SU-15 "Boeing Killer"

[Nobby57]

Thread noted!!! ;-)

[Tom Cooper]

...The Cobra Ball's raid number was carried along all the way to the very end, even after Ossipov got a visual on it and identified it as a civilian 747.

The overlap between the two aircraft was so distant and minuscule, and given normal operations in that area, there is simply no way anyone could have warned 007 that it was going astray - except the Soviets.

And precisely that was the problem: Osipovich has 'identified' the B747 as such, but never reported that to the GCI. Correspondingly, his commanders didn't know they were ordering him to fire at a civilian airliner.

Anyway, thanks for explaining that about 'Ball's detection capability.

[Jennings Heilig]

Yeah, besides we all know it has never ever happened in recorded history US intelligence aircraft overflying USSR? No, never heard of it

It hadn't happened since 1960...

[IanHx]

So did anyone who's made a Su-15 model NOT slap a 'red 17' decal on it ?!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Looking forward to the forthcoming General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper "Child-Killer" kits that will no doubt be filling model-shop shelves everywhere.

[tc2324]

Even the various TV documentaries like Air Crash Investigators are really basing their views on limited and "sanitised" knowledge of the facts, IMHO they can't really add anything of value.

Sorry Giorgio, have to disagree with you there.

While I can agree that some TV programes are not well informed at times, this particular episode of ACI interviewed the lead investigator of the International team that was assembled to look into the incident some 12 years later IIRC. The lead investigator had worked on the Lockerbie bombing. From this experience he had created a computer program which could work out the debris field of the aircraft over the sea.

This in turn lead them to retrieve a large percentage of the wreck and so they could correct the mistakes the Italian investigators made like confirming the hole in the fuselage was at the back and not the front of the aircraft.

He and his team are convinced it was a small bomb in the rear toilet that blew a hole on the side of the aircraft causing it to disintegrate. Their tests on a similar air frame proved this as the damage matched the wreckage.

When he presented his findings to the Italian authorities, it was filed away and ignored simply because they seem to be obsessed that a missile brought the aircraft down.

[LeVi Tophatter]

Looking forward to the forthcoming General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper "Child-Killer" kits that will no doubt be filling model-shop shelves everywhere.

Yikes! . To trump your 'special edition' Reaper, I was in Hannants a few months ago when some American guys raging on about domestic politics, described the Q-1 Predator as 'Obama's Baby Bomber'...

On the flipside, that 1/35 Mercedes Benz kit with the 'IED Accessories' is a more palatable way to market model kits without garnering too much controversy and negative publicity.

[Tom Cooper]

It hadn't happened since 1960...

You sure....?

I happen to know (personally) at least 1 pilot that did so.

[Giorgio N]

Sorry Giorgio, have to disagree with you there.

While I can agree that some TV programes are not well informed at times, this particular episode of ACI interviewed the lead investigator of the International team that was assembled to look into the incident some 12 years later IIRC. The lead investigator had worked on the Lockerbie bombing. From this experience he had created a computer program which could work out the debris field of the aircraft over the sea.

This in turn lead them to retrieve a large percentage of the wreck and so they could correct the mistakes the Italian investigators made like confirming the hole in the fuselage was at the back and not the front of the aircraft.

He and his team are convinced it was a small bomb in the rear toilet that blew a hole on the side of the aircraft causing it to disintegrate. Their tests on a similar air frame proved this as the damage matched the wreckage.

When he presented his findings to the Italian authorities, it was filed away and ignored simply because they seem to be obsessed that a missile brought the aircraft down.

Sorry but I stand by what I said before: in 1980 several police officers who were tasked with retrieving elements of evidence were denied these by the Air Force. Many investigators were given false evidence and there were even cases of anonimous thrests to some investigators. Do you think that an international investigation board would have managed to have access to non sanitised evidence some 12 years after the events ?

In any case, the findings of the team shown in the programme have been debated at length and contradict with the analysis of other teams, they can't be considered "truth". Now that team looked at a few things but forgot others that other internation teams considered. Who's right ? That investigator believes it was a bomb, yet a team from DERA believed it was a missile... The team shown in the programme claims they had correctly placed parts of the wreck that had been located in wrong places, yet they did not touch on aspects that had been mentioned by other teams. The same recovery of the wreck (that had taken place before that investigation) was not too clear, as the company who performed the recovery was closely related to one of the governments potentially involved and there were many rumours that the wreck had been "sanitised" even before being assembled.

