1983? Did we attack Russia?
JHAREK
I keep hearing things about how the US and Russia got involved in some kind of
air to air engagement over the Kamchatka peninsula, and we supposedly had it
out with them too, a dozen or so aircraft involved in the fighting. Anybody
else know anything?
David Heller
Allen Thomson
It sounds as if you've heard a (very) distorted version of the
KAL 007 shootdown. See "The Target is Destroyed" by Seymour Hersh,
ISBN 0394542614, for an account of what happened.
@worldonline.nl J.T. Wenting
JHAREK heeft geschreven in bericht
<19980220135...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I keep hearing things about how the US and Russia got involved in some kind
of
>air to air engagement over the Kamchatka peninsula, and we supposedly had
it
>out with them too, a dozen or so aircraft involved in the fighting. Anybody
>else know anything?
>David Heller
I read something like that.
The book was "Flight of the old dog" by Dale Brown.
It's quite a good novel, though not very accurate (in a historical sense).
I doubt if the US would have fought the USSR in the skies over the
Kamchatka peninsula. The only way for US aircraft to get there (unless they
were strategic bombers), is by aircraft carrier, and I would not want to
risk that without the entire US Pacific fleet in support, given the (then)
Soviet forces in the area.
It's simply to far away, and not worth fighting over anyhow (for the USA,
Japan would probably fight for it).
J.T.
Gerard
In article <19980220135...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jha...@aol.com
(JHAREK) wrote:
> I keep hearing things about how the US and Russia got involved in some kind of
> air to air engagement over the Kamchatka peninsula, and we supposedly had it
> out with them too, a dozen or so aircraft involved in the fighting. Anybody
> else know anything?
Yup read about this too. Allegedlly it DIRECTLY caused the KAL 007
shootdown, when the 747 blundered into a full-blown US/USSR air battle.
The account I read used the nebulous "unnamed high-ranking South Korean
defense official" to the hilt amongst other things. In fact the whole
article reads like unnamed person here and there and thrown together with
some half-baked technical jargon.
Shhh. Do you hear something???
I am sure the conspiracy freaks will love to hear it.
D. Scott Ferrin
What I heard was that after the shootdown some general a ways down the
totem pole decided to send an E-3 and some F-15s into the area and
told them to try to provoke the Russians and whatever happened
happened. Mig-31s were moved into the area and the situation was
brewing for a full-blown confrontation when somebody higher up on the
totem pole found out what was going on and ordered the U.S. planes
back.
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Alex Talarides
>
Yes, these kinds of mock engagements occured constantly during the early 80's
when John Lehman was the secretary of the Navy. Reagan, who's ultimate goal was
to rebuild the army, allowed Lehman's Navy to conduct exercises in Soviet water to
test and provoke the Russians. Many times Soviet officials embarassed of the fact
that Americans were able to sneak past their radars and get into their territory,
would complain to the UN about these "hostile" acts of war.
One of the famous exercise conducted in Soviet waters, was the one led my Adm.
Ace Lyons. In the summer of 1981. USS Eisenhower and its' escorts were heading
toward the G.I.U.K. Gap in the Norwegian sea under total EMCON. The US CVBG was
able to get into Soviet water undetected by Soviet RORSAT and EORSAT satellites
and by Bear reconassaince aircraft. Deep inside Soviet territorial waters, Lyons
ordered a squadron of F-14's, tankers and A-6's to "surprise" their Russian
colleagues. While Bears were refuelling in the air (on their search for the
CVBG), the American jets flew past them at near supersonic speeds in a surprise
flyby. They made clear to the Soviets that the Americans were able to attack them
anywhere, even off their most remote coast.
Of course, Russians conducted the same kind of "surprise attacks" off
the California coast, but with submarines instead of aircraft. Only difference is,
those were detected and forced out of US waters. US CVBG would be on station for
weeks in Soviet waters before pulling out.
Alex
Venik
Alex Talarides wrote in message <34EE35E5...@cytanet.com.cy>...
Where from did the US planes operate? Do you know about any books or
magazine articles discussing such encounters between Soviet and US aircraft?
I would be interesting to read more about them.
Venik
________________________________________\_
Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
updated weekly
________________________________________\_
/
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
you today that I've signed legislation
which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
begins in five minutes."
Ronald Reagan
D. Scott Ferrin
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:51:42 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Where from did the US planes operate? Do you know about any books or
>magazine articles discussing such encounters between Soviet and US aircraft?
>I would be interesting to read more about them.
>
>Venik
The planes operated from the carrier, as he said in his post. AW&ST
had some articles in the late eighties about F-15s meeting up with
TU-95 Bears off Alaska. I've seen photos of F-4s, F-14s, F-16s, F-15s
escorting Bears. Been happening forever.
P.S. Good sig.
>________________________________________\_
> Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
> updated weekly
>________________________________________\_
>
>/
>"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
>you today that I've signed legislation
>which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
>begins in five minutes."
>
>Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Bill Kambic
These activities probably go back to the beginning of the Cold War. A
common game in the 50's and 60's was "chicken of the sea" where US and
block ships would manuever to cause each other difficulties
(interfearing with unreps, launch and recovery of aircraft, etc.).
Ultimately this lead to a treaty that forbad such games.
In 1971 USS INTREPID (CVS-11 with CAG56) was scheduled for exercises
along the coast of Norway (including some east of North Cape). About
1/3 of the way up the coast our oiler suffered a steering casualty and
the the INTREPID CO refused to go along side for unrep. The whole ASW
Group then made an unscheduled turn south and we went into Rosyth (in
Scotland) for a couple of days. Our Soviet escorts (2 cruisers and some
DD's) waited off the Orkneys for us to come out.
Our Admiral decided to jerk their chains. He sent 2 ships south down
the Channel, 2 through island passages into the North Atlantic and took
the CVS with a DD north. The fog was of "pea soup" quality. We were
EMCON except for standard navigation radar. To all the world we were
big mership.
We were lost to them for about 2 days. You could go up to the ESM shack
and listen to Bear radars looking for us. We were informed that the
Soviet group broke up and started chasing each US group. We could,
periodically, hear the two ships that were trying to find us.
Finally, we were sighted by a Soviet mership. Within a couple of hours
we had Bears and Badgers all over us. Our escort soon rejoined us and
we operated for about three weeks. Got lots of good Soviet sub time!
We also, during this cruise, operated in the Baltic for a week. We were
the first US carrier to enter the Baltic since the '40s. Got lots of
practice rigging Soviet ships and photopraphing Soviet interceptors!
We also regularly conducted EMCON flight ops, combined with deception
tactics. All in all, it was an interesting cruise.
Bill Kambic, CDR, USNR(RET)
Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/1816
Believer in the Great Ambiguous Blessing:
"Dear Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."
Alex Talarides wrote:
>
> >
>
> Yes, these kinds of mock engagements occured constantly during the early 80's
> when John Lehman was the secretary of the Navy. Reagan, who's ultimate goal was
> to rebuild the army, allowed Lehman's Navy to conduct exercises in Soviet water to
> test and provoke the Russians. Many times Soviet officials embarassed of the fact
> that Americans were able to sneak past their radars and get into their territory,
> would complain to the UN about these "hostile" acts of war.
> One of the famous exercise conducted in Soviet waters, was the one led my Adm.
> Ace Lyons. In the summer of 1981. USS Eisenhower and its' escorts were heading
> toward the G.I.U.K. Gap in the Norwegian sea under total EMCON. The US CVBG was
> able to get into Soviet water undetected by Soviet RORSAT and EORSAT satellites
> and by Bear reconassaince aircraft. Deep inside Soviet territorial waters, Lyons
> ordered a squadron of F-14's, tankers and A-6's to "surprise" their Russian
> colleagues. While Bears were refuelling in the air (on their search for the
> CVBG), the American jets flew past them at near supersonic speeds in a surprise
> flyby. They made clear to the Soviets that the Americans were able to attack them
> anywhere, even off their most remote coast.
> Of course, Russians conducted the same kind of "surprise attacks" off
> the California coast, but with submarines instead of aircraft. Only difference is,
> those were detected and forced out of US waters. US CVBG would be on station for
> weeks in Soviet waters before pulling out.
>
> Alex
DANeKANELL
The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Alex Talarides wrote:
> >
>
> Yes, these kinds of mock engagements occured constantly during the early 80's
> when John Lehman was the secretary of the Navy. Reagan, who's ultimate goal was
> to rebuild the army, allowed Lehman's Navy to conduct exercises in Soviet water to
> test and provoke the Russians. Many times Soviet officials embarassed of the fact
> that Americans were able to sneak past their radars and get into their territory,
> would complain to the UN about these "hostile" acts of war.
And you wonder why Soviets blasted KAL? According to Soviet pilot that shutdown KAL,
it was so hot in 1983 that they start to put life ammunition on the airfields as they
believe that war can start any moment. Amazing, that Americans don't know how dumb
Reagan was. He did not won Cold War, he almost start the hot one.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
SoBernardo
Given that the Walker-Whitworth spy ring was routinely passing top secret USN
radio traffic to the Soviets during this period, it's likely that the Ruskies
knew that these exercises had no hostile intent. According to "Family of
Spies," in one case like this, there was no Soviet response at all to one
attempted American provocation when a USN CV batle group entered USSR waters.
Venik
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <34eecf3f...@news.inquo.net>...
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:51:42 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Where from did the US planes operate? Do you know about any books or
>>magazine articles discussing such encounters between Soviet and US
aircraft?
>>I would be interesting to read more about them.
>>
>>Venik
>
>The planes operated from the carrier, as he said in his post. AW&ST
>had some articles in the late eighties about F-15s meeting up with
>TU-95 Bears off Alaska. I've seen photos of F-4s, F-14s, F-16s, F-15s
>escorting Bears. Been happening forever.
I know about the encounters with Bears. I have a poster of a Bear being
escorted by a Phantom. What I meant was if there are any articles about
encounters between Soviet and US fighters, because that's what the original
posting was suggesting. I have never heard about any such encounters let
alone combat situations. I have ran a search on a number of aviation
journals (American and European), however, was unable to find any
information.
Venik
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
DANeKANELL wrote:
> The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
Not true. If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Krztalizer
>
>The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
I, uh, ..... agree. Sorta. Now, have US aircraft ever entered Soviet airspace
with bad intent? Different answer.
Gordon
Krztalizer
The Sea of O
We left Yokosuka Naval Base under orders to sail at top speed. The
recall sounded -- sailors from all over the ship scrambled to make USS KIRK
ready for sea while other men searched the nearby bars of the Honj, (the local
barrio that built up next to the centuries-old Navy Base) for any sailors sober
enough to join us. Constructed in the last century just within the enormous
bay of the Tokio Wan, Yokosuka serves America now. Yoko's towering blue cranes
lifted our ships in and out of the bay, like some monstrous child's toy, next
to Godzilla's stomping grounds.
The call came through, and our Frigate slipped her moorings and dashed into
the open Pacific. No word on why yet -- didn't matter, we had a place to be.
