Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government China The Military United States

US Spy Plane Impersonates A Malaysian Aircraft (popularmechanics.com) 158

Popular Mechanics reports: A U.S. Air Force aircraft electronically impersonated a Malaysian plane while flying over the South China Sea this week. The RC-135W Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft flew off China's Hainan island on Tuesday, coming within 55 miles of the Chinese mainland.

The caper was outed on Twitter by a think tank operated by the Chinese government, which provided enough details for independent verification. The plane's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Mode-S number, a 24-bit identifier assigned to all aircraft and broadcast by onboard transponder, was AE01CE. The Mode S system provides big-picture situational awareness and improves aviation safety. At some point, the plane's Mode-S number suddenly changed, from AE01CE to 750548. That's the ICAO number for an unknown Malaysian aircraft...

The RC-135W Rivet Joint is a converted Boeing 707 jetliner designed to collect electronic intelligence for later analysis... It's not clear why the RC-135W flew where it did. The flight probably coincided with Chinese military exercises, likely air or naval, or even a missile test. It's also worth pointing out that China's nuclear ballistic missile submarine force is based at Yulin on Hainan Island.

It's also not clear why the RC-135W engaged in the deception. Steffan Watkins, a Canadian open source intelligence researcher, tells Popular Mechanics. "If the reconnaissance is happening outside sovereign airspace, there is no pressing need to engage in that sort of deception. It's perfectly legal, and done in plain sight off the coast of Russia, Syria, and Crimea all the time — literally, every day there are RC-135s off the coast of Russia, with their transponders on, and broadcasting exactly who they are. I can't explain the difference with China. Why the difference in emissions posture and obfuscation....?"

The announcement is likely a warning to the Pentagon that the Chinese military sees through the deception, and that it's watching the watchers.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Spy Plane Impersonates A Malaysian Aircraft

Comments Filter:
  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @12:41PM (#60522004) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure the Malaysian government will be having an urgent word with the US about this. It endangers their aircraft.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Oh how naive you are, child.
    • Honestly, I don't think this is really 'news' or even 'new'. Although it's never occurred to me before just now, I'm fairly certain that this particular 'hide in plain sight' mode of stealth airborne reconnaisance has been going on for quite some time now, decades and decades in fact, from all countries with the technical chops to pull it off, and the only reason we're hearing about it now from China is their collective panties are all in a bunch over all the sanctions, scrutiny, and everything else they do
    • by shanen ( 462549 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @01:08PM (#60522066) Homepage Journal

      Were you perhaps thinking about KAL 007 in 1983? I recall reading a book that discussed confusion between various planes contributing to that disaster. I have long wondered if Reagan knew about that escapade before it happened, and now it seems to me that Trump would be quite happy to approve another.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Still, it's a rather disappointing FP, but there's always the excuse of trying to beat the trolls.

    • It endangers their aircraft.

      Twice, I believe. One is still missing

    • Wait, you're telling me a number that is broadcast with ABSOLUTELY no trust, no cryptographic signature or anything, was broadcasting a fake ID? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

      (Some day we'll have strong encryption for this sort of thing. Come on guys. It's 2020!)
    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      We have seen civilian aircraft shot down accidentally? Is this because the US engages in this impersonation on a regular basis thus putting civilians at risk? It is maybe a international human rights crime.
      • Is this because the US engages in this impersonation on a regular basis thus putting civilians at risk?

        That's like blaming shooting victims for not having worn body armor.

        It is maybe a international human rights crime.

        Correct, if you shoot down any of the planes involved, it is exactly the same serious international crime. The shooter is 100% at fault in 100% of the cases, because none of these planes are legitimate military targets when not in a hot war with one of the other countries involved. And in a hot war, the military craft might not have civilian transponders turned on anyway, so it is not a useful military idea to sit around looking at a radar

        • That's like blaming shooting victims for not having worn body armor.

          He is not blaming Malaysian Airlines, but American impersonators, you know (and you obviously know).

