U.S. Considers Escorts for Spy Planes

The United States is considering whether to send fighter jet escorts with reconnaissance planes near North Korea after jets from the communist country intercepted an American surveillance flight and shadowed it for 20 minutes, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

A White House spokesman said the U.S. plans a formal protest of North Korea's "reckless actions" in sending MiG fighters close to a U.S. RC-135S surveillance plane Sunday.

The Pentagon also is sending more military forces to northeast Asia "as a prudent gesture to bolster our defense posture and as a deterrent," said Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis. Other Pentagon officials said the deployment, which includes sending B-52 bombers to the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, had been ordered Friday, well before Sunday's incident.

Military officials said Tuesday the United States was reviewing its options in light of the gravity of the incident, one of the most dangerous military provocations in a monthslong standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Those options could include having U.S. fighters escort similar flights, a senior military official said. The United States has not suspended the flights and does not plan to, officials said.

The Pentagon has been hesitant in the past to arm or escort any such surveillance flights, which military officials say always operate legally well inside international airspace. Escorting the surveillance flights, some officials argue, would undercut the U.S. assertion that the flights are not military threats.

During Sunday's incident over the Sea of Japan, four North Korean fighters came as close as 50 feet to the U.S. Air Force plane, which was flying 150 miles off the Korean coast. The North Korean fighters illuminated the unarmed U.S. plane with targeting radar, Davis said.

The North Korean fighters were carrying heat-seeking missiles that did not require radar locks to hit their targets, a military official said Tuesday.

That means the MiGs could have fired on the slower U.S. plane without further warning. The North Koreans shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121 surveillance plane in 1969, killing all 31 Americans aboard.

At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush would consult with allies to determine the best way to protest the incident. Fleischer said Bush believes the North Korean standoff can be solved through diplomacy.

"North Korea continues to engage in provocative and now reckless actions," Fleischer said. "And North Korea engages in these actions as a way of saying, `Pay me.' That will not happen."

Tensions began to rise in October, when the United States said North Korea admitted having a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Since then, the United States has refused direct talks with Pyongyang and cut off fuel oil shipments under a 1994 agreement that banned North Korean nuclear weapons development.

North Korea has ejected United Nations nuclear monitors, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and restarted a nuclear reactor that U.S. officials say was designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Pyongyang says the reactor is to generate electricity.

On Capitol Hill, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee called North Korea's actions "just totally wrong."

"We act within the rule of law," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. "They are acting beyond the rule of international law."

Anyone remember the B-40 Gunship of WWII?

YB-40...http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/b17-v.htm

The initial Fortress "gunship", the XB-40, was modified from a Boeing-built B-17F by Lockheed-Vega and first flew in September 1942. The XB-40 bristled with 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns. The Sperry ball turret and the Bendix ball turret were retained from the B-17F. The waist gun positions were increased to two guns each with power boost and were "staggered" to give the gunners more room. The twin-gun tail position was given power boost as well.

A second Bendix turret was added over the radioman's position, and a new Bendix "chin" turret was fitted under the nose, with the bombardier controlling it from a sight at the top of the nose Plexiglas. Armor was added for engine and crew protection. The XB-40 could carry about 11,000 rounds of ammunition, about three times that of a regular B-17F.

Flight tests at Wright Field suggested the idea had promise, and so 23 YB-40s were ordered, though only 19 were actually delivered. They were modified from Vega-produced B-17Fs by the Douglas plant in Tulsa, with the first rolled out in February 1943.

YB-40s arrived in England in April 1943 for combat evaluation. The results did not meet expectations. There were bugs and shoddy workmanship, but most importantly the YB-40 was simply too heavy. It could follow bomber formations well enough until they dropped their bombs, but then the bombers could take advantage of increased speed and altitude bought by the reduced weight.

The YB-40 was still loaded down with guns and ammunition and couldn't keep up with the formations on the way home. The program was cancelled in July 1943. Some YB-40s were sent back home and used for gunnery training as TB-40s. Although they were a failure, operational commanders indicated that the Bendix chin turret and the staggered waist gun positions were good ideas that should be incorporated into standard production.

Now, my point is, why havent we made an aircraft like a 707 or 747 or 757 or DC-10, that is a bristling array of Sidewinders or Sparrow or Phoenix missiles?

One of these, working with an AWACS or something like this RC-135, can shoot down anything flying at almost any range, and we can even carry custom missiles that have 3 hundred mile ranges, like a cruise missile, only radar guided.

Then, instead of an explosive warhead, we use a pulse weapon, like a massive EMP, that will fry the electronics of anything in front of it. That would take care of near misses, we only have to get within a mile to make a 'kill'.

OK, This "Spy Plane" crap is starting to piss me off.

Is it not a recon, ie it is flown under national colors, overtly, and by a uniformed crew over international waters?

To be a "spy plane" such as the U2, SR71, or Vietnam Era "Ravens" wouldn't it have to be operated without a national identity, with a non-uniformed crew, and with little regard to the airspace of the target nation

ie, Francis Gary Powers was a spy, he flew a spy plane, owned and operated by the CIA, and was tried as a spy.

The AP knows the difference, and IMO is intentionally using the terminology to damage US interests. It's a small point now, but if the aircraft were lost and the surviving crew recovered by the N. Koreans this miss-use of terminology would effect world opinion, and could mean the difference between "USS Pueblo" and repatriation after "debriefing". It's pre-emptive propaganda.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.