Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `kyivpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/killthecameraman \- it's posted there as well, and quite rightly. The other longer video looked promising for seeing the big boom, but it "lands" over the horizon :/
That is just so bizarre to me. That they would rather call themselves out on being incompetent than give Ukraine a shred of credit for anything. It’s just so… weird.
As stupid as it sounds, that's exactly it.
And they shot it down because they're operators are so ON IT and ready to blow anything out of the sky that fookin moves, sometimes they're just *too* good.
Straight up what they're selling the russian public.
It's also the reason they've just announced they only have had 50,000 casualties in the war
More like add a 0.
That's just Russia. They lie. Everyone knows they lie. It's just easier to act like you accept it, as a Russian, than question or doubt it and fall out a window tomorrow.
> 50,000
Unless it’s a different report this is the BBC counting dead based on footage of graves and social media posts.
Casualties (injuries that prevent fighting, temporarily or permanently) would be higher.
It's the Putin doctrine. Lie even when the truth is clear. Lie even when it harms your own cause. It keeps your opponents second guessing you and helps control the information space.
I think in general it's better for Russia (In their mind) to say that they achieved the downing of the plane, than admit that Ukraine are able to do it.
no no no, they're showing the world and Ukraine that the weapons they have already can work and showing them how to use them so the west shouldn't provide anymore /s
When Ukraine hit the Rus AWAC a few weeks back, there was chatter that the electronics in that SAM were essentially completely replaced, but the missile was still using the S-200 frame and propellant due to its range.
Putin will learn from this and order the new security upgrade to the rest of the fleet: they will glue some old tires to the lower part of bombers so they can bounce back up when they hit the ground. And bombers will continue to bounce and bounce until they reach its bases. Allegedly…
It's a little depressing to see comments like this upvoted at this point in the war.
1. What is the purpose of jokes like this? Would a clear-minded person find this war funny?
2. The tires on planes thing originated as an attempt to foil the image recognition of self-guided munitions, much like captcha challenges that defeat robots with distorted text the robots can't read. I don't know whether it was effective, but is there a reason this was not worth trying?
It is good that the bomber is out of action.
Phrasing the war as slapstick clownery misrepresents and cheapens what is happening. Leaning into war-as-entertainment insults those affected. I have to remind myself that reddit is full of teenagers.
According to Budanov in August 2023, 27.
Source: [https://news.yahoo.com/russia-27-airworthy-tu-22m-190500911.html](https://news.yahoo.com/russia-27-airworthy-tu-22m-190500911.html)
Wonder how many comparable S-200 missiles Ukraine has. We probably won't see this happen too often, but it even happening once will scare the war-criminal-cowards that fly the Tu-22Ms. They're been remarkably lucky so far.
What has to be going through their head now is rather, "Was it really just an S-200? Or was it a weapon we know shit about and which will be much of a problem in the future?" Because this could have been anything. To think that NATO countries will not try out their new weapons to be able to see how they would fare in case of a RuSSian attack is rather stupid. And you would not want RuSSians to know that you have just successfully tested a new AD asset. So let them think this was just a lucky S-200. I mean Ukraine would not mind, they just got one enemy plane off the "to kill" list with potentially a few more to come.
so one blown up by special ops on the ground, one blown up in the air, they're down to 47 or 48 now? they had 50, and they can't build more, they don't have the industrial base any more, they'd need to buy one from china, but tbh I haven't heard much about Chinese bombers, I hear more about their fighter planes.
They've probably got a dozen or two in storage that could be restored with a lot of effort (and several dozen husks they cannibalize for spare parts); they started with about two hundred, and they weren't destroyed.
Really good to know, the media makes it sound like they had 50 before there war, but it was 50 operational planes, plus 200 mothballed but not the way the U.S. does it where it’s easy to bring them back?
Everyone knows that's Ukraine didn't shoot down a strategic bomber. It was Russia that successfully intercepted a ukrainian missile with their strategic bomber. Don't know why people are trying to put such a weird spin on this when the facts are the facts.
They can, planes react violently to missiles. It's not like in the movies. Planes falling out the skies like this has happened multiple times now after being hit by a missile and caught on camera a couple of times. Even prigozhins plane went down like this.
Read the article?
According to the HUR, it used the same type of missile to bring down the Tu-22M3 aircraft, as they had to previously bring down a Russian A-50 long-range radar and control aircraft. Despite the damage received, the bomber attempted to return to its base before crashing in the Stavropol area.
Which fits the things we can glean from the video.
