Air collision at South China Sea 2001, pictures!

[ptldM3]

So what were you saying about Russians having nothing but warnings?

Read you source carefully than read my comment carefully. Your source stated that the Flanker clipped the P-3 and ultimately caused a collision, thus your implication or assertion that it was the P-3 that was the aggressor is false. Moreover, I clearly stated that it was the Japanese that gave warnings when their airspace was violated.

 

[S10]

Read you source carefully than read my comment carefully. Your source stated that the Flanker clipped the P-3 and ultimately caused a collision, thus your implication or assertion that it was the P-3 that was the aggressor is false. Moreover, I clearly stated that it was the Japanese that gave warnings when their airspace was violated.

I've read your post. Aggressive interception by a country's airforce is not unheard of, especially with Russians. Never in my post did I imply that the P-3 rammed the Su-27. In fact, I highlighted the fact that it was the Sovet pilot's aggressive behaviour that resulted in the crash. While you stated people had failed to do their research on the subject, it seems you're guilty of the same charge when it comes to your own country.

That, or you pretend Wang Wei was the only one.

 

[ptldM3]

I've read your post. Aggressive interception by a country's airforce is not unheard of, especially with Russians. Never in my post did I imply that the P-3 rammed the Su-27. In fact, I highlighted the fact that it was the Sovet pilot's aggressive behaviour that resulted in the crash. While you stated people had failed to do their research on the subject, it seems you're guilty of the same charge when it comes to your own country.

That, or you pretend Wang Wei was the only one.

I'm aware of aggressive interceptions, in fact I have posted links describing encounter between Soviet/Russian aircraft an NATO aircraft in other threads so don't come in here accusing me of being guilty of being in favored of one side. The discussion was about how close an aircraft can get before it is shot down or intercepted. A number of Chinese members insist that any foreign military aircraft within 200 miles of US soil will get shot down, I proved that to be wrong with a reference to a TU-95 getting within 37 miles. But incredibly, somehow, you brought up something totally unrelated and then tried to put words in my mouth. Back to the P-3 and SU-27 you certainly did imply that the P-3 rammed the SU-27 by stating that, "So what were you saying about Russians having nothing but warnings". Your wording implies that the P-3 gave the SU-27 a warning by means of ramming it or that the Russians gave more than a warning by ramming the P-3, which I don't see how you could come to that conclusion when I stated that it was the Japanese that gave Russian aircraft warnings after Japanese airspace was violated. Case in point, anytime there is a collision someone is a fault usually the smaller fighter aircraft. No professional air force would tolerate it’s pilots carelessly ramming other aircraft even if the other aircraft was in violation of airspace. There are many reasons for this which includes: a international incident, loss of a multimillion dollar aircraft, potential loss of a military pilot with millions invested in his/her training, and possible destruction of property on the ground. Most pilots that engage in this behavior either get court marshaled or discharged. Pilots have even been discharged for flying too low.

 

[axisofevil]

Remember when an UAE plane landed in India with Chinese weapons. It was stopping to refuel but it allowed Indians to inspect these Chinese weapons up close.....remember the hollering by the CHinese posters.......enjoy and plz come again

 

[Imran Khan]

these Americans are heroes even they kill 1 or 1111111111111111111111111111111 USA is most hatred country in world .

 

[S10]

I'm aware of aggressive interceptions, in fact I have posted links describing encounter between Soviet/Russian aircraft an NATO aircraft in other threads so don't come in here accusing me of being guilty of being in favored of one side. The discussion was about how close an aircraft can get before it is shot down or intercepted. A number of Chinese members insist that any foreign military aircraft within 200 miles of US soil will get shot down, I proved that to be wrong with a reference to a TU-95 getting within 37 miles. But incredibly, somehow, you brought up something totally unrelated and then tried to put words in my mouth. Back to the P-3 and SU-27 you certainly did imply that the P-3 rammed the SU-27 by stating that, "So what were you saying about Russians having nothing but warnings". Your wording implies that the P-3 gave the SU-27 a warning by means of ramming it or that the Russians gave more than a warning by ramming the P-3, which I don't see how you could come to that conclusion when I stated that it was the Japanese that gave Russian aircraft warnings after Japanese airspace was violated. Case in point, anytime there is a collision someone is a fault usually the smaller fighter aircraft. No professional air force would tolerate it’s pilots carelessly ramming other aircraft even if the other aircraft was in violation of airspace. There are many reasons for this which includes: a international incident, loss of a multimillion dollar aircraft, potential loss of a military pilot with millions invested in his/her training, and possible destruction of property on the ground. Most pilots that engage in this behavior either get court marshaled or discharged. Pilots have even been discharged for flying too low.

Then you should know different country may approach interception of spy aircrafts differently, and citing Japan as an example in a discussion involving China is folly. The Soviets were well known for their aggressiveness, and in some cases was even authorized by higher authorities. If you consider Japan a relavent mention involving Chinese naval aviation, I'd consider Russia a relevant mention when it came to NATO.

As far as Americans go, they intercepted ships and even shot down airliners in international water. Don't act like they were always passive watchers.

 

[gambit]

As far as Americans go, they intercepted ships and even shot down airliners in international water. Don't act like they were always passive watchers.

Airliners, plural? So how many airliners have the US shot down?

 

[Akasa]

Do some thinking before you talk. This is not about interceptions but about the type of flying Wang Wei did that created the collision.

Alright, if you want to alter the topic, then here's some likewise reading for you:

F-15 fighter jet crashes in Libya | World news | The Guardian

No Ejection in F-22 Crash

That does not mean Wang Wei had authorization for any actions other than to intercept, monitor, and escort. If the American recon aircraft does anything else, he still had to request permission from ground authority to do anything.

If Wang Wei deliberately crashed into the EP-3, which you are implying, then that doesn't make him a "foolish" pilot, does it?

If you had carefully read my previous post, you would know that the pilots had full contact with ground control.

Tell me something I do not know, conscript reject.

How about I start by telling you that Canada doesn't have conscription, expert?

What 'threat' was that? Electromagnetic Emissions (EM) interceptions do not 'threaten' anyone or anything.

Then in that case the Pentagon has no reason to keep its doors locked.

(Hint: there's a reason why some documents are classified "Top Secret")

And were they reckless in their flying like Wang Wei was?

Did I mention their flying?

Keep on topic, buddy.

Show us one example of such.

For the sake of your common sense, the point of such regulation is to keep such "examples" from happening.

The US EEZ extends 200 miles from its shoreline and anyone that enters is at risk of interception. Nobody is stupid enough to make themselves an "example".

Nowhere did I say the interception was 'illegal' or 'illegitimate'. I said Wang Wei's flying was reckless and foolish. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you doing this deliberately to distract from the real issue?

If you want me to focus on one topic, then stop mentioning about how the flight was in "international airspace" and how Wang Wei had "no right" to do what he did.

 

[gambit]

Alright, if you want to alter the topic, then here's some likewise reading for you:

Got nothing to do with this topic. Human errors caused all kinds of problems, including ones in aviation. We are talking about a specific situation that require pilots to exercise their utmost restraints and flying skills. Wang Wei screwed up royally. Looks like YOU are the one who is trying to 'alter the topic'.

If Wang Wei deliberately crashed into the EP-3, which you are implying, then that doesn't make him a "foolish" pilot, does it?

Of course it does. The word 'foolish' here does not imply poor skills but poor judgment that led to a fatal disaster for him.

If you had carefully read my previous post, you would know that the pilots had full contact with ground control.

So what? Did they authorized Wang Wei to ram the American aircraft?

How about I start by telling you that Canada doesn't have conscription, expert?

Fine...But that still does not make you any more credible on this.

Then in that case the Pentagon has no reason to keep its doors locked.

(Hint: there's a reason why some documents are classified "Top Secret")

There is a world of difference between something that emanate and something that does not . Electromagnetic emissions are often beyond a person's control and once they are beyond a country's borders, they are fair game. I take it the Canadian education system did not teach you this basic science fact?

Did I mention their flying?

Do not care if you mention it or not. This topic involve flying so it must be considered.

Keep on topic, buddy.

Better than you are, kid.

For the sake of your common sense, the point of such regulation is to keep such "examples" from happening.

The US EEZ extends 200 miles from its shoreline and anyone that enters is at risk of interception. Nobody is stupid enough to make themselves an "example".

Then show everyone a single example of where we shot down someone who failed to ID himself.

If you want me to focus on one topic, then stop mentioning about how the flight was in "international airspace" and how Wang Wei had "no right" to do what he did.

The American aircraft's presence in international airspace is just as relevant as if it was in China's territorial airspace. Wang Wei was not authorized 'weapons free' so therefore he was not authorized to ram the American aircraft either. But the word 'ram' implied forethought that he knew what he was doing and going to do, which we know is absurd. That could only mean his flying, or lack of concentration or lack of experience thereof, caused a 'collision', which usually implied an accident, which mean Wang Wei may not be as competent as China made him out to be.

 

[S10]

Airliners, plural? So how many airliners have the US shot down?

Typo, I have the tendency to put s behind words. Nevertheless, Americans don't have a clean record over interception either.

 

[gambit]

Typo, I have the tendency to put s behind words. Nevertheless, Americans don't have a clean record over interception either.

Typo? More like you were hoping no one would do a fact check.

You are still wrong. Iran Air 655 was an accidental shoot down and I am willing to say from both incompetence and technical incapability on our part. The airliner was out of visual range from the ship. The incident occurred when there were obvious combat actions around.

For Wang Wei, he was in CLEAR visual range of the American aircraft. Unlike Iran Air 655, he knew what the American aircraft's mission. There was no state of hostility between China and the US. The airspace was not considered dangerous by any country that uses it.

No legitimate comparison.

 

[S10]

Typo? More like you were hoping no one would do a fact check.

