaiting modernization. The Russians were smart about maintaining their soviet inheritance. Another thing that helps is I think they still have low flight miles on the structure.

@DoddyIshamel

Ай бұрын

It's not a tu-22, it's a tu-22m which were made up to the 90s and modernised in the 2010s. The tu-22m is a different aircraft which was given the same number to save face for the tu-22 failure.

Its more likely it was shot down by friendly fire, when the A-50 command aircraft got friendly fired Ukraine also claimed that, the point of claiming these incidences is to confuse and misinform the enemy on UA air capability. Its better to make the enemy think you have the possibility of reaching that far even if you cant. the idea you could is enough to scare them.

@posmoo9790

Ай бұрын

I think the lies are made purely for people like Mover so he can think ukraine is winning.

0:33 There is no conflict. Russia startet a war.

@brandor763

Ай бұрын

Wrong. The US did

@Stefan_Dahn

Ай бұрын

@@brandor763 Traitor to truth and freedom.

@cte4dota

Ай бұрын

How the f Russia started it? Do you know anything?

@Stefan_Dahn

Ай бұрын

@@cte4dota Yes.

You guys are a little bit late on your news here.

Sure looks like it was shot down with the flames coming out the back however it crashed so far from the Ukraine front lines that it most likely was friendly fire . There has been so many friendly fire shoot downs by the Russians These guys saying it was Ukraine really need to look at a map to see how ridiculous that would be

The S200 has 200 kg of explosive, so, if S200 explodes close, there is nothing at all. It seems that one motor explodes, and destroys the rear command of T22. That why the plane fly as a leaf. C.W Lemoine, can you confirm that 200 kg of explosive can destroy completely the plane ?

@MouseTai1

Ай бұрын

It depends. SAM missiles rarely, if ever, hit their targets straight on -- that will happen only in the movies, for dramatic effect. In reality, they would rather try to approach close while measuring distance to a target. As soon as distance is below certain threshold, the warhead explodes, spreading circular or hemispherical cloud of high speed shrapnel. So "close" may mean anything, from a few meters to a dozen meters or even more. It is the shrapnel that kills the plane, not the explosion per se.

Patriot?

@blacklake13

Ай бұрын

S-200/SA-5

This looks like an old video?

@edwardfletcher7790

Ай бұрын

Lots of very very cheap Android phones in Russia.... This would be 480p max....

@nopriors

Ай бұрын

@@edwardfletcher7790 I meant this video is a couple weeks old

@edwardfletcher7790

Ай бұрын

@@nopriors Yeah, it happened on the 19th April

It crashed 380km away from the front like, what kind of S-200 was that? Btw, did Ukrainian S-200s take responsibility for B-2 shoot down in Guam?

@Savage_Viking

Ай бұрын

Reports have it being downed at 180 miles within the Ukraine modified S-200 range of 191 miles.

Reported that it had completed its launches and was hit RTB

If US was fighting Ukraine, Ukraine would take credit for every fallen F-35, F-22 or B-2. And how many are lost so far without any war?

@doomsday9973

Ай бұрын

A B-1 crashed just a few weeks ago. Our planes crash all the time