How does an EP-3 ram a fighter?

[GRUNHERZ]

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.

[-lynx-]

Grunherz

My apologies, I thought you were a Wobble . 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 ...

Anyhow - I hope they'll let them go home soon, nice weekend everyone

[Greese]

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.

[-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.)

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)

[Fatty]

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.

[GRUNHERZ]

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.

[funked]

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.

[sshh]

"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.

[Toad]

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).]

[TheWobble]

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.

[sshh]

 

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).]

[Argent]

   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.

[Toad]

I don't think they bought that argument at Nuremburg, Argent.

[Argent]

*Double post*
Sorry

[This message has been edited by Argent (edited 04-09-2001).]

[Argent]

Thats by the by...  if you dont then you get *insert unhappy ending here*.

Simple Fact.

*shrug*