The international experts board was also criticised in certain circles because some of the members could have had interest in proving the bomb theory, but this is something impossible to prove. In any case, none of the teams who could work on the wreck was probably entirely composed of people who had no interest in one or the other theory. The Italian Government, that had requested the board to investigate, in any case was always on the side of the bomb so saying that the authorities were convinced of the missile only it's a false statement. In the end the board reinforced the views of a part of the authorities.

That TV programme itself has been criticised by many here because it was designed to bring the audience to the conclusion that there was a bomb, totally forgetting a number of problems with this theory and the many indications against it. It was a nice piece of "oh, the italians don't want the truth but fortunately here we come to sort years of errors", good from a TV ratings point of view of course. But the story was much more complex than the one shown in the TV programme.

As for the concluding statement of the programme, there are at least another couple of governments involved in this story.. had these not been involved maybe there would have been no problem in finding the truth.. but of course the investigator will always have easy access to military material in every country he works, right ?

In any case, the case is not closed. The only case relative to Ustica that is closed regards the cover-up activities of a number or Air Force officers and the many investigations have concluded only last years that these officers were guilty of such activities

[tc2324]

Sorry but I stand by what I said before: in 1980 several police officers who were tasked with retrieving elements of evidence were denied these by the Air Force. Many investigators were given false evidence and there were even cases of anonimous thrests to some investigators. Do you think that an international investigation board would have managed to have access to non sanitised evidence some 12 years after the events ?

In any case, the findings of the team shown in the programme have been debated at length and contradict with the analysis of other teams, they can't be considered "truth". Now that team looked at a few things but forgot others that other internation teams considered. Who's right ? That investigator believes it was a bomb, yet a team from DERA believed it was a missile... The team shown in the programme claims they had correctly placed parts of the wreck that had been located in wrong places, yet they did not touch on aspects that had been mentioned by other teams. The same recovery of the wreck (that had taken place before that investigation) was not too clear, as the company who performed the recovery was closely related to one of the governments potentially involved and there were many rumours that the wreck had been "sanitised" even before being assembled.

The international experts board was also criticised in certain circles because some of the members could have had interest in proving the bomb theory, but this is something impossible to prove. In any case, none of the teams who could work on the wreck was probably entirely composed of people who had no interest in one or the other theory. The Italian Government, that had requested the board to investigate, in any case was always on the side of the bomb so saying that the authorities were convinced of the missile only it's a false statement. In the end the board reinforced the views of a part of the authorities.

That TV programme itself has been criticised by many here because it was designed to bring the audience to the conclusion that there was a bomb, totally forgetting a number of problems with this theory and the many indications against it. It was a nice piece of "oh, the italians don't want the truth but fortunately here we come to sort years of errors", good from a TV ratings point of view of course. But the story was much more complex than the one shown in the TV programme.

As for the concluding statement of the programme, there are at least another couple of governments involved in this story.. had these not been involved maybe there would have been no problem in finding the truth.. but of course the investigator will always have easy access to military material in every country he works, right ?

In any case, the case is not closed. The only case relative to Ustica that is closed regards the cover-up activities of a number or Air Force officers and the many investigations have concluded only last years that these officers were guilty of such activities

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

Unfortunately for me, I think it`s a simple case of the authorities not seeing `the forest for the trees`.

[Giorgio N]

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

Unfortunately for me, I think it`s a simple case of the authorities not seeing `the forest for the trees`.

Sorry, I can't understand now... which authority ?

The Air Force and related ministers have always tried to explain that the loss of the aircraft was due to structural failure caused by poor maintenance. This thesis was disproven by the presence of explosive in the wrecks yet a number of officers have tried to support this idea until recently

The various Governments in charge have initially supported the idea of the structural failure and then when this was proven false moved to the bomb. Most of the former ministers support this idea to this day

The investigators and the judges have over the years analysed all the ideas and have in the end moved toward the thesis of the missile. One of the reason was that both the structural failure and the bomb theses had been brought forward with evidence that had later been found to have been fabricated ad-hoc.

So, saying that the "authorities" are not seeing the forest for the trees or that the authorities dismissed a report where a bomb was mentioned as the cause is totally false, as within the "authorities" this idea is very strong even today, some 20 years after the investigation mentioned in the TV programme

[tc2324]

Sorry, how is the bomb theory false? Or at least dis proven?

[Jennings Heilig]

You sure....?

I happen to know (personally) at least 1 pilot that did so.

Not intentionally, period. The last officially sanctioned overflight of the USSR was in 1960. After the U-2 shootdown and then the RB-47 incident on 1 July 1960, overflights ceased.

