Author Topic: How does an EP-3 ram a fighter? (Read 4208 times)

Fatty · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2001, 11:38:00 AM »

You lost me on that one Eagler. While I suppose it's possible they could have scooped him up, or even had a sub waiting at the "planned crash location", given the damage to our plane I'm going to believe he's dead until I see otherwise.

Boroda · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2001, 11:58:00 AM »

One word: provocation.

Sad that Chineese got hooked so easy, it can be a first step to a new global war.

Sorry, but the whole story is so stupid that I can't find any other reasonable expanation.

------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2001, 01:05:00 PM »

Yes, the Chinese are definitely guilty of provocation. I agree.

Boroda · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

Toad, if an American crew INTENTIONALY entered hostile airspace for an emergency landing on a recon mission, on an aircraft that is full of classified stuff and military secrets - then American military are extremely overestimated by other nations.

2 reasons to land in China: first is to increase tension in relations with China and force economical supression, second is to deliver some fake information to potential enemy.

I don't think that EP-3 crew contained only first-class idiots. So I have to admit that they were acting according to their orders.

And don't tell me fairy-tales about American Humanism: US sacrificed 250+ civilians for a recon mission in 1983, so 24 servicemen is definetly not a problem, especially when you can blame "bloody communists".

------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2001, 01:41:00 PM »

Well, in the good old days, they would have ditched at all costs, I agree. However, the news reports that they communicated with their HQ and it was approved. I don't understand it. Must be this new age of peace and brotherhood.

3rd Reason to Land in China: You are having a very difficult time maintaining flight and have chosen to go to the nearest airfield like the flight manual says to do in such a situation? While making the incredibly incorrect assumption that the Chinese would act like a civilized nation?

No, you are exactly right. I guess the "secret orders" were to hit the fighter and head for Hainan.

Clever of them to hit that fighter just exactly right to rip off the entire radome but not damage the cockpit and kill the pilots, eh? Got to hand it to those Navy guys. They know just how to do the perfect mid-air.

US sacrificed 250+ civilians for a recon mission in 1983, so 24 servicemen is definetly not a problem
[/QUOTE]

You want to tell us all the "TRUTH" about KAL 007 then? Go ahead. I'd LOVE to hear it.

The Soviet Union has always been so careful about shooting aircraft down, after all.
http://www.nsa.gov/display/c130/cold_war.html

"During the Cold War period of 1945-1977, a total of more than 40 reconnaissance aircraft were shot down. The secrecy of the reconnaissance programs prevented recognition of the slain military personnel at the time of the incidents."

Decent Overview? Try this one:
http://www.gsansom.demon.co.uk/vfaero/lists/shoots.htm

Also:
http://asa.npoint.net/splanenew.htm

The important thing to remember is that when the US flew 20 miles off a coast, it was PROVOCATION.

When <cough>ANY OTHER country flew 20 miles off a coast it was a validation of the "right to transit International Airspace".

Oh, yeah...one other important thing to remember. The US DIDN'T SHOOT DOWN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AIRCRAFT IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE AND HOLD THE CREWS AS PRISONERS <cough McCone & Olmstead, seven months in the Lubianka prison, undergoing regular interrogations, getting the sh*t beat out of them, and YES, I've talked with McCone personally cough>, unlike some other folks did.

We also don't <edit>INTENTIONALLY<end-edit> shoot down CIVILIAN AIRLINERS in our own airspace OR in International Airspace.

But that's just such a little detail, isn't it?

Have a nice day!

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]

Raubvogel · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2001, 01:54:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda:
Toad, if an American crew INTENTIONALY entered hostile airspace for an emergency landing on a recon mission, on an aircraft that is full of classified stuff and military secrets - then American military are extremely overestimated by other nations.

2 reasons to land in China: first is to increase tension in relations with China and force economical supression, second is to deliver some fake information to potential enemy.

I don't think that EP-3 crew contained only first-class idiots. So I have to admit that they were acting according to their orders.

And don't tell me fairy-tales about American Humanism: US sacrificed 250+ civilians for a recon mission in 1983, so 24 servicemen is definetly not a problem, especially when you can blame "bloody communists".

ROFL

It's truly sad to see some of the things you accept as truth. You must be the Party head in your area. Yes, the big bad Americans deliberately rammed a much faster plane so we could plant false information in China and increase tensions with the country we granted most favored nation status to just last year.

Oh yeah, and we also regularly use loaded 747's from OTHER countries to do reconnaisance

I can always count on you for a good laugh.

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[This message has been edited by Raubvogel (edited 04-05-2001).]

Boroda · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2001, 02:04:00 PM »

Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party"

I don't know what happened in the air, and we'll never know because Chineese pilot is dead, and yankees will blame him anyway, even if they shot him down deliberatly. But what I see is very strange and stupid. Tell me why the hell did American crew present the secret equipment to Chineese?

Bush wants to play toy soldiers, and American propaganda against China, Russia and some other countries is turning faster and faster.

Here is a good example:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/05/russia.delta.plane/index.html

I only wonder why we don't have an anti-american hysteria here in Russia. Looks like it's a proper time.

------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2001, 02:29:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party"

Ah, thanks. I think I understand you a bit more clearly now. (Image removed from quote.)

yankees will blame him anyway, even if they shot him down deliberatly.

AH HA! THAT'S IT! The Navy must have secretly installed a mini-gun behind the detachable radome! It all makes sense now! They dump the radome, shoot the fighter and then dump the gun! So clever!

Here is a good example:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/05/russia.delta.plane/index.html

Given the history of your country with respect to airliners in your airspace without proper clearance, I'd be scared sh*tless to hear that from a Soviet controller. (Image removed from quote.) I'd beat feet out of there as fast as it would go.

Easier to talk about it when safely on the ground in SFO than to have your surviving relatives asking the Soviets for another KAL 007 explanation, eh?

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]

funked · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2001, 03:17:00 PM »

Quote

US sacrificed 250+ civilians for a recon mission in 1983, so 24 servicemen is definetly not a problem

Pablo you are still under the sway of Soviet propaganda I see.

KAL 007 was no more a recon plane than Iran Air 655 was an anti-shipping attack airplane.

And the man who really likes playing toy soldiers lives in Moscow.

Chechnya

Practice Attacks on US Carriers

Practice Attacks Against US with Strategic Nuclear Bombers

Maverick · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2001, 03:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party"

I don't know what happened in the air, and we'll never know because Chineese pilot is dead, and yankees will blame him anyway, even if they shot him down deliberatly. But what I see is very strange and stupid. Tell me why the hell did American crew present the secret equipment to Chineese?

Bush wants to play toy soldiers, and American propaganda against China, Russia and some other countries is turning faster and faster.

Here is a good example:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/05/russia.delta.plane/index.html

I only wonder why we don't have an anti-american hysteria here in Russia. Looks like it's a proper time.

Any doubt that baroda hasn't a clue about the world or military equipment has definately been removed.

Mav

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 04-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 04-05-2001).]

-lynx- · « **Reply #25 on:** April 05, 2001, 03:47:00 PM »

Quote

We also don't shoot down CIVILIAN AIRLINERS in our own airspace OR in International Airspace.

I hate to do this but you are not whiter than white - Iran Air 655 rings any bells? Why does everyone seems to remember KAL flight shot down (rightly or wrongly) miles off course and inside Russian and restricted airspace to boot and "conveniently" forget that "minor incident" with no more survivors than a Korean plane?

Boroda - wtf are you talking about? A four engine turboprop is ramming a fighter jet on purpose??? Oh boy...

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 04-05-2001).]

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #26 on:** April 05, 2001, 04:27:00 PM »

I was thinking the same thing to a point Lynx...

But I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have shot the passenger liner down if we'd known it was a passenger liner.

The soviets did know... and shot anyways.

Therein lays the major difference in the situations.

AKDejaVu

Raubvogel · « **Reply #27 on:** April 05, 2001, 05:39:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party"

Ahhh...every discussion I've had with you suddenly makes much more sense now.

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

Fatty · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2001, 06:11:00 PM »

Landing in order to save the lives of the crew is simply a cover story to plant faulty intelligence contained aboard the airplane to the Chinese?

Yep, only The Party could come up with that one.

bowser · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2001, 07:07:00 PM »

This morning on CNN I heard the Chinese fighter was below the US plane, very tight, and the collision occurred when the US plane then banked.

While the Chinese pilot would have to share responsiblity because he was so close in the first place, you can see how a turn by the US plane while the Chinese fighter was very close, could have initiated the contact.

I'm not arguing whose fault it is, just trying to figure out how it could have happened.

bowser

[This message has been edited by bowser (edited 04-05-2001).]

Author Topic: How does an EP-3 ram a fighter? (Read 4208 times)

funked