Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American = su

From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #16 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 Thursday, April 5 2001 Volume 10 : Number 016 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** China - Subs (2) Etiquette Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su EP-3 missions RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 Re: EP-3 in China *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: China - Subs (2) Sorry from previous text, this is the website where I found the article: http://www.stratfor.com/northamerica/commentary/0104040100.htm May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:00:41 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Etiquette Submitters: Please turn off the html coding in your e-mails! Some of us read e-mail on Unix systems and we see page after page after page of html coding in your e-mails, instead of just text. Secondly, I believe the Stratfor report someone submitted is copyrighted. The law says you can't go around reproducing copyrighted material, except for personal use. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su 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_01C0BD52.F642F4C8 Content-Type: text/plain I've thought about taking out the plane too, but its WAY too late, and I'm sure that would be viewed as an act of war... no matter HOW it was accomplished short of a Delta Team and I think Chuck Norris retired from that kind of thing now.... "Albert H. Dobyns" 04/04/01 03:02 AM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: [massive snipping] 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 - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD52.F642F4C8 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American = su

I've thought about taking out the plane = too, but its WAY too late, and I'm sure that would be viewed as an act = of war... no matter HOW it was accomplished short of a Delta Team = and I think Chuck Norris retired from that kind of thing now.... = <grin>

"Albert H. Dobyns" = <ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net>

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

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:
        Subject:        = Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese = fighter by American su

"Albert H. Dobyns" = wrote:

[massive snipping]
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

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD52.F642F4C8-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:10:18 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: EP-3 missions Look at how many cryptologists were in the EP-3 crew, compared to ESM operators. You use cryptologists to run computers that break code in realtime and ESM operators to monitor radar transmissions. Also, you can't carry cryptologists in an SR-71, so the code breaking has to be done later. Additionally, the SR-71 flies ~10 times faster than a EP-3. This limits an SR-71's "take" to a tenth of that of the EP-3. Lastly, read the books written by SR-71 crews - they admit that it wasn't a very good ELINT platform. It was primarily an optical and radar imaging platorm. SR-71s typically flew with ESM active, which would work to screw up the very signals you would want to monitor if you were doing ELINT. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:46:54 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0BD26.DB27CF00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11The 'accident' may have not been planned, but the 'incident' could certainly have been. I mean by that, that these so called interceptions while common where said to have become much more aggressive in the last two weeks, indicating how frustrated the Chinese where at not being able to stop these flights, this may have led to unnecessary risks being taken to force the EP-3 down, or alternatively risky manoeuvres made by the EP-3 to try and get away from the Chinese fighters who where trying to force it if not in China then at least in Chinese airspace. We may have a case of miscalculation by the commander in place who never thought the Chinese would go so far as to intercept a plane in international airspace. Notice also how in the beginning, Chinese statements, claimed that the EP-3 was in Chinese airspace, but they are now saying that it was close to Chinese airspace (I imagine US warships where monitoring the 'interception' and would have proof of this). Instead the Chinese are now simply claiming that the Americans are responsible for the downing of the Chinese airplane but most important because it landed in Chinese territory. How does that make sense? Could the damaged EP-3 after launching it's mayday have been lulled into thinking permission for emergency landing on the Island was granted ? Timothy -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg Sent: April 4, 2001 2:22 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11 After reading my own post, I can't believe I actually put that out... but then again, I can't imagine that this whole thing happened!! Listening to some of these people on the radio, its almost believable... When you think about how some of the things go in the "covert" world, the double and triple cross type things, it almost sounds like something that could work.... But no matter how I look at this, I can't imagine it being "planned"....... betnal@ns.net 04/04/01 04:56 PM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: 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 - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0BD26.DB27CF00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: skunk-works-digest V10 #11

The=20 'accident' may have not been planned, but the 'incident' could certainly = have=20 been. I mean by that, that these so called interceptions while = common where=20 said to have become much more aggressive in the last two weeks, = indicating how=20 frustrated the Chinese where at not being able to stop these flights, = this may=20 have led to unnecessary risks being taken to force the EP-3 down, or=20 alternatively risky manoeuvres made by the EP-3 to try and get away from = the=20 Chinese fighters who where trying to force it if not in China then at = least in=20 Chinese airspace.

