Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: texace on April 04, 2001, 06:38:00 PM
-
China states they want an apology for the US aircraft intentionally hitting the Chinese fighter. How does a four-engined, large, heavy plane turn fast enough to catch a fighter off gaurd, and if so, why would the pilot do it if there's another fighter around. Both planes had to have seen each other, and unless the fighter had his wings in the EP-3's windshield, it wouldn't happen. Methinks that the Chinese pilot screwed up, hit the plane, then the wingman said the Americans did it.
What do you think?
------------------
semperfi
(http://www.usmc.mil/templateml.nsf/marinesega.jpg)
Everything dead in 30 minutes or less or the next one's free.
-Marines
[This message has been edited by texace (edited 04-04-2001).]
-
I say that's what happens when you get used to icons.
-
They must have AH collision model in real life.
Simply fly infront of a bomber close enough that you miss him but on his FE he flew into you. Quite funny actually.
-
its a bunch of b.s. they dident want us to find somthin, what im wonderin is how do you lose #1, #3 engien, whole nose cone and flaps, thats odd. and did the fighter crash land, what wast the damage on its part? anyone know?
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
-
if that EP-3 rammed that jet...then im calling my insurance agent..that house ran into my car..its the house's fault.
China once again bolsters the worlds assurance that it is completly full of toejam.
-
The only problem with ramming one of those chinese fighters is that an hour later you already want to ram another one.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Wab
-
Good one Wab!
Apparently that particular Chinese pilot had been reported over the last few weeks as doing a lot of "hotdogging" U.S. planes while he was doing his "shadowing."
Mk
-
I don't know the immediate damage suffered Jato, but he crashed into the sea and died.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
I don't know the immediate damage suffered Jato, but he crashed into the sea and died.
are you serious?
-
Yep, we offered help in the search for the wreckage but it was declined.
-
From USATODAY.com
"In a sign of potential political fallout from the plane crash, a Republican lawmaker who opposed granting China permanent normal trade relations last year introduced a bill that would revoke the status.
"A favored trading partner with our country would follow proper protocol and not continue to hold our servicemen and women, along with our equipment, after being asked for their return," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif"
DING! EXACTLY! Give the man a SEE-GAR!
Hope they're paying attention.
<EDIT> ...and this year's "WELL! DUH!" award goes to:
"The Pentagon delayed announcing a decision Wednesday on whether to buy Army berets from China as a standoff continued over a downed U.S. Navy surveillance plane and its crew."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-04-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
I don't know the immediate damage suffered Jato, but he crashed into the sea and died.
So the Chinese say. And we know the Chinese don't lie do they....
Sorry he could have been scooped up and is now in hiding as it was his fault and they all know it. I wouldn't believe it unless they come up with his corpse and a US military official has the opportunity to check his pulse.
The chink gov are so full of toejame on this one it smells all the way here
out of oriental patience
Eagler
-
Tells you one thing .. better ely on sattelites for spying... pretty hard to hit these..
Oh btw.. i'm not really a fan of the chinese government .. but say a Chinese military A/C is cirling a few miles off-shore of the US-Coast how long would he fly there without being "shadowed" with some US Jokeys "hotdogging" him
-
Duck,
US forces routinely intercept intelligence gathering aircraft from other nations in International Airspace.
It went on all the time during the "Cold War".
Other nations intercepted our intelligence gathering platforms. It's STANDARD for everyone.
I don't think you will be able to find very many ...if any.... instances where a US interceptor had a mid-air with an intelligence aircraft that caused either aircraft to crash or even resulted in an immediate emergency landing situation.
Further, I don't think you will be able to find very many ...if any... instances where the interceptors of other nations had a mid-air with a US intelligence aircraft that caused either aircraft to crash or even resulted in an immediate emergency landing situation.
There were instances in which the Soviet Union attempted to shoot down, sometimes successfully, US intelligence aircraft.
The major difference is that in the Cold War days, while we flew in the same areas and probably on some of the same tracks, the US never let Chinese or North Korean aircraft intercept. The intelligence aircraft just left before they could get close.<edit. I do recall that the North Koreans downed an EP-3 though.
I bet we'll be going back to that policy.
Yes, the US intercepts. I don't recall any serious mid-airs, however.