No other US ship would sortie with us, KIRK would sail alone, for the moment.
Opposite us, on the Asian Mainland not too many miles across the
bathtub of the Sea of Japan, there was another Navy Base. Vladivostok was home
to the warships of the Red Navy: the powerful Soviet Pacific Fleet. Vlad's
pier's were crammed with the latest Guided Missile Cruisers, Destroyers, even
old capitol ships like the massive Sverdlovsk (S/Verd-lov-sk , even sounds
big!).
This base had everything the Soviet's went to sea in, except Ballistic
Missile submarines, which resided in the icy north near Petropavlovsk. Vlad
was our mirror image. This large port town was every inch the sailor's home
that Yokosuka was to us.
Well, off we went, charging into the teeth of the night. The ship
climbed the surging waves, leaping from one foamy roller to the next. Each 35
mile-per-hour impact slammed against our ship as she searched the darkness. I
stood on the blacked-out bridge wing in a howling spray of stinging saltwater.
Not because I had to, but because I didn't want to miss one second of the
experiences that the sea could offer. The sea was cooperating to make this an
exciting night!
After an hour, the rumor mill started to respond to the questions of
all 200 sailors, and we found out that the Commies had sent a large fleet to
sea. They had run right past Tokyo Bay as they scooted out into the Pacific.
Eleven Soviet Navy ships, including several heavy warships and an aircraft
carrier, had all made the jail-break.
This is bad. Our job in Japan is to act as a stopper to this kind of
behavior, so our Navy sent us (and later, other ships) to find and track the
Soviets. It was a one of a kind opportunity for us, as flyers -- it was a
sure bet we would get to fly against their helicopters and jump jets. The Red
fleet had serious safety problems with these aircraft carriers, and there were
only about three of these voyages before the Soviet economy collapsed, making
this opportunity even more attractive.
We got ready in a big hurry -- the Spies, Spooks, and the Snoopy Team
(photo hounds) all prepared to get up close and personal with 'Ivan'.
For over a month, the Novorosiisk (the Aircraft Carrier, named after a
steel town in northen Russia) led us in large circles all over the Pacific. I
mean, ALL over. We followed the convoy of Soviets ships from Japan, past
Midway Island, almost to the beaches of Hawaii. Eventually, the Carrier and
her flock turned back toward their home waters, but they conducted war drills
the whole way.
The last military exercise this Battle Group conducted was a simulated
attack on the Submarine Base at Petropavlovsk, on the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Under leaden skies and a solid unbreakable overcast, our fellow travelers
formed a typically American convoy, and pretended to attack without warning.
On the radio, we witnessed the alarm of the various Soviet Units on the
mainland, attempting to respond to the threat.
For the final day of our approach, dozens of Soviet jet bombers made
streaking overhead passes, angrily swarming the imagined foe. Everything
finished with a grand finale, with lots of Soviet guns being fired in unison.
Instead of angling down to pass under the Japanese islands of Honshu
and Hokkaido, the Red Fleet turned to pass into the Sea of Okhotsk through the
inhospitable Kurile Island Chain.
We call these islands by that name -- the Soviets call them Kurilski
Ostrovka, and to the Japanese, they are just stolen property. The Soviet
Union occupied and claimed the barren rocks and permafrost villages after the
Second World War. So, now the remote and forgotten chain of islands serves as
the picket fence to keep the Sea of Okhotsk in Soviet hands.
As the long string of Warships (including us) approached the stark and
frozen peaks of these rocky islands, we started to wonder what the Soviets
intended. By going North of Japan, they had eluded further harassment by the
Japanese and US Navies, but they also had forced themselves to cross the island
barrier while the sea-ice was still solid between the islands. The analogy of
a fence got even stronger.
From the exposed command bridge (where I surely didn't belong :), I swept
binoculars across the tortured coast of Simushir Island. Since we were
literally under Russian airspace, we naturally could not fly. I had nothing to
do except study our enemies. Small cottages and guard posts were widely
scattered about in clumps, but the island seemed frozen in time. No smoke rose
from chimneys, or boats playing near the shore. Although the sea was nearly
flat and featureless, the winter storms had entombed the place in surreal
quiet. Summer, all 20 days of it, would not arrive for another three months.
Ice and vertical stone crags -- it looked like the home of the Titans of old
mythology.
After a short while of idling around the edge of the floe-ice, several
of the Soviet ships came alongside of us. Just looking us over, like Horatio
Hornblower looking at a French sloop. Calmly, we waited for .... something?
Radar is nearly useless in seas choked with icebergs, but we could make
out more company coming. From the far side of the pack ice, something large
was coming inexorably closer. Goddamn! -- its a huge Icebreaker ship!
Nuclear powered and just incredibly well built, the mighty icebreaker drove
itself up onto the ice, to crack and smash its way through. In its wake, a
straight line channel, as wide as a ship, was forming.
We watched it perform what no American ship could, and in a short
time, a channel wide enough for the Aircraft Carrier to navigate had been cut,
connecting the Sea of Okhotsk to the Pacific. The ice up and down the entire
1,000-mile island chain was several miles wide, except for this ice-sculptured
Panama Canal. Simushir and Iterup Islands fall about 7 miles apart, and the
channel was cut to within two miles of the coast of Simushir.
One by one, the Soviet ships lined up, in order of their Captain's
rank. With a surprised start, we were asked over the radio if we intended to
follow. Our Skipper replied and spoke briefly with the Russians, and we were
told to fall in line third from the end(!). Protocol demanded that our
Skipper, and us by extension, were given that spot because he outranked other
Commanders within the Soviet fleet. I'm sure it was mostly a method of
catching us, but it worked quite smoothly.
One by one, the twelve ships began to enter the channel. The hard island,
under its heavy mantle of snow, was so close to our starboard side, we could
make out details of the small houses. It looked like a white hell to me; no
trees, just frozen rock.
What? Why are we stopping??- the trap was sprung.
Ahead of us, the Novorosiisk followed the nuclear icebreaker into clear water.
The five missile cruisers obediently steamed off in trail. But, the ships
directly in front and behind us had stopped!
What a juvenile prank to fall for!
The radio complained, "You have violated the waters of the Supreme
Soviet! The island is only 2 miles away and you have no legal reason to be
here!"
Yeah, cripes...
So, for several hours, (as the trail of the Novorosiisk got progressively
colder) we sat and watched the pack ice reform around us. After that pause,
the Soviet ships suddenly made steam and moved off, apparently confident that
we could not catch up to their heavy warships. In minutes, we were left in the
company of a single Red frigate.
Go find a map, and look North of Japan. See that large lake-looking
place, called the Sea of O? Well, that's a cold place. And all Soviet
property. We waited for orders to get radioed to us (Japan was not far), and
then began to head South to the La Perouse Straits. Home was a good 10 days
southwaard, with nothing to do along the way.
Before we left the islands behind, we tried to set up a fuel stop. It had
been a week since we had met up with an ocean-going oiler, and it seemed
unlikely we would find a friend in the Sea of O. Word came down that we would
have to limp home without a pitstop, so we would be crawling home at very slow
speed.
The Soviets knew nothing of this, so their racy looking Frigate, called a
KRIVAK came alongside us for the voyage. For several days, the Krivak was
never more than a few hundred yards away from us. For a thousand nautical
miles, the green-flagged ship poked along at our snails pace wondering why we
chose to go so slow. Truth was, a single sprint would have emptied our tanks
completely.
Periodically, this particular ship would come alongside, and tear off at top
speed, to show off its quickness and gas-turbine propulsion. As an old
steam-boiler ship, the KIRK was outpaced easily.
On the eighth day of our Southern transit, we passed the port entrance
to Vladivostok. The crew of the Krivak made the appropriate rude gestures
(which we initiated) and we both went home without incident.
Just a couple of ships...passing in the night. Another page in the Cold War
Diary.
42 photos
R.Reagan
You're right, you red commie pinko, Reagan did not win the cold
war...The UNITED STATES did!! So go suck dust!!
Venik
Dwayne Allen Day wrote in message <6cqeqt$ha...@beaker.nit.gwu.edu>...
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov (y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: DANeKANELL wrote:
>
>: > The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
>
>: Not true. If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
>: Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
>: that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
>
>Nope. Did not happen. Prove that it did.
>
>
>
>DDAY
>
>
>
Prove that it din't.
Venik
Venik
R.Reagan wrote in message <34F0D3...@Peace.com>...
Missed your regular dose of delantin again, haven't you?
Venik
ke...@lehigh.edu
In article <34F0D3...@Peace.com>, "R.Reagan" <RRe...@Peace.com> writes:
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>>
>> Alex Talarides wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, these kinds of mock engagements occured constantly during the early
80's
>> > when John Lehman was the secretary of the Navy. Reagan, who's ultimate goa
l was
>> > to rebuild the army, allowed Lehman's Navy to conduct exercises in Soviet w
ater to
>> > test and provoke the Russians. Many times Soviet officials embarassed of th
e fact
>> > that Americans were able to sneak past their radars and get into their terr
itory,
>> > would complain to the UN about these "hostile" acts of war.
>>
>> And you wonder why Soviets blasted KAL? According to Soviet pilot that shutdo
wn KAL,
>> it was so hot in 1983 that they start to put life ammunition on the airfields
as they
>> believe that war can start any moment. Amazing, that Americans don't know how
dumb
>> Reagan was. He did not won Cold War, he almost start the hot one.
Yevgeniy...what are your'e thoughts on the cold war and Kennedy...particularly
Cuba. Just curious....
>>
>> Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
>
>
>You're right, you red commie pinko, Reagan did not win the cold
>war...The UNITED STATES did!! So go suck dust!!
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keith E. Dombrowski
317-0222
PES APO KKPsi
Dwayne Allen Day
Allen Thomson
In article <34F0A18D...@popmail.csuohio.edu> Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> writes:
>
>
>DANeKANELL wrote:
>
>> The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
>
>Not true. If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
>Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
>that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
I don't know of the specific incident you mention, but it was
not uncommon for US B-47s equipped for electronic reconnaissance
(aka ELINT) to make runs at Soviet borders during that time.
The idea was to make Soviet radars and command nets come up
and be mapped so that we USians could deal with them when it
came to The Real Thing.
God knows what would we'd have done if the USSR made similar
runs on the east and west coasts. In later years, TU-95s visited
our shores, as did Soviet submarines, but MAD-induced restraint had
set in by that time.
We're all lucky to have gotten out of those times alive.
Timo A. Nieminen
Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> : Not true. If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
> : Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
> : that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
Did NK MiGs fly from those airfields? I know that MacArthur (I think,
though it might have been his successor) certainly wanted the airfields
they were flying from hit. (Were these Chinese or Soviet airfields?) Of
course, he was told "no." So they definitely couldn't do it
"deliberately."
