How does an EP-3 ram a fighter?

[Eagler]

Grun

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel  

My little sister called me from Washington D.C. last night to tell me about several local news (both radio and tv) which are slamming Bush for not apologizing to the Chinese. After I explained it to her more clearly she understood their motivation which was nothing more than to slam Bush and whatever course of action he were to take.
Amazing propaganda in our own nation's Capital. Politics never end do they....

Eagler

[Fishu]

well, both sides has done this and that in the past..

worst mistake of them all is to forget the past mistakes.
Like US has forgot everything about over paranoid commie chase within their country..
Commies forgot to mention all those mass slaughtering of people..

too bad those EP-3 pilots didn't just sunk their plane in the ocean, instead of landing right into 'enemies' backyard... would been far less painful aftermath.
..and for gods sake, why did they land a hi-tech plane there? wouldn't it been more handy to crash it into ocean and floating down in the chutes?
at least this overly huge political crap would been non-existant or far less.
or doesn't military personel carry parachute in such a mission?

Then lets get back to chinese.. doesn't their pilots have any discipline?
I hardly think that this would of happend if some hotshot wouldn't been doing some show offs and kept safe distance to the EP-3.
At least chinese goverment way to claim that EP-3 rammed the fighter is outrageous.

[Eagler]

China Quotes Lost Pilot's Partner As Blaming U.S.
 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010406/ts/china_pilot_dc_1.html

Now it's all clear, what a crock of crap ...

No, he's going to take the blame and face a chinamen firing squad ... what else would they say/print.

I told Wang Wei 'your tail fin is smashed. Keep it straight. Keep it straight','' said Zhao Yu, one of two F-8 fighter pilots sent to intercept the U.S. EP-3 spy plane which was flying close to the southern Chinese coast.

What the frig was the hotshot pilot doing so close to the US plane that it's prop hit his fighter?
_____________________________ _________

The direct cause of the collision was that the American plane made a sudden big move toward the Chinese plane, making it impossible for the Chinese plane to get out of the way,'' Zhao was quoted as saying.

The savage act of American planes colliding with Chinese planes while conducting spying activities at China's door makes us indignant,'' he was quoted as saying.

Somebody please insert a bullet in this guys forehead...

Eagler

[Fishu]

Hats off for the skilled EP-3 pilot - he outmaneuvered a fighter jet, therefore managing tactically without armaments to 'shoot' him down with his propeller  

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 04-06-2001).]

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Again: I don't know who's to blame for this accident.

There is no doubt that International Aviation law grants the slow, less maneuverable aircraft right of way. Further, it also stipulates that the intercepting aircraft are solely responsible for maintaining safe separation.
 
Toad, col. Osipovich was unable to visualy identify the KAL-007.

Hogwash.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-06-2001).]

[Toad]

Originally posted by funked:
I don't blame him.  It was his duty.  Fault lies with the crew of the 747.

Yes, the 747 was in Soviet Airspace and the shootdown warnings are on the charts.

However, the guy that would pull the trigger on a visually ID'd, known passenger jet isn't much different than the guys at Nuremburg that "were only following orders".

[Toad]

Originally posted by Argent:
...there was no fighter, the plane just landed... the Chinese have delivery.

 (Image removed from quote.)

We will never know. Just as we'll never know exactly why the Russians and Americans have each opened up on a passenger jet.

Check the above list. The Russians have downed TWO visually ID'd KAL passenger jets.
Their "surrogates" added a few more.

and Toad...
***
Yes, I did forget about Iran Air. It was shot down by a Navy crew sitting in a dark CIC looking at dots on radar screens.
***

Your point being ?

The point is that is one thing to murder civilians in a passenger aircraft in cold blood after your fighter pilots VISUALLY ID the aircraft.

It's quite another thing to make the decision to shoot from radar data in what amounted to a "combat environment" in the Gulf. (The USS Stark hit by the Iraqi Exocets, the USS Elmer Montgomery and the USS Vincennes engaged by Islamic Guard boats.)

In short, there is a reasonable view that Iran Air 655 "resulted from the accidental misinterpretation of radar data, which, in turn, resulted from the crew's expectation of conflict with Iranian forces. This expectation reflected America's eteriorating relationship with Iran and an exchange of fire between the Vincennes and Iranian gunboats on the morning of the shoot-down."