          The shooter is 100% at fault in 100% of the cases

          Completely false. A military target impersonating a civilian target is a serious international crime.

          • No, dumb ass, it isn't a target.

            The crime would be to shoot at it. End of story about the shooting part. Shooting down planes in international airspace is illegal. That's the whole story about shooting down planes.

      • Nah, civilian aircraft have been shot down due to the dumb fuckery of the missile crew. US forces shot down an Iranian airliner because they thought a slow plane headed away from them was a fast plane coming at them. Russian irregulars shot down an airliner because they thought it was a Ukrainian military aircraft because they're some dudes that Russia entrusted with an anti-aircraft missile system. Iran shot down its own airliner because their ground crew thought an airplane leaving its own airport was an

    • It endangers their aircraft.

      Even retroactively, it seems. Two of them already came down under very suspicious circumstances!

  • by Growlley ( 6732614 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @12:42PM (#60522008)
    by mistake.
    • No, they do not "get shot down". They simply "disappear".

      • by shanen ( 462549 )

        Hmm... You must be thinking about Flight 370 in 2014? Of course the response is Flight 17, also in 2014 and also Malaysian Airlines. Or maybe the reference should be Flight 752 earlier this year. That was a Ukraine International flight, but it seems so long ago... MH370 feels like yesterday in comparison.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • Is it the wrong time of the year to mention flight 93?

          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            Smells like a troll. Or are you somehow suggesting that the IFF was conceivably relevant in that case? (I actually can conceive of relevance, but your failure to mention it is part of the smell. Also the lack of a link.)

        • by jrumney ( 197329 )

          Since you are throwing Iranian examples in there, there is also Iranian air Flight 655

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Also there was KA007 and I think a few examples over war torn areas in Africa.

          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            I mentioned KAL 007 in an earlier reply. Pretty sure that was my first on the topic. Back in 1991 I read a conspiracy book on that one, but I can't remember if the book actually claimed that there was IFF spoofing or just confusion with the nearby surveillance plane. (Interesting that the book does not appear to exist in any of the local public libraries, eh? There seem to be three copies in university libraries.)

            Not sure if I ever heard of Flight 655 or just forgot about it. Looking at the link, the story

    • China is not any more immune to the potential ravages of the Global News Cycle than any other country of the world, despite their best efforts to quash anyone anywhere outside their borders talking about them, and it goes without saying that civilian airliners getting shot down is not something that escapes notice; someone would finger China if they did it, and the rest of the world would crucify them for it. Even China can't afford the horrifyingly bad optics that would have, the sanctions from the U.N. th
    • by tiqui ( 1024021 )

      Sorry, but this is just cover for truly bad actors, and it does not stand up to even basic logical scrutiny.

      Let's assume an intel plane pretends to be an airliner (and the code here was not even an airliner but rather an uncategorized plane) but I presume you're running back to the KAL007 incident, so I'll give you all the rope you need.

      1. If the plane is in international airspace and not engaged in live-fire combat itself, then it's not legal nor legit to shoot it down - only a "bad actor" would do that no

      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        If an aircraft enters airspace it has no reason to be in, especially one that appears to be an airliner then they have to also consider the possibility that it's been hijacked.
        Normal airliners fly along a scheduled flight path which has been agreed with all those countries along the route. An airliner not keeping to its scheduled route is already highly suspicious.
        They may decide that shooting down a rogue airliner over an unpopulated area is better than letting it crash into a densely populated city.

      • by jrumney ( 197329 )

        Not all is provided courtesy of the USAF. Thanks to the US actions in making GPS publicly available, Glonass, Galileo, Beidou and smaller constellations from India and Japan are also now available as a backup in case the US ever decides to flip the switch to restrict GPS for military use.

