U.S. Navy EP-3 forced down by Chinese
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pigboat
I was actualy refering to the ABM treaty (1972) which allowed each country to develop missile defences for 1 and only 1 site. the USSR protected moscow and the USA a missile farm in wyoming i think (intresting choices i think you'd agree), a treaty fully ratified by both houses of congress.
Its terms are clear as is the fact that the NMD shield breaches it, even though its unlikely to work!
------------------
RTFI
I was actualy refering to the ABM treaty (1972) which allowed each country to develop missile defences for 1 and only 1 site. the USSR protected moscow and the USA a missile farm in wyoming i think (intresting choices i think you'd agree), a treaty fully ratified by both houses of congress.
Its terms are clear as is the fact that the NMD shield breaches it, even though its unlikely to work!
------------------
RTFI
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Should there not have been some self-destruct charge that should have been triggered by the last exiting crew member?<<
Actually, there is some precedent for this. In his autobiography Francis Gary Powers of CIA/U-2 fame claimed there was such a charge in his aircraft. Supposedly, the CIA claimed there was a 20 second delay after the detonator was activated. Rumor among the pilots was that there was _no_ delay, so Powers elected not to use this facility after his aircraft was hit by a Russia SAM and he bailed out.
Destruction drills are part of handling compartmented classified material and practiced often in the military, less often in the civilian sector from my experience. Still, it is extrememly hard to quickly destroy all data with magnetic media involved (short of physical destruction, itself time consuming with large amounts of material).
See for example:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/secure_del.html
Actually, there is some precedent for this. In his autobiography Francis Gary Powers of CIA/U-2 fame claimed there was such a charge in his aircraft. Supposedly, the CIA claimed there was a 20 second delay after the detonator was activated. Rumor among the pilots was that there was _no_ delay, so Powers elected not to use this facility after his aircraft was hit by a Russia SAM and he bailed out.
Destruction drills are part of handling compartmented classified material and practiced often in the military, less often in the civilian sector from my experience. Still, it is extrememly hard to quickly destroy all data with magnetic media involved (short of physical destruction, itself time consuming with large amounts of material).
See for example:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/secure_del.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wife of fighter pilot that crashed while getting too close to un-armed transport in International Airspace wants apology from Whom?
Hello?
(No common sense in China I take it?)
Somebody should take their nukes away if their thought process is that cocked up.
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Hello?
(No common sense in China I take it?)
Somebody should take their nukes away if their thought process is that cocked up.
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know, Tom Clancy may just have seen a glimpse of the future.
(Though I guess some of you will dobtless slag him off because he's American)
This could become rather complicated rather quickly. But I'd rather see Bush dealing with it than Clinton. I just hope he doesn't ask Tony for support - probably find our forces are committed to a Pan European initiative, those that aren't sorting out the Foot and Mouth for him.
(Though I guess some of you will dobtless slag him off because he's American)
This could become rather complicated rather quickly. But I'd rather see Bush dealing with it than Clinton. I just hope he doesn't ask Tony for support - probably find our forces are committed to a Pan European initiative, those that aren't sorting out the Foot and Mouth for him.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, I see the America bashers have backed off a bit during the last 24 hours. Maybe they're afraid the NSA is tapping into their E-mails -- could be true because of all the Keywords being used, like "spy plane," "EP-3", "Chinese," etc. -- and when they apply for their green cards, guess what! Anyway.
McGinty -- According to Pentagon sources, the EP-3 and other American intelligence planes are usually equipped with low detonation explosives, that is, they will blow the console, but not injure the cryptographer. Now whether it is like a phospor grenade that just keeps on burning and used only when leaving the aircraft, I don't know.
Tom the Tenor -- I think that the prayer breakfast idea is good on paper, but I really don't believe any serious discussion about philosophy and religion would go over on PPRuNe. Actually, in a posting several months ago I also tried to get a serious thread going on this subject, but it was quickly pointed out to me that within a few posts it would change from the serious to the ludicrous. Just look at JetBlast and OCB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen OCB post ANYTHING anywhere, except in a thread of his own creation.
