From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #12 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, April 3 2001 Volume 10 : Number 012 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: F-22 vs. JSF RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su Buried relics Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:06:16 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF radar reflectors - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of James P. Stevenson Sent: April 2, 2001 4:32 PM To: Skunkworks Subject: Re: F-22 vs. JSF F-15. On 5/14/40 3:40 PM, "betnal@ns.net" wrote: > On 3/25/01 1:21AM, in message , > "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > >> The JSF flight demonstrators are not prototypes. They are stressed to only 3 >> gs and do not represent a real-world aircraft. Consequently, there is no way >> to tell what the aircraft will do other than adopt the brochure. That >> follows for any of the specification for stealth as well. >> >> There is a world of difference between the readings of a pole model that is >> as slick as a wore-down glacier and a real-world aircraft that has rivets, >> flaps, openings, etc. As a point of fact, I spoke with a pilot who has >> picked up the B-2 at 100 miles. >> >> Jim Stevenson > > > Jim, was that an F-14 pilot by any chance? It's known that in daylight the > F-14's TCS can track a B-2 visually in excess of 40 nm. It's also been > repeatedly alleged that the F-14's radar (in search mode), because of the way > it operates(it is an "older", but very powerful transmitter) detected B-2s on > multiple occasions during the Kosovo fiasco. > > > Art > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:06:14 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su I guess The Chinese have just proven the need for 'on topic' types of aircraft. (in addition to the need for Taiwan to defend itself, and the US to take measures to defend itself against such peacfull states, etc...). Apparently this cat and mouse game had been going on for quite sometime but the Chinese where becoming more and more agressive in the last two weeks, I suppose the US didn't wan't to escalate things (once again) by escorting the plane with fighters for eg. and now is paying by itself the price for peace. The only problem with this is that if the US doesn't retaliate now the Chinese (and others)are jus't going to become more asertive, and next time it may not be 'just' an aircraft and advanced technology that the US pays for peace. Even the chinese official theory of the US 'spy plane' suddenly veering towards the Chinese fighters 10 miles away and then hitting one is so ridiculous that it seems to have been added just to further insult the US.(considering max speed of EP-3 and cruise speed of J-8). The idea for them is to destabilise public opinion just enough so as to get time to do their 'buisness' and the way things go they might even pull out of this with financial 'reparations' and concessions. Timothy - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Albert H. Dobyns Sent: April 3, 2001 9:11 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su betnal@ns.net wrote: > > On 4/1/01 10:15AM, in message , > "T. Toth" wrote: > > > According to the Chinese version. The EP-3 (24 crew) suddenly veered towards > > 2 nearby (10 miles) patrolling chinese fighter and knocked one out of the > > sky. Of course since Chinese fighters are better made than the americans > > expected the american spy plane was damaged and had to land and is now in > > chinese hands. > > Why does America need the F-22 or the JSF? > > The USA has acknowledged that one of it's EP-3 patrolling the south-China > > sea was involved in a collision with one of two Chinese fighters, and was > > know in Chinese hands with it's 24 crew. > > Does anyone out there know if it is normal for a Spy plane to land in > > 'enemy' territory unless forced to do so? > > Am I too 'James Bondeske'in thinking that they would have tried getting back > > into neutral territory, or ditch the aircraft (after bailling out) rather > > than having it and themselves fall into enemy hands. I can't see the US > > putting an EP-3 far inside 'enemy territory' (too vulnerable) so it must > > have been, if not in, then at least very close, to 'neutral territory', and > > flying back to neutral territory > > would then make more sense than flying all the way back to a chinese landing > > strip. > > I imagine the Chinese sent two figthers to intercept the EP-3 which they > > tried to Force into Chinese custody a bit too viciously , and after one > > fighter went down the choice was to obey or be shot down on the spot. > > I guess the Chinese thought the Russian stunts with their simulated nuclear > > attacks, and anti aircraft carrier attacks where quite interesting and > > decided to have a go at it themselves. > > > > Timothy > > Further news reports coming out today indicate that the EP-3 radioed its > Mayday and said it was going to land in China before the J-8 collided with it. > Since the Chinese as far back as the mid '90s said they were intending to shoot > down "provocateur" aircraft in the future, it seems likely that it was their > intent to capture this aircraft and no doubt