The responsibility for avoiding a collision lies with the interceptor. China is responsible here.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
I recall seeing on CNN that during the cold war a russian survaillence aircraft was running low on fuel and landed in alaska. The US troops there refueled the plane and et it go back up.
Narsus
-
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.
-
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
-
Yes, the Chinese are definitely guilty of provocation. I agree.
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
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 (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 (http://www.gsansom.demon.co.uk/vfaero/lists/shoots.htm)
Also:
http://asa.npoint.net/splanenew.htm (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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) 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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) I can always count on you for a good laugh.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerrkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by Raubvogel (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (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
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ah, thanks. I think I understand you a bit more clearly now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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 (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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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).]
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
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 (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/02/15022001112819.asp)
Practice Attacks on US Carriers (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15625)
Practice Attacks Against US with Strategic Nuclear Bombers (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15671)
-
(http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/puke.gif)
Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (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).]
-
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... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
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
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, I am a regiment party leader (commissar, political officer), but it means "party", not "Party" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ahhh...every discussion I've had with you suddenly makes much more sense now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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.
-
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).]
-
Lynx,
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.
Big mistake. The US immediately apologized and paid major reparations.
Now right off the top of my head I can think of two KAL airliners, one a 707 and the other a 747 that were visually ID'd by Soviet fighters and then shot down.
The Soviet Union, IIRC, never apologized to anyone when they did those. I'm pretty sure they didn't pay any reparations, either. Unless it was years and years later under Yeltsin.
Seems a pretty big difference to me.
But you are right. The US did accidentally shoot down that Iran air.
So, I'll amend my statement to say "We also don't intentionally shoot down CIVILIAN AIRLINERS in our own airspace OR in International Airspace.
Bowser, this has been thrashed a few times, but it is TOTALLY the responsibility of the interecepting aircraft to "maintain separation". Further, in all of aviation, the slower less maneuvrable craft has the right of way. It's the fault of the Chinese pilot. Period.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
Bowser..if you are flying SO close to GIANT plane like that and following SOO close that all it has to do is turn a bit to "hit you" its YOUR fault.
-
The Americans threw money at the problem so I guess it was OK for them to kill Civilians "by accident"
Boroda Its good to have you around to help see things from 'the other side'
Just goes to show the truth lies somewhere in the middle. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
IMO it comes down to Recon crews and interceping planes playng a dangerous game. Either forcing the recon plane to turn away or turn into the countries airspace so it can be forced/shot? down.
China looks like it plays this game a bit rougher than other countries. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Maybe the US pilot got a bit frustrated and decided to put a little scare into the Chinese pilot resulting in this current situation?
Naww, couldnt happen, All American pilots are perfect.
-
Yeah, Chisel...
Much, much better to INTENTIONALLY shoot down civilians, don't apologize, don't pay the families of the murdered passengers and then tell the rest of the world to "piss off". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Wonder why the US didn't think of THAT, eh?
Here's to the civilians INTENTIONALLY shot at or shot down by paranoid governments.
29 April 1952 A DC-4 of Air France was shot at by two MiG-15s when approaching Berlin. The aircraft was damaged and three passengers wounded.
23 July 1954 A Cathay Pacific DC-4 was shot down by Chinese La-9 fighters near Hainan. 10 people on board were killed and 8 survived.
27 July 1955 A Lockheed Constellation of El Al was shot down by Bulgarian aircraft. All 40 on board were killed.
30 June 1968 A DC-8 flying near the Kurile islands was forced to land by Soviet fighters. It was carrying a load of US troops to Vietnam.
20 April 1978 A Korean Air Lines Boeing 707 flew over Murmansk while on a Anchorage-Paris flight. It was fired on by Soviet PVO Su-15 interceptors and crash-landed on a frozen lake.
6 September 1983 A Korean Air Lines Boeing 747, was shot down over Sakhalin by a Soviet PVO Su-15. All 269 on board were killed.
24 February 1996 Two (civilian) US-registered Cessna 337 twin-engined aircraft, operated by Cuban exiles, were shot down by Cuban MiG-29s over the Florida Straits.
Of course, this list does NOT include armed and unarmed intelligence gathering aircraft OPERATING IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE at the time they were shot at or shot down.
I'd guess that would be another 20-30 incidents.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
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.
no, only an idiot would run into a plane 3 or 4 times biger than it !
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
-
I just heard on CNN they mentioned the pilots name had been released. Wong Wei (spelling?). Of course pronounced with the sterotyped accent sounds suspicously like "Wrong Way". I'm sure there'll be a few joke around that one.
Fuggit. Maneuver kill.
But a kills a kill (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Wab
-
I guess in historic Chinese script his name means;
"hummingbird that slamdances with crow"
-
in aces high terms, hot rod goonie bird kills uberr chog, or no its N1K2, H/O dweeb (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-05-2001).]
-
Well, my commissar position in 25th IAP means that I am responsible for parties, boothing etc (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Chisel, what I post here usually isn't what I really think (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) As you noticed - speaking about political issues I try to provide an opinion based on Soviet way of thinking, and public opinion here in Russia.
Again: I don't know who's to blame for this accident. I don't know why Chineese do not release the crew, it looks stupid and has some unknown purpose. I don't know why the crew surrendered to supposed enemy with an AC full of secrets.
Something is going on that we don't understand. Big Brothers will not let us know all the circumstances until we'll face something ugly.
Toad, col. Osipovich was unable to visualy identify the KAL-007. I still remember his interview on Soviet TV in 1983. It was the first time I understood what a man can feel after he just killed 250 people... Later he said he was so stunned that he had to drink a full glass of vodka before talking to the camera.
The whole story is still a mystery. Some people think Osipovich shot down an RC-135, there were many other versions, and I am 100% sure that we'll never know the truth. Exactly like with the EP-3 accident.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
http://users.rcn.com/lana.interport/link/colonel.html (http://users.rcn.com/lana.interport/link/colonel.html)
Colonel Osipovich knew exactly what he intercepted. And he coldly shot it down just seconds before it would have exited USSR airspace and safely continued its journey. I don't blame him. It was his duty. Fault lies with the crew of the 747.
-
I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing," he said. "I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing.....Minutes later, he fired two air-to-air missiles, sending Korean Air Lines Flight 007 crashing into the sea, killing 269 people
What a dick plug.
-
***
I guess in historic Chinese script his name means;
"hummingbird that slamdances with crow"
***
OMG LOL Wobble.
Heres one for you.
Restrictions, and face, dont allow the US to trade technology of that nature through to the Chinese *vice versa*. The Chinese need something. They didnt have it. The US did... there was no fighter, the plane just landed... the Chinese have delivery.
Bet they kiss and make up without so much as a 'Fwuck Woo Too'.
I cant believe people are so naive... who is it above said 'on the news they said.....' HOLY HELL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)))
We will never know. Just as we'll never know exactly why the Russians and Americans have each opened up on a passenger jet.
Accidents rarely happen in political circles - if they do heads roll BIG TIME. They are however extremely handy excuses.
Dont ya think ?
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 ?
[This message has been edited by Argent (edited 04-06-2001).]
-
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?
-
I saw this on CNN this evening. Apparently this pilot Wong Wei was a known hot dog on these intecept flights. Actually the US filed a complaint to China in January regarding his plane's unusually close appraches to the US surveilance aircraft, even coming as close as 10 feet. There is supposedly film footage or still pictures shot by some EP-3 crew of Wei's F-8 doing something stupid or dangerous in one intercept, even of him holding up a sign in the cocpit with some e-mail adress. It seems this time he just went too far, kinda sucks he was prolly just having fun and now he lost his life. Plus this whole stupid international incident- just a stupid uneccesary mess.
And yes all my good (former?) commie eternally paranoid russian friends we all know CNN is of course the Official US State Department News Agency. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Golly-geen funked that russian pilot is sick diddly, after knowingly killing 270 innocent people, he complains that his bonus wasnt what he "expected". Man do I diddlying hate the god-damned retarded limited backward cold fearful primitve communist mindset. I diddlying hate them, they robbed half of Europe of a good 50 years progress and prosperity- and will prolly rob the former communist areas of the next 50 years- at least till all the communist perverted minds die off. Man I really hate that diddlying retarded system, Im so diddlying happy I live in US now.
And all you commie apologists diddly off!
-
Grun
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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
-
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.
-
China Quotes Lost Pilot's Partner As Blaming U.S.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010406/ts/china_pilot_dc_1.html (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
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 04-06-2001).]
-
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).]
-
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".
-
Originally posted by Argent:
...there was no fighter, the plane just landed... the Chinese have delivery.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Like US has forgot everything about over paranoid commie chase within their country..
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/ (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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
No.
Just thought since I remember hearing something like that..
-
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/ (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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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!
-
<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).]
-
lynx
I was born in and used to live in communist country. One can only gain such a passionate hatred of communism by living in it and then living somewhere with a legitimate socioecnomic system.
So please understand where I am coming from with my very strong views on the diddlying evil retarded backwards dishonset primitive fearful ignorant communism.
-
Grunherz
My apologies, I thought you were a Wobble (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). I'm not particularly fond of them either. I also can see the difference between them and "normal" people who just happen to live in the same country and not know any different. They read newspapers and get what information is available to them and this information is far from unbiased. Mind you, it isn't particularly unbiased here either - Toad's NSA report on KGB infestation in the American gov't - oh boy those guys made careers out of that thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)...
Anyhow - I hope they'll let them go home soon, nice weekend everyone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else out there think that everything they hear through the public (or state-run, depending on which country you are in) media is completely correct and states ALL of the facts? I have no doubt that there are some things being kept from the general public regarding this event. It seems that, from my point of view, that everything I have heard on the situation in China might not be the complete story. I hope that the US plane WAS in international airspace, and that it really was the fighter pilot's fault that this large cumbersome plane had to make an emergency landing in a hostile environment. I agree, the midair collision to me, in my AH terms, the way the Chinese are publicizing it, make it sound like the Gooney bird intentionally hit a Foo Fighter (Ok, a little WB term thrown in) and still managed to land...
I think that my primary concern is that people these days tend to believe anything they see on TV, hear on radio, read on the internet, etc.. Do we honestly think we have the complete story? I personally don't mind not having every detail, I would rather the US maintained secrets for matters of national security. I don't want to know what was on that recon plane, only becuase I would feel a bit insecure if I felt like everything that happened out there was immedialtely, and reliably reported through the media.
I can only hope, though, that civilians can manage to not take international events such as this personally, and understand that even "the bad guy" has orders... Get angry with other governments for their injustices, yes. Angry at the other pilot, well, I just have to try not to.
-
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.)
No Toad, all I was saying was that he might not have known a 747 at all - they didn't fly in Russia, plane recognition things as far as I know cover military airsraft. BTW, I'm sure he wasn't privy to the information about RC being the only Boeing military plane in the area - I don't think you guys advertised it back then. And even if he knew 747 - what was different? Passenger airliners were not supposed to be in the area as it was closed for all non-militrary air traffic. He saw a big civilian looking plane which didn't respond to warnings, flew into restricted airspace and was spying left right and center for all he cared. He was sent to intercept it which he did.
Under no circumstances I condone killing of 270 people - but in this case he tried force the plane to land - it ignored all signals, including warning shots. In case of Iran Air - you guys saw a dot on radar (which moved along an approved flight path!!!) and you shot it down. There was no questions asked or effort made to establish what was happening. It was shot down "just in case". You may think different but reparations paid to families do not give you the right to moralise - please get off the high horse.
(BTW, in Russian "civilian" plane does not necessarily mean "passenger" plane - nuances lost in translation)
-
I happened to catch the entire news broadcast from China this morning. If you get NewsWorld International they do a real time translation and broadcast of news shows from around the world.
Welp, I've moved from middle of the road to the right on this one. They are really trying to use this to show how much better Taiwan would be with them rather than the US.
30 minutes on nothing really, other than the US is evil and their plane rammed us. Understandably, they didn't spend much time on how that happened, but quickly moved on to how that threatens a "unified china" and "territorial integrity."
We've no business helping them with it.
-
lynx
The russian pilot clearly said in the interview that he:
1. Recognized it as a civilian type by light pattern.
2. And as a Boeing due to its twin row of windows, reffering to 747s top cabin area.
3. He also said that he came as close to 250 meters alongside the plane, before dropping back and firing.
These are the pilots own words, surely this removes all doubt whether he knew it was a civilian aircraft- the man knew.
-
Lynx
Radio contact - None was attempted by Osipovich's own admission.
Visibility - Ever been on the flight deck of a 747? I recall that you can't see much in the rear hemisphere. A fighter at 300 yards abeam at night is not going to be visible unless you are looking for him.
Flying Clubs - I've read several other Soviet pilots of that era mention that paramilitary flying clubs were part of their flight training.
Vodka - I've worked with a few Russians and they do seem to like it. For the guy to have a drink with his guests seems not unlikely if he is like the guys I have met.
Again, I don't blame the guy for what he did. He was doing his job, and I think considering the system he was brought up under, it is understandable that he could have thought the civilian jetliner was part of some vast conspiracy.
But your attempts to discredit the interview are weak at best. Just admit it - you have decided (regardless of the facts) to believe that these things are not true.
-
"It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."
He apparently did think that it is (may be) civilian type plane that is used not for civilian purpose so far off routes.
All Ive read indicates that radio contact was impossible. He had to switch frequency and lose comms with his land crew.
Firing was not use also since there were only AP shells. No tracers.
After Belenko case to prevent such things in future all aircrafts had fuel just not enough to make it to Japan. At least it is what Ive read about it. So interceptors had very little time to decide. Fuel limit and KAL-007 approaching intl airspace.
-
You may think different but reparations paid to families do not give you the right to moralise - please get off the high horse.
[/QUOTE]
Lynx,
Your assumptions are just incredible.
The B-747 has the most recognziable shape of any civilian airliner. To imply that VPO pilots didn't study all types of aircraft when their primary job was intercepting aircraft along an extremely busy International Airway...
What was different even if he knew? What was different is that he INTENTIONALLY shot down a civilian airliner in a non-threatening, non-combat environment. There was no danger to himself, his flightmates, the Soviet Union or anyone else. The aircraft was almost OUT of their airspace at the time.
It was murder.
The Iran Air environment was completely different. It was essentially a "war zone". People on the USS Stark had already died. Earlier in the day, US warships came under attack from Iranian boats.
Further, there was no VISUAL ID. Had there been do you think there is the remotest chance the US would have engaged?
Absolutely not and you know it. Yet the Soviets visually ID'd and killed out of hand. Twice. Want to talk about the KAL 707 near Murmansk?
Beyond that do you want to talk about the dozens of times the Soviets attacked armed and unarmed intelligence gathering platforms operating in International Airspace?
I agree on this: The apology and the reparations absolutely DO NOT make up for the mistake. But at least they ARE an admission OF a mistake and an attempt to make up for that mistake.
In both cases, the KAL 707 and the 747, the Soviets made neither gesture.
No high horse. A simple statement of fact. We made a mistake... once... in a combat environment and immediately apologized and tried to make reparations.
The Soviets deliberately engaged after visual ID of civilian aircraft, not once, not twice but several times. In peacetime, no-threat environments they deliberately killed civilians and never apologized or tried to make reparations.
If you see that as a "similar" situation there's no point in discussing it any further.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-06-2001).]
-
The incident with the Stark was a cocktale of
A: wrong place at the wrong time.
B: Information overload.
They were in battle and after wehat had just happened earlier they were very nervous (as they should be) and they made a mistake.
They key word is MISTAKE
there was no mistake in the russian pilot shadowing what he knew was a NON HOSTILE CIVILIAN airliner and then just before it left his airspace shooting it down in cold blood...not to mention that it happened way more than once.
-
The B-747 has the most recognziable shape of any civilian airliner
Yes he probably knew that it is civilian plane (model). But page you referring to says "It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." So there is no point unless you can see people (passengers) through windows.
There was no danger to himself, his flightmates, the Soviet Union or anyone else. The aircraft was almost OUT of their airspace at the time.
So what ? Is SR71 or U-2 a danger ? Assuming plane carries some interesting pictures out to international airspace...
It was murder as was Iran Air. But he knew about it only few days later. My point is that most of these accidents were mistakes. If we have 1, 10, 200 civilians dead it is murder and tradegy. But there was no way to prevent it for interceptor pilot. In most situations like Cold War or Gulf military choose to shoot ever if something is not 100% clear. It is unfortunate choice but otherwise they dont do their job and may even die of it.
[This message has been edited by sshh (edited 04-06-2001).]
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Toad...... was rather an obvious X-File comment no ? why the rolling eyes lol
The more serious element was the last 2 lines. Your a patriot for sure, just like those Chinese saying the other side to your views. Your Russian rant for the 747 is peculiar, he did his job... he did what he was employed to do.
Orders is orders. What you doing there if you cant/wont carry them out.
-
I don't think they bought that argument at Nuremburg, Argent.
-
*Double post*
Sorry
[This message has been edited by Argent (edited 04-09-2001).]
-
Thats by the by... if you dont then you get *insert unhappy ending here*.
Simple Fact.
*shrug*
-
Well, Argent, I guess only the lucky men get to pick how they die.
Hung for murdering civilians or hung for not murdering civilians.
Choices, always choices.
-
Lets look at russias thinking here..
A: He knew it was a civilian model plane
B: it had its running lights on (how sneaky)
C: it was ALMOST out of their airspace..
So basically he fired because he thought there was a minute chance that this may be a spy plane....and to the russians knowing that there is a 95% chance that they are about to murder a bunch of people doesent offset their "risk"......says alot about how they see the value of Human life.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-08-2001).]
-
you guys are hashing out history when history is being made right in front of you..
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010408/ts/crash_china_dc_119.html (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010408/ts/crash_china_dc_119.html)
"Defense Minister Chi was quoted by the army newspaper as saying the incident showed China needed to beef up its military to defend against ``hegemonism,'' a code word for United States.
``We must turn our anger at hegemonism into tremendous motive force,'' Chi said during his visit to Ruan. "
Eagler
-
TheWobble
You forgot about how it was back THEN, background. What each side imagined about other. In USSR it was like US spys on us, sending spy planes (remember U2?), make quick runs in and out of our airspace so we have no time to catch, planning provocations... And we are defending. I hear same story from americans about how it was back at that time. So it was not "95% chance...". It easy could be "CIA trying to fool us sending all flashing big plane like it is civilian but we are not fools"...
Anyway I cant say exactly what has happened then, who knew what and what they were thinking. Was that plane deep in "hostile" airspace due to sleeping ground control or it was controlled from CIA (no, I dont think so). But could you please not use word "they" like you speaking about everyone who was living in USSR regarding human life or something. There are enough stupid and guilty guys at both sides. But you can not say so about everyone. Thank you.
[This message has been edited by sshh (edited 04-08-2001).]
-
Thanks GRUN , for voicing MY opinion on this matter , I agree 100%
One thing I'm not real clear on , I wasn't aware China was a real enemy . They have Many chinese civilians in our colleges and US. in theirs . we still have fairly good trade relations with them . To start something like this with the US is just to scary .
-
In USSR it was like US spys on us, sending spy planes (remember U2?), make quick runs in and out of our airspace so we have no time to catch, planning provocations... And we are defending. I hear same story from americans about how it was back at that time. So it was not "95% chance...". It easy could be "CIA trying to fool us sending all flashing big plane like it is civilian but we are not fools"...
A U-2 darting in and out of airspace at probably VERY high alt is alot different than a COMMERCIAL aircraft going very slow with its lights on at normal COMMERCIAL altitude with normal COMMERCIAL running lights on...is a bit differnet.
Besides..if were were going to spy..why in the hell use a 747 when we have the U-2 SR-71 and planes speciffically designed to do it..
And if they though that maby..by some chance..it could maby be possable...that maby..the at plane was some sort of COMMERCIAL jet flying at COMMERCIAL altitude WITH ITS RUNNING LIGHTS ON that is secretly a spy plane...thats pretty far fetched isnt it...some would say that such "evidence" wich is exactly what it isnt would warrent taking the risk of killing a bunch of innocent people... AND THEY DID IT TWICE.
given the amount of reason russia had to believe that was a spy plane for shooting it down is like.....
Walking down the street and seeing someone walking towards you..and shooting them in the face..because they COULD have been a criminal...of course russia did that to citizens anyway..so i guess maby to them that line of thinking does did make sense.
BTW im not bashing the CITIZENS of China or the USSR when i am ranting or whateve, im targeting the Elitest fruit loops that are responsable for this crazy toejam.
