In 1981, Ronald Reagan, a former actor, governor and senator, took over the presidency of the United States. From his very first steps as head of state, he made it clear to his compatriots and the world that he was going to arrange something similar to the second Cuban missile crisis.
However, for all the Hollywood charisma and aggressive rhetoric of the fortieth master of the White House, it was difficult to call an independent political figure. He was only implementing the plans of the American military-industrial complex, of which he was. Those who brought the former actor to power sought to launch an arms race on an unprecedented scale - in space, first of all.
A sly plan
As part of the "Crusade Against Communism" proclaimed by Reagan, the White House began to implement large-scale military and financial assistance to all partisan, gangster and other formations that fought against socialist and Soviet-oriented regimes. There is no need to look far for examples: it is enough to recall the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahideen, who are responsible for the blood of thousands of innocent civilians, including children.
However, the key goal of the American administration was the deployment of the latest Pershing-2 medium-range ballistic missiles and ground-based cruise missiles in Western Europe: Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Belgium.
This gave the White House the opportunity to conduct a tougher dialogue with the Kremlin, because the Pershing took only 8-10 minutes to reach the European part of the USSR, which retaliated against NATO countries, if not leaving the United States aside from the nuclear conflict, then giving they gain in time.
But it was then that a misfortune arose: the public opinion of Western countries did not want to be a bargaining chip in the crazy game with the fire of American strategists and came out categorically against the appearance of "Pershing" on their territory.
Reagan and his team needed to somehow reverse such a negative attitude of the population of the allied states to the plans of the United States and, most importantly, to convince the Europeans not only of the admissibility, but also of the extreme necessity for their own safety to deploy these missiles with them.
It seemed possible to do this through provocation, the result of which would be the creation of an unprecedented negative image of the Soviet Union on the world stage. And a pretext was found - how effective in its consequences, so monstrous in its execution …
A bit of background: since the early 1980s, American military aircraft have regularly violated Soviet airspace in the Kamchatka and Sakhalin regions, flying 20-30 kilometers into Soviet territory, where the Pacific Fleet's submarine bases with nuclear missiles on board were located.
In the immediate vicinity of Kamchatka, electronic reconnaissance aircraft RS-135 were constantly flying. At the Soviet borders, military exercises were periodically held with the participation of aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy, in particular in the Aleutian Islands, during which American aircraft invaded the airspace of the Soviet Union and conducted simulated bombing on our territory.
In this situation, an operation was developed, with the help of which it was planned to kill two birds with one stone: to open the Far Eastern air defense system of the USSR, and also to create a negative and inhuman image of the Soviet Union in the world. Ultimately, this would allow the US military-industrial complex to obtain additional appropriations for military spending, and the White House to convince the West of the need to deploy Pershing in Europe, because anything can be expected from the Russians.
The plan was devised in a truly diabolical way. To implement it, the choice fell on the Boeing-747 civil airliner of the South Korean airline Korean AirLines (flight KAL007), which carried 246 passengers and … Here we have to name the number of crew members, but more on that below.
So, on August 31, 1983, Boeing left New York and headed for Anchorage, from where, after refueling, it was supposed to take off in the direction of Seoul. However, KAL007 went on a changed course, following into the interior of the USSR, and that part of it, over which foreign aircraft were forbidden to fly.
Before us is the error of the pilot and the navigation equipment? The Americans and the entire "free world" still insist on this version. But they insist without really convincing arguments. And they could not be, because on board the Boeing there was the most advanced navigation equipment at that time, which allowed an error in deviation from the course of no more than 200 meters and consisted of three inertial navigation systems (INS).
They were supposed to fly the plane along a predetermined route. In order to avoid a system failure, all three computers worked autonomously, receiving information independently of each other. So what, all three computers crashed? Unlikely.
Pilot error? Oh, this is even more excluded than a malfunction of the navigation system. In general, the crew of the South Korean plane is a separate issue.
The ill-fated Boeing was commanded by Jong Ben-In, the best pilot of the KAL airline and once the personal pilot of the South Korean dictator. He has 10 627 hours of flight time under his belt, of which 6618 hours on the Boeing 747. Jung Ben-In flew on the Pacific Highway for over five years and received an Accident-Free Award a year before the events described. The co-pilot was Sag Dan Van, an Air Force lieutenant colonel and also a very experienced pilot.
And both of these pilots were mistaken, confusing the water surface of the Pacific Ocean with the land of Kamchatka? Note that until its death, the crew did not lose contact with ground tracking stations located along the route. In this whole situation, it is not that difficult - it is simply impossible to imagine that such experienced pilots did not deign to check the course along which the aircraft was piloted by the autopilot.
Now about the size of the crew: there are 18 people on the staff, but in the tragic story we are considering, there were more pilots on board the Boeing - 23 people. Was it an accident too?
