Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3 Decades Later, Finnair Pilots Report Dramatic Close Encounter With a Missile

Posted by timothy on from the don't-tell-them-you're-out-of-coffee-though dept.

jones_supa (887896) writes It has come to light that a Finnair-owned McDonnell Douglas DC-10 passenger jet narrowly avoided being shot down by a missile while en route to Helsinki 27 years ago, claimed the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Sunday. The two co-pilots, Esko Kaukiainen and Markku Soininen, describe how the event happened during a routine flight back to Helsinki from Japan in December 1987. When the plane was crossing the Arctic Ocean, a missile appeared in the distance. The crew thought it was a Russian weather rocket on its way into space, but the missile began heading straight towards the aircraft. Just 20 seconds away from a collision, the missile exploded. The captain, who was resting at the time of the incident, never officially reported the event. The question of who fired the missile has never been definitively answered. But the pilots believe it was launched from either the Soviet Union's Kola Peninsula or a submarine in the Barents Sea. They speculate that the missile could have been a misfire or that the plane was used as training target.

84 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Nice timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's probably coincidence that they remember it at this time.

    1. Re:Nice timing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article implies this incident was already known to some people for quite some time, but had been kept from higher ups in the government. It recently came out because a newspaper did some digging (the timing of which isn't too surprising).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Nice timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that you should have come forward when Russia was invading Georgia? Or when Russia was threatening countries in Eastern Europe with being targeted by nuclear missiles? Or when Russia was making threats against Western Europe?

      With Russia it seems there are too few good opportunities to bring this sort of thing forward without questioning "the timing." Why is that?

    3. Re:Nice timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets not forget it would have been poor timing to mention it at any point in the previous two decades while Russia was propping up Moldovan separatists in Transnistria.

      In fact what's happened in Moldova is a good foreshadowing of what's happening now in Ukraine; Russia uses "separatists" in the east of the country to foment unrest, then props them up whilst denying all involvement. This neatly keeps the country unstable and weak and turns it into a bargaining chip; Moldova won't be able to join the EU until they "solve" Transnistria, for example. Just the way that Russia like it.

    4. Re:Nice timing by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Ruskies aren't going to be invading Finland again. Not after the embarrassment of the last time.

      When winter changes sides and goes against the Russians, they notice.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Nice timing by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Finland is one of those peacenik non-aligned countries that has never had to concern itself with Russian imperialism

      I hope this is sarcastic. Finland has more than enough experience of Russian aggression.

    6. Re:Nice timing by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      With Russia it seems there are too few good opportunities to bring this sort of thing forward without questioning "the timing." Why is that?

      Because the rubes taking CIA propaganda at face value (you guys learned NOTHING from the Iraq war) have a slight problem with throwing stones from within glass houses.

    7. Re:Nice timing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ok so the part of Russian Empire that provided plenty of goods for the St. Petersburg and had a bloody war between commies and whites to separate from the Russia/Ussr and had to fight two wars with Russia during WW2, one aligned heavily with nazis (only technically unoccupied european nazi partner whee!!/sarcasm)...

      has not had to concern itself with Russian imperialism?? what the fuck! the entire Finnish foreign policy is only about how to keep Russia or earlier USSR out of Finland while at the same time doing trade with them to keep butter on Finnish tables. St. Petersburg is like a 3 hour train ride from Helsinki(+border formalities which add quite a bit). the entire if to join nato or not to join nato is about tiptoeing with the Russian bear - can't live without it and can't live with it. the entire Finnish defense policy is basically built around the fact that Finland could be invaded so fast, that it's better to teach everyone(man) how to shoot, so it would turn into Afghanistan^2 - but we really would rather be peaceniks.

      point being, Finland is an ex-region of the Russian Empire(which had certain level of autonomy within the Empire) which according to some theory was let to gain independence only because Lenin thought it would join USSR anyways. However, using the same tactic to take over Finland that Putin used for Crimea and is trying in Eastern Ukraine now would never ever work for Finland. And it would ruin the value of the Russian oligarchs summer houses too... the whole Russia-Ukraine situation is affecting life very much on the street level of many people in Finland though, since it's banning some exports into Russia and there's significant trade between the two - and of course Finland has had to appease to american empires wishes too, which has cost plenty of good trade dealings with Russia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... ,Finland threatened with sanctions over providing tech to Russia)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Nice timing by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Very far to the west? Greece has never been at war with Russia. Granted, they've only been around in their present form for just under two centuries. Though I'm sure you were intending to identify either Great Britain or Spain as the nation in question.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:Nice timing by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "correct mistakes" made in drawing the border with Finland

      i.e. "we wanted more of it"

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    10. Re:Nice timing by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The Ruskies aren't going to be invading Finland again. Not after the embarrassment of the last time.

