A Russian pilot tried to shoot down an RAF surveillance plane after believing he had permission to fire, the BBC has learned.

The pilot fired two missiles, the first of which missed rather than malfunctioned as claimed at the time.

Russia had claimed the incident last September was caused by a “technical malfunction”. The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) publicly accepted the Russian explanation.

But now three senior Western defence sources with knowledge of the incident have told the BBC that Russian communications intercepted by the RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft give a very different account from the official version.

The RAF plane - with a crew of up to 30 - was flying a surveillance mission over the Black Sea in international airspace on 29 September last year when it encountered two Russian SU-27 fighter jets.

    • @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      The problem is that, at that point, they already lost, so it’s a matter of whether they lose alone, or if they are petty enough to make everyone lose with them. I know where Putin stands on that, the unknown is how the Russian generals would take the order.

      • @awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        The Kremlin won’t commit suicide over a failed land grab in Eastern Ukraine. Stop fear mongering, it’s exactly what they want.

        • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          The problem with nuclear deterrence is that it’s very easy for the train to start rolling before anyone can stop it. And once it’s rolling, it’s out of everyone’s hands.

          • @bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago
            1. The UK/NATO would not retaliate in a nuclear manner

            2. Even if they retaliate conventionally, it would be far more likely that Russia would strike a deal before launching nukes

            3. The UK/NATO would likely accept that deal easily since literally nobody with more than 2 braincells, on either side, want to risk destroying the entire planet

    • Quokka
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      It’s called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason mate.

      The point being both sides would end up as glass, so no one dares to actually fire because the only winning move is to not play.

      • @YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        That worked in the 50s but today that isn’t the case. We would stop about 90% of missiles. Russia can’t stop any. NATO loses 80,000, Russia loses 143 Million.

        • Quokka
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay Buck Turgidson.

          The 11 active Russian nuclear armed subs alone would inflict millions of casualties on American coastal cities.

          The fallout would kill hundreds of millions across Europe and North America, the resulting families and global breakdown would take out hundreds of millions more across the globe.

          Not to mention Chinese and North Korean responses to their neighbour and ally being nuked.

            • @Detheroth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              The point is: it only takes one. One nuke successfully launching would be enough for the majority (if not all) the able nuclear powers to retaliate in kind.

              Do you think any nation within Europe would detect a missle launch and simply… hope it’s a dud? What about America? If any nation responds to a nuclear attack (even a fake one), the odds are the rest of them will follow suit.

              I hope every single attempted nuclear weapon launch fails. But the odds of that happening aren’t even worth thinking about.