Left-Wing Rationalizes China Actions Again
Steven D. Litvintchouk
that EP-3 was their job -- which is to cruise almost daily up and down
China's coast, often a little more than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather
intelligence.'
"It's 'just routine.'
"Never mind that we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our
land. Never mind that, if the situation were reversed -- if a Chinese
'intelligence gathering' plane happened to bump into a U.S. fighter off
San Diego and make an emergency landing on, say, Coronado -- we would be
all over that aircraft like maggots on a fresh corpse."
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0405-06.htm
The author, Ms. Salter, ignores the fact that the U.S. plane was in
international airspace. She accepts Beijing's PROPAGANDA that our P3
prop-driven plane RAMMED the Chinese fighter.
And as for "we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our land,"
she is INCORRECT.
We live in a free open society, unlike China.
We've got THOUSANDS, maybe MILLIONS, of LEFT-WINGERS crawling all over
our country. Any or all of them could give China all the information it
wants about us.
And they probably already have.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Furplay
being anti-China here.
--
"Who is driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"
euroleader
"Steven D. Litvintchouk" <s...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3ACD74CF...@mitre.org...
You wouldn't be getting slightly paranoid about this whole business? When
the Russian Mig pilot defected in the 70s sometime - think he landed in
Japan - it took weeks for the US to return the jet, despite strong protests.
It eventually turned up in Moscow - in packing cases!
It's not impossible for the US plane to have hit the Chinese fighter. One
scenario put forward suggests the Chinese pilot was just beneath the
surveillance aircraft, and when the latter banked slightly at the start of a
turn, losing a little altitude, this led to a collision. The damage to the
cone underneath the cockpit certainly doesn't rule out this possibility.
Anything's possible - and as usual, Joe Public will be the last person to
find out what really happened - if ever. All that's needed is cool
diplomacy, no gung-ho "if you don't give us our plane back we won't let you
have the Olympics" stuff - that can only make matters worse.
Peter
Will Griffin
Everybody (U.S & China) has their own internal political realities here. If the
communist hardliners whip up the folks there, it is then difficult for the PRC
to negotiate, certainly on the apology issue. If the right wing here is
whipping up sell arms to Taiwan, no Olympics, trade isolation, and NMD, then it
is tough for Colin Powell to establish foundations for negotiations.
First and foremost, we need to get those folks home. China needs to get
those folks home. China also needs and has a right to investigate an accident
(involving 24 witnesses) where they lost an aircraft and a citizen-soldier. An
opportunity was missed early, where we could have said in effect: "it is your
pilot we're looking for and waters closer (but recognizing these to be
international waters) to your sovereign and therefore your lead in search &
rescue, but we stand ready to assist". This way not only would have everybody
been able to save face politically, but it would have been the right thing, the
honorable thing, and the American thing to do.
It appears that now instead of the cooperative search and rescue, we have a
potential resolve to bringing our people home being a joint inquiry of the
accident. I hope this holds, because it will be the right thing to do. It may
lead to other inquiries and joint legal efforts between the U.S. and China on
other military related issues, including arms trading. If this comes to be,
then I would imagine right now that Ken Starr (who represented both the PRC and
Hughes, while he was special prosecutor) and the Hughes to be more nervous than
whores in church (because she has a chance for forgiveness).
This could mean that the next step to the Cox Report, which found Hughes had
broken the law and compromised national security with the China-Hughes missile &
satellite technology transfers, to be a joint U.S. and China prosecution of
Hughes and the prosecution of the lawyer who at one time not long ago
represented the People of the United States as a special prosecutor, represented
Hughes (and sued the U.S. taxpayers for Hughes) and represented CITIC (owned by
the Chinese military) all at the same time. His name is Ken Starr. With the
way things are right now and with the possibilities of establishing a joint
inquiry of matters, I wouldn't want to be an officer or director of any of the
Hughes companies and I am sure glad my name isn't Kenneth W. Starr a/k/a Comrade
Ken. http://willgriffin.com/hughes.htm
gryb
>"After all, the only thing our Navy boys and girls were trying to do in
>that EP-3 was their job
Very true.
And they are probably good at their jobs and doing excellent work.
-- which is to cruise almost daily up and down
>China's coast, often a little more than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather
>intelligence.'
"Gathering intelligence" is spying.
There's no reason to be embarrassed about this using this word.
Every major country in the world does it.
>"It's 'just routine.'
Very true.
>"Never mind that we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our
>land. Never mind that, if the situation were reversed
"......... if the situation were reversed........."
It is possible to reverse most situations.
Many situations which work in one direction, will also work in the
opposite direction.
Why should the US assume that it can do something to another
country which cannot be done to itself ?
This is especially true in the "ass kicking" context.
My point is, that most things in the world, will work two-way.
It is foolish to assume that every situation in the world is one-way.
>-- if a Chinese
>'intelligence gathering' plane happened to bump into a U.S. fighter off
>San Diego and make an emergency landing on, say, Coronado -- we would be
>all over that aircraft like maggots on a fresh corpse."
Very true.
gryb
>Dude, shut up please! You're starting to make me feel all icky about
>being anti-China here.
Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
American businessmen are very happy to do business with China.
Is the sudden cold political wind because of the attitude of the guy
who walked into the White House on January 20 ?
Does the new guy want to "kick ass" all over the world ?
gryb
[1]
After all, the only thing our American Navy boys and girls were
trying to do in that aircraft was their job --- which is to cruise
almost daily up and down China's coast, often a little more than
12 miles off shore, and 'gather intelligence.
[2]
After all, the only thing our Chinese Navy boys and girls were
trying to do in that aircraft was their job --- which is to cruise
almost daily up and down America's coast, often a little more
than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather intelligence.
............................................................................................................
Would you allow [2] ???
If your answer is "Yes", then a diplomatic deal is possible.
______________________________________________________
idleeric
gryb wrote in message <78lrctg9dthlpubj8...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>Dude, shut up please! You're starting to make me feel all icky about
>>being anti-China here.
>
>
>
>Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
>
>American businessmen are very happy to do business with China.
>
>Is the sudden cold political wind because of the attitude of the guy
>who walked into the White House on January 20 ?
>
>Does the new guy want to "kick ass" all over the world ?
The Canadian PM believes so.
Sometimes the simple explanation is the correct explanation.
After all, Otterboy *is* a simpleton.
Trebor
<s...@mitre.org> wrote:
>"After all, the only thing our Navy boys and girls were trying to do in
>that EP-3 was their job -- which is to cruise almost daily up and down
>China's coast, often a little more than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather
>intelligence.'
>
>"It's 'just routine.'
>
>"Never mind that we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our
>land. Never mind that, if the situation were reversed -- if a Chinese
>'intelligence gathering' plane happened to bump into a U.S. fighter off
>San Diego and make an emergency landing on, say, Coronado -- we would be
>all over that aircraft like maggots on a fresh corpse."