Don't forget, this is the same MacArthur who wanted to nuke China. IIRC,
SAC, when asked to comment, said, yes, they could do it, but their
losses would be so severe that their deterrent value against the Soviet
Union afterwards would be virtually nil.
--
Timo Nieminen - ti...@physics.uq.edu.au
Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/nieminen.html
Spirits: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/spirits.html
Shrine to Suds: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/4960/beer.htm
Wine: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Arena/2010/
Lee Russell
>>If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
>>Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
>>that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
The United States did not "attack" Vladivostok or any other Soviet base,
although American reconnaisance aircraft did conduct overflights of Soviet
territory in the Far East on many occasions during this period. A number
of US Air Force and U S Navy aircraft were shot down by Soviet fighters
while doing so.
During the Korean War, the Soviet Union sent several hundred MiG pilots
and several thousand anti-aircraft troops to Korea to fight against the
US.
>God knows what would we'd have done if the USSR made similar
>runs on the east and west coasts. In later years, TU-95s visited
>our shores, as did Soviet submarines, but MAD-induced restraint had
>set in by that time.
The Russians also sent spy trawlers into American waters to watch US
missile tests and conduct their own ELINT missions. So far as I know,
only one attempt was made to interfere with the Soviet spy ships. In
1962, the US Navy boarded a Soviet ship suspected of cutting the first
transatlantic underseas telephone cable, TAT-1.
>We're all lucky to have gotten out of those times alive.
Amen to that.
Allen Thomson
In article <6cqqdf$o...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Dwayne Allen Day wrote in message <6cqeqt$ha...@beaker.nit.gwu.edu>...
>>Yevgeniy Chizhikov (y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>: > The United States has never launched an air assault on Russia.
>>
>>: Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however means
>>: that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Prove that it din't.
>
>Venik
Not good.
Prove that the US together with Grey Space Aliens didn't
replace the leadership of the USSR in 1951 and set into motion
the replacement of the CPSU in 1991 that will allow for more
cattle-coring in 2010 from ranches in Central Siberia. Or any other
string of nondemonstrable notions you care to come up with.
"Show me that it isn't so" isn't a persuasive position unless it's
rooted in physical reality or very well researched history, preferably
both.
Mike Kopack
From 87-89 (at least) we periodically had a Soviet 'fishing trawler'
(for a fishing trawler they sure had a nice comm suite) parked right off
of MacDill AFB in the middle of Tampa Bay, close enough that we could
wave from the NCO club.
Mike
Lee Russell wrote:
> >>If I recall correct US bombers attack Russian air base near
> >>Vladivastok "by accident" during the Korean War. Accident however
> means
> >>that they miscalculated by couple hundreds km.
>
Dwayne Allen Day
Venik (ve...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Nope. Did not happen. Prove that it did.
: >
: Prove that it din't.
Take a logic class. Study the problem of proving a negative. Then come
back and amaze us with your brilliance.
DDAY
Venik
Dwayne Allen Day wrote in message <6csuci$kp...@beaker.nit.gwu.edu>...
An interesting advice. If someone says "did not happen" than he must have a
good reason to be so sure. I would like to hear that reason. I can ask for
that because he made his statement first.
Venik
Dwayne Allen Day
Venik (ve...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: >Nope. Did not happen. Prove that it did.
: >: >
: >: Prove that it din't.
: >
: >Take a logic class. Study the problem of proving a negative. Then come
: >back and amaze us with your brilliance.
: An interesting advice. If someone says "did not happen" than he must have a
: good reason to be so sure. I would like to hear that reason. I can ask for
: that because he made his statement first.
Nope. That is not how the world works. If you go around making
statements that defy conventional wisdom, it is up to you to support those
statements. Stating that the United States attacked Vladivostok is a
pretty bold statement that requires substantiation. If you start claiming
that you're God and that the sky is orange, it is not up to the rest of us
to prove you are wrong, it is up to you start performing some miracles.
So, put up or shut up.
DDAY
Venik
Dwayne Allen Day wrote in message <6ctfom$kp...@beaker.nit.gwu.edu>...
I see, so you assumed that it was I who wrote that the US attacked
Vladivostok. That clears it up.
Venik
Carlo Kopp
surprised.
C
Jm660
An attack on a Soviet air base in Vladivostok by two USAF F-80s was
mentioned in Manchester's MacArthur. And a while back one of the popular
airplane magazines (like Wings or Air Combat) had an article about the attack,
naming the pilots.
I'm sure I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, too. Seems like common
knowledge.
Venik
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F29D92...@aus.net>...
Actually, I got my hands on some sources that discuss US attack on
Vladivostok. I will let you in on the details as soon as I am done reading.
BTW, I am going to Sydney this summer, so see you later.
Venik
Gerard
In article <thomsonaE...@netcom.com>, thom...@netcom.com (Allen
Thomson) wrote:
> >In article <6cqqdf$o...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> > >writes:
> >Prove that it din't.
> Not good.
> "Show me that it isn't so" isn't a persuasive position unless it's
> rooted in physical reality or very well researched history, preferably
> both.
Not to mention totally against the grain of proof through scientific
method, which states finding proof which support xx assumption not finding
proof against such an assumption.
zhe...@mskcc.org
Hope this helps in resolving the arguments in this thread.
Got this article from
http://www.thehistorynet.com/MilitaryHistory/articles/04965_text.htm
PERSPECTIVES
During the Korean War, a brief incident near Vladivostok pitted
Grumman F9F-5s against MiG-15s.
By Dale Tapp
"Splash one!" That outburst really made me sit up and strain to hear the
"flyboy circuit" loudspeaker over the din of
louder squawk boxes blaring out tactical signals and situation reports
in the crowded confines of the combat
information center on my Pacific Fleet destroyer.
My ship was part of Task Force 77 during the Korean War. It was de
rigueur for the force to be located in the Sea of
Japan in reasonable proximity to the east coast of Korea while
conducting around-the-clock air operations in support
of U.S. ground forces. One bleak day during the last winter of the
Korean War, the task force was operating near the
northern fringe of its usual stomping grounds...and thereby hangs a tale.
At first, the 10,000-odd crewmen of the task force, long accustomed to
the erratic zigzag of into-the-wind and
out-of-the-wind flight operations, scarcely noticed when their ships
continued to steam in a mostly northern direction.
But as the task force maintained its movement to the north, the crews
became more alert. And with good reason--for
sure enough, in due time a few blips appeared on the air-search radar
scopes in the direction of Vladivostok, a seaport
in southeastern Russia near the border with North Korea.
Soon many more blips appeared on the radar screen. With solid overcast
plus a chilly sea haze preventing shipboard
observation of aircraft, listening in on CAP (combat air patrol)
comments was the best way of keeping tabs on the
situation topside. From radio chatter over the flyboy circuit it was
apparent that Navy pilots could identify the blip
traffic as Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 jet fighters--in large numbers.
To prevent any U.S. aircraft from accidentally straying into Soviet air
space, the Navy jets orbiting over the task force
were now under tight control by radar operators on the carriers. Just
outside the orbit area, a swarm of MiG-15s
milled around in an uncertain manner, with a few MiGs occasionally
making attacks and then suddenly breaking off,
as though trying to lure U.S. planes into Soviet air space.
Then, after perhaps 20 minutes of this game, four MiGs made a firing
pass at two fighters from the carrier Oriskany;
two more American planes immediately dove to assist their buddies--and
an eight-plane dogfight erupted.
Amid the babble of transmissions and background static that filled the
radio circuit, bits and snatches of flyboy talk
could be distinguished: "...squeal, awrk...Chuck, follow me...BLEErap ...are
you...SPRok...missed...skreEECH...I'm OK...grawk...on
target...SQUuak...splash one!... EEErawk...breaking
off...sque...."
Then, as quickly as it had begun, the dogfight was over. No additional
MiGs had joined the fray, so the rest of the
CAP continued their tight orbits over the task force, warily watching
but taking no action. The score in that brief
encounter was one MiG definitely shot down, another MiG that disappeared
into the overcast trailing smoke, and a
third damaged MiG losing altitude and limping off toward the north. All
of the Navy jets returned safely to their
carriers.
A few minutes after the fight, one of the forward destroyers of the task
force spotted a parachute descending several
miles ahead and radioed the screen commander to ask if a rescue should
be attempted. "Negative," came the prompt
answer, followed a moment later by a signal from the OTC (officer in
tactical command) directing Task Force 77 to
change course to the south. At that time, the van destroyers were
exactly 50 miles south of Vladivostok.
The task force steamed back south, the MiG blips disappeared from the
radar scopes, and the entire incident became
"unhistory." By not picking up the downed Soviet pilot, everyone except
the hapless pilot was saved from awkward
explanations. No public comment about the matter was ever made by the
Russians, and the only official U.S.
announcement, a few years later, merely mentioned that on one
unspecified occasion there had been an "air incident,"
no details given. And that was that. Apparently, that unplanned clash
was such a hot potato that both governments
decided to relegate it to the status of a nonhappening to prevent any
public inquiry.
One of the more extraordinary aspects of the affair was a conversation
over a fleet radio circuit about half an hour after
the incident, between the commanding admiral (on one carrier) and the
two Navy pilots credited with the kills (on
another carrier). The dialogue went approximately as follows:
Admiral: Congratulations, gentlemen. Excellent work!
Navy Pilots: Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral: You certainly made us proud of you, and I'm very pleased with
your flying skill and the performance of your
aircraft. I suppose you were able to out-maneuver the MiGs?
First Navy Pilot: Ah, no, the MiGs could outturn us....
Admiral: Oh. So you had to use your speed on them?
Second Navy Pilot: No, sir, they were faster than us.
Admiral: Ummm, well, you could out-dive them?
First Navy Pilot: No, sir, they could dive faster than we could.
Admiral (after a pause): You could out-climb them?
Second Navy Pilot: No, sir.
Admiral (sounding a bit flustered): Well, uh, er, a splendid job of
flying, gentlemen, really splendid--again,
congratulations!
Navy Pilots: Thank you, Admiral.
To put that conversation in perspective, the Navy fighter planes
involved were Grumman F9F-5 Panthers, good, solid
carrier planes but not known for dazzling performance. Navy fighter
pilots, however, were extremely well trained and
skillful. The result--at least in this instance--was that Soviet fliers
in the vaunted MiGs proved to be no match for Navy
pilots in Panthers.
This Panther versus MiG-15 dogfight was not the only combat between U.S.
and Soviet pilots during the Korean
War. During the latter stages of the conflict it was no secret that
about half of all MiGs opposing Air Force North
American F-86 jet fighters near the Yalu River sanctuary were piloted by
Russians, and most of the rest by Chinese,
with only a few North Korean pilots. The F-86 Sabre--by far the best
fighter plane in the war--racked up more than an
8-to-1 victory ratio over MiG-15s during the war.
But without detracting from the achievements of Air Force F-86 fliers,
the 3-to-0 score against MiG-15s by Navy
pilots in relatively slow Panthers rated as an outstanding performance
by any standard... even if it was classified as
nonhistory. *
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
> It is the kind of thing you would post, Venik, so you shouldn't be
> surprised.