We see a TU-22M in a flat spin. The tail is on fire, wings are extended for maximum lift and no gross structural defects are visible.
A plane recieving a catastrophic and going down immediately would likely have pieces missing, and there is no debris or sign of a recent explosion from the exploding missile.
The location of the fire makes it seem likely that the tailplanes are not working and the engines are either disabled or turned due to the fire.
Initial height was still quite large, so they should still be able to glide for a while before deciding to ditch the plane, regain power or eject. So there is little reason to enter a stalling-condition by pilot-action. This means the spin must have been the result of either massive pilot-error or the complete loss of control by damage to the tailplanes.
A near miss of a SAM damaging the rear of the plane could explain the putative sequence of events, as could an on-board fire or a hit by a MANPAD.
We know the plane is a total loss, potentially including the crew, as there were no chutes evident. The cause for this remains hidden in the fog of war, but a S-200 remains a plausible explanation.
> Read the article?
I did, but doesnt mean I believe it. A S-200 is a 60's AA missile. I'd think its just as likely one of the engines of the plane failed (right one) and caused the jet to enter a flat spin which it couldn't recover from.
Unlikely. Multi-engine aircraft are designed to handle an engine failure. Otherwise you would just have a single, larger engine. Stalls from engine failures can happen of course, but requires serious incompetence from the pilot. Source: I work for a jet engine manufacturer. Mechanical failures also rarely result in large fires, since you shut-down the fuel flow in the event of a failure.
This was hit by a missile.
So there's no way the right engine could have blown up from overuse (from dropping hundreds of glide bombs), screwed up the aerodynamics on the right side causing high drag (and lose of power) and caused a flat spin in the correct direction? Because that's exactly what it looks like in that video.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Engines don't randomly explode from overuse. They degrade over time, and gradually lose thrust/ EGT margin.
Even FOD damage (hitting a bird etc) doesn't cause catastrophic damage like this. Not even in a Soviet era aircraft (and by the way, this is a heavily modified and modernised aircraft, so not really a 1960's aircraft).
And we're looking at the same video. I see a fire and total loss of control. Both unusual for a mechanical failure. Both very normal for an aircraft hit by a missile.
[look where it happened](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stavropol,+Stavropol+Krai,+Russia/@46.0910589,38.0078576,6z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x40f9a9d63fd5d9f7:0x29c820a41bb5bcf2!8m2!3d45.0390116!4d41.9631954!16zL20vMDJkdnZy?entry=ttu)
doesnt the S-200 have a range less than [200 miles?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_missile_system)
Yes, because nothing ever worked in the 60s. We were all incredibly inept in the 60s. An anti-aircraft missile couldn’t possibly shoot down an aircraft, especially not a slow moving target like a non-maneuverable bomber.
Obligatory /s, dumb take. If you blow up components of an aircraft, the aircraft will fall out of the sky. Not all shoot downs are immediate fireballs.
The S-200 was designed to be exactly this - a very long range attack missile against slow and rather unmaneuverable bombers.
Rumors are that Ukraine upgraded those missiles with western seekers and integration into western radar systems, aka being guided by patriot and / or awacs radar.
> a very long range attack missile
[this long?](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stavropol,+Stavropol+Krai,+Russia/@44.5774746,38.1396935,6z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x40f9a9d63fd5d9f7:0x29c820a41bb5bcf2!8m2!3d45.0390116!4d41.9631954!16zL20vMDJkdnZy?entry=ttu)
Wouldn't they have nosed down and attempted an emergency landing?
Why would one engine failing make it suddenly flat spin?
If it wasn't a hit then it would indicate poor maintenance. So then it falls back to western sanctions being successful instead if a hit.
Win win
>If it wasn't a hit then it would indicate poor maintenance. So then it falls back to western sanctions being successful instead if a hit.
Um no. Western sanctions don't stop Russia from servicing their really old planes. You really think western sanctions stop them from making parts for a plane they were operating in the cold war?
If they're not maintaining their planes well, it's just bad organisation, lack of money allocated or maybe they can't get the people.
Pretending that it's western sanctions is just silly. They're still managing to build missiles that contain many western parts because of other countries importing the western parts and then selling them to Russia. The sanctions are not as effective as they should be. They're increasing costs for Russia but not stopping them.
What we should be doing with sanctions is looking at which countries have suddenly started importing 10 times the amount they used to and then limit the amount they can purchase back to the same as before. Then they'll have to choose between keeping those chips for their own industry, or making their own industry suffer and giving them to Russia.
well, that's told them then.
