Author Topic: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon  (Read 66320 times)

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #225 on: February 02, 2017, 04:39:41 PM »
So your assertion is that the "Pivot" was to lay the groundwork for a war with China?
Lol... of course not.  It was however a direct response to Chinese actions in the region.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #226 on: February 10, 2017, 01:04:13 PM »
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/10/us_chinese_aircraft_unsafe_encounter_over_south_china_sea_110786.html

Quote
U.S., Chinese Aircraft "Unsafe" Encounter Over South China Sea
By Gillian Wong
February 10, 2017

BEIJING (AP) — A Chinese early warning aircraft and a U.S. Navy patrol plane had an "unsafe" encounter over the South China Sea this week, the U.S. Pacific Command said Friday, in the first such incident known to have taken place under President Donald Trump's administration.

The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

Shuford says the U.S. plane was on a routine mission and operating according to international law. The Department of Defense and the Pacific Command "are always concerned about unsafe interactions with Chinese military forces," he said.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.

However, the website of the Communist Party newspaper Global Times quoted an unidentified ministry official as saying that the Chinese pilot had responded in a "legal and professional manner."

"We hope the U.S. side will focus on the relationship between the two countries and two militaries in their entirety, adopt concrete measures and eliminate the root causes of accidental incidents between the two countries on sea and in the air," the unidentified official was quoted as saying.

Philippine Defense Department spokesman Arsenio Andolong also expressed concern because the incident happened near Scarborough Shoal, which is located within the Philippines' 200-mile exclusive economic zone but claimed by China, which seized it in 2012 after a tense standoff with Philippine vessels.

"We're worried of possible miscalculation and it's good to know that nothing untoward happened," Andolong said by telephone. If such foreign aircraft venture into Philippine airspace, "we deserved to be told out of courtesy."

Such incidents have occurred occasionally over and within the South China Sea, which China claims virtually in its entirety. Although China says it respects freedom of navigation in the strategically vital area, it objects to U.S. military activities, especially the collection of signals intelligence by U.S. craft operating near the coast of its southern island province of Hainan, home to several military installations.

In recent years, the sides have signed a pair of agreements aimed at preventing such encounters from sparking an international crisis, as happened in April 2001 when a Chinese jet fighter collided with a U.S. surveillance plane over the South China Sea, leading to the death of the Chinese pilot and China's detention of the 24 U.S. crew members for 10 days.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

Non-RedNeck Westsider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4335
  • Politically Agnostic
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #227 on: February 10, 2017, 07:42:41 PM »
The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

It's those damn P3 cowboys... Driving mom's station wagon likes it's a Porche.
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #228 on: February 11, 2017, 02:35:57 AM »
The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

It's those damn P3 cowboys... Driving mom's station wagon likes it's a Porche.

Future Ryan Air employees.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #229 on: February 22, 2017, 01:03:03 PM »
http://www.atimes.com/article/china-edge-us-carrier-strike-group-exercises-south-china-sea/

Quote
China on edge as US carrier strike group exercises in South China Sea
While the Pentagon insists its warship maneuvers – the first under President Donald Trump – are routine, Beijing has denounced them as a threat
By BILL GERTZ FEBRUARY 21, 2017 10:59 PM (UTC+8)

The aircraft-carrier strike group led by USS Carl Vinson conducting naval and air operations in the South China Sea this week is the first challenge to Beijing’s expansive maritime claims to the waters since Donald Trump took office.

The US Navy announced that the operations began on February 18, describing them as “routine,” while Chinese state media quickly called the warships’ freedom-of-navigation activities a threat to China.

A Pentagon official said the naval maneuvers were not freedom-of-navigation but exercises of the kind the US Navy has been doing for a hundred years.

The exercises were ordered by US Defense Secretary James Mattis, who is said to be concerned that a lack of regular US naval and air maneuvers in the sea has undermined regional stability.

The carrier operations put Beijing on notice that the new president likely will continue US policy in seeking to bolster regional allies that have become increasingly alarmed at China’s assertiveness in the region.

China has been creating islands on a number of atolls and rocky outcrops in the sea, and over the past 12 months has begun adding military facilities.