      "The last time" was a straightforward Russian victory: the end of the Continuation War. If you meant the time before last, the Winter War, educated Finns would be the first to tell you that their country's resilence is half myth, and the country would not be able to hold out should Russia come again.

      Why is that? For one, Stalin's army had suffered severe purges of qualified generals in the 1930s, and the Russian military forces striking Finland were undermined by the political commisars assigned to them. Had the purges not happened, that mythical Finnish intestinal fortitude alone would not have been enough to hold out. Then, one must consider that in the 70-odd years since the Winter War, Russia has developed massive air power, while Finland's arsenal anti-aircraft measures has always been very weak -- even optimistic Finnish strategists believe that the country would capitulate after only a few days of massive bombardment. Plus, Russia considers tactical nuclear weapons an option (Finland is not a NATO member, so no escalation to strategic nuclear weapons or MAD), and has already practiced drills for a nuclear strike on Finland. And finally, during the Winter War the male population were mainly hardy farmers, strong and used to cold, while it's quite common in our media for military brass to bemoan the quality of today's conscripts, who have led sedentary lives and are unfit for strenuous activity.

    11. Re:Nice timing by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It sounds nothing like he's from the US. Most of us (especially the older generations) know basic European history better than you might think; however, we're also taught our own history in depth (The original colonies, revolutionary war, civil war, industrial revolution, etc..), something Europeans are not, so naturally we are not quite as versed in your history. But I think most americans at this time would not be defending Russia or Putin over Finland, in any case. Remember, the USSR was the big bad wolf to us for over 25 years.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re: Nice timing by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Are you so willfully obtuse? Ray Charles could have seen what the point was. And Ray Charles is blind.

      And dead.

    13. Re:Nice timing by redlemming · · Score: 1

      For one, Stalin's army had suffered severe purges of qualified generals in the 1930s

      I have a couple of minor quibbles with this. For one, it wasn't a severe purge:

      "At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corps was underestimated, and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. Thirty percent of officers purged in 1937-9 were allowed to return to service." Stephen Lee, European Dictatorships 1918-1945, page 56, quoted via Wikipedia.

      It has been argued that many of those purged were incompetent or overly ambitious, with Stalin using the purges to remove potential troublemakers. It's unclear these were particularly qualified folks, either. Few senior military people are, in any army - most are "politicians in uniform" who often do far more harm than good to the causes they serve.

      Further, that so many were allowed to return to service suggests that some sort of competence filtering was going on.

      Note also that the invasion of Finland started on 30 November 1939, AFTER the 1938-1938 Battles of Khalkhin Gol and the Battle of Lake Khasan, during which the Soviets thoroughly defeated the Japanese after some initial setbacks. As the Soviets were the only major power that would be able to beat the Japanese for some time, it follows that they had qualified leaders who could be very effective when given the freedom to do their jobs.

      It seems to me that the direct impact of the purges is not a strong factor in explaining the initial disasters that followed the decision to invade Finland (or, for that matter, the disasters that followed the later German invasion of the Soviet Union). The Soviet system (and paranoid leadership) was more at fault. Competent people were not involved in the planning and initial execution of the operation, even though they were available.

      Your points are otherwise well taken.

    14. Re:Nice timing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, most of the "deep battle" proponents (like Svechin and Tukhachevsky) were purge victims, so Stalin effectively threw away a mobile warfare doctrine that was arguably as good as Germany's. There were no large mobile formations in the Red Army early in WWII, and the ones formed before the German invasion mostly had no formation-level training.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Nice timing by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Stalin effectively threw away a mobile warfare doctrine that was arguably as good as Germany's

      I'm not really sure "Germany" had a "good" mobile warfare doctrine at the start of the war. Yes, they had a few moderately large mobile formations, and those formations had trained together. However, most of the German army was still on foot, and using animals for transport. Many of the vehicles the Germans did have were captured during the invasion of Czechoslovakia!