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0405-06.htm
>
>The author, Ms. Salter, ignores the fact that the U.S. plane was in
>international airspace. She accepts Beijing's PROPAGANDA that our P3
>prop-driven plane RAMMED the Chinese fighter.
In the first place, the author didn't say anything about who was
technically to blame for the crash. In the second place, I doubt that
either side is telling the entire truth - especially since the Chinese
pilot is probably dead and can't tell his side, and the American crew
is in China and can't yet be questioned or debriefed in a thoughough
manner. The US military has a long and proven history of lying about
incidents like this, beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin incident which
was not very far away from this one. It also seems strange that more
damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
them. The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
lesson. Like when another car is following too close and you hit the
brakes to shake him off.
>
>And as for "we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our land,"
>she is INCORRECT.
>We live in a free open society, unlike China.
>We've got THOUSANDS, maybe MILLIONS, of LEFT-WINGERS crawling all over
>our country. Any or all of them could give China all the information it
>wants about us.
>And they probably already have.
This is pretty lame - even for you. So your reasoning is that since
America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
would never allow that here?
Very lame.
cheers,
Trebor
ME_GriMLoCk
Trebor wrote in message <3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net>...
>This is pretty lame - even for you. So your reasoning is that since
>America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
>LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
>up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
>of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
>would never allow that here?
But then again, unlike Red China, our "shade" maps in our public schools
don't have the Australian nation labelled "New China". Neither do we run
over our own citizens with tanks or machine-gun them down for disagreeing
with us.
We3
"idleeric" <std...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:tcrp0an...@corp.supernews.com...
We3
"ME_GriMLoCk" <T-...@Cybertron.net> wrote in message
news:Mcnz6.7773$VF3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
King Pineapple
aviation theory in message news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
> It also seems strange that more
> damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
> them.
No, the P3 is built like a brick shithouse. I've flown 5 or 6 times in the
civilian version of the plane, it's big and thick. You cannot change the
laws of physics; since the other plane was also moving, the damage wouldn't
be as great as if it rammed the P3 while the P3 was, say, standing still. A
glancing blow, no doubt.
>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
> was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
> probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
> lesson. Like when another car is following too close and you hit the
> brakes to shake him off.
Hard to do the way you describe. The loiter speed of the P3 is about 203
knots, and the fighter can go 5 times that fast. "Sudden" maneuvers in the
P3 are basically nonexistent.
Tell you what you do, get yourself a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and
go to www.flightsim.com ; you can download an add-on P3 so you can try and
fly the thing yourself. Its characteristics are very close to the real thing
(FS2000 is now used by the Navy as an aid to train pilots with). Happy
landings.
Billy Beck
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>lesson.
You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
Wang simply picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue, and his
government has lied about this from minute-one.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Trebor
wrote:
>
>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>lesson.
>
> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
And how many EP-3's? It's amuzing to me that you would rationalize
that the pilot had the ability to fly rings around any maneuver the
spy plane could make, and yet somehow he could not deal with the fact
that the spy plane simply refused to do anything at all to try and
shake him off. So your verdict is basically suicide?
>
> Wang simply picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue, and his
>government has lied about this from minute-one.
>
It's nice to see how much confidence you've developed in the ability
of our government to always tell the absolute truth.
cheers,
Trebor
Billy Beck
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>>lesson.
>>
>> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>
>And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>And how many EP-3's?
Look, dummy: I've never *died*, either, but that doesn't mean I
don't know what it's about. This is about something that's completely
foreign to epistemic fuck-ups like you: the universal applicability of
principles. See that "Vso" thing up there? That's a principle. It's
a different number for every extant airplane type, but it works the
the same for all of them, which is why it's noted as a mathematical
formula. This episode is full of them, and all of 'em are completely
beyond your dim little grasp.
>So your verdict is basically...
>> Wang simply picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue, and his
>>government has lied about this from minute-one.
>It's nice to see how much confidence you've developed in the ability
>of our government to always tell the absolute truth.
That's bullshit, and you know it. For instance, I know they lied
to me about Vince.
gryb
[snip]
".........The truth is probably somewhere in between........."
The WHOLE truth is not known.
There are bits of the story that remain a mystery.
For example, what happened to the Chinese pilot ?
Is this information being withheld from the public ?
_______________________________________________
gryb
[snip]
Your point is : "China is not a democracy".
But what about US foreign policy in dealing with all the other
non-democracies ?
____________________________________________________
Norm
the WTO? Wasn't it the Republican Congress that gave China most favored
nation status? Although, Clinton did signed the bill into law.
rose...@rapidnet.com
> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs.
Probably one of your more ignorant "observations" you pathetic moron/
Apparantly you been sniffing your armpit again while you pat yourself on the
back
Amuse us with your lies about not paying taxes.
------------------------------------------------------
"...it would be perfectly natural for any one of the target of your
lies to hunt you down and hold your personally accountable for them in
your own blood."
Billy "batshit" Beck
rose...@rapidnet.com
>
>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> That's bullshit, and you know it. For instance, I know they lied
>to me about Vince.
Get your nose out of your ass, BATSHIT
The only thing you "know" is what right wing/loonytarian sphincter smells like
Make us laugh about your "taxes" again.
===================================================
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=556741088&CONTEXT=956240342.1344012307&hitnum=3
There are 3888 unique messages by
"Dana Raffaniello"
<ra...@home.com>
>> Forum: alt.personals
>> Thread: seeking big butt ladies inPhoenix
>> Message 4 of 7
Subject: seeking big butt ladies in
Phoenix
Date: 12/05/1999
Author: Dana <ra...@home.com>
Ladies if you have a nice round plump butt, and pretty feet.
Lets have some fun
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
> >The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
> >was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
> >probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
> >lesson.
>
> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
> flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
> over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
> of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
> on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
ONLY IF the F-8 pilot keeps his distance!
The wings of the EP-3 put out wake turbulence, which combined with the
jet exhaust make it HAZARDOUS for the fighter pilot to "tailgate" the
EP-3.
Remember the XB-70 accident in the 1960's? The "chase-and-pace" fighter
plane got sucked in by the XB-70's wake turbulence (those huge delta
wings), and BOOM.
rose...@rapidnet.com
>ONLY IF the F-8 pilot keeps his distance!
>The wings of the EP-3 put out wake turbulence, which combined with the
>jet exhaust make it HAZARDOUS for the fighter pilot to "tailgate" the
>EP-3.
Who gives a rats ass, you moron?
First, you and BATSHIT have about as much crediblity as Daryl Grier.
'cept the BATFUCK BECKIE provides his own applause.
===================================================
"My instructor likes to tell people that I'm "a good stick" - that
I have superb skills at handling the airplane - but she also says that
I have the best head on my shoulders that she's ever seen in a
student."
Death Threat Billy Beck
TCarr13397
>Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
24 good reasons to be a little less friendly
>American businessmen are very happy to do business with China.
And are delaying travel there
>Is the sudden cold political wind because of the attitude of the guy
>who walked into the White House on January 20 ?
