Mistakes happen - U.S. shoots down passenger plane

[joG]

It's my understanding most airlines have now changed their flight plans. You're right. I think if the passengers had known they were flying across a war zone, they'd have canceled their flights.

It turns out they would have been smart to do so, anyway.

 

[MaggieD]

Crickey - don't panic me with that ****.

Olds news. Still informational - but damn.

Sorry, Auntie.

We don't have to get militarily involved to aid the Ukrainians though. I'd start to send over military equipment and sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians to level the playing field. That wouldn't hurt our debt in the least bit and we don't have to look all big and bad to put a thumb in Putin's eye.

Lordy, I sure do subscribe more and more to The Prime Directive.

We never denied the shooting down of the aircraft. How old were you back in 1988 ?

What were your news sources back then ? The Simpsons ?

I'm not so sure, Apacherat. In the first few days following the incident, I seriously doubt the U.S. government stood up and raised its hand. *shrug* (I find nothing on line to indicate same though.) I find the following interesting though:

In 1996, the United States and Iran reached “an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims” relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice. As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US $61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Lordy, I sure do subscribe more and more to The Prime Directive.

We're gonna need a better human though for that work.

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps we'd be wise to take a more wait-and-see attitude about this most recent event in the news . . .

I'm well past "wait-and-see" and into full blown "don't give a ****" mode. A plane got shot down over a war zone....whopty ****ing do.

 

[rhinefire]

Prove a point about gun control, put a weapon in the hand of a fool and when tragedy strikes blame the weapon. The clowns that fired the weapon didn't bother to identify.
And to MaggieD thanks for the reminder good guy and bad guys are everywhere, I recall that incident and it was beyond sickening. Man prides himself with great technology only to disgrace himself by using it.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Uhm, 6 million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to what some of those aircraft are worth. For example, a B52 (not saying we should give them one but for example) costs over 50 million dollars (in 1998). So by your own account, it's pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. Granted you did say "more", but I can only work with the numbers you give me. And this whole "we don't have money", that just isn't true. We control the US Dollar; if we wanted to, we can just print a trillion dollars (which we've effectively done a couple times under this administration.) And to be clear, I'm not saying that would be a great idea, but I am demonstrating that we can handle this crisis and not worry about some bank coming and forclosing the White House. Finally, we can either spend a few hundred million now to support the Ukranians, or have to spend billions deploying military assets to Europe and our Eastern Nato Allies to curb Russian aggression.

Edit: It's sort of weird that your talking about us bring broke, but then complain about us cutting military spending. Sounds like a contradiction to me...

*Sigh I don't know were to begin.

Your statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of modern, high tech military equipment. I am not blaming or judging you for that, but understand the nature of how it works is essential in recognizing that your suggested path just won't work.

First, there is TIME.

The B-52s, even if they could be magically taken from mothball to service, a process which would likely take 2-5 years, require Crews. Training aircrews takes even more time. You start with a raw, young, healthy, 18 year old man, without drug problems, or a shady background. You get them though a four year college degree, and send them to military basic training and boot camp. AFTER that process is complete, you begin forming an AirCrew member. Pilot, Navigator, Bomber, Gunner/ECM, and after 18 months, you've got someone who can operate his section of the plane with out killing themselves or others But that's just the start! Now you have to form 5 individuals into a single, cohesive CREW which works well together. After you have a good crew, you need to take groups of crews and meld them into a working squadron. And that squadron needs experienced leadership, and command and control, targeting, aircraft maintenance, Ordnance handling, and Fueling Resources.

The Time required to build an effective bomber force is around 10-14 years!

Second, there is Defense Integration

B-52 Bombers, by themselves are worse than useless, they would get many defenders simply killed. They have to be part of an overall Air and Ground Defense system. They have to have Recon planes to ID and select targets, Interceptor Planes to clear the air of enemy fighters, Tankers to provide refueling, Helicopters for Base Perimeter defense, .... The list just goes on and on.

Of all of the planes that the U.S. has in some quantity in mothball storage, the F4 phantoms, equipped as Wild Weasels, for anti-SAM work, are the about the only fixed wing, jet aircraft which would benefit the Ukraine. But we have most of those planes still active in our own national guard units, or they have been flown until the very metal the airframes are made of, has been stressed, metal fatigued, to the point of not being trustworthy for flight.

Third, is COST.

The actual cost of buying the aircraft is negligible compared to the costs of fueling, arming, manning and Maintenance. .
The cost of these actions, particularly the maintenance, to the Ukrainians, would be horrendous, because of the long supply lines from the only sources of the needed parts and materials, the United States. The required materials are not going to be available from inside the Ukraine, at least, not in less than 6 years of factory retooling, and the Russians would have a easy time shutting off that re-supply, given that it is on their doorstep, and around the world from U.S.

There are many more such factors, not worth outlining in detail on this thread.



If the Ukraine could afford to build and maintain a Russian Competitive Military, including Airpower, they would already have done so.

The fact is, we would have to supply the WHOLE THING, and its operating costs, for it to make any difference, and we simply do not have the MONEY!

 

[Hamster Buddha]

*Sigh I don't know were to begin.

Your statement show a fundamental lack of understanding of modern, high tech military equipment. I am not blaming or judging you for that, but understand the nature of how it works is essential in recognizing that your suggested path just won't work.

First, there is TIME.

The B-52s, even if they could be magically taken from mothball to service, a process which would likely take 2-5 years, require Crews. Training aircrews takes even more time. You start with a raw, young, healthy, 18 year old man, without drug problems, or a shady background. You get them though a four year college degree, and send them to military basic training and boot camp. AFTER that process is complete, you begin forming an AirCrew member. Pilot, Navigator, Bomber, Gunner/ECM, and after 18 months, you've got someone who can operate his section of the plane with out killing themselves or others But that's just the start! Now you have to form 5 individuals into a single, cohesive CREW which works well together. After you have a good crew, you need to take groups of crews and meld them into a working squadron. And that squadron needs experienced leadership, and command and control, targeting, aircraft maintenance, Ordnance handling, and Fueling Resources.

The Time required to build an effective bomber force is around 10-14 years!

Second, there is Defense Integration

B-52 Bombers, by themselves are worse than useless, they would get many defenders simply killed. They have to be part of an overall Air and Ground Defense system. They have to have Recon planes to ID and select targets, Interceptor Planes to clear the air of enemy fighters, Tankers to provide refueling, Helicopters for Base Perimeter defense, .... The list just goes on and on.

Of all of the planes that the U.S. has in some quantity in mothball storage, the F4 phantoms, equipped as Wild Weasels, for anti-SAM work, are the about the only fixed wing, jet aircraft which would benefit the Ukraine. But we have most of those planes still active in our own national guard units, or they have been flown until the very metal the airframes are made of, has been stressed, metal fatigued, to the point of not being trustworthy for flight.

Third, is COST.

The actual cost of buying the aircraft is negligible compared to the costs of fueling, arming, manning and Maintenance. .
The cost of these actions, particularly the maintenance, to the Ukrainians, would be horrendous, because of the long supply lines from the only sources of the needed parts and materials, the United States. The required materials are not going to be available from inside the Ukraine, at least, not in less than 6 years of factory retooling, and the Russians would have a easy time shutting off that re-supply, given that it is on their doorstep, and around the world from U.S.

There are many more such factors, not worth outlining in detail on this thread.



If the Ukraine could afford to build and maintain a Russian Competitive Military, including Airpower, they would already have done so.

The fact is, we would have to supply the WHOLE THING, and its operating costs, for it to make any difference, and we simply do not have the MONEY!

You know, we could have them pay for the stuff. It's not like we have to pay for everything in the process. I digress though, as recommissioning aircraft fossils isn't my expertise. (I still think we could make money from selling old aircraft though and letting other countries deal with the ancillary cost. And we do sell military hardware to countries all the time, so I'm not really sure how valid some of your points are.)

My other point though you didn't address. You say we're out of money, but you do know that the US prints it's money... right? At any point in time we could just print up a trillion dollars... or just add it to some bank account as I suppose printing would really take a long time. And I say again, which would you rather pay for: a few billions now to curb Russian ambitions, or pay hundreds of billions having to bulk up NATO's defenses in eastern Europe. Given the choices, I'd go with giving the Ukrainians some military hardware. At the very least it sends a political message to Russia that we will back the Ukrainians if Russia continues to supply military hardware to the rebels.

 

[DVSentinel]

I don't even remember hearing about this, but it's certainly timely to bring it up:



Perhaps we'd be wise to take a more wait-and-see attitude about this most recent event in the news . . .

Don't believe everything you read in the news or that it is telling the full story.

P.S. this is as far as I will comment upon your posted article.

 

[Dayton3]

There's more to the story Maggie. There are two versions of the Navy's investigation, unclassified and classified.

But over the past 15 years or so the military industrial and military trades magazines and the USNI "Proceedings" have exposed what the problem was. The USS Vincennes is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer that has the Aegis weapons fire control system.[/url]

The Vincennes was a first generation Ticonderoga class cruiser.

It's Aegis system was considerably MORE capable than the later Arleigh Burke class destroyer's Aegis system.

For example the Ticonderoga's can direct the interception of up to 16 targets at once while the Burke's can only direct the interceptions of 12 targets at once.

 

[MaggieD]

Don't believe everything you read in the news or that it is telling the full story.

P.S. this is as far as I will comment upon your posted article.

