It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese AWACs crash during testing

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm surprised nobody has posted about this yet (or maybe I just missed it). According to some news sites, a Chinese kj-200, one of few of China's AWACs prototypes (the Y-8s modified to mount a balance beam), crashed during testing, destroying the plane and killing all 40 on board, of which 30-some were China's best technicians. It reportedly struck some bamboo then crashed. Some sources claim that it was sabotaged.

cnews.canoe.ca...
sinodefence.com...
www.iht.com...
www.chinadaily.net...
www.chinadaily.cn...


[edit on 11-6-2006 by Taishyou]




posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
they are immortal!




[edit on 11-6-2006 by chinatea]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I wonder who would sabotage this?
It doesn't make sense, but I guess for some it would be better than to recognise that they screw up...

Do you have any notion of who might be behind the sabotage?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I just read about in last sundays paper and the speculation was US or israli invovement as such acts of sabotage had been perpitrated by both nations against china before.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
One of the articles stated that it the aircraft would be very useful if China had to attack Taiwan, should the island declare independence. Taiwan would gain a lot from robbing the mainland of such a machine, and if sabotage is a possibity, Taiwan might be the most likely culpruit.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Sabotage sounds highly unlikely..
although it cannot be ruled out ofcourse.
Anyways I'm not quite sure if its the KJ-200 with the static phased array radar that crashed or the KJ-2000 with the roto-dome radar that crashed.
Where did you get that bit about bamboo?!!


This could be a major set back in the indegenous AWACS program of the PLAAF.
I remember a similar incident had occured in the IAF and we lost some pivotal people in that crash of a HS 748 fitted with a rotodome.I don't think the IAF indegenous AWACS program has still recovered completely since then, and this accident was in 1999.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725
I just read about in last sundays paper and the speculation was US or israli invovement as such acts of sabotage had been perpitrated by both nations against china before.


Israeli? What do they have against the chinese?

Can you give a source on that and the other instances where the US etc. have been suspected of sabotaging chinese interests?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Anyways I'm not quite sure if its the KJ-200 with the static phased array radar that crashed or the KJ-2000 with the roto-dome radar that crashed.
Where did you get that bit about bamboo?!!

It's KJ-200, the Y-8 trasport plane (prop plane) modified to carry a balance beam PAR on top. The bamboo part was in some of the sources I posted. One said it struck the bamboo then lost its tail section. It was flying in a bamboo forest region. Can't be 100% sure about all this, Chinese gov't would probably keep a tight lid over it.

This article talks about possible sabotage. I don't think it's that likely but I also have some doubts about it hitting bamboo cos what's an AWACS doing flying that low, or if it were landing, shouldn't the area around the airfield be cleared of tall bamboo, etc?
www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725
I just read about in last sundays paper and the speculation was US or israli invovement as such acts of sabotage had been perpitrated by both nations against china before.



"...been perpitrated by both nations against china before. "

Have any back up on that or specifics? Links or data? Or is that something thats just your own speculation?

Your avatar has the word "truth" in it, but your posting here does not seem to back up that claim.

No links or supporting data = unfounded fuddy-duddy and personal speculation.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
No links or supporting data = unfounded fuddy-duddy and personal speculation.



I read the same article .

It also talked about the CIA giving the soviets broken computers or CPUs

EDIT:

Here it is
www.theaustralian.news.com.au...





[edit on 15-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Well.. that's an interesting read, however unless the chinese were incorporating american hardware/software into the core flight control systems, they could never contribute to a crash. The plane(s) in question were purely of either soviet or chinese origin so faulty sabotaged flight control systems seems a little far fetched anyways.
And taishyou, the above article says it was the KJ-2000 the rotodome aircraft.
I'll try and look into why the IAF crash took place and maybe we can draw some conclusions from that



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well.. that's an interesting read, however unless the chinese were incorporating american hardware/software into the core flight control systems, they could never contribute to a crash.


It was a KJ-200 balance beam. There are actual pictures of he crash

And the american/western contribution was a very large one. P&W turboprop engines, american FADEC and british propellors



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Our government in Pakistan is a fool for trying to buy these Chinese made AWACs, the recent crash has only proved it. The bambo was just a story, it was the radar beam that is faultily mounted on the plane. It's a total waste of money and a scam on the people of Pakistan!!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by kipman725
I just read about in last sundays paper and the speculation was US or israli invovement as such acts of sabotage had been perpitrated by both nations against china before.


Israeli? What do they have against the chinese?

Can you give a source on that and the other instances where the US etc. have been suspected of sabotaging chinese interests?



Never underestimate the Israelies, MOSAD was once up in Norway, and killed someone here, just later to discover it was a mistaken identity...


MOSAD is almost as scary as Spetznas...



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Sabotage my right butt-cheek! The Chinese are always making excuses when they FAIL. That's because in their culture they must "save face".

Look at the airplane itself. It looks like something designed in the 1960's. I doubt the electronics/avionics suite was much better. (Unless of course they were using technology given to them by Bill Clinton back in the day).



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CreeWolf
 



I concur, Creewolf. The plane just did not work.

Regards



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
Sabotage my right butt-cheek! The Chinese are always making excuses when they FAIL.


The Chinese didn't make those excuses. WESTERN observers made those observations based on the fact that all the major systems were from the WEST. P&W turboprop engines, American FADEC, U.S. Honeywell navigation system and british propellors. The Y-8 plane is already a proven design which has saw many years of service. This particular plane (Y-8F600) was modified with western components



That's because in their culture they must "save face".



Their culture?

"saving face" is a western buzz word said by indiviuals who know nothing about Chinese culture but use these words in order to pretend they do.

There is no such thing as a "culture" of saving face.



Look at the airplane itself. It looks like something designed in the 1960's. I doubt the electronics/avionics suite was much better.


And that means a lot because?.

The Y-8 is a proven design and the plane in question was newly built. Age nor design has anything to do with the crash



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Any aircraft with a rotating disk on it's upper portions requires strict balancing and alignment. Especially prop driven aircraft. Definatlrey smells of calculation and human error to me.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
Any aircraft with a rotating disk on it's upper portions requires strict balancing and alignment.


It was the static linear-shaped AESA. The rotating dome was fitted to another model.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
then I stand corrected...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join