US analysts say the Chinese military buildup in the area has been subtle and gradual, and designed to avoid provoking a direct confrontation with Washington.

For example, naval missile emplacements have been spotted on several of China’s new islands in the Spratly archipelago. The missiles seen in intelligence imagery are assessed to have ranges of less than a mile and thus unlikely to threaten passing US warships. Intelligence analysts at the Pentagon, however, noted that the missile emplacements were built to be interchangeable with much more advanced and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles – weapons that would pose threats to US warship patrols through the waters.

Mattis is a staunch believer in Trump’s “Peace through Strength” policies. Thus he is likely to abandon the previous administration’s policy of seeking to avoid upsetting China. That led to a diminution of freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Mattis made clear in policy questions posed during his confirmation by the US Senate that China’s activities required bolstering regional allies in Southeast Asia.

“China’s behavior has led countries in the region to look for stronger US leadership,” he stated, adding that once in office he would seek to strengthen alliances and review US military capabilities in the region.

“We must continue to defend our interests there – interests that include upholding international legal rights to freedom of navigation and overflight,” he added.

Mattis said upholding freedom of navigation and overflight was “vital to the defense of our other national-security interests” – a blunt and direct statement of the strong US commitment to preventing any attempt to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also weighed in on the dispute, promising during his confirmation that the United States would block China from further militarizing the islands.

In addition to the Vinson and its warplanes, the guided-missile destroyer USS Meyer is taking part in the South China Sea operations. Strike aircraft that will be flying over the sea include F/A-18 Super Hornet jets, helicopters, and electronic-warfare jets.

Before entering the sea, the ships conducted training off Hawaii and Guam to improve their military capabilities and “develop cohesion as a strike group,” the US Navy said in a statement.

“The training completed over the past few weeks has really brought the team together and improved our effectiveness and readiness as a strike group,” said Rear Admiral James Kilby, the strike-group commander. “We are looking forward to demonstrating those capabilities while building upon existing strong relationships with our allies, partners and friends in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.”

Last week, China’s Foreign Ministry warned the United States against challenging its claims to the waters.

“China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, which countries enjoy under international law, but firmly opposes any country’s attempt to undermine China’s sovereignty and security in the name of the freedom of navigation and overflight,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.

On Sunday, Global Times, an often strident mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party,  said “The deployment of the US aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to the South China Sea on Saturday is a military threat to China.” However, the usually over-the-top anti-US rhetoric of the paper was absent from the recent article. Instead of calling the exercises an act of war or other hostile action, the newspaper stated only that the naval maneuvers would increase the risk of unspecified “interference.”

Retired US Navy Captain Jim Fanell said the carrier deployment was a routine occurrence in the post-World War II US Pacific Fleet.

“Likewise, this carrier strike group’s operations in the South China Sea is neither unprecedented or provocative,” Fanell said. “Quite to the contrary, and despite protests from Beijing, it is encouraging to see the new US administration physically demonstrate America’s continued commitment to the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters.”
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #230 on: February 28, 2017, 08:39:36 AM »
A 44 page study...

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/28/tiptoeing_around_the_nine-dash_line_110877.html

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/tiptoeing-around-the-nine-dash-line-southeast-asia-after-asean/Tiptoeing_9dash_line.pdf

Quote
Tiptoeing Around the Nine-Dash Line

By Amelia Long & Peter Chalk
February 28, 2017
Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s visit to Australia marked a significant leap forward for a bilateral relationship characterised by its fluctuations. The reduction of restrictions on some exports between the countries and the full restoration of defence cooperation after January’s bump in the road are indicators of the ‘robust relationship’ between Australia and Indonesia that Jokowi described in Sydney.

For both Indonesia and Australia, maintaining neutrality and navigating that fine line between China and the United States remains a first-order priority. Although reports of potential joint TNI-ADF patrols in the South China Sea surfaced last week, they remained absent from the official joint statement—likely due to Indonesia’s concern over the message that partnering with a US treaty ally would send to China. But such reports, as well as the importance both leaders placed on maintaining peace, security and stability in Southeast Asia, indicate the extent to which strategic competition between the US and China is being felt across the region.


