Identified it as a Boeing 747, but not as a civilian airliner.
The same types of planes as civilian airliners are often used as platforms for military and spy planes.
FWIW, they would have ended up better off if the original TASS press release was not cancelled just before publication (the one where it was claimed a mistaken shooting due to misidentification).
“It’s a Boeing” could be waved away this way. 747s aren’t used as military or spy planes with the exception of Air Force One and the E-4, neither of which would ever be there unescorted and unannounced.
They also don't have a large an obvious "Korean Air" livery on them. Military aircraft are marked appropriately. I wouldn't necessarily expect a soviet fighter pilot to read english but I would expect him to recognize what a civil airliner looks like. The USSR had their own and also wore colorful liveries.
> “I could see two rows of windows, which were lit up,” Soviet pilot Col. Gennadi Osipovitch told CNN in 1998, describing the 747’s telltale double-deck configuration. “I wondered if it was a civilian aircraft. Military cargo planes don’t have such windows.”
Cargo don't. Converted intelligence/C4I planes? Often do.
Also, logos like that aren't that well readable especially at speed, and the actual shootdown happened in a way that could be mistaken for evasive maneuveurs.
Essentially, I feel that if we're going to let UX take part of the blame for Iran Air 655, we have to allow wider narrative for KAL007 as well (Personally I think humans are directly at fault for both cases)
The only converted 747s with the distinctive double row of windows in military use are the Air Force One and E-4 aircraft I already mentioned. Neither of which is going to be anywhere near Soviet airspace without the Soviets knowing long, long in advance.
I also quoted the pilot himself. Further from him:
> "I was just next to him, on the same altitude, 150 meters to 200 meters away," he recalled in conversations with a reporter during the weekend. From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing," he said. "I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."
It wasn't a "oops we thought it was an RC-135" scenario.
The same types of planes as civilian airliners are often used as platforms for military and spy planes.
FWIW, they would have ended up better off if the original TASS press release was not cancelled just before publication (the one where it was claimed a mistaken shooting due to misidentification).