U.S. Navy EP-3 forced down by Chinese
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just in case anyone's interested - from the DCID Directive 1/21 Annex C, Part 2( SCI - Sensitive Compartmented Information) Although may not be wholly appropriate in this case ?
Airborne Operations:
If an aircraft landing in unfriendly territory is anticipated, all SCI material will be immediately destroyed, with the destruction process preferably taking place prior to landing.
8.3.1 When flights are planned over unfriendly territory, SCI to be carried on board will be selected by the intelligence mission personnel and consist of the absolute minimum required for mission accomplishment.
8.3.2 All personnel will rehearse emergency destruction before each mission. Such emergency preparation rehearsals will be made a matter of record.
More info - try link www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid1-21.htm#air
Public Domain - so no security issues.
TACCY
Airborne Operations:
If an aircraft landing in unfriendly territory is anticipated, all SCI material will be immediately destroyed, with the destruction process preferably taking place prior to landing.
8.3.1 When flights are planned over unfriendly territory, SCI to be carried on board will be selected by the intelligence mission personnel and consist of the absolute minimum required for mission accomplishment.
8.3.2 All personnel will rehearse emergency destruction before each mission. Such emergency preparation rehearsals will be made a matter of record.
More info - try link www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid1-21.htm#air
Public Domain - so no security issues.
TACCY
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've seen a close-up of that photo of the a/c on the ground at the base. The radome is missing of course, but the prop blades on No. 1 are all badly chewed up especially at the base of each blade. There are gashes under the left wing and CNN reports the same wing is minus flaps.
Feline, without flaps the speed would have been too high for ditching attempt but I'll defer on this to the pros.
From the looks of the aircraft the crew performed exceptionally. They're all based out of a NAS a hundred miles south of here. A lot of thoughts are with them.
[This message has been edited by Rollingthunder (edited 04 April 2001).]
Feline, without flaps the speed would have been too high for ditching attempt but I'll defer on this to the pros.
From the looks of the aircraft the crew performed exceptionally. They're all based out of a NAS a hundred miles south of here. A lot of thoughts are with them.
[This message has been edited by Rollingthunder (edited 04 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
ROC-
Some Americans are tough on America in the shadow of Big Business uber alles.
Clinton devastated the military, while paying no attention to major legal questions, etc.
In the FAA arena, the U.S is literally a disaster & getting worse. Yet you can't find anybody in the government who cares, except to increase revenue.
As to 'ditch - no-ditch;' I suspect the commander had damn good reasons for the decision. Among other things, I suspect he bought the time to destroy the most sensitive stuff.
We should wait for more detail on that question.
Some Americans are tough on America in the shadow of Big Business uber alles.
Clinton devastated the military, while paying no attention to major legal questions, etc.
In the FAA arena, the U.S is literally a disaster & getting worse. Yet you can't find anybody in the government who cares, except to increase revenue.
As to 'ditch - no-ditch;' I suspect the commander had damn good reasons for the decision. Among other things, I suspect he bought the time to destroy the most sensitive stuff.
We should wait for more detail on that question.
Guest
Posts: n/a
While China is still a communist state its government appears to have no immediate ambitions for geographical expansion. This is unlike the Cold War period where the former USSR government needed such expansion for further economic resources in order to survive. The Chinese government started to realise in the early eightys that its brand of communism (Leninism tempered with Confucanism rather than "North Korea" type pure Marxism) would do better instead under a more open capitalistic market and at the same time could still retain iron-fisted control. Therefore the threat of a Chinese military expansion is quite low. However its in the nature of governments to survey those borders of countrys whos economic system is different from theirs. Thus a spy run on the Chinese navy's latest equipment is fully expected by both sides. The Chinese government knows it and the American government knows they know it. All this Chinese government posturing on this incident is completely normal and expected. What else do you expect them to say? All that would be needed is an apology from the US government and the incident would be immediately buried. But that would require some knowledge of Chinese culture on the Bush administrations part.
As far as Taiwan arms sales is concerned, its obvious to everyone (except politicians and arms manufacturers of course) that China wishes to avoid its own possible "Cuban missile crisis" in the future.
As far as Taiwan arms sales is concerned, its obvious to everyone (except politicians and arms manufacturers of course) that China wishes to avoid its own possible "Cuban missile crisis" in the future.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wino, you raise some interesting points.
You say: "While they don't have the "right" to rip the aircraft apart. They will. It is how enemies treat each other. I guess that is what they want to be." Anyone who doesn't accept that despite MFN, attempts by the Chinese to join the WTO, all the ongoing Sino-US diplomatic doddle since Nixon's visit to China in 1972 and God only knows what went on behind the scenes in the Clinton years, the US and China are about as near to being enemies - (ok, let's be P.C. - 'adversaries') - as two nations get in this modern age without actually "lockin' an' loadin'".
It's always interesting to transpose the characters in dramas such as these. A Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force 'spy aircraft' diverts damaged to Hickham AFB, or even better, a west coast mainland US base whilst on an intelligence gathering sortie close to, but not within, American airspace. (I know, I know, my mythical made-in-China aircraft's got a fantastic range capability.) Are you seriously telling me the USAF and God knows what other US Government agencies wouldn't pick it to pieces? (And can you imagine the cries of outrage in the US media if it been damaged after hitting a USAF F15, possibly killing its pilot, Lt Charles 'Chuck' Buckeymeyer III, who we for sure would be told, was once an Eagle Scout and played quarterback for his mom-an'-apple-pie Norman Rockwell-esque midwest small town high school football team?) The crew wouldn't be "detained", they'd be "delayed in their return while requests among the crew for political asylum were being processed". Whatever, the Americans would make the Chinese sweat blood before surrendering any political advantage, if only to keep the outraged US voters happy.