        • that this basic bit of article-related history is WHY one American president ordered his military to open-up a then-leading-edge military tech (and one which had cost a pile of money to develop and deploy, and public availability of which would reduce the military advantage it had provided) to be freely available to the world's civilians as a matter of safety. The fact that other nations have followed suit with systems they put up (even some of them out of lack of trust in the US system) is fantastic. That
  • Nice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pele ( 151312 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @12:47PM (#60522016) Homepage

    this is very dangerous for real civilian aircraft because who's to say the guy manning the radar might not decide it's actually an enemy aircraft pretending to be hauling people to their holiday destination and shoot off a few missiles for the hell of it? Very nasty, very very nasty. I thought there were interbational treatis that forbid this kind of behaviour? Think of uniform insignia. If you have your own you are protected under Geneva convention. If you engage in this kind of trickery then god help you.

    • by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
      How funny?

      The Chinese watched it happened and reported it. This did not go unnoticed or unreported.
      Now everyone knows, what we've known in the aviation industry for decades, that aircraft can pose as different aircraft.
      AND now we know that CCP knows too (which may be more important).

      A tangent: do you really think the CCP cares whether an aircraft is "real" or an "actor"?
      Do you think any government with these levels of technology care?
      What difference does it make any way?
    • by khchung ( 462899 )

      this is very dangerous for real civilian aircraft because who's to say the guy manning the radar might not decide it's actually an enemy aircraft pretending to be hauling people to their holiday destination and shoot off a few missiles for the hell of it? Very nasty, very very nasty. I thought there were interbational treatis that forbid this kind of behaviour? Think of uniform insignia. If you have your own you are protected under Geneva convention. If you engage in this kind of trickery then god help you.

      The US had already tried pretending to be health workers giving vaccine to poor people, but actually collecting their DNA to find Bin Laden. It predictably resulted in a number of deaths of actual health workers giving real aid elsewhere, and seriously hampered the effort to eradicate preventable diseases, resulting in more deaths/disabilities.

      Why do you think the US military cares about endangering civilians?

  • There is extremely high value in testing ECM such as this; there may come a time when actual incursion into hostile territory using chinese tech is necessary.

  • Modified 707? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by I'mjusthere ( 6916492 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @12:52PM (#60522034)
    A 707? From 1962?

    Our bomber fleet is from the 1950s. Spy planes from the 1960s. And the largest military budget in World that is more than the next 10 countries combined. [pgpf.org]

    I do not know, I guess if I were President who prides himself on being a super smart genius business guy, I would be asking some serious questions about where the money is being spent.

    It looks to me that we are not spending that $732 billion very well. In the meantime, I have to dodge potholes to work everyday.

    • Re:Modified 707? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by careysub ( 976506 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @01:08PM (#60522064)

      A 707? From 1962?

      Our bomber fleet is from the 1950s. Spy planes from the 1960s. And the largest military budget in World that is more than the next 10 countries combined. [pgpf.org]

      I do not know, I guess if I were President who prides himself on being a super smart genius business guy, I would be asking some serious questions about where the money is being spent.

      Not replacing stuff that does not need replacement is the very essence of intelligent budgeting. They should replace airframes that are perfectly serviceable for their role just to be "new"? Why?

      • A 707? From 1962?

        Our bomber fleet is from the 1950s. Spy planes from the 1960s. And the largest military budget in World that is more than the next 10 countries combined. [pgpf.org]

        I do not know, I guess if I were President who prides himself on being a super smart genius business guy, I would be asking some serious questions about where the money is being spent.

        Not replacing stuff that does not need replacement is the very essence of intelligent budgeting. They should replace airframes that are perfectly serviceable for their role just to be "new"? Why?

        So, we are using old shit but still spending $732 billion. If the DOD were truly operating with that mindset, I would expect a MUCH smaller budget.

        Again, it needs to be asked where is the money going?

        I see US military spending as being penny wise - pound foolish.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
          Like other concerns, Labor costs/salary, medical insurance, health care, HR, onsite-contracted college & university classes/studies, training infrastructure, related expenses: housing, furniture, lines, clothes/uniforms, PX stores, civilian employees, family members, telecommunications, mail services, supply and logistic service. etc., etc.

