From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #18
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 Monday, April 9 2001 Volume 10 : Number 018
Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Re: Etiquette
Re: Etiquette
spyplane cartoons
china times
RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su
EP-3
Re: Etiquette
Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 7 April 2001
Off Topic/EP-3 Incident
F-8 Shepherd dogs
O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"
SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford (fwd)
RE: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"
RE: F-8 Shepherd dogs
***************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 06:35:46 -0500
From: George R. Kasica
Subject: Re: Etiquette
Hopefully be the end of the weekend the issue will be a non issue as I
plan on installing some form of MIME filter.
George
===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com
georgek@netwrx1.com
ICQ #12862186
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:13:05
From: "wayne binkley"
Subject: Re: Etiquette
i regret the tone of my reply about "Etiquette" but it was the remark about
my violating copyright(stratfor.com) that ticked me off,and i don't think i
owe any one an apology.
wayne
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:30:33
From: "wayne binkley"
Subject: spyplane cartoons
>From: "wayne binkley"
>
>it seems some of us are stressed out worrying(rightly so) about our
>military people being held on hainan island,and tempers are short(mine
>anyway).some times humour is a good way to relieve stress. i offer this
>link to some cartoons(i have not looked at all of them, so if some offend
>some one...well).
>wayne
>
>http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/chinaplane/main.asp
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:44:02
From: "wayne binkley"
Subject: china times
the english language mainland newspaper.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:52:27 -0700
From: "T. Toth"
Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com
[mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Kathryn & Andreas
Gehrs-Pahl
Sent: April 6, 2001 12:52 AM
To: Skunk Works List
Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su
>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!
Complete Hogwash is sometimes called one's opinion, which is what I thought
we were expressing here. ;-)
Military action is not an option was exactly my point! So maybe I'm not so
nuts after all.
>-- Andreas [wondering if there are still some sane people around...]
I guess according to your post I'm disqualified as far as answering that
question is concerned. :-)
About being forced to land or not I guess only time will tell. But If they
did make the choice of landing there without Chinese authorization, then
what can we say about what is happening, wasn't it to be expected?
This is the perfect opportunity for the Chinese to get back at the US and in
the process get a whole bunch of prizes at almost no risk. I'm not saying
the Chinese are right or wrong, I'm just saying that expecting them not to
take advantage of this situation would have been a gross miscalculation.
Which doesn't mean they miscalculated, maybe they decided that the trade off
(detention and inspection of plane) wasn't worth risking the lives of the
crew, especially if this is not one of the 'story tellers'.
Once again this is all just speculation but if what you say is right then
the fact that the Chinese are keeping the crew would be normal considering
they are investigating the incident (a crime if they believe it was
intentional). And the fact that they are inspecting the plane is normal
considering they were delivered a high-tech plane on a gold platter (landing
without authorization and the 'instrument of the crime'). The only thing we
could then blame them for is the fact that an American official is not
present at the 'interrogating' sessions.
In any case I still feel that if this crises is not resolved soon, taking no
action against China (and I do repeat here that military action is not an
option) would just result in the Chinese ,and others becoming more assertive
and more willing to repeat that kind of action.
Let's just hope the crew gets home soon.
Timothy (who hopes he is sane...)
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 13:08:58 -0400
From: "Morris, Andrew"
Subject: EP-3
No one supposes Bush arranged this incident to act as a distraction while
his tax bill is being prepared for passage by congress? Like bombing former
Yugoslavia or Libya. Naaaa.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the article in Air & Space this month
about the problem of "flutter" causing damage to aircraft (ripping off
wings). The aircraft that encountered this problem with catastrophic
consequenses described in the article was none other than the Lockheed
Electra.
Not being an engineer or playing one on TV, it makes the mishap, the damage
and the possible consequenses of what might have happened to even a new
airframe should the damaged wing begun to experience flutter or flutter-like
conditions after the collision....
Andy Morris
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:38:11 -0400
From: "Weigold, Greg"
Subject: Re: Etiquette
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_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82
Content-Type: text/plain
Good... Thanks George....
Greg W
"George R. Kasica"
04/06/01 07:35 AM
Please respond to skunk-works
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
cc:
Subject: Re: Etiquette
Hopefully be the end of the weekend the
issue will be a non issue as I
plan on installing some form of MIME filter.