Southeast Asia finds itself at the heart of the US­–­China rivalry, which has placed greater strategic weight and heightened attendant stresses on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ASEAN member states now face a dilemma over collective action that challenges not only perceptions of ASEAN’s efficacy but also Southeast Asia’s overall security. How those states and other interested actors—including the People’s Republic of China, the US, Australia and Japan—choose to act will shape the region for decades to come.

The most significant factor in ASEAN’s failure to make concerted progress on security issues is its core principle of consensus-based decision-making. As a result of the association’s significant growth in membership over the 1990s, reaching unanimous agreement on sensitive political issues has proven increasingly elusive. While some of that difficulty stems from the simple problem of reaching consensus within a wider membership, in large part it’s also due to varying levels of Chinese economic support to individual ASEAN states.

Those difficulties have been glaringly evident in efforts to resolve competing territorial claims in the South China Sea—an issue that has clearly stretched ASEAN’s capacity to take a unified, concrete stance on a common security problem. Its failure to speak and act with one voice on those disputes has major importance, as they directly relate to the PRC’s rise and increased assertiveness in the Asia–Pacific.

The US, Australia and Japan have all been active in seeking to curb Beijing’s influence in Southeast Asia. While the three countries recognise the inevitability of China’s heightened status, they appear to share a common concern that, if left unchecked, China could achieve its goal of overturning the regional status quo.

If ASEAN can’t be relied upon to act as a forceful collective body to address threats and concerns associated with a more outwardly aggressive China—and in the absence of the emergence of a network of like-minded, activist states (of which there’s currently no sign)—it’s essential that the US, Australia and Japan further develop and consolidate strategies that go beyond ASEAN for achieving their security and economic interests in the region. In our Strategy report released today, Tiptoeing around the nine-dash line: Southeast Asia after ASEAN, Peter Chalk and I examine some possible tactics those three countries could employ to accomplish their goals.

Of course, the distinct lack of clarity surrounding the new US administration’s perception of the Asia–Pacific is a prominent theme throughout the report, and one of the main variables that both Australia and Japan must contend with. While the absence of a unified ASEAN means that the US will have little choice but to return to its traditional policy of interacting with Southeast Asian countries on a bilateral ‘hub and spokes’ basis, Australia and Japan must shoulder the additional burden of drawing the attention of America’s transactional leader back to Southeast Asia should it waver. Those include forging ties at senior levels with the Trump administration early into its tenure, staying firm on the defence spending target of 2% of GDP (for Australia) and committing to a small increase in host-nation support funds (for Japan). Realistically, the only country able to actually act as a credible and forceful counterweight to China is the US. As such, it’s essential that President Trump and his close advisers are convinced early on that they can play a leading role in Asia and develop a proper, effective working relationship with Beijing.

Due to ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making, it’s likely that we will continue to see its inaction on regional security issues, particularly those that relate directly or indirectly to the geopolitical struggle taking place between Washington and Beijing. As Peter and I argue, it will become increasingly important, in this contested environment, that countries sharing the experience of striking a fine balance between the US and China use every opportunity at their disposal to bolster their bilateral relationships.

Amelia Long is a researcher at ASPI and an editor of The Strategist. Peter Chalk is an adjunct senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation in the United States. Their Strategy report, Tiptoeing around the nine-dash line: Southeast Asia after ASEAN, was published today.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

spuwho

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #231 on: May 19, 2017, 12:24:10 PM »
I guess we cant monitor the DPRK either.

Per Washington Post:

BEIJING — Two Chinese fighter jets have buzzed a U.S. spy plane that sniffs out nuclear radiation as it flew over the East China Sea, underlining Beijing’s discomfort with American surveillance in its neighborhood.

The incident, reported Friday, also comes amid disagreement between the two countries on how to confront the nuclear and missile programs of North Korea, which depends on China as its main economic lifeline.

The American plane, a WC-135 Constant Phoenix, collects samples from the air to detect nuclear explosions. The U.S. Air Force said it was on a routine mission in international airspace. An American official told CNN, however, that the plane has been regularly deployed in Northeast Asia to gather evidence of possible further nuclear tests by North Korea.

The Chinese military has become increasingly unhappy with American surveillance in the East China Sea and South China Sea, where Beijing claims full sovereignty in an ongoing dispute with U.S. allies in the region such as the Philippines.

