JDW的关于坠毁歼8的分析--EP3拍摄的王伟的歼8战机

来源:百度文库 编辑:超级军网 时间:2024/04/28 21:23:40
Chinese pilot to blame for mid-air collision, US report says

By Robert Karniol, JDW Asia-Pacific Editor, Bangkok

A Chinese F-8 fighter pilot was to blame for a controversial April 2001 mid-air collision with a US Navy (USN) surveillance aircraft over the South China Sea off Hainan Island, according to an official report obtained exclusively by Jane's Defence Weekly under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, the report said that Beijing almost certainly gained access to a range of classified material as a result.

The US report flatly contradicts China's version of the event, which cost F-8 pilot Wang Wei his life and put a chill on Chinese-US relations. Beijing maintains that the EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft was at fault, saying the two aircraft were on parallel courses some 120m apart when the US aircraft banked sharply to the left and rammed the Chinese fighter (JDW 11 April 2001).

China detained the 24-person US aircrew for 11 days, only releasing them on 12 April 2001 after Washington issued the formal "apology" demanded by Beijing. This face-saving gesture saw the US express "sincere regret" over the missing pilot and aircraft, without acknowledging responsibility. The Aries II, which had made an emergency landing on Hainan Island, was returned to the USN in a disassembled state on 3 July 2001 after three months in Chinese custody.

Both the EP-3E's mission and much of the equipment it carried were classified. This, perhaps, along with the political sensitivities involved, meant it took the USN nearly two years to respond to JDW's request for a copy of the Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the collision. Under the statute, federal agencies are normally required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days of its receipt, but may extend this by 10 business days under certain circumstances.

The JAGMAN report says a 14-member combat reconnaissance crew (CRC-1) from Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1), homeported at Washington State's Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and a 10-member naval security group crew were assigned to the Aries II for its mission of 1 April. This was to be CRC-1's 12th operational mission since starting their deployment on 2 March 2001 - initially to the Naval Air Facility at Misawa, Japan, and later to Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan. Planned as a nine-hour flight, the 1 April mission was launched from Kadena at 0500 hours.

The collision occurred around 1000 hours, soon after the EP-3E crew spotted two Chinese F-8s that had closed to about 1nm in loose trail. The US aircraft initiated a pre-planned slow left turn to the east and settled on heading 070, wings level and autopilot engaged. Then one of the Chinese fighters began harassment tactics.

"The lead F-8 commenced the first of three passes to join in formation on the port side of PR-32 (the EP-3E's designation)," the report states. "During the first approach, the F-8 pilot came within 10ft of PR-32 and was observed saluting the EP-3E flight station. The F-8 drifted out of formation but returned to within 5ft of PR-32's port wing at the same altitude. On this second approach the F-8 pilot was observed to have his oxygen mask removed and was seen gesturing to the crew with hand signals in a pushing motion.

"On the F-8's third and final pass the F-8 pilot overshot [due to excessive closure rate] his attempt to join up with PR-32. This placed the F-8 below and slightly forward of PR-32's port wing. The F-8 pilot slightly raised the nose of his aircraft in what appeared to be an effort to slow his aircraft. At approximately 1005 hours the F-8 pilot was unable to control his closure rate. The F-8 pitched up into PR-32's number-one propeller, striking the propeller at the point where the F-8's vertical stabiliser and fuselage meet. The F-8 was immediately ripped in half ... [It] was last seen trailing smoke in an uncontrolled dive toward the ocean surface."

The JAGMAN investigation concludes that:
the second F-8 was not a factor in the collision;
CRC-1 did not commit any dangerous or hazardous manoeuvres;
CRC-1 did not provoke the lead F-8 pilot;
CRC-1 did not cause the collision between PR-32 and the F-8; and
CRC-1 was not negligent, not responsible and not at fault for the collision between the F-8 and PR-32.
John Keefe, a US Embassy official in Beijing at the time the incident occurred, said in a separate study obtained exclusively by JDW: "Over the past year or so before the collision there had been a pattern of increasingly aggressive intercepts of US surveillance aircraft by Chinese fighters. The US government had brought the issue ... to the attention of the Chinese government in a December 2000 démarche while the US and China were engaged in Military Maritime Consultative Agreement talks. The Chinese did not respond to the démarche but at least the Chinese military was aware of US concerns."