>
Nope..more due to a "incident" and our people not being released
>Does the new guy want to "kick ass" all over the world ?
Nope..Just the DNC
T.Carr
TCarr13397
>>>
>>>Dude, shut up please! You're starting to make me feel all icky about
>>>being anti-China here.
>>
>>
>>
>>Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
>>
>>American businessmen are very happy to do business with China.
>>
>>Is the sudden cold political wind because of the attitude of the guy
>>who walked into the White House on January 20 ?
>>
>>Does the new guy want to "kick ass" all over the world ?
>
>
"idleeric" std...@mich.com
>The Canadian PM believes so.
>
Cite?
>Sometimes the simple explanation is the correct explanation.
Not often.
>
>After all, Otterboy *is* a simpleton.
>
And you recieved your MBA from????
T.Carr
Captain Compassion
Untill we can debrief the airmen and get the flight data and voice
recorders we won't really know now will we. The reason that the EP-3
isn't more damaged it is much bigger than the F-8. You can test this
hypotheses for me. Drive down the freeway finding the largest 18
wheeler you can. Then you cut into him. See who has the most damage.
CO2 and the climate. The environmentalists haven't a clue.
Check out Chaos Theory.
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/chaos/index.html
"Always remember. In this universe there has never been
any justice and there will never be any equity. There
is only Mathematics."
The Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1134
Lawrence, MA 01842
The average temperature of the universe 3 degrees K
above absolute zero. I'm much more afraid of the cold.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Captain Compassion
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:22:13 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>>
>>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>>lesson.
>>
>> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>
>And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>And how many EP-3's? It's amuzing to me that you would rationalize
>that the pilot had the ability to fly rings around any maneuver the
>spy plane could make, and yet somehow he could not deal with the fact
>that the spy plane simply refused to do anything at all to try and
>shake him off. So your verdict is basically suicide?
>
Top speed of an F-8 is in excess of 1500 mph. Top speed of a EP-3 is
less than 1/3 of that. How could he "shake" him. The EP-3 pilot
couldn't even see him unless the F-8 was in front or even. You would
have us believe that the EP-3 was a sports car,
John D.
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:3ace681c...@news.uia.net...
Be sure to get it on tape.
Dana
> >
> >Dude, shut up please! You're starting to make me feel all icky about
> >being anti-China here.
>
>
>
> Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
Only when they force our plane down, and hold our service members hostage.
But that is what leftist type governments/ideology do.
>
> American businessmen are very happy to do business with China.
And so is the average Chinese person, so long as the leftist gvt stays off
the backs of the people.
>
> Is the sudden cold political wind because of the attitude of the guy
> who walked into the White House on January 20 ?
Nope, they forced down one of our planes and took our service members
hostage. But we know how you guys on the left hate our military.
>
> Does the new guy want to "kick ass" all over the world ?
Nope
Andy Bentley
There were 2 F8s.
The first F8 flew under the P3 then went vertical right in front of the
P3.
The P3 pilot steered up and to the left to avoid a collision with the
first F8 directly in front of him.
The second F8 was behind and slightly above the P3 and moving faster.
When the P3 moved to avoid the first F8 the second F8 which was flying
straight and would have gone over the right wing, flew into the right
wing, because the P3 moved.
The original cause of the accident was the reckless maneuver by the
first F8.
The radar tracks will prove this set of facts to the world when they are
released.
qwerty
"Andy Bentley" <alb...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3ACE7DEB...@mediaone.net...
>
> There were 2 F8s.
>
> The first F8 flew under the P3 then went vertical right in front of the
> P3.
Not quite, see the quotes below.
> The P3 pilot steered up and to the left to avoid a collision with the
> first F8 directly in front of him.
> The second F8 was behind and slightly above the P3 and moving faster.
> When the P3 moved to avoid the first F8 the second F8 which was flying
> straight and would have gone over the right wing, flew into the right
> wing, because the P3 moved.
>
> The original cause of the accident was the reckless maneuver by the
> first F8.
Sound like you are confirming the Chinese version of the story, that the
EP-3 veered suddenly striking the F-8, killing the pilot. They then may
have a legitimite beef with the U.S. then.
> The radar tracks will prove this set of facts to the world when they are
> released.
Really? Where did you pull these facts from? Why don't we all wait for the
investigation to complete before coming to any conclusions.
Here are some facts from the Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38845-2001Apr4.html
"The midair collision that touched off a crisis between China and the United
States occurred after a Chinese F-8 interceptor started to fly directly
below a U.S. surveillance plane and the U.S. aircraft executed a banking
maneuver to the left, Western sources said today."
"The new details of Sunday's accident, provided by sources briefed by U.S.
officials, did not make clear who was to blame. But they seemed to explain
the rationale behind Chinese assertions that the U.S. plane moved "suddenly"
and thereby triggered the accident, causing the Chinese fighter to crash
with the apparent loss of its pilot."
Gary Carroll
...
> >And as for "we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our land,"
> >she is INCORRECT.
> >We live in a free open society, unlike China.
> >We've got THOUSANDS, maybe MILLIONS, of LEFT-WINGERS crawling all over
> >our country. Any or all of them could give China all the information it
> >wants about us.
> >And they probably already have.
>
> This is pretty lame - even for you. So your reasoning is that since
> America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
> LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
> up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
> of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
> would never allow that here?
A better response is that we do indeed allow it. Almost daily. The
Soviets flew, and now the Russians fly, such flights off ours coast on a
regular basis. If the Chinese want to fly such flights, they would be
tolerated as well.
Intelligence gathering by directly looking from international space is
pretty much permitted by everyone. And pretty much everyone flies
intercepts and escorts the other guys around while they do it. Up to
that point, the Chinese were acting like everyone else. It's not even
astonishing that there was a collision. The intercepting planes
regularly fly close to the intelligence gathering aircraft. What is
unusual and nasty is that when the bump happened that the Chinese act
like it was the fault of the plane being intercepted. It could not be,
since the interceptors have the responsibility to maintain a safe
(though irritatingly close is OK) distance.
If fact, I can probably tell you how the collision occurred. The Chinese
aircraft was "bumping" or "thumping" the reconnaissance plane. This is
not done by actual contact, but by flying through the path of the other
plane so that he enters your turbulence. This makes enough of a jar that
the other plane feels like it hit a big bump in the air. You may have
felt something like it in commercial flight from a thermal, but this is
much more pronounced. The closer the pass, the bigger the bump. The
Chinese pilot cut it a little too close and brushed the other aircraft’s
nose. (I say brushed, because a real collision would have destroyed both
aircraft into tiny pieces. Even a slight "fender bender" takes airplanes
out of the sky.) If you can come up with another way a prop driven
airplane can smash it’s nose on a jet fighter, I’d be interested in
hearing it. After all, the explanation above is just a supposition based
on how these things are often done.
gryb
>when they coming home?
".........when they coming home?........."
When George W. Bush learns how to :
[1]
Travel to foreign counries.