Jackonicko -- You are right when you say that the F-8 (J-8) looks like a MiG 23. The later "IIM" and "D" models had an uncanny resesemblance to the MiGs. For more on this, please access the following site:
http://military.topcities.com/china/j8.htm
McGinty -- According to Pentagon sources, the EP-3 and other American intelligence planes are usually equipped with low detonation explosives, that is, they will blow the console, but not injure the cryptographer. Now whether it is like a phospor grenade that just keeps on burning and used only when leaving the aircraft, I don't know.
Tom the Tenor -- I think that the prayer breakfast idea is good on paper, but I really don't believe any serious discussion about philosophy and religion would go over on PPRuNe. Actually, in a posting several months ago I also tried to get a serious thread going on this subject, but it was quickly pointed out to me that within a few posts it would change from the serious to the ludicrous. Just look at JetBlast and OCB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen OCB post ANYTHING anywhere, except in a thread of his own creation.
Jackonicko -- You are right when you say that the F-8 (J-8) looks like a MiG 23. The later "IIM" and "D" models had an uncanny resesemblance to the MiGs. For more on this, please access the following site:
http://military.topcities.com/china/j8.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE GUESSED -
I E-mailed a major newspaper reporter with close ties to this issue, describing the impossibility of the Chinese account.
His reply:
"Thanks; but this isn't about the facts."
I think that sums it up nicely.
I guess the U.S. & China have a profitable military build-up in the works. That shouldn't come as a surprise either.
Texas uber alles.
I E-mailed a major newspaper reporter with close ties to this issue, describing the impossibility of the Chinese account.
His reply:
"Thanks; but this isn't about the facts."
I think that sums it up nicely.
I guess the U.S. & China have a profitable military build-up in the works. That shouldn't come as a surprise either.
Texas uber alles.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I read this thread a few days ago and was fully prepared to back up my friend Latvia, however, when I got ready to post my reply, I see, as L.C. does as well, that the tide has turned.
No matter which side of the world one is on, in aviation, we should all be brothers.
Having flown International for the last 9 years (and I mean International in the sense of going to places where the US State Dept. would be pi**ed if they knew a US citizen was there), I can honestly say 99% of the people I've met on my journey's have been pro-aviation.
Aside from the Customs and Immigration officials, most people seemed more interested in my a/c, and could I get their friend a job, or could they have the left over catering, etc.
The Chinese need to return the crew, and they need to do it now. If they want to keep anyone, keep the Aircraft Commander and Mission Commander (if they weren't the same person)
No stretch of anyone's imagination can say the USAF E-3 or E-4, or the USN E-6 or any other lower ranking crewmember has anything to do with the US Policy. These are brother airmen, and were following orders and doing their job.
I for one am proud of Latvia Calling for posting this thread, and for his pro-democracy opinions and ideals.
I'll see you in Riga this summer, my friend....
No matter which side of the world one is on, in aviation, we should all be brothers.
Having flown International for the last 9 years (and I mean International in the sense of going to places where the US State Dept. would be pi**ed if they knew a US citizen was there), I can honestly say 99% of the people I've met on my journey's have been pro-aviation.
Aside from the Customs and Immigration officials, most people seemed more interested in my a/c, and could I get their friend a job, or could they have the left over catering, etc.
The Chinese need to return the crew, and they need to do it now. If they want to keep anyone, keep the Aircraft Commander and Mission Commander (if they weren't the same person)
No stretch of anyone's imagination can say the USAF E-3 or E-4, or the USN E-6 or any other lower ranking crewmember has anything to do with the US Policy. These are brother airmen, and were following orders and doing their job.
I for one am proud of Latvia Calling for posting this thread, and for his pro-democracy opinions and ideals.
I'll see you in Riga this summer, my friend....