Actually I put it. You see, Carlo, your old brain fail once again. You can not
track a normal discussion. Actually incident DID happened, and "expert" like you
did not know that :) Go back to programing, may be you would do better there. But
I doubt that, you need to be smarter than that to program something. It is people
like you that have problems to program VCR.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Carroll
I can see how the US supposablty attacked russia. Pilots in the korean
war would sometimes diregard orders and chase a mig into chinees
airspace( a no-no) so why wouldn't/couldn't they chase them into
russian airspace since russians did fight on the side of the north and
we new it? This is individual gun ho pilots and not direct orders from
the UN
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Carroll wrote:
> I can see how the US supposablty attacked russia. Pilots in the korean
> war would sometimes diregard orders and chase a mig into chinees
> airspace( a no-no) so why wouldn't/couldn't they chase them into
> russian airspace since russians did fight on the side of the north and
> we new it? This is individual gun ho pilots and not direct orders from
> the UN
Actually attack happened half year before Soviets sent their pilots to Korea. This
accident is one of the reason why Soviets sent pilots. Second, Soviets did not fly
from USSR, most Soviets flew from Korea, and only some with Chinese pilots from China.
Officially US said that it never strike targets in China, in reality attack of the
bases in China by US was regular event. How many times something like that happened,
and there is people still do not believe that US government can lie. It lie, regularly
and about everything.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
SoBernardo
This may be a little off-topic, but speaking of non-history, does anyone know
of any USAF plans to bomb N. Korean dams with nuclear weapons? At least one dam
was breached with aerial torpedoes dropped from Navy ADs.
Krztalizer
We did a lot of things, but attack, we most certainly did not. The
aforementioned furball did NOT occur.
Gordon
plenty of hours in the Sea of Ohkotsk, and violating the waters of various
Kurilski Ostrovka, without EVER drawing a shot. The cold war occasionally got
hot, but an all-out fight among air forces did not happen during the 80s.
Period.
<=====(A+C=====>
The Last SeaSnake
"Got anything on your radar, Spy?"
"Nothing but my forehead."
robert w drydsale
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
>
> Actually attack happened half year before Soviets sent their pilots to Korea. This
> accident is one of the reason why Soviets sent pilots. Second, Soviets did not fly
> from USSR, most Soviets flew from Korea, and only some with Chinese pilots from China.
> Officially US said that it never strike targets in China, in reality attack of the
> bases in China by US was regular event. How many times something like that happened,
> and there is people still do not believe that US government can lie. It lie, regularly
> and about everything.
>
> Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Not that it is an excuse for a government to lie, but show me any major government that
hasn't when a false statement would furthur that governments own interests. I think most
reasonable people tend to take this into account. yes the US government lies, so does the
Russian, French, Japanese, Outer Slobovian, etc...
Rob Drysdale
Gerard
In article <34F38883...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> How many times something like that happened,
> and there is people still do not believe that US government can lie. It lie, regularly
> and about everything.
ALL gov't's "lie." What is thy point?
Gerard
In article <zhengf-2402...@www.ski.mskcc.org>, zhe...@mskcc.org
wrote:
> PERSPECTIVES
>
> During the Korean War, a brief incident near Vladivostok pitted
> Grumman F9F-5s against MiG-15s.
>
> By Dale Tapp
>
> The task force steamed back south, the MiG blips disappeared from the
> radar scopes, and the entire incident became
> "unhistory." By not picking up the downed Soviet pilot, everyone except
> the hapless pilot was saved from awkward
> explanations. No public comment about the matter was ever made by the
> Russians, and the only official U.S.
> announcement, a few years later, merely mentioned that on one
> unspecified occasion there had been an "air incident,"
> no details given. And that was that. Apparently, that unplanned clash
> was such a hot potato that both governments
> decided to relegate it to the status of a nonhappening to prevent any
> public inquiry.
I don't get it. Why wouldn't the Soviet government make ANY public
statements concerning this. At the time, they controlled much of the press
so why wouldn't they take advantage of this incident to show the world
"proven" aggression of Yankee imperialism?
robert w drydsale
Gerard wrote:
I don't get it. Why wouldn't the Soviet government make ANY public
> statements concerning this. At the time, they controlled much of the press
> so why wouldn't they take advantage of this incident to show the world
> "proven" aggression of Yankee imperialism?
Maybe because there is a big difference between rhetoric and bluff, and
actually deciding to go toe-to-toe. That kind of incident at that time in
history could have easily expanded into open hostilities, something neither
side apparently wanted.
Also, maybe because the Soviets came out on the losing end of that
particular engagement.
rob drysdale
robert....@MCI2000.com
Frank S Millen
Just after the shoot down of the commercial jetliner we deployed a sqdn of
F15s to Misawa AB Japan for several weeks to fly cover for the SAR mission
and investigation. Every day our crews reported eyeball to eyeball close
contact with the ruskies but cool heads prevailed. I guess the ruskies
thought better than start something when they saw that we were fully LOADED
to the gills with armed and ready AIM-9s and cannons. We would have wiped
their asses and they knew it. It was a lot different than their cowardly act
of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
JHAREK wrote in message <19980220135...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I keep hearing things about how the US and Russia got involved in some kind
of
>air to air engagement over the Kamchatka peninsula, and we supposedly had
it
>out with them too, a dozen or so aircraft involved in the fighting. Anybody
>else know anything?
>
>
>David Heller
>
>
>
>
>
Venik
Frank S Millen wrote in message
<6d803e$1f5k$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Just after the shoot down of the commercial jetliner we deployed a sqdn of
>F15s to Misawa AB Japan for several weeks to fly cover for the SAR mission
>and investigation. Every day our crews reported eyeball to eyeball close
>contact with the ruskies but cool heads prevailed. I guess the ruskies
>thought better than start something when they saw that we were fully LOADED
>to the gills with armed and ready AIM-9s and cannons. We would have wiped
>their asses and they knew it. It was a lot different than their cowardly
act
>of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
By "we" you mean they let idiots like you into the USAF to actually fly
planes, or were you there just on a bathroom maintenance duty?
Venik
Carlo Kopp
is his established mode of behaviour.
Cheers,
C
Ian David van der Horst
Frank S Millen <MIL...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<6d803e$1f5k$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> Just after the shoot down of the commercial jetliner we deployed a sqdn
of
> F15s to Misawa AB Japan for several weeks to fly cover for the SAR
mission
> and investigation. Every day our crews reported eyeball to eyeball close
> contact with the ruskies but cool heads prevailed. I guess the ruskies
> thought better than start something when they saw that we were fully
LOADED
> to the gills with armed and ready AIM-9s and cannons. We would have wiped
> their asses and they knew it. It was a lot different than their cowardly
act
> of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
No of course not than I guess the downed Airbus was just a mean bad lie
invented by the USSR. Cause if you did your homework better you would have
known that an US missile cruiser (or whatever other kind of ship) engaged
an hostile wich turned out to be a Iranian Airlines Airbus! And of course a
substantial amount of the casualties in DS was done by 'friendly' fire. BTW
the cold war is over so get over yourself!
Venik
JHAREK wrote in message <19980301000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>It was a lot different than their cowardly act of shooting down an unarmed
>civilian plane.>>
>
similar
>screwups too, so don't go off on the Russkies. (Although I agree we
would've
>kicked butt)
Soviets would have complete air superiority in the region in a matter of few
hours. American bases in Japan and any carriers nearby would not have had a
chance against the numerically superior Soviet forces.
Venik
JHAREK
>It was a lot different than their cowardly act of shooting down an unarmed
civilian plane.>>
Umm, didn't the USS Vincennes shoot down an airliner once? We've had similar
screwups too, so don't go off on the Russkies. (Although I agree we would've
kicked butt)
David Heller
Carlo Kopp
> hours. American bases in Japan and any carriers nearby would not have had a
> chance against the numerically superior Soviet forces.
>
Orbats for the Far Eastern TVD in 1983 ? Of course, Venik, you would
never concede that an Su-15 Flagon or MiG-23 Flogger would get beaten by
a JASDF or USAF F-15, would you ? Evidently your inanity has gotten
even worse in the last few days.
C
Robert Sveinson
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> Venik wrote:
> >
> > Frank S Millen wrote in message
> > >Just after the shoot down of the commercial jetliner we deployed a sqdn of
> > >F15s to Misawa AB Japan for several weeks to fly cover for the SAR mission
> > >and investigation. Every day our crews reported eyeball to eyeball close
> > >contact with the ruskies but cool heads prevailed. I guess the ruskies
> > >thought better than start something when they saw that we were fully LOADED
> > >to the gills with armed and ready AIM-9s and cannons. We would have wiped
> > act
> > >of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
How about the very BRAVE act of shooting down a defenseless Iranian
passenger
aircraft.
I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
passengers were
inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
> >
> > By "we" you mean they let idiots like you into the USAF to actually fly
> > planes, or were you there just on a bathroom maintenance duty?
> >
> Frank, I'd say you've just been "Veniked" LOL. You'll get used it, this
> is his established mode of behaviour.
>
> Cheers,
>
> C
--
MZ
Scott M. Kozel
Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Venik wrote:
> > >
> > > Frank S Millen wrote in message
> > > <6d803e$1f5k$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > >Just after the shoot down of the commercial jetliner we deployed a sqdn of
> > > >F15s to Misawa AB Japan for several weeks to fly cover for the SAR mission
> > > >and investigation. Every day our crews reported eyeball to eyeball close
> > > >contact with the ruskies but cool heads prevailed. I guess the ruskies
> > > >thought better than start something when they saw that we were fully LOADED
> > > >to the gills with armed and ready AIM-9s and cannons. We would have wiped
> > > >their asses and they knew it. It was a lot different than their cowardly
> > > act
> > > >of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
>
> How about the very BRAVE act of shooting down a defenseless Iranian
> passenger
> aircraft.
>
> I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
> America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
> passengers were
> inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
Scott M. Kozel
Venik
Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34F9E2...@richmond.infi.net>...
This is an Ameican point of view, Iran, if I remember correctly, did not
share it.
>
>KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
Situation with KAL-007 can also be considered to have happened during a
battle, thanks to the American warplanes constantly violating Soviet
airspace. The Soviet pilot followed the required ID procedure and was
ordered to shoot down the plane.
Venik
Robert Sveinson
> > > We would have wiped
> > > > >their asses and they knew it. It was a lot different than their cowardly
> > > > act
> > > > >of shooting down an unarmed civilian plane.
> >
> > How about the very BRAVE act of shooting down a defenseless Iranian
> > passenger
> > aircraft.
> >
> > I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
> > America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
> > passengers were
> > inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
>
> The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
What battle was that??? Was the passenger plane bristing with guns and
rockets???
Yeah it was an accident by america therefore it doesn't matter.