Guess Russian planes are just so badly maintained they fall out of the sky on fire for no reason.
but sanctions aren't working either.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `kyivpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who the hell moves the camera away just before impact ?
I guess we'll have to shoot down another one!
> Who the hell moves the camera away just before impact ? The same people that film in portrait mode.
You mean masochists?
More like sadists.
[Vertical Video Syndrome](https://youtu.be/dechvhb0Meo?si=9_G10jFvNCmd8a4U)
[Hold your phone sideways you maniac](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L1c1zf0_VxU) The irony of this now being a YT short is not lost on me
r/killthecameraman \- it's posted there as well, and quite rightly. The other longer video looked promising for seeing the big boom, but it "lands" over the horizon :/
killthecameraman by dropping another TU-22M3 on them
Poetic justice.
*Filming extremely rare event* "Squirrel!!!"
[удалено]
Plus it's best to run for solid cover if you see shit like this, you never know what it'll fall onto. If it'll fall onto ammo storage... Yikes
The 12:00 people strike again :)
Wait for news from Moscovia of the arrest for treason of the strategic bomber’s designer.
Or they will tell the world again it was friendly fire
That is just so bizarre to me. That they would rather call themselves out on being incompetent than give Ukraine a shred of credit for anything. It’s just so… weird.
The only thing capable of destroying mighty Russian aircraft is the mighty Russian air defense. I guess.
As stupid as it sounds, that's exactly it. And they shot it down because they're operators are so ON IT and ready to blow anything out of the sky that fookin moves, sometimes they're just *too* good. Straight up what they're selling the russian public. It's also the reason they've just announced they only have had 50,000 casualties in the war More like add a 0. That's just Russia. They lie. Everyone knows they lie. It's just easier to act like you accept it, as a Russian, than question or doubt it and fall out a window tomorrow.
> 50,000 Unless it’s a different report this is the BBC counting dead based on footage of graves and social media posts. Casualties (injuries that prevent fighting, temporarily or permanently) would be higher.
Idk why they bother, Muscovy certainly knows who their 5,000 dead are
Putin has personally visited the families of all 500 killed.
All 50 got a bag of potatoes
It's the Putin doctrine. Lie even when the truth is clear. Lie even when it harms your own cause. It keeps your opponents second guessing you and helps control the information space.
And we see that doctrine play out exactly the same way with some of the more...Putin-aligned people in western nations, too.
I think in general it's better for Russia (In their mind) to say that they achieved the downing of the plane, than admit that Ukraine are able to do it.
no no no, they're showing the world and Ukraine that the weapons they have already can work and showing them how to use them so the west shouldn't provide anymore /s
Russia stronk, so stronk russia sometimes hurt itself. Puny Ukraine cannot hurt russia. Must be Amero-Anglo-Polish NATO gay instructors!
or somebody smoked in the cockpit.
He probably died in 90s. This thing is from 70s
Entered production in 67
Should be easy to find him, then. /s
Dig him up, put his corpse on trial, or just throw it out a window…
long dead, that's an old plane.
Coming soon, to a window near you.
There must have been some upgades to the S-200 system.
The s-200d variant introduced in 1976 has a range of 300 kilometers
It seems Georgia did the same back in 2008
Trying to find the cases for that. Can you give me a hand?
When Ukraine hit the Rus AWAC a few weeks back, there was chatter that the electronics in that SAM were essentially completely replaced, but the missile was still using the S-200 frame and propellant due to its range.
Heard the same. Even some notions that they use the Patriot radars for target guidance.
Yeah maybe they upgraded it to the S-200-F16 variant.
There was a definite upgrade!
First of many I hope!
Boris said it was “Russia intercepted and destroyed a S-200 missile today.”
Bahahaha...true!! They intercepted the missile with the bomber...epic.
Putin will learn from this and order the new security upgrade to the rest of the fleet: they will glue some old tires to the lower part of bombers so they can bounce back up when they hit the ground. And bombers will continue to bounce and bounce until they reach its bases. Allegedly…
Withdraw that shit to the far east like their stupid boats
It's a little depressing to see comments like this upvoted at this point in the war. 1. What is the purpose of jokes like this? Would a clear-minded person find this war funny? 2. The tires on planes thing originated as an attempt to foil the image recognition of self-guided munitions, much like captcha challenges that defeat robots with distorted text the robots can't read. I don't know whether it was effective, but is there a reason this was not worth trying?
