From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #17 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 Friday, April 6 2001 Volume 10 : Number 017 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Random thoughts about the EP-3E incident Re: Etiquette Re: Etiquette "spying" or "surveillance" Chinese 'Fighter Pilot'(?) Re: Chinese 'Fighter Pilot'(?) Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su Re: Etiquette *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:37:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Random thoughts about the EP-3E incident Here are some (random) thoughts about the EP-3E incident. Has anybody noticed the strange similarities between this case and the Royal Norwegian Air Force P-3B Orion of 333 Squadron, RNoAF, that collided in September 1987 with a Russian Navy Su-27, while patrolling near the Kola Peninsula (during NATO exercise 'Ocean Safari')? That accident resulted in no fatalities or airframe losses, and was due to "irresponsible maneuvering" of the Flanker pilot. Even though the P-3B was only slightly damaged, it also made an emergency landing -- but back home in Norway, I believe. I also wonder why everybody assumes that the EP-3E was forced into Chinese territory, and nobody noticed that one of the two main complains of the Chinese is and was, that first, the EP-3E supposedly caused the accident -- something that most people find difficult to believe -- and secondly, that the EP-3E then intruded into Chinese territory and 'illegally' landed at Hainan Island. With the amount of damage sustained, I guess the only viable landing site was indeed Hainan Island, no question about it. I do doubt that either the Chinese or the US crews' actions leading to this incident were deliberate or intended to create such an incident. Each crew was doing their duty, and the political fallout seems to me, has more to do with the Chinese political system, incompetence and bureaucracy, with fear and 'keeping face' issues mixed in. And they might want to just test the new 'green' US President. Considering the circumstances, I think the relatively restraint but firm US response to this incident is surprisingly reasonable. The crew and the plane will undoubtedly be returned, sooner or later, but the plane will be examined and probably dismantled before the US Navy gets it back. But does anybody doubt that (for example) a Chinese Harbin SH-5, that had been involved in a fatal mid-air collision with an F-15C off-the coast of Norfolk, Virginia, (I know it would never get there) and which subsequently landed at Langley AFB -- even after been told to not do so -- would _not_ be detained, dismantled, searched, and checked, and the crew held, interrogated and questioned, by the US authorities? I think that would be expected. Regarding "Spy" plane versus "Surveillance" or "Reconnaissance" plane. I guess the media types wouldn't be able to spell or pronounce more complex words than "Spy", so they just use it for convenience as much as for effect. When the US Army RC-12K crashed last week in Germany, or the US Army O-5A crashed in Columbia in July 1999, the media called them also consistently "Spy planes". And what does the media know? ABC showed a little computer animation of a P-3 ASW aircraft being followed by two F-8s, one of which suddenly moved closer, collided, and crashed. Only problem -- the fighters were actually LTV F-8 Crusaders, and not Shenyang J-8 (F-8) "Finback"s. One wonders why, if they go through all the trouble to create a computer animation (even though it was completely meaningless and speculative), can't they at least check such simple facts as the aircraft type? And the "F-8" designation for the involved aircraft is anyway wrong, as that refers to a (hypothetical) export version of the "J-8", "J-8-I", or "J-8-II" (J standing for Jianjiji = Interceptor/Fighter). On the identity of the involved aircraft: the few shots from CCTV that I saw, showed the code "32" on the nose landing gear doors. Coincidental, the AFM (Air Forces Monthly) number 264 (12/2000) has a photo of an EP-3E, BuNo '156511' of VQ-1 'World Watchers', coded 'PR-32', when it was displayed at the Misawa Air Show in Japan, on September 17, 2000. I am pretty sure this is one and the same aircraft. The construction number would be '285A-5505', originally built as P-3C-110-LO, converted to CILOP (Conversion-In-Lieu-Of- Procurement) EP-3E-110-LO "ARIES II" standard, by (now Raytheon) E-Systems, Greenville. "ARIES" stands for "Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Intelligence System". I do wonder if the aircraft in question already had the "J-Mod" or "Story Teller" JSAF (Joint Signals-Intelligence Avionics Family) update. That would be an expensive loss for the US, indeed! The recently shown commercial "Spy" satellite photos of the aircraft, as it is parked at the airfield on Hainan, are of surprisingly good quality, and seem of a higher resolution than 1 meter (and in color). Probably computer enhanced, but good enough to notice some damage on the port side! Now if they would make such photos of other interesting sites (and not just during Sunday afternoons) -- some more speculative aircraft may become quite confirmed and real! Wishfull thinking, I know... - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:18:20 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Etiquette dear mr.lednicer. if you don't like HTML messages use your "delete" button. i also think you should take a look at the bottom of "stratfor.com's" page. i have reproduced it for you below.have a nice day. wayne binkley <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm - ----Original Message Follows---- From: David Lednicer Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Etiquette Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:00:41 -0700 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. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:18:42 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Etiquette dear mr.lednicer. if you don't like HTML messages use your "delete" button. i also think you should take a look at the bottom of "stratfor.com's" page. i have reproduced it for you below.have a nice day. wayne binkley <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm - ----Original Message Follows---- From: David Lednicer Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Etiquette Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:00:41 -0700 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. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:17:01 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: "spying" or "surveillance" Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:40:29 -0700 "spying" or "surveillance" _____ _____ explainer More China FAQs By Emily Yoffe Wednesday, April 4, 2001, at 4:04 p.m. PT A Pentagon spokesman has said that the Navy plane being held in China was engaged in "routine surveillance and reconnaissance" and not a "spy plane" When does "surveillance" become "spying." Remember this little grammar rule: I imply; you infer. To the U.S. the plane was engaged in surveillance, to the Chinese it was spying. On the U.S.'s side is the fact that this was not a covert operation, there was no attempt to disguise the plane or its purpose, and the Chinese have been aware of such planes' activities for a long time. On the Chinese side was the mission of the plane: to gather information by intercepting Chinese military and other communications without their permission. An accusation of espionage--which has not formally been made here--does have legal ramifications because most nations, including the United States, have laws forbidding it. Are the U.S. military personnel now being held by China considered hostages? The U.S. has not given them that label, which would be a major polemical escalation. To call them hostages means they are being held in exchange for something. Hostage can also be an "imply/infer" situation. While we called our diplomats detained by Iran during the Carter administration hostages, Iran referred to them as detainees because they were refusing to let them go, but not using them as bargaining chips. Is there international law on what the Chinese should do with the people they're holding? Yes, the Chinese should let them go. Law from the mid-19th century emerged from a dispute among the United States, Britain, and Canada. The settlement of that case established that an individual working abroad as an agent for his country who is apprehended while doing so should be handed back to his home government and the disagreement worked out diplomatically between the nations. Of course that law has not always been followed, especially during the Cold War between the U.S. and the then-Soviet Union. Why didn't the pilot just head out to sea and ditch the plane so the Chinese wouldn't have gotten a chance to capture it? Because that would have been a good way to get everyone killed. While the crew would have had parachutes, the EP-3 does not have ejection seats, so the pilot would have had to try to stabilize the plane while everyone got out, which by no means would have guaranteed their survival, witness the fate of the Chinese pilot who was able to eject. If any Americans survived they would have been picked up by the Chinese, who would also still have had an opportunity to recover the crashed plane. Explainer, you said Monday that our military personnel were supposed to resist Chinese capture, but they weren't armed and the Chinese were, so what were they supposed to do? The military code of conduct does require that military personnel resist capture. But in a case such as this that's likely to mean minimal resistance, such as blocking the doorway of the plane rather than inviting the Chinese to board. You also said that while there are internationally agreed upon laws governing what constitutes international airspace, the laws specifically exempt military aircraft. So what difference does it make for the U.S. government to assert the plane was outside the 12-mile limit of Chinese territorial borders and therefore in international airspace? It doesn't make any legal difference according to Explainer's friend Alfred Rubin of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Rubin, a professor of international law, says the declaration is matter of public relations, but civil aeronautics law simply does not apply in a dispute over military incursion into another nation's airspace. What applies is whether a nation asserts its right to self-defense against an aircraft threatening its territory. Rubin says the fact that the Chinese aren't clearly citing this doctrine means they need better lawyers Next questions? Explainer thanks Col. Dan Smith (retired) of the Center for Defense Information, Alfred Rubin of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, Chuan Sheng Liu of the Institute for Global Chinese Affairs at the University of Maryland, and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:34:17 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: Chinese 'Fighter Pilot'(?) Based on what the Chinese are saying, are we supposed to believe that their fighter pilot was so bad that he 1) couldn't fly formation or 2) couldn't get out of the way of a P-3? I'm confused. In either case, any self-respecting fighter pilot would probably drown himself out of sheer mortification. This is going to look great on my "Kill" list. AIM-7, AIM-9, AIM-120, Hamilton Standard! Dirty Rotten Commie Pinko Bastards... Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:24:00 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Chinese 'Fighter Pilot'(?) on the radio today i heard(from american sources) that the pilot"might have been making a turn but could not see the fighter because he was below and behind the EP-3",also the pilot was the squadron commander of the squadron(chinese)doing the intercept.one would think even a chinese Co. would have to have some level of proficiency. wayne - ----Original Message Follows---- From: Jim Rotramel Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: Skunk Works Mag Subject: Chinese 'Fighter Pilot'(?) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:34:17 -0400 Based on what the Chinese are saying, are we supposed to believe that their fighter pilot was so bad that he 1) couldn't fly formation or 2) couldn't get out of the way of a P-3? I'm confused. In either case, any self-respecting fighter pilot would probably drown himself out of sheer mortification. This is going to look great on my "Kill" list. AIM-7, AIM-9, AIM-120, Hamilton Standard! Dirty Rotten Commie Pinko Bastards... Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:26:07 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > > > > 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 Taking out the P-3 with something like a cruise missile most likely would kill some Chinese people who are going over it thoroughly. Even if no one was onboard at the time, I'm sure the Chinese would find something or someone that was harmed by such an action. I have a feeling China is doing all it can to get ready for a major confrontation with us. If they have or soon will have subs that can cruise up and down our west coast without being detected, what's to stop them from launching missiles? And if they were really lucky, we might make the mistake of believing the submarines are Russian rather than Chinese. This is just speculation on my part, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:29:09 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su I only hope the intelligence agencies are a step ahead of the Chinese and the defensive forces are two steps ahead > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Albert H. Dobyns > Sent: 05 April 2001 23:26 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by > American su > > > "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > > > "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > Taking out the P-3 with something like a cruise missile most > likely would kill some Chinese people who are going over it > thoroughly. Even if no one was onboard at the time, I'm sure > the Chinese would find something or someone that was harmed > by such an action. I have a feeling China is doing all it > can to get ready for a major confrontation with us. If they > have or soon will have subs that can cruise up and down our > west coast without being detected, what's to stop them from > launching missiles? And if they were really lucky, we might > make the mistake of believing the submarines are Russian > rather than Chinese. This is just speculation on my part, > of course. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:14:18 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su The aircraft is indeed PR-32 of VQ-1 squadron serial number 156511. There are reported to be at this time only two out of the six aircraft in this squadron upgraded to 'story teller' configuration. But even if data and internal equipment where destroyed, the Chinese will still get a lot even from just the antennae. About being FORCED to land on Hainan Reports from Taiwan indicate that 'warning shots' were fired form the second fighter to force the EP-3 to land on Hainan. Although I can't see what the original source for this rumour would be, I find this theory more plausible than near useless escape hatches and incredibly low odds of being recuperated after bail out. Lets not forget that the Navy had three ships in the area that had to move out when the Chinese refused help in the search for the Chinese pilot. It seems it would not have been much of a problem to fly back either to a 'friendly' base or at least to get even closer to US warships who where nearby anyway, and then maintain a flight pattern compatible with a safe bailout (even if the pilot had to stay at the controls while other 23 members bailed out). Don't forget that the EP-3 covered quite some distance between the collision and Hainan and then still executed a safe landing. In addition to that one has to take into account the fact that the crew must have known how mad the Chinese would be (aggressive interceptions for last two weeks and collision) and that their chances of being released safe and sound in short notice would be low. Add to that the fact that these people are specially aware of the necessity to avoid capture of sensitive equipment by the enemy and this is the only theory that makes sense to me. About taking out the aircraft As someone as already mentioned we all know how there always seems to be civilians and especially women and children where American bombs fall. And that the media would give as much credit to that sensational bit of news even if obviously made up than to the denial by the Pentagon. (of course the victims could always happen to be just the crew, who could tell the difference of a few minutes in time between the Tomahawk attacks and the death of the crew) In addition to this we can expect the Chinese to have stepped up their defences, and they are holding 24 hostages (held in exchange for time to study aircraft and official excuses by US government). So it's not just Tomahawks but Delta force as well you are talking about. And just to stay tuned on on-topic subjects, if the US decided to send stealth aircraft we could expect the Chinese to have deployed their own 'silent sentry' type radars... Secondly this would obviously be considered an act of war. Unfortunately the US is not allowed by the world community to play by the same rules as others, as proven in this case or in cases such as simulated attacks on aircraft carrier for e.g... The US is expected to take all measures to avoid war even when other countries are obviously taking measures that would normally be considered hostile under 'normal circumstances'. In the world community and Media, the US always has to play catch up, they are the bad guys, they are the warmongers and the liars. Prove, prove, prove and nobody will believe you anyway because we all know that your technology allows you to make up every piece of proof. The US is paying a high price for peace, most often higher than others, which is unfortunate but seems to be the way in a world where the 'little guys' are always the good guys and the bigger richer ones the bad guys. several sat pictures by Ikonos of the base