Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
flyingturtle wrote:Not if it's a weekend...Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
Who says a military plane cannot have a re-programmable transponder?
This is one of the reasons certain countries (like Switzerland) send up fighter jets to see whether the announced and approved humanitarian C-17 isn't a B-52 going straight to combat.
flyingturtle wrote:Who says a military plane cannot have a re-programmable transponder?
This is one of the reasons certain countries (like Switzerland) send up fighter jets to see whether the announced and approved humanitarian C-17 isn't a B-52 going straight to combat.
Francoflier wrote:They are also flying in international airspace, which is only a problem for China which unilaterally claims these waters to itself despite no acknowledgement of such by any country or international organization.
Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
WIederling wrote:Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
You assume a bog standard transponder on an RC-135W?
Amusing.
This is a SPY PLANE. I'd be surprised if they did not have the capability to cloak.
DigitalSea wrote:WIederling wrote:Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
You assume a bog standard transponder on an RC-135W?
Amusing.
This is a SPY PLANE. I'd be surprised if they did not have the capability to cloak.
I've seen RC-135s go invisible.
DigitalSea wrote:WIederling wrote:...This is a SPY PLANE. I'd be surprised if they did not have the capability to cloak.
I've seen RC-135s go invisible.
DigitalSea wrote:WIederling wrote:Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
You assume a bog standard transponder on an RC-135W?
Amusing.
This is a SPY PLANE. I'd be surprised if they did not have the capability to cloak.
I've seen RC-135s go invisible.
keesje wrote:On topics like this, objectivity is out of the window in half a second.
KAL 007 crossed my mind too, but even the tought of it being a bit more "complicated" then we were told in 1983, would distract from the topic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_ ... Flight_007
LyleLanley wrote:keesje wrote:On topics like this, objectivity is out of the window in half a second.
KAL 007 crossed my mind too, but even the tought of it being a bit more "complicated" then we were told in 1983, would distract from the topic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_ ... Flight_007
Thank you for finally admitting that you're not objective on this topic.
A bit of irony, though: you're linking to an event also involving a tertiary RC-135 straining for a connection, but had the Soviet higher-ups been even the least bit "objective" about the identity of the 747 instead of having their fangs out believing "it must" be an RC-135, 269 people would still be alive, today.
WIederling wrote:Your are attributing malice where there is none.
Military thinks in threats and fending off those
not in what might be or not.
Though there is another case around that afaics has a fat tag of carelessness or malice stamped on.
LyleLanley wrote:WIederling wrote:Your are attributing malice where there is none.
Military thinks in threats and fending off those
not in what might be or not.
Though there is another case around that afaics has a fat tag of carelessness or malice stamped on.
"fangs out" is an expression meaning they were letting their judgment be clouded by another motivation. Whether it's glory, not being sacked, or panic.
If you're referring to KAL 007, the Soviet higher-ups are on record telling the Air Defense forces to shoot down the plane AFTER being told it was about to leave their airspace; i.e. no longer a threat. Even the RC-135 they thought it was isn't a threat, but they would be well within their rights to maintain their sovereign airspace. Their worry instead was being fired for letting the aircraft slip through their airspace - this is after nearly two hours of incompetent attempted intercepts by their forces. Air defense forces are trained to identify a possible threat first, not to shoot first and identify second. Instead, they ordered the shot first to save their careers. The pilot later admitted he knew it wasn't the RC-135, but since his controllers didn't ask he didn't offer. Of course they weren't malicious, very few people WANT to harm innocents, but their judgment was clouded and they saw and heard only what they wanted to hear; i.e. they were not objective.
The pendulum swung entirely the opposite direction so that, in 1987, a cessna flew all the way to Moscow without being shot down. Partly because fear of reprisals.
keesje wrote:The jet crossed and left Russian Aerospace shortly before (Kamchakta) and was shot down above Russian aerospace, hundreds of kilometers off track. In those cold war years US Navy jets had been intruding Soviet aerospace (FleetEx '83, recce","test" ). Soviet air defense leadership was angry, at the time a "reconnaissance" / spionage RC135 aircraft was flying in the area "monitoring" missile tests. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... 1983-83696
Hundreds of innocent people lost their lives and we all immediately condemned the Russians, in good cold war fashion. The full story only came out years later. Similar to IR655, it was clear who had "provoked" the shoot down & we better support our boys out there & defend our freedom. I guess we were a little prejudiced, sheepish, looking back. Now we know better, mostly.
LyleLanley wrote:
Amazing logical contortions here, Keesje. KAL 007 was in Soviet territory for hours, maintaining a steady course for the entire time - versus RC-135s who generally were never in Soviet airspace or skirted it in specific areas - and was hundreds of nautical miles from where the RC-135s orbited, flying with its very recognizable lights on at night. In spite of all those red flags, you still blame the US because there was an RC-135 elsewhere in the same hemisphere? Even though the top Soviet commander wanted to make sure it wasn't a commercial airliner, his underling - the one who lied about his radar being operational, whose fighters had failed to intercept a plump-747 who wasn't evading, and who was worried he'd be exposed as a keen bullshitter and incompetent moron - ordered the shootdown without verifying it wasn't a civilian aircraft because "it has already overflown Kamchatka". As if that settled the matter. Blaming the Soviet leadership for being complete morons wasn't "supporting our boys and defending our freedom". It was calling a spade a spade.
Then you compare it to IR655... While externally similar, comparing a ship in an active war zone - just after shooting at Iranian gunboats - with scant minutes to fire on a misidentified target that could possibly result in the loss of the ship to a sleepy, quiet outpost whose last combat action was decades before. Just wow.
Let me reverse the picture: if the USAF downed a commercial airliner off the coast of California and then blamed it on a Russian TU-95 off the coast of Washington we would understandably be viewed as incompetent or liars, or both.
FGITD wrote:Let's not forget that KAL007 was also shot down by a pilot who later more or less admitted that he knew it was a commercial 747, but no one asked him so he didn't say anything. (this is of course the same su15 pilot who was outmaneuvered by a passenger 747 gently climbing, and by some accounts also barely got a lock on it)
If your defense protocol of friendly vs foe hinges on one controller asking "is it a passenger plane?" Then I think it's safe to say you're at fault. All this after tracking and following the flight for hours. They then proceeded to harass and actively prevent other countries from searching for the wreckage, like all innocent and cooperative parties will do.
IR655 was an unfortunate mistake. But the crew didn't have the benefit of time or visual ID like the Soviets did. The captain of the USS Stark made the mistake of waiting and seeing, and lost almost 40 sailors and very nearly the ship.
LyleLanley wrote:Bullshit rises to the top almost as often as cream.
bikerthai wrote:LyleLanley wrote:Bullshit rises to the top almost as often as cream.
, talking about the current US political environment?
bt
LTEN11 wrote:Not just in the US gents
WIederling wrote:Strebav8or wrote:Yes, because you can just go to the E/E bay and repin/reprogram your transponder in flight to another random number.....
The lies in this article are as blatant as the news media.
You assume a bog standard transponder on an RC-135W?
Amusing.
This is a SPY PLANE. I'd be surprised if they did not have the capability to cloak.