One would think that with all the american war toys they could
distinguish
between a hostile and a non hostile. I did forget about america blasting
[accidently] some
British armour which were displaying
the proper "friendly"
>
> KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
The KAL-007 was contacted by radio, and did not respond.
>
> Scott M. Kozel
Scott M. Kozel
Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
> > > I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
> > > America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
> > > passengers were
> > > inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
> >
> > The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
>
> What battle was that???
The battle between Iranian gunboats and American warships.
> Was the passenger plane bristing with guns and
> rockets???
No. Did people on the surface know that? 20-20 hindsight is great.
> Yeah it was an accident by america therefore it doesn't matter.
> One would think that with all the american war toys they could
> distinguish
> between a hostile and a non hostile.
In the heat of battle, mistakes can be made.
It was a terrible accident, terrible, but an accident nonetheless.
> > KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
>
> The KAL-007 was contacted by radio, and did not respond.
Oh sure, a Korean airliner had compatible radio channels with Soviet
fighters. Pardon me while I chunder.
Scott M. Kozel
Scott M. Kozel
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34F9E2...@richmond.infi.net>...
> >Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
> >> I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
> >> America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
> >> passengers were
> >> inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
> >
> >The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
>
> share it.
It was an accident nonetheless, made during the heat of battle. The
airliner had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> >KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
>
> Situation with KAL-007 can also be considered to have happened during a
> battle, thanks to the American warplanes constantly violating Soviet
> airspace.
Nonsense. There was no hot battle going on at the time.
Shall I mention the thousands of Soviet violations of American airspace
by Soviet airliners? How many Soviet airliners did the U.S. shoot
down? That's right, none. Americans could not imagine doing such a
thing.
> The Soviet pilot followed the required ID procedure and was
> ordered to shoot down the plane.
You are correct. He was ordered to commit mass murder. He did his job
well.
Scott M. Kozel
Venik
Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34FA12...@richmond.infi.net>...
>Shall I mention the thousands of Soviet violations of American airspace
>by Soviet airliners? How many Soviet airliners did the U.S. shoot
>down? That's right, none. Americans could not imagine doing such a
>thing.
Perhaps you should mention a few. It should be interesting.
>
>> The Soviet pilot followed the required ID procedure and was
>> ordered to shoot down the plane.
>
>You are correct. He was ordered to commit mass murder. He did his job
>well.
The pilot did everything in his ability to attract attention of the Jumbo.
He flew next to it, fired the cannon three time (hundreds of rounds), not to
mention that the airliner was contacted by the ground controls but never
responded.
Venik
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> It was an accident nonetheless, made during the heat of battle. The
> airliner had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Bull. You can visit Deja News and read about this accident in
sci.military.naval US captain broke his orders, and initiate conflict. Captain
sent helo to the Irani waters, and it start to make aggressive low passes over
the Irani speed boats. While he was order NOT to enter Irani waters and NOT to
engage with Iranians. Iranians fired at helo from AKs. Instead of ask helo
back, captain orders to enter Irani waters and engage in shooting with
Iranians. It would be better say that Americans shoot from 5" guns, and
Iranians were out of range with their AK. Needless to say that place had not
been declared place of battle. Few minutes latter IranAir took off, after
trying to contact "Iranian F-14" Americans blasted it off. For some reason
Americans could not see that plane is rising.
> Nonsense. There was no hot battle going on at the time.
There were at list 1000 violations of USSR borders EACH YEAR on Far East a
lone by American planes. Even as recently as 1995 Americans enter Russian
Airspace on Far East 120 times, during which SAM lock was achieved 30 times,
and interceptors were launched 80 times. Not speaking about few hundreds close
calls.
> Shall I mention the thousands of Soviet violations of American airspace
> by Soviet airliners?
Come back when they start to do it three times a day, and would attempt to fly
over Area 51.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Carroll
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:54:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> > Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
>> > > I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
>> > > America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
>> > > passengers were
>> > > inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
>> >
>> > The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
>>
>> What battle was that???
>
>The battle between Iranian gunboats and American warships.
>
>> Was the passenger plane bristing with guns and
>> rockets???
>
>No. Did people on the surface know that? 20-20 hindsight is great.
>
>> Yeah it was an accident by america therefore it doesn't matter.
>> One would think that with all the american war toys they could
>> distinguish
>> between a hostile and a non hostile.
>
>In the heat of battle, mistakes can be made.
>
>It was a terrible accident, terrible, but an accident nonetheless.
>
>> > KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
>>
>> The KAL-007 was contacted by radio, and did not respond.
>
>Oh sure, a Korean airliner had compatible radio channels with Soviet
>fighters. Pardon me while I chunder.
>
>Scott M. Kozel
Lets just cut the crap right here. US shot down an airliner because
they didn't have the brains to get a visual id on it like they should
have. The soviets got a visual and shot it down anyways. The soviets
should have communicated with it using visual communication and
escorted it out of the airspace. These were two incidents that should
never have happend. Both sides are guilty.
Just my 2 cents
Venik
Carroll wrote in message <34fa49f...@news.meganews.com>...
Visual communication at night is difficult. The Soviet pilot flew next to
the Jumbo and fired several hundred rounds from his cannon, the airliner,
however, did not respond in any way. It was contacted by ground radio at
international airliner frequencies and also failed to respond. Clearly the
pilots of the Jumbo, whether or not they carried out any recon mission, knew
that they were in Soviet airspace but hoped to sneak out believing that the
Soviets would not fire on a civilian plane. It is a fact that the South
Korea-based American radar operators knew that the airliner crossed into
the Soviet airspace but never gave it any warning.
Venik
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> Venik, you are trolling again, aren't you ? Why don't you check out the
> Orbats for the Far Eastern TVD in 1983 ? Of course, Venik, you would
> never concede that an Su-15 Flagon or MiG-23 Flogger would get beaten by
> a JASDF or USAF F-15, would you ? Evidently your inanity has gotten
> even worse in the last few days.
>
US aircraft along USSR border fell sharply...
MiG-23P/MLD were quite the opposition even for Eagles, anyway,
especially considering their numbers.
Regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Scott M. Kozel
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34FA12...@richmond.infi.net>...
>
> >Shall I mention the thousands of Soviet violations of American airspace
> >down? That's right, none. Americans could not imagine doing such a
> >thing.
>
> Perhaps you should mention a few. It should be interesting.
>
> >
> >> The Soviet pilot followed the required ID procedure and was
> >> ordered to shoot down the plane.
> >
> >You are correct. He was ordered to commit mass murder. He did his job
> >well.
>
> The pilot did everything in his ability to attract attention of the Jumbo.
> He flew next to it, fired the cannon three time (hundreds of rounds), not to
> mention that the airliner was contacted by the ground controls but never
> responded.
That's the Soviet account, propoganda.
Scott M. Kozel
Carlo Kopp
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Venik, you are trolling again, aren't you ? Why don't you check out the
> > Orbats for the Far Eastern TVD in 1983 ? Of course, Venik, you would
> > never concede that an Su-15 Flagon or MiG-23 Flogger would get beaten by
> > a JASDF or USAF F-15, would you ? Evidently your inanity has gotten
> > even worse in the last few days.
> >
> You missed a regiment of MiG-31, with the arrival of which activity of
> US aircraft along USSR border fell sharply...
>
> MiG-23P/MLD were quite the opposition even for Eagles, anyway,
> especially considering their numbers.
>
You had a non-trivial number of F-15s and F-16s in the theatre, ie the
USAF wings in Korea, Kadena and the JASDF wings. It would be interesting
to put the numbers together and wargame this scenario, since it would be
pure air-air.
Cheers,
Carlo
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> 1983 sounds a little early for a fully operational Foxhound regiment.
>
squadron was operational. Average production rate of the type was 2,5
planes per month, and started at rather high rate already. So they were
easily able to put a regiment to Far East in 1983 and still have some.
Cheers,
Andrey Shvetsov
ch1...@earthlink.net
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Venik, you are trolling again, aren't you ? Why don't you check out the
> > Orbats for the Far Eastern TVD in 1983 ? Of course, Venik, you would
> > never concede that an Su-15 Flagon or MiG-23 Flogger would get beaten by
> > a JASDF or USAF F-15, would you ? Evidently your inanity has gotten
> > even worse in the last few days.
> >
> You missed a regiment of MiG-31, with the arrival of which activity of
> US aircraft along USSR border fell sharply...
>
> especially considering their numbers.
>
>
> Andrey Shvetsov
Hey Andrey,
Couple Questions-
I've been in a few arguments about the (BVR) capability of the MiG-31
which mostly ended with a U.S. driver saying something on the order of
'I have absolutely no worries about the MiG-31'. Now I can, perhaps
understand this in terms of the F-14 guy I was talking to but even
Pre-AMRAAM Eagle drivers had much the same theory. I remember reading
in Air Internation from November of '94 that that 'Agent Donald'
supposedly gave over the entire R33/SBI-16 operating specs to the CIA
(for which he was subsequently shot) in the late 80's and was wondering
if this had much to do with the 'can only chase RC-135' reputation? It
certainly doesn't match well to the Blackbird-Caging incident Yevgenniy
or Venik described.
If the R-33 /was/ compromised, what about subsequent (R-33d/R-37)
efforts and anything done to the Zaslon aboard the 31M prototype/limited
production birds?
Next, the same questions applied to the R-23/24 and MiG-23. What
improvements were made in the (SARH esp.) seekers and was a bigger motor
added (imp. sec?)? Did the Flogger ever get auto-sweep on it's wings
and what kind of EXCM/internal jammer comparison can be made between it
and the Eagle? I've 'heard' that Flogger goes like skunk but also
wonder who would achieve better f/irst-pol acceleration with the Eagle
having at least a paper T/Wr of nearly 40% higher percentage... Lastly,
how were the last Flogger regiments (still any operative?) REALLY
equipped? I'd heard that some which were CFE passed to African nations
had full R-27/R-73 equipment and if so does this mean and HMS and new
radar to go with?
Many Thanks.
Venik
Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34FA9B...@richmond.infi.net>...
No, that's the pilot's personal acount of the incident in one of his recent
interviews to a western journalist.
Venik
Dwayne Allen Day
ch1...@earthlink.net wrote:
: if this had much to do with the 'can only chase RC-135' reputation? It
: certainly doesn't match well to the Blackbird-Caging incident Yevgenniy
: or Venik described.
The problem with this incident is that it apparently never happened. Col.
Graham, who has a book out on the SR-71 (he commanded the wing) has an
interview on a website that I recently saw (maybe someone can post the
url?) where he states that he has had people ask him about this incident,
but that as far as he knows (and he is the one to know) it never happened.
DDAY
Gerard
In article <34FA3236...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> There were at list 1000 violations of USSR borders EACH YEAR on Far East a
> lone by American planes.
> Even as recently as 1995 Americans enter Russian
> Airspace on Far East 120 times, during which SAM lock was achieved 30 times,
> and interceptors were launched 80 times. Not speaking about few hundreds close
> calls.