[2]
Negotiate with foreign leaders.
[3]
Make deals with non-Americans.
[4]
Changes his attitude by standing a globe
of the world on his White House desk.
................................................................................................................
Alternatively, appoint Bill Clinton as Foreign Policy Negotiator.
________________________________________________________
Gary Carroll
Trebor... it's a jet fighter. You don't have to fly one to know this. If
a jet fighter couldn't out maneuver an EP-3, they wouldn't bother to
build them, because they could buy old WW2 fighters that could do better.
Love Shack
Despite popular belief.. the P3 is very maneuverable for a large AC. This
plane can also take very large doses of bad weather. Late WW2 planes in bad
weather stood a better chance when hydraulics and better aerodynamics and
better engines came on the scene. P3 is of post Korean design.
If the P3 banked left, as it appeared from the damage. The high speed jet
buzzing the P3 could not make an adjustment in time. If you think this was
impossible, this scene is played out on our highways all the time.
I have made the same mistake in ACM practice on a slower AC in combat
simulations. Especially if you are practicing a Guns Only Solution. Which is
what the Chinese pilot did. He got too close and exceeded the safety boundry
for attack.
If you get too close at high speed there is nothing you can do. In fact a slow
moving AC like the P3 has a shorter turn radius at altitude then the F8. The F8
has better manuverability in Roll. Not in Sustained Turn.
The P3 has a strong enough Roll Component to spoil the attackers aim combined
with a sharp turn.
The Vietnamese lost several Migs to the slower Navy Spad which used a Wing Over
manuever to shoot down the enemy AC. So it is possible the Chinese pilot got
way took close. It was definitely going faster because the damage goes from
the middle of the P3 to the Nose. Not the other way around.
Cognitus
>From: Andy Bentley <alb...@mediaone.net>
>Subject: 2 F8s
>Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 02:36:54 GMT
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------DFBA4B6AE2E63FB0EE34E963
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>There were 2 F8s.
>The first F8 flew under the P3 then went vertical right in front of the
>P3.
>The P3 pilot steered up and to the left to avoid a collision with the
>first F8 directly in front of him.
>The second F8 was behind and slightly above the P3 and moving faster.
>When the P3 moved to avoid the first F8 the second F8 which was flying
>straight and would have gone over the right wing, flew into the right
>wing, because the P3 moved.
>The original cause of the accident was the reckless maneuver by the
>first F8.
WOW, it's really great to have a Real Eye Witness.
silverback
wrote:
>
>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>>>lesson.
>>>
>>> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>>>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>>>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>>>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>>>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>>
>>And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>>And how many EP-3's?
>
> Look, dummy: I've never *died*, either, but that doesn't mean I
>don't know what it's about. This is about something that's completely
another fucking dumbass right winger that thinks he knows everything
when he doesn't know shit.
>foreign to epistemic fuck-ups like you: the universal applicability of
>principles. See that "Vso" thing up there? That's a principle. It's
>a different number for every extant airplane type, but it works the
>the same for all of them, which is why it's noted as a mathematical
>formula. This episode is full of them, and all of 'em are completely
>beyond your dim little grasp.
>
>>So your verdict is basically...
>
>>> Wang simply picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue, and his
>>>government has lied about this from minute-one.
>
>>It's nice to see how much confidence you've developed in the ability
>>of our government to always tell the absolute truth.
>
> That's bullshit, and you know it. For instance, I know they lied
>to me about Vince.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
Brad Wardell
There are CARS that go faster than the EP3.
How in the heck could a F8 jet fighter plane be rammed by an EP3?
This would be akin to blaming the Japanese fishing boat for ramming into
that US sub! Damn Japs! I demand an apology!
Brad
"Love Shack" <Ho...@DanSources.com> wrote in message
news:3ACEC1C7...@DanSources.com...
Brad Wardell
"Trebor" <tre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
> This is pretty lame - even for you. So your reasoning is that since
> America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
> LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
> up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
> of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
> would never allow that here?
You display your ignorance. The Soviet Union had planes flying up and down
the east coast daily doing SIGINT. Strangely, no US fighter ever crashed
into one.
The fact is that all major powers capable of doign so do SIGINT.
Brad
>
> Very lame.
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
>
>
Trebor
<bwar...@stardock.com> wrote:
>
>"Trebor" <tre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> This is pretty lame - even for you. So your reasoning is that since
>> America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
>> LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
>> up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
>> of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
>> would never allow that here?
>
>You display your ignorance. The Soviet Union had planes flying up and down
>the east coast daily doing SIGINT. Strangely, no US fighter ever crashed
>into one.
Liar. Please cite.
>
>The fact is that all major powers capable of doign so do SIGINT.
Liar. Almost any country can fly a plane up and down the coast of
another country listening for what they can hear. Only the US does
it.
Trebor
wrote:
>
>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>>>lesson.
>>>
>>> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>>>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>>>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>>>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>>>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>>
>>And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>>And how many EP-3's?
>
> Look, dummy: I've never *died*, either, but that doesn't mean I
>don't know what it's about.
(LOL) By all means, tell us about life after death! I didn't
realize you were an expert in the afterlife too! Are you god, or just
one of his angels?
> This is about something that's completely
>foreign to epistemic fuck-ups like you: the universal applicability of
>principles.
Principals which you seem unable to articulate in a coherant manner?
> See that "Vso" thing up there? That's a principle.
All I see is the same blowhard and deadbeat who thinks because he
flies some 2-bit cessna, he knows all about EP-3's and Chineese figher
planes and what happened over the South China Sea last Sunday.
You're pathetic.
> It's
>a different number for every extant airplane type, but it works the
>the same for all of them, which is why it's noted as a mathematical
>formula. This episode is full of them, and all of 'em are completely
>beyond your dim little grasp.
And here we were all waiting you to publish your mathematical formula
proving that the EP-3 couldn't have done anything to help cause the
crash. What do you call it, your "I'm an insane blowhard" theorum?
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:40:07 GMT, tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:22:13 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>>>>was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>>>>probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>>>>lesson.
>>>
>>> You're a senseless ignorant moron, Trebs. The F-8 guy could hang
>>>flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>>>over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>>>of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>>>on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>>
>>And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>>And how many EP-3's? It's amuzing to me that you would rationalize
>>that the pilot had the ability to fly rings around any maneuver the
>>spy plane could make, and yet somehow he could not deal with the fact
>>that the spy plane simply refused to do anything at all to try and
>>shake him off. So your verdict is basically suicide?
>>
>Top speed of an F-8 is in excess of 1500 mph. Top speed of a EP-3 is
>less than 1/3 of that. How could he "shake" him.
I said 'shake him off', and obviously the way to do that is to make
some unpredictable maneuver that made it more difficult and dangerous
for the figher to keep sticking so close. Once again, by way of
analogy, if another car is tailgating you, you throw on the brakes to
shake him off. Why is the concept so difficult for you to understand?
