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.

 

NEWS: Reports of U2 Spy Plane Down in South Korea Likely False

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Initial reports suggesting a U2 spy plane crash were denied by US military officials in South Korea. The original report was from a Korean news agency based on an eyewitness phone call who reported seeing "something go down"
 



Reuters
SEOUL (Reuters) - The U.S. military in South Korea said on Friday that South Korean media had wrongly reported that an American U-2 spy plane had crashed.

A spokesman for the Combined Forces Command of the U.S. and South Korean military told Reuters by telephone that senior officers held an urgent meeting and concluded that "reports of the incident are not correct."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Reports also in Aussie website use the Yonhap news agency report along with a TV report in Korea. They say the plane went down but could be based on initial reporting, the last as of now is the story denying the crash.Will monitor for updates on this story.



[edit on 8-7-2004 by Banshee]

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
www.channelnewsasia.com...

short and sweet
SEOUL: An American U2 spy plane has crashed south of the South Korean capital Seoul, KBS television reported Friday. - AFP



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
humm, strange...did something else crash?

What would prompt SK to make this report? Did they see anything that looked like an airplane crash? or is there no evidence at all to back up that something did crash?

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
This from Korean news source:

U.S. Military Denies Spy Plane Crash

"No U.S. plane has crashed,," Lt. Col. Debora Bertrand told Yonhap News Agency. "All U.S. military equipment has been accounted for."
An earlier report said that the American U-2 plane went down near Hwaseong, 60 kilometers south of Seoul, on the morning of Thursday. Hwaseong is near the main U.S. air base in Osan.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Seoul is kind of close to the NK border like 25 miles.

So, if there is any truth to the original report, then something crashed about 37.5 miles south from the North Korean border. ?

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Yonhap now attributing the initial story to a phone call.
Story


An anonymous caller told Yonhap News Agency's bureau in Hwaseong that "something went down" near the village. The caller had no further information.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Now was this a crank call or did something "go down" as the caller said.

This is getting a little strange.

Now Yonhap saying confusion between US and South Korean officials in their communication caused the erroneous report.
Story

If the report was because of a phone call how did the report come from communication between Officials? How did the name of the plane even come up, I mean how could the caller identify what went down? Seems strange to me.


[edit on 8-7-2004 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I have a question. Not being a plane buff, but I thought the U-2 was a 60's vintage spyplane. Didn't the SR something replace that?

Inquiring minds want to know.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
yes the SR did replace it but when we retired the SR71(now replaced with the top secret aurora
) our goverment said we could do our spying with satellites and the u2.i mean practically the only place we cant use a u2 is russia.

[edit on 7/8/2004 by machinegunjordan]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I am not a plane person either, but am curious if any crash happened or not. Any idea before the truith is revealed? But what is the truith for the gov. right?

[edit on 8-7-2004 by KSmith69]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Okay...So we use a 40+ year old spyplane today, not the newer SR71 that replaced it? Was the U2 better? Or were there problems with the SR71?

I would think we would use the newer plane for these overflights.

Thanks for the info machinegunjordan



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
We plan on using the U-2s until 2020 if i remember correctly. Let me see if i can dig up the link.

"The Air Force plans to keep the U-2 in service through the year 2020. The U-2A was initially currently powered by the 11,200-lb (5,080-kg) static thrust J57-P-37A engine, which was soon replaced by the U-2B's Pratt and Whitney J-75-13B engine, the engine that powered the F-105. The J-75, due to its age, was becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain and operate. Additionally, increased sensor weight and the J-75's high fuel consumption made it difficult to meet 24-hour coverage requirments in wartime taskings. The aircraft has been upgraded with a lighter, more powerful and more fuel-efficient engine (the General Electric F-118-101). The entire fleet was reengined by 1998. The new engine is cheaper to maintain making the U-2 a more cost effective and responsive reconnaissance platform."

Excerpted from.
www.fas.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
When I was a kid I saw a U-2 at an airshow alongside the F-117. This was just after the stealth fighter was revealed to the public... which meant that it was a huge attraction. the two were roped off from the rest of the aircraft (including F-15s,16s,14s,18s, harriers and the like) and, obviously, people were swarming around the F-117. However, the U-2 had just as many guards around it as the stealth and was actually roped off further back than the Nighthawk, which I thought was pretty interesting. You could walk around the F-117 and even climb a ladder to look at its engines... but they made it much harder to see the U-2 and no crewmen were posted near it to answer question. This gave it an air of ultra mystery.... though it's about as old as my dad.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman55
Okay...So we use a 40+ year old spyplane today, not the newer SR71 that replaced it? Was the U2 better? Or were there problems with the SR71? I would think we would use the newer plane for these overflights.


The U2 ot TR-1A that is flying now is not our grandparents U2. It has bn upgraded and refined. However, it does not really fly too close to hostile airspace and would never be used to say overfly mainland China. The A-12/SR-71's were retired accoding to the AF for budget reasons. More likely they have either a super fast replacement for it (ie. Aurora) or totally dependant on sattelites now.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
another reason the U2 could have been used is because of its lingering capabilities. a SR71 basically overflies, takes pictures, and heads home... the U2 can stay for a lot longer than that.

and i've seen NASA's U2 flying over detroit once. beautiful aircraft.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
and i've seen NASA's U2 flying over detroit once. beautiful aircraft.


I think that NASA still flies one of the last small wing U-2A. It was an amazing aircraft desined by an amazing man Kelly Johnson



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by gman55
Okay...So we use a 40+ year old spyplane today, not the newer SR71 that replaced it? Was the U2 better? Or were there problems with the SR71?

I would think we would use the newer plane for these overflights.

Thanks for the info machinegunjordan
well they claim that the SR is just to much money but it was chicken feed as far as pentagon budgets go. basically they secretly have a replacement for the SR the aurora. its a top secret black project. for more read the aurora aircraft research project.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
well they claim that the SR is just to much money but it was chicken feed as far as pentagon budgets go. basically they secretly have a replacement for the SR the aurora. its a top secret black project. for more read the aurora aircraft research project.

What are you talking about?

They retired the SR because:
1. Sats could do it better
2. Sats could do it cheaper
3. Aircraft maintenance requirements were through the roof
4. Airframes reaching the end of useful life
5. Expensive support network (JP-7)
6. Lack of room for improvement in sensors

They could have continued to poor money into it, but the program was leaking money like the aircraft leaked fuel. Better to just decommision them and save the money for other uses.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
exactly thats why they replaced it. satelittes couldnt do the job if they try getting a pic and the weather is bad it will have to wait another day to get the pic. what happens when you need the pic right away?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
exactly thats why they replaced it. satelittes couldnt do the job if they try getting a pic and the weather is bad it will have to wait another day to get the pic. what happens when you need the pic right away?


Ever hear of radar sats?

Aircraft can be equipped with ISAR or FLIR to get the images they need as well.

Thanks to the marvels of digital technology, they can now provide information like that in real time.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
FLIR(forward looking infrared radar?)is not for taking pictures with. otherwise wed be using the f117 as a spyplane.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join