planned to force it to China. > Given that it would have taken from 30 minutes to an hour to fly to Hainan > after the plane was diverted, this seems likely. The collision probably > occurred after the diversion. > > US officials speaking on the conditions of anonymity told REuters that the > last transmission form the crew was that had landed at Hainan and that armed > soldiers were boarding the plane. > > Art Well, considering the actions taken by the Chinese gov't about forcing the plane to land at a Chinese base, I'm leaning toward having any future E-3 flights accompanied by 2 or 3 armed F-15s. The Chinese may allow the US to retrieve the crew of the US aircraft, but I bet they are going through the plane and learning a great deal about how our equipment works. Right now I think the US should suspend any trade agreements that have been made until China releases the crew and the plane. Maybe we could send in a few F-117's to take out some radar instalations or something. Well I better stop pontificating before I go too far off topic. Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:18:01 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Buried relics Take a look at: http://12.9.217.6:80/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=986314142&view=rjsearch&docrank=1&numhitsfound=5&query=Secret%20buried%20Area%2051&query_rule=%28%28$query%29%29%20AND%20%28%23date%28$query1%29%29%3ADATE%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3AHEADLINE&docid=6739&docdb=2001&dbname=2001&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:37:11 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 At 10:59 AM 4/3/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Anyone want to comment on the situation in China currently? > >The article is the headline over at cnn.com. > >Maybe my question is: why are we flying vulnerable aircraft that can be >forced down in unfriendly territory by fighters? > >This is exactly the reason aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird was needed. > >I'm afraid the situation doesn't look very good - let's hope the crew >can be >brought back safe and sound. > >- -Todd > The SR-71 does not have the electronic eavesdropping capability of the Navy Craft, therefore no comparison. As regards the situation, all it proves is that Dubya and his administration lacks testicles, that or money talks. The U.S. is China's major economic and trade market and we have enough clout to knock their teeth out - economically. We haven't used that power, therefore money (in particular international finance and multinational trade is more important than our airmen and national security). The Chinese response and heel dragging is unacceptable. The Bush lack of action and forcefulness is intolerable. If this is "leadership" we are in deep doo doo. Lee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:02:49 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC68.51AE366A Content-Type: text/plain Has anyone considered that maybe this was intentional? That all our plane was waiting for was a chance and when the fighters were close enough they made a move that was unexpected and then took that opportunity to call a Mayday and land on Hainan Is. instead of ditching? I'm sure the fact that the fighter was actually damaged and went down was unintended.... Sounds kinda Cold War-ish, huh? Perhaps the plane is loaded with obsolete equipment and they were hoping that the Chinese would board and strip the plane as it appears they now have? Then that old stuff will be sold to the Russians (or whoever) and everyone will think we're unable to eavesdrop as much as we really can? Especially since this was one of the Aries II planes and not one of the few "covert surveillance" planes with really secret stuff on it? Or some such convoluted plot???? Sounds like a Le Carre novel, doesn't it? Lee Markland 04/03/01 12:37 PM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 At 10:59 AM 4/3/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Anyone want to comment on the situation in China currently? > >The article is the headline over at cnn.com. > >Maybe my question is: why are we flying vulnerable aircraft that can be >forced down in unfriendly territory by fighters? > >This is exactly the reason aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird was needed. > >I'm afraid the situation doesn't look very good - let's hope the crew >can be >brought back safe and sound. > >- -Todd > The SR-71 does not have the electronic eavesdropping capability of the Navy Craft, therefore no comparison. As regards the situation, all it proves is that Dubya and his administration lacks testicles, that or money talks. The U.S. is China's major economic and trade market and we have enough clout to knock their teeth out - economically. We haven't used that power, therefore money (in particular international finance and multinational trade is more important than our airmen and national security). The Chinese response and heel dragging is unacceptable. The Bush lack of action and forcefulness is intolerable. If this is "leadership" we are in deep doo doo. Lee - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC68.51AE366A Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11

