RC-135 Cobra Ball