George
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re: Etiquette
"George R. Kasica" =
<georgek@netwrx1.com>
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
cc:
Subject: =
Re: Etiquette
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 07:00:30 -0500
From: George R. Kasica
Subject: Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 7 April 2001
Hello:
Beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) on April 7, 2001 all server systems
that run this list will be unavailable so that the disk drives can be
upgraded.
This upgrade will result in the disk capacity increasing from its
present 16GB up to 120GB.
The duration of the outage is expected to be no longer than 12 hours
ending at 0000 CDT (0500 GMT) April 8, 2000.
No data will be lost during this upgrade.
Thank you,
===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com
georgek@netwrx1.com
ICQ #12862186
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:24:54 -0500
From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III"
Subject: Off Topic/EP-3 Incident
Is there a reliable source delineating the correct sequence of events
for the EP-3 incident? [n.b. --- rather than clutter the list with
duplicate replies feel free to contact me directly at
drbob@shemya.net].
There are clear rules established by the ICAO for interception and
escort, in part to prevent the chances for a collision like the one
near Hainan. Several issues don't square with these rules:
1) Intercepting aircraft MUST remain between the "intruder" and the
interceptor's sovereign territory (like a buffer).
2) "Intruding" aircraft must turn away from the sovereign territory
(to avoid a collision with the interceptor and to move away from the
territory).
3) Either the F8 was on the wrong side or the EP-3 turned the wrong way.......
4) OR the F8 was "thumping" the EP-3 (a common but dangerous
practice) too aggressively, resulting in a collision. [The physical
evidence supports (but doesn't prove) this possibility, especially
the underwing damage, propellor damage, loss of the nose radome, and
aerial instability. Incidentally, the greatest consequence of flying
without the radome is loss of accurate pitot-static data such as
airspeed and altitude. To compensate, the pilot would have to fly
known engine power settings, a difficult but not impossible task.]
I am intrigued that both the United States and the PRC are silent on
the issue of international procedure and who was in the wrong. Prior
to every mission in the RC-135 we reviewed these procedures, our
actions in the event of an intercept, and related instructions unique
to the day's mission.
Robert Hopkins
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:41:05 -0700
From: Lee Markland
Subject: F-8 Shepherd dogs
Here's my take on the incident (with a grateful nod to Art for the idea).
The F-8's were under orders to force the EP-3 to land in China, and were
"shepherding" it like a couple of
shepherd dogs. Weng Wei (Wong Way, how appropriate a name) was a hot dog
looking for glory and recognition, maybe promotion, and was riding herd on
the left. The pilot of the EP-3 shortly figured out what was going on, and
turned out of the line of flight. He also signaled that he had no intention
of being forced to land in China, Wong Way ignored the signals and the
EP-3's intentions.
The collison resulted.
China cannot afford to have that story come out in the world press, thus
they can't afford to release the crew, especially the pilot (the reason
they have seperated the pilot from the crew). I expect that they will put
the pilot of the EP-3 on trial and release the other crew members.
I also expect George Bush to go along with this scheme.
Reason: The Republicans are comprised of two quite disparate groups. The
religious, "patriotic" extremists and big, multinational business and
finance. Big Business provides the major funding and direction to Bush and
the Republican party, and Bush sings the song the Religious and "patriotic"
right wants to hear, and throws them all of the bones needed to retain
their loyalty.
Baron Nathan Rothschild is attributed with saying: "I don't care who makes
the laws, so long as I control the money".
That is still a true statement. The religious social agenda is a
throwaway, the real issue, the important issue is international trade and
international finance, and Democratic and Republican politico's are joined
up in a circle jerk when it comes to international trade and finance,
especially true of Clinton, and doubly true of Bush.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:27:20
From: "wayne binkley"
Subject: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"
just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to register to gain access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better than "HTML?"
wayne
>This South China Morning Post story has been sent to you from
>wbinkley@angelfire.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Monday, Apr 09, 2001
>
>Spy plane 'forced to land'
>
>STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES
>
>The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced to land by a Chinese fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by ground control, Chinese sources said yesterday.
>
>To read the full article, click here:
>
>http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China.
>With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
>Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com
>for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia
>and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and
>brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's
>premier English launguage news source.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright (C) 2000.