>The EP-3 pilot
>couldn't even see him unless the F-8 was in front or even.
(LOL) You're talking about a spy plane with the most sophisticated
equiptment in the world - I'm sure they had enough radar to track the
fighter wherever it was. You obviously don't know what you're talking
about.
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
<saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Test Pilot Trebor <tre...@my-deja.com> amused us all with his advanced
>aviation theory in message news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> It also seems strange that more
>> damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
>> them.
>
>No, the P3 is built like a brick shithouse. I've flown 5 or 6 times in the
>civilian version of the plane, it's big and thick. You cannot change the
>laws of physics; since the other plane was also moving, the damage wouldn't
>be as great as if it rammed the P3 while the P3 was, say, standing still. A
>glancing blow, no doubt.
You obviously know nohing about physics. If the EP-3 was relatively
stationary without changing course and the jet fighter simply rammed
into it (which the US military claims), the damage would be greater
than if the spy plane was itself moving or maneuvering towards the
fighter in an attempt to shake it off.
>
>
>>The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
>> was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
>> probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
>> lesson. Like when another car is following too close and you hit the
>> brakes to shake him off.
>
>Hard to do the way you describe.
Not really.
> The loiter speed of the P3 is about 203
>knots, and the fighter can go 5 times that fast. "Sudden" maneuvers in the
>P3 are basically nonexistent.
You could say the same thing about an 18 wheel truck on the freeway vs
a compact car, and yet accidents where trucks are at fault happen all
the time. The fact that the EP-3 is less manueverable than a fighter
certainly does not mean that there were no maneuvers it could have
made in trying to shake off the fighter, that might have contributed
to the crash.
The fact that the figher is more maneuverable is somewhat negated or
cancelled out by the fact that it is also going much faster, and
therefore the pilot has much less time to react to danger. If the
fighter was buzzing close enough (and reports are they sometimes come
within a few feet), it is very easily to see how even the slightest
evasive move by the spy plane could have thrown him off and
contributed to the crash simply because the fighter pilot didn't have
the time to adjust. Or in other words, who is more likely to avoid
the sudden appearance of a pedestrian on a dark road? A lumbering
truck travelling at 30 miles an hour, or a more maneuverable sportscar
traveling at 120 miles an hour?
>
>Tell you what you do, get yourself a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator,
No thanks. I just got through fixing a bug with windows that took
four days to iron out - I'm not about to pretend Microsoft knows
anything about chinese jet fighers.
cheers,
Trebor
Captain Compassion
Great anology. In that case the tailgating driver would be at fault.
>>The EP-3 pilot
>>couldn't even see him unless the F-8 was in front or even.
>
>(LOL) You're talking about a spy plane with the most sophisticated
>equiptment in the world - I'm sure they had enough radar to track the
>fighter wherever it was. You obviously don't know what you're talking
>about.
>
I doubt that even a AWACS would have the ability to gage the distance
and direction of an aircraft that is only 20 feet behind or below. The
EP-3 has lots of stuff for receiving Electromagnetic radiation but
very little beyond standard military aviation Radar.
The EP-3 even lacks a rear view mirror.
Hagar
>
> >"After all, the only thing our Navy boys and girls were trying to do in
> >that EP-3 was their job -- which is to cruise almost daily up and down
> >China's coast, often a little more than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather
> >intelligence.'
> >
> >"It's 'just routine.'
> >
> >"Never mind that we do not tolerate such intimate surveillance of our
> >land. Never mind that, if the situation were reversed -- if a Chinese
> >'intelligence gathering' plane happened to bump into a U.S. fighter off
> >San Diego and make an emergency landing on, say, Coronado -- we would be
> >all over that aircraft like maggots on a fresh corpse."
> >
> >http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0405-06.htm
> >
> >The author, Ms. Salter, ignores the fact that the U.S. plane was in
> >international airspace. She accepts Beijing's PROPAGANDA that our P3
> >prop-driven plane RAMMED the Chinese fighter.
>
> technically to blame for the crash. In the second place, I doubt that
> either side is telling the entire truth - especially since the Chinese
> pilot is probably dead and can't tell his side, and the American crew
> is in China and can't yet be questioned or debriefed in a thoughough
> manner. The US military has a long and proven history of lying about
> incidents like this, beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin incident which
> damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
> was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
> probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
> brakes to shake him off.
>
> >
> >she is INCORRECT.
> >We live in a free open society, unlike China.
> >We've got THOUSANDS, maybe MILLIONS, of LEFT-WINGERS crawling all over
> >our country. Any or all of them could give China all the information it
> >wants about us.
> >And they probably already have.
>
> America allows freedom of expression and doesn't yet lock up
> LEFT-WINGERS for disagreeing with their government, therefore to make
> up for this 'handicapp' America has the privilege of buzzing the coast
> of other countries with our warplanes and spyplanes, even though we
> would never allow that here?
>
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
Once again, your stellar intelligence shines through. Just because the DNC
hasn't included those facts in your daily fax, do not assume that there are
no facts. The Russians have been doing this as long as we have, and once the
Chinese have the capability, they will, too. It is perfectly legal by
international law, and there's nothing to be done about it. You know,
Trebor, the smaller your mind, the simpler the world seems. But, hey. That's
cool. That way you don't have to deal with all those pesky facts.
>
>
Captain Compassion
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:16:26 GMT, "King Pineapple"
><saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Test Pilot Trebor <tre...@my-deja.com> amused us all with his advanced
>>aviation theory in message news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> It also seems strange that more
>>> damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
>>> them.
>>
>>No, the P3 is built like a brick shithouse. I've flown 5 or 6 times in the
>>civilian version of the plane, it's big and thick. You cannot change the
>>laws of physics; since the other plane was also moving, the damage wouldn't
>>be as great as if it rammed the P3 while the P3 was, say, standing still. A
>>glancing blow, no doubt.
>
>You obviously know nohing about physics. If the EP-3 was relatively
>stationary without changing course and the jet fighter simply rammed
>into it (which the US military claims), the damage would be greater
>than if the spy plane was itself moving or maneuvering towards the
>fighter in an attempt to shake it off.
>>
Were you out smoking dope with your pals during HS Physics?. All that
counts is the relative speed between the two objects, the angle of the
impact and the relative masses of the two objects. If B ran into A or
vice versa the amount of energy released would be the same.
>>
<snip>
John D.
(snip)
> The EP-3 even lacks a rear view mirror.
>
>
They thought about it but at $4073.99 a side, for the non-chrome version,
they opted for the $600.00 hammers and axes instead.
John D.
Trebor
wrote:
> All that
>counts is the relative speed between the two objects, the angle of the
>impact and the relative masses of the two objects. If B ran into A or
>vice versa the amount of energy released would be the same.
What a load! So what you're basically saying is that if you ran into
a truck, you'll cause the same damage as if a truck ran into you?
(LOL)
cheers,
Trebor
John D.
He didn't say that...he said this.