      Further the German tanks were hugely inferior to the best French models (inferior as in the German shells often bounced off the French armor, a problem the German anti-tank guns also had!). Logistics was another big problem in their doctrine: they made an attempt to plan for this, but the plan didn't survive contact with reality and the mobile units often operated on a shoestring during the battle for France.

      The one big thing the Germans did get correct was to emphasize combined arms. As it turned out, this made up for the other deficiencies (especially since their logistics, while severely stressed during the battle for France, turned out to be sufficient given the short length of the campaign and the relatively small amount of time they had to spend in combat).

      The Germans had excellent communication systems, allowing better tactical coordination than their opponents could achieve, facilitating combined arms operations. Further, they discovered (probably as a result of frantic improvisation) that they could turn their 88mm anti-aircraft guns into superb tank killers (the high velocity cannon needed to reach high altitude had exactly the characteristics needed to penetrate heavy tank armor).

      These factors, plus the skilled use of the Luftwaffe aircraft in an air-ground role (and excellent ground-based mobile anti-aircraft systems that kept up with the other mobile units, providing very effective protection from enemy air), were, IMHO, the keys that gave them tactical superiority over the French and British forces in the key stages of the Battle for France.

      An enormously high level of average officer competence (and the impressive willingness of these officers to exercise initiative, quite unlike the stereotype of the rigid Teutonic type) allowed those (relatively few) German units that did have mobile capabilities to move quickly once they made the initial breakthrough. I don't think anybody in Germany ever dreamed that things would go as well as they did!

      It would probably be better to say the Germans had a mediocre and flawed mobile warfare doctrine, but what they had was better than what anybody else had! A high level of officer competence allowed them to adapt quickly and effectively to fluid situations, using the equipment and people they had in creative ways to overcome the deficiencies in both their equipment and doctrine.

      As for the Soviets, they were extremely active in developing the T-34 tank as a result of the lessons learned in the battles with Japan (where the older tank models revealed some very serious defects). This shows that whatever the fate of particular individuals in the purges, a key element of mobile warfare was being actively pursued with considerable vigor. Similarly, Khalkhyn Gol demonstrated some active Soviet officers (post-purge) were fully capable of understanding the role of logistics and the use of combined arms in mobile warfare (far better than their Japanese opponents!).

    16. Re:Nice timing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yes, nobody had an actual good mobile warfare doctrine at the start of WWII. Germany's was probably the best. The Soviet Union could have been right up there.

      German tanks were superior to western ones in ergonomics and communications. Some French tanks were superior in firepower and armor, but had one-man turrets and no radio, meaning it was hard to use them effectively, particularly in any sort of fluid situation.

      Certainly, after Khalkin-Gol and Finland, the Soviets worked hard on catching up, but the purges had put them way back. Had the Soviets another year to prepare, the forty tank divisions facing Germany would have had formation-level training, and would have been much more effective.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Finlandization is moral debasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are people who recommend Finlandization as a policy. They are terribly misguided. It's a form of moral debasement. It leads to secrecy and lies. It's not a valid policy. If it had continued for a few decades longer, we'd probably have joined the Soviet Union voluntarily. It was a form of slow national suicide.

    1. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    2. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have no idea why this comment was modded down since it's directly related to the incident. The pilots actually referred to Finlandization being the reason why the incident wasn't made public by the higher officials. Finlandization was an era of extreme Soviet ass licking on Finland's part and every Finn acknowledges it.

      During the era of Finlandization most anything negative that was directly related to the Soviet Union was censored.

    3. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by CptPicard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There really seems to be something going on about that comment, I don't know what it is. It's probably the "national suicide" formulation that is a negative trigger for some people who do not understand the background; but national suicide really was what the USSR about for its constituent peoples. If it wasn't forced relocation, it was branding anything "Fascist" that wasn't pro-Soviet enough.

      There were certainly positives to our ability to keep the Soviets at bay and maintain our democracy during the Cold War; President Kekkonen in his younger days was a remarkable diplomat and statesman, and being overtly uppity would have just triggered "help" from Moscow. But I can well understand the deep frustrations of those people who just wanted to call a spade a spade when it came to our "friend" to the East.

      The really bad part is that Finlandization works across generations in a culture; we're still sheep, scared of the displeasure of those we consider our superiors, and all too afraid of and eager to participate in the collective shoutings-down by people who believe they're superior because they're in the ideological in-crowd. The Stalinists won at least when it comes to that.