http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/misc/lingshui_sat_pic_010404.sh tml Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:51:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American su Timothy, >About being FORCED to land on Hainan >Reports from Taiwan indicate that 'warning shots' were fired form the second >fighter to force the EP-3 to land on Hainan. Although I can't see what the >original source for this rumour would be, I find this theory more plausible >than near useless escape hatches and incredibly low odds of being >recuperated after bail out. Nobody, especially not the U.S. DOD or State Department, has said anything about the EP-3E being forced to land at Hainan. On the contrary, some seem to feel the need to defend the pilots decision to land at Hainan, and argue that they had a right to land there, after their Mayday call. From the beginning, China complained about the intrusion and landing at Hainan, after causing the accident. And of course, both complains are somewhat ridiculous. The Pentagon has stated that the crew had specific orders that the lives of the 24 crew members was to be rated above the protection of confidential or secret material or equipment, and that bailing out or ditching the aircraft were neither expected nor sensible. And the PIC (pilot in command or aircraft commander) has to make that decision under any circumstances, not some desk warrior sitting in front his monitor, contemplating the best way to start a nuclear holocaust. The current theory to the cause of the accident seems to be, that the Chinese pilot flew dangerously close -- probably below the port (left) wing of the EP-3E, possibly disturbing the airflow around that wing enough to result in an un-commanded drop of the left wing, which then struck the J-8, causing the observed damage. And for the second J-8, it might have very well looked like the EP-3E was purposefully trying to ram the fighter. One has to be quite paranoid to belive the EP-3E crew would do something like that on purpose, but on the other hand, I have seen posts from various people here lately, that advocated anything from simple sabotage of civilian airliners to complete nuclear first strike, over nothing more than a few bits and pieces of 'secret' equipment and some temporarily detained soldiers. One could get quite paranoid, considering that. >Lets not forget that the Navy had three ships in the area that had to move >out when the Chinese refused help in the search for the Chinese pilot. It >seems it would not have been much of a problem to fly back either to a >'friendly' base or at least to get even closer to US warships who where >nearby anyway, and then maintain a flight pattern compatible with a safe >bailout (even if the pilot had to stay at the controls while other 23 >members bailed out). There were no ships "in the area", but the US Navy dispatched three destroyers after the fact, which took several hours, if not a whole day to arrive there (coming from Hong Kong). They would have been of no use to the EP-3E crew, at all. >Don't forget that the EP-3 covered quite some distance between the collision >and Hainan and then still executed a safe landing. In addition to that one >has to take into account the fact that the crew must have known how mad the >Chinese would be (aggressive interceptions for last two weeks and collision) >and that their chances of being released safe and sound in short notice >would be low. Add to that the fact that these people are specially aware of >the necessity to avoid capture of sensitive equipment by the enemy and this >is the only theory that makes sense to me. I don't know why it wouldn't make sense to you. The mission and orders were clear: The crew is more important than some data or even some equipment. The chances to survive a bail-out or ditching are very slim. Flying the 100 km (70 miles) to the next viable landing strip seems very sensible. Why would they worry about being detained for a short time -- they didn't do anything wrong, and they have the collective might of the USA behind them. This was a tragic accident -- why should they commit suicide over that? >About taking out the aircraft The rest of this post is complete hogwash, and not worth responding to. Just one thing. There is no reason to use any kind of force against China, or any need to destroy a crippled, US aircraft. Not even Bush would do something so stupid. You guys must be nuts! - -- Andreas [wondering if there are still some sane people around...] - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:16:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Etiquette Wayne, you wrote: >dear mr.lednicer. if you don't like HTML messages use your "delete" button. This is the typical inconsiderate and arrogant attitude that seems to be so prevalent on the internet. There is no reason to _not_ follow simple Netiquette rules, which include to _not_ quote the complete message when responding, and to _not_ send HTML encoded messages to a mailing list such as this one. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that it messes up the Skunk Works Digest. But the most simple one is, consideration for others. Your suggestion: "if you don't like it use your "delete" button" puts you on the same level as those spam mail senders who don't give a damn about others. But if you send something to a whole bunch of people, you are responsible for that, not the people receiving it. And I know, Wayne, that you haven't sent any HTML encoded emails for a long time -- the "you" is meant generic. But I have given up quite some time ago to appeal to the consideration of those sending HTML encoded emails or quoting complete posts, sometimes several hundreds of lines of unrelated text, or even complete digests, just to add three or four lines of text to it. Apparently it is nowadays "political correct" to be considerate of others and "political correct" is a bad thing, isn't it? - -- Andreas [why do I even bother...] - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #17 ********************************* 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