F=m*a
> cheers,
> Trebor
>
>
>
Trebor
wrote:
Actually, if it could be proven that the car in front slammed on his
breaks in a wreckless and unnecessary manner, he would be at fault.
Then again, the analogy was for the purpose of pointing out what may
likely have happened, not who was legally at fault.
>
>>>The EP-3 pilot
>>>couldn't even see him unless the F-8 was in front or even.
>>
>>(LOL) You're talking about a spy plane with the most sophisticated
>>equiptment in the world - I'm sure they had enough radar to track the
>>fighter wherever it was. You obviously don't know what you're talking
>>about.
>>
>I doubt that even a AWACS would have the ability to gage the distance
>and direction of an aircraft that is only 20 feet behind or below. The
>EP-3 has lots of stuff for receiving Electromagnetic radiation but
>very little beyond standard military aviation Radar.
So you're saying that standard military radar could only tell if the
fighter was "in front or even"? You're still full of crap.
>
>The EP-3 even lacks a rear view mirror.
Why don't you suggest one, since according to your BS the best air
force radar can only detect another plane that is " in front or even".
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
...yes he did.
Captain Compassion
>
>"Captain Compassion" <dar...@uia.net> wrote in message
>news:3acf53cd...@news.uia.net...
>
>(snip)
>
>> The EP-3 even lacks a rear view mirror.
>>
>>
>
>They thought about it but at $4073.99 a side, for the non-chrome version,
>they opted for the $600.00 hammers and axes instead.
>
>John D.
>
Caution. Things may be closer than they appear.
Captain Compassion
The F-8 was most likely too close to even show up on Radar.
>>The EP-3 even lacks a rear view mirror.
>
>Why don't you suggest one, since according to your BS the best air
>force radar can only detect another plane that is " in front or even".
>
A good radar can detect, depending how it is aimed, can see several
hundred miles out. However an object 10 to 20 feet would be lost in
the clutter of the radar receiver it's self.
Captain Compassion
Yep. Both Einstein and my self would agree to that.
Love Shack
BTW there are very few land vehicle that can exceed 300mph much less 450mph.
The jet was OVERTAKING the P3. Probably at about 500mph. The P3 may have been
cruising at 350mph. The P3 at the right moment and unaware of the buzzing F8
rolled left. Again the pilot was practicing an attack solution to unnerve the
P3 pilot.
It is a game of wills and high stakes chicken..THe F8 pilot bought it and the
structurally tougher P3 won. In fact the pilot can officially be credited for
downing a Mig Fighter.
G
John D.
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:00:27 GMT, tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:26:52 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Captain Compassion)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> All that
> >>counts is the relative speed between the two objects, the angle of the
> >>impact and the relative masses of the two objects. If B ran into A or
> >>vice versa the amount of energy released would be the same.
> >
> >What a load! So what you're basically saying is that if you ran into
> >a truck, you'll cause the same damage as if a truck ran into you?
> >
> Yep. Both Einstein and my self would agree to that.
>
I think, Trebor was implying something a bit different, we'll see.
Gary Carroll
> So you're saying that standard military radar could only tell if the
> fighter was "in front or even"? You're still full of crap.
Radar is not for measuring the distance to a plane that is 50 feet away.
It's for finding one that is much further out. If you are too close, you
will not show up, though you will screw up the ability to detect things
behind you.
The reason for this is easier if you consider sonar, sort of like radar
but with sound. You emit a ping, and listen for echoes. If the echo
comes at essentially the same time as the ping, you cant detect it. You
can only detect things at some distance, and the distance will vary
depending on the equipment. Radar is similar in that there is a minimum
detection distance.
In another error, you assume a recon plane fitted out to eavesdrop on
radio and/or radar transmissions would posses especially sophisticated
search radar of its own. This would almost certainly not be the case.
They contribute nothing to it’s mission, they take up space and power
and would require lots of crew, and they may actually hinder the primary
mission. Recall, they are there to listen to the other guys stuff, not
show him theirs.
Gary Carroll
No. He (essentially) said that if you run into a truck at 5MPH, or the
truck runs into you at 5MPH, the damage will be the same.
This is assuming, of couse, that the truck does not proceed to run over you.
F M Homer
King Pineapple <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_Jnz6.7877$VF3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Test Pilot Trebor <tre...@my-deja.com> amused us all with his advanced
> aviation theory in message news:3acdfb95...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> > It also seems strange that more
> > damage wasn't done to the EP-3 if in fact the figher pilot rammed into
> > them.
>
> No, the P3 is built like a brick shithouse. I've flown 5 or 6 times in the
> civilian version of the plane, it's big and thick. You cannot change the
> laws of physics; since the other plane was also moving, the damage
wouldn't
> be as great as if it rammed the P3 while the P3 was, say, standing still.
A
> glancing blow, no doubt.
In WW II, A C-47 was flying over the Burma hump when two
Zeros fresh from combat attacked it. They emptied what was
left of their ammo into the cargo plane, which just kept on going...
One of the Zero pilots decided to ram the C-47. SMACK.
The other pilot watched as the Zero slid off the side of the
C-47 like a squished bug.
The C-47 flew on. The surviving C-47 pilot apparently said
to hell with that and went home too.
Only unarmed C-47 in WW II with a "kill".
> >The truth is probably somewhere in between = the pilot probably
> > was flying a little too close and recklessly, and the spy plane
> > probably made some sort of maneuver to shake him off and teach him a
> > lesson. Like when another car is following too close and you hit the
> > brakes to shake him off.
>
> Hard to do the way you describe. The loiter speed of the P3 is about 203
> knots, and the fighter can go 5 times that fast. "Sudden" maneuvers in the
> P3 are basically nonexistent.
"Cowboy", as the pilot of the figher was known, was having trouble keeping
up with the P3 because it was so dang slow. He accidently turned right into
it. So say the Twainese who were monitering the radio transmissions.
> Tell you what you do, get yourself a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator,
and
> go to www.flightsim.com ; you can download an add-on P3 so you can try and
> fly the thing yourself. Its characteristics are very close to the real
thing
> (FS2000 is now used by the Navy as an aid to train pilots with). Happy
> landings.
The argument that the Chinese are making, that one of our unarmed
P-3s viciously and intentionally attacked one of their fighters, downing
it by ramming it, is just plain STUPID.
I am surprised there are people who would believe lies like that. There
really is a sucker born every minute.
F M Homer
<gryb> wrote in message news:vhmrctsv08ehpuv7p...@4ax.com...
> [2]
> After all, the only thing our Chinese Navy boys and girls were
> trying to do in that aircraft was their job --- which is to cruise
> almost daily up and down America's coast, often a little more
> than 12 miles off shore, and 'gather intelligence.
>
................................
> Would you allow [2] ???
Ah, the Soviets were doing this during the cold war. We even
developed an etiquett for their flights and our tailing them since
the incident with one of their bombers.
The Chinese, of course, want to re-invent the wheel.
Besides, they don't have the logicistics to send airplanes up
and down our coast on long intelligence missions.
F M Homer
[snip]
> >The F-8 guy could hang
> >flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
> >over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
> >of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
> >on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>
> And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
> And how many EP-3's?
Let me get this right, your saying that we don't know that the P-3
can't outfly the Chinese fighter, thus it is credible that the P-3 rammed
their jet?
Man, that is a stretch.
> It's amuzing to me that you would rationalize
> that the pilot had the ability to fly rings around any maneuver the
> spy plane could make,
You don't find that to be a reasonable assumption?
The P-3's airframe was selected because it can stay up in the
air and on mission a long time, not because it's fast and can
turn on a dime. The chord of such a long range airplane makes
it less manueverable and pretty much a lumbering clod with
slow responce.
It's aamazing to me that you would say that the assumption
that a figher jet is not more maneuverable and faster than
a P-3 "rationaliz[ing]".
It's a pretty valid assumption, unless the Chinese are complete
Clods, and they are not.
>and yet somehow he could not deal with the fact
> that the spy plane simply refused to do anything at all to try and
> shake him off. So your verdict is basically suicide?
No, he said and you clipped "Wang simply picked the wrong day
to start sniffing glue", an indicationt that Wang screwed up and
didn't intentionally ram the P-3.
> > Wang simply picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue, and his
> >government has lied about this from minute-one.
> >
>
> It's nice to see how much confidence you've developed in the ability
> of our government to always tell the absolute truth.
No, our government doesn't always tell the truth. But sometimes
it does.
The Chinese government lies all the time. Right now they are
saying that our slow, lumbering P-3 hunted down and attacked
by ramming one of their fighter jets.
Are we to believe our prop planes and pilots are that good, or
is it that Chinese fighter jets are that slow and wallow like
pigs in the air?
Your anti-Americanism is showing.
Trebor
<F.M....@msn.mapSoN.com> wrote:
>
>Trebor <tre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3ace0aed...@news.earthlink.net...
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:22:13 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >The F-8 guy could hang
>> >flaps, gear, and speed brakes, blow his canopy off and hang an elbow
>> >over the side like he's driving a ragtop down the freeway, stick a wad
>> >of bubble-gum on the windscreen and still hold a good 20mm visual shot
>> >on every wiggle the EP-3 could put together over its own Vso.
>>
>> And you know this because you've flown how many Chinese fighter jets?
>> And how many EP-3's?
>
>Let me get this right,
translation: "let me change the subject"
> your saying that we don't know that the P-3
>can't outfly the Chinese fighter,
no, I'm saying you're another stupid fuck who obvilously doesn't know
the first thing about chinese jet fighers OR ep-3's.
> thus it is credible that the P-3 rammed
>their jet?
It is likely that the spy plane could have made an maneuver that
contributed to the crash - absolutely. To pretend otherwise is just
silly. The US Spy Plane IS certainly agile enough to turn into a
fighter and effectively swat him out of the sky. It would be much
like swatting a fly. Your hand is certainly many times slower and
less maneuverable than a fly, nevertheless your hand is more than
capable of swatting a pesky fly. Try it sometime.
Then take a shower.
cheers,
Trebor
Gary Carroll
> It is likely that the spy plane could have made an maneuver that
> contributed to the crash - absolutely. To pretend otherwise is just
> silly. The US Spy Plane IS certainly agile enough to turn into a
> fighter and effectively swat him out of the sky. It would be much
> like swatting a fly. Your hand is certainly many times slower and
> less maneuverable than a fly, nevertheless your hand is more than
> capable of swatting a pesky fly. Try it sometime.
To intentionally collide with another airplane would be suicidal idiocy.
Airplanes are built lightly, in order that they may fly while carrying
payload. They dont have very many parts that could be called "extra
bits", so that random damage to *any* part may down the aircraft. A
collision with a bird is sometimes enough to seriously damage an
aiplane. A collision with another plane, no matter how small, is seldom survivable.
When one says an airplane is build "very strongly", this is relative
only to other airplanes.. Colliding with a smaller airplane to damage it
would not be like swatting a fly with your hand. It would be more like
swatting a light bulb with a pane of glass. It's probable the light bulb
will be destroyed. It's also very likely the pane of glass will be destroyed.
David Lentz
For the pilot of the Aries (EP-3) to intentionally attempt to ram
another aircraft would be more akin to attempted murder than mere
suicide. It doubtful that a pilot would risk his life to ram a
fighter and even less likely that he would put twenty-four people
at extreme risk.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
DaveL
this.
"Trebor" <tre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3acf468a...@news.earthlink.net...
Ian Chapman
Sorry, but you are wrong. I happen to know quite a bit about NSA
and Sigint (much of which is still classified of course), and I can tell
you that Soviet Style AWACS patrol the Bering Sea and the Alaskan and US
West Coast regularly. In addition, Soviet 'fishing trawlers' (now Russian
of course) spy on the US 24/7. Naturally we do the same. Even such
friends as the US and Canada moniter each other's signals on a regular
basis.
The *fact* is that in *this* *case* China is completely in the
wrong and the U.S. is completely in the right. It is rare when a
situation is this clear cut....and I am amazed that China is pushing it.
China is looking more and more like a dangerous, backwards, and barbaric
country with each passing day. Even Vietnam (not a noted US friend) is
starting to back away from the Chinese verion of events. If this keeps
up, China will not have any friends, period.
Ian Chapman
* Is there no truth in beauty? |
|
** Truth IS beauty. \ | /
___ *____
* But what is truth? *
/ | \
|
|
eelder1
China. This isn't a question of right and wrong. It is a question of
possesion.
"Ian Chapman" <pol...@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:9ars62$cge$1...@linux1.ph.utexas.edu...
Trebor
wrote:
>Trebor,
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong. I happen to know quite a bit about NSA
>and Sigint (much of which is still classified of course), and I can tell
>you that Soviet Style AWACS patrol the Bering Sea and the Alaskan and US
>West Coast regularly.
Cite.
Trebor
Captain Compassion
Mr. Science has given his educated and measured opinion.
"It is therefore cometary impacts that we must thank for the equable
spell of climate in which human history and civilisation has prospered
so spectacularly. The renewal of ice-age conditions would render a
large fraction of the world's major food-growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population. Since bolide impacts cannot be called up to order, we must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate. This might imply the ability to inject effective greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite of what environmentalists are erroneously advocating."
-Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Cardiff University,
March 2001
al...@rev.net
<Americanleftag...@fighttheleft.com> wrote:
><gryb> wrote in message news:78lrctg9dthlpubj8...@4ax.com...
>> Is there any good reason to have a hostile attitude towards China ?
>
>Only when they force our plane down, and hold our service members hostage.
>But that is what leftist type governments/ideology do.
What a crock! Rightist police states have done that for centuries. Your
sickening ignorance contributes little to this discussion. Get an
education.
>Nope, they forced down one of our planes and took our service members
>hostage. But we know how you guys on the left hate our military.