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    4. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      The really bad part is that Finlandization works across generations in a culture; we're still sheep, scared of the displeasure of those we consider our superiors, and all too afraid of and eager to participate in the collective shoutings-down by people who believe they're superior because they're in the ideological in-crowd. The Stalinists won at least when it comes to that.

      Really, sounds like half the internet these days.

    5. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      Your thesis is substantiated by another dramatic close encounter with a missile happened more than 3 decades ago in Italy, and to this day we don't know who killed all those people, source, and if the trail of suicides-bad luck that oppressed the witnesses is entirely casual.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    6. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Nimey · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it kept Finland independent and non-Communist, unlike most of the USSR's immediate neighbors. It was probably about the best the Finns could have done under the (shitty) circumstances.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by jhol13 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You and GP are so wrong. There is no chance Finland would have "voluntarily" joined Soviet Union. I am willing to bet at least 70% of the population would have rather went to fight in a war than join SU. Sure a lot though the best policy for Finland is to have very close political and economical ties to SU, but joining ... no way.

      Then there were no cencorship, none at all. Sure the press, and especially government owned YLE, did have a strong bias and they did suppress bad publicity, but there was no censoring done by the government. The suppressing bad was not the worst, there were huge amount of overly positive articles, TV and radio shows, etc. of the "marvellous things Soviet Unioin accomplished" - quite a few colored or total lies. For example the (Finnish) Greens of that time repeated the lie that "there are no environmental problems in SU" - later the horrible pollution was of course revealed.

    8. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      This is still going on. Finland’s foreign minister Tuomioja is strongly of the opinion that Finland should never do or say anything that could even remotely be construed as being antagonistic to Russia.

    9. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by zyzko · · Score: 1

      This is simply not true. Just by using Google translate on his home page (www.tuomioja.org) you can see that on his analysis on the situation at Ukraine he puts Russia as supplier of weapons and as part of the ongoing armed conflict. A fact which official Russia (and their supporters) still firmly deny. I can understand your ...umm...criticism with Tuomioja because of his background, but what you say is simply not true.

    10. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand how this relates to the idea that the USSR sought to destroy national identities and replace that with the new "Soviet human"...

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    11. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      On 3 September, Tuomioja went on record saying that he opposes creating NATO bases in the Baltic states since supporting it could be perceived as a hostile act towards Russia. ‘[---] It could be justified and is understandable with respect to these countries, but we don’t want our territory to be used for support bases that Russia could see as hostile.’ Source: http://yle.fi/uutiset/fm_tuomi.... So he may have assessed the situation in Ukraine correctly, but it does not mean that he's not one for appeasing the bear.

    12. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Historical claims related to the Soviet Union or Russia are often exaggerated or blown out of proportion.

      Another example of this phenomena, in addition to the one, which I mentioned in my previous post, - the Tsar Ivan the Terrible executed during his reign of half a century less people than were executed during the St. Bartholomew's Day(!) massacre. Still he is called the Terrible, but not Catherine de' Medici or the King Charles IX.

    13. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by zyzko · · Score: 1

      This is still pretty far-fetched from your original assertion of saying as his opinion that Finland should never do or say anything that could be construed as being antagonistic to Russia. If that would be the case, he would not assess the situation against what Kremlin says the situation is, would he?

      Saying that he doesn't support stronger and more permanent NATO bases in Baltic countries is a very different thing. Finland still has politicians and public figures who think that the best way would be the official line from 30-40 years ago which indeed included "pragmatic" stance towards Soviet Union but Tuomioja in his old days is now much more honest and direct than before, and Finland is highly divided when it comes to NATO so his comment is perfectly reasonable coming from person (and party) who is opposed to applying for NATO membership.

      For comparison, look at the comments from Paavo Väyrynen (also former foreign minister).

    14. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Most US prisoners are for drug crimes. We have a vigorous debate going on about legalization.

      Many (most?) Soviet prisoners were political prisoners. Criticism of that got you added to it.

      Your parallel is silly and an obvious nod towards what issues in the US you consider paramount at the moment. At least normal blame America firsters (nice cold war reference there!) tie something the US did as, normally ludicrously, heavily controlling over some other nation. You simply skip that part.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Then there were no cencorship, none at all. Sure the press, and especially government owned YLE, did have a strong bias and they did suppress bad publicity, but there was no censoring done by the government.

