Well, a couple of issues. Who was at fault for the collision is purely conjecture. No “proof” of the actual incident has been provided to the public as far as I know.
As for international borders. China is not a signatory to the 12 mile deal nor does it recognize this. “International law” is much more a concept than anything else. Ask certain countries with/out the death penalty. You can call China a lot of things, but treaty breaker in this instance does not apply.
It’s a whole separate question as to how far national sovereignity extends, and what it should be.
It may be conjecture, but there were witnesses. The witnesses said the Chinese fighter was maneuvering very close to the P-3. This kind of behaviour has been noted in the past. Then there is just plain logic: Which is more likely to have been at fault? A four-engine turboprob designed to be a steady platform; or a highly maneuverable fighter jet that’s actively “playing chicken”?
The Chinese pilot was hot-dogging and he let himself get too close. Which is not to say that he was a bad pilot; he just screwed the pooch this time.
All I can say in an unclassified environment is that the aircraft collects SIGINT, or signals intelligence. SIGINT is typically made up of ELINT (electronic intelligence), COMINT (communications intelligence), MASINT (measures and signals intelligence), and even VISINT (visual). I’m not able to say which of these the EP-3 collects, or by what means.
China Guy, like Johnny pointed out, you have a bunch of members on the EP-3 who’ve said what happened. Are you calling them liars? When a Navy P-3 type aircraft gets intercepted (I’m assuming this applies to the Air Force surveillance planes, also), SOP is to facilitate as much as possible the intercept. This means you speed up and fly straight and smooth. No abrupt turns. No steep turns. You don’t do anything to appear aggressive to the fighter pilots. This is what the EP-3 was doing. The last thing you want to do in a defenseless sitting duck is to piss of armed fighter pilots, right? I’m curious as to how anyone with even a minimum knowledge of flying can envision the big, slow, plodding EP-3 with two sane, competent pilots in the cockpit, deliberately or mistakenly ramming the smaller, agile F-8. When someone can explain this to me, I’ll be a happy man.
And as far as the 12 mile rule goes… most (or all… I don’t know the facts here) of the free world abides by the 12 mile rule. Are you saying China should be allowed to claim whatever they feel like? What if China suddenly declared a 150-mile exclusion zone? Are we supposed to say “No problem, claim as much as you need to claim?” You seem to be defending China here, and I’m wondering why. And I don’t think anyone here is calling them a treaty breaker. They’re not claiming the 50 miles as territorial waters.
flyboy88, I’ve been reading your responses with interest. It’s obvious you’ve got a hell of a lot more insight to this than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge [sub]hell, I’m just a grunt engineer anyway[/sub]. Although I do have to admit it’s pretty sobering to hear that the administration would lob a few TLAMs to keep mission security (albeit justifiably so). :eek:
** Rhythmdvl**, you can cash in your TripCo. points at any participating retail TripCo. [sub]Makers of fine political subversion products, anti-Communist propaganda, ales, and lagers[/sub] outlet, our Midwest regional office in Okoboji, Iowa, or send a SASE to our global [sub]world domination[/sub] headquarters at: TripCo., Minot ND.
Tripler
No purchase necessary, details on back of ‘Oatmeal Stout’ TripCo. labels.
What’s the difference between a spy plane and a surveillance plane? I assume the former has a mission while the latter is routine but how is surveillance even acceptable? Also, why doesn’t surveillance have a fricking verb form???
Thanks, Trip. Let me clarify, though, that I have no clue as to whether or not the TLAM option was ever on the table. This was just a bunch of junior officers shooting the shit… something I’m sure you’ve had experience with :D.
KidCharlemagne: surveil. I can’t tell you what the difference is between a “spy” plane and a “surveillance” plane. We conduct “reconnaissance” missions (as evidenced by the squadron’s name, FAIRECONRONONE, or Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One). What twisted euphamisims the public comes up with for this is something we can’t, unfortunately, control.
I’m not exactly sure on the differences between spying and surveillance, but isn’t spying gathering information while within a countries territory, while surveillance is gathering information from outside a countries territory or in a neutral area? Also, isn’t spying a capital offence?
Oh, and I’ve been told that there was technology on board that
P-3 which is used to intercept conversations on submarines, and that it is so advanced that it can actually distinguish who is talking. Of course, take that with a grain of salt.