We may=20 have a case of miscalculation by the commander in place who never = thought the=20 Chinese would go so far as to intercept a plane in international=20 airspace.

Notice=20 also how in the beginning, Chinese statements, claimed that the EP-3 was = in=20 Chinese airspace, but they are now saying that it was close to Chinese = airspace=20 (I imagine US warships where monitoring the 'interception' and would = have proof=20 of this). Instead the Chinese are now simply claiming that the Americans = are=20 responsible for the downing of the Chinese airplane but most = important=20 because it landed in Chinese territory.

How=20 does that make sense? Could the damaged EP-3 after launching it's mayday = have=20 been lulled into thinking permission for emergency landing on the Island = was=20 granted ?

Timothy

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com = [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On=20 Behalf Of Weigold, Greg
Sent: April 4, 2001 2:22=20 PM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: RE:=20 skunk-works-digest V10 #11

After reading my own post, I = can't believe I=20 actually put that out... but then again, I can't imagine = that=20 this whole thing happened!!

Listening to some of these = people on the=20 radio, its almost believable...
When=20 you think about how some of the things go in the "covert" = world, the=20 double and triple cross type things, it almost sounds like = something=20 that could work....

But no matter how I look at = this, I can't=20 imagine it being "planned".......=20

        betnal@ns.net=20

04/04/01 04:56 PM
Please respond to skunk-works=20
       =20

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange=20
        cc:    =20
        Subject:        = RE: skunk-works-digest V10 = #11

On 4/3/01 12:22PM, in message=20 <200104031922.PAA05365@pmsc.com>, "Weigold, Greg"=20
<GregWeigold@mynd.com>=20 wrote:

>          =     =20 I didn't mean that they would cause a midair
> collision, just that they would do = something(s)=20 to provoke the Chinese
>=20 fighters to try to "force" them to land and they would then go = along=20 with
> the = "request"....=20
>          =     =20 I too wonder why they didn't ditch or
> something... they were aloft for 30-60 minutes = after the=20 "collision".....
> =

    I'm sorry, = but this is=20 really a stretch. Why would we Ever want to do =
this? First off, if we wanted to = do a=20 deception we'd make them think they
stole the information, not had it dropped in their = lap and in=20 such large
quantifies. =20 Secondly, if we stuffed it with really old stuff they'd be = able to=20
tell. Third, the = sensors=20 would have to be credible, and you can't very well =
fake those without giving them the real=20 things. Fourth, if we really wanted
them to capture the plane we would have flown it into = their=20 airspace instead of
international=20 waters. Fifth, we simply don't have that many Aries = birds that=20
we could afford to give = one=20 away. To make the deception look credible, you'd=20
have to put so much = real stuff in=20 the aircraft you'd still be talking about a
$100+ million bird. Sixth, this = "plan"=20 overlooks the fact that you're putting
people who have very sensitive information in an = adversary's=20 hands (unless you
put = "real" people=20 in the plane, the deception wouldn't work) Seventh, and=20
possibly most = importantly, consider=20 who you're dealing with. They may not take =
the "bait" but simply blow the plane out = of the=20 sky. Now you've got 24 dead
people, lost a $100 million bird and your mission = went=20 nowhere.

    There's no = conceivable=20 gain from a scheme like this that would be worth the =
risks and costs. =

>
>
> =
>
>=20
>   Frank = Markus=20 <fmarkus@pipeline.com>
>          = =20 04/03/01 02:47 PM
>          = =20 Please respond to skunk-works
>          =         =20
>   To:=20 skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
>   cc:
>   Subject:    RE:=20 skunk-works-digest V10 #11
>
> =
>          =     =20 I reject your thesis mainly because causing
> and then surviving an midair = collision are too=20 chancy. The American
>=20 aircraft was lumbering compared to the Chinese jets. I = would=20 venture that
> = neither of the=20 participants in most midair collisions survive the = incident.=20
> And, assuming that = contact was made=20 using the American aircraft's wing, the
> consequent fuel loss would likely be sufficient = to make=20 reaching land
>=20 problematical.
>          =      =20
>          =     =20 A more interesting question to me is whether
> it is possible for the crew of this = sort of=20 aircraft to bail out - if only
>=20 to ensure that the (empty) plane and its contents were = destroyed when=20 they
> hit the = water? =20