"What they most certainly do NOT have the right to do is incarcerate that crew of 24 (including 3 women btw)." (My bold face.) It's your "including 3 women btw" comment I take exception to. If we in the West are going to use women in the military in roles that put them in harm's way, I'm sure the women currently serving in such jobs would be the first to object to their being classified any differently to the males. If, (and please God, it never comes to pass), we in the West ever do get involved in a major conflict with a nation like the PRC, I believe the sight of mangled female soldiers' bodies and photographs of severely distressed female POWs will be a weapon our adversaries will use to great effect in the truly sophisticated and subtle propaganda war that will be part and parcel of any such war. Whether such propaganda weakens the will of the US and/or European people at home or strengthens their resolve remains to be seen. It wouldn't be the first time a non-Western nation has misunderstood America, judging t to be weak because it doesn't follow the same social mores as other, more tradition-bound countries do. The Japanese made the mistake of crossing that ill-defined line of American sensitivities by trying to be a little bit too clever in 1941 in their surprise attack on Pearl Harbour. They ended up wearing two nukes on two of their major cities.
"We should have invaded Korea over the PUEBLO, but were distracted by Vietnam." I think the US tried that (invading North Korea) around 1951. It's not widely known, but the US learned a very similar lesson in Korea (or did they?) to the one they learned twenty years later slightly south of there. You don't fight a land war in Asia against a foe who doesn't have a free press and who's quite willing to sacrifice a whole generation of his young men, knowing that eventually he'll win by making the war unpalatable to the (free) US media and public rather than by defeating your troops on the ground. There were senior Americans in the Truman administration in the 40's who recognised this and said so before the US became involved in Korea.
"While I don't advocate invading China over this, I see no reason to continue trade or diplomatic relations." I concur wholeheartedly on both points you make there. (Please, George, don't imagine for one minute you can invade China!!!!) It might hurt the US economy to stop trade with China temporarily, (everything's temporary in politics), but it will hurt China a damn sight more. (Although you can bet that as usual, the French will leap to fill the void for China as much as possible.) And, the Chinese people will, as they've done for millennia, just tighten their belts and suffer whatever is thrown their way by their leaders. The US can get almost everything they buy from China from Mexico and other South American or Asian countries.
"I also think it is high time we stopped giving the cold shoulder to Taiwan and it is time to treat Taiwan like the democratic ally that they are and stop appeasing the chinese." Couldn't agree more. It's a damn disgrace the way the US (and other Western countries) have dumped Taiwan diplomatically just to get their foot into the PRC market Morally, the US and other Western countries should recognise the democratically-elected government - and nation - of Taiwan. But morals paly next to no part in politics or diplomacy, (which might go a very long way towards explaining why Bill Clinton was such a success in the game.). The old guard in the PRC aren't the only faction vying for power in China. It's just that the other factions have to keep a rather low profile, for being a member of the Opposition in China can have a rather detrimental - and terminal - effect on your health.
Maybe it's time the US tried a little brinkmanship - but on the diplomatic, rather than the military front. Send the PRC a clear message , without rattling any sabres, that they're not dealing with Bill Clinton any more. Recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation. The vast majority of the Taiwanese people were born after 1949, when the old Koumintang forces set themselves up on the island. While many would love to become a part of China again, I believe there would be few who would want to a part of China under its present regime. That would give the Chinese diplomats something other than the damaged P3 to talk about - and talk, real talk, not posturing, is what is needed now.
WS Churchill said it better than anyone: "Jaw jaw beats war war every time."
You say: "While they don't have the "right" to rip the aircraft apart. They will. It is how enemies treat each other. I guess that is what they want to be." Anyone who doesn't accept that despite MFN, attempts by the Chinese to join the WTO, all the ongoing Sino-US diplomatic doddle since Nixon's visit to China in 1972 and God only knows what went on behind the scenes in the Clinton years, the US and China are about as near to being enemies - (ok, let's be P.C. - 'adversaries') - as two nations get in this modern age without actually "lockin' an' loadin'".
It's always interesting to transpose the characters in dramas such as these. A Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force 'spy aircraft' diverts damaged to Hickham AFB, or even better, a west coast mainland US base whilst on an intelligence gathering sortie close to, but not within, American airspace. (I know, I know, my mythical made-in-China aircraft's got a fantastic range capability.) Are you seriously telling me the USAF and God knows what other US Government agencies wouldn't pick it to pieces? (And can you imagine the cries of outrage in the US media if it been damaged after hitting a USAF F15, possibly killing its pilot, Lt Charles 'Chuck' Buckeymeyer III, who we for sure would be told, was once an Eagle Scout and played quarterback for his mom-an'-apple-pie Norman Rockwell-esque midwest small town high school football team?) The crew wouldn't be "detained", they'd be "delayed in their return while requests among the crew for political asylum were being processed". Whatever, the Americans would make the Chinese sweat blood before surrendering any political advantage, if only to keep the outraged US voters happy.
"What they most certainly do NOT have the right to do is incarcerate that crew of 24 (including 3 women btw)." (My bold face.) It's your "including 3 women btw" comment I take exception to. If we in the West are going to use women in the military in roles that put them in harm's way, I'm sure the women currently serving in such jobs would be the first to object to their being classified any differently to the males. If, (and please God, it never comes to pass), we in the West ever do get involved in a major conflict with a nation like the PRC, I believe the sight of mangled female soldiers' bodies and photographs of severely distressed female POWs will be a weapon our adversaries will use to great effect in the truly sophisticated and subtle propaganda war that will be part and parcel of any such war. Whether such propaganda weakens the will of the US and/or European people at home or strengthens their resolve remains to be seen. It wouldn't be the first time a non-Western nation has misunderstood America, judging t to be weak because it doesn't follow the same social mores as other, more tradition-bound countries do. The Japanese made the mistake of crossing that ill-defined line of American sensitivities by trying to be a little bit too clever in 1941 in their surprise attack on Pearl Harbour. They ended up wearing two nukes on two of their major cities.
"We should have invaded Korea over the PUEBLO, but were distracted by Vietnam." I think the US tried that (invading North Korea) around 1951. It's not widely known, but the US learned a very similar lesson in Korea (or did they?) to the one they learned twenty years later slightly south of there. You don't fight a land war in Asia against a foe who doesn't have a free press and who's quite willing to sacrifice a whole generation of his young men, knowing that eventually he'll win by making the war unpalatable to the (free) US media and public rather than by defeating your troops on the ground. There were senior Americans in the Truman administration in the 40's who recognised this and said so before the US became involved in Korea.
"While I don't advocate invading China over this, I see no reason to continue trade or diplomatic relations." I concur wholeheartedly on both points you make there. (Please, George, don't imagine for one minute you can invade China!!!!) It might hurt the US economy to stop trade with China temporarily, (everything's temporary in politics), but it will hurt China a damn sight more. (Although you can bet that as usual, the French will leap to fill the void for China as much as possible.) And, the Chinese people will, as they've done for millennia, just tighten their belts and suffer whatever is thrown their way by their leaders. The US can get almost everything they buy from China from Mexico and other South American or Asian countries.
"I also think it is high time we stopped giving the cold shoulder to Taiwan and it is time to treat Taiwan like the democratic ally that they are and stop appeasing the chinese." Couldn't agree more. It's a damn disgrace the way the US (and other Western countries) have dumped Taiwan diplomatically just to get their foot into the PRC market Morally, the US and other Western countries should recognise the democratically-elected government - and nation - of Taiwan. But morals paly next to no part in politics or diplomacy, (which might go a very long way towards explaining why Bill Clinton was such a success in the game.). The old guard in the PRC aren't the only faction vying for power in China. It's just that the other factions have to keep a rather low profile, for being a member of the Opposition in China can have a rather detrimental - and terminal - effect on your health.
Maybe it's time the US tried a little brinkmanship - but on the diplomatic, rather than the military front. Send the PRC a clear message , without rattling any sabres, that they're not dealing with Bill Clinton any more. Recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation. The vast majority of the Taiwanese people were born after 1949, when the old Koumintang forces set themselves up on the island. While many would love to become a part of China again, I believe there would be few who would want to a part of China under its present regime. That would give the Chinese diplomats something other than the damaged P3 to talk about - and talk, real talk, not posturing, is what is needed now.
WS Churchill said it better than anyone: "Jaw jaw beats war war every time."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually I take a slightly different view out of Korea than you.
I view it as the beginnings of micromanagement of a war by the whitehouse that ultimately lead to the silliness of the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam war.
I think as long as we fought a war of maneuver (our strengths) in Korea we were wildly successful. Once we bogged down to a political line (the 38th parallel) and then just hunkered down in the trenches in strong defensive postures and machine gunned the human waves of chinese we played to their strenghths. All because we were afraid of widening the war.
Macarthur should have been allowed to bomb the manchurian bases. If they could have reached ours they would have.
I only believe in two modes for war. All or nothin. Attempting to minimalize or sanitize war just makes it more palitable and more likely to be dragged out. When Its time to put away the diplomats and take out the soldiers, LET THE SOLDIERS DO THEIR THING.
I agree that the chinese will take the airplane apart. I just want everyone to remember that the Chinese are our enemies not our advesaries, and stop kidding them selves, and certainly stop rushing to export jobs and cash to them.
I do not believe that if the rolls were reversed that we would have held the crew for DAYS without allowing them any contact with their embassy. Infact I think we would have the crew back in the embassy in a matter of hours. We would most likely pick the airplane apart, but maybe not. The chinese don't have too much that is revolutionary or that is scaring us like the MIG25 did when it defected to Japan. That plane had been the bogey man for the better part of a decade. When it turned out to be a piece of crap, a lot of sighs of relief were heard around the world <G>...
Cheers
Wino
I view it as the beginnings of micromanagement of a war by the whitehouse that ultimately lead to the silliness of the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam war.
I think as long as we fought a war of maneuver (our strengths) in Korea we were wildly successful. Once we bogged down to a political line (the 38th parallel) and then just hunkered down in the trenches in strong defensive postures and machine gunned the human waves of chinese we played to their strenghths. All because we were afraid of widening the war.
Macarthur should have been allowed to bomb the manchurian bases. If they could have reached ours they would have.
I only believe in two modes for war. All or nothin. Attempting to minimalize or sanitize war just makes it more palitable and more likely to be dragged out. When Its time to put away the diplomats and take out the soldiers, LET THE SOLDIERS DO THEIR THING.
I agree that the chinese will take the airplane apart. I just want everyone to remember that the Chinese are our enemies not our advesaries, and stop kidding them selves, and certainly stop rushing to export jobs and cash to them.
I do not believe that if the rolls were reversed that we would have held the crew for DAYS without allowing them any contact with their embassy. Infact I think we would have the crew back in the embassy in a matter of hours. We would most likely pick the airplane apart, but maybe not. The chinese don't have too much that is revolutionary or that is scaring us like the MIG25 did when it defected to Japan. That plane had been the bogey man for the better part of a decade. When it turned out to be a piece of crap, a lot of sighs of relief were heard around the world <G>...
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANOTHER REALITY CHECK -
The true 'hot potatoe' in the area is the oil fields underlying the Spratly islands. Expansionist - you'd better believe it.
It's not about oil extraction, it's about oil control. In a few years, China will be facing an oil crisis similar to the resolve of Japan, prior to the war.
Viet Nam was about off-shore oil control & drugs. Anyone with a sense of history will appreciate the fact that the Vietnamese would have been better off under communism than under the corrupt leadership which has always prevailed in Viet Nam. There was no idealism except in the form of U.S. propaganda.
The Chinese have missile capability that doesn't speak to domestic maintenance and defense. This could get nasty. China needs the domestic propaganda of backing down the U.S.; Taiwan is next.
Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't have the military ability it needs to cover the Middle East & the Pacific. This is a free ride for China.
The crew could be in for a long stay.
The true 'hot potatoe' in the area is the oil fields underlying the Spratly islands. Expansionist - you'd better believe it.
It's not about oil extraction, it's about oil control. In a few years, China will be facing an oil crisis similar to the resolve of Japan, prior to the war.
Viet Nam was about off-shore oil control & drugs. Anyone with a sense of history will appreciate the fact that the Vietnamese would have been better off under communism than under the corrupt leadership which has always prevailed in Viet Nam. There was no idealism except in the form of U.S. propaganda.
The Chinese have missile capability that doesn't speak to domestic maintenance and defense. This could get nasty. China needs the domestic propaganda of backing down the U.S.; Taiwan is next.
Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't have the military ability it needs to cover the Middle East & the Pacific. This is a free ride for China.
The crew could be in for a long stay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just thought I'd respond to a couple of comments by 'dv8' and 'Mr Hanky', I'm reasonably well qualified on the P3, I have just under 6,000 hours on them, over 10 years, with 7 years maintenance on them prior to that!
The P3 does have night vision, it has what is known as IRDS, infra red, good for around 12 miles in total darkness. It hangs from a pod built into the bottom of the nose radome, and is retracted when not in use, it's very good, using it's auto tracking system, to ident. ships or aircraft otherwise totally hidden in the dark, it can also use it to approach runways under similar conditions.
Also, even though the most recent ditching event that I'm aware of caused the death of one crewmember, the reason for it was known prior, and was widely advertised by the USN, the #2 prop comes off and, because of it's direction of rotation, slams into the fuselage at 1021rpm, it's very heavy, even with those aluminium blades, and caused a death within. So the fix was to feather that prop, takes around 3secs, just prior to impact! (Can be feathered with or without electrical power available!)
As far as I can see from the photos of the aircraft on the ground, as well as the newspaper and TV coverage, the only damage was the loss of the radome, the #1 prop (and probably engine) damage, and the minor damage to the outboard underside of one of the flaps, I can't understand why the Captain elected to land at all, afterall, the P3 can easily fly on 2 engines (and often does) depending on it's AUW - my point here is that all this relatively minor damage
was not what caused the Captain to head for Chinese territory, there had to be other factors involved, like maybe the other (or both, if the F-8 ditching didn't happen) fighter firing warning shots to indicate what would happen if he didn't!
The P3 is an excellent aircraft for what it does, and is very well built, evidenced by some P3B's, built in 1968, still in service around the world.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions
regarding the P3 from anyone, no guarantees, but I will try to explain if I can.
The P3 does have night vision, it has what is known as IRDS, infra red, good for around 12 miles in total darkness. It hangs from a pod built into the bottom of the nose radome, and is retracted when not in use, it's very good, using it's auto tracking system, to ident. ships or aircraft otherwise totally hidden in the dark, it can also use it to approach runways under similar conditions.
Also, even though the most recent ditching event that I'm aware of caused the death of one crewmember, the reason for it was known prior, and was widely advertised by the USN, the #2 prop comes off and, because of it's direction of rotation, slams into the fuselage at 1021rpm, it's very heavy, even with those aluminium blades, and caused a death within. So the fix was to feather that prop, takes around 3secs, just prior to impact! (Can be feathered with or without electrical power available!)
As far as I can see from the photos of the aircraft on the ground, as well as the newspaper and TV coverage, the only damage was the loss of the radome, the #1 prop (and probably engine) damage, and the minor damage to the outboard underside of one of the flaps, I can't understand why the Captain elected to land at all, afterall, the P3 can easily fly on 2 engines (and often does) depending on it's AUW - my point here is that all this relatively minor damage
was not what caused the Captain to head for Chinese territory, there had to be other factors involved, like maybe the other (or both, if the F-8 ditching didn't happen) fighter firing warning shots to indicate what would happen if he didn't!
The P3 is an excellent aircraft for what it does, and is very well built, evidenced by some P3B's, built in 1968, still in service around the world.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions
regarding the P3 from anyone, no guarantees, but I will try to explain if I can.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It seems that the Pentagon keeps files on every military pilot flying worldwide as the claim that Wang Wei was 'well known' to them as being a 'dangerous pilot'.
Pity they don't know their own people as well!
From today's Daily Telegraph
Pity they don't know their own people as well!
From today's Daily Telegraph
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">THE Chinese fighter pilot presumed dead after a mid-air collision with a US
spy plane had flown dangerously close to American aircraft before and was
known as a hazard, Pentagon officials said last night.
Wang Wei, a naval officer who is thought to have
ejected from his F-8 jet before it hit the sea, has
been blamed by Washington for the weekend
collision that has triggered a potential crisis in
US-Sino relations. A Bush administration official
said that Wang had been photographed by
cameras mounted on American spy planes as he
flew within feet of them.
He said: "We have photos of pilots' faces. It was
not the first time this individual had been that close
to an aircraft. The number of intercepts and their
aggressiveness has increased in recent weeks." The
allegation seemed certain to heighten tensions. Chinese state media had
already begun to laud the pilot as a hero martyred by reckless American
actions.
Striking a more conciliatory note, Gen Colin Powell, the Secretary of State,
said: "We regret that the Chinese plane did not get down safely and we regret
the loss of the life of that Chinese pilot. But now we need to bring this to a
resolution. We are using every avenue available to us to talk to the Chinese
side to exchange explanations and move on."
Although this stopped short of an apology,
as China has demanded, the Chinese
embassy in Washington said it was "a step
in the right direction". American diplomats
were trying to assess whether they could
draft a form of words that would be
acceptable.
Angry exchanges between the two countries had intensified earlier yesterday,
the fourth day of the stand-off over Beijing's decision not to release the
24-member crew of the EP-3 Aries spy plane, which made a forced landing
on the militarised Hainan island, off southern China. Tang Jiaxuan, the Chinese
foreign minister, accused America of having an "arrogant air".
Jiang Zemin, the president, said that Washington "should bear all
responsibilities for the collision incident" and added: "The US side should
apologise to the Chinese people." The White House ruled that out. Ari
Fleischer, President Bush's spokesman, said: "The United States government
does not understand the reason for an apology.
"Our airplane was operating in international air space and the crew did nothing
wrong." In the last minutes before the collision, technicians on the EP-3 were
likely to have been able to monitor Wang's radio transmissions to and from
Hainan, as well as any conversations he had with the pilot of the jet
accompanying him.
Blaming Wang for the collision, Washington said: "There is no question which
aircraft collided with which." The four-engine subsonic turboprop EP-3 had
been flying "straight and level" while the jet was manoeuvring at supersonic
speed. This was "not a great match for flying formation" and while the collision
had been unintentional "it was not an accident that they were that close".
Pentagon sources said that Chinese pilots were poorly trained and frequently
made mistakes while flying. But the jets had continued to conduct aggressive
close intercepts despite repeated American requests not to. A source quoted
by the Washington Times said: "Lately we saw some unsafe flying practices
coming within 30ft. This was more like flying cowboys . . . If anything goes
wrong, that's not a lot of room for correction."
By yesterday China had sent 48 planes and 29 ships to search for Wang.
President Bush has resisted apologising because the collision took place in
international air space and was not the fault of the EP-3. The nose cone, part
of a wing and one of the EP-3's four engines were sheared off by the jet. It
took the pilot five minutes to regain control.
It was not known how many of the "emergency destruction" procedures had
been followed in the 20 minutes it took to land on Hainan, from where Wang
had taken off. The Pentagon claimed that crew members "successfully
executed" the destruction of spy material even though their lives were in
danger.
But Adml Joseph Prueher, ambassador to Beijing, conceded that the Chinese
would have been able to gain access to highly sensitive and top secret
equipment.</font>
spy plane had flown dangerously close to American aircraft before and was
known as a hazard, Pentagon officials said last night.
Wang Wei, a naval officer who is thought to have
ejected from his F-8 jet before it hit the sea, has
been blamed by Washington for the weekend
collision that has triggered a potential crisis in
US-Sino relations. A Bush administration official
said that Wang had been photographed by
cameras mounted on American spy planes as he
flew within feet of them.
He said: "We have photos of pilots' faces. It was
not the first time this individual had been that close
to an aircraft. The number of intercepts and their
aggressiveness has increased in recent weeks." The
allegation seemed certain to heighten tensions. Chinese state media had
already begun to laud the pilot as a hero martyred by reckless American
actions.
Striking a more conciliatory note, Gen Colin Powell, the Secretary of State,
said: "We regret that the Chinese plane did not get down safely and we regret
the loss of the life of that Chinese pilot. But now we need to bring this to a
resolution. We are using every avenue available to us to talk to the Chinese
side to exchange explanations and move on."
Although this stopped short of an apology,
as China has demanded, the Chinese
embassy in Washington said it was "a step
in the right direction". American diplomats
were trying to assess whether they could
draft a form of words that would be
acceptable.
Angry exchanges between the two countries had intensified earlier yesterday,
the fourth day of the stand-off over Beijing's decision not to release the
24-member crew of the EP-3 Aries spy plane, which made a forced landing
on the militarised Hainan island, off southern China. Tang Jiaxuan, the Chinese
foreign minister, accused America of having an "arrogant air".
Jiang Zemin, the president, said that Washington "should bear all
responsibilities for the collision incident" and added: "The US side should
apologise to the Chinese people." The White House ruled that out. Ari
Fleischer, President Bush's spokesman, said: "The United States government
does not understand the reason for an apology.
"Our airplane was operating in international air space and the crew did nothing
wrong." In the last minutes before the collision, technicians on the EP-3 were
likely to have been able to monitor Wang's radio transmissions to and from
Hainan, as well as any conversations he had with the pilot of the jet
accompanying him.
Blaming Wang for the collision, Washington said: "There is no question which
aircraft collided with which." The four-engine subsonic turboprop EP-3 had
been flying "straight and level" while the jet was manoeuvring at supersonic
speed. This was "not a great match for flying formation" and while the collision
had been unintentional "it was not an accident that they were that close".
Pentagon sources said that Chinese pilots were poorly trained and frequently
made mistakes while flying. But the jets had continued to conduct aggressive
close intercepts despite repeated American requests not to. A source quoted
by the Washington Times said: "Lately we saw some unsafe flying practices
coming within 30ft. This was more like flying cowboys . . . If anything goes
wrong, that's not a lot of room for correction."
By yesterday China had sent 48 planes and 29 ships to search for Wang.
President Bush has resisted apologising because the collision took place in
international air space and was not the fault of the EP-3. The nose cone, part
of a wing and one of the EP-3's four engines were sheared off by the jet. It
took the pilot five minutes to regain control.
It was not known how many of the "emergency destruction" procedures had
been followed in the 20 minutes it took to land on Hainan, from where Wang
had taken off. The Pentagon claimed that crew members "successfully
executed" the destruction of spy material even though their lives were in
danger.
But Adml Joseph Prueher, ambassador to Beijing, conceded that the Chinese
would have been able to gain access to highly sensitive and top secret
equipment.</font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting reading up there! Well done!
Just some questions. Refering to some earlier remarks, why should President Bush, or any other president/prime minister etc in any country, apologize for the careless, tragic mistake of an over-aggressive fighter pilot, after he approaches a transport/patrol/recon plane at a much higher speed?
When citizens of the Peoples' Republic of China fly on a Canadian, British, Japanese, American...widebody airliner and the crew must NOW deal with a serious, possibly compound emergency (more serious than just one engine failure/shutdown) which "jeopardizes the continued operation" etc, would the passengers be surprised if the Captain and crew conclude that the only safe decision is to land at the nearest suitable airport, if that is company policy and good judgement?
Never mind the enormous support China (under a very different govt) received from the US (and others) during a major world conflict decades ago, while terrorized by an unbelievably cruel foreign occupation force. They "forgot" back around 1949, even more "forgetful" in 1951. Ignorance, along with total govt control of the mass media, is bliss.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 05 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 05 April 2001).]
Just some questions. Refering to some earlier remarks, why should President Bush, or any other president/prime minister etc in any country, apologize for the careless, tragic mistake of an over-aggressive fighter pilot, after he approaches a transport/patrol/recon plane at a much higher speed?
When citizens of the Peoples' Republic of China fly on a Canadian, British, Japanese, American...widebody airliner and the crew must NOW deal with a serious, possibly compound emergency (more serious than just one engine failure/shutdown) which "jeopardizes the continued operation" etc, would the passengers be surprised if the Captain and crew conclude that the only safe decision is to land at the nearest suitable airport, if that is company policy and good judgement?
Never mind the enormous support China (under a very different govt) received from the US (and others) during a major world conflict decades ago, while terrorized by an unbelievably cruel foreign occupation force. They "forgot" back around 1949, even more "forgetful" in 1951. Ignorance, along with total govt control of the mass media, is bliss.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 05 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 05 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hate to ruin a comfortable and comforting historical recollection, Ignition Override... BUT, as for the ChiComs 'forgetting' in '49 and '51 all the 'help' Uncle Sam gave them during the war against Japan, (which started for them in 1931, not 1941, as it did for the US), the sad truth is they had very few reasons to thank the US. Why? Because Chiang Kai Chek (spelling?) and his Chinese Nationalists had spent a lot more time and effort right through WW2 killing fellow Chinese - ie the Communists - with the huge amount of military equipment and aid the Americans had given him than he ever spent killing Japanese. If any of this US aid reached the communists, it was thanks only to the corruption or ineptitude of Nationalist commanders.
Not sure if the same thing happened in China, but it's probably also worth noting that the Brits, who were first of the Allies to arrive in Indo China after WW2, re-armed the Japanese and used them against Ho Chi Minh's revolutionary forces until the French colonial forces arrived to retake their three Indo Chinese colonies. The Indo Chinese revolutionaries, mostly communist, had a liberal sprinkling of American OSS officers serving with them until the end of WW2, which must have made for some interesting conflicts of loyalties for the Americans after the Brits arrived in late '45 and re-armed the hated Japanese.
I'm in no way an apologist for the Communist Chinese or the Vietnamese. The press is tightly controlled in both countries and their long-suffering people are much put upon and fed a very self-serving version of the truth by both governments. But any fair-minded person would have to accept that the communist governments in both countries have a lot of facts on their side and genuine reasons for feeling more than a little aggrieved towards the West, and the US in particular. I know the aircraft involved in the current crisis didn't infringe Chinese territory, but many, many times in the past, CIA U2s did, and not always with impunity. I've seen a photograph of the wreckage of five reassembled U2s that the Chinese put together in one hangar or field to prove these overflights occurred.
On a lighter note, at a guess, I'd say Tom Clancy has cancelled all appointments and as we speak, is churning out the first draft of his next novel based on this incident. Unfortunately, we don't have Jack Ryan in the real White House - but I think it would have been a really interesting scenario if the recently departed Slick gentleman from Arkansas (or his ex VP) had been in place when something like this had happened. I tend to agree with Roc - the US State Department would've been falling over itself apologising and making instant amends to the Chinese.
Getting back to Tom Clancy, I understand he does meticulous research in compiling the military toys his heroes use in his books. If that's so, anyone who's read his latest offering, 'The Bear and the Dragon', will be hoping he hasn't been too accurate in the way he painted the Chinese Politburo, 'cause if the picture he painted of these old gentlemen is anywhere even remotely near the truth, we're all in for some, (as the old Chinese curse says), very 'interesting times'.
edited for typos
[This message has been edited by Wiley (edited 05 April 2001).]
Not sure if the same thing happened in China, but it's probably also worth noting that the Brits, who were first of the Allies to arrive in Indo China after WW2, re-armed the Japanese and used them against Ho Chi Minh's revolutionary forces until the French colonial forces arrived to retake their three Indo Chinese colonies. The Indo Chinese revolutionaries, mostly communist, had a liberal sprinkling of American OSS officers serving with them until the end of WW2, which must have made for some interesting conflicts of loyalties for the Americans after the Brits arrived in late '45 and re-armed the hated Japanese.
I'm in no way an apologist for the Communist Chinese or the Vietnamese. The press is tightly controlled in both countries and their long-suffering people are much put upon and fed a very self-serving version of the truth by both governments. But any fair-minded person would have to accept that the communist governments in both countries have a lot of facts on their side and genuine reasons for feeling more than a little aggrieved towards the West, and the US in particular. I know the aircraft involved in the current crisis didn't infringe Chinese territory, but many, many times in the past, CIA U2s did, and not always with impunity. I've seen a photograph of the wreckage of five reassembled U2s that the Chinese put together in one hangar or field to prove these overflights occurred.
On a lighter note, at a guess, I'd say Tom Clancy has cancelled all appointments and as we speak, is churning out the first draft of his next novel based on this incident. Unfortunately, we don't have Jack Ryan in the real White House - but I think it would have been a really interesting scenario if the recently departed Slick gentleman from Arkansas (or his ex VP) had been in place when something like this had happened. I tend to agree with Roc - the US State Department would've been falling over itself apologising and making instant amends to the Chinese.
Getting back to Tom Clancy, I understand he does meticulous research in compiling the military toys his heroes use in his books. If that's so, anyone who's read his latest offering, 'The Bear and the Dragon', will be hoping he hasn't been too accurate in the way he painted the Chinese Politburo, 'cause if the picture he painted of these old gentlemen is anywhere even remotely near the truth, we're all in for some, (as the old Chinese curse says), very 'interesting times'.
edited for typos
[This message has been edited by Wiley (edited 05 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that the West generally and the US in particular worries too much about doing and being seen to do the "right thing" and therefore risks, by inevitably being taken advantage of, having to take even more drastic action in the end than would have been necessary in the first place.
I have just finished reading an article in the 12/11/00 edition of the New Yorker about our friend Saddam. I would recommend it for its lack of bias and sagacity.
They should have finished what they started in Desert Storm.
Likewise 99.9.% of the Chinese population are, as always, only going to get and as a matter of necessity and pragmatism follow the "party line" and if you have read any of the recent "life" stories by the expat Chinese children of the last war and the pre and prior history, the ingrained nature of the Chinese mainlander is clear.
Today is all that matters.
So, what is expedient today is the truth.
Therefore the truth can be whatever is expedient.
The fabled "inscrutability" is just that, it is really a front for "there is actually nothing going on behind the eyes beyond how to get the advantage/meal for today".
You can frame it any way you like the fact is, the modern world, for better or worse, was invented by western civilisation and culture. It looks forward and has learn't the hard way that rhetoric and mind control as a means of running a civilisation is ultimately self destructive. You do not have the resources and cannot hope to perform prefrontal lobotomies on the entire population, therefore the race is lost before you even start.
Again you can frame it any way you like, but IMHO, mainland China is essentially a third world country that only has the world presence that it has, due to its sheer size and weight of population.
Having said that there are many highly educated Chinese who have much to offer the world and their mainland brethren.
They are the real future of the mainland, but they will have to sacrifice many of their western comforts in the short term to advance their brethrens situation.
Where are the Tien an Men students today, and how many are carrying on that glorious example of independant thought and action they showed the world.
Who could ever forget that student facing down the tank.
Ozmate gave all of the students down here who professed support, refugee status, amnesty and citizenship, I would love to know many are continuing "the struggle" and how many have succumbed to the siren call of western decadence.
They are the ones who can make the "old men" of any of which ever regime happen to be in power accountable and stop the excreta and posturing that passes for statesmanship.
