The plane itself makes a formidable weapon. Just pick the juiciest structure on the ground and auger in.
Yes it would have created an international incident. It would have also taught the ChiComs that the U.S. is not to be messed with.
Posted on 04/06/2007 5:18:57 AM PDT by IrishMike
Edited on 04/06/2007 5:22:56 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
I knew guys who had spent 6 years as a POW in Vietnam. One of them broke his back when he ejected. He was hung by his wrists and heels for three days to try to make him talk and he didn’t give up as much information as these wimps did when the Iranians threatened to cancel tea time.
They’re our allies and I’m happy they’re safe. That said, very troubling episode. I certainly couldn’t treat them as returning heroes.
The British are definitely the ‘Lost generation’ of our day. They know what is right, but have no will left for the fight.
Medal of Honor recipient Rocky Versace---Captain Humbert R. Versace distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism during the period of 29 October 1963 to 26 September 1965, while serving as S-2 Advisor, Military Assistance Advisory Group, Detachment 52, Ca Mau, Republic of Vietnam. While accompanying a Civilian Irregular Defense Group patrol engaged in combat operations in Thoi Binh District, An Xuyen Province, Captain Versace and the patrol came under sudden and intense mortar, automatic weapons, and small arms fire from elements of a heavily armed enemy battalion. As the battle raged, Captain Versace, although severely wounded in the knee and back by hostile fire, fought valiantly and continued to engage enemy targets. Weakened by his wounds and fatigued by the fierce firefight, Captain Versace stubbornly resisted capture by the over-powering Viet Cong force with the last full measure of his strength and ammunition. Taken prisoner by the Viet Cong, he exemplified the tenets of the Code of Conduct from the time he entered into Prisoner of War status. Captain Versace assumed command of his fellow American soldiers, scorned the enemy's exhaustive interrogation and indoctrination efforts, and made three unsuccessful attempts to escape, despite his weakened condition which was brought about by his wounds and the extreme privation and hardships he was forced to endure. During his captivity, Captain Versace was segregated in an isolated prisoner of war cage, manacled in irons for prolonged periods of time, and placed on extremely reduced ration. The enemy was unable to break his indomitable will, his faith in God, and his trust in the United States of America. Captain Versace, an American fighting man who epitomized the principles of his country and the Code of Conduct, was executed by the Viet Cong on 26 September 1965. Captain Versace's gallant actions in close contact with an enemy force and unyielding courage and bravery while a prisoner of war are in the highest traditions of the military service and reflect the utmost credit upon himself and the United States Army.
As he was led to execution, he was heard singing God Bless America.
Thanks Robe,
Mike
They know what is right, but have no will left for the fight.
.
.
.
.
That just says everything needed,
as regards all European countries.
Listening to Mark Levin last night, he thought that maybe they did what they did because the Iranians may have threatened the female with rape or worse. That said, he too was mystified by their behavior. If the Iranians did do that, I hope it comes out. Still, you would think that at least one of the males would not have caved. It is shameful indeed. Mark also stated that before too long, enlistments in our Armed Forces will go down because young men and women will not want to go somewhere where they willnot be supported. He is right. Another thing - if the Iranians did threaten the woman, it is another reason not to have women in combat ranks or environment. Flame away!
This incident has single-handedly destroyed the image of the tough Royal Marines. The senior officer, Capt. Air, took just five days to make propoganda broadcasts for the enemy.
‘Inside’ account further exonerates EP-3 pilot
By janes.com editor Peter Felstead
An ‘inside’ account of the 1 April collision between a US Navy EP-3E surveillance aircraft and a Chinese J-8 interceptor over the South China Sea, recently unearthed by janes.com and corroborated by the US Navy, sheds new light on the event and further vindicates the actions of the EP-3 pilot, Lt Shane Osborn.
Combined with details released by the US Navy in press briefings, the new account - determined to be accurate by a source in the US Navy Office of Information - fully explains why Lt Osborn was forced to land at a Chinese base rather than ditching the aircraft along with its highly sensitive equipment fit.
Pooling the various accounts, a fuller picture of events can be described as follows:
Lt Osborn’s EP-3E (aircraft number PR-32) was flying straight and level, on autopilot and heading away from Hainan Island in international airspace when the aircraft flown by pilot Wang Wei, one of two intercepting Chinese F-8 fighters, embarked on a series of harassing manoeuvres.