      So the government did not actually ban books and films that were seen as pro-Soviet? Or that just isn't viewed as censorship in Finland?

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    16. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Most US prisoners are for drug crimes.

      I heard on the radio that there is a racial issue in this problem too.

      But I do not know exact statistics about the reasons why people are in prisons. And it was not my point.

      What I wanted to say is that by pure political reasons some figures are given much more importance than the others.

      For instance, 136 people died while crossing Berlin Wall, we all know it. And I regret it, certainly. Even one was one too many.

      But hundreds of people die each year on the Mexican-US border. And nobody even know about it. And does not want to know. I regret it too. And I hope that it will change.

      But again it was not my point. I am talking about political influence on historical science.

    17. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Max_W · · Score: 1

      I do not want leave an impression that I am trying to bash the USA. Far from that. There are similar problems with border crossings everywhere. Take Mediterranean Sea, or the English Channel, etc.

      A lot of human tragedies are going on there right now. But they will not attract so much attention as the Berlin Wall crossings' tragedies.

    18. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What I was going to say. How much could they exercise their morals if they were conquered by the USSR?

      As usual it's a question of idealism vs. pragmatism

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    19. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      - the Tsar Ivan the Terrible executed during his reign of half a century less people than were executed during the St. Bartholomew's Day(!) massacre. Still he is called the Terrible, but not Catherine de' Medici or the King Charles IX.

      "Ivan the Terrible" is a translation of the Russian epithet Ivan grozny, which has less a connotation of "cruel" or "bloody" and more one of "awesome" or "formidable". It's like how English subjects referred to James I as their "dread sovereign", such labels for royalty were common regardless of his use of violence or not.

    20. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Still he was called terrible, not awesome. And he was indeed in a way terrible from today's viewpoint, but no more terrible than Charles IX.

    21. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Sure, there were censoship after the war, but the GP was talking about -80s. If public libraries did not purchase something, it is hardly censorship, is it? One library decided not to buy Donald Duck though it was widely available in shops. Buying or selling any book was not illegal, not even "Mein Kampf". (Offtopic: I hope every neo-nazi reads the book, 'cause it is bullshit).

      OK, I'll give that the classification board can be considered censorship, though it could not prohibit import or private viewing (they were always legal), only movie shows and sales (it was designed to stop violence and during one period even porn - as if that stopped anyone after first VHS). The board was considered a big joke in Finland.

      The Renny Harlin movie is probably error in the Wikipedia, -86 was no longer the time of Finlandiseirung - Kekkonen died that year. OTOH the movie should be banned worldwide, and not be shown ever again anywhere, it is so bad.
      The classification board did quite a few idiotic and objectionable decisions, for example "One, Two, Three" was banned (no TV or movie shows allowed).

    22. Re:Finlandization is moral debasement by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Still he was called terrible, not awesome.

      And "terrible" had another connotation than you are thinking of when that nomenclature was established in English. Have a look at the OED entry for "terrible".

  3. can we get the truth about (KAL 902) and KAL 007? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    can we get the truth about (KAL 902) and KAL 007?
    now as well?

  4. Defies credulity by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Much as I'm disliking the Hitlerian Russian government now, I can't believe a) anyone wouldn't have reported it (the pilot) or b) not talked about it loudly for 25+ years.

    It doesn't add up.

    1. Re:Defies credulity by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      The Finnish are not famous for making things up.

    2. Re:Defies credulity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obviously you've never met a Finn.
      Talking isn't part of their vocabulary.

      Besides, the flight crew probably didn't think that much about it anyways. Being next to Russia you see some pretty crazy things on a regular basis.

    3. Re:Defies credulity by Skarjak · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's because they're really good at it.

    4. Re:Defies credulity by Vanders · · Score: 2

      Obviously you've never met a Finn.
      Talking isn't part of their vocabulary

      This. Mika Hakkinen is the true master of it.

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    5. Re:Defies credulity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only Linus T. had been in the cockpit, there might've been some interesting commentary afterwards.

    6. Re:Defies credulity by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Much as I'm disliking the Hitlerian Russian government now

      Because what you took from the Iraq invasion was that hilariously bad government propaganda should be believed at all times?

    7. Re:Defies credulity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Swedish Joke about the Fins:

      Two Fins are sitting in a bar, drinking.
      The first one lifts his beer and says "Skoll!"
      The second one: Are we here to drink or to talk?