And here's one more detail: for all his experience and excellent knowledge of the track, Jung Byung In did not want to go on a flight that was his last. Let us turn to the testimony of the widow of the Boeing commander: “My husband did not hide his fear of this flight and said bluntly that he really didn’t want to fly - it was very dangerous”.
There is no point in commenting on such a confession and speculating about the reasons for the fear, which declared, of course, a brave military pilot, just as it is ridiculous to dispute the reconnaissance tasks, in which Jung Ben In has deviated from the course and doomed his own life, the lives of colleagues and passengers to death.
Continuous accidents
Now for some details of the flight. When flight KAL007 departed from Anchorage, not far from the airspace of the USSR, an RS-135 reconnaissance aircraft was already cruising in the Kamchatka region - outwardly similar to the Boeing. When a South Korean plane approached the Soviet border, an American reconnaissance officer began to approach him and at some point on our radar both planes merged into one point.
It is not surprising that the Soviet border guards had a reasonable assumption that the RS-135 went on the Boeing's course, exactly flying over the secret military facilities of the USSR.
MiG-23 fighters were taken into the air. Why didn't they identify the South Korean plane as a civilian? The answer is simple: on the tail of the Boeing there should have been an illumination of the plane's license plate, but, alas, it was absent. Also an accident?..
In this regard, another question arises: and the American air traffic controllers - did they not notice the deviation of the South Korean plane from the course? They noticed, because for five hours they were tracking KAL007 on their radars, realizing that the plane would inevitably find itself over the closed territory of the USSR. But the Americans were silent. Why? The question is more than rhetorical.
Having passed Kamchatka, the Boeing left the airspace of the USSR, continuing its flight over the Sea of Okhotsk, and our fighters returned to the base. It seemed that the unpleasant incident was over. But alas, this turned out not to be so: four hours after takeoff, the plane again deviated from the course and went over the territory of Sakhalin. And here another "accidental coincidence" occurred: the course taken by Boeing coincided with the turns of the American Ferret-D electronic reconnaissance satellite.
Over Sakhalin, the deviation from the route was already 500 kilometers. Above, we have argued that the error of an experienced and perhaps the best South Korean pilot, as well as the reliability of ultra-modern navigation equipment at that time, virtually excluded deviation from the course, especially at such a distance.
It could have been done only deliberately and designed so as to coincide with the passage of an American reconnaissance satellite over Sakhalin.
Perfect plan, isn't it? Probably, at the time of Mikhail Gorbachev or Boris Yeltsin, he would have been crowned with success, but then the head of the Soviet Union was Yu. V. Andropov - a strong-willed man, tough and far from the paradigms of "new thinking". He saw the United States as an unconditional enemy with whom it was necessary to conduct a dialogue, but it was impossible to demonstrate weakness, especially in the issue of the security of the USSR's borders.
The answer is adequate
Against this background, the reaction of Soviet border guards to such a blatant invasion of the country's airspace by a foreign aircraft is not surprising. It turned out to be completely adequate and the only possible one under those conditions.
To intercept the intruder, a Su-15 was raised, led by Lieutenant Colonel Gennady Osipovich. While in sight of the South Korean aircraft, the Soviet pilot made several warning volleys from the air cannon - there was no reaction. There is an opinion that Jung Byung In did not see the shots - Su was not armed with tracer bullets. Why? According to the order of the Minister of Defense in order not to unmask the plane. Actually, the Americans say so: they say, the pilots did not see the shots.
But this could not be, because, according to the commander of the 40th Fighter Aviation Division in the Far East in 1983, “the exhaust of the flame from the four barrels is always perfectly visible, even during the day. The highest rate of fire - five thousand rounds per minute. The flame was large, as if the afterburner was turned on, it was simply impossible not to notice the flashes. Again, no reaction.
But there was a reaction: after the shots fired by Osipovich, the South Korean plane reduced its speed to 400 kilometers per hour, its further fall would lead to the fighter's stalling into a tailspin. Military pilot Jung Byung In could not have been unaware of this.
In addition, in a few minutes KAL007 was supposed to leave the airspace of the USSR. In these conditions, the commander of the fighter air division gave the order to destroy the intruder. Osipovich fired two R-98 missiles at the plane.
Consequently, it was the missiles from the Soviet interceptor that led to the death of the huge airliner. Our pilot does not think so - these two missiles could not have destroyed such a powerful aircraft. Let us remind you that in 1978 a similar incident occurred with another South Korean Boeing that “accidentally got lost” and found itself in the airspace of the USSR. Then two Su-15s damaged, but did not shoot down the plane - the pilot (also a military man) managed to land it in the Karelian taiga.
The missile launched by Osipovich hit the keel part of the Boeing, which began to descend at an unbeatable speed, while its sharp decline began from 5000 meters. And it was caused, quite possibly, by the hit of an American missile launched from the ground. Such a version exists and it has a foundation.
Why did the Americans need to finish off the wounded plane? The answer is simple: if the crew had managed to land the Boeing, then its true mission would have been opened and made public, which for Reagan would have been tantamount to political death.
There is another version
So, the intruder plane was shot down, but is it possible with a 100% guarantee that it was the South Korean Boeing that knocked out Osipovich. No. Arguments? There are plenty of them, let's dwell only on a few.
Even the worst plane crashes in the sky leave behind the corpses of people. Just one example from a very recent past: On June 1, 2009, an AirFrance A330-300, en route to Charles de Gaulle Airport from Rio de Jainero, crashed over the Atlantic Ocean, falling from a height of 11,600 meters. 228 people died. We managed to lift 127 bodies.
The Soviet sailors who arrived at the site of the alleged crash of the South Korean plane found a pile of debris at the bottom (about their identification below) and … a bunch of passports - a strange find, isn't it? Not a single corpse of more than two hundred people was ever found. Could this be called a Boeing riddle? It is unlikely, because the solution is simple: there were no passengers on board the plane shot down by Osipovich.
Prior to that, when describing the Boeing flight in general terms, we followed the version according to which a South Korean aircraft entered Soviet airspace for reconnaissance purposes. This is indeed the case. But was there only one plane that crossed the air borders of the Soviet Union on that ill-fated night?
There is an assumption that an RS-135 reconnaissance aircraft was also flying over Sakhalin. It was Osipovich who shot him down. Arguments? The most significant of them were set forth by the French researcher Michel Brune, who devoted more than one decade to the study of the events we are describing.
Brune draws attention to the discovery among the wreckage of two liferafts not foreseen on the Boeing. Further: pieces of the fuselage found at the crash site of the plane shot down by Osipovich were painted in white, blue and gold (the colors of the American Navy) and a pylon for underwing weapons. The well-known journalist and writer M. Kalashnikov cites these data with reference to Brune, in particular, noting: “Michel Brune, having analyzed the data of the records of Japanese radars, caught the Americans in forgeries. Calculations indicated that the South Korean flight, according to the American maps of the incident, flew faster than these Boeing 747s usually fly.
It is Brune who not only insists on the destruction of the RS-135 by Osipovich, but also claims that there were several foreign aircraft. Let's take a look at some of his arguments. On the morning of September 1, Washington and Tokyo announced the destruction of a South Korean plane. However, both sides named different times of the tragedy. The Japanese claimed that the plane was shot down at 3:29, the Americans at 3:38. According to representatives of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the liner pursued a MiG-23 fighter, while the Pentagon called it the Su-15.
Tokyo claims that the damaged plane was in contact with the Japanese air traffic controllers for about 40 minutes after being hit by missiles.
Having sorted out all this confusion and thoroughly studied the information available to him, Brune came to the conclusion: a real air battle took place in the skies over Sakhalin, one might say - a mini-third world war, the victim of which was the South Korean Boeing, but shot down not by Osipovich, but Americans.
However, our task does not include a detailed analysis of the details related to the incident: enough has been written on this topic for the thinking reader. We would like to say something else.
There is no doubt: if Osipovich had not shot down the plane that invaded our airspace, the provocations would have continued and, perhaps, were more insolent, and the Americans would have engaged in dialogue with us exclusively from a position of strength - as they always talk with the weak. This was clearly demonstrated by the relationship between Russia and the United States in the first half of the 90s.
The decisive actions of the Soviet border guards in the history we have examined forced Washington to refrain from such unceremonious actions on the borders of the USSR in the future.
Unfortunately, in 1983, the White House managed to win a round of ideological struggle, convincing the world that the Russians had shot down a passenger plane. It was after this tragedy that Western countries, including their public, agreed to deploy Pershing-2 missiles on their territory.
Reagan bluntly stated that the destruction of the Boeing gave rise to congressional approval of the rearmament program. The Kremlin did not start a new round of the arms race, but it was ready to respond quite adequately both to the SDI program and to the deployment of Pershing-2 missiles in Western Europe.
However, with Andropov's death, the situation changed. The new leadership of the USSR had neither the will nor the desire to defend the national interests of the country, we emphasize - not ideological, but national. But that is another story.
In conclusion, we note that the Americans, who did not spare epithets to denounce the inhuman "essence of the Russians," five years after the events we described, committed a real crime: they shot down an Iranian civilian airbus A-300 with a missile launched from the cruiser Vincennes in the Persian Gulf. Killed 298 passengers and crew members, including 66 children.
Is it regret from the White House administration? It was expressed in the awarding of the captain of the cruiser Rogers with the Order of the Legion of Merit. Apologies? Then US Vice President George W. Bush said: “I will never apologize for the United States of America. It doesn't matter what the facts were. Comments are superfluous …
As for Gennady Osipovich, there is no doubt that he is a hero who has fulfilled his duty to the Motherland. No matter how pretentious it sounds. And his uniform doesn't have the blood of passengers on flight KAL007.