Having already made two passes on the EP-3, during which the Chinese jet came within 3-5 ft (0.9-1.5m) of the US four-engined turbo-prop, Wang Wei’s F-8 attempted to join the EP-3’s left wing for a third pass. At this point the EP-3 was doing 180 knots indicated air speed (KIAS) at an altitude of 22,000ft. Such an airspeed is uncomfortable for the F-8, approaching as it is the aircraft’s stall speed, leaving it much less manoeuvrable than at its normal cruising speed (an F-8’s design maximum level speed is 701kts).
On this third pass the Chinese pilot apparently miscalculated; either trying to stop closure or as a result of being too slow, the F-8’s right wing came up, hitting the EP-3’s No 1 propeller. The tailfin of the F-8 then drove the EP-3 port aileron full up, causing the US aircraft to snap-roll near inverted at three to four times the aircraft’s maximum roll rate using maximum aileron. Lt Osborn said his initial thought at this point was: “This guy just killed us.” He said he could look up through the aircraft’s windshield and see the ocean.
The nose of the F-8, meanwhile, had suffered an impact with the EP-3’s radome and the Chinese fighter had broken apart, although a parachute sighted by the EP-3 crew suggests that Wang Wei had managed to eject.
Meanwhile, the EP-3’s No 1 engine was flaming out due to the damage it had sustained, the radome had exploded due to the F-8 impact and the aircraft had depressurized. All airspeed and altimeter information had been lost due to damaged or lost probes, and the aircraft was vibrating violently due to damage to the No 1 and No 3 prop and the tailplane. The aircraft’s high-frequency radio wire had separated and was wrapped around the elevator trim.
By now, such was the extent of the damage to the EP-3 that it was taking maximum effort from both pilots to bring the aircraft level and still took ‘cherry lights’ (maximum power, or ‘red-lining’, on the three remaining engines) as well as full right aileron to initially hold the wings level. The EP-3 had rolled to a 130 degree angle of bank with 30 degrees nose down, finally recovering at an estimated altitude of 15,000ft but still having a 3,000ft/minute rate of descent despite maximum power.
The flight crew’s greatest concern at this point was separation of the No 1 propeller due to high vibration, despite their attempts to feather it. Lt Osborn apparently ordered the crew to prepare to bail out until he had finally recovered control. He then commanded the crew to prepare to ditch before assessing the extent of damage and the question of to what degree he could control the aircraft. The aircraft’s descent was finally arrested at around 8,000ft.
Having regained (relative) control of the aircraft, Lt Osborn and his flightcrew selected an emergency landing at the nearest field as their best possible option. This turned out to be Lingshui airbase on Hainan Island since the nearest allied fields were over 600 nautical miles away. The option of ditching, given the level of damage the aircraft had sustained and the tenuous degree of control maintained, would almost certainly have led to a number of the 24 crewmembers losing their lives.
On the approach to the airfield Lt Osborn made 10 to 15 guard (emergency VHF channel) calls outlining his intentions and predicament but was unable to hear any response due to air noise in the cockpit caused by holes in the pressure bulkhead. Being careful not to overfly land until he had Lingshui airfield in sight, Lt Osborn then overflew the runway at a perpendicular angle to check it was free of any obstacles and to make his intentions clear. He then turned the aircraft through 270 degrees and made a 170 knot ground speed, no flap, high gross weight (49,000kg), no trim, no KIAS landing with a damaged left aileron, damaged elevator, high drag due to the unfeathered No 1 propeller and full right aileron.
No surprise, then, that far from berating Lt Osborn and his crew for leaving a valuable surveillance asset in Chinese hands, his superior officers praised their airmanship, teamwork and conduct upon their safe return. Rear Admiral Michael L Holmes, Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Force, Pacific, stated he was sure that the only course to have kept all the EP-3 crew alive was the course that Lt Osborn took. He also announced that Electronic Countermeasures Squadron One (VQ-1, from which aircraft PR-32 hails) had won this year’s Pacific Fleet ‘Battle E’ award.
Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld, speaking at a press conference after the repatriation of the EP-3 crew, stated that this incident was not the first time that a US reconnaissance flight had been subjected to “that type of aggressive contact from interceptors”, as footage released by the US Navy of an encounter on 24 January certainly proves. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, there were 44 intercepts of US reconnaissance flights by the Chinese air force in “recent months” prior to the 1 April collision: six involving Chinese interceptors coming within 30ft (9m) and two involving encounters within 10ft (3m).
I don’t see this as an act of cowardice at all. In fact, quite the opposite. These people have trained and trained and trained for the rigors of combat. They are doing a job that is very dangerous and requires a great deal from them. Fathers away from their families for a year or more at a time, and in this case a mother as well, living on board a ship that is not much bigger than a city block, etc. Of all the things that are drummed into a recruit’s head from day one in basic training and then pounded home to them on a daily basis throughout their military career the importance of following orders is at the top of the list. They routinely are given orders that make no sense to them but their personal self-control and discipline makes it possible for them to obey those orders.
By all accounts the boarding party contacted their superiors at the first sign of trouble, asking for orders as to how to handle the situation. Until they receive orders different from their current orders they are bound my the code of military conduct to stay with the existing orders. It’s obvious they were under orders to board and search the ship and do whatever they could to avoid a situation that could escalate.
When they asked for orders they were not ordered to fight back. I know it’s going to open me to flaming here, but I’m of the opinion that not fighting back was result not of being cowards but rather of being military people who are steeped in not going it on their own but following orders to the letter.
My guess is that asked one on one most, if not all, of them would have preferred to duke it out with the Iranians, but that option was not given them. This, IMHO, is a failure of the ROE, and the blame for that failure falls way up the chain of command from these guys who were out there, in harm’s way, doing a tough job and not getting any support from their superiors.
I cannot speak to their behavior after they were captured, but as for their actions when they were attacked their honor and discipline enabled them to follow orders, even if they found those orders personally disgusting.
My son is a helicopter pilot for a sheriff’s office here in Florida. We were watching a couple of Coast Guard helicopters, a boat and a C-130 doing some practice work in the bay one day and I made the comment what a great job the pilots of those helicopters and the C-130 have. I was amazed when he expressed disagreement with me! He says their job is neat but they are under so much control that it often really takes the fun out of what would otherwise be a really great job. I had never thought about it from that standpoint!
IMHO, we should reserve our anger and frustration with the capture of these fighting forces for their superiors and even more so for the lack of resolve on the part of the West in dealing with Iran, et al.
Give me a couple of minutes to get my asbestos suit on and then flame away!
“I cannot speak to their behavior after they were captured...”
But isn’t that what we are all discussing here? Lots of honorable men have been taken captive (Adm. Stockdale, Col. Day, Capt Versace to name a few), They don’t all act as these Royal Marines.
The capture protocol during war is a little more stringent that during peace time. The capture of that landing party 60 years ago would have endangered the lives of untold millions of people by prolonging the war...
You really expect our boys to take the pill if captured by the Chinese during peace time, when they have ample time to destroy the sensitive bits?
Thanks for the post.
My understanding was that the thing was handed over in tact.
Now that the Iranians have dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the Royal Marines and Israeli Defense Force can you guess who is next?
The plane itself makes a formidable weapon. Just pick the juiciest structure on the ground and auger in.
Yes it would have created an international incident. It would have also taught the ChiComs that the U.S. is not to be messed with.
No. The crew went through the process of burning the classified information and destroying as much of the equipment as possible before they landed. We had procedures for "emergency destruction" for every piece of classified material and equipment that we carried. You start with the most sensitive equipment and worked your way down.
Sorry, I cannot. I have no more information on that incident than what I remember from the coverage at the time. I recall it being said that they had pre set mechanisms for situations such as that which occured, and that all the secret computer chips were irreversibly destroyed before the Chinese got to them. Of course, this would not be confirmed or denied by official sources.
Your post appeared to suggest that the behavior of most of these 15 British hostages was similar to that of the US airmen in the spy plane incident. I pointed out what I notice to be the differences.
I am sorry if you were offended. No offense was intended. One thing I like about FR is that I will occasionally get hammered for a comment. Defending ones self here tends to sharpen ones mind.
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.