The F-8 pilot's death nevertheless appears to have brought Beijing unforeseen benefits in terms of access to highly sensitive US equipment and information. "VQ-1 crews carry classified materiel as a matter of routine. Classified materiel is necessary in executing the flight mission," the JAGMAN report states, although subsequent detail is masked out in the version provided to JDW.

"Destruction of classified materiel in flight included jettisoning classified materiel out of the starboard overwing hatch (after PR-32 recovered from its uncontrolled and rapid descent following the collision); smashing equipment with the onboard axe and other hard objects and, upon landing, hand-shredding classified papers."

However, the investigation concludes, the effects of shock combined with a lack of sufficient time before the emergency landing at Hainan's Lingshui airfield failed to produce the desired result. "Compromise by the People's Republic of China of undestroyed classified materiel on PR-32 is highly probable and cannot be ruled out," the report determines.


Screen capture from a US DoD-released video tape, reportedly showing the proximity of a Chinese F-8 fighter piloted by Wang Wei to a US EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft during a 30 January 2001 sortie (Source: PA)Chinese pilot to blame for mid-air collision, US report says

By Robert Karniol, JDW Asia-Pacific Editor, Bangkok

A Chinese F-8 fighter pilot was to blame for a controversial April 2001 mid-air collision with a US Navy (USN) surveillance aircraft over the South China Sea off Hainan Island, according to an official report obtained exclusively by Jane's Defence Weekly under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, the report said that Beijing almost certainly gained access to a range of classified material as a result.

The US report flatly contradicts China's version of the event, which cost F-8 pilot Wang Wei his life and put a chill on Chinese-US relations. Beijing maintains that the EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft was at fault, saying the two aircraft were on parallel courses some 120m apart when the US aircraft banked sharply to the left and rammed the Chinese fighter (JDW 11 April 2001).

China detained the 24-person US aircrew for 11 days, only releasing them on 12 April 2001 after Washington issued the formal "apology" demanded by Beijing. This face-saving gesture saw the US express "sincere regret" over the missing pilot and aircraft, without acknowledging responsibility. The Aries II, which had made an emergency landing on Hainan Island, was returned to the USN in a disassembled state on 3 July 2001 after three months in Chinese custody.

Both the EP-3E's mission and much of the equipment it carried were classified. This, perhaps, along with the political sensitivities involved, meant it took the USN nearly two years to respond to JDW's request for a copy of the Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the collision. Under the statute, federal agencies are normally required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days of its receipt, but may extend this by 10 business days under certain circumstances.

The JAGMAN report says a 14-member combat reconnaissance crew (CRC-1) from Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1), homeported at Washington State's Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and a 10-member naval security group crew were assigned to the Aries II for its mission of 1 April. This was to be CRC-1's 12th operational mission since starting their deployment on 2 March 2001 - initially to the Naval Air Facility at Misawa, Japan, and later to Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan. Planned as a nine-hour flight, the 1 April mission was launched from Kadena at 0500 hours.

The collision occurred around 1000 hours, soon after the EP-3E crew spotted two Chinese F-8s that had closed to about 1nm in loose trail. The US aircraft initiated a pre-planned slow left turn to the east and settled on heading 070, wings level and autopilot engaged. Then one of the Chinese fighters began harassment tactics.

"The lead F-8 commenced the first of three passes to join in formation on the port side of PR-32 (the EP-3E's designation)," the report states. "During the first approach, the F-8 pilot came within 10ft of PR-32 and was observed saluting the EP-3E flight station. The F-8 drifted out of formation but returned to within 5ft of PR-32's port wing at the same altitude. On this second approach the F-8 pilot was observed to have his oxygen mask removed and was seen gesturing to the crew with hand signals in a pushing motion.

"On the F-8's third and final pass the F-8 pilot overshot [due to excessive closure rate] his attempt to join up with PR-32. This placed the F-8 below and slightly forward of PR-32's port wing. The F-8 pilot slightly raised the nose of his aircraft in what appeared to be an effort to slow his aircraft. At approximately 1005 hours the F-8 pilot was unable to control his closure rate. The F-8 pitched up into PR-32's number-one propeller, striking the propeller at the point where the F-8's vertical stabiliser and fuselage meet. The F-8 was immediately ripped in half ... [It] was last seen trailing smoke in an uncontrolled dive toward the ocean surface."