I am interested in reading on Russian ROE with regards to overflights, can
you cite it for me.
> > Shall I mention the thousands of Soviet violations of American airspace
> > by Soviet airliners?
>
> Come back when they start to do it three times a day, and would attempt to fly
> over Area 51.
oh please, to say Russians don't engage in what we do is preposterous.
They just use the assets which are: 1) available and; 2) still mission
capable. Just because we don't see Russian aircraft flying over King's
Bay, GA, Coronado, etc. doesn't mean they aren't spying on US. Russian
boats still ply US waters and bases and Russian satellites, by treaty, are
taking pictures of Area 51 (the Groom Lake facility). I am pretty sure
they stil engage in just as much espionage as we do; it just doesn't make
the press as much as sensational overflight.
Venik
Gerard wrote in message ...
Absolutely true, the emphasis of espionage activities had somewhat shifted,
however. Russians became very interested not only in American high tech
stuff and big politics, but also in smaller scale technological achievements
and economical trends. I would even say that Russians have increased their
espionage efforts since today US is leading in the field of experiemntal
science, the area where Russians are short on money. Spying is a great money
saver and even more so, knowing how often careless Amrican companies are
with their technological and trade secrets.
Venik
Gerard
In article <34FA3236...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > It was an accident nonetheless, made during the heat of battle. The
> > airliner had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> Yevgeniy said:
> Bull. You can visit Deja News and read about this accident in
> sci.military.naval
I never use the Internet as a source of scholarly info. I just searched
SMN and didn't find it, were any sources cited?
Felixth...@hotmail.com
> >
> >The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
>
> This is an Ameican point of view, Iran, if I remember correctly, did not
> share it.
Nor does any one else. But the USN was too busy trying to cover it all up to
care.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Carlo Kopp
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> >
> Series production of the type started in 1980, and in 1981 first
> squadron was operational. Average production rate of the type was 2,5
> planes per month, and started at rather high rate already. So they were
> easily able to put a regiment to Far East in 1983 and still have some.
>
system, ie completely new radar, completely new BVR missiles etc. What
was the servicability like in those early days ? I heard that the MiG-31
has been a big maintenance problem for the PVO - is this only a recent
problem, or was it true then as well ?
Thanks,
Carlo
Dwayne Allen Day
Gerard wrote:
: In article <34FA3236...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
: <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
Yes. Start with Potter's book Electronic Greyhounds. It lists several
sources, including the most important, which is an early 90s article in
the US Naval Institute journal Proceedings.
DDAY
Andrey Shvetsov
ch1...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Hey Andrey,
>
> Couple Questions-
>
> I've been in a few arguments about the (BVR) capability of the MiG-31
> which mostly ended with a U.S. driver saying something on the order of
> 'I have absolutely no worries about the MiG-31'. Now I can, perhaps
> understand this in terms of the F-14 guy I was talking to but even
> Pre-AMRAAM Eagle drivers had much the same theory. I remember reading
> in Air Internation from November of '94 that that 'Agent Donald'
> supposedly gave over the entire R33/SBI-16 operating specs to the CIA
> (for which he was subsequently shot) in the late 80's and was wondering
> certainly doesn't match well to the Blackbird-Caging incident Yevgenniy
> or Venik described.
MiG-31 is really serious threat for any opponent in BVR, for a number of
reasons.
First, high speed combined with capability to actually exercise low-G
manuevring at high sustained supersonic speed. Manuevring supersonic
target is really difficult for most missiles, as launch distances
degrade severely. Plainly, if a Sparrow can get a transsonic fighter at
40 km, to achieve sufficient kill probability for MiG-31 it should be
fired at roughly half the range - otherwise it will not have enough
energy for terminal manuevre to intercept supersonic target, or Foxhound
can plainly turn and run away, laying too much distance between it and a
missile. "Cruise" supersonic speed of MiG-31 is about M 2,3.
Second, range and speed advantage of it's missiles, that were
specifically designed to intercept cruise missiles and terrain scimming
aircraft - that are far tougher targets than fighters. Basically, MiG-31
can fire R-33 missile well outside Sparrow's effective range, and hit
still before his target gets into range. This should pose sagnificant
danger for AMRAAM-equipped fighters as well.
It is difficult for me to comment on capability of electronic systems of
MiG-31 - i'm not great expert here. However, combination of larger and
better ranged radar/missiles and ability to choose position due to
supersonic manuevrability should place any "conventional" fighter (armed
with anything short of Phoenix) on the defensive, leaving Foxhound with
capability to choose when and where to engage, and deny his opponent the
engagement if needed. Even well tuned ECM would at best decrease
MiG-31's probability of successful attack, but hitting it in return
still would be a problem.
>
> If the R-33 /was/ compromised, what about subsequent (R-33d/R-37)
> efforts and anything done to the Zaslon aboard the 31M > prototype/limited production birds?
Radar aboard MiG-31M is not same Zaslon - it has roughly double the
range, larger diameter of the antenna, plus longer ranged missiles so
_something_ was definitely done. Whether ECCM capabilities were
improved, I do not know.
How much supposed "compromising" would improve ECM capability of US
systems against a specific missile?
>
> Next, the same questions applied to the R-23/24 and MiG-23. What
> improvements were made in the (SARH esp.) seekers and was a bigger motor
> added (imp. sec?)?
R-23 already had _rather_ big motor. It was a huge missile, with target
goal to reach excellent low-altitude performance. It's ballistic range
at high altitude reached about 80 km, but actual firing range was
severely limited by fire control system - initial R-23 did not sport
radar correction, requiring locking on before launch, or shortly
thereafter. This limited range to about 25 km (at any altitude). Later
R-23M/R-24 missiles added radar correction + inertial guidance, as well
as improved homing head, effectively doubling max range. I am aware of
some speculations that R-24 guidance package is same as that of R-27,
but wouldn't declare it a hard fact. Anyway it is similar in terms of
available launch range.
> Did the Flogger ever get auto-sweep on it's wings
> and what kind of EXCM/internal jammer comparison can be made between it
> and the Eagle?
MiG-23 does not have internal jammer, and can carry it in external pod
only - which is made only during A2G missions. It never got autosweep.
>I've 'heard' that Flogger goes like skunk but also
> wonder who would achieve better f/irst-pol acceleration with the Eagle
> having at least a paper T/Wr of nearly 40% higher percentage...
Manuevrability of MiG-23 is a question that can only be discussed having
specific mod in mind.
As it entered service, MiG-23C/M indeed was hardly good dogfighter. It
lacked thrust, construction of sweep-wing limited available G load to
mere 6,5 g, radar system was fine, but assorted weapons left much to be
desired. MiG-21bis was far better fighter, especially considering its 9+
tons overburn thrust. Export mods MiG-23MF/MS shared same problems,
having poorer avionics too.
In MiG-23ML that appeared in 1977 or 78, these problems were adressed
rather rigorously. It was nearly a ton lighter (though at the expence of
some fuel capacity), sported strengthened airframe and engine with about
25% extra thrust. It also received adoptive leading-edge flaps. This was
a true fighter already. It also had improved radar with multiple targets
tracking capability, as well as useful IRST. PVO mod of this variant,
MiG-23P, disposing of A2G capability, added remote data feed system
"Lazur'", allowing it to increase radar's detection range, and make
"silent" attacks under direction from AEW plane, groung command centre
or even another fighter.
The last mod, MiG-23MLD, 1982, sported "Lazur'" even for VVS planes, and
added electronic high AOA stability control system. All previously built
ML's and P's were upgraded to this standard in 1982-1986. A regiment of
these was delivered to Syria late in 1982, where they were able to shot
down three israely F-15 without taking losses (they were said to use
"advanced low-altitude tactics", whatever that means).
> Lastly,
> how were the last Flogger regiments (still any operative?) REALLY
> equipped? I'd heard that some which were CFE passed to African nations
> had full R-27/R-73 equipment and if so does this mean and HMS and new
> radar to go with?
All single engine fighters of RuAF are grounded and placed in reserve or
disposed of. MAPO offered upgrade program for any foreign type operator
for installing MiG-29 avoinics, but I never heard about any conversions
actually made.
Most Soviet/Russian a/c that use older IR AAMs (like R-60 or K-13M) can
carry and launch R-73, but within limits imposed by their fire control
system, so large off-boresight angle launch capability is not utilised.
Longer range, all-aspect capability and more efficient seeker anyway
come handy :-). MiG-23MLD of Soviet air force carried and trained usage
of R-73 at least since 1988 (hunter squadrons possibly even earlier).
Best regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> Two years into service, mmmm, probably lots of bugs in the weapon
> system, ie completely new radar, completely new BVR missiles etc. What
> was the servicability like in those early days ? I heard that the MiG-31
> has been a big maintenance problem for the PVO - is this only a recent
> problem, or was it true then as well ?
That is difficult to say, but at least they flew :-)
Were there any specific problems with the a/c mentioned? Recently,
maintaining enything became a problem for Russian armed forces :-(
Cheers,
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp
supporting it. Details were very sketchy.
Cheers,
Carlo
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> A regiment of
> these was delivered to Syria late in 1982, where they were able to shot
> down three israely F-15 without taking losses (they were said to use
> "advanced low-altitude tactics", whatever that means).
Three?! Can you please tell us more? So far we been hearing that Israel may lost F-15s, yet so far
Israel and US claim that not a single F-15 was lost. Even there had been story last year that
Mig-25 got F-15 in set up ambush.
Regards,
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Andrey Shvetsov
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
> Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> > A regiment of
> > these was delivered to Syria late in 1982, where they were able to shot
> > down three israely F-15 without taking losses (they were said to use
> > "advanced low-altitude tactics", whatever that means).
>
> Israel and US claim that not a single F-15 was lost. Even there had been story last year that
> Mig-25 got F-15 in set up ambush.
statistics. I have indeed seen something 82:0 in Western sources for air
battles over Bekaa Valley. Syrians claimed something like 46:43 in their
favour, while Soviet intelligence reports, scetches of which appeared in
open press after 1991 (when MoD opened it's archives for historians)
indicate ratio of exchange about 1:2 in Israeli favour.
In fact, a number of publications I have show engagements over Bekaa
valley to be a real mess with 250-300 fighters in the air at the moment.
You really should not expect to avoid losses in such a furball :-)
I have a book home that details Syrian and confirmed Israely A2A losses
by types, and it gives at least three Eagles and five Falcons shot down
by Syrian fighters. BTW, it claims that total Israely a/c losses were
indeed higher than Syrian due to constant attempts to pounce Arab troops
in Bekaa Valley despite heavy presence of Osa's and Shilka's.
I even have reference of E-2 shootdown in winter 1982-83 by
Soviet-manned S-200 missile at a range of about 170 km. If you give me a
day or two, I'll dig up the books and provide exact numbers and dates.