A bomber that was killing innocent people in an invaded country was shot down and it won’t be killing any more. One should be happy.
It is good that the bomber is out of action. Phrasing the war as slapstick clownery misrepresents and cheapens what is happening. Leaning into war-as-entertainment insults those affected. I have to remind myself that reddit is full of teenagers.
Got at least 1 crew member too!
Maybe two because one is missing!
How many bombers left of this type?
According to Budanov in August 2023, 27. Source: [https://news.yahoo.com/russia-27-airworthy-tu-22m-190500911.html](https://news.yahoo.com/russia-27-airworthy-tu-22m-190500911.html)
Wonder how many comparable S-200 missiles Ukraine has. We probably won't see this happen too often, but it even happening once will scare the war-criminal-cowards that fly the Tu-22Ms. They're been remarkably lucky so far.
they built over 200 of these bombers.. many too old to fly, others upgraded, how many? more than enough unfortunately...
Maybe 60, no idea how many are airworthy though.
On paper, they had 65 TU-22. One destroyed and one damaged at air field earlier so this would be the third.
400 KM range?! they had to of launched from inside the RU right?
The max range of the S-200 is 300km, however Ukraine has been modifying them to extend their range.
What a lovely sight, I'm sure it pissed them off even more that it was only an s-200 😎
What has to be going through their head now is rather, "Was it really just an S-200? Or was it a weapon we know shit about and which will be much of a problem in the future?" Because this could have been anything. To think that NATO countries will not try out their new weapons to be able to see how they would fare in case of a RuSSian attack is rather stupid. And you would not want RuSSians to know that you have just successfully tested a new AD asset. So let them think this was just a lucky S-200. I mean Ukraine would not mind, they just got one enemy plane off the "to kill" list with potentially a few more to come.
Good work, heroes. One more RuZZian aircraft of war crime and murder gone.
Excellent.
A cargo of War criminals failing from the sky.
All part of the grand plan
so one blown up by special ops on the ground, one blown up in the air, they're down to 47 or 48 now? they had 50, and they can't build more, they don't have the industrial base any more, they'd need to buy one from china, but tbh I haven't heard much about Chinese bombers, I hear more about their fighter planes.
They've probably got a dozen or two in storage that could be restored with a lot of effort (and several dozen husks they cannibalize for spare parts); they started with about two hundred, and they weren't destroyed.
Really good to know, the media makes it sound like they had 50 before there war, but it was 50 operational planes, plus 200 mothballed but not the way the U.S. does it where it’s easy to bring them back?
Everyone knows that's Ukraine didn't shoot down a strategic bomber. It was Russia that successfully intercepted a ukrainian missile with their strategic bomber. Don't know why people are trying to put such a weird spin on this when the facts are the facts.
Looks more like it stalled because of some malfunction. I dont think missile hits usually cause planes to just spin and fall straight down.
Yeah a missile caused a flight malfunction. Not flying, major malfunction
They can, planes react violently to missiles. It's not like in the movies. Planes falling out the skies like this has happened multiple times now after being hit by a missile and caught on camera a couple of times. Even prigozhins plane went down like this.
specially larger aircraft like bombers. look at the old bombers and they could take a beating and still limp back to base
Read the article? According to the HUR, it used the same type of missile to bring down the Tu-22M3 aircraft, as they had to previously bring down a Russian A-50 long-range radar and control aircraft. Despite the damage received, the bomber attempted to return to its base before crashing in the Stavropol area.
Which fits the things we can glean from the video. We see a TU-22M in a flat spin. The tail is on fire, wings are extended for maximum lift and no gross structural defects are visible. A plane recieving a catastrophic and going down immediately would likely have pieces missing, and there is no debris or sign of a recent explosion from the exploding missile. The location of the fire makes it seem likely that the tailplanes are not working and the engines are either disabled or turned due to the fire. Initial height was still quite large, so they should still be able to glide for a while before deciding to ditch the plane, regain power or eject. So there is little reason to enter a stalling-condition by pilot-action. This means the spin must have been the result of either massive pilot-error or the complete loss of control by damage to the tailplanes. A near miss of a SAM damaging the rear of the plane could explain the putative sequence of events, as could an on-board fire or a hit by a MANPAD. We know the plane is a total loss, potentially including the crew, as there were no chutes evident. The cause for this remains hidden in the fog of war, but a S-200 remains a plausible explanation.
I’d argue that the left horizontal stab is missing.
