EP-3 in China

[Sandman_SBM]

U.S. surveillance plane lands in China after collision with fighter

Now... if China really has hostile intent towards the U.S., they'll keep this plane and gut it.

[mrfish]

what if the story read: chinese spy plane crash lands in u.s.?  is it ok for them to fly around and spy on us? what was our plane doing flying over china anyway?

[Maverick]

fish, read the article. The plane was over international waters. Anyone can be there.

I doubt any of the "sensitive parts" are in a condition to be much use to the Chinese. An appropriate question is what was the Chinese fighter doing that close to an aircraft over international waters? Is this a possible intentional downing?? Shadowing is normal as is intel gathering. Bumping or colliding with the aircraft is not normal.

This could turn up the heat a notch depending on how it is handled.

Mav

[Cabby]

Quote:

"is it ok for them to fly around and spy on us"

They would if they could.  And they also give illegal campaign contributions in exchange for nuclear secrets to a scum-bag ex-US President.....

"what was our plane doing flying over china anyway?"

Just some underpaid military slobs making sure no one lands a surprise nuke in the middle of California St.  So Libs like you can go beddy-bye in peace......

Cabby

[Sandman_SBM]

 

They would if they could.

China can't but many other countries can... and do.

Open Skies Treaty

[Toad]

I did what that EP-3 was doing almost the whole time I was in the service. I did it in the same place this happened. (We just had a whole lot more and different equipment than an EP-3.)

The Russians were doing the same thing to us. The Brits were doing it with Nimrods. Everybody that could was/is doing it.

It's not illegal as long as you stay over international waters, which the US recognizes as 12 miles offshore. Some other countries use bigger or smaller boundaries but everybody generally observes their own limit plus a few miles "just in case".

It's no big deal.

I was suprised he landed on Hainan though. I bet they take that EP-3 apart the same way we took the Mig-25 apart. All part of the game.

It's called Reconnaissance. It sometimes helps keep you from getting a very unpleasant surprise.

[Daff]

According to the BBC the plane was 10km (6 miles) offshore.

Daff

[mrfish]

 

Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:
Just some underpaid military slobs making sure no one lands a surprise nuke in the middle of California St.  So Libs like you can go beddy-bye in peace......
Cabby

oh brother...great advertising...sniff sniff <wipes tear and queues music "well i'm proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free....">

Maverick: I only scanned the article, the radio i was listening to made it seem as if they were over chinese territory - you have a point and i stand corrected

cap'n freedom...err cabby...my point is that we were playing the spying game and are entitled to the same consequences as any other country. they were big boys, doing their part and they knew what they were getting into

i hate the double standard because america needs to set the standard for playing on the level. yes our last scumball pres wasn't much of an example to anyone but this isnt about clinton. they were spying and they landed in the country they were spying on. we should be earnestly hoping for their return, but not demanding it as if we have some special rights over any other country. in fact that is extremely arrogant and may jeopardize their return.

what would you do if the chinese had to ditch here? put them up in a howard johnson, take em to the movies and fluff their pillow? leave their plane locked up in a nice cozy hangar and dare not peek til the chinese government got here? gimme a break. you'd be all over their plane, interrogating the crew and telling the chinese govt that they would get their crew back when and if you damned well pleased.

you want an america that rules the world, i think it is dangerous to go arrogantly demanding everything because we are americans - the founding fathers were solid and sincere not blustery cowboys threatening everyone. it only makes enemies and i want to see the crew home safely as well.

[Toad]

Daff,

I don't know what the USN ROE are but way back when I did that stuff, the US recognized 12 miles and we flew 20 miles just to have a bit of buffer. At 7-8 miles a minute, you want to have a few seconds or two to make a turn.  

Especially since our "little buddies" had this annoying habit of shooting at you as soon as they were pretty sure some of the pieces would land on their dirt.   (They really seemed to have it "in" for KAL, shooting down a 707 in '78 and a 747 in '83.)

I'd personally think 6 miles was a bit tight; leaves little room for even minor Nav errors, even when you're putting along as slow as a P-3 does.

If the crew was outside of their ROE ..and there WILL be proof (although it probably won't be released)... somebody is going to hang for it. (Oops, another airline pilot or two is born!   )

However, in most of these affairs of the media, what you hear at first is never the whole story.

I think I'll wait a bit and see what turns up.

[Toad]

Mr. Fish,

You are incorrect, chum.

A "Mayday" aircraft should be able to land and leave any country that honors ICAO treaties. China supposedly does that.

It is absolutely NOT a case of "as if we have some special rights over any other country". It's an agreed to worldwide treaty on aviation that China has signed.

The fact that the EP-3 is a US Recon aircraft has NOTHING to do with "spying".

Yeah, we call them "spyplanes" but what they are is RECONNAISSANCE aircraft. As long as this guy was in International Airspace, he wasn't "spying". He was doing "reconnaissance". (Now IF he overflew..that would be different. But nobody knows that yet.)