    As to why = they didn't=20 bail out..They'd die in the Pacific. As to why they=20
didn't ditch... They'd = never make=20 it to the water before they had a couple of
missiles up their butt. =

> t?
>
> =
>
>=20
>
>
>          =              = To:
>=20 skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
>          =              = cc:
>          =              = Subject:        Re:=20
> skunk-works-digest V10 = #11=20
>          = =20
>          =     =20
>          =     =20 >
>          =     =20 The SR-71 does not have the electronic
> eavesdropping capability of the Navy =
>          =     =20 Craft, therefore no comparison.

    The SR = didn't carry=20 everything a EP-3 does, but neither does anything else.=20
It did carry a = very good=20 ELINT system, probably enough for what they were =
apparently doing here. The EP-3 is = a superb=20 platform of this type, but in many
cases it's also our Only platform of this type. = This=20 latter more that its
admitted=20 exceptional capabilities may have been why it was here it = was. I=20 am
firmly convinced = that if we=20 still had the SR, it would have been used here. =

          &nbs= p;=20 Art =

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0BD26.DB27CF00-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:00:27 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: EP-3 in China Greg W (GregWeigold@mynd.com) wrote on 04/04/01: >The report I heard on NBC this morning was that the radome came >off in the tangle with the fighter, they also lost a propeller >(that was pretty obvious) and the closer shots of the wings showed >some obvious damage, but none (except the loss of radome) looked >like a Mayday situation... Of course, I wasn't flying the thing!!! >These airframes are OLD, if I remember correctly most were built >in the '60's and must have MANY thousands of hours on them... >The stresses caused by ANY damage may have been horrendous, I would >think... >Anyone know what/how the effects on the place would be if the radome >was ripped off in flight? Obviously the plane was never designed to >fly that way.... To be fair, the aircraft would have been well maintained and inspected. Just because an airframe is old doesn't necessarily mean it's clapped- out* - if the original structure is strong and the routine flight stresses are low then its fatigue life would be very long. Compare it to, say, DC3s or C47s that have been flying for a *very* long time. The main result of the loss of the radome is going to be a huge drag penalty. There should be back-up structure at the back of the radome bay, so unless this has been penetrated the aircraft should still have almost all of its pre-impact structural integrity. Damage to the leading edge and flaps is going to compromise its wing efficiency, incresasing drag and turbulence, which is going to affect the effectiveness of the flaps and elevators on that side. Loss of an engine on that side is going to impose additional power asymmetry problems, even more so if it's an outer engine, although, again in isolation, the crew should be able to deal with it. I haven't seen any mention of fuel tanks or lines being damaged, so I'm assuming that fuel consumption would not be an immediate cause for concern, but the increased drag and control limitations would mean that this would eventually join the crew's list of problems. A mid-air collision, no matter what the actual damage, is a definite "let's think about finding somewhere to land" scenario. Any impact sufficiently hard enough to carry away bits of fuselage is most likely going to have overstressed something (hence the requirement for a structural inspection after a heavy landing, for example). The crew is not going to be in a position to inspect spars, longerons and other structure, so the pilot's main concern is to fly as gently as possible to avoid additional overstressing. The radome itself has to be tough to withstand aerodynamic loading, but is relatively fragile when compared to metal structure. I'm afraid I haven't seen the pictures, but I'd assume its likely that the radome and its support frame may have simply become detached in its entirety, resulting in pulling out the (relatively light) retaining latches. The only really strong connection to the aircraft would be the radome hinge. Apart from the drag penalties, simply losing a radome would not be too much of an integrity problem, but the crew would not be sure of any collateral damage that would not be immediately obvious. Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. *sorry, bit of an anglo term - for USAnians reading this, substitute geriatric, timed-out, high-timed, etc. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #16 ********************************* 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