I suspect, however, that the habit of generations of looking after oneself will mitigate that ever happening.
Send in the Marines, secure and fly the crew and aircraft out. Recognise Taiwan as a Sovereign State, line up an couple of carrier battle fleets and call their bluff.
They will find the same result as Ronnie did with the Russians.
Or am I simple too.
I have just finished reading an article in the 12/11/00 edition of the New Yorker about our friend Saddam. I would recommend it for its lack of bias and sagacity.
They should have finished what they started in Desert Storm.
Likewise 99.9.% of the Chinese population are, as always, only going to get and as a matter of necessity and pragmatism follow the "party line" and if you have read any of the recent "life" stories by the expat Chinese children of the last war and the pre and prior history, the ingrained nature of the Chinese mainlander is clear.
Today is all that matters.
So, what is expedient today is the truth.
Therefore the truth can be whatever is expedient.
The fabled "inscrutability" is just that, it is really a front for "there is actually nothing going on behind the eyes beyond how to get the advantage/meal for today".
You can frame it any way you like the fact is, the modern world, for better or worse, was invented by western civilisation and culture. It looks forward and has learn't the hard way that rhetoric and mind control as a means of running a civilisation is ultimately self destructive. You do not have the resources and cannot hope to perform prefrontal lobotomies on the entire population, therefore the race is lost before you even start.
Again you can frame it any way you like, but IMHO, mainland China is essentially a third world country that only has the world presence that it has, due to its sheer size and weight of population.
Having said that there are many highly educated Chinese who have much to offer the world and their mainland brethren.
They are the real future of the mainland, but they will have to sacrifice many of their western comforts in the short term to advance their brethrens situation.
Where are the Tien an Men students today, and how many are carrying on that glorious example of independant thought and action they showed the world.
Who could ever forget that student facing down the tank.
Ozmate gave all of the students down here who professed support, refugee status, amnesty and citizenship, I would love to know many are continuing "the struggle" and how many have succumbed to the siren call of western decadence.
They are the ones who can make the "old men" of any of which ever regime happen to be in power accountable and stop the excreta and posturing that passes for statesmanship.
I suspect, however, that the habit of generations of looking after oneself will mitigate that ever happening.
Send in the Marines, secure and fly the crew and aircraft out. Recognise Taiwan as a Sovereign State, line up an couple of carrier battle fleets and call their bluff.
They will find the same result as Ronnie did with the Russians.
Or am I simple too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LOOK DEEPER -
History has little meaning in events such as this - period.
The Chinese have their latitude to pick a fight in many arenas. Therefore, why the mess over this aircraft?
It is highly probable that the U.S. had an intense focus on some aspect of Chinese activities, which the Chinese, naturally, wanted to protect. This event was a unique buildup in a specific location; not a random event.
Between Chinese advances in military and space missile programs, the U.S. has a keen interest in military espionage. The target of that espionage can only be speculated. The confidence of the Chinese military may have been cause to monitor Chinese Naval communications, etc. Taiwan is certainly always the topic of the day for the Chinese.
One must remember that China is a military government on its best day. Hence, military priorities - including cash flow - will be observed.
Despite stated intent, the Chinese are way ahead of the U.S. in economic advantage in the trade arena - thanks to Clinton.
The current time frame gives the Chinese the best opportunity for a victory over the U.S. and an excuse to leverage better cash flow to their advantage.
The U.S. commercial dependency on Chinese goods is high, therefore, business interests are pressuring Washington, as well - not to the political or military advantage of the USA.
If the current Chinese government can gain even this one victory over the U.S., they will be in power for the next ten years - minimum. There's a lot at stake here.
The best trend indicator is any Naval / Air Force movement in the Pacific. If anybody has the resources, keep an eye on that arena.
History has little meaning in events such as this - period.
The Chinese have their latitude to pick a fight in many arenas. Therefore, why the mess over this aircraft?
It is highly probable that the U.S. had an intense focus on some aspect of Chinese activities, which the Chinese, naturally, wanted to protect. This event was a unique buildup in a specific location; not a random event.
Between Chinese advances in military and space missile programs, the U.S. has a keen interest in military espionage. The target of that espionage can only be speculated. The confidence of the Chinese military may have been cause to monitor Chinese Naval communications, etc. Taiwan is certainly always the topic of the day for the Chinese.
One must remember that China is a military government on its best day. Hence, military priorities - including cash flow - will be observed.
Despite stated intent, the Chinese are way ahead of the U.S. in economic advantage in the trade arena - thanks to Clinton.
The current time frame gives the Chinese the best opportunity for a victory over the U.S. and an excuse to leverage better cash flow to their advantage.
The U.S. commercial dependency on Chinese goods is high, therefore, business interests are pressuring Washington, as well - not to the political or military advantage of the USA.
If the current Chinese government can gain even this one victory over the U.S., they will be in power for the next ten years - minimum. There's a lot at stake here.
The best trend indicator is any Naval / Air Force movement in the Pacific. If anybody has the resources, keep an eye on that arena.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't know that Clancy is the guy that I would look to for the key to the U.S. versus anybody question, but they sure are some good books sometimes. A previous post notes that Clancy researches his work real well. One of the people that helped him research in the past is an engineer that writes as a team under the name Larry Bond. If you think Clancy has some nifty descriptions of toys and tactics you haven't read Bond. And no, I don't get a piece of the action on his sales, though I do know him.