[bzn20]

Officially. The whole idea of intel hunting is not saying what you're doing. If you didn't know its because you didn't need to know. That's what TOP SECRET means. If you did know , you shouldn't even be talking about it to anyone, let alone a forum. You need to keep it to yourself, that's what you were trusted with.

Edited May 2, 2014 by bzn20

[Jennings Heilig]

Well, I had a top secret codeword clearance when I was in USAF intel, and was personally involved in the PARPRO program on a daily basis. I've studied the (now mostly declassified) history of the PARPRO program for many years. The official policy of the US after 1 July 1960 was no intentional overflights of the USSR and certain other countries, period. I'm not saying it never happened after that (although I'm 99.99% sure it didn't), but it was not planned nor sanctioned if it did. I know the latter for a fact. Two shoot downs in or very near the sovereign territory of the USSR within two months in 1960, and the possibility that they raised for things getting out of hand and leading to a nuclear exchange were more than enough (along with the advent around the same time of satellite reconnaissance) to cause a permanent change in policy. A *lot* of resources were expended on setting up a system that was as fool proof as possible to prevent any unintentional overflight from taking place and to prevent any possibility of the bad guys finding a reason to open fire on a US reconnaissance aircraft. That system is what I did for a living. The fact that no US reconnaissance aircraft was ever damaged or shot down by the USSR after 1 July 1960 is proof that it worked.

[Tom Cooper]

Ho-hum. This is getting funny now, especially because of official and un-official variants of this affair.

Mate, I have no doubts that 'mistakes' can happen. They can happen during 'weather reconnaissance' (for example by what was supposedly a 'harmless' USAF C-130A, but actually something comparable to RC-135 in terms of its equipment, in 1970), and especially during 'training flights' (for example out of Iran, in one of then best-equipped RF-4 sub-variants on this plannet, wearing IIAF markings, in 1973)... I think you have no doubts about this either; you might only have forgotten about these two - out of many, many other - examples.

But, when I meet a retired pilot, and he can't even say for whom was he working when ending in 'some place, well beyond the border, with a problem of technical nature...', only that this happened in the late 1980s, then I somehow have my doubts he was there for sightseeing purposes.

[Giorgio N]

Sorry, how is the bomb theory false? Or at least dis proven?

It's never officially disproven, and the same happened for other theories. For example the collision with another aircraft or an RPV is another theory that has not been officially disproven yet.

The theory of the bomb was found not convincing for a number of reasons, some technical and some of other nature

The technical reasons were mainly:

- The initial structural damage that lead to the loss of the aircraft occurred in the rear cabin toilet (a fact on which every board of enquiry agree) and here's where the bomb is supposed to have been placed. However furniture of the same cabin was found intact. Had the explosion been internal, these furniture should have been damaged by the explosion more than other parts but this did not occur

- None of the chemicals part of the gases generated by an explosion was found. Had the explosion been internal, these gases would have propagated and some would have been breathed by at least the passengers closer to the explosion point. These gases were looked for in the autopsies but no trace was found

The reasons of other nature were:

- the time of the explosion: the aircraft was flying beyond schedule for a number of reasons. As none of the passengers was found to be remotely related to anyone with an interest in destroying the aircraft, this was suspected to have been put in place before the flight. However had the aircraft completed its flight as expected, the bomb would have exploded one hour after the landing. In that case, the bomb could have been found during the cleaning of the aircraft. Now it is entirely possible that whoever installed such a bomb only had in mind a demonstrative attack with no intention of causing victims... but why use a real bomb then ? If instead the aim was to destroy the aircraft, the bomb would have had to explode way earlier. There is a possibility that the bomb was installed during a stopover in Bologna, however this is considered difficult.

- The theory of the bomb was actually among the very first to be considered: immediately after the loss of the Itavia DC-9, a right wing terror group claimed to a newspaper that the DC-9 had been destroyed by a bomb carried by one of them, and explained how the remains of their man could be identified. The man however was not on the aircraft (he's still alive today) and while he had been part of the terror group, he was also working for a number of secret services. Years later it was concluded that the call was made by men of one of these services and not the terror group. According to the investigators, the secret services were trying to push the idea of the bomb from the very beginning for reasons unknown and since elements of the same services also tried to delay the investigation, this was found very suspect.

The truth is out there, hopefully it will come out one day....

[Jennings Heilig]

Ho-hum. This is getting funny now, especially because of official and un-official variants of this affair.