I had a friend on ICQ for 2 years named Peter Valosov (i think thats how he spelled it) who lived in Murmansk, he was a very nice and we always talked about political crap and it was always nice to have a CIVIL discussion with somebody who has an UNBIASED opinion, about crap we saw in the news and stuff...i havent heard from him since he got married and moved though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
anywho the point is that given the OVERWHELMING probibility that they were about to kill a bunch of innocent people should have far outweighed any benifit they would see from shooting it down if so happened it was a spy plane.....and you would think they would have learned that the first time.
-
Originally posted by Argent:
Thats by the by...... you get orders you carry them out or you goto *insert not nice ending here*
Simple fact.
*shrug*
Argent,
Every American soldier, all branches, gets instructed that it is their responsibility to report and not carry out illegal orders. It is the responsibility of every soldier to see that an illegal order does not get carried out. Had you gotten any military training you would have known that.
It has been upheld by military courts and federal courts that merely following orders is [b/]NOT A DEFENSE[/b] to committing an offense, especially in violating the Geneva Convention, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Mav
-
The KAL 747 shot down in 1983 was flight KE 007(cue theme music)... Coincidence?
-
Hmmm i read things here about right of way and such ...
Ok the A/C was in International Airspace, BUT it was within the 150NM extending ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone - as per ICAO regualtion)
Within the ADIZ any aircraft may be challanged and intercepted for identification and then escorted clear of said ADIZ.
Ok ICAO rules for interception:
The Intercepted A/C is to maintain heading and airspeed and follow the intercepting A/C if so instructed to leave the ADIZ or if within the other countries airspace might be instrukted to follow lead to land.
Don't think the P3 Driver followed the lead when he perfomred a sharp turn towards the interceptor, so he therfore violated international rules.
I know the Chinese craft might have bee too close but as quite a few people said this is an old COLD-War game, interception, breaking out, re-interception, etc etc etc .. but WE DON'T HAVE COLD WAR ANYMORE!
Some of the holier than thou US folks in here might want to think about that
DW6
(PLUUEEZZZ don't give me any we saved you in WW2 and we poliece the world so you can keep your freedom stuff now..)
[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 04-09-2001).]
-
Oh btw .. i thought the spy plane invlved in the Korean incident was a KC-135(R?) which indeed is pretty similar looking to a comercial jetliner.. especially at night.
(please shomw me someone who can destinguish Comrcial A/C by their running lights only at night... at several miles distance..)
-
People sure love to hate the US
-
oh man .. i don't HATE the US .. but not everything the US does is right either.
Neither is what other countries do .. but a lot of folks in the US (at least here on the BBs) seem to think that everything is just and right what has been done.
DW6
-
Mav,
So it should be... but i dont know, my sense tells me that he didnt just roll up beside that plane. eye it up and down then cold heartedly decide to blow it out of the sky, all off his own back. Dunno why, maybe i trust too much ?
It also tells me that the Chinese fighter pilot didnt decide to cause this incident and die.
Probably the most worrying thing i heard about 2 days after this... some US senator wanting it as an excuse to give Taiwan the 'arms it needs'... can anyone remember what happened when USSR parked weapons off your coast ?
-
Every country has its share of toejam..ALL OF THEM...it just seems to be alot of people's hobby to scoop the US's toejam out of the toilet, analize it to death and the boast opinions about it... its not that the US does any more wrong than any other country or less (accept china of course) its just that when the toejam happens it is published before it hits the toilet.
-
DUCKWING6,
Escorting (harassing) or not there is no excuse for taking a fighter so close to big plane like the P3 that if it moved the fighter wouldent have a chance to react and move...ya ever hear of "turbulence"...as close as the fighter was to not be able to react in time to move would also make it possable that it was also so close that if the p3 hit an airpocket and jumped a bit it could have coused the collision just as easy..but wait..it must have been american turbulence...
and what trumps ALL the arguments is that Wang Wei had SEVERAL complaints filed against him for doing this EXACT kind of shot..there were pictures, videos and all kinds of stuff, official letters about him and his antics and yet it continued
Imagine somebody let their retarded kid drive their car ...and several times the neighbors complained about the kids very reckless driving and the parents did nothing..then one day the kid was tailgating somebody and was about 3 feet behind them going 50 on the highway..they other car made a sudden stop and the retarded kid ran into them..who's faould would it be?
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-09-2001).]
-
Duckwing,
I don't have access to the ICAO regs, but I think you have missed something.