          The costs of employing and supporting a single soldier is very high (but it does tend toward a full employment economy).
          • Re:Modified 707? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by I'mjusthere ( 6916492 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @03:25PM (#60522374)

            Like other concerns, Labor costs/salary, medical insurance, health care, HR, onsite-contracted college & university classes/studies, training infrastructure, related expenses: housing, furniture, lines, clothes/uniforms, PX stores, civilian employees, family members, telecommunications, mail services, supply and logistic service. etc., etc. The costs of employing and supporting a single soldier is very high (but it does tend toward a full employment economy).

            An economy based on military spending will lead to its own destruction. When Great Britain stopped being the World power and started spending all that Military Projection money domestically (Like the NHS), the standard of living for the average UK bloke went UP.

            Protecting our continent is one thing. Waging war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with me or our citizens is a waste. Oil and other fossil fuels are becoming a relic and less of a factor in our economy's well being everyday. 9/11 happened because of our Oil geopolitics. I never benefited off of it but I sure as Hell paid the price - but others have enriched themselves. My neighbors kid comes back in a coffin with a flag over it while assholes get rich. And for what?

            Oh, that whole deal that Jared Kushner is getting credit for? That is ALL bullshit. It is ALL about Trumps Quid Pro Quo. Yeah, he made a deal alright! But it was for him.

            • Things might affect you more than you think at the moment. I kind of agree with you on the middle east, but not on China. I don't know about you, but I don't look forward to living in a world order which has become dominated by the CCP, which is the direction we're headed.

        • ...Again, it needs to be asked where is the money going?

          I see US military spending as being penny wise - pound foolish.

          I see you've just joined us here in modern America. Welcome. Perhaps I could interest you in a history refresher regarding the Military Industrial Complex? I understand how you may have not have known. After all, every American only received a televised warning from a sitting President over half a fucking century ago.

          How the hell could we have possibly seen that coming...

    • Hide in plain sight

      If you're walking down any given city street, who do you notice more?
      o The guy in the $1000 business suit, nice shoes, good haircut, etc?
      o The homeless guy in the raggedy mismatched thriftstore clothes, sitting in a doorway, with a 'please help' sign and a coffee can with some spare change in it?
      They know what they're doing.

      • Hide in plain sight

        If you're walking down any given city street, who do you notice more? o The guy in the $1000 business suit, nice shoes, good haircut, etc? o The homeless guy in the raggedy mismatched thriftstore clothes, sitting in a doorway, with a 'please help' sign and a coffee can with some spare change in it? They know what they're doing.

        Soooo, we should fly DC-3s from the 1930s that has Will Spy for Food. painted in big white letters on its side?

      • The homeless guy of course.
        I hear they are super common in the US of awesomness.

    • The C-135 is a completely different aircraft from the 707 the most popular variant is the KC-135 which is a tanker aircraft. The fuselage and empennage are completely different and the wing structure is completely different even though the outer mould line is very similar.

      These aircraft are treated like the remaining B-52s, continuously maintained and updated. A*lot* of money are poured into them continuously to keep their sensors and electronics at the highest performance levels.

    • A 707? From 1962?

      Is that what was stated in TFA? Boeing produced those from the mid 1950's until very late in the 1970's. Since they were not produced initially as a drone, they probably repurposed them after they were replaced. It's a large-ish air frame compared to most drones. Perhaps is was a converted E-3 Sentry AWACS. They were built until 1992. It seems to me that with all of the equipment already on these, adding a drone control system would be cheaper than building a new fleet.

      Our bomber fleet is from the 1950s.

      The B-52's started rolling off the lin

    • "The Dash 80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and the military KC-135 tanker. Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other. One great difference was in the width and length of the fuselage." from https://www.boeing.com/history... [boeing.com]

      As to the vintage, it is not unusual for the basic design to span a decade from design to production, and then multiple decades in production, and then even longer as massive air frame replacem

    • by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
      The USA Congress approves USA Military procurement of new systems. The Congress doesn't like to purchase the "Next Big Thing" but will appropriate repairs, updates, retrofits, etc., etc.