Intercepts are not uncommon in both areas. But the latest incident appeared an unusually tight encounter.

Two Chinese Su-30 fighters flew up close to an American WC-135 on Wednesday, the U.S. Air Force said in a statement. The American aircrew described the intercept as “unprofessional,” it said, based on the Chinese pilot’s maneuvers and the speeds and proximity involved.

“The issue is being addressed with China through appropriate diplomatic and military channels,” said Lt. Col. Lori Hodge, an Air Force spokeswoman. A U.S. military investigation into the intercept is underway, she added.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying declined to comment on the specific incident, referring questions to the Defense Ministry, which has not yet commented.

“But as we said before, for a long time, the surveillance activities of U.S. military planes and ships near China’s territory are very likely to lead to misunderstanding, miscalculation and accidents on the sea or in the air,” she told reporters at a news conference.

“So we hope the U.S. side can respect China’s reasonable national security concerns.”

Whether the close encounter was meant to send a signal to the Americans or was merely the action of overly zealous pilots is not clear, experts said.

The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane.

“U.S. military aircraft routinely transit international airspace throughout the Pacific, including the East China Sea,” Hodge said. “This flight was no exception.”

China is also deeply unhappy about the deployment in South Korea of a U.S. missile defense system, which is meant to protect the country against attack from North Korea but which Beijing fears will also be used to spy on its territory.

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #232 on: May 19, 2017, 12:40:22 PM »
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #233 on: May 19, 2017, 01:37:31 PM »
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #234 on: May 19, 2017, 02:11:17 PM »
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.


In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

spuwho

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #235 on: May 21, 2017, 08:48:41 AM »
Hmm, I wonder what would happen if 2 F-22's were shadowing 10k above the RC-135?

Being low RCS, while the Su-30's dance with the RC-135, they just quietly come up behind them and watch.

Not a likely scenario, but I do wonder how much signet the US picks up when the Sukhoi's come out to dance.

Non-RedNeck Westsider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4335
  • Politically Agnostic
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #236 on: May 21, 2017, 01:49:56 PM »
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.



A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams

spuwho

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #237 on: May 21, 2017, 06:54:18 PM »
Per The Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/10/snowden-documents-reveal-scope-of-secrets-exposed-to-china-in-2001-spy-plane-incident/

"Burn After Reading"

(For those wanting to read the actual NSA document assessing the impact of the Hainan Island Incident can read the report here:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3546567-10th-Anniversary-Edition-EP-3-Damage-Assessment.html#document/p1  )



WHEN CHINA boldly seized a U.S. underwater drone in the South China Sea last December and initially refused to give it back, the incident ignited a weeklong political standoff and conjured memories of a similar event more than 15 years ago.

In April 2001, just months before the 9/11 attacks gripped the nation, a U.S. Navy spy plane flying a routine reconnaissance mission over the South China Sea was struck by a People’s Liberation Army fighter jet that veered aggressively close. The mid-air collision killed the Chinese pilot, crippled the Navy plane, and forced it to make an emergency landing at a Chinese airfield, touching off a tense international showdown for nearly two weeks while China refused to release the two-dozen American crew members and damaged aircraft.

The sea drone captured in December was a research vessel, not a spy craft, according to the Pentagon, so its seizure didn’t risk compromising secret military technology. That wasn’t the case with the spy plane, which carried a trove of surveillance equipment and classified signals intelligence data.

For more than a decade, U.S. officials have refused to say what secrets China might have gleaned from the plane. Two years after the incident, journalists saw a redacted U.S. military report, which revealed that although crew members had jettisoned documents out an emergency hatch as they flew over the sea and had managed to destroy some signals-collection equipment before the plane fell into the hands of the Chinese, it was “highly probable” China had still obtained classified information from the plane. Attempts by journalists and academics to learn more over the years have been unsuccessful.

But now, a comprehensive Navy-NSA report completed three months after the collision, and included among documents obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, finally reveals extensive details about the incident, the actions crew members took to destroy equipment and data, and the secrets that were exposed to China — which turned out to be substantial though not catastrophic.