Cheers,
Andrey Shvetsov
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> "Not a single" seems to be more of advertising trick than real
> statistics. I have indeed seen something 82:0 in Western sources for air
> battles over Bekaa Valley. Syrians claimed something like 46:43 in their
> favour, while Soviet intelligence reports, scetches of which appeared in
> open press after 1991 (when MoD opened it's archives for historians)
> indicate ratio of exchange about 1:2 in Israeli favour.
One thing for sure that it SERIOUSLY contradict what usualy published here. Abiviously Israel lost a lot
of planes, but perhaps they use some tricks which Americans used in Korean War, write fighter lost in
air-to-air, as lost to ground fire. In any case, I would like to see this data. Stories in which Russian
made fighter win are not popular here for some reason :)
Thanks.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Gerard
In article <34FC447D...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> In any case, I would like to see this data.
So would I and a source.
> Stories in which Russian
> made fighter win are not popular here for some reason :)
Scholars can check US Air Force, Army and, in general, US archives with
respect to WWII, Vietnam and Korea. To my knowledge only Katharine
Weathersby has been allowed very wide access to Russian archives with
respect to the Korean War (and that only carried diplomatic notes and
meeting minutes). Even now, Russian archives are still difficult for
scholars to penetrate.
Sorry but the precendent of Western media as multiple and separate entities
which are NOT subsersevient economically and ideologically to the state
carries much weight when speaking along the lines of credibility of
"stories."
Not saying media elimination doesn't happen.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Gerard wrote:
> Sorry but the precendent of Western media as multiple and separate entities
> which are NOT subsersevient economically and ideologically to the state
> carries much weight when speaking along the lines of credibility of
> "stories."
That what you believe or that what THEY want to believe. Trust me, except some
wakos, US media play ONE tune. There is very few opinions in US media. Second,
forget quality of archives, if data was screwed before it get there, there is
not much good of this archives. It seams to me that many Americans lets theirs
guards down simply because they believe that they live in democracy. You seams
to be one of them. Remember Watergate, Iran-Contras, and other scandals and
cover ups? Do you think this is it? Or may be you want to guess how many OTHERS
potential scandals never become scandals because information did not lick out?
You would not find ANYTHING about this potential scandals in archives. I would
guess that you agree on that with me. At best, you would find 100 years from
now :)
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
R.T.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Remember Watergate, Iran-Contras, and other scandals and
>cover ups? Do you think this is it? Or may be you want to guess how many OTHERS
>potential scandals never become scandals because information did not lick out?
You haven't heard about the latest scandal, have you ? :-)
R.T.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
R.T. wrote:
> You haven't heard about the latest scandal, have you ? :-)
I just don't think that twisted Clinton's penis is at the same level as Iran-Contras
:)
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
JHAREK
>You haven't heard about the latest scandal, have you ? :-)>>
Oh you mean the Kenneth Starr/Sore Loser Republican scandal? They're
threatening those poor women with jail time if they don't make up some more
interesting tales,,,scandal indeed. Funny how the press nor the public seems to
pick up on that one simple fact.
David Heller
Gerard
In article <34FCC9F9...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> That what you believe or that what THEY want to believe. Trust me, except some
> wakos, US media play ONE tune.
Most of the time but not all. It seems to me that you did not grow up in
the States so I DO NOT trust you with regards to how the US media pans out.
Sorry in the same token that I read Russian press and I would NEVER trust
my opinion as to how the Russian press works, even if I read every scrap of
print from "Segodnya" to "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" to "Zavtra" to "Pamyat." I
have read such publications for years because it was MY JOB and have
knocked debattes with native Russian experts on press and even now I would
never call myself an authority or say "Hey trust me, this is how the
Russian press works . . ."
> There is very few opinions in US media.
You'll get second opinions but from different viewpoints.
> Second,
> forget quality of archives, if data was screwed before it get there, there is
> not much good of this archives.
Ok. I'll play the cynics game. Then why do you trust Russian, German or
US news reports, archivesm, eyewitness reports, press briefing, etc. AT
ALL. If you think everything is faulty or non-credible why is it just
limited to US media? To the point why read ANYTHING AT ALL if none of it
has NO credibility IN THE LEAST BIT. Or are we just saying that YOU are
MORE INCLINED to believe Russian sources. C'mon Zhenya. I don't limit
myself to Western and US sources and neither should anyone else who has
half a brain toward intelligence.
To me your argument fails in one crucial place, you denigrate the media and
sources which ARE the very source of your education in Ohio.
> It seams to me that many Americans lets theirs
> guards down simply because they believe that they live in democracy. You seams
> to be one of them.
You know there ONCE was a time when I thought you were civil. Making
generalizations about me when you hardly know who I am is hardly the point
here.
For more on this see below
However, to address your point I voted in every election since I turned the
eligible age and have written a fair share of Congressman and agency
officials about what I think are unfair taxing practices, outlandish
municipal ordinances concerning street lamps and even down to setting up
tripod pictures at the US Congress.
I ask you have you voted in the last US election (municipal, state,
federal)? Have you written letters signed petitions, published articles
which are all guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights.
So I have not let my guard down.
> Remember Watergate, Iran-Contras, and other scandals and
> cover ups? Do you think this is it? Or may be you want to guess how many OTHERS
> potential scandals never become scandals because information did not lick out?
Quite obviously Zhenya you don't live here in Wash, DC. Any rumor in this
town has a tendency to become solid fact. This place leaks worst than a
strainer, discretion comes from "high-ranking unnamed officials of . . ., "
even idiot officials like talking to the press. There are more holes here
than Swiss cheese. Everything comes out sooner or later the trick is to
separate the wheat from chaff.
There was a time during the "Reagan obsessive security years" when almost
everything was a guarded top secret. That is why the Pentagon
compartmentalizes info because it knows things will leak out sooner or
later. As you see compartmentalization doesn't make things air tight it
just makes the jigsaw puzzle even if you happen to get that piece harder to
figure out.
One DefSec even said something like, "When you try to guard everything you
guard nothing"
> You would not find ANYTHING about this potential scandals in archives.
Bullshit. Ever hear the Johnson or Nixon White House tapes. Granted, they
are edited and came out decades after being made, but if you ever get a
hold of the transcripts, you'll be scratching your head. This present
"scandal" (if there was anything at all) came to light in less than two
years. So the information age has triumphed again.
> I would
> guess that you agree on that with me. At best, you would find 100 years from
> now :)
Sorry I don't. I reiterate, if you try to hide something illegal in this
town, IT WILL come out.
I have been civil with you in the past and have ALWAYS addressed your
arguments POINT BY POINT here and in other NG's and even corrected your
English at one time (something I appreciate when I speak Russian) via
email.
Well no more, putting a generalization on me doesn't win friends here or
anywhere else. If you want to continue a flame war and get personal with
me use my e-mail address, IF YOU DARE.
Considering how nice and civil I have been with you in the past (see
above), I have will do something I have never done with anyone else via
newsgroups, which is to post a flame. So I have every reason to be nasty
from this post here and on out.
I hope your life is full of misery, pain and suffering, UNTIL you realize
how friendly human relations are made.
Your in my killfile now (strange how they are only two there and you're
one) so any reply here addressed to me is absolutely worthless.
Krztalizer
Venik,
I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an SA-7 for
"practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in 1983 -
didnt lock and went harmlessly straight up, missing us by ~ 3 miles), my ship,
the USS Kirk, had the airwing commander of the Novorosiisk drop a large iron
bomb at the moment he passed over our ship -- what message was that intended to
give? -- , and later that same day, the same Yak-38 pilot pumped his UB rockets
into the water directly in the path of the Kirk. My point in all this is
simply that the Cold War involved THOUSANDS of "IncSea" violations on BOTH
sides. Your country is just as guilty as anyone, and trying to point the
finger at us as the Aggressors seems pretty laughable. Hungary, Bulgaria,
Poland, and a few other nations would consider the Soviet Union to be the
worst thing since National Socialism, and thankfully, the Soviet system of
repression, greed, and gulags has collapsed. Were we guilty of testing the
defenses of Russia's borders? Yes. Just like Russia is now guilty of
providing chemical weapons to emerging terrorist states. Hard to guess which
you think is worse. Your argument with Kozel sounds pretty shrill at this
point. How about just accepting that nations (everyone's) do petty, wrong
things? You would be right, and both you and Scott can go on to other issues.
Gordon
<=====(A+C=====>
The Last SeaSnake
"Got anything on your radar, Spy?"
"Nothing but my forehead."
Krztalizer
>>
>> This is an Ameican point of view, Iran, if I remember correctly, did not
>> share it.
>
>
>Nor does any one else. But the USN was too busy trying to cover it all up to
>care.
No attempt was made to cover up a damn thing. Within months, every detail was
known, the Captain's career ended shortly thereafter, and they teach the
incident at the US Navy's War College as an example of what NOT to do in a
"warm situation". That is one damn funny way to cover something up. Go back
to Alt.conspiracies, please, or read up on the incident. Primarily, it was one
man's f*-up, not the Navy's. The USN did the right thing and investigated it
completely -- now, if Reagan's folks decided to try and spin the story, well,
that's not our issue, is it?
Krztalizer
As a flyer that operated in the Sea of Ohkotsk as late as 1986, I never
encountered a Foxhound. We were thumped by Ostrov Iterup-based (hmm... maybe
Shimushir..?) MiG-23s, Petro and Sakhalin-based Su-15s, and dozens of HINDS
from somewhere near Vlad. In three years of flying "Door bell" missions (climb
until illuminated, then run like hell when Sky King or some other voice
announces an intercept is on), I never saw a MiG-29 or a 31 in the area you
suggest. Methinks, with all the intercepts that were going on at the time, if
there WERE Foxhounds in theatre, they would have made their presence known.
v/r
Venik
Krztalizer wrote in message
<19980304190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
The question is what were you doing flying close to Soviet borders other
than looking for trouble?
So far no connection was established linking Russia to any chemical weapons
sales to "terrorist states". In fact, the only major supplier of chemical
components to, say, Iraq is Germany (did you hear about the latest scandal
in Germany involving BASF, other chemical companies and their employees
accused and in some cases already convicted of illegal sales of chemical
materials that may be used for production of chem. weapons to Iraq following
Gulf War?)
Venik
Jeff Shultz
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:41:17 -0500, Venik wrote:
:>Krztalizer wrote in message
:><19980304190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
:>>Venik,
:>>
:>> I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an SA-7
:>for
:>>"practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in
:>1983 -
::>
:>The question is what were you doing flying close to Soviet borders other
:>than looking for trouble?
:>
Realizing that the Soviet Union had an expansionist bent...
I don't think that the Indian Ocean could be considered
"close" to a Soviet border.
And as for the other incident... the Novorosiisk is/was a
Soviet aircraft carrier...excuse me, an "aircraft carrying
cruiser" is the title that was used to get them through the
Bosphorus, wasn't it? And the Kirk followed the Novo's
battle group all over the Pacific... just like the Soviets
liked to put a tail on our battlegroups - at least they did
in the Med.