  5. 20 seconds away? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even for a very slow (Mach 1) missile, that's several miles flight time. For a missile flying a reasonable speed, it's ten or more miles.

    1. Re:20 seconds away? by Payden+K.+Pringle · · Score: 1

      Airplanes don't fly stationary. I assume it was flying away from the missile, so "20 seconds away" would've been calculated using the missile's speed minus the airplane's speed. Which means the missile could've been much closer.

    2. Re:20 seconds away? by Kyogreex · · Score: 2

      I assume it was flying away from the missile

      That seems like an unlikely assumption given that the crew saw the missile from the cockpit.

    3. Re:20 seconds away? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Airplanes don't fly stationary. I assume it was flying away from the missile, so "20 seconds away" would've been calculated using the missile's speed minus the airplane's speed. Which means the missile could've been much closer.

      Closer sure, but not much closer. The speed of the missile might be 4 times the speed of the passenger plane, so for example 20 km becomes 15 km. The missiles are designed to hit supersonic military aircraft, after all.

  6. Re:first explosion by Zanadou · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think you mean Whaam!.

  7. Re:Probably US Navy missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And USA would be? Don't be an idiot. It was the Russians.

  8. Re:first explosion by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    bam!

    Emeril Lagasse, don't be tossing your ESSENCE around here...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. Re:Probably US Navy missile by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Occam says, you're wrong.. Conspiracy and Russian propaganda retards notwithstanding.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  10. Re:Probably US Navy missile by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Probably a US sub-launched ICBM.

    1. There is no such thing as a "sub-launched ICBM". Subs carry SLBMs and SLCMs.
    2. Any kind of BM would follow a completely different trajectory than the one described.
    3. The "B" in ICBM/SLBM means "ballistic". That means that after the initial burn, it is guided by inertia, and would have no ability to track a moving target.

  11. Re:More proof the Republicans want to restart the. by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    Oh my. Hate much?

  12. Re:Probably US Navy missile by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Probably a US sub-launched ICBM.

    1. There is no such thing as a "sub-launched ICBM". Subs carry SLBMs and SLCMs.
    2. Any kind of BM would follow a completely different trajectory than the one described.
    3. The "B" in ICBM/SLBM means "ballistic". That means that after the initial burn, it is guided by inertia, and would have no ability to track a moving target.

    Damn pesky facts.

    Here's something I don't know the answer to: Do air-to-airs or ground-to-airs have any sort of range safety feature like rockets, or do they just automatically blow up at the end of their runs? Or both? Or neither (in which case why did it blow up?)?

  13. Re:More proof the Republicans want to restart the. by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Damn those Finnish Republicans!

  14. 20 seconds away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The original article says the missile was 20-25 kilometers away when it was blown up.
    Original link (in Finnish)
    http://www.hs.fi/sunnuntai/LentÃfjÃft+kertovat+Ohjus+oli+osua+Finnairin+koneeseen+1987++tÃfystuho+20+sekunnin+pÃfÃfssÃf/a1409895098937

  15. RTFA by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Speaking to the paper, the DC-10 plane's two co-pilots, Esko Kaukiainen and Markku Soininen, describe how a routine flight back to Helsinki from Japan in December 1987 suddenly took a dramatic and terrifying turn...”There’s no doubt it came from the Soviet Union,” Soininen said.

  16. I blame George Bush, and of course the Jews by gelfling · · Score: 1

    All hail the BBC.

    1. Re:I blame George Bush, and of course the Jews by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really, I stopped paying attention to the BBC after too many incomplete and inaccurate reports on news. I don't know why they do it, maybe it is just ineptitude, but if it is, they need to re-learn journalism.

  17. Re:And this implies... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you unaware that there are multiple versions of surface-to-air missles, and that some may have features that others do not?

  18. Re:And this implies... by mpe · · Score: 1

    Since it's most probably a russian missile, this proves that they have a self-destruct mode that can be activated before they could hit their target.
    This implies that the plane shot down by a russian missile in Ukraine was destroyed on purpose, since the missile could have exploded before hitting its target.

    The capabilities of thus unknown, but most likely sea or air launched, missile tell you nothing about those of an SA-12.
    It also gives no indication if whoever shot MH17 down knew that it was a neutral civilian airliner. Especially since it turns out to be the case that knowing what you are shooting at is one of the most difficult parts of using such a SAM system. (Even more so if all you have is the TELAR.)