>All rights reserved.
>
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
>
>
>
>Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody.
>FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:39:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Allison
Subject: SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:37:41 +0100
From: Hannah Kingston
To: allison@habu.org
Subject: SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford
Hello David Just a quick message to say that the aircraft has arrived
safely at Duxford and WWAR are now in the process of reassembling it.
The roll out for the press is still scheduled for 11am on 11 April.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/duxford1.htm?
Thanks
Hannah Kingston
Marketing Manager
Imperial War Museum Duxford
Cambridge
England. CB2 4QR
tel 01223 499320 fax 01223 837267
www.iwm.org.uk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:22:06 -0700
From: Dennis Lapcewich
Subject: RE: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"
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_01C0C143.8A4C3596
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
It is interesting to read this story as printed from the South China Morning
post ( http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html ) and then read "versions" of
it from:
The Drudge Report - http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
The Australian -
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1881371%255E2,00.html
CNN - Can't find it
USAToday - Can't find it
Yahoo Reuters - Can't find it
BBC -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1260000/1260290.s
tm
Dennis
- -----Original Message-----
From: wayne binkley [mailto:wbinkley@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 8:27 AM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"
just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to register to gain
access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better than "HTML?"
wayne
>This South China Morning Post story has been sent to you from
>wbinkley@angelfire.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Monday, Apr 09, 2001
>
>Spy plane 'forced to land'
>
>STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES
>
>The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced to land by a Chinese
fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by ground control,
Chinese sources said yesterday.
>
>To read the full article, click here:
>
>http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China.
>With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
>Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com
>for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia
>and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and
>brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's
>premier English launguage news source.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright (C) 2000.
>All rights reserved.
>
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C143.8A4C3596
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is=20
interesting to read this story as printed from the South China Morning =
post (=20
http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html ) and then read "versions" of it =
from:
CNN -=20
Can't find it
USAToday - Can't find it
Yahoo=20
Reuters - Can't find it
Dennis
just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to =
register to=20
gain access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better =
than=20
"HTML?"
wayne
>This South China Morning Post story has been sent to =
you from=20
>wbinkley@angelfire.com=20
=
>---------------------------------------------------------=
- ----=20
>=20
>Monday, Apr 09, 2001=20
>=20
>Spy plane 'forced to land'=20
>=20
>STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES=20
>=20
>The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced =
to land=20
by a Chinese fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by =
ground=20
control, Chinese sources said yesterday.=20
>=20
>To read the full article, click here:=20
>=20
>http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html=20
>=20
=
>---------------------------------------------------------=
- ----=20
>SCMP.com is the premier information resource on =
Greater China.=20
>With a click, you will be able to access information =
on=20
Business,=20
>Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. =
Bookmark=20
SCMP.com
>for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, =
China,=20
Asia=20
>and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside =
the US=20
and=20
>brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong =
Kong's=20
>premier English launguage news source.=20
=
>---------------------------------------------------------=
- ----=20
>Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright =
(C) 2000.=20
>All rights reserved.=20
>=20
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------=20
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C143.8A4C3596--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:54:23 -0700
From: "T. Toth"
Subject: RE: F-8 Shepherd dogs
What is ironic is that the official Chinese version states that the fighters
where flying 400 meters behind the EP-3, and apparently there are some
international airspace rules that require aircraft to keep at least 300
metres between them...
Yet a June 1999 edition of a mainland controlled newspaper was explaining in
one of it's articles how Chinese'TOP GUNS' intercepted 'foreign
surveillance' planes. This article described the 'incredible flying skills'
of Chinese fighter pilots who generally fly as close as 30m., but who
sometimes fly so close to the other plane that the wings are almost touching
and that the foreign plane can not manoeuvre without risking touching the
Chinese fighters. This tactic is used to herd the plane.
The US had apparently previously filed complains about Wang Wei because of
this type of dangerous flying.
It is apparently quite something for Chinese pilots to be able to pit
themselves against their US counterparts, and Wang Wei got medals for it. Is
this accident the result?
According to Jane's only the upgraded ARIES II (story teller) has a crew of
24, otherwise the crew is normally 22.
Timothy
------------------------------
End of skunk-works-digest V10 #18
*********************************
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