The JAGMAN investigation concludes that:
the second F-8 was not a factor in the collision;
CRC-1 did not commit any dangerous or hazardous manoeuvres;
CRC-1 did not provoke the lead F-8 pilot;
CRC-1 did not cause the collision between PR-32 and the F-8; and
CRC-1 was not negligent, not responsible and not at fault for the collision between the F-8 and PR-32.
John Keefe, a US Embassy official in Beijing at the time the incident occurred, said in a separate study obtained exclusively by JDW: "Over the past year or so before the collision there had been a pattern of increasingly aggressive intercepts of US surveillance aircraft by Chinese fighters. The US government had brought the issue ... to the attention of the Chinese government in a December 2000 démarche while the US and China were engaged in Military Maritime Consultative Agreement talks. The Chinese did not respond to the démarche but at least the Chinese military was aware of US concerns."

The F-8 pilot's death nevertheless appears to have brought Beijing unforeseen benefits in terms of access to highly sensitive US equipment and information. "VQ-1 crews carry classified materiel as a matter of routine. Classified materiel is necessary in executing the flight mission," the JAGMAN report states, although subsequent detail is masked out in the version provided to JDW.

"Destruction of classified materiel in flight included jettisoning classified materiel out of the starboard overwing hatch (after PR-32 recovered from its uncontrolled and rapid descent following the collision); smashing equipment with the onboard axe and other hard objects and, upon landing, hand-shredding classified papers."

However, the investigation concludes, the effects of shock combined with a lack of sufficient time before the emergency landing at Hainan's Lingshui airfield failed to produce the desired result. "Compromise by the People's Republic of China of undestroyed classified materiel on PR-32 is highly probable and cannot be ruled out," the report determines.


Screen capture from a US DoD-released video tape, reportedly showing the proximity of a Chinese F-8 fighter piloted by Wang Wei to a US EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft during a 30 January 2001 sortie (Source: PA)
谁翻译一下嘛!
以前不是有一段视频吗?不过我怀疑那不是王伟的飞机,或者是其他时间拍的。
中国飞行员为空中碰撞, 美国报告

藉着罗勃特 Karniol , JDW 亚太编者, 曼谷

一位中国 F-8 战斗机飞行员要在海南岛外达争论的 2001 年四月之久在南海上的和一架美国海军 (USN) 监视飞机的空中冲突, 依照一项独家地被在数据行为的美国自由下面的珍防卫周刊获得的官方报告.(FOIA) 然而,报告说北京几乎确定地得到了对多种的机密材料的通路结果。

美国报告平平地反驳事件的中国版本,花费了 F-8 飞行员王 Wei 他的生活,而且把寒冷放在华人- 美国关系。 北京主张 EP 盘 唱片-3 E 白羊座 2 电子的监视飞机出错 , 当美国飞机锐利地存入银行到左边而且力击了中国斗士的时候 , 叙述二架飞机分别地在平行的课程上一些 120 m 。 (JDW 2001 年四月 11 日)

中国扣留了 24个人的美国全体机员 11 天以来,唯一的在华盛顿之后在 2001 年四月 12 日释放他们发行了被北京的正式 "道歉" 。 这个顾全面子的手势看见了美国快递在不见的飞行员和飞机上的诚恳遗憾,不承认职责而。 已经作在海南岛上的一个紧急降落的白羊座 2 在中国监护中在三个月之后在 2001 年七月 3 日被回到被解开的州 USN。

EP 盘 唱片-3 E's 任务和仪器的很多它都携带被分类。 这,也许, 连同政治上的敏感一起积极参与的, 意谓它将近拿了 USN 二年回应 JDW's 对碰撞的军法局长手册 (JAGMAN) 调查的副本请求。 在法令之下,联邦的代理正常地要在它的收据 20 生意数天里面回应一个 FOIA 请求, 但是可能每天在某种情况下扩充这 10 生意。

JAGMAN 报告来自快速的空气侦察骑兵营的一个 14个成员的战斗侦察组员 (CRC-1) 一 (VQ-1), homeported 在华盛顿州的海军空气车站 Whidbey 岛, 和一 10-海军的安全团体组员为它的四月 1 日的任务被指定为白羊座 2 的成员。 这要自在 2001 年三月 2 日开始他们的配置以后是 CRC-1 年代第 12个操作的任务 - 最初对在 Misawa, 日本的海军空气设备, 和稍后到在冲绳岛,日本的 Kadena 空军基地。 计划了的如一次九小时的班机, 1 四月任务被在 0500个小时从 Kadena 发射。