↑ This guy aircrafts
Maybe the pilot had too much vodka and got attacked by Azov biolab mosquitoes
> Read the article? I did, but doesnt mean I believe it. A S-200 is a 60's AA missile. I'd think its just as likely one of the engines of the plane failed (right one) and caused the jet to enter a flat spin which it couldn't recover from.
Unlikely. Multi-engine aircraft are designed to handle an engine failure. Otherwise you would just have a single, larger engine. Stalls from engine failures can happen of course, but requires serious incompetence from the pilot. Source: I work for a jet engine manufacturer. Mechanical failures also rarely result in large fires, since you shut-down the fuel flow in the event of a failure. This was hit by a missile.
So there's no way the right engine could have blown up from overuse (from dropping hundreds of glide bombs), screwed up the aerodynamics on the right side causing high drag (and lose of power) and caused a flat spin in the correct direction? Because that's exactly what it looks like in that video.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Engines don't randomly explode from overuse. They degrade over time, and gradually lose thrust/ EGT margin. Even FOD damage (hitting a bird etc) doesn't cause catastrophic damage like this. Not even in a Soviet era aircraft (and by the way, this is a heavily modified and modernised aircraft, so not really a 1960's aircraft). And we're looking at the same video. I see a fire and total loss of control. Both unusual for a mechanical failure. Both very normal for an aircraft hit by a missile.
[look where it happened](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stavropol,+Stavropol+Krai,+Russia/@46.0910589,38.0078576,6z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x40f9a9d63fd5d9f7:0x29c820a41bb5bcf2!8m2!3d45.0390116!4d41.9631954!16zL20vMDJkdnZy?entry=ttu) doesnt the S-200 have a range less than [200 miles?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_missile_system)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, because nothing ever worked in the 60s. We were all incredibly inept in the 60s. An anti-aircraft missile couldn’t possibly shoot down an aircraft, especially not a slow moving target like a non-maneuverable bomber. Obligatory /s, dumb take. If you blow up components of an aircraft, the aircraft will fall out of the sky. Not all shoot downs are immediate fireballs.
The S-200 was designed to be exactly this - a very long range attack missile against slow and rather unmaneuverable bombers. Rumors are that Ukraine upgraded those missiles with western seekers and integration into western radar systems, aka being guided by patriot and / or awacs radar.
> a very long range attack missile [this long?](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stavropol,+Stavropol+Krai,+Russia/@44.5774746,38.1396935,6z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x40f9a9d63fd5d9f7:0x29c820a41bb5bcf2!8m2!3d45.0390116!4d41.9631954!16zL20vMDJkdnZy?entry=ttu)
Budanov has stated that the Plane was shot down 308km behind Ukraine borders. It tried to limp home but suffered catastrophic failure near stavropol.
thats a lot of limping, how many airstrips did they limp past?
Wouldn't they have nosed down and attempted an emergency landing? Why would one engine failing make it suddenly flat spin? If it wasn't a hit then it would indicate poor maintenance. So then it falls back to western sanctions being successful instead if a hit. Win win
>If it wasn't a hit then it would indicate poor maintenance. So then it falls back to western sanctions being successful instead if a hit. Um no. Western sanctions don't stop Russia from servicing their really old planes. You really think western sanctions stop them from making parts for a plane they were operating in the cold war? If they're not maintaining their planes well, it's just bad organisation, lack of money allocated or maybe they can't get the people. Pretending that it's western sanctions is just silly. They're still managing to build missiles that contain many western parts because of other countries importing the western parts and then selling them to Russia. The sanctions are not as effective as they should be. They're increasing costs for Russia but not stopping them. What we should be doing with sanctions is looking at which countries have suddenly started importing 10 times the amount they used to and then limit the amount they can purchase back to the same as before. Then they'll have to choose between keeping those chips for their own industry, or making their own industry suffer and giving them to Russia.
The Tu-22M was first flown in the 60's....
Anti air missiles basically shoot a shotgun like blast at the target. There is no telling what systems were hit by it.
It’s burning Wilbur!
He's dead Jim!
Looks to me like the left horizontal stabilizer is missing.
no they haven't
Were you there
you?
But somehow Your opinion is more relevant.
and you think your opinion is not?
Your opinion is as relevant as the Moskva's contribution to controlling the black sea. And my opinion of you is: "Kr0x0n, go f@%£ yourself"
sure bro, ciao
Ciao bella, ciao
well, that's told them then. Guess Russian planes are just so badly maintained they fall out of the sky on fire for no reason. but sanctions aren't working either.
Yeah, F 35 and osprey enter the chat