          Has anyone considered that maybe this = was intentional?  That all our plane was waiting for was a chance = and when the fighters were close enough they made a move that was = unexpected and then took that opportunity to call a Mayday and land on = Hainan Is. instead of ditching?  I'm sure the fact that the = fighter was actually damaged and went down was unintended....  = Sounds kinda Cold War-ish, huh?

          Perhaps the plane is loaded with = obsolete equipment and they were hoping that the Chinese would board = and strip the plane as it appears they now have?   Then that = old stuff will be sold to the Russians (or whoever) and everyone will = think we're unable to eavesdrop as much as we really can?  = Especially since this was one of the Aries II planes and not one of the = few "covert surveillance" planes with really secret stuff on = it?

          Or some such convoluted plot????  = Sounds like a Le Carre novel, doesn't it?








        Lee Markland <markland@rockisland.com>

        04/03/01 12:37 PM
        Please respond to skunk-works
                =        =20

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        = Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 

          At 10:59 AM 4/3/01 -0500, you = wrote:

          >
          >Anyone want to comment on the = situation in China currently?
          >
          >The article is the headline over = at cnn.com.
          >
          >Maybe my question is: why are we = flying vulnerable aircraft that can be
          >forced down in unfriendly = territory by fighters?
          >
          >This is exactly the reason = aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird was needed.
          >
          >I'm afraid the situation doesn't = look very good - let's hope the crew
          >can be
          >brought back safe and = sound.
          >
          >- -Todd
          >

          The SR-71 does not have the electronic = eavesdropping capability of the Navy
          Craft, therefore no = comparison.

          As regards the situation, all it = proves is that Dubya and his
          administration lacks testicles, that = or money talks.

          The U.S. is China's major economic and = trade market and we have enough
          clout to knock their teeth out - = economically.

          We haven't used that power, therefore = money (in particular international
          finance and multinational trade is = more important than our airmen and
          national security).

          The Chinese response and heel dragging = is unacceptable. The Bush lack of
          action and forcefulness is = intolerable.

          If this is "leadership" we = are in deep doo doo.

          Lee



- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC68.51AE366A-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:47:09 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C0BC4C.F5C66450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net id OAA11463 I reject your thesis mainly because causing and then surviving an midair collision are too chancy. The American aircraft was lumbering compared t= o the Chinese jets. I would venture that neither of the participants in mo= st midair collisions survive the incident. And, assuming that contact was m= ade using the American aircraft=92s wing, the consequent fuel loss would like= ly be sufficient to make reaching land problematical. A more interesting question to me is whether it is possible for the crew = of this sort of aircraft to bail out =96 if only to ensure that the (empty) = plane and its contents were destroyed when they hit the water? - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com= ]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:03 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 Has anyone considered that maybe this was intentional? That all our plan= e was waiting for was a chance and when the fighters were close enough they made a move that was unexpected and then took that opportunity to call a Mayday and land on Hainan Is. instead of ditching? I'm sure the fact tha= t the fighter was actually damaged and went down was unintended.... Sounds kinda Cold War-ish, huh? Perhaps the plane is loaded with obsolete equipment and they were hoping that the Chinese would board and strip the plane as it appears they now have? Then that old stuff will be sold to the Russians (or whoever) and everyone will think we're unable to eavesdrop as much as we really can? Especially since this was one of the Aries II planes and not one of the f= ew "covert surveillance" planes with really secret stuff on it? Or some such convoluted plot???? Sounds like a Le Carre novel, doesn't i= t? Lee Markland 04/03/01 12:37 PM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 At 10:59 AM 4/3/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Anyone want to comment on the situation in China currently? > >The article is the headline over at cnn.com. > >Maybe my question is: why are we flying vulnerable aircraft that can be >forced down in unfriendly territory by fighters? > >This is exactly the reason aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird was needed. > >I'm afraid the situation doesn't look very good - let's hope the crew >can be >brought back safe and sound. > >- -Todd > The SR-71 does not have the electronic eavesdropping capability of the Na= vy Craft, therefore no comparison. As regards the situation, all it proves is that Dubya and his administration lacks testicles, that or money talks. The U.S. is China's major economic and trade market and we have enough clout to knock their teeth out - economically. We haven't used that power, therefore money (in particular international finance and multinational trade is more important than our airmen and national security). The Chinese response and heel dragging is unacceptable. The Bush lack of action and forcefulness is intolerable. If this is "leadership" we are in deep doo doo. Lee - ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C0BC4C.F5C66450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11