碰撞 1000个小时在附近发生,在 EP 盘 唱片-3 组员看见了二中国 F-8 s 以已经关闭到宽松的踪迹大约 1个 nm 的 E 不久后。开始的美国飞机一到东部的慢左边的旋转而且安顿在标题之上 070, 翅膀水平和自引示约定。 然后中国斗士之一开始了困扰手法。

" 领引 F-8 开始了三个途径的第一加入在 PR-32(EP 盘 唱片-3 E's 指示) 的港口边上的形成,"报告州。 "在第一方式期间, F-8 飞行员在 PR-32 的 10 ft 里面来和是观察行礼 EP 盘 唱片-3 E 站班机。 F-8 从形成除了在相同的高度回到 PR-32 年代的 5 ft 之内港口翅膀之外漂流。 在这秒接近 F-8 飞行员被观察让他的氧假面具离开的和是看到对组员以一个推动运动的手信号作手势。

" 在 F-8 年代第三和结局经过 F-8 飞行员由上淋水的 [由于过度的终止率] 他的尝试到以 PR-32 入伍. 这向前地 PR-32 年代港口翅膀在下面和些微地放置 F-8 。 F-8 飞行员在似乎是一个努力减慢他的飞机东西些微地升起了他的飞机鼻子。 在大约 1005个小时 F-8 飞行员不能够控制他的终止率。 F-8 扎牢在进入 PR-32 年代数字- 一螺旋桨之内上面, 在点打击螺旋桨哪里 F-8 年代垂直的 stabiliser 和机身遇见。 F-8 立刻在一半中被撕开...[它]最后被看到拖向大海表面的不受抑制的潜水烟."

JAGMAN 调查得出结论:
第二 F-8 不是碰撞的一个因素;
CRC-1 不委托任何的危险或危险的调遣;
CRC-1 不激怒领引 F-8 飞行员;
CRC-1 不引起碰撞在 PR-32 和 F-8之间; 和
CRC-1 不是疏忽的, 不有责任的和不出错为在 F-8 和 PR-32 之间的碰撞.
约翰 Keefe, 北京的一位美国大使馆官员当事件发生的时候,在一项独家地被 JDW 获得的分开研究中说: "在过去的年以来或如此的以前碰撞那里已经藉着中国斗士是美国监视飞机的逐渐地攻击性的截取一个式样。 美国政府已经带来议题... 对 2000 年十二月 d é marche 的中国政府的注意当美国的时候和中国被专注军队海的商议协议谈话华人不回应 d é marche ,但是至少中国军队知道美国关心。"。

F-8 飞行员的死亡然而似乎已经以通路对高度地敏感的美国仪器和数据带来北京无法预料的利益。 "VQ-1 组员进位分类了物料如常式的一个物质。机密的物料在运行任务班机方面是必需的,"JAGMAN 报告说,虽然后来的细节是戴假面具的在版本中的外提供到 JDW 。

" 飞行的机密物料的破坏从右舷 overwing 舱口 ( 在 PR-32之后找回从在碰撞之后的它不受抑制的和迅速的降落) 包括投弃机密的物料; 用那在板子上斧头和其他的难物体粉碎仪器而且,在登陆之上,传递-撕成碎片机密的纸."

然而,调查推论,在海南的 Lingshui 飞机场的紧急降落没有生产被需要的结果之前 , 震惊的效果由于充份的时间缺乏联合。 "妥协藉着中华人民共和国不破坏在 PR-32 上的机密物料高度可能并且不能够被排除,"报告决定。


来自一卷美国 DoD 释放的录像带的荧屏抓取, 根据传说表现在一个 2001 年一月 30 日突击期间被对一个美国 EP 盘 唱片-3 E 白羊座 2 的王 Wei 电子的监视飞机领航的中国 F-8 战斗机的接近 (来源: PA)
翻的真够水平,我没看动几句
用翻译软件翻译的
[em11][em11]
调查报告作出如下结论:
第二架 F-8 和撞机无关。
CRC-1 没有做任何危险的或冒险的操作。
并非 CRC-1 激怒第一架 F-8。
并非 CRC-1 导致 F-8 和 PR-32 之间的碰撞。
对于 F-8 和 PR-32 之间的碰撞,CRC-1 并没有疏忽,也没有责任和过错。