  19. Re:And this implies... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This implies that the plane shot down by a russian missile in Ukraine was destroyed on purpose, since the missile could have exploded before hitting its target.

    I don't think anyone was in much doubt that it was deliberately shot down. What they thought they were shooting down is another matter.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  20. Finlandization... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Much as I'm disliking the Hitlerian Russian government now, I can't believe a) anyone wouldn't have reported it (the pilot) or b) not talked about it loudly for 25+ years.

    It doesn't add up.

    It does if you know anything about Finnish history. Pissing off the Soviets was may have been an American national sport during the cold war period but for the Finns it was not at the top of their agenda. Finland spent the cold war balancing on a razor's edge they were bound by post WWII treaties to have a military of a fixed (and rather small) size and of course to remain neutral. For this reason the Finns painstakingly split their military procurement exactly down the middle. Half the air force jets, half the army's tanks and half the navy's ships were bought in the Soviet bloc and the other half in the West and it was a very successful strategy (which is why its now being suggested as a solution to the Ukraine crisis). The Finns may have wiped the floor with the Soviet army during the Winter War but it was still not an experience the Finns cared to repeat in the nuclear era. Since the aircraft wasn't actually harmed no purpose would have been served by deliberately embarrassing the bad tempered 16 foot tall, 3000 pound grizzly bear sitting on their eastern border by advertising the ineptitude of the Soviet air defenses so the sensible strategy was just to play it down.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Finlandization... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Much as I'm disliking the Hitlerian Russian government now, I can't believe a) anyone wouldn't have reported it (the pilot) or b) not talked about it loudly for 25+ years.

      It doesn't add up.

      It does if you know anything about Finnish history. Pissing off the Soviets was may have been an American national sport during the cold war period but for the Finns it was not at the top of their agenda. Finland spent the cold war balancing on a razor's edge they were bound by post WWII treaties to have a military of a fixed (and rather small) size and of course to remain neutral. For this reason the Finns painstakingly split their military procurement exactly down the middle. Half the air force jets, half the army's tanks and half the navy's ships were bought in the Soviet bloc and the other half in the West and it was a very successful strategy (which is why its now being suggested as a solution to the Ukraine crisis). The Finns may have wiped the floor with the Soviet army during the Winter War but it was still not an experience the Finns cared to repeat in the nuclear era. Since the aircraft wasn't actually harmed no purpose would have been served by deliberately embarrassing the bad tempered 16 foot tall, 3000 pound grizzly bear sitting on their eastern border by advertising the ineptitude of the Soviet air defenses so the sensible strategy was just to play it down.

      No, that was exactly why I read TFA expecting to see that the Finnish government was the one who buried it. They weren't. Seems to...defy credulity that 2 ordinary citizens would be making a political decision like that. The government yes, 2 copilots no.

    2. Re:Finlandization... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much as I'm disliking the Hitlerian Russian government now, I can't believe a) anyone wouldn't have reported it (the pilot) or b) not talked about it loudly for 25+ years.

      It doesn't add up.

      It does if you know anything about Finnish history. Pissing off the Soviets was may have been an American national sport during the cold war period but for the Finns it was not at the top of their agenda. Finland spent the cold war balancing on a razor's edge they were bound by post WWII treaties to have a military of a fixed (and rather small) size and of course to remain neutral. For this reason the Finns painstakingly split their military procurement exactly down the middle. Half the air force jets, half the army's tanks and half the navy's ships were bought in the Soviet bloc and the other half in the West and it was a very successful strategy (which is why its now being suggested as a solution to the Ukraine crisis). The Finns may have wiped the floor with the Soviet army during the Winter War but it was still not an experience the Finns cared to repeat in the nuclear era. Since the aircraft wasn't actually harmed no purpose would have been served by deliberately embarrassing the bad tempered 16 foot tall, 3000 pound grizzly bear sitting on their eastern border by advertising the ineptitude of the Soviet air defenses so the sensible strategy was just to play it down.

      No, that was exactly why I read TFA expecting to see that the Finnish government was the one who buried it. They weren't. Seems to...defy credulity that 2 ordinary citizens would be making a political decision like that. The government yes, 2 copilots no.