Oh, I'm with you. I'm always skeptical. Just reminding folks not to quickly throw rocks. One thing can't be denied: we shot down a passenger plane that killed 290 people.

 

[Dayton3]

Oh, I'm with you. I'm always skeptical. Just reminding folks not to quickly throw rocks. One thing can't be denied: we shot down a passenger plane that killed 290 people.

By posting this when you did you were very deliberately trying to equate the U.S. actions with those of the Russians.

 

[MaggieD]

By posting this when you did you were very deliberately trying to equate the U.S. actions with those of the Russians.

Uh, no. I was very deliberately pointing out that we had also shot down a passenger plane. I don't know who shot down the most recent plane...if it was accidental or on purpose...none of us do. I'm merely pointing out that, on another thread, some are calling for blood. Maybe we ought to look at our own history and how WE make mistakes instead of wanting to start WWIII.

Why must you give my post some devious purpose?

 

[Dayton3]

Uh, no. I was very deliberately pointing out that we had also shot down a passenger plane. I don't know who shot down the most recent plane...if it was accidental or on purpose...none of us do. I'm merely pointing out that, on another thread, some are calling for blood. Maybe we ought to look at our own history and how WE make mistakes instead of wanting to start WWIII.

Why must you give my post some devious purpose?

Why should a mistake made by the United States A QUARTER OF A CENTURY ago have any bearing on the events of today?

If you're going to bring that up then why doesn't your thread mention the Russians deliberately and knowingly (admitted by the pilot who did so when ordered by ground controllers) shooting down KAL 007 in 1983?

 

[fmw]

Why must you give my post some devious purpose?

Politics and the desire to be argumentative.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Why should a mistake made by the United States A QUARTER OF A CENTURY ago have any bearing on the events of today?

If you're going to bring that up then why doesn't your thread mention the Russians deliberately and knowingly (admitted by the pilot who did so when ordered by ground controllers) shooting down KAL 007 in 1983?

Some people ( and nations) are capable of holding long grudges.

 

[MaggieD]

Politics and the desire to be argumentative.

Have you seen me argue on this thread??

 

[DDD]

Perhaps we'd be wise to take a more wait-and-see attitude about this most recent event in the news . . .

So Russia will too not admit nor apologize but would rather pay 200K to every passenger of that Malaysian airplane? Doubt it.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

This whole thing is yet another example of what happens when you supply arms to unsavory people. A plane full of innocent civilians just paid the price for what appears to be a poor decision by the Russians. I hope those who are clamoring for us to arm the Ukrainians will take note. I doubt it, though.

 

[Mason66]

So we send over military equipment... Paid for how?


-

We take it back from the terrorists in Iraq.

 

[Mason66]

I don't agree that we can do nothing. We can be disappointed, get very, very angry and draw a few red lines in the sky. We have a presidential team that does these things well.

YOu forgot about making speeches and maybe a fund raiser or two for the families of the dead.

 

[Wiggen]

I don't even remember hearing about this, but it's certainly timely to bring it up:



Perhaps we'd be wise to take a more wait-and-see attitude about this most recent event in the news . . .

The U.S. accepted responsibility for the shootdown and actually paid compensation to the families. That shootdown followed another incident in the Gulf where an American destroyer was attacked by aircraft and a number of sailors killed, so it was at least understandable that U.S. ships might have been a little trigger happy at aircraft approaching them.

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiggen]

Oh, I'm with you. I'm always skeptical. Just reminding folks not to quickly throw rocks. One thing can't be denied: we shot down a passenger plane that killed 290 people.

U.S.S. Stark. Everything should be understood in context.

 

[fmw]

Have you seen me argue on this thread??

No I was referring to Dayton3. I simply answered your question to him.

 

[APACHERAT]

The Vincennes was a first generation Ticonderoga class cruiser.

It's Aegis system was considerably MORE capable than the later Arleigh Burke class destroyer's Aegis system.

For example the Ticonderoga's can direct the interception of up to 16 targets at once while the Burke's can only direct the interceptions of 12 targets at once.

I stand corrected on the Vincennes, cruiser it is.

I'm aware that the Aegis system has evolved over the years. I'm not in the position to know if they fixed the problems with the Aegis that it can be 100% effective in the littorals or not. I know that a new and more advanced Aegis is in the pipeline where it becomes an attack fire control weapons platform.

 

[mpg]

I stand corrected on the Vincennes, cruiser it is.

I'm aware that the Aegis system has evolved over the years. I'm not in the position to know if they fixed the problems with the Aegis that it can be 100% effective in the littorals or not. I know that a new and more advanced Aegis is in the pipeline where it becomes an attack fire control weapons platform.

I know civilians in the defense industry and I remember them working feverishly to improve the Aegis system after that incident.