John Keefe,一位驻北京大使馆的官员,在事件发生后说:“在过去一年或者更早的冲突中,中国飞行员对美国侦察飞机的有挑衅的拦截日益增多,美国政府已经发表...关于中国政府在2000年10月(美国提出一个鸟协议,但是中国没有响应,但至少中国军方可以知道美国的意图,云云)。”

F-8 飞行员之死仍然显示它带给北京意外的好处:接触到高度机密的玫瑰设备和信息。尽管重要的描述在提供给简氏的版本中已经被删除,但报告中指出:“作为例行公务,VQ-1携带有机密设备,这些机密设备是执行空中任务时所必需的。”

“在飞行中销毁机密设备包括从右弦舱口将机密设备扔出(在 PR-32 结束因为碰撞引起的失控和坠落之后);使用携带的斧头和其他硬物砸碎设备;着陆前撕碎机密文件等。”

然而调查表明,由于缺少足够的时间,在海南陵水机场紧急着陆前所采用的这些方法并没有达到预期的目的。“未销毁的机密设备极有可能泄密”,报告中认定。

截图是......
奇怪的是明明说歼8在下方,歼8又怎么下落撞到发动机的?
疑惑ing
编故事的水平不怎么滴~~~
<P>这故事可信吗?</P>
<P>不过根据视频,J8的仰角的确蛮大的,难为J82了,的确不是为了拦截这玩意设计的</P>
<P>从视频可以看出当时王伟的飞机飞行非常平稳,而美国人掩耳盗铃的删去了后面一段录像。这还不说明问题吗?</P>
<P>再者,如果是J-8II失控撞击EP-3E那么怎么解释EP-3E机头的破损问题?</P>
非电传的飞机的确很难操纵。但我相信王伟能把J8II操纵平稳,否则就不应该执行这种跟飞任务了
我一直没弄清楚王伟当天的座机编号,陈应明大师做的模型是81194,视频里的是81192,一张油画里是81699,到底哪个比较靠谱?
我是来听故事的!
<P>中国飞行员对美国侦察飞机的有挑衅的拦截日益增多</P>
<P>典型的强盗逻辑</P>
[B]以下是引用[I]黯然神伤[/I]在2004-2-15 20:16:00的发言:[/B][BR]奇怪的是明明说歼8在下方,歼8又怎么下落撞到发动机的?
疑惑ing

J8在低速下要用油门和很大的迎角来保持高度.
如果没有控制好,迎角过大,油门没有及时补偿的话,速度会降低,容易失速;
油门如果加的过大的话,飞机就会抬头上升,有可能从下方撞到PC3.
通常来说,飞机在低速的情况下,用油门来保持高度,用姿态来调整速度.
当然如果同时调整油门和姿态当然更好,但保持油门或姿态,再去调整另一个就会使事情变的简单起来.
[B]以下是引用[I]佟旭[/I]在2005-12-29 9:42:00的发言:[/B][BR]我一直没弄清楚王伟当天的座机编号,陈应明大师做的模型是81194,视频里的是81192,一张油画里是81699,到底哪个比较靠谱?

貌似官方版是81192,当天的长机好像是81194。至于81699好像很有些不靠谱啊
如果王伟确实是从下方撞上EP3的话,那美方为何不把王伟飞机撞上那一瞬间的录像播出来呢?
王伟是想用垂尾去切割p3的发动机?
[B]以下是引用[I]琉球人民独立运动[/I]在2005-12-29 16:25:00的发言:[/B][BR]王伟是想用垂尾去切割p3的发动机?

歼8II并不是苏27,王伟有什么必要这么做呢?
<P>我想EP3如此低的飞行速度也让伴飞的J82的操作变的异常困难,也可能有这种原因在内,才导致两架飞机相撞</P>
<P>还有视频吗?比较菜没看过</P>
[B]以下是引用[I]zi_exnium[/I]在2005-12-29 20:58:00的发言:[/B][BR]<P>我想EP3如此低的飞行速度也让伴飞的J82的操作变的异常困难,也可能有这种原因在内,才导致两架飞机相撞</P>

如果是这样,那美方应该有当时撞击的录像,放出来一看便知
看得好辛苦啊
<P>问题的关键就是美方把撞击的那段删掉了,而中方的习惯一向是不公开的。</P>
<P>从EP3事件协商结果看,霸道的美军还是吃了瘪的,关键文件估计都在中方手上抓着,没法发作。只好等人员回来后搞事后诸葛亮,以为很聪明。。。。</P>
辛苦啊!