What if they let them go? What if they opened the door and let them walk?
What would happen?
-- The Green Troll <http://www.rev.net/people/aloe/green/rrg.html>
lechugon
al...@rev.net wrote:
The problem with left wing fools, is they don't want to inconvenience
themselves by leaving here become an American in a Communist country, they want
to stay here and be Communists in America. I could never understand why people
who have no knowledge of other countries (except for watching CNN) want to
embarrass my county or change it for the worst. These same people who want to
go to the Chinese and kiss their ass in places Clinton missed, are the same
ones who swear at America's old WW2 vets for driving too slow.
al...@rev.net
>al...@rev.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:28:29 -0800, "Dana"
>> <Americanleftag...@fighttheleft.com> wrote:
>> >Nope, they forced down one of our planes and took our service members
>> >hostage. But we know how you guys on the left hate our military.
The institution exploits and victimizes a lot of people. Why shouldn't it
be hated?
>> What if they let them go? What if they opened the door and let them walk?
>> What would happen?
>The problem with left wing fools, is they don't want to inconvenience
>themselves by leaving here become an American in a Communist country, they want
>to stay here and be Communists in America.
The problem with right wing bigots is that they cannot perceive
distinctions among views they despise. They must mass-produce their faulty
little brains and distribute them in church. Although some left-wingers may
be communists, I know quite a few who are anarchists, animal rights
advocates, Earth Firsters, junkies, or libertines. Anyone with sense knows
that communists want to advance human society while many nature-lovers
consider that less important.
>I could never understand why people
>who have no knowledge of other countries (except for watching CNN) want to
>embarrass my county
What county do you live in?
>or change it for the worst. These same people who want to
>go to the Chinese and kiss their ass in places Clinton missed,
There's an example of simplistic conservative thinking. Lots of us don't
like totalitarian Red China any more than the USA. It is possible to
criticize both. However, defective conservative brains have no capacity to
consider such a thought. They freeze up when they hear anything that
contradicts their hard-wiring.
>are the same
>ones who swear at America's old WW2 vets for driving too slow.
That may be. I don't know. As long as drivers obey the law, I have no
quarrel with them. What ticks me off is changing lanes without signalling.
ralph
questionable circumstances, not enough the guy is such a creature of the
business and fundamentalist interests that he is acting as though he won
a landslide, the KKKonservatives are incensed beyond belief that
everyone in the country doesn't fall behind their little crusade, so
they brand everyone who disagrees as a goddam pinko commie. Just hang in
there, it oughta be pretty when they discover that they don't all agree
on everything and they turn on each other.
--
The first rule of fart club is:
you don't talk about fart club.
lechugon
less of the popular vote than G.W. Clinton is a criminal. No one is crusading, that's
over. Bush won. You'll get over it. I am pleased to learn that you know left wing
anarchists, libertines, animal rights activists, junkies and other screwballs. Your
strength is in your diversity. The Earth Firsters and nature lovers should be proud
that Communist governments have fertilized the soil with the bodies of such people for
many decades.
I only brand people pinkos when they take the side of the Communists. Lets go over
that again for those who smoked dope during Political Science 101.
Communists are called Reds. Americans that believe in the Communist agenda are
sometimes called Pinkos, because they disagree with the American government when it
opposes a Communist government. They are leaning toward being "Reds."
American patriots stand up for their country. Chinese patriots stick up for their
country. An American who kisses a Chinaman's ass is called a Clinton.
-John
Ich bin Americaner
>>
>>when they coming home?
>
>
>
>".........when they coming home?........."
>
>
>When George W. Bush learns how to :
>
>[1]
>Travel to foreign counries.
>[2]
>Negotiate with foreign leaders.
>[3]
>Make deals with non-Americans.
>[4]
>Changes his attitude by standing a globe
>of the world on his White House desk.
>................................................................................................................
>Alternatively, appoint Bill Clinton as Foreign Policy Negotiator.
>
The Chinese pilot bought the farm, Clinton would give away the farm.
---
DNC - Disseminators of Nonsense and Crapola
M
> The Chinese pilot bought the farm, Clinton would give away the farm.
As usual, the low IQ republicans can't stop talking about
Clinton. Well Shrub is the one screwing up here and being a wimp
just like his old man. Bush has flip-flopped again, and made the
U.S. look like a weak sister.
M.
Ich bin Americaner
>>
>>when they coming home?
>
>
>
>".........when they coming home?........."
>
>
>When George W. Bush learns how to :
>
>[1]
>Travel to foreign counries.
>[2]
>Negotiate with foreign leaders.
>[3]
>Make deals with non-Americans.
>[4]
>Changes his attitude by standing a globe
>of the world on his White House desk.
>................................................................................................................
>Alternatively, appoint Bill Clinton as Foreign Policy Negotiator.
>
The Chinese hotdog pilot bought the farm, Bill Cinton would give away
the farm.
Ich bin Americaner
wrote:
>
>
They're Jane Fonda wannabes.
Slyt Buzz
already did it to their own people, they need new turf.
---
A liberal is just a communist who hasn't figured out how to nationalize
everything yet.
Ich bin Americaner
And?
China wants a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government. The
capitalist side is putting pressure on its authoritarian side. when
push come to shove the Chinese military will more than likely stage a
coup.
Ich bin Americaner
<cosmi...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>In article <3AD50A11...@efn.org>, mast...@efn.org says...
>> Ich bin Americaner wrote:
>>
>> > The Chinese pilot bought the farm, Clinton would give away the farm.
>>
>> As usual, the low IQ republicans can't stop talking about
>> Clinton. Well Shrub is the one screwing up here and being a wimp
>> just like his old man. Bush has flip-flopped again, and made the
>> U.S. look like a weak sister.
>>
>> M.
>>
>The Chinese government look like a dog looking for a place to shit. They
>already did it to their own people, they need new turf.
>
It already looks like they've got liberals to wipe their ass.
----
harrison numbugger
well cant wipe bushes ass with your lips firmly planted on it......
al...@rev.net
<NoM...@SpamBusters.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:51:29 GMT, al...@rev.net wrote:
>>What if they let them go? What if they opened the door and let them walk?
>>What would happen?
>China wants a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government. The
>capitalist side is putting pressure on its authoritarian side. when
>push come to shove the Chinese military will more than likely stage a
>coup.
When you can't think of an answer, change the question.
Ich bin Americaner
I really don't take much credence in what an anti-American has to say.
Ich bin Americaner
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:12:10 -0700, Ich bin Americaner
><NoM...@SpamBusters.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:51:29 GMT, al...@rev.net wrote:
>
>>>What if they let them go? What if they opened the door and let them walk?
>>>What would happen?
>
>>China wants a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government. The
>>capitalist side is putting pressure on its authoritarian side. when
>>push come to shove the Chinese military will more than likely stage a
>>coup.
>
>When you can't think of an answer, change the question.
>
When the question is unrealistic one treats it as such.
---