Just about all countries that think of themselves as "powers", even China, run Recon aircraft in International Airspace.

You are jumping to a conclusion that is not as yet justified. Get this: Reconnaissance in International Airspace IS NOT NOW, NEVER HAS BEEN "spying".

Further, if it turns out that the Chinese aircraft is somehow at fault...in International airspace...reparations are due the US. The flip side of that coin is also true.

However, I will tell you from personal experience that big ole slow US recon planes do not try to maneuver onto the wing of a fighter from the country they are currently tasked against. It's impossible to do first of all (unless he slows way down and let's you do it) and secondly it's stupid and dangerous.

OTOH, fighters from the country you are collecting data from ROUTINELY try to join on the wing of the Recon aircraft and take pictures for their Foreign Intel division.
The real potential for collision (in clear weather) lies here almost every time.

Not making any accusations, just stating a fact. We'll just have to see what turns out to be true.

<EDIT>:

I don't know what the EP-3 has now for NAV, but I'd bet a dollar to a dog turd and hold the stakes in my mouth that it has GPS.

Further, I'd wager that the GPS output is real-time recorded. It almost has to be in order to make use of some of the recon data collected. Therefore, if the crew has retained the tape (and I'll wager that is one of their priority duties) we will know EXACTLY where they were.

Additionally, the NSA has other ways of knowing where their assets are at all times. I don't know if Navy EP-3's work under NSA or not right now, though.

 

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-02-2001).]

[SOB]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
...I'd bet a dollar to a dog turd and hold the stakes in my mouth...

LOL!  I take it you're pretty sure then?  

[mrfish]

fair enough toad - finally a factual rebuttal not loaded with rhetoric. although recon and spying gonna make a fine line in the best of circumstances  

i doubt many (myself included) know much about the treaties governing mayday aircraft, and unfortunately i dont think they care toad -

i am glad to learn of it personally because it would provide a legal guideline for our crew's safe return, but i think there are still many who would simply say "they are 'muhrcans, give em back or we'll nuke ya cuz we are bigger" you know the media is busy drawing 'crisis in china' overlays and composing dramatic music to accompany their anchors and trying to drum up tension-sad thing is it will work.

i want to get a jump on all the flag and dick waving and appeal for some reason. as you say, we'll see what happens - hopefully a fair shake from both sides.

[Toad]

Daff,

What the BBC reported was Chinese State Television saying it was 6 miles.

"A ''Chinese aircraft was conducting normal flight operations 10km (6 miles) south of Hainan Island when a US plane suddenly veered towards it,'' Chinese state television quoted the Foreign Ministry as saying."

CNN is reporting this:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzo said two Chinese military planes were following the U.S. plane to monitor it.

The Chinese planes "were flying normally" about 60 miles (100 kilometers) southeast of the Chinese island of Hainan when "the U.S. plane suddenly turned toward the Chinese plane," he said, in a statement. "The head and the left wing of the U.S. plane bumped into one of the Chinese planes, causing it to crash."

So who do you want to believe? Their State Television quoting the Foreign Ministry Spokesman or CNN quoting their Foreign Ministry Spokesman? 10 or 100 kilometers? Who dropped or added a zero? I'm sure we'll hear more on this though.  

The USN is saying 80 miles.

The EP-3 crew would have had to have been totally up and locked to get within 6 miles of Hainan. It's a huge radar target in ground mapping mode (been there, flown the track).
 
SOB:

That bet would be won before I even picked up the DT.  

Mr. Fish:

Don't want to seem like I'm picking on or nit-picking you, but this is an area I am very familiar with (and am a bit sensitive about).  

This statement is simply NOT correct:

"although recon and spying gonna make a fine line in the best of circumstances "

The line is clear and distinct.

If an aircraft is in International Airspace, it is NOT spying. With today's navigation and downlink capabilities, there's no problem verifying this data, either. It will depend on if the Navy publicly releases the data.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-02-2001).]

[Voss]

I am *really* surprised that we haven't heard any Chinese fighter pilot jokes! A collision with a fighter plane? Come on!

Now, how many of you blame the US crew?  

I'm with Toad. Something is getting left out.

------------------
Voss
13th TAS

<edit> typo </edit>

[This message has been edited by Voss (edited 04-02-2001).]

[mrfish]

sheesh toad that is nitpicking   i thought for sure you'd be more inclined to attack my broad treatment of crisis mongers

it sounds like air force academy: "military textbook definitions 101" wordsmithing.

that may be the technical distinction but really - if our plane is flying very near their territory in an attempt to obtain information that was not intended to be obtained then isn't it spying? i dont think prettying up the word changes things

- but perhaps you could define 'spying' so those who dont have the experience in this area can better understand (not meant to be sarcastic btw)- does it really just come down to whether or not you are over their territory? if so the disticntion seems hollow if the intent is the same -