If you can't see the difference in murdering civilians after your fighter pilots have visually ID'd the aircraft during peacetime and making a "shoot" decision based on dots on a radar screen in a combat environment, that would be your dilemma.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Fishu:
Wasn't there a case where US recon plane was shadowing itself by assistance of a passenger jet and then this passenger plane got shot down because of this?

No.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Fishu:
Like US has forgot everything about over paranoid commie chase within their country..
 http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/

Go to the NSA site and read the Venona papers. These KGB intercepts show that the Soviets had done an excellent job of infiltrating the US government at that time. You're not paranoid if someone IS out to get you.  (Image removed from quote.)


wouldn't it been more handy to crash it into ocean and floating down in the chutes?

No chutes on board, if the news report was correct. Removed to save weight, a major consideration on a long range intelligence gathering aircraft. Maybe not the best decision, in hindsight.

I'm sure the decision to land at Hainan is going to have some effects on the "career expectations" of a few people involved in this mission. From the desk bound mission supervisors possibly down to the flight crew.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
No.

Just thought since I remember hearing something like that..

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

Originally posted by Fishu:
Like US has forgot everything about over paranoid commie chase within their country..
 http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/

Go to the NSA site and read the Venona papers. These KGB intercepts show that the Soviets had done an excellent job of infiltrating the US government at that time. You're not paranoid if someone IS out to get you.   (Image removed from quote.)


wouldn't it been more handy to crash it into ocean and floating down in the chutes?

No chutes on board, if the news report was correct. Removed to save weight, a major consideration on a long range intelligence gathering aircraft. Maybe not the best decision, in hindsight.

I'm sure the decision to land at Hainan is going to have some effects on the "career expectations" of a few people involved in this mission. From the desk bound mission supervisors possibly down to the flight crew.[/B]

but there certainly were innocent people involved who lost their job and probably were even sentenced to jail in worst scenario.

[-lynx-]

Jeepers Toad - how easy it is to generalise  

the guy that would pull the trigger on a visually ID'd, known passenger jet isn't much different than the guys at Nuremburg that "were only following orders"

The guy might have never seen a Boeing in his life before that night. You're talking from a perspective of a guy who can identify prolly most planes currently flying - in 1983 skies over Russia weren't thick with Boeings you know... He shot down a plane he was sure was spying - there was no other reason for a foreign plane to be in a restricted airspace. And the interview - oh please, we'd like to read something we'd already made our minds about, don't we?

Why don't you look at Enola Gay's crew in the same light? Surely they knew about civilians down there? Nazi war criminals stood trial and were called criminals for exactly the same crimes - killing unarmed civilians... The difference would be that the nazis and Enola Gay crew knew they were killing civilians.

[GRUNHERZ]

lynx

To quote the primitive idiot amazinhunk article directly:


From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said.

"I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing," he said.

Sure seems that he knew it was a Boeing...

[Toad]

Lynx,

So your conjecture is that he couldn't tell a 747 from an RC-135 (707-720)? (BTW, the RC is the only Boeing intelligence platform that flew that area.)

The PVO guys in that area intercepted RC's all the time. They took pictures of aircraft they intercepted. I guess you accept the fact that PVO pilots just didn't do any aircraft recognition studies right?

RC's have NO windows in the back, except for the emergency exit hatches. Nor do the other intelligence gathering aircraft.

Not to mention the fact that the same Regime cold bloodely shot down the KAL 707 near Murmansk in the same exact way.

Enola Gay? What a reach! YGBSM!

[-lynx-]

<edited> It is Friday after all...
 

To quote the primitive idiot amazinhunk article directly

That's the whole point - you can't, you quote some other rather primitive amazinhunk who wrote it quoting him in English, putting in some crap in about flying club (???there was no flying clubs in Russia in 1983) a customary glass of vodka etc.

I'm not saying the guy appears particularly bright but he was sent to intercept a spy plane. No military markings, not responding to radio signals, ignoring warning shots and 2 fighters dancing around him. If I was piloting a civilian aircraft I would follow signals of any fighter that came across...

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 04-06-2001).]