      This is SOP in the USA Government and especially in the USA Military. It's been this way for over a century. Why the hell you think the military ended up with the M14 and other crappy "things" (MHO as well as others,)

      Question: Have you heard of the B1, B2, and other modern bomber aircraft deployed throughout the worl
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      What, you expect to get good value from "defense" spendings? The whole purpose of those is to make some people insanely rich...

    • by doug141 ( 863552 )

      A 707? From 1962?

      Our bomber fleet is from the 1950s. Spy planes from the 1960s. And the largest military budget in World that is more than the next 10 countries combined. [pgpf.org]

      I do not know, I guess if I were President who prides himself on being a super smart genius business guy, I would be asking some serious questions about where the money is being spent.

      It looks to me that we are not spending that $732 billion very well. In the meantime, I have to dodge potholes to work everyday.

      But our spy satellites are from 2030.

    • You're going to love this, the Royal Air Force switched over to the 707 from the Nimrod R1 which was developed after the 707 and deemed "too dangerous" to continue flying.

      • That's a good point too, all the above conversation is about money, but proven tech also reduces danger. Generally several people die in the course of developing each new airframe. You still do it, but not when you don't need to.
    • I think you are over reacting somewhat.

      Yes, these aircraft are based on the 707 design, and yes the original aircraft probably rolled off the production line more than 50 years ago, but in reality when they remanufacture them to fleet standard they literally take the entire aircraft back to an empty shell, recertify the fuselage and wings, and then install all new wiring, piping, electronics, equipment etc.

      The physical fuselages themselves may date from the 1960s, but in all other ways these are no differen

    • A lot of money is spent on "replacements" for these planes. These replacements tend to turn into enormous boondoggles that end up costing a lot of money, assuming they ever even fly. Meanwhile planes like these are cheap to operate in comparison and they work, so they tend to stay in service, often outlasting their replacements.

      And as you point out, it's not just an old design. The last RC-135 was built in 1963, so the air frame is at least 57 years old. And my understanding is that Air Force plans on k

  • I wonder if the airspace in not considered international by China. The Chinese navy has captured drone boats in international waters. Perhaps they wouldn't have an issue downing a drone.

    Regardless, doing this was a bad idea. I don't know what international law states with regards to perfidy when it comes to a military aircraft during peacetime. It may or may not violate international law. I also don't know if the USAF had any kind of agreement with Malaysia. If so, it was a bad idea all around.

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      Now you've reminded me of the Hainan Island incident in 2001. I'm beginning to wonder if there is some kind of pattern here. I suppose the lesson we're supposed to learn is to never underestimate the short attention span of the American public?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      We return you to your irregularly scheduled surreality TV program. Tomorrow's episode is entitled "The Last Hurrah Justice".

    • Yes, remember the Chinese fighter that collided with a US spy plane in international airspace over the South China Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . China considers that airspace theirs.

      But beyond that, I wonder if the false ID was to see if different spectra are used when a known US surveillance plane is is range.

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )

      The only excuse would be if they were performing reconnaissance on behalf of Malaysia at their request, so the aircraft was effectively operating as a Malaysian mission. Anything else is a diplomatic incident that causes the US to be viewed poorly by its enemies and allies alike.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        a diplomatic incident that causes the US to be viewed poorly by its enemies and allies alike.

        Why?

        Who the fuck at any senior level in a diplomatic service or Government in any country on the planet is going to do anything other than shrug at this?

        • by jrumney ( 197329 )

          They're faking the identity of an ally while doing things that are going to piss off their neighbor. That's not something to just shrug at.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            They may have had permission from their ally. They were above international waters and thus of no concern to their ally's neighbours. The world at large thinks the ally's neighbour is a (genocidal) bully trying to steal territorial waters from their neighbours.

            I'm still not seeing the cause for international opprobrium here.

  • May just be one of the airmen on the reconnaissance plane bored out their minds fiddling with the transponder signal too stupid to realize the he's just created an international incident that compromised safety for all civilian planes in the area.
  • Why the difference in emissions posture and obfuscation....?