Where do people get this stuff? You’ve been told this by whom?
If I intercept communications traffic between a sub and another entity via, say, HF radio, then sure, I may be able to tell who’s talking based upon what information he gives out and prior intercepts. This is possible to do from a plane.
But that’s the only way I can think of where what you described would be possible from an airborne platform.
[sub]Keep in mind, Hermann, that I’ve spent almost two thousand hours on “that P-3”[/sub]
As far as definitions go, from dictionary.com: spy:
To observe secretly with hostile intent.
To discover by close observation.
To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
To investigate intensively.
This seems to me to have a sort of malicious connotation. There was certainly nothing secret or hostile about what the EP-3 was doing.
surveillance:
Close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion.
The act of observing or the condition of being observed.
This is much more benign. Here’s the party line definition:
reconnaissance:
An inspection or exploration of an area, especially one made to gather military information.
So, unofficially, I’d say what we do is surveillance for the sake of reconnaissance.
Ok, I tried a google search on surveille and it didn’t even offer a spell correction.(though apparently even surveil’s legitimacy is a subject for debate for some).
I agree with some others that “spying” connotes something more sinister than “surveillance.” For instance, satellite surveillance is at least not an intrusion on enemy territory. Do those high-altitude B2 spy planes encroach on enemy airspace or does it fly above a maximum altitude than rightfully defines airspace?
It depends on the enemy. If we’re engaging another country and we’ve gained air superiority, then we’ll send aircraft overland to whatever needs to be done (close air support, patrol, surveillance, etc).
If we haven’t, and we’re just keeping an eye on things, so to speak, then AFAIK, we won’t encroach on someone’s airspace.
When I was working with secure information we would use the following deffinitions.
If we or our friends do it, we called it surveillance or information gathering
If anyone else does it, we called it spying or espionage.
Bippy, who is subject to the official secrets act of the UK
There was only one linguist on the plane, which would indicate that the mission was not very focused on eavesdropping of communications.
Rather, the plane was probably just flying around hoping to “light up” Chinese radar installations. The locations of those radar installations would then be cataloged so that, in the event of a war, we can wipe them all out at the start.
For those of you who would like to know more about the dispicable mission of these reconaissance planes, this page at Globalsecurity.org discusses the electronic systems used on board.
Back to the OP, I think it could have been considered an act of war. But not on China’s part.
I think we will mostly agree that the collision was an accident (with a fatal ending for the Chinese pilot). At that point, the American pilot chose to put down on sovereign Chinese territory. The American aircraft was military, and didn’t have permission to land. Couldn’t that constitute an act of war?
OK, yes, the plane requested an emergency landing, but IIRC, either did not receive permission, or such permission was denied. But they landed anyway.
The only way I could see this construed as an act of war on the part of the Chinese is if the Chinese pilot purposely, and with authorization from above, “attacked” the EP3. And I haven’t seen anyone claiming that, including the US government.
Internationally, governments are expected to render aid to an emergency distress call from an aircraft. In the strictest legality, I suppose that you could arrest the pilots on trumped up charges like “violating restricted airspace” and “landing without permission” – assuming, of course, that they didn’t recieve any permission. My own guess, however, is that the Chinese were practically drooling at the chance to have one of our aircraft land in their custody, and hurried to give “official permission.” I think I would have remembered if the Chinese specifically said “You cannot land.” If nothing else, the media would have made a big deal about China being so hostile towards international conventions.
As I said before, though, you can use anything as an excuse for war if you really want to have one.
Even if there was only one linguist on board, wouldn’t there be a bigger need for recording equipment? I mean, one linguist can translate one conversation at any given moment. Why not record a whole bunch of conversations on various frequencies at the same time, and bring the recordings back for analysis and dissemination?
Tripler
I’m not an intelligence analyst, but I play one on TV.
I suppose that there are platforms do this. Others use a man in the loop. The bottom line is that automation provides some benefits over a person, but having the flexibility, intuition, and creativity of a person is important. There’s a huge benefit in having people adjust real-time to the tactical situation rather than going over it once it’s all over.
[sub]Sorry for being vague, but that’s about all I can say about that without a stu-III[/sub]