I = reject your thesis mainly because causing and then surviving an midair = collision are too chancy.  The American = aircraft was lumbering compared to the Chinese jets.  I would venture that neither of the participants in = most midair collisions survive the incident.  = And, assuming that contact was made using the American aircraft’s wing, = the consequent fuel loss would likely be sufficient to make reaching land = problematical.

 

A = more interesting question to me is whether it is possible for the crew of = this sort of aircraft to bail out – if only to ensure that the (empty) plane = and its contents were destroyed when they hit the water? 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com = [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, = 2001 2:03 PM
To: = skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Re: = skunk-works-digest V10 #11

 

Has anyone = considered that maybe this was intentional?  That all our plane was waiting = for was a chance and when the fighters were close enough they made a move that was unexpected and then took that opportunity to call a Mayday and land on = Hainan Is. instead of ditching?  I'm sure the fact that the fighter was = actually damaged and went down was unintended....  Sounds kinda Cold = War-ish, huh?<= /p>

Perhaps the = plane is loaded with obsolete equipment and they were hoping that the Chinese = would board and strip the plane as it appears they now have?   Then = that old stuff will be sold to the Russians (or whoever) and everyone will = think we're unable to eavesdrop as much as we really can?  Especially = since this was one of the Aries II planes and not one of the few "covert surveillance" planes with really secret stuff on = it?<= /p>

Or some such = convoluted plot????  Sounds like a Le Carre novel, doesn't = it? <= /p>







     &nbs= p;  Lee Markland = <markland@rockisland.com> <= /p>

04/03/01 12:37 = PM
Please respond to = skunk-works
                <= /p>

     &nbs= p;  To:     skunk-works@netwr= x1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 <= /p>

At 10:59 AM = 4/3/01 - -0500, you wrote: <= /p>

>
>Anyone want to comment on the = situation in China currently?
>
>The article is the headline over at = cnn.com.
>
>Maybe my question is: why are we = flying vulnerable aircraft that can be
>forced down in unfriendly territory = by fighters? =
>
>This is exactly the reason aircraft = like the SR-71 Blackbird was needed.
>
>I'm afraid the situation doesn't look = very good - let's hope the crew
>can be
>brought back safe and = sound.
>
>- -Todd
>

The SR-71 does = not have the electronic eavesdropping capability of the Navy
Craft, therefore no = comparison. <= /p>

As regards the situation, all it proves is that Dubya and his
administration lacks testicles, that or = money talks. = <= /p>

The U.S. is = China's major economic and trade market and we have enough
clout to knock their teeth out - = economically. <= /p>

We haven't used = that power, therefore money (in particular international
finance and multinational trade is more important than our airmen and
national security). <= /p>

The Chinese = response and heel dragging is unacceptable. The Bush lack of
action and forcefulness is = intolerable. <= /p>

If this is "leadership" we are in deep doo doo.

Lee <= /p>

 <= /p>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C0BC4C.F5C66450-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #12 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner