Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mister Fork on July 09, 2003, 09:28:57 PM
-
The P-3 Orion is now sporting this sign off the rudder... :D (http://www.funnyjunk.com/pic/0404.jpg)
-
I remember when my friend's wife (Chinese) tried to explain to me how the P-3 caused that collision. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I remember when my friend's wife (Chinese) tried to explain to me how the P-3 caused that collision. :)
Somehow I dont think her angle was that the Chinese pilot was unskilled enough to avoid a lumbering prop plane? :)
-
Chines Airforce Game (http://download.com.com/3000-2099-6466416.html?tag=lst-0-1)
LOL. :D
-
Geez, that little bit of humor, the sign is only about 2 years old. Welcome to last year. :)
dago
-
that sign is a bad idea , now they will fly even closer trying to read the sign.
-
Originally posted by john9001
that sign is a bad idea , now they will fly even closer trying to read the sign.
LOL
-
The same year, several months later a Russian tanker crew got arrested in Canada for ramming a US fishing ship that was maybe 100 times smaller. They said Russians intentionally sunk it...
http://vn.vladnews.ru/Arch/2001/ISS271/News/News01.HTM
Depends on who is on "blue" side...
That Chinese pilot was a hero. I think he knew what is going to happen and rammed the enemy to make it leave Chinese airspace.
OTOH the US crew behaved like cowards. Landing a top-secret aircraft loaded with scrembling and recon equipment at the Chinese airbase - I can't understand that. They were military, weren't they?...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The same year, several months later a Russian tanker crew got arrested in Canada for ramming a US fishing ship that was maybe 100 times smaller. They said Russians intentionally sunk it...
http://vn.vladnews.ru/Arch/2001/ISS271/News/News01.HTM
How did you come up with this ridiculous analogy?
So your saying the much smaller and slower boat equates to an agile supersonic fighter?
Or the much larger and faster tanker equates to a lumbering surveillance plane?
-
Hey Roundeyes, sign no workie eeets in Engrish. :rolleyes:
-
Boroduh the U.S. plane was in International airspace at the time of the ramming Dipchit. Amazing that these Ruskies still believe the 'ol communist drivel....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
That Chinese pilot was a hero. I think he knew what is going to happen and rammed the enemy to make it leave Chinese airspace.
Maybe I've overestimated Russian technology, but I'm pretty sure those fighter jets come equipped with missiles and/or guns. Generally if you desire to destroy an enemy, it's preferable to just shoot him down instead of bravely sacrificing oneself at the cost of years of training and one aircraft.
Even you're not stupid enough to believe this one, Boroda. I'll chalk it up to a troll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
boroda, a couple of corrections-
1. I don't have a link to the us/china incident but if I remember correctly (And I'm fairly sure I do) the incident happened over international waters not Chinese air space. if it had been over Chinese airspace they would have used guns to bring the plane down.
2. I read the whole story in the link. And I basing this solely on the info you provided
nowhere does it say that anybody thought the ship was rammed intentionally. it says that the ship was suspected in a fatal collision, and excess crew members where removed from the ship so they would not interfere in the investigation, (or possibly destroy evidence or so the ship couldn't try to leave). No one was arrested until they tried to leave the country.
all these are perfectly reasonable actions when a vehicle is suspected in a fatal collision. Impounding a vehicle so it can be examined is standard in fatal accidents, even when the driver is not suspected to be at fault. securing evidence is reasonable and necessary for carrying out an investigation. and it's also reasonable to arrest someone for trying to leave the country while they are being investigated.
one more thing, it said the captain was being charged with manslaughter, so they apparently didn't think it was intentional. manslaughter is causing someone’s death through carelessness or neglect. murder is the charge when they think you did it on purpose.
-
Stop trolling Boroda.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Stop trolling Boroda.
Mietla using a photo from a family web site without permission is a federal crime. My family never gave you permission to use mom's photo in your postings. LAST warning before lawyers....
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Maybe I've overestimated Russian technology, but I'm pretty sure those fighter jets come equipped with missiles and/or guns.
The People's fearless pilot was much too brave for guns and missiles.
-Sik
-
Hey! Rod.....
Thats my picture in your avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cool!
-
I just thought it was ironic the pilot's name was Wong Wei (Wrong Way)
-
Originally posted by Sox62
How did you come up with this ridiculous analogy?
So your saying the much smaller and slower boat equates to an agile supersonic fighter?
Or the much larger and faster tanker equates to a lumbering surveillance plane?
Well, MiG-21 isn't an "agile" plane.
Smaller boat has an opportunity to turn/stop/accelerate, while a huge cargo ship is like a train...
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Boroduh the U.S. plane was in International airspace at the time of the ramming Dipchit. Amazing that these Ruskies still believe the 'ol communist drivel....:rolleyes:
I just try to find some explainations according to traditional understanding of "duty".
Do you really think anyone will admit that US plane invaded Chinese airspace?...
Why do you Westerners always mention "communism" as if it means anything now in Russia?...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Why do you Westerners always mention "communism" as if it means anything now in Russia?...
Largely because of raving lunatics like you...
-
"Well, MiG-21 isn't an "agile" plane. "
Especially when its flying at high AOA with flaps down at near minimum flying speed as it tries fly only feet from of slow bellybutton P3 Orion prop plane.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Maybe I've overestimated Russian technology, but I'm pretty sure those fighter jets come equipped with missiles and/or guns. Generally if you desire to destroy an enemy, it's preferable to just shoot him down instead of bravely sacrificing oneself at the cost of years of training and one aircraft.
Even you're not stupid enough to believe this one, Boroda. I'll chalk it up to a troll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Hmm... I don't know, but it's possible that Chinese pliot had orders not to use his weapons against Orion. I hope you understand that there is some difference between shooting the recon plane and ramming it. In some cases "accident" is a more "safe" explaination then trying to persuade "international community" that they had (or thought they had) the right to shoot the enemy....
In USSR sometimes interceptor pilots got the orders to "push the invader out of Soviet airspace", without permission to use weapons. AFAIK such things happened with Soviet Tu-95s too, when NATO fighters collided with them trying to make them leave the area around CV groups.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
boroda, a couple of corrections-
1. I don't have a link to the us/china incident but if I remember correctly (And I'm fairly sure I do) the incident happened over international waters not Chinese air space. if it had been over Chinese airspace they would have used guns to bring the plane down.
2. I read the whole story in the link. And I basing this solely on the info you provided
nowhere does it say that anybody thought the ship was rammed intentionally. it says that the ship was suspected in a fatal collision, and excess crew members where removed from the ship so they would not interfere in the investigation, (or possibly destroy evidence or so the ship couldn't try to leave). No one was arrested until they tried to leave the country.
all these are perfectly reasonable actions when a vehicle is suspected in a fatal collision. Impounding a vehicle so it can be examined is standard in fatal accidents, even when the driver is not suspected to be at fault. securing evidence is reasonable and necessary for carrying out an investigation. and it's also reasonable to arrest someone for trying to leave the country while they are being investigated.
one more thing, it said the captain was being charged with manslaughter, so they apparently didn't think it was intentional. manslaughter is causing someone’s death through carelessness or neglect. murder is the charge when they think you did it on purpose.
Well, maybe it's another example of media bias towards certain nations or even simple lingual misunderstanding.
Here on TV noone said that the crew was arrested (?) to secure evidence. It was given just as if Canadians had to arrest Russian crew because "yankees" wanted their blood for something they didn't do :(
"Manslaughter" for me sounds like _intentional_ act, this word just sounds like that :( I don't know English good enough to understand such things :( Maybe Russian press suffered from the same lack of understanding...
As for the accident with Orion - I just want to understand why did American crew surrender to the "possible enemy", and brought the plane to Chinese airfield. Soviet crew should have tried to land on water or leave the plane, without even thinking about landing at hostile airfield. And if they did so - they should have been arrested for treason immediately after they returned home.
Life of millions of people depends on their behaviour under such circumstances.
I just try to point at the differences of understanding the concept of "duty".
Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Even you're not stupid enough to believe this one, Boroda. I'll chalk it up to a troll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Yes he is.
SOB
-
Boroda: OTOH the US crew behaved like cowards.
They did cause their country considerable embarrasment, having to negotiate for their release, etc. On the other hand ditching the plane in the ocean would have put the crew's lives in considerable danger, let alone lost a valuable craft.
That a commander decided not to risk his people for diplomatic considerations (probably at the cost to his career) shows that he was not brainwashed.
Landing a top-secret aircraft loaded with scrambling and recon equipment at the Chinese airbase - I can't understand that.
How do you know they did not throw out the sensitive equipment over the 40 minute flight? As far as I know, such equiplent is designed to be removed, destroyed and thrown overboard in seconds.
They were military, weren't they?...
It does not mean the same here as in the Soviet Union. People are not expected to sacrifice themselves and their subordinates just to save a superior's face.
Smaller boat has an opportunity to turn/stop/accelerate, while a huge cargo ship is like a train...
I looked at that and some other articles about the incident and they provide no basis for that opinion, so please give us a references. Otherwise I wil have to assume it's just a crap of your personal invention - and pretty dumb at that.
How do you know that a boat was moving? Could it be it was standing still, as fishing boats often do - likely attached to a whole bunch of nets overboard? In which case it could have taken it considerable time to start moving, even if it chose to cut the nets - and it is the responcibility of a ship in motion to avoid collision with a stationary object in its path anyway.
What if the "smaller boat" was moving - it was a trawler. It was likely pulling a few miles of nets behind it. Do you have any idea how "easy" it is to "turn/stop/accelerate" with a few miles of nets? I am totally ignorant on the topic but I would bet you dollars to doughnuts on common sense alone that marine laws must provide a right of way for a fishing ship pulling nets/lines in case of impending collision.
funkedup: I remember when my friend's wife (Chinese) tried to explain to me how the P-3 caused that collision.
Not saying that P-3 caused the collision - most likely not. But given the risky and predictable behavior of the chinese pilot and technical aspects of the case, it certainly could - if they wanted to.
I surely would be sorely tempted to, if I were the american pilot - thinking "This bastard keeps flying at very low relative speed few feet underneath my wing - and he is barely controllable at such low speed/high angle. Let me suddenly drop my wing by a few degrees and give him a tap..."
People are known to occasionally give a sharp tap to the brake pedal whenever somebody is tailgating them at high speed. It may not be wise but considerations are the same - "my damage is likely to be minimal and certain to teach the bastard a lesson".
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Why do you Westerners always mention "communism" as if it means anything now in Russia?...
Well you are parroting the words of the communist Chinese government, and the words of Pravda, so I say if the shoe fits...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hmm... I don't know, but it's possible that Chinese pliot had orders not to use his weapons against Orion. I hope you understand that there is some difference between shooting the recon plane and ramming it. In some cases "accident" is a more "safe" explaination then trying to persuade "international community" that they had (or thought they had) the right to shoot the enemy....
In USSR sometimes interceptor pilots got the orders to "push the invader out of Soviet airspace", without permission to use weapons. AFAIK such things happened with Soviet Tu-95s too, when NATO fighters collided with them trying to make them leave the area around CV groups.
Does anyone else see the irony in our Russian friend's post?
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Does anyone else see the irony in our Russian friend's post?
While russian pilots just bravely used missles on airliners??
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
While russian pilots just bravely used missles on airliners??
Yes, MT< you are, r .. ri, ruh,.............
RIGHT!
Dang!
-
I'm used to it.
:)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm used to it.
:)
Quote: The P-3 Orion is now sporting this sign off the rudder...
Hey, I can't see these dang pictures of this new sign. Were the deleted? What am I missing, besides the obvious?
-
(http://www.funnyjunk.com/pic/0404.jpg)
-
Here on TV noone said that the crew was arrested (?) to secure evidence. It was given just as if Canadians had to arrest Russian crew because "yankees" wanted their blood for something they didn't do
seems like your news gave the story in a way to slant your way of thinking, possible misleading through innuendo while not stating any lies.
the post I read (suplied by you) said the crew was removed from the ship and then went and stayed at hotels.
Canadian police arrested the ship captain and two other crew members in the airport of St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada on Tuesday when the Russians attempted to fly home.
Carey Dearnley, a spokeswoman for Primorsk in Canada, said the three face criminal charges of manslaughter, misconduct and aiding and abetting, The Associated Press reported.
manslaughter would be the charge for causing another persons death through carelesnes or neglect, misconduct and aiding and abetting would be charges from activities like trying to leave the country during a criminal investigation, hiding or destroying evidence, or helping someone else do these things.
I do have to agree somewhat on the Orion thing. I don't want to second guess the decisions of the pilot. but I did find it strange that they decided to take this plane to china to land it. seems like with the equipment on board they'd have destroyed the equipment and ditched the plane
-
When I was a kid, went on a field trip to a NAS. There were several VP squadrons based there and got to go to the area where the pilots hang out and sat at every station aboard the P-3. Neat aircraft.
Oh yeah, and above the door into the entrance to the pilot quarters and areas, the sign read. "Through these doors walk the best something something pilots in the world". I thought they were kinda cocky for a VP squadron but thought it was funny as well.
:D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, MiG-21 isn't an "agile" plane.
Smaller boat has an opportunity to turn/stop/accelerate, while a huge cargo ship is like a train...
Are all Russians like this? I'm beginning to understand why their gov't failed, and their country is in ruins.
Baroda, pick up a copy of International Rules of the Road. Then come back and repost.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, MiG-21 isn't an "agile" plane.
Smaller boat has an opportunity to turn/stop/accelerate, while a huge cargo ship is like a train...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
while it is true that a basic rule is 'the larger ship has the right of way', this only applies if all other rules are being followed, and both ships are under power. this wouldn't apply if the smaller ship where at anchor. that’s why it's hard to draw a direct comparison between maritime and air rules. you can't really anchor a plane in the sky, you are always under power.
besides all of this the fact remains that this wasn't a traffic accident (as the shipping incident appears to be). the Mig was in the area for the direct purpose of harassing the plane the Mig could have left the area at any time, he would have had to intentionally put himself in danger, slowed to speeds that cut into his maneuverability, and basically there's no way this could be interpreted to be anything but the Migs fault.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
and basically there's no way this could be interpreted to be anything but the Migs fault.
Unless of course you are a diehard brainwashed communist like Boroda who will always see America as the evil capitalist pig enemy...
-
miko2d was right on a couple of points.
1. Anything sensitive was pitched/ejected overboard on the way down. And yes that type of equipment/documentation/etc. is made to be 'got rid of' very quickly.
2. I know alot of P-3 crewmen, Naval Aviators who were/are P-3 drivers, etc. The P-3 is a death trap when it comes to ditching on water. The most 'sucessful' 'wet ditching' of a P-3, in which 'only' roughly half of the crew ended up dying, was done by a P-3 driver that had ~15 years of previous experience flying amphibians for the USN. Putting it down on the water, especially when knowing that anything remotely sensitive was already falling towards the ocean, would have meant writing off the lives of no small % of that EP-3s crew.
3. On pilot quality and P-3s and EP-3s - by all accounts that EP-3 driver pulled at least a couple of 'Han Solo moments' out of his hat to even regain control of that EP-3, let alone land it. Also, there was (Is? I'm a little out of the current loop on this topic) 'equal dispersal of skill' when it comes to Naval Aviator flight assignments. The top 5% of the class can choose what they want to fly. The rest of the graduating class is assigned 'equally' to the USN Aviation community. In other words, the 4th best graduate gets assigned to tactical aircraft (F/A-18s and such), and the 5th best gets assigned to P-3s, and the 6th best goes to rotary wing, etc. And I know P-3 drivers that could have gone and flown jets, but didn't because they wanted to be shore based and have multi-engine command time to be more competitive for commercial airline hiring purposes. Just because a guy is flying a P-3 does not mean he isn't a damn good Aviator. And the EP-3 squadrons (VQs) are very selective when it comes to Aviators, both in terms of skill and experience. I know more than one P-3 driver who had a good reputation and tried to get assigned to a VQ, was turned down, and got out of the USN to flying commercial. If you are flying for a VQ odds are you know your stuff.
And as much as I disagree with almost everything Boroda says, the KAL was a communications screwup on a number of levels - not some Soviet Air Force general saying "The Yankees are hiding their ELINT missions behind hundreds of civilians serving as human shields - shoot it down". It was a dumb accident. It was an accident when the (my) USN shot down an Iranian airliner as well. Remember the story about glass houses and chucking rocks? :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Does anyone know what became of that P-3 airframe? Was it broken up permanantly or is it being restored to flying status?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, MiG-21 isn't an "agile" plane.
Smaller boat has an opportunity to turn/stop/accelerate, while a huge cargo ship is like a train...
I have owned boats all of my life,and quite frankly,you are full of it.
You tell me how a boat that has HALF the top speed at best can get out of the way of a huge boat travelling at over twice it's speed,with little warning.
Stop?Ok,get nailed at rest.Turn?Ok get nailed turning.Accelerate?Ok get run down by a boat travelling at a speed much greater than your boat could ever hope to obtain.
But you know what?This is all irrelevant...because the fishing boat trawler ALWAYS has right of way over the much larger vessel.
This is from a boating safety website...these are general rules that any Navy or Coast Guard person can verify.
A power driven vessel underway must keep out of the way of the following:
A sailing vessel, under sail only, and vessels propelled by oars or paddles. (Note: when a sailboat has its motor running, it is considered a power driven vessel).
A vessel engaged in fishing, whose fishing equipment restricts its maneuverability. This does not include a sport fisher or party boat and generally means a commercial fishing vessel.
A vessel with restricted maneuverability such as a dredge or tow boat, a boat engaged in work that restricts it to a certain area, or a vessel transferring supplies to another vessel.
A vessel not under command – broken down.
I'm fairly sure that a trawler qualifies as a commercial fishing vessel.
-
anyone here remember the 1984 Kamchakta peninsula incident?
-
I saw an interview with that P-3 Pilot and he mentioned that he executed a manouver that hadn't been done by that plane before (not on purpose). Can't for the life of me remember what it was though. Barrel roll?
-
And as much as I disagree with almost everything Boroda says, the KAL was a communications screwup on a number of levels - not some Soviet Air Force general saying "The Yankees are hiding their ELINT missions behind hundreds of civilians serving as human shields - shoot it down". It was a dumb accident. It was an accident when the (my) USN shot down an Iranian airliner as well. Remember the story about glass houses and chucking rocks?
Except for the fact that the bloodthirsty fanatic communist murderer knew it was a civilan passenger airplane...
Heres what the bastard said:
"I was just next to him, on the same altitude, 150 meters to 200 meters away," he recalled in conversations with a reporter this weekend.
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. "I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."
****ing degenerate brinwashed robot idiopt who should have been shot...
-
"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. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."
As horrible as the outcome was, from a military standpoint he was correct.
He was the business end of a chain of command that had many links. And if he didn't execute those orders he was probably as good as dead when he landed. You could safely bet that any family he had would be imprisoned at worst, or ostracized at least as well - 'to make an example'.
I'm not defending him - but having not been raised in a communist society, and indoctrinated like this guy surely was - I'm not comfortable saying that I can gurantee I wouldn't have shot had I lived his life.
And it's far more than the 'cold act of a brainwashed evil man'.
The KAL flight was way off course - in a very sensitive part of the world.
Warning shots were fired by the interceptor and the KAL flight didn't respond.
Like it or not - communist military forces, by the nature of communist ideology, have a very rigid doctrine with great emphasis on chain of command. When the order is given, the actual button pushers are just that - button pushers and nothing else. This is probably part of the reason that the Soviet Union had more than one chain of command involved when it came to their strategic nuclear arsenal.
It was a tragedy, and it would never have happened off the coast of the U.S.A. But it wasn't as 'evil' in intent as the Western 'propoganda' of the time (I remember - I read the articles in Time, U.S. News & World Report, etc. - I was in school when it happened) made it out to be.
If you're an interceptor pilot, defending a very sensitive part of Soviet airspace, near the 'height' of the cold war (in terms of perceived threat)...you need to look at it from that perspective as well.
I lived during those times as a kid. My Dad had an emergency plan for nuclear war - and we lived in the middle of upper-middle-class suburbia at the time and my Dad is as far from a survivalist as you can get. Perceptions were way, way off back then in 'free information is our name' America - who knows what school kids raised in the Soviet Union believed?
Mike/wulfie
-
But it does show he was a mindless robot.
-
I'm curious Boroda, did you guys get the wild influx of Americans into Russia like the influx of Russians we got in America when the Soviet Union crumbled?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm curious Boroda, did you guys get the wild influx of Americans into Russia like the influx of Russians we got in America when the Soviet Union crumbled?
Of course they did! The poor guys literally had to build walls around the communist countries to keep the capitalist pig refugee scum hordes out...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm curious Boroda, did you guys get the wild influx of Americans into Russia ?
The Russian word for these people is "Tourist"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The Russian word for these people is "Tourist"
Here, we're calling 'em neighbors. My youngest son just became engaged to marry a girl that came from Russia to live in the US when she was 10, guess they're not all bad. ;)
-
But it does show he was a mindless robot.
it shows he was well trained and did his job. the responsability is on the shoulders of the man who gave the order not the pilot.
lets turn the tables a little bit. you are a U.S. fighter pilot. it's early morning september 11th, 2001. you get a call to engage a civilian comercial airliner. you are told to fire on it. should you be the 'mindless drone' who does what he's told, or do you decide to think for yourself and refuse, maybe discuse it for awhile, have your superiors prove to you why it needs done before you fire. even if they eventually convince you to do your job, your hesitation may have allowed the plane to get over the city so even if you do finally do your job it's too late.
I come from a military family (dad did 22 years), and even though I didn't choose that path (18 years of 'basic training' was enough for me) I understand enough about chain of comand to know that at some point you have to trust your comanders to give you lawful orders and they trust you to follow them.
if this guy was ordered to shoot it's what he should have done. I don't know of any military that issues orders then lets the men vote to follow them or not.
-
BTW, what plane did they (Soviets) use to bring down the KAL 007?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
boroda, a couple of corrections-
1. I don't have a link to the us/china incident but if I remember correctly (And I'm fairly sure I do) the incident happened over international waters not Chinese air space. if it had been over Chinese airspace they would have used guns to bring the plane down.
2. I read the whole story in the link. And I basing this solely on the info you provided
nowhere does it say that anybody thought the ship was rammed intentionally. it says that the ship was suspected in a fatal collision, and excess crew members where removed from the ship so they would not interfere in the investigation, (or possibly destroy evidence or so the ship couldn't try to leave). No one was arrested until they tried to leave the country.
all these are perfectly reasonable actions when a vehicle is suspected in a fatal collision. Impounding a vehicle so it can be examined is standard in fatal accidents, even when the driver is not suspected to be at fault. securing evidence is reasonable and necessary for carrying out an investigation. and it's also reasonable to arrest someone for trying to leave the country while they are being investigated.
one more thing, it said the captain was being charged with manslaughter, so they apparently didn't think it was intentional. manslaughter is causing someone’s death through carelessness or neglect. murder is the charge when they think you did it on purpose.
exactly.
-
On the seas, the larger, less manoeverable/slower ships have right of way over any smaller craft.
I should think the same rules apply in the air Boroda; your analogy is in fact self-defeating.
-
Nobody told him to shoot it down - he was ordered to force the plane to land.
Another thing is the ground control guys had no idea it was a civil type plane. You see the murdering son a bich communist blooodthirsty sadist degenerate didnt think it was imporant to tell his superiours that he confirmid visally of it being a civil 747.
So he was a mindless robot who only wanted to kill the western capitalist devils of his propaganda songs.
