4 ms·

A not so subtle difference is that the pilot shooting down KAL 007 identified it as a civilian airliner and proceeded to shoot it down anyway. Another more sub

A not so subtle difference is that the pilot shooting down KAL 007 identified it as a civilian airliner and proceeded to shoot it down anyway. Another more subtle difference is that in the Iranian Airlines shootdown, the US took responsibility and at least apologized. Meanwhile the Soviets denied anything happening until they couldn't and then claimed it was a spy plane (legitimate target).

p_l 3y ago
Identified it as a Boeing 747, but not as a civilian airliner. The same types of planes as civilian airliners are often used as platforms for military and spy planes. FWIW, they would have ended up better off if the original TASS press release was not cancelled just before publication (the one where it was claimed a mistaken shooting due to misidentification).
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  “It’s a Boeing” could be waved away this way. 747s aren’t used as military or spy planes with the exception of Air Force One and the E-4, neither of which would ever be there unescorted and unannounced.
  - thereddaikon 3y ago
    They also don't have a large an obvious "Korean Air" livery on them. Military aircraft are marked appropriately. I wouldn't necessarily expect a soviet fighter pilot to read english but I would expect him to recognize what a civil airliner looks like. The USSR had their own and also wore colorful liveries.
    - Tangurena2 3y ago
      It was shot down at night. There's no way to view the livery on a dark plane at just before 2 AM.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Yes there is; we call them "lights". The logo on the tail was lit up. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KAL007747-2.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KAL007747-2.png The pilot of the fighter also reported seeing "two rows of windows", which can only be a 747 at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary/... > “I could see two rows of windows, which were lit up,” Soviet pilot Col. Gennadi Osipovitch told CNN in 1998, describing the 747’s telltale double-deck configuration. “I wondered if it was a civilian aircraft. Military cargo planes don’t have such windows.”
        p_l 3y ago
        Cargo don't. Converted intelligence/C4I planes? Often do. Also, logos like that aren't that well readable especially at speed, and the actual shootdown happened in a way that could be mistaken for evasive maneuveurs. Essentially, I feel that if we're going to let UX take part of the blame for Iran Air 655, we have to allow wider narrative for KAL007 as well (Personally I think humans are directly at fault for both cases)
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        The only converted 747s with the distinctive double row of windows in military use are the Air Force One and E-4 aircraft I already mentioned. Neither of which is going to be anywhere near Soviet airspace without the Soviets knowing long, long in advance. I also quoted the pilot himself. Further from him: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-12-09-1996344015-story.html https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-12-09-19963440... > "I was just next to him, on the same altitude, 150 meters to 200 meters away," he recalled in conversations with a reporter during the weekend. From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing," he said. "I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." It wasn't a "oops we thought it was an RC-135" scenario.
Tangurena2 3y ago
No. The shootdown of KAL 007 took place at night. There was no possible way to identify the aircraft other than via the lights coming out of the windows. A militarized 747 is called an E-4[0]. A militarized 707 is variously called an E-3 (some are AWACS) [1], KC-135 (a now-retired refueling aircraft) [2], or an EC-135 (electronic warfare equipped 707) [3]. The wikipedia page for the shootdown incident [4] lists the time as 1349 GMT. Most readers will go "they shot it down just before 2PM" instead of realizing that the location was 12 hours ahead of GMT. During the time of the USSR, Vladivostok used Moscow time, even though they are 11 timezones ahead. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
- areyousure 3y ago
  > The wikipedia page for the shootdown incident [4] lists the time as 1349 GMT. In case anyone is curious, the Wikipedia page mention of this time is as follows: "at 13:49 UTC (49 minutes after take-off), KAL 007 reported that it had reached its Bethel waypoint". Bethel is a city in the U.S. state of Alaska.

p_l 3y ago

Identified it as a Boeing 747, but not as a civilian airliner. The same types of planes as civilian airliners are often used as platforms for military and spy planes. FWIW, they would have ended up better off if the original TASS press release was not cancelled just before publication (the one where it was claimed a mistaken shooting due to misidentification).

ceejayoz 3y ago
“It’s a Boeing” could be waved away this way. 747s aren’t used as military or spy planes with the exception of Air Force One and the E-4, neither of which would ever be there unescorted and unannounced.
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  They also don't have a large an obvious "Korean Air" livery on them. Military aircraft are marked appropriately. I wouldn't necessarily expect a soviet fighter pilot to read english but I would expect him to recognize what a civil airliner looks like. The USSR had their own and also wore colorful liveries.
  - Tangurena2 3y ago
    It was shot down at night. There's no way to view the livery on a dark plane at just before 2 AM.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Yes there is; we call them "lights". The logo on the tail was lit up. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KAL007747-2.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KAL007747-2.png The pilot of the fighter also reported seeing "two rows of windows", which can only be a 747 at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary/... > “I could see two rows of windows, which were lit up,” Soviet pilot Col. Gennadi Osipovitch told CNN in 1998, describing the 747’s telltale double-deck configuration. “I wondered if it was a civilian aircraft. Military cargo planes don’t have such windows.”
      - p_l 3y ago
        Cargo don't. Converted intelligence/C4I planes? Often do. Also, logos like that aren't that well readable especially at speed, and the actual shootdown happened in a way that could be mistaken for evasive maneuveurs. Essentially, I feel that if we're going to let UX take part of the blame for Iran Air 655, we have to allow wider narrative for KAL007 as well (Personally I think humans are directly at fault for both cases)
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        The only converted 747s with the distinctive double row of windows in military use are the Air Force One and E-4 aircraft I already mentioned. Neither of which is going to be anywhere near Soviet airspace without the Soviets knowing long, long in advance. I also quoted the pilot himself. Further from him: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-12-09-1996344015-story.html https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-12-09-19963440... > "I was just next to him, on the same altitude, 150 meters to 200 meters away," he recalled in conversations with a reporter during the weekend. From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing," he said. "I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." It wasn't a "oops we thought it was an RC-135" scenario.

Tangurena2 3y ago

No. The shootdown of KAL 007 took place at night. There was no possible way to identify the aircraft other than via the lights coming out of the windows. A militarized 747 is called an E-4[0]. A militarized 707 is variously called an E-3 (some are AWACS) [1], KC-135 (a now-retired refueling aircraft) [2], or an EC-135 (electronic warfare equipped 707) [3]. The wikipedia page for the shootdown incident [4] lists the time as 1349 GMT. Most readers will go "they shot it down just before 2PM" instead of realizing that the location was 12 hours ahead of GMT. During the time of the USSR, Vladivostok used Moscow time, even though they are 11 timezones ahead. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

areyousure 3y ago
> The wikipedia page for the shootdown incident [4] lists the time as 1349 GMT. In case anyone is curious, the Wikipedia page mention of this time is as follows: "at 13:49 UTC (49 minutes after take-off), KAL 007 reported that it had reached its Bethel waypoint". Bethel is a city in the U.S. state of Alaska.