U2 Spyplane Crashed

[Gabryel Karolin]

Im not sureif you were being sarcastic or not, but Irans nuclear program isnt exactly secret..............

No, I ment, and should have written, secret nuclear weapons programme.

 

[cidknee]

ok, i couldnt resist, the AIM-30 phoenix(the first version) doesnt go into the ark, the Aim-54 does. The Iranians got there tomkats way back in the day, so they are probably using the old cheap arse AIM-30s.

ok im sorry i should have specified. Although i thought they BOTH went into ballistic arcs. But i doubt the iranians have any left, like was previously mentioned they had a long war with Iraq. And the f14s were the big frontline fighter for the Iraninas.

 

[anarres]

Er, no. International treaties etc make it very clear that airspace is the responsibility of country underneath it. Unidentifieds without permission can be downed - rather like the USS Vincennes did with an Iranian airliner.

Otherwise would be totally OK for Iranian airlines to fly wherever they wanted over the US - hardly what they need right now.

Sorry but you can't just pass this off as an example of "they deserved it"....

Wiki: Iran_Air_Flight_655 (excerpt only, full article is very good!)

According to US government accounts, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the A300B2 as being similar to that of an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat during an attack run. According to the same reports Vincennes tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement. The official ICAO report stated that these attempts to contact Iran Air 655 were sent on the wrong frequency and addressed to a non-existent "Iranian F-14". At 9:54am, with the civilian jet about 10 miles away, Vincennes fired a volley of two SM-2ER antiaircraft missiles. The first missile broke the aircraft in two and damaged the tailplane and right wing. After the engagement Vincennes' crew realised that the plane had been a civilian airliner. This version was finalised in a report [1] (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-dod-report.html) by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988. This report is so far only partially released (part I in 1988, part II in 1993), a fact criticised by many observers.

Independent investigations into the events have presented a different picture. John Barry and Roger Charles, of Newsweek, wrote that Commander Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report further accused the U.S. government of a cover-up.[2] (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html) An analysis[3] (http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Iraq/May0503.htm) of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association (http://www.strategicstudies.org/) described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire. On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice concluded that the U.S. Navy's actions in the Persian Gulf at the time had been unlawful.

Three years after the incident, Admiral William Crowe admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot down (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html). This directly contradicted the official Navy claims of the previous years.

Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in english to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency, despite being a sophisticated anti-aircraft warship. Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners.

And this following excerpt is exactly what I believe Lockerbie was about (the PAM AM 103 flight):

While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has to date not admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire," enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[4] (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html) According to The Washington Post, 30 April 1990, the Legion of Merit, the U.S. armed forces second highest award, was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig on July 3, 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all. [5] (http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/books/rochlin/chapter_09.html#foot20)

The incident continued to overshadow Iranian-American relations for many years. Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.[6] (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4482_129/ai_62002088) The blame was later shifted to Libya.

Lybia has always denied Locerbie, and even when they "admitted" it a couple of years ago Ghadafi went straight on to interview to say that he was only saying this because it was the only way the US and UK would lift sanctions and give them aid. Conveniently this was shown once on UK TV then "disappeared" from media sources. I very much suspect "D" orders were given by the UK government not to print this.

Really, so use this as an example of "they were flying over somone else's airspace without permisison" is just pure goverment propaganda BS. Terrible lies...

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The plane crashed but are they certain it was shot down?

 

[Bugfatty300]

No, it just crashed. If it was shot down then it would be all over the news since those things don't get shot down very often and when they do, its a big deal. The last one to be deliberately downed was over 40 years ago.

 

[searcheagle]

Downside? What downside?

Airspace is sovereign. Hell, if more nations could shoot down satellites they'd be totally within their rights to do so.

UNTRUE. A country only has the rights to airspace upto a certain distance. It runs my mind 100,000 ft.

 

[Harbringer]

well thats good because a U-2 can only fly as high as 90,000 feet.

 

[CruddyLeper]

UNTRUE. A country only has the rights to airspace upto a certain distance. It runs my mind 100,000 ft.

If this is true, then any sort of ABM system or anti-air system which uses a laser to shoot down a target is circumventing this law?

How do you legislate a weapons system to stop at 100,000 feet? You can't. 50 years or so after Sputnik space is already militarised.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If this is true, then any sort of ABM system or anti-air system which uses a laser to shoot down a target is circumventing this law?

How do you legislate a weapons system to stop at 100,000 feet? You can't. 50 years or so after Sputnik space is already militarised.

He is right, a nation's airspace only goes to a certain altitude.

'Outer space', I think according to the "space law" begins at 100,000 feet, so anything above that is considered in international territory.

And no nation can claim any territory in outerspace. Like the moon or orbital paths.

The USAF I think is building a bomber that can fly above 100,000 feet and thus reach any where on the globe to hit targets and can fly over anybody with out breaking internation law.

Like When France or who ever refuses to let the US use their airspace to bomb Lybia or Bosnia.