The unredacted Navy report, supplemented by a 2001 Congressional Research Service summary of the incident, as well as The Intercept’s interviews with two crew members on board during the collision, presents the most detailed picture yet of the P-3 incident, a critical moment in U.S.-China military relations.

Although the Navy report cites a number of problems with what turned out to be ineffective efforts to destroy classified information, it vindicates the crew as well as pilot and mission commander, Navy Lt. Shane Osborn, who was hounded by critics for years — in and out of the military — who thought he should have ditched the plane and its sensitive equipment in the sea rather than land it in enemy territory. Osborn was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for showing “superb airmanship and courage” in stabilizing and landing the damaged aircraft, but in 2014 when he made a failed bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska, former military personnel popped up in the press again to revive the criticism against him.

“He was flying one of the crown jewels of the reconnaissance force,” Capt. Jan van Tol, a retired Navy officer and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the Omaha World-Herald. “I think the right answer is he should have ditched it at sea, or taken it anyplace but China.”

Asked whether he stood by that comment today, van Tol told The Intercept that he’s hesitant to question the judgment of a pilot who was on the scene and understood the conditions better than he does, but he still feels Osborn had an obligation to better safeguard the aircraft’s secrets.

“I think there may have been another option [to land in Vietnam],” he said, trying to recall the events in 2001. “It would have been better to go to Vietnam than China.”

The collision occurred about 70 miles southeast of Hainan Island, where Osborn landed the plane; Vietnam was about 180 miles away. Although the latter wasn’t a great distance, it would have been the less attractive option to the crew, according to Osborn, given the shaky condition of the aircraft and their loss of critical flight instruments and altitude from the collision.

But the investigators who produced the Navy-NSA report didn’t fault the crew for the most part. In their assessment, they praised Osborn and his flight crew for saving the lives of everyone on board as well as the $80 million aircraft. And although they found fault with the crew’s demolition efforts and with supervisors onboard who failed to effectively coordinate and communicate with crew members during the incident, they mostly blamed the military for failing to properly prepare officers and crew for such an event.

The 117-page report, prepared by a team of investigators from the Navy and NSA, is based on interviews conducted with the crew right after their release from China and on physical re-enactments of their destruction methods — in some cases recreated with scientific precision — to determine how effective the methods might have been in preventing the Chinese from gleaning secrets.

The report describes the crew’s haphazard and jury-rigged efforts to destroy equipment without proper tools and the woefully inadequate training they received for dealing with a scenario the Navy should have considered inevitable. Even though several close encounters with Chinese fighter jets had occurred in the region before, procedures for dealing with such a situation were insufficient, and the crew never underwent emergency destruction drills. As a result, they were left scrambling in the heat of the moment to determine what needed to be destroyed and how to do it. Although the crew had about 40 minutes between the moment of collision and the landing in China — plenty of time to jettison or destroy all sensitive material, investigators concluded — there “were no readily available means or standard procedures for timely destruction of computers, electronic media, and hardcopy material.” This deficiency, along with the lack of training, investigators wrote, “was the primary cause of the compromise of classified material.”

Another stumbling block? The crew hadn’t maintained a comprehensive inventory of classified material on the plane. This made it difficult for them to ensure that everything got destroyed, and it meant that investigators had to rely on the recollections of crew members about what they had carried on the plane to determine what the Chinese might have seen.

Jeffrey Richelson, author of a number of books on the intelligence community and a senior fellow with the National Security Archive, is one person who has sought for years to uncover more information about the incident. He told The Intercept that the report adds important context and understanding to the historical record around it, adding that although the aerial confrontation may not have been a seismic event in terms of intelligence losses, it was a significant geopolitical moment in the history of U.S.-China relations. A key part of understanding this “is [knowing] what was lost and the damage assessment.” To that end, he said, the report is a “valuable document.”

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12607
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #238 on: May 21, 2017, 08:53:10 PM »
Wow... fantastic document in that link.  I knew the flight engineer on that flight.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

spuwho

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon
« Reply #239 on: May 22, 2017, 07:05:22 AM »
When DoD sends out an unarmed, undefended signals intelligence aircraft, it should have some form of contingency planning.

Essentially we had gotten so used to uncontested signet collection, that we got a little lazy. The PLAAF may have done us a favor by waking us up from our stupor.