FYI to this day he is a devoted communist.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hmm... I don't know, but it's possible that Chinese pliot had orders not to use his weapons against Orion. I hope you understand that there is some difference between shooting the recon plane and ramming it. In some cases "accident" is a more "safe" explaination then trying to persuade "international community" that they had (or thought they had) the right to shoot the enemy....
In USSR sometimes interceptor pilots got the orders to "push the invader out of Soviet airspace", without permission to use weapons. AFAIK such things happened with Soviet Tu-95s too, when NATO fighters collided with them trying to make them leave the area around CV groups.
Then OBVIOUSLY then this is the P3's fault for not moving their slow moving, less agile plane out of the way and not the government that uses airplanes as bumber cars.
Die a slow and painfull death you tard. May you get lepresy of the noodle. May maggots infest your bowels. May Rosanne O'Donnell sit upon your face.
If you defend this position then you are as stupid those who use it and deserve to be "pushed out of the human race airspace" in the same manner. Might I suggest a nice car ride over bridge rail, you trolling descendent of solid waste purge from apes.
Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
BTW, what plane did they (Soviets) use to bring down the KAL 007?
I am not 100% positive, but I do believe it was an Su-15 "Flagon"
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-15-DNST8908430_JPG.jpg)
-
Yea it was an Su15.. The evil passenger liner Boeing 747 rammed not one but two of its missles - right Boroda?
-
Wow baroda...not a day to be an evil country defender
not talking about all that innuendo that you and weazel pull out
just simply you suck
Skuzzy take note....personal attack, personal aaatttaaacccckkkk
borada suuucccckkkkssss
-
Is Su-15/22 equivalent of F-106? I think Both planes cant turn well in dogfights.
-
If you ever get a chance to watch the HBO movie "Tailspin" you should. It is the best explaination of what happened that I've ever seen.
And Grun... knowing that it's a 747 isn't the same as knowing that its full of people. Most of our support planes (the C-135s and E-3s) are based on the Boing 707 airframe. The P-3 is based on the lockheed l.188 Electra airframe. Most if not all modern airforces use civilian airframes in such a manner. A 747 packed to the gills with electronic collection and telemetry equiptment would be some scary ****.
It certainly should not have gone down the way it did, but in the end it was nothing more than a tragic accident. There are claims on both sides of intentional misconduct. That the plane was known to be full of passengers (and presumably the russians shot it down just to hear their screams) and the Russians counter with **** like the pilot was working for the US government to test Soviet response times, and to elicit priceless inteligence on Soviet interception techniques. Personally I don't believe any of it. We fly intel missions in the area all the time. They react to them, we give them the finger. It was the natural order of things at the time. It doesn't take much to go over the edge when you ride it for too long.
-Sik
-
There was nothing accidental about it - the guy knew it was a paasenger plane. He knew it was not electronic spy plane- he came very close and made a good visual inspection of it befor dropping back and firing his missles. It was tragic no doubt but no accident - it was simply the way a brainwashed mindless bllodthirsty sadist communist was programmed to behave. Ask yourself this, do you have any doubt that our own comrtade commissar Boroda would have done the same thing if he was the pilot os the Su15?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ask yourself this, do you have any doubt that our own comrtade commissar Boroda would have done the same thing if he was the pilot os the Su15?
And even worse, had it been me in an F-15 out of Elmendorf I imagine I would have done the same thing.
It looks like we're going to have to agree to dissagree.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
And even worse, had it been me in an F-15 out of Elmendorf I imagine I would have done the same thing.
It looks like we're going to have to agree to dissagree.
-Sik
With no specific order from your superiors to shoot the plane down?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
With no specific order from your superiors to shoot the plane down?
according to transcripts at http://www.rescue007.org/shootdown.htm he was given the order 5 times before he got the shot off.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
With no specific order from your superiors to shoot the plane down?
If you are a western pilot.... YES!
Trust me.
Well, it depends to the ROE, but anyway, in a scramble on a bandit, if he dont change course and comply with the orders, generaly the pilot have the automatic authorization to shoot.