Mate, I have no doubts that 'mistakes' can happen. They can happen during 'weather reconnaissance' (for example by what was supposedly a 'harmless' USAF C-130A, but actually something comparable to RC-135 in terms of its equipment, in 1970), and especially during 'training flights' (for example out of Iran, in one of then best-equipped RF-4 sub-variants on this plannet, wearing IIAF markings, in 1973)... I think you have no doubts about this either; you might only have forgotten about these two - out of many, many other - examples.

But, when I meet a retired pilot, and he can't even say for whom was he working when ending in 'some place, well beyond the border, with a problem of technical nature...', only that this happened in the late 1980s, then I somehow have my doubts he was there for sightseeing purposes.

Sorry Tom, but what the CIA did under other flags isn't US military PARPRO. I just isn't the same thing. The PARPRO program did *not* overfly the territory of the USSR after 1960. Don't forget how much pilots *love* to spin yarns. No RC-135 has ever gotten a bullet hole in it, and they've been flying recce missions since 1962.

[Tom Cooper]

I know.

And yes, sometimes such activities were limited to semi-official involvement of USAF personnel in 'training operations of foreign air forces'. That's why I mentioned Iran - because it was one of major such operations. For example, Iran has never officially got any RF-5As (check Northrop's production lists for that variant), yet it had some 12-16 examples equipped with sophisticated equipment, and frequently flown by USAF personnel. Similarly, Iran has got a number of 'white-tail' RF-4s, some of which were equipped to higher standards than those of the USAF. And so it came that Col Saunders - WSO of the IIAF RF-4'E' ('E' because that plane was actually an A-wired RF-4C) rammed by a Soviet MiG-21SMT over the USSR (while flown by Iranian pilot Maj Shoukhounia) - was an USAF officer. For obvious reasons ('plausible deniability'), he continued wearing the uniform and rank of an USAF officer, although serving in Iran as a part of the NSA/CIA/IIAF/Savak operation 'Dark Gene' (or Genie, not 100% sure: nobody there in Pentagon or elsewhere would offer a single unce of positive replies to all of my FOIA inquiries, while all of involved Iranians are apparently dead) - which was (apparently) connected to finding 'safe entries' into the Soviet airspace for B-52s 'underway to Moscow'. BTW, Saunders and Shoukhounia were exchanged for a film cartrige from a Soviet recce satellite that - by mistake - fell into an Iranian (or was it a Saudi?) oilfield...

In other cases, penetrations of Soviet airspace happened 'due to navigational mistakes' - that's why I mentioned the USAF C-130A-II that was shot down by Soviet MiG-19s, over Armenia, in 1970...

The point is: regardless if USAF was officially prohibited from flying over the USSR, not only the USAF planes, but others too - would fly into the Soviet airspace, time and again. So, stating that 'US aircraft' didn't do so, is simply wrong. Sorry.

[mumbles]

No RC-135 has ever gotten a bullet hole in it, and they've been flying recce missions since 1962.

Although one got singed by the Tsar Bomba test apparently.

[J.C. Bahr]

In other cases, penetrations of Soviet airspace happened 'due to navigational mistakes' - that's why I mentioned the USAF C-130A-II that was shot down by Soviet MiG-19s, over Armenia, in 1970.

No offense, but it was Sept. 2nd 1958 and it was Mig-17's:

http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/vigilance_park/shootdown_flight60528.shtml

Not aware of any such shoot down as late as '70.

[Antoine]

Not only Soviet airspace.

An interesting link about U-2 interceptions over.... France.

Sorry, I'm not sure if it'll be translated in english easily.

[trimmer]

mentioned the USAF C-130A-II that was shot down by Soviet MiG-19s, over Armenia, in 1970.

There was an incident in 1970 over Soviet Armenia: October, 21, US Army RU-8 flying from Turkey went missing. Not sure if that's the story Tom refers to.

[Tom Cooper]

No reason to be offended: I simply mixed the loss of the C-130 with that of the RU-8.

Another case that comes to my mind was a EB- or RB-47 that should've been shot down somewhere along the Iranian-Soviet border in the late 1960s (probably 1968). The plane was definitely operated by the USAF, and the story one can hear in Iran is that it was shot down by Soviet SA-2s. Strangely enough, it's loss is not mentioned in any of known publications - perhaps because this happened after USAF planes were prohibited from entering the Soviet airspace, or because it came down inside Iran and the crew ejected safely?

To make matters sure: wreckage of the plane was found by a chap of mine at some dump outside Tehran. He still has a 20mm shell recovered from the barbette of that wreck (and he's good in aircraft recognition, so no chance he 'mixed' that wreck with anything from some F-5).

[luis pacheco]