    Perhaps this is the first time that the deception was so obvious? How many other flights, perhaps into national airspace, went unobserved as being faked identities?

    It would be poor intelligence analysis indeed to assume that the first report is the first time this has happened.

  • "The caper was outed on Twitter by a think tank operated by the Chinese government"
    Something does not seem right, The word caper sounds so unbias and this does involve the Chinese.
  • It's 2020. Aren't plane ID signals cryptographically signed?
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Maybe in 100 years or so. And remember the CA system is deeply compromised.

    • I don't believe so. And since the transponder code doesn't change, it would be vulnerable to replay attacks unless there is also a time/sequence component.
  • You know, where China mistakes a civilian airplane (because they have seen this deception too often) for one of these and shoots it down? I would not put that at all past these people...

    • yep, The US has no qualms about shooting down a civilian plane when it thinks it is military (and then rewarding those that did it) so this is a no brainer that china would also do the same.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        yep, The US has no qualms about shooting down a civilian plane when it thinks it is military (and then rewarding those that did it) so this is a no brainer that china would also do the same.

        I meant that the US side has no qualms about creating this type of incident if they think they can get away with it. There is no moral authority on either side. Neither the US nor China are shining paragons of anything.

        • completely agree, all sides of this are complete moral vacuums that would trade civilian lives for embarrassing the other side in a heart beat.
  • The cynic in me suggests this is a variation of the barium meal test.

  • No different than the Gulf of Mexico, Black Sea or Persian Gulf. The US has a RIGHT to fly in that air space, as do ALL other nations.

    That said, unless the Recce has a life-safety reason it should be using proper transponder codes.

  • ...to reduce the chance of this dangerous deception continuing.

  • by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @05:56PM (#60522676)

    What the public sees in these incidents is often not at all what's going on. Often, particularly with cheap amateurish-sounding stuff like this, what's happening is not what you might think.

    The Chinese have been asserting ownership of the South China Sea and the rest of the planet considers that to be international waters. The Chinese keep asserting stuff and the non-China powers are naturally both concerned about the actions, and curious about the related intentions and nature of commitment to the globally-rejected claims. The USAF knows full-well that real-time aircraft tracking is available (they pioneered it), even to its availability to the general public, and they're also aware of how easy it is to notice something like this. It's likely this was a simple "let's toss this at them and watch to see if they notice, how long it takes them to notice, and how they react". By reacting as they did, the Chinese (possibly inadvertently) closed a feedback loop. Of course, the Chinese may have actually planned their reaction to be deceptive... it's a Princess Bride style battle of wits and intel folks in both the US and China have full time jobs thinking and re-thinking this stuff.

    This current incident is actually far less reckless than China's policy of "let's claim we own an ocean, then start building islands there and militarize them, and then threaten anybody who claims that the ocean is still free.

  • by McFortner ( 881162 ) on Saturday September 19, 2020 @06:08PM (#60522700)
    If you read the article, you find out that the RC-135 flew through the South China Sea this way. You remember how China is claiming the entire sea because of artificial islands they created in it, while international law tells them to pound sand. Seems like it is an attempt to prevent a shooting war while getting necessary reconnaissance data.

    And the whole "This will result in China shooting down civilian airliners" argument? You mean like how the Soviet Union shot down KAL 007 in 1983? An airliner the pilots had close VISUAL contact with and could tell it was a 747 and not a 707, but the pilots were ordered to shoot it down anyway? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007) Or how about KAL 902, also visually identified as a civilian airliner, getting shot down by the Soviets in 1978? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902) These governments don't need excuses to shoot down any plane they think is in their airspace, regardless of what nationality or type they are squawking. If China wants to shoot down an airliner, they are going to do it no matter what.
  • Despite the incorrect transponder the plane in question was painted as a us air force plane and its crew was wearing air force uniforms. That makes it a reconnaissance plane. To be a spy plane it would be in commercial airliner paint job crewed by people in hawaiian shirts pretending to be on vacation.

  • The US did this to see if they’d be detected doing it. China obliged and told the US.

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...