EP-3 Go Home

[Xingbake]

This EP-3 crashed with a Chinese J-8 fighter and then force landed at China Hainan island. After negotiation, China allowed US gov't to take it back.

http://61.132.72.44/dswc/upload/images/20216173100.jpg
http://61.132.72.44/dswc/upload/images/19298163230.jpg
http://61.132.72.44/dswc/upload/images/19298163231.jpg
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6914/010703shadow-h.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5853/010703side-h.jpg

[Bayonet]

that's a tragedy....Our pilot was dead....he had just been married....

http://cn.netor.com/m/box200104/pic/u5661wang.jpg

[Tengu]

how the hell did that happen??

[LordHalbert]

Were they're any intelligence related equipment that went "missing" ?

[b.scheller]

most likely not, but with the amount of time it took to get this plane back... ;)

[Bayonet]

http://news.sina.com.cn/z/wangwei/1_1-63-1215_2002040115948.jpg

The pilot and his son..... :( :( :(

[Bayonet]

Were they're any intelligence related equipment that went "missing" ?

No!

We gave them back !

[LordHalbert]

Very sad about the pilot, however, I question the judgement of either him or his superiors for allowing such a close fly by that led to the accident.

They're appears to be evidence that intelligence related equipment was indeed removed from the plane by the Chinese authorities. Now, I don't blame them for doing so. All 's fair in espionage.

[WolverineBlue]

The Chinese of course analyzed the hell out of the gear on that plane. The incident occurred over international water, and so the judgment of the Chinese air force was suspect.

My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot -- RIP.

[el_kab0ng]

It was my understanding that snooper planes have the ability to jettison anything of value in the event of capture. This might explain the missing radome within the nose cone.

All pictures I've ever seen of this aircraft after it landed were nose-less.

[BusterHyman]

This EP-3 was being buzzed by Chinese interceptors. It did not ram anything, in fact the pilot Wang Wei (wrong way) misjudged his final pass on the EP-3 and caught the number 1 prop while pulling up from underneath the spyplane. The result I believe was the tail of his fighter was chopped off and his plane careened into the nose of the Aries. Due to extraordinary skill the crew flying the ARIES were able to make an emergency landing on Hainan island. So to set history straight, because I'm sure the Chinese government laid blame on this incident to a very maneurvable American spyplane as the cause of this incident. It was all a matter of poor airmanship by Chinese pilots that caused this to go down and the loss of one of their pilots.

[Bayonet]

This EP-3 was being buzzed by Chinese interceptors. It did not ram anything, in fact the pilot Wang Wei (wrong way) misjudged his final pass on the EP-3 and caught the number 1 prop .


Do Not Call Him wrong way!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He was flying in our SKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Midav]

I agree. Don't call him Wrong Way.

However, he was not flying in "your" sky.

Had he been flying in "your" sky, wouldn't it make sense to you that the EP-3 and all others before that one would have been shot down? This EP-3 was rammed due to pilot error.

[henksmoeder]

Bayonet is right. THe plane shouldn't have been there. If your in someone's territorial skies, waters or whatever, you have a problem. Just like the Brits did in Iran. I think that the Chinese were more than generous by giving back the plane.

[Midav]

Read and weep (http://www.geo.appstate.edu/567_041301chinac.pdf)

12NM is the max territorial claim any one nation can make. Not 200.

[Bayonet]

We could shoot down this plane just like we sink an india sub which scout

our PLA's training recently but we didnt...

Do not call him wrong way again...Respect him please....

We chinese people all felt very very sad when we heard of this bad news.

[Midav]

I never called him wrong way. Again, the reason why China will not shoot down an EP-3 working 70 miles off its coast is because the international recognized limit is 12 miles.

If they would shoot down an EP-3 at anything over 12 miles, that would be an act of war, because it's in international waters. As simple as that.

[LordHalbert]

Why can't we all just get along :hug: !

[Midav]

You're right.
Let's give everyone a nuke, then have a go at it. In the end, cockroaches will reign supreme and there will be peace..... or will there? :P

[Bayonet]

Why can't we all just get along :hug: !

I also want to ask W-H-Y....

Luckily....

As a chinese view , the relationship between China and US is getting

better....

[Retard]

I got to examine the outside of the plane when it came back to the Lockheed for repair. I was working on an aircraft parked next to it. There were paint marks & slight damage down the side of the forward fuselage just aft of the missing radome. It looked like the Chinese Aircraft hit the radome & leftside of Fwd Fus.

I had some friends who went to China Hainan Island to prepare the P-3 for return. They had some interesting stories. Such as, the P-3 wing can be removed, but the Chinese required that it be cutoff. They speculated that the Chinese didn’t ever want to see the P-3 fly again.

[highlander653]

Midav is right, the spy plane was in international air space when that incident happened. Even the Chinese government admitted this. But their point of view is that plane intruded chinese air space during the emergency landing. Can someone tell me whether they can refuse the spy plane to land and let it crash in the sea? ;)

[Abolith]

Can someone tell me whether they can refuse the spy plane to land and let it crash in the sea? ;)

of course they can, but they only way to stop the P3 would have been to toast it and let it fall into the sea. It didn't hurt anyone to let it land and it was easily copntained on the runway, besides that they saw a good chance to examine all the gear onboard the P3 and thusly did so after the crew was taken off. I have NO doubt at all that gear will be, or has already been found missing from the P3. China will never admit to it of course, but that should be expected, afterall no government would admit to stealing anothers spygear.

[He219]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2001/dancart943.jpg

[platform389]

I had some friends who went to China Hainan Island to prepare the P-3 for return. They had some interesting stories. Such as, the P-3 wing can be removed, but the Chinese required that it be cutoff. They speculated that the Chinese didn’t ever want to see the P-3 fly again.