      It is hard to believe that a near miss by a SAM would be given less attention by the captain than a malfunctioning coffee maker and even harder to believe that this incident was not reported. If a SAM exploded 20 seconds away from my DC-10 full of passengers whose lives I'm responsible for that would sure as shit get my attention if I was the captain and you can bet your bottom dollar I would report it to somebody. The original article simply says the captain refused to report the incident, it does not say he didn't try so it's entirely possible that he actually did try to report it and was told in no uncertain terms to shut the f*** up about it.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Finlandization... by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...

      It is hard to believe that a near miss by a SAM would be given less attention by the captain than a malfunctioning coffee maker and even harder to believe that this incident was not reported. If a SAM exploded 20 seconds away from my DC-10 full of passengers whose lives I'm responsible for that would sure as shit get my attention if I was the captain and you can bet your bottom dollar I would report it to somebody....

      It really is hard to believe, yes. For example, let's say it is the inclination of the pilot to day "we're okay" let's just forget about it. Does he know the airplane suffered no damage at all? How? When the plane goes in for maintenance are there going to the mysterious fragment holes in the tail or wings? These might endanger plane safety, and even if not the unreported incident that created them would end his career. Is he and the copilor going to bet that the plane really is unscathed?

      What about the passengers? A warhead detonating nearby would be noticed by them. What happened to their reports/complaints?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    4. Re:Finlandization... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit.
      What would have happened is the same as what happened with the Lake Inari missile, except less press. USSR would have said it was a practice, the estimate to hit would have been changed from 20 seconds to few minutes, "no real danger", and the Finnish government and Army would have completely agreed.

    5. Re:Finlandization... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      20 seconds away was ~20 km away. None of the passengers would have even noticed it. It was a near miss in that if it wasn't prematurely detonated it would have struck the aircraft, not in that it was actually near the aircraft.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  21. Re:can we get the truth about (KAL 902) and KAL 00 by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Or Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    The mystery of flight 870 (22 July 2006)
    http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
    It seems strange this story was just 'found' now... with a mention of the "Kola Peninsula or a submarine in the Barents Sea"...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Thank god it wasn't 40 years ago by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    else it might have been teenage me shooting off my home-made rockets.

    / yep, I'd be in gitmo nowdays for half the crap I did as a teen

  23. Re:Probably US Navy missile by greenbird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's something I don't know the answer to: Do air-to-airs or ground-to-airs have any sort of range safety feature like rockets, or do they just automatically blow up at the end of their runs? Or both? Or neither (in which case why did it blow up?)?

    In that era, yes. I beleive most anti-aircraft missle systems in that era were semi-active radar guided missiles which require a ground based radar to paint the target. Most likely there was a safety system where if the painting radar shuts down the missle destructs. Even air to air radar missles (e.g. Aim-7 Sparrow) required the firing aircraft to keep it's nose pointed towards the target aircraft to keep it painted. I beleive the Aim-54 Phoenix was one of the first missles with self contained terminal guidance.

    --
    Who is John Galt?
  24. Re:Probably US Navy missile by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy and Russian propaganda retards notwithstanding.

    Nor your lack of self-awareness.

  25. Re:Probably US Navy missile by hax4bux · · Score: 1

    SM1 (standard missile 1) required active guidance all the way, typically a 55B fire control RADAR or similar.

    Typical warhead was continuous rod (a lot of shrapnel). The idea being to tear holes in the target and let aerodynamics do the rest.

  26. Never fly Finnair by kbg · · Score: 1

    So know we know not to fly Finnair ever again or any Finnish airline for that matter. Not because an airplane was targetted by Russia which could happen to any airline but because they have kept this information hidden for 27 years even to this day. This means that the Finnish Transport Safety Agency is corrupt and cannot be trusted which doesn't bode well for their aviation safety.

    1. Re:Never fly Finnair by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      People are stupid and shit doesn't work.

      Welcome to life

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  27. Hummm by holiggan · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many "UFO" close encounters reported through the years might be something like this: something very rare, and almost unthinkable to the common people (a passenger jet as target practice for missiles?!), but totally explainable.

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
  28. pane was used as a target by koan · · Score: 1

    Then it's a good thing the remote detonation worked this time.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  29. Re:Probably US Navy missile by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    they learned, the US got away with it

    The U.S. got away with not launching any nukes? It was concluded the Russian satellite detection system malfunctioned.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF