From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #13 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 Wednesday, April 4 2001 Volume 10 : Number 013 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 Req: Are P-3's ON or OFF topic? Re: Buried relics Re: F-22 vs. JSF RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su Re: Hostage Crisis Day 4.... Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 intentional? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:22:28 -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_01C0BC73.723986CC Content-Type: text/plain I didn't mean that they would cause a midair collision, just that they would do something(s) to provoke the Chinese fighters to try to "force" them to land and they would then go along with the "request".... I too wonder why they didn't ditch or something... they were aloft for 30-60 minutes after the "collision"..... Frank Markus 04/03/01 02:47 PM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: 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? 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_01C0BC73.723986CC Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11

          I didn't mean that they would cause a = midair collision, just that they would do something(s) to provoke the = Chinese fighters to try to "force" them to land and they = would then go along with the "request"....

          I too wonder why they didn't ditch or = something... they were aloft for 30-60 minutes after the = "collision".....






        Frank Markus <fmarkus@pipeline.com>

        04/03/01 02:47 PM
        Please respond to skunk-works
                =        =20

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        = 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@n= etwrx1.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?

          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
                  =        
                  To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
                  cc:    
                  Subject:       <= FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> 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_01C0BC73.723986CC-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:11:35 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Req: Are P-3's ON or OFF topic? Hiya! Sorry for not knowing, but are P-3's 'products' of the mighty Skunk Works, or are all these messages about China as OFF-Topic as stealthy black UFO's?! (Just wondered!) - ----------------- Regards, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:41:47 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Buried relics At 09:18 AM 4/3/01 -0700, you wrote: > >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 > > > IF you have problems with the above URL link use this one... http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Mar-25-Sun-2001/news/15545050.html \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 101 16:05:43 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-22 vs. JSF On 4/2/01 4:31PM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Whoa. If the F-15 can also pick up a stealthed B-2, that's not very encouraging. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 101 16:15:49 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su On 4/3/01 9:06AM, in message , "T. Toth" wrote: > 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 F-15 doesn't have the kind of range necessary to escort the EP-3, even if we had enough F-15s and the money to do so with (we have neither) the tankers we don't have. As it turns out, the mission the EP-3 was apparently on, to gather signals intelligence from Chinese Naval assets is Exactly the kind of mission the SR-71 was so superb on, either operating alone or in conjunction with an SSN. The SR would get all the emitters to light up and then collect all the data it could, and in some cases there'd also be an SSN around quietly sticking antennas out of the water waiting for the target(s) to start transmitting. There was nothing the subjects could do about the SR, and while they were busy transmitting at the sky and every which way, there was little chance they'd detect the SSN. Of course, that was back in the days when we had SR-71s and sufficient SSNs. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 101 16:20:20 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Hostage Crisis Day 4.... On 4/3/01 8:23AM, in message <8FFEEB5386B4D311A9770090277389B84D6BB5@admissions.buffalo.edu>, "Morris, Andrew" wrote: > > To Art: the comment about Daddy Bush wasn't that he was able to make the > best military decisions (we can let Sadam attest to that today) it was far > more sarcastic. Every time W strides to the podium like a little kid so > full of himself it becomes enormously obvious that the words spoken are not > his. I'd rather have the peanut pres than the peanut brained prez. > (commentary) > You mean you're willing to wait 444 days to get our crew back? (Sorry, I couldn't resist) Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:02:40 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: [massive snipping] > > 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. OK, F-15's would not be a good choice for this job due to insufficient range. Do we have an aircraft carrier that could be stationed somewhere off China's east coast? Or is it possible to establish a base on Taiwan? Does China "own" Taiwan too? Looks like we need to have some way of responding to such events before they have gone so far. > > 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 Right now if the plane's crew are in a fairly safe location maybe we should take out the E-3 with something stealthy. Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 101 18:38:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 On 4/3/01 12:22PM, in message <200104031922.PAA05365@pmsc.com>, "Weigold, Greg" wrote: > I didn't mean that they would cause a midair > collision, just that they would do something(s) to provoke the Chinese > fighters to try to "force" them to land and they would then go along with > the "request".... > I too wonder why they didn't ditch or > something... they were aloft for 30-60 minutes after the "collision"..... > I'm sorry, but this is really a stretch. Why would we Ever want to do this? First off, if we wanted to do a deception we'd make them think they stole the information, not had it dropped in their lap and in such large quantifies. Secondly, if we stuffed it with really old stuff they'd be able to tell. Third, the sensors would have to be credible, and you can't very well fake those without giving them the real things. Fourth, if we really wanted them to capture the plane we would have flown it into their airspace instead of international waters. Fifth, we simply don't have that many Aries birds that we could afford to give one away. To make the deception look credible, you'd have to put so much real stuff in the aircraft you'd still be talking about a $100+ million bird. Sixth, this "plan" overlooks the fact that you're putting people who have very sensitive information in an adversary's hands (unless you put "real" people in the plane, the deception wouldn't work) Seventh, and possibly most importantly, consider who you're dealing with. They may not take the "bait" but simply blow the plane out of the sky. Now you've got 24 dead people, lost a $100 million bird and your mission went nowhere. There's no conceivable gain from a scheme like this that would be worth the risks and costs. > > > > > > Frank Markus > 04/03/01 02:47 PM > Please respond to skunk-works > > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange > cc: > Subject: 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? As to why they didn't bail out..They'd die in the Pacific. As to why they didn't ditch... They'd never make it to the water before they had a couple of missiles up their butt. > t? > > > > > > > To: > skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange > cc: > Subject: Re: > skunk-works-digest V10 #11 > > > > > The SR-71 does not have the electronic > eavesdropping capability of the Navy > Craft, therefore no comparison. The SR didn't carry everything a EP-3 does, but neither does anything else. It did carry a very good ELINT system, probably enough for what they were apparently doing here. The EP-3 is a superb platform of this type, but in many cases it's also our Only platform of this type. This latter more that its admitted exceptional capabilities may have been why it was here it was. I am firmly convinced that if we still had the SR, it would have been used here. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:57:37 +0100 From: Haitham Yousef Subject: intentional? - --------------F2B7D080146BC9EA1EA00A9B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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? > Everything is possible. I think sending a plane loaded with the latest surveillance technology too close to enemy territory is very dangerous, besides surveillance can be conducted from far away as the SR-71 used to do! Only time will tell what really has happened. Patience my fellow Skunkers! Haitham - --------------F2B7D080146BC9EA1EA00A9B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
                               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?
 

Everything is possible. I think sending a plane loaded with the latest surveillance technology too close to enemy territory is very dangerous, besides surveillance can be conducted from far away as the SR-71 used to do! Only time will tell what really has happened. Patience my fellow Skunkers!

Haitham
  - --------------F2B7D080146BC9EA1EA00A9B-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #13 ********************************* 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