Oops... That didn't work rofl


The Department of Defense has allocated $45 million for repair of the EP-3E or for conversion of another P-3 to the EP-3E configuration, as determined by the Navy. The Navy has identified an NP-3D aircraft that would be used as a donor aircraft for the wings and the tail section to return the damaged EP-3E to service. The restored EP-3E then would fly to the Raytheon facility in Waco, Texas, for other repairs and an upgrade of its mission systems.


Everything went smoothly on the first test flight," said Jim Saye, a spokesman at Lockheed Martin's plant next to the base.


Lockheed says the plane will make at least one more test flight before going to a Raytheon facility for updated electronics. Then it will return to regular duty.

"We're looking forward to getting it back in the fleet," said Bob Coble, a Navy spokesman.

Interesting how they haven't interfered with any more flights. Guess those one way trips aren't too popular. Or the Orions have some friends flying along as well. rofl

[Identity31690]

Do Not Call Him wrong way!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He was flying in our SKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take some Ridelin and chill dude.

[He219]

This EP-3 crashed with a Chinese J-8 fighter and then force landed at China Hainan island. After negotiation, China allowed US gov't to take it back.
Is that what they tell you in China?

The Chinese jet's tail hit the EP-3's number-one engine propeller. Then, the EP-3's auto pilot went off and it made a steep left turn and lost some five-to-eight-thousand feet in altitude as the crew attempted to regain control.

The J-8 bumped into the EP-3 flying 68 miles soutwest of Hainan island. The EP-3 was then forced to land as the crew "zeroed" out crypto analytic equipment and other software before landing. 20-30 Maydays were broadcast before.


Those J-8 pilots flew reckless. See the Video for yourself:

28.8k (http://www.dod.gov/briefings/F-8_with_audio28k.ram)
56k (http://www.dod.gov/briefings/F-8_with_audio56k.ram)
Cable (http://www.dod.gov/briefings/F-8_with_audioLAN.ram)


For a full picture gallery, look Here (http://www.pacom.mil/pages/ep3photos.htm)
For more info on the event lookhere (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent/1,12044,FL_bushcomment_040301.htm,00.html)


China’s policy in the current episode plays up its "victim mentality," and accounts for its emotional rhetoric, unreasonable demands, and steadfast—if wrongheaded—insistence on dragging out this incident longer than it needs to. As a result of these self-perceived weaknesses, Chinese leaders are forced to take the "path of least resistance," which usually translates into some clumsy and poorly executed diplomacy. In short, this incident illustrates the problems which lie ahead in dealing with an "aggrieved" China, whose fragility and wounded pride may strengthen the hand of more hardline and nationalist elements in the Chinese political and military hierarchy.
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/views/op-ed/gill/20010406b.htm

[vryhpyammoadded]

It was all a matter of poor airmanship by Chinese pilots that caused this to go down and the loss of one of their pilots.

Hey, at least it wasn’t the old Soviet Union or North Korea; they just shot you down and we hardly heard a word in the news about it.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say poor piloting but I would say that flying an f-8 slow or thumping any aircraft, even a big P-3, is dangerous and that accidents happen. Mr. Wei fell victim to simple physics, unexpected interactions with another pilot and the aggressive nature of being a fighter pilot taking risks and making quick judgments and, when a pilot makes a bad judgment he normally pays dearly. It’s a shame he lost his life and so soon after getting married.
As for the P-3, I’m amazed and glad the pilot successfully landed the plane although, I’d rather he tried to land someplace other than the country he was gathering intell on.
Anyway, that was his call.

[Beowulf]

pwned

[Midav]

That was rather close. Never seen that video. Thanks for posting!

[usa320]

I have to agree, the F-8 pilot flew recklessly close to the P-3...

[Lysander]

Read and weep (http://www.geo.appstate.edu/567_041301chinac.pdf)

12NM is the max territorial claim any one nation can make. Not 200.

"According to the international norm, a nation's territorial air space extends 19 km from its coast line. The US is the exception and claims air space of 370 km from its coast line"

Is this statement above true?

[AE5]

I hope US government can release the video when the moment that incident happened. We can not tell which airplane ACTIVLY crashed into the other one from these pictures. And what will your country do when you find a spy airplane from another country is spying on your country's secrets, specially you two countries don't have a good history and relationship together.
And can any body tell me the story about that sub? Never heard that before. THX.

[BusterHyman]

I hope US government can release the video when the moment that incident happened. We can not tell which airplane ACTIVLY crashed into the other one from these pictures. And what will your country do when you find a spy airplane from another country is spying on your country's secrets, specially you two countries don't have a good history and relationship together.
And can any body tell me the story about that sub? Never heard that before. THX.

Common sense, coupled with international rules governing aircraft right of way would tell you that the slower, less maneuverable aircraft has the right of way over more maneuverable aircraft. Just think for a moment which aircraft in this case, the EP-3E ARIES, or the Chinese F-8 fits the bill of being slower, less maneuverable, and thus has the right of way. Common sense would say it is the EP-3E ARIES. Common sense would also tell you the Chinese pilot acted in a careless and wreckless manner, in which he paid with his life.

Forget this argument about Chinese airspace extending 300+ kms into the South China Sea. I am quite amused with you apologists who still think this is the fault of the US. You really should get a grip. Let common sense take over once. :P

[soma]

Were they're any intelligence related equipment that went "missing" ?

No!

We gave them back !

After you copied the **** outta them rofl

[He219]

The video shows the F-8 near stall speed and within the wing area of the EP-3. Common sense says any turbulence can send one flying into the other, causing a crash that eventually happened. You also saw how the EP-3 got 'bumped'. Common sense and that video proved the nature of these 'engagements'.

[Durandal]

The video shows the F-8 near stall speed and within the wing area of the EP-3. Common sense says any turbulence can send one flying into the other, causing a crash that eventually happened. You also saw how the EP-3 got 'bumped'. Common sense and that video proved the nature of these 'engagements'.

Hard to argue that logic.

You going to become a litigator man? ;)

[Durandal]

Hmmm...dup

[Ghostwolf]

The video shows the F-8 near stall speed and within the wing area of the EP-3. Common sense says any turbulence can send one flying into the other, causing a crash that eventually happened. You also saw how the EP-3 got 'bumped'. Common sense and that video proved the nature of these 'engagements'.

This turbulence is called wingtip vortex, any skilled pilot should know not to get too close or behind the wings of an large aircraft, this invisible tornado would just knock any aircraft out of the sky, or cause aircrafts to collide with each other. The XB-70 Valkyrie prototype bomber and the F-104 collision/crash back in 1966 was also the result of this phenomenon. The F-104 got too close to the XB-70, and got sucked into the wingtip vortex generated by the bomber and resulted in collision and lost of both aircrafts.

[Uncle Chô]

http://www.mead.k12.wa.us/SHILOH/Griffith/MrGsWebPage2/images/NO_WIDE_TURNS.gif
A sticker commonly found now on Chinese fighters ;)

[catalyst]

dude......it was international waters......not chinese waters!

It was a case of US being arrogant asses and flying close and looking around. The Chinese were pissed so they buzzed it and made a mistake....no ones fault as such.....if the US Navy plane wasnt around the pilot wouldnt have crashed....if the Chinese pilot hadnt flown so close....then he wouldnt have crashed....not as if the Ep-3 flew into it.....he was doing wat he is allowed 2 do.

Over IT now

[Omz222]

I believe that I have read somewhere that another cause to the collision would be the J-8's performance at low speeds. Since the EP-3E flys slow, it had to catch "up" at the same speed. But the speed wasn't good for the J-8, which is designed to be more of a interceptor, anyways. I'll agree with the fact that the two planes were near stall speeds, and I think that's also one element to this whole story.

[J-10]

Read and weep (http://www.geo.appstate.edu/567_041301chinac.pdf)

12NM is the max territorial claim any one nation can make. Not 200.

"According to the international norm, a nation's territorial air space extends 19 km from its coast line. The US is the exception and claims air space of 370 km from its coast line"

Is this statement above true?

I prefer to fly close 13NM to American coast line(international water) by a Chinese spy plane.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/Files/upfile/2004448522225.jpg

[Sora]

2 words " HA HA" woot woot woot woot woot

Dont argue with Chinese ever, just waste of time

[Xingbake]

http://www.mead.k12.wa.us/SHILOH/Griffith/MrGsWebPage2/images/NO_WIDE_TURNS.gif
A sticker commonly found now on Chinese fighters ;)

You should not make joke on the man who dead for his duty. :fork: :fork:

[Durandal]

http://www.mead.k12.wa.us/SHILOH/Griffith/MrGsWebPage2/images/NO_WIDE_TURNS.gif


rofl Oh, that is too funny.

[Uncle Chô]

You should not make joke on the man who dead for his duty. :fork: :fork:
Sorry but this is not what have been reported in numerous articles. This young pilot was already known for having taken too much risks during past interception with US aircrafts. This was by no way an accident. He was a hothead that did not comply with safety regulations and he not only lost his life -which is sad- but risked the life of the American crew.

[brigadeotg]

We could shoot down this plane just like we sink an india sub which scout our PLA's training recently but we didnt...


Err.. what? What is the source of this info? I guess this is from your propaganda machine too right? Or were you there when this happened? :roll:

[duck]

This is so pré-WMD scares. And is there even a plausible connection to OBL?

[AE5]

First I admit that chinese pilot's action was very dangerous. But we don't know what really happened at that moment unless the video is released. I myself only believe what I can see.
I don't understand what american spy plane doing there. If the plane was spying on chinese secrets, for my personal, I can't tolerate this. And if I were the chinese pilot there, I will crash myself with that EP-3. Let's die together. I know I do it for my country. How about americans, dieing thousand miles from their own land? If US government cares about the life of crews on the board, they should stop spying immidiatly.
Hope that will never happen. WORLD PEACE.

[ChuckThunder]

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. There are, however, no old, bold pilots.

[Durandal]

If US government cares about the life of crews on the board, they should stop spying immidiatly.
Hope that will never happen. WORLD PEACE.

What are you crazy?

You will ALWAYS have to spy on the Chinese...they are the next world power. Get it while you can.

[Omz222]

I'd also recall that after the collision happened the pilot did eject... and the other pilot did actually request for permission to fire (PLAAF should REALLY get rid of the whole Soviet style CGI thing IMO in terms of comat efficency). But the ground control, for their own resons, refused. If the other pilot did fire on the plane and destroyed it however, I would think that this would end someway like the North Korean shootdown of an American AEW aircraft (EC-121 -- is that right?) back in the 70es (I believe), but maybe with a worse result.

[Red]

This forum has gone to hell.And you chinese guys need to get a grip on reality.Oh wait i forgot,your government does your thinking for you.Never mind

[epc]

Bayonet is right. THe plane shouldn't have been there. If your in someone's territorial skies, waters or whatever, you have a problem. Just like the Brits did in Iran. I think that the Chinese were more than generous by giving back the plane.

The Brits are claiming that the Iranians forced the small, unarmed boats into the Iranian water. The claim can be either substantiated or refuted by the records in the onboard satellite navigation equipment. The return of the said equipment is now under negotiation.

[wyrm_142]

The great Satan isn't the only country that flies recce assets on the 12nm line. Russia, France, Great Britian, China, hell most of the major countries all have a fixed wing recce capability. Some just don't have the ability to fly on the other side of the globe.

Most countries choose to intercept said recce assets (or other military flights) to let the other country know that they can. Hey, you're looking at us, but we're watching you back - etc.

For the most part intercepts are conducted in a professional manner. As shown in the linked video, Chinesse F-8 intercepts were becoming more dangerous. The pilot that was involved in the mid-air had - on a prior intercept, held up his e-mail address to the EP-3 crew.

Intelligence is known as the second oldest profession - and its not going away.

[Burncycle]

Yeah, besides the chinese don't need to spy on us with aircraft. They just buy a president p-)

That pilot is a hot dog just like any other fighter pilot around the world. They're all the same- they've got more than their fair share of testicular fortitude.

I'm sad he ended up dying..... just as I'm sad when a guy crashes his motorcycle doing tricks. I don't feel SORRY for him..... but I'm not glad. He knew the risks he was getting into, he just ****ed it up this time. That will get you killed at 20,000 feet and stall speed.

It was kind of like a game to them probably. They'd intercept, wave, show off.... it just turned out badly this time.

Sure a stunt feels good when you pull it off, but I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who was reckless and private murphy finally caught up to him.

[Xingbake]

Hi, Guys! It is a common practice!

During the cold war, when there was a USSR spy plane flyed close to a western country, the country will send fighters to head off it. And USSR did the same thing when there was a western country spy plane close to its territory.

Now a days, when the Chinese Y-8 patrol plane flys close to Japan or SK, they will send its F-18 to head off it also.

It was an accident. But heading off EF-3 was not wrong. It's just a common practice that every country is doing!!!

[Ratamacue]

Hi, Guys! It is a common practice!

During the cold war, when there was a USSR spy plane flyed close to a western country, the country will send fighters to head off it. And USSR did the same thing when there was a western country spy plane close to its territory.

Now a days, when the Chinese Y-8 patrol plane flys close to Japan or SK, they will send its F-18 to head off it also.

It was an accident. But heading off EF-3 was not wrong. It's just a common practice that every country is doing!!!
Regardless of whether the intercept was the right thing to do, your pilot was reckless and not only got himself killed but could have very easily killed the crew of that EP-3 as well.

[Xingbake]

Hi, Guys! It is a common practice!

During the cold war, when there was a USSR spy plane flyed close to a western country, the country will send fighters to head off it. And USSR did the same thing when there was a western country spy plane close to its territory.

Now a days, when the Chinese Y-8 patrol plane flys close to Japan or SK, they will send its F-18 to head off it also.

It was an accident. But heading off EF-3 was not wrong. It's just a common practice that every country is doing!!!
Regardless of whether the intercept was the right thing to do, your pilot was reckless and not only got himself killed but could have very easily killed the crew of that EP-3 as well.

I agreed that it was an accident. You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try.

The USSR Su-27 pilot did the same thing in 1980s' to intercept Norway's EP-3.

[Burncycle]

You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try.

:backhand:

[SUREFIRE]

Personally I believe war between the United States and the Communist China over the Island of Taiwan is a certainity in the foreseeable future. So we better be prepared.

[iflu]

what the hell r u arguing about? check some incidents between USSR(Russian) and Nato... it is NORMAL for such action for BOTH sides. remember su-27 vs p3-c? and in this case, the chinese pilot was bad luck coz he was flying a J8 (no no no, just use J8 for REAL interception....it performs bad at low speed) and maybe chinese will use su-27 instead later. and maybe the same traffic incident will happen again...

[ctcboy]

"I agreed that it was an accident. You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try."

No he didnt have to take risk action and he had no right to do so. The American aircraft was in international waters and had every right to be there. China was completely in the wrong to order or allow its pilots to conduct intercepts in this manner. The end result was very little different from the Chinese shooting down the ep-3. That would clearly have been unacceptable. The crash should be viewed in much the same light.

On another note I am always curious when I see posts from China on this forum. It is my understanding that the Chinese government is taking steps to block its citizens access to the internet. In particular to pro democracy sites. I kind of wonder who these guys who post here really are. They are always very quick to defend the actions of the communist government. I wouldnt expect an ordinary citizen to be eager to do that.

[/quote]

[Xingbake]

"I agreed that it was an accident. You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try."

No he didnt have to take risk action and he had no right to do so. The American aircraft was in international waters and had every right to be there. China was completely in the wrong to order or allow its pilots to conduct intercepts in this manner. The end result was very little different from the Chinese shooting down the ep-3. That would clearly have been unacceptable. The crash should be viewed in much the same light.

On another note I am always curious when I see posts from China on this forum. It is my understanding that the Chinese government is taking steps to block its citizens access to the internet. In particular to pro democracy sites. I kind of wonder who these guys who post here really are. They are always very quick to defend the actions of the communist government. I wouldnt expect an ordinary citizen to be eager to do that.

[/quote]

Hahaaaaa~~~~~You think I am not in China???? Look at my IP address!!!! I am now sitting in my office that is located on Nanjing road and enjoy my lunch. And you think I am on Mars??? I can visit internet at home, at office and at Ciber Cafe. I have to admit that some websites were blocked by Chinese gov't due to the political reasons. But we can access and visit Internet anytime anywhere.

This is a typical logistic of a guy who never been to China and all his learnings about China is from your newspaper.

And you think most CHinese are against our gov't???? How ridiculous!!!

BTW: I am working at a US company.

[Red]

"I agreed that it was an accident. You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try."

No he didnt have to take risk action and he had no right to do so. The American aircraft was in international waters and had every right to be there. China was completely in the wrong to order or allow its pilots to conduct intercepts in this manner. The end result was very little different from the Chinese shooting down the ep-3. That would clearly have been unacceptable. The crash should be viewed in much the same light.

On another note I am always curious when I see posts from China on this forum. It is my understanding that the Chinese government is taking steps to block its citizens access to the internet. In particular to pro democracy sites. I kind of wonder who these guys who post here really are. They are always very quick to defend the actions of the communist government. I wouldnt expect an ordinary citizen to be eager to do that.



Hahaaaaa~~~~~You think I am not in China???? Look at my IP address!!!! I am now sitting in my office that is located on Nanjing road and enjoy my lunch. And you think I am on Mars??? I can visit internet at home, at office and at Ciber Cafe. I have to admit that some websites were blocked by Chinese gov't due to the political reasons. But we can access and visit Internet anytime anywhere.

This is a typical logistic of a guy who never been to China and all his learnings about China is from your newspaper.

And you think most CHinese are against our gov't???? How ridiculous!!!

BTW: I am working at a US company.[/quote]
You are still denying the obvious.And it does not matter that you work for a US company,we all know you guys bought Clinton over to allow ya'll into the WTO so can it.

[Xingbake]

You are still denying the obvious.And it does not matter that you work for a US company,we all know you guys bought Clinton over to allow ya'll into the WTO so can it.

Do you have any basic knowledge about WTO? If there is one member object, China can't join WTO. You think China can buy all the memebers?

Pls. pls. use your own brain to think and don't let those western press to think for you.

[Red]

You are still denying the obvious.And it does not matter that you work for a US company,we all know you guys bought Clinton over to allow ya'll into the WTO so can it.

Do you have any basic knowledge about WTO? If there is one member object, China can't join WTO. You think China can buy all the memebers?

Pls. pls. use your own brain to think and don't let those western press to think for you.
Westeren press think for me?That was funny coming from a Chinaman.

[iflu]

as to WTO, u cant buy a man in order to join WTO, u have to buy a country instead...no.i mean every member of WTO, saying around 147 countries(not sure right now). dont think that america is SO powerful that can allow china to join WTO. in fact the main barriers were US, EU, Japan,...while not US along (although to china, US was the most tuff one to deal with) .

WTO rule No. 1: u have to, literately, negotiate with every member and sign bilateral document with each member.

it is always good to read more...

[seruriermarshal]

"I agreed that it was an accident. You think the Chinese pilot wanted to suicide??? He tried serveral times to warned the EP-3 to fly away but it didn't work. Finally he had to take the risk action. Unfortunately he didn't make it at the last try."

No he didnt have to take risk action and he had no right to do so. The American aircraft was in international waters and had every right to be there. China was completely in the wrong to order or allow its pilots to conduct intercepts in this manner. The end result was very little different from the Chinese shooting down the ep-3. That would clearly have been unacceptable. The crash should be viewed in much the same light.

On another note I am always curious when I see posts from China on this forum. It is my understanding that the Chinese government is taking steps to block its citizens access to the internet. In particular to pro democracy sites. I kind of wonder who these guys who post here really are. They are always very quick to defend the actions of the communist government. I wouldnt expect an ordinary citizen to be eager to do that.



Hahaaaaa~~~~~You think I am not in China???? Look at my IP address!!!! I am now sitting in my office that is located on Nanjing road and enjoy my lunch. And you think I am on Mars??? I can visit internet at home, at office and at Ciber Cafe. I have to admit that some websites were blocked by Chinese gov't due to the political reasons. But we can access and visit Internet anytime anywhere.

This is a typical logistic of a guy who never been to China and all his learnings about China is from your newspaper.

And you think most CHinese are against our gov't???? How ridiculous!!!

BTW: I am working at a US company.[/quote]
Hmmm...Perhaps you use a proxy ?

rofl

[Xingbake]

Hmmm...Perhaps you use a proxy ?

rofl

What does Proxy mean?

[seruriermarshal]

Hmmm...Perhaps you use a proxy ?

rofl

What does Proxy mean?

That's Proxy Server .

[Xingbake]

Hmmm...Perhaps you use a proxy ?

rofl

What does Proxy mean?

That's Proxy Server .I am using company server at office and China Telecom server at home. I am not sure if they are Proxy Server. Anything special of a Proxy Server?

[Mark Sman]

OK, one point I think is being missed.

Spying on each other is good.

When both sides know the facts they can make more accurate judgements. Accurate judgements lead to less suprises.

Suprises lead to war.

This is one of the reasons why Eisenhower proposed the "Open Skies" agreement between the USSR and the US. It was declined, so we built U2s and SR-71s.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/cw12.htm

That intell lead to us not going to war. It showed us that a war with the USSR was a mutually assured destruction.

Incidentally, the US lost spy planes in Russian airspace besides the one usually spoken of.

http://www.nsa.gov/vigilance/index.cfm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/cw10.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/cw7.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/cw6.htm

Suprises lead to war. Spying has stopped a hell of a alot of wars.

[seruriermarshal]

Hmmm...Perhaps you use a proxy ?

rofl

What does Proxy mean?

That's Proxy Server .I am using company server at office and China Telecom server at home. I am not sure if they are Proxy Server. Anything special of a Proxy Server?

And perhaps , use google.com search it .

;)

[Omz222]

About speculations on this website is blocked, I don't have much of a trouble accessing this website at home on dial-up (this time at Beijing), though I have noticed that both the BBC and CNN websites were blocked. But that doesn't mean we can't access any websites outside China.

But about spying, I'd agree that it could bring both benefits and harm in the long term with both sides could gain more understanding and avoid confusion/misleadings/etc. But I also think that like the Open Skies thing, if one side spies, the other side also reserve such right. In the EP-3 spyplane case, it's understandable for the PLA to warn the spyplanes in some way that they were being watched as they spied and such, but the collision unofrtunately came this time.

As a matter of fact, there's also U-2s based on Taiwan which were shot down over the mainland by SA-2s (the first in 1967 I believe). There's also some (origionally target) Firebee drones that were shot down also when they were on a recon mission. You can see the wreckage of both at the Military Museum at Beijing. Pretty interesting museum actually.

[Mark Sman]

U-2s based on Taiwan which were shot down

Documentation or sources requested.

Also, I note, that you never specified what "this website" was on your outgoing posts.

[Mark Sman]

As far as both sides spying. That is expected. It would be childish to believe otherwise.

The Chinese government (and we only recognize one China) has a robust human and electronic intelligence service in the US.

For the most part, these assets and agents are allowed the freedom to go wherever they wish in the US. The same can not be said inside of China. Thus, we use other methods. The EP-3 is one.

On this point I will not take any arguing. Freedom of movement is far less restricted in the US than it is in China. Although, of course, it is restricted to a degree in both.

http://users.rio.com/foster/aliens/area51/restrictedsigns3.jpg

[Omz222]

U-2s based on Taiwan which were shot down

Documentation or sources requested.

Also, I note, that you never specified what "this website" was on your outgoing posts.
Do a Google search on "U-2 losses". There will be a few websites that you will discover when you skim through that contains the info on U-2 losses over China.

Or, go to this link -- http://www.spyflight.co.uk/U2.HTM . Go to the bottom and you will see 5 losses, and I'd guess all are lose to PLA SA-2s.

If you want material evidence however, go to the Military Museum in Beijing and you will see the burnt wreckage on the right of the Firebee wreckage.

[Mark Sman]

Indeed.


U-2A #6691 delivered(was flown by Taiwan AF (ROCAF), shot down near Peking, China by SA-2)
9 September 1962 A Chinese Nationalist U-2C was shot down over Mainland China.
1 November 1963 A Chinese Nationalist U-2C was shot down over Mainland China.
7 July 1964 A Chinese Nationalist U-2C was shot down over Mainland China.
alt version: # 7 Jul 1964, U-2G #362 is shot down over Southern China, ROCAF Pilot: Lt. Col. "Terry" Lee Nan Ping is killed (AC)
10 January 1965 A Chinese Nationalist U-2C was shot down over Mainland China.

Yup, looks like there is some net evidence of this. I would like to see some accounts from the time (english please) to firm this up.

[Mark Sman]

OK, sleepy time for all good catapultists now. More on this later.

Bayo, sorry to leave you hanging the other day, but the golf game went late. And it got a little but drunk out. Hope you understand.

That is if THEY haven't hauled you away to a orientation facility I mean.

p-)

[ctcboy]

Xingbake you said
"Hahaaaaa~~~~~You think I am not in China???? Look at my IP address!!!! I am now sitting in my office that is located on Nanjing road and enjoy my lunch. And you think I am on Mars??? I can visit internet at home, at office and at Ciber Cafe. I have to admit that some websites were blocked by Chinese gov't due to the political reasons. But we can access and visit Internet anytime anywhere. "

I said
"On another note I am always curious when I see posts from China on this forum. It is my understanding that the Chinese government is taking steps to block its citizens access to the internet. In particular to pro democracy sites. I kind of wonder who these guys who post here really are. They are always very quick to defend the actions of the communist government. I wouldnt expect an ordinary citizen to be eager to do that. "

I am not suggesting here that you are not in China. I am suggesting that you might be a government puppet. Although I think it more likely that you are simply a communist who believes the party line.

You also said
"This is a typical logistic of a guy who never been to China and all his learnings about China is from your newspaper"

Most of what I know about China comes from independent study from a variety of sources. Newspapers make up a very small part of this.
This learning is backed up by my degree in political science.
Additionaly here in Canada we have a free press that is neither government owned or controled. As such they do not feed us the party line. Even the CBC which is government funded is free to say what it wants and is often critical of the government. Our government also doesnt block our accces to any news sources. By your own addmission yours does.

"I have to admit that some websites were blocked by Chinese gov't due to the political reasons."

Reading your posts I am given to believe that you are an inteligent educated person. For this reason I find it hard to believe that you cannot see the problem with your government doing that. Does this not lead you to question wether the information you have learned about this incedent is actually correct?

You also said
"And you think most CHinese are against our gov't???? How ridiculous!!!"
Two words Tianamen Square.

Also I dont find it hard to believe that you are working for an Ameriacn company. Many in the west beleive that the best way to bring China around to our way of thinking is to deelop as many trade ties as possible.
The company I work for buys an increasingly large amount of its merchandise from China. The hope is that eventually the communist government in China will come to regard its economic relationship with the west as being of such high value that they will moderate their behaviour to protect this relationship. Hopefully this will eventually ensure that you will be able to access any news site that you wish. Hoefully it will mean there will be no more Tianamen Square style massacres of disidentsHopefully it will end Chinas threatening posturing over Tiawan. Hopefully it will mean a future in wich China does not come into violent conflict with the west.

[chengwudi]

There are some guys in the forum consider the questions with the toe .
You are very ignorant and droll to China through your speeches. So, I hope that you should face your media and give up your prejudice , because it seems not very perfect . Welcome to my country, you will find that you have not come to North-Korea .BTW, i 'm visiting internet in my dormitory, maybe play with Quake 3 (vs fantality :D ) on network after a while . God, what am I saying on earth?

[Mark Sman]

There are some guys in the forum consider the questions with the toe .
You are very ignorant and droll to China through your speeches. So, I hope that you should face your media and give up your prejudice , because it seems not very perfect . Welcome to my country, you will find that you have not come to North-Korea

If you mean me, then you better just say it.

Dancing around a question may burn energy, but it don't get results. So name names if you are going to say something like that. Or else, my intell may be faulty because I think you mean me.

Then we all get a suprise.

Apparently catapultists don't get as much sleep as they sometimes hope for.

[BlackRain]

Here are some official US military quotes about the incident:

"Pentagon officials said the EP-3E was over international air space, at least 50 miles off the shore of Hainan Island, when the two Chinese-made F-8 fighter planes began shadowing it on Saturday night."

"The Navy aircraft was part of a squadron based on Whidbey Island, Wash., but it began its mission on Saturday from Kadena air base on Okinawa, about 1,000 miles from Hainan.

The slow-moving plane, which runs on four turboprop engines, has a range of more than 3,000 nautical miles and is capable of staying in the air for more than 12 hours at a time, requiring it to carry two sets of pilots on most long-range missions."

"The intercepts by Chinese fighters over the past couple of months have become more aggressive, to the point that we felt that they were endangering the safety of Chinese and American aircraft," said Admiral Dennis C. Blair, commander in chief of the United States Pacific Command.

"In Beijing, Chinese officials, who said the U.S. crew was safe, blamed the American aircraft. They said the EP-3, which is based at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, caused the collision off the southern Chinese island of Hainan.

In Honolulu, the commander of U.S. Pacific military forces said the Chinese planes were at fault and sharply criticized China for "aggressive" tactics in intercepting U.S. planes.

"It's not a normal practice to play bumper cars in the air," Adm. Dennis Blair said at Camp Smith."

U.S. Pacific Command officials in Honolulu showed a map that put the collision about 80 miles southeast of Hainan, well outside the 12-mile territorial sea and airspace.

China said the incident took place about 6 miles from Hainan. The Communist nation claims most of the South China Sea as its territorial waters. That claim is rejected by countries that use the vast expanse of ocean for shipping.

"The U.S. side has total responsibility for this event," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that it had made a "serious" protest.

It said two Chinese fighters were sent up to track the plane as it approached Chinese airspace. "The U.S. plane abruptly diverted toward the Chinese planes, and its head and left wing collided with one of the Chinese planes, causing the Chinese plane to crash," it said. It said rescuers were searching for the missing Chinese pilot.

But Admiral Blair blamed the Chinese fighters, which he said were similar to F-16s, fly much faster and have more maneuverability than the EP-3, a four-engine turboprop about the size of a Boeing 737.

"Big airplanes like this fly straight and level on their path; little airplanes zip around them," he said. "Under international airspace rules, the faster, more maneuverable aircraft has the obligation to stay out of the way of the slower aircraft." "

[Xingbake]

U-2s based on Taiwan which were shot down

Documentation or sources requested.

Also, I note, that you never specified what "this website" was on your outgoing posts.

U－2 remians displayed at China Military Museum:

http://img4.exs.cx/img4/3500/DSCN20841.jpg
http://img4.exs.cx/img4/480/DSCN20851.jpg

[Mark Sman]

I'm suprised it came down in such a solid chunk. Did it land after a disabling hit?

Oh, just thought,

It might have been partially reassembled after impact.

[duck]

In reality there are only lobbyists writing on this forum. My agenda is to sell each of you an excuisite Korean Golf bag with integrated TV. For those moments when you don't want to miss your favorite reality show while at the green.

[Mark Sman]

Anyway, thanks for that pic. I can assure you that it has rarely, if ever, been seen by members of this forum.

Almost to the point it deserves its own topic in Mil History section.

[Mark Sman]

In reality there are only lobbyists writing on this forum. My agenda is to sell each of you an excuisite Korean Golf bag with integrated TV. For those moments when you don't want to miss your favorite reality show while at the green.

Yawn. been there, done that. Sold the licensing rights.

[Xingbake]

Anyway, thanks for that pic. I can assure you that it has rarely, if ever, been seen by members of this forum.

Almost to the point it deserves its own topic in Mil History section.

It was not rare. Totally 5 U-2s were hit down by PLA during 1960s-1970s.

[Mark Sman]

It was not rare. Totally 5 U-2s were hit down

Yeah, I know now. Check my return post previous page. It lists the dates.

What I'm saying is that very few people have seen this pics or heard this history. To the point it deserves its own heading on this forum under miltary history.

[BlackRain]

What I'm saying is that very few people have seen this pics or heard this history. To the point it deserves its own heading on this forum under miltary history.

This history is pretty widely know and documented in the USA. If you ever read the book, "Dark Eagles: A History of Top Secret U.S. Aircraft Programs" by Author Curtis Peebles, you would see this. The book was published in 1999.

[Xingbake]

The U-2 remains be displayed in 1970s.

http://dailynews.dayoo.com/img/2003-02/17/xin_9343a2d9bad24fa7848195cf67d5d747.jpg

[Mark Sman]

OK, scuse the hell out of me. You've proved your point.

You are right. It does not deserve its own topic under military history.

[He219]

I can easily spin the last part into it's own topic:
:D

What are your suggestions for a title?


Also, does anybody have information on the D-21 drones that were launched into China for a short period of time during the mid 60's (from B-52's in lieu of the M-12) before the project was cancelled; did any of those end up in the China Military Museum?

http://www.habus.org/revealed/pics/a12drone1.jpg

[Xingbake]

I can easily spin the last part into it's own topic:
:D

What are your suggestions for a title?


Also, does anybody have information on the D-21 drones that were launched into China for a short period of time during the mid 60's (from B-52's in lieu of the M-12) before the project was cancelled; did any of those end up in the China Military Museum?

http://www.habus.org/revealed/pics/a12drone1.jpg

Totally 11 drones were hit down in China:

http://dailynews.sina.com.cn/c/1-1-276727_021008.jpg

China made its copied version called "Long Rainbow:

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/JIATELIN/pla/gfx/dr5/dr5_2.jpg
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/JIATELIN/pla/gfx/dr5/dr5_5.jpg

BTW: the pictures were taken at China Airforce Museum :D :D

[He219]

D-21 drones? Pictures please!
:D

That's a nice B-29 lookalike ....

[J-10]

About speculations on this website is blocked, I don't have much of a trouble accessing this website at home on dial-up (this time at Beijing), though I have noticed that both the BBC and CNN websites were blocked. But that doesn't mean we can't access any websites outside China.



CNN is blocked ???