Guest
Posts: n/a
LatviaC you mentioned on your post on p9 that China will one day go on an expansionist path. Do you mean economicaly or geographicaly? As I mentioned in a previous post, Chinas communism is different as compared to the former USSR which required a constantly expanding sphere of influence in order for its Marxist system to survive while China does not. Most of Chinas post-1949 cr@p occured only within its civil borders (the GLF, Tienenmen etc), Tibet being the only exception still on-going since 1980. If China ever gets its latent capitalist act together it will swallow up most of Asia and Australasia. In other words if you dont trade with China in the future youll be on the outer. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your outlook) communism is stopping them at present and things are staying the way they are. If you suddenley let lose 1.4 billion unbridled capitalist Chinese on the world theyd take the whole place over without firing a shot.
Geographicaly expansionwise I cant see China wanting a chunk of Oz. Oz has more immediate potential enemys much closer to its borders during these next 10 years. It doesnt make sense economicaly or militarily and would do more harm to China than good. I speculate China could certainly hit Japan and with the Nikkei out of the way it would emerge more quickly as an economic superpower but risks the wrath of the US. A bit of saber-rattling and a few fake nuke doodlebugs across the Strait will take care of who Taiwan will trade with from then on. China would allow Taiwan to carry on as usual but would make clear whos side they are on militarily.
Im certainly no apologist for the bloodey Chinese government or communism but dont let ideology or the rantings of politicians on both sides get in the way of how things realy work. As for the P3, the Chinese are a real face-saving bunch and a simple "ok sorry" from the US will bury the matter imediately and forever in Beijing. Who the hell cares whos fragile ego backs down or doesnt.
[Edited to reduce my crappy spelling]
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 08 April 2001).]
Geographicaly expansionwise I cant see China wanting a chunk of Oz. Oz has more immediate potential enemys much closer to its borders during these next 10 years. It doesnt make sense economicaly or militarily and would do more harm to China than good. I speculate China could certainly hit Japan and with the Nikkei out of the way it would emerge more quickly as an economic superpower but risks the wrath of the US. A bit of saber-rattling and a few fake nuke doodlebugs across the Strait will take care of who Taiwan will trade with from then on. China would allow Taiwan to carry on as usual but would make clear whos side they are on militarily.
Im certainly no apologist for the bloodey Chinese government or communism but dont let ideology or the rantings of politicians on both sides get in the way of how things realy work. As for the P3, the Chinese are a real face-saving bunch and a simple "ok sorry" from the US will bury the matter imediately and forever in Beijing. Who the hell cares whos fragile ego backs down or doesnt.
[Edited to reduce my crappy spelling]
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 08 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Saw the clip again. Definitely a MiG-23MF, ML or MLD, grey, with a big two-digit Bort Number. Unless it's very old footage it's more likely to be Vietnamese, Polish or North Korean rather than Russki, so obviously just inappropriate library footage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SkyD
Sorry. MiG-23 comments referred to a film clip shown on the good old BBC. The type involved was a Shenyang J-8 'Finback'. This is an indigenous Chinese design, albeit one which draws heavily on some 1960s MiG heavy fighter prototypes (Ye-150, Ye-152 - which were scaled up twin-engined MiG-21 clones) which didn't enter service. The Chinese have four basic variants in service, some with a MiG-21 type nose inlet, some with a radar nose and F-4/MiG-23 type inlets.
The Chinese MiG-21 copy to which you refer is the Chengdu J-7, whose two-seat training variant is the Guizhou JJ-7.
You will see the Chinese fighter involved sometimes referred to as the F8, but this is strictly inaccurate, as F designations apply only to export aircraft - and the Chinese have not managed to sell any of these things to anybody yet.
Hope that helps!
Sorry. MiG-23 comments referred to a film clip shown on the good old BBC. The type involved was a Shenyang J-8 'Finback'. This is an indigenous Chinese design, albeit one which draws heavily on some 1960s MiG heavy fighter prototypes (Ye-150, Ye-152 - which were scaled up twin-engined MiG-21 clones) which didn't enter service. The Chinese have four basic variants in service, some with a MiG-21 type nose inlet, some with a radar nose and F-4/MiG-23 type inlets.
The Chinese MiG-21 copy to which you refer is the Chengdu J-7, whose two-seat training variant is the Guizhou JJ-7.
You will see the Chinese fighter involved sometimes referred to as the F8, but this is strictly inaccurate, as F designations apply only to export aircraft - and the Chinese have not managed to sell any of these things to anybody yet.
Hope that helps!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Glad to see some objectivity returning to this thread. As a piece of better journalism than I could spell, write or compose, I recommend the Sunday Times article, page 16, by Andrew Sullivan. Entitled 'Anti-Americanism', it is perfectly and factually written. To give you a taste, it concludes:
.......Bill Clinton's seductive skills placated America's foes and allies with his usual snake oil charm. But eventually the underlying envy asserts itself. It doesn't take a genius to see the connection between anti-Americanism and the attempt to create a European federal superstate. They are two sides of the same coin - a coin best described as resentment.
It may be emotionally satisfying but it is no substitute for grappling with real problems at home and abroad with honesty, frankness and common sense.
For those unfashinable virtues , alas, you now have to go to Washington.
.......Bill Clinton's seductive skills placated America's foes and allies with his usual snake oil charm. But eventually the underlying envy asserts itself. It doesn't take a genius to see the connection between anti-Americanism and the attempt to create a European federal superstate. They are two sides of the same coin - a coin best described as resentment.
It may be emotionally satisfying but it is no substitute for grappling with real problems at home and abroad with honesty, frankness and common sense.
For those unfashinable virtues , alas, you now have to go to Washington.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slasher: well posted; "face" is the name of the game and the Chinese are master players at it.
Say,"sorry" on one side and the Chinese will give it back without losing face!
Unfortunate numeral for your current number of posts, by the way!! LOL
Latvia Calling: like your posts, generally and glad you corrected the NZ ban on nuclear ships.
Australia is and always has been an ally of the USA. Remember that it was Australian AND New Zealand forces that fought with the US in that unfortunately unnecessary debacle in Vietnam!
Let us hope that the EP3 crew return safely home to their family and loved ones.
Gaunty and Poodle Velour - excellent posts all! This is a most entertaining and interesting subject!
------------------
Be CAREFUL out there!
Say,"sorry" on one side and the Chinese will give it back without losing face!
Unfortunate numeral for your current number of posts, by the way!! LOL
Latvia Calling: like your posts, generally and glad you corrected the NZ ban on nuclear ships.
Australia is and always has been an ally of the USA. Remember that it was Australian AND New Zealand forces that fought with the US in that unfortunately unnecessary debacle in Vietnam!
Let us hope that the EP3 crew return safely home to their family and loved ones.
Gaunty and Poodle Velour - excellent posts all! This is a most entertaining and interesting subject!
------------------
Be CAREFUL out there!
Guest
Posts: n/a
AMAZING -
Judging by the news in the USA, the government will be soon distributing yellow ribbons in the same fashion they distributed the "I support our troops" bumper stickers in the first day of the Gulf War crisis. (A little 'planning' in the background.)
Judging by the news in the USA, the government will be soon distributing yellow ribbons in the same fashion they distributed the "I support our troops" bumper stickers in the first day of the Gulf War crisis. (A little 'planning' in the background.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would an aircraft getting too close under a wing cause the wing to drop due to the low pressure area above lower aircraft's wing? i.e. unavoidable turn in the dirction of the interceptor.
What happened to basic rule of the road saying the aircraft which has the other on it's right should keep clear?
Has there been any mention of a full investigation to determine what happened, as per normal in aviation, or is it all bull**** politics?
Sad!
What happened to basic rule of the road saying the aircraft which has the other on it's right should keep clear?
Has there been any mention of a full investigation to determine what happened, as per normal in aviation, or is it all bull**** politics?
Sad!