> In fact, the only major supplier of chemical
:>components to, say, Iraq is Germany (did you hear about the latest scandal
:>in Germany involving BASF, other chemical companies and their employees
:>accused and in some cases already convicted of illegal sales of chemical
:>materials that may be used for production of chem. weapons to Iraq following
:>Gulf War?)
Yep, heard of that. Think that the people who authorized it
should be put down in a little hole in the ground and fed
nothing but prunes... for say, 20 years.
Jeff Shultz
http://www.netcom.com/~jbshultz
Early out approved - departing Ft. Meade, MD ~23 April 1998
Oregon here I come - BACK!
Gerard
In article <19980304190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
krzta...@aol.com (Krztalizer) wrote:
> I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an SA-7 for
> "practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in 1983
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Venik then postulates
>"The question is what were you (Krztalizer) doing flying close to Soviet borders other
>than looking for trouble?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just had to see what might come out of this thread so I unkillfiled your
post just to peek. To my *utter* amazement not only did I see someone
dodge the post's original point but ALSO to have completely misread or
better to say ignored the first sentence of the post.
Gerard
In article <gbrigman-0...@129.174.26.254>, Gerard wrote:
> In article <19980304190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> krzta...@aol.com (Krztalizer) wrote:
>
>
> > I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an SA-7 for
> > "practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in 1983
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Venik then postulates
>
> >"The question is what were you (Krztalizer) doing flying close to Soviet borders other
> >than looking for trouble?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It looks like the reader chopped up the original. FYI- I underlined INDIAN
OCEAN and SOVIET BORDERS.
Now it should be perfectly understandable.
D. Scott Ferrin
On 4 Mar 1998 19:07:10 GMT, krzta...@aol.com (Krztalizer) wrote:
>Venik,
>
> I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an SA-7 for
>"practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in 1983 -
>didnt lock and went harmlessly straight up, missing us by ~ 3 miles), my ship,
>the USS Kirk, had the airwing commander of the Novorosiisk drop a large iron
>bomb at the moment he passed over our ship -- what message was that intended to
>give? -- , and later that same day, the same Yak-38 pilot pumped his UB rockets
>into the water directly in the path of the Kirk. My point in all this is
>simply that the Cold War involved THOUSANDS of "IncSea" violations on BOTH
>sides. Your country is just as guilty as anyone, and trying to point the
>finger at us as the Aggressors seems pretty laughable. Hungary, Bulgaria,
>Poland, and a few other nations would consider the Soviet Union to be the
>worst thing since National Socialism, and thankfully, the Soviet system of
>repression, greed, and gulags has collapsed. Were we guilty of testing the
>defenses of Russia's borders? Yes. Just like Russia is now guilty of
>providing chemical weapons to emerging terrorist states. Hard to guess which
>you think is worse. Your argument with Kozel sounds pretty shrill at this
>point. How about just accepting that nations (everyone's) do petty, wrong
>things? You would be right, and both you and Scott can go on to other issues.
>
>Gordon
><=====(A+C=====>
> The Last SeaSnake
>
>"Got anything on your radar, Spy?"
>"Nothing but my forehead."
I don't know if you're referring to me or not but I only made one post
regarding the issue. Hardly enough to bother anybody and not the
least contriversial. So what's the problem?
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
WolfBoy
Venik wrote
<snip>
>> I have been fired at by a Soviet cruiser (Tashkent, launched an
SA-7
>for
>>"practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in
>>1983 -
>The question is what were you doing flying close to Soviet borders other
>than looking for trouble?
>
Yeah stay out of the Indian Ocean! & the whole Eastern Hemisphere for that
matter.
Int'l Waters don't mean anything.
Venik, that was sarcasm btw. Have a problem with Geography?
Felixth...@hotmail.com
> No attempt was made to cover up a damn thing. Within months, every detail
was
> known, the Captain's career ended shortly thereafter,
Are you SERIOUS!? The USN ERASED an Iranian Island off of a map to try to hide
the fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time - and in fact no
one found out until MUCH later when Admiral Crowe 'fessed up in an interview
with Sam Donaldson (I remember it distinctly because I saw it in a motel in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, on my way to Michigan to start law school - and to this day
I distinctly remember how the admiral took a deep sigh when he realized he'd
let the cat out of the bag) and then there was all of the talk about the
Iranian airliner carrying a military transponder, that it was descending
when in fact it was perfectly in the middle of its corridor, etc. The attempt
of a cover-up was most certainly there, but it was unsuccessful (largley
thanks to the report by the other Captain - forgot his nem right now - in
which he criticized Rogers for being a loose canon, as well as the radar
info from the towers at the otherside of the Gulf) and so the USN decided to
back off the coverup and damage control it away. To this day no one is quite
certain of a number of issues such as why and under whose orders if any did
Rogers enter Iranian waters and more importantly how and why were US
helicopters getting so close to Iranian boats (which were- btw - in Iranian
waters and heading away from the Vincennes and so constituted no threat to the
Vincennes) when they knew darn well that it would provoke small arms fire
which the Capt tried to use as a justification to enter into Iranian waters to
"extend the defensive umbrella" of the Vincennes to the helos. There have also
been attempts to characterize this as "hot pursuit" which falls flat on its
face, and same goes for the "innocent passage" theory, as it does for
"umbrella of defense" excuse.
Considering US foreign policy at the time of preventing an Iranian victory
over Saddam Hussein, and the fact that Reagan was willing not only to continue
providing military intelligence and chemical-biological weapons to Saddam
(which he did) but was also willing to actually militarily interfere in the
war on Saddam's side, it is quite obvious that the Vincennes was attempting to
draw out the Iranians and to provoke them into an attack to justify massive US
military invovlement in the war on Saddam's side. This was to be a staged
event - a la Gulf of Tonkin - but it went wrong because the Iranians didn't
take the bait (the Iranian navy was after all trained by the US) and instead
the Capt ended up "accidentally" shooting down a civilian airliner. To this
date, the US has REFUSED to accept responsibility for this "incident" and
claims that the payments made to the relatives of the murdered victims of Iran
Air 655 are "ex gratia", and furthermore, last time Rogers spoke he still
refused to admit that the Vincennes had - for some strange reason - entered
Iranian waters at the time. Note furthermore that Cap't Rogers was given a
medal for the "successfull" completion of his tour of duty.
One thing is certain - the Reagan administration played VERY fast and loose
with the laws of war and the law of the seas. He created a number of
precedents (and so did Clinton with his unilateral missile attack on Iraq
supposedly as a punishment for some alleged Iraqi plot to assasinate Bush, not
to mention Clinton's insistence that the US is authorized to unilaterally
attack Iraq again in the future even though the UN Security Council has
clearly and explicity stated that the US has no such authorization, or the US
insistance that it can pick and choose the nationality of inspectors or sites
inspected in the US under the Chemical Weapons Convention and declare some
sites as NOT subject to inspection for "national security" reasons, despite
the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention itself) - he created a
number of precendents which will come back to haunt us all in the future.
Venik
Gerard wrote in message ...
SA-7 for
>> "practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in
1983
>>Venik then postulates
>
>>"The question is what were you (Krztalizer) doing flying close to Soviet
borders other
>>than looking for trouble?"
>
>I just had to see what might come out of this thread so I unkillfiled your
>post just to peek. To my *utter* amazement not only did I see someone
>dodge the post's original point but ALSO to have completely misread or
>better to say ignored the first sentence of the post.
Krztalizer is either very mistake or he is intentionally misleading me. He
sais that his P-3B was almost hit by an SA-7 (Grail) SAM launched from
Tashkent (Soviet territory) while he was flying over...Indian Ocean !?!
Before pointing your finger at anyone go and check wat is the max range of
SA-7 (3.5 km). If Krztalizer is not inventing this story, he was flying over
USSR.
Venik
Venik
Jeff Shultz wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:41:17 -0500, Venik wrote:
>
>:>Krztalizer wrote in message
>:><19980304190...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>:>>Venik,
>:>>
SA-7
>:>for
>:>>"practice" as our P-3B flew overhead near Nicos in the Indian Ocean in
>::>
>:>The question is what were you doing flying close to Soviet borders other
>:>than looking for trouble?
>:>
>Realizing that the Soviet Union had an expansionist bent...
>I don't think that the Indian Ocean could be considered
>"close" to a Soviet border.
SA-7 is a hand-held missile launcher (like Stinger) with a max range of 3.5
km and effective kill range up to 1.5 km. Launched from Tashkent it would
land in Tashkent somewhere down the street. I think Krztalizer is deeply
mistaken, because even the most advanced version of SA-7 (model B) has a
slant range of 4.3 km.
Venik
WolfBoy
Venik wrote in message
Venik, has there been a Soviet Cruiser named Tashkent? Reread the original
post, that's what he's saying.
Carl Crosby
Carroll wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:54:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >> > Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> wrote:
> >> > > I do realize that there is a huge difference between the two events.
> >> > > America shot down the Iranian airliner, but that is alright, the
> >> > > passengers were
> >> > > inferiors, as they weren't an american colony..
> >> >
> >> > The Vincennes incident was an accident that happened during a battle.
> >>
> >> What battle was that???
> >
> >The battle between Iranian gunboats and American warships.
> >
> >> Was the passenger plane bristing with guns and
> >> rockets???
> >
> >No. Did people on the surface know that? 20-20 hindsight is great.
> >
> >> Yeah it was an accident by america therefore it doesn't matter.
> >> One would think that with all the american war toys they could
> >> distinguish
> >> between a hostile and a non hostile.
> >
> >In the heat of battle, mistakes can be made.
> >
> >It was a terrible accident, terrible, but an accident nonetheless.
> >
> >> > KAL-007 was cold-blooded murder.
> >>
> >> The KAL-007 was contacted by radio, and did not respond.
> >
> >Oh sure, a Korean airliner had compatible radio channels with Soviet
> >fighters. Pardon me while I chunder.
> >
> >Scott M. Kozel
> Lets just cut the crap right here. US shot down an airliner because
> they didn't have the brains to get a visual id on it like they should
> have. The soviets got a visual and shot it down anyways. The soviets
> should have communicated with it using visual communication and
> escorted it out of the airspace. These were two incidents that should
> never have happend. Both sides are guilty.
>
> Just my 2 cents
How many time does this have to be pointed out? When VINCENNES fired on
the Iran Air Airbus, it was at minimum range for SM-2 missiles on a very
hazy day. If they had waited for a visual and the aircraft was indeed
attacking them (as they thought it was, due in part to poorly thought
out display panels), they would have been engaging an F-14 or some other
combat aircraft at a range of less than 6,000 meters with two 5" guns
(one was jammed and the other was busy with Iranian surface craft) and
two Vulcan Phalanx CIWS, which could only be brought into play if the
potenial attack required over flying the ship at low altitude. I don't
even want to thing about dealing with a supersonic kamikaze. If that
were the case, even if CIWS totalled the attacker, large amounts of the
wreck would have hit the CG.