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/02/iraq.main/index.html

[Xingbake]

http://img5.exs.cx/img5/2290/Clipboard12.jpg

:D :D :D :D

[chengwudi]

Mark Sman. Perhaps you have misunderstood my meaning .I have just found that there are some people that have this kind of misunderstanding , do not refer to someone .
I do not have other meaning, do not like playing with words either .

[Durandal]

Man, suddenly all the Zhonggou ren are getting up tight...

[ShadowNeo]

That's a nice B-29 lookalike ....

I don't think this is another simple "Chinese Copy", IIRC, the Russians made a copy of the B-29 (or another simmilar bomber), so I would think it is more likely to be Russian-Sold or Russian copied/Chinese made.

So maybe that would make it a copy of a copy?

[Ghostwolf]

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/JIATELIN/pla/gfx/dr5/dr5_5.jpg

Hmmm, Chinese copy of the Firebee?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30a.jpg

[Red]

The Chinese folks seem to be very defensive

[vryhpyammoadded]

D-21 drones? Pictures please!
:D

That's a nice B-29 lookalike ....

I've heard China still has a number of TU-4's in operation. That B-29 was a well designed and tough old bird. It’s good to see them still flying.

I haven’t seen it in years but there is a declassified public D-21 wreck in China pictured out there somewhere. I remember it specifically because that was the first time I’d ever heard of the D-21 drone.

Cool Ryan Firebee clone pics! We sent scads of those into hot AAA zones in the 60’s-70’s.

[Omz222]

About my previous post, nevermind, hasn't seemed to be blocked. Just too slow here when loading, so I midunderstood. Sorry, but thanks for the link.

About the Tu-4 copy, I'd recall that the Tu-4 was produced in the Stalinist era when some B-29s made emergency landings on a Soviet airfield I believe... But then the Soviets selled the planes to us.

The drones -- http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_371.shtml


Additional interesting pieces of US high-tech were acquired by the Soviets and the Chinese in the period between 1968 and 1970 for example, when the USAF intensively operated BQM-34 reconnaissance drones over Chinese mainland and North Vietnam. Dozens of these were shot down by Chinese and Vietnamese air defences, while others were captured in a relatively lightly damaged condition. Interestingly, the Chinese developed a whole family of UAVs on the basis of the wreckage of US BQM-34s, starting with air launched Chang Hing (Long Rainbow) initially launched from one Tu-4 bomber - (another gone with the Wind aircraft, which is outside the envelope of this article), developed by the Beijing Technical Institute and carried by specially equipped Y-8E transports. Even the newest Chinese Chong Hong UAV, the model of which was recently shown on the Air Show in Zhuhai, is clearly showing the resemblance to the AQM-34N.

[J-10]

http://army.tom.com/img/assets/200405/040517133747a04050251.jpg
http://www.warchina.com/jspl18/images/tu4yjj.jpg
http://www.warchina.com/jspl18/images/tuyjj-1.jpg
http://past.people.com.cn/media/200306/18/NewsMedia_267963.jpg
http://past.people.com.cn/media/200306/18/NewsMedia_267965.jpg
"Kongjing-1" Tu-4 + "843" radar ( 1967-1971 in service)

[BlackRain]

Totally 11 drones were hit down in China:



That's an amazing claim but totally false.


Only 38 D-21's were built and of those only 21 actually flew - 17 off the B-52H, including the 4 operational missions over China.



The B-52H / D-21B combination was used for 4 operational sorties over China to investigate their nuclear test area at Lop Nor, some 2,000 miles inland of the China-Mongolia border.

The first D-21 launched on 9 Nov 69 managed to photograph the site, but then due to a guidance malfunction, failed to execute its turn-back to the recovery area and flew straight on, eventually crashing in the former USSR. Many years later, after the end of the Cold War, Ben Rich of Lockheed visited the Russian Federation and was presented with the remains of the D-21 by the KGB.

On 16 Dec 70 another D-21 reached Lop Nor, and returned to the recovery area, but after a flight of 2648mns, the hatch damaged the parachute and the camera package disappeared into the sea. On 4 Mar 71 another D-21 performed perfectly, managing to overfly Lop Nor, before returning to the recovery area after a flight of 2935nms. Once again the parachute was damaged by the hatch and dropped gently into the sea where it floated. Then, as a Navy ship tried to recover the hatch, it managed to run over it and damage it sufficiently for it to sink.

Two weeks later on 20 Mar 71 another D-21 was tracked for 1,900 miles into China before it suffered some kind of malfunction and disappeared - the remains are probably still out there somewhere in the middle of the vast expanse of the Gobi desert, just waiting to be discovered.

There is no evidence that the Chinese ever tracked any D-21 whilst they were hurtling over their territory.

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/D21.htm

[Omz222]

BlackRain: Actually I don't think that he meant 11 D-21s were shot down... More like Firebee drones. By the look of the first B/W picture and the rest, it seems that he meant 11 Firebees were shot down. Qquite reasonable considering the US seemed to had a sizeable amount of the drones (excluding target drones) and they flew a lot of missions over both China and N. Vietnam.
\But the D-21 still looks pretty cool... like a mini-SR-71.

J-10: Cool pics, didn't quite know that the PLAAF had installed AWACS-style radars on that at that early of a date.. Seems that the Tu-4, like the Tu-16/H-6, are also used for a lot of different purposes...

[BlackRain]

If you want the real history of the "Firebee" or Lightning Bug drones minus the propoganda; check here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav3.html

LIGHTNING BUG SUMMARY
* A total of 3,435 Lightning Bug missions were flown against Communist China, North Vietnam, and North Korea, with the mission breakdown by year as follows:

1964: 20
1965: 77
1966: 105
1967: > 100?
1968: 340
1969: 437
1970: > 400?
1971: 406
1972: 570
1973: 444
1974: 518 (includes flights in first half of 1975)

Almost half of the missions were flown by the Model 147SC, of which about a thousand were built. 578 drones of all types were lost, with over half shot down and the rest lost in various accidents.