You are still wrong. Iran Air 655 was an accidental shoot down and I am willing to say from both incompetence and technical incapability on our part. The airliner was out of visual range from the ship. The incident occurred when there were obvious combat actions around.

For Wang Wei, he was in CLEAR visual range of the American aircraft. Unlike Iran Air 655, he knew what the American aircraft's mission. There was no state of hostility between China and the US. The airspace was not considered dangerous by any country that uses it.

No legitimate comparison.

Didn't know you could read minds, Dr. Phil.

Nice you see you try to spin IA655 as some sort of accident, when your navy captain deliberately ordered the missile to be fired. Unless you're implying that Wang Wei deliberately ram the EP-3, you're absolutely right there is no comparison. One intended to cause destruction of the target, while the other occured as as accident.

I'm sure I don't need to compare the scale of death involved in both.

 

[gambit]

Didn't know you could read minds, Dr. Phil.

No need to.

Nice you see you try to spin IA655 as some sort of accident,...

Of course it was. If we knew that it was an airliner, we would not have fired.

...when your navy captain deliberately ordered the missile to be fired.

Missiles and guns do not discharge on their own. But there is no need for Dr. Phil to see how you are trying to spin the command to do something as equivalent to knowing the nature of the target. That is like saying there is no such thing as 'friendly fire' because the soldier had to pull the trigger and that mean he must have known who he was shooting at.

Unless you're implying that Wang Wei deliberately ram the EP-3, you're absolutely right there is no comparison. One intended to cause destruction of the target, while the other occured as as accident.

Did I?

I'm sure I don't need to compare the scale of death involved in both.

That still does not absolve Wang Wei of his foolish and possibly incompetent flying.

 

[S10]

No need to.

Well, you should apply for employment on that show then.

Of course it was. If we knew that it was an airliner, we would not have fired.

So because you were incompetent and overly aggressive, you killed 290 civilians. Tell that to the families of victims.

Missiles and guns do not discharge on their own. But there is no need for Dr. Phil to see how you are trying to spin the command to do something as equivalent to knowing the nature of the target. That is like saying there is no such thing as 'friendly fire' because the soldier had to pull the trigger and that mean he must have known who he was shooting at.

Keep trying to spin your story, even Captain Rogers' collegues admitted he was aggressive. Shooting down an climbing airliner is no accident and requires deliberate intent. On the other hand, a mid air collision came about as a unintended consequence.

Did I?

One deliberately shotdown a target, and one occured as an accident.

That still does not absolve Wang Wei of his foolish and possibly incompetent flying.

No, but your notion of reckless and incompetence is not unique to Wang Wei. In fact, your navy's incompetence extended to the whole ship involved.

 

[gambit]

So because you were incompetent and overly aggressive, you killed 290 civilians. Tell that to the families of victims.

It was a combat situation. Still...This has nothing to do with Wang Wei's reckless flying.

Keep trying to spin your story, even Captain Rogers' collegues admitted he was aggressive. Shooting down an climbing airliner is no accident and requires deliberate intent. On the other hand, a mid air collision came about as a unintended consequence.

No spinning here. If it was 'deliberate intent' then it was directed against what the ship's crew believed to be a hostile military aircraft, not against an civilian airliner. By your argument, there is no such thing as 'friendly fire' incidents, no?

One deliberately shotdown a target, and one occured as an accident.

And where did I even implied that Wang Wei deliberately rammed the American aircraft?

No, but your notion of reckless and incompetence is not unique to Wang Wei. In fact, your navy's incompetence extended to the whole ship involved.

One man's incompetence/foolishness does not justify another man's same.

The reality is that since then the US did not cease recon flights off China and there have been other intercepts...

Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following the collision, China's monitoring of reconnaissance flights became less aggressive.

Behind closed doors, the PLAAF got a spanking from the head commie for causing an unnecessary international incident that brought shame upon the Chinese nation. So what if China gained a few technical information from dissecting the EP-3? The US does not rests upon those technical laurels and have used better technologies since then.

There is no legitimate comparison between this incident and IranAir 655 because in the latter's case, EVERY navy in the world, including the PLAN, would have sympathy. The word 'sympathy' does not mean they feel 'sorry' for the US Navy but that every navy in the world have studied that disaster and when they take into consideration their inferior technology and lack of combat experience in such hostile and confined naval environment, they silently admitted that they possibly would have done the same.

The international aviation community have not been as kind and there is no need to be so kind. Flying is still essentially a solo endeavor, even when there are two qualified pilots in the cockpit there is still only a single 'stick actuator' that commands the aircraft to go which way. There can be no collision from beyond visual range. Absurd notion. All collisions are obviously within visual range and when this international fraternity read that the collision occurred in a quite ideal flying day, they will come down hard on the smaller aircraft and have came down hard on Wang Wei.

The head commie decided that for the gullible Chinese public Wang Wei will be made a 'hero/martyr' while the PLAAF will be privately chastised for failure to exercise strict flight discipline.