As support, here's three very detailed links.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Establishes that "territorial" waters and airspace (basically where the nation can do what it likes) is restricted to a 12 mile limit.
http://www.greenpeace.org/~intlaw/laws82-1.html#article_2_legal_status_of_the_terri (http://www.greenpeace.org/~intlaw/laws82-1.html#article_2_legal_status_of_the_terri)
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
Points out that Peacetime rules in some instances apply even during wartime (territorial waters, for instance) and legitimacy of some activities (reconnaissance) in both peacetime and wartime.
http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/8ec4e051a8621595c12564670032d7ef/99cc2a9ab44033a5412562d70053b8a6?OpenDocument#6 (http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/8ec4e051a8621595c12564670032d7ef/99cc2a9ab44033a5412562d70053b8a6?OpenDocument#6)
Although I don't have access to the ICAO, I do have access to the US Airman's Information Manual. They are essentially the same in regulation IIRC.
This talks aboutintercepting OUTSIDE territorial waters, that is, in an ADIZ.
http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html (http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html)
b. Intercept phases (See FIG 5-6-1).
1. Phase One- Approach Phase.
During peacetime, intercepted aircraft will be approached from the stern. Generally two interceptor aircraft will be employed to accomplish the identification. The flight leader and wingman will coordinate their individual positions in conjunction with the ground controlling agency. Their relationship will resemble a line abreast formation. At night or in IMC, a comfortable radar trail tactic will be used. Safe vertical separation between interceptor aircraft and unknown aircraft will be maintained at all times. NOTE: These are instructions to the INTERCEPTOR
2. Phase Two- Identification Phase.
The intercepted aircraft should expect to visually acquire the lead interceptor and possibly the wingman during this phase in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). The wingman will assume a surveillance position while the flight leader approaches the unknown aircraft. Intercepted aircraft personnel may observe the use of different drag devices to allow for speed and position stabilization during this phase. The flight leader will then initiate a gentle closure toward the intercepted aircraft, stopping at a distance no closer than absolutely necessary to obtain the information needed. The interceptor aircraft will use every possible precaution to avoid startling intercepted aircrew or passengers. Additionally, the interceptor aircrews will constantly keep in mind that maneuvers considered normal to a fighter aircraft may be considered hazardous to passengers and crews of nonfighter aircraft. When interceptor aircrews know or believe that an unsafe condition exists, the identification phase will be terminated. As previously stated, during darkness or IMC identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. Positive vertical separation will be maintained by interceptor aircraft throughout this phase.
3. Phase Three- Post Intercept Phase.
Upon identification phase completion, the flight leader will turn away from the intercepted aircraft. The wingman will remain well clear and accomplish a rejoin with the leader.
-
Here comes the Calvary .. no worries now mates!
(http://www.twc-tampa.com/mdisalle/jesse.jpg)
I think the plan is to trade JJ for the 24 crew members ... I wish.
Eagler
-
Probably the most worrying thing i heard about 2 days after this... some US senator wanting it as an excuse to give Taiwan the 'arms it needs'... can anyone remember what happened when USSR parked weapons off your coast ?
The nuclear missles? Not quite the same thing as missle defense cruisers.
-
JJ is just there because he knows that Wang's widow is single now.
-
Originally posted by paintmaw:
People sure love to hate the US
Does that mean the people can't critizise US at all but americans can critizise others?
-
The nuclear missles? Not quite the same thing as missle defense cruisers.
Tell me it wont agitate them...
Tell me why you decided to not do so thus far...
-
Hell Argent, a charter fishing boat will probably agitate them. Should we care if missle defense agitates them? No. The strongest opposition to the Aegis Cruisers is that it will now be harder to bomb Taiwan.
Too damn bad.
-
Forgot to answer the second part of the question. I hate to sound like the far right on this one, but I've had enough of China the last two weeks.
The reason nothing was given to them to now is because the Chinese gave more to the Clinton campaigns.
(Yes, that's in jest, but the outcome is no different. In fear of offending China, Taiwan was near cutoff, and that's catering to the wrong of the two. Since the 70s we've had a congressional resolution to protect Taiwan's independence, and given the last 10 days any congressman that votes against it isn't likely to get reelected.)
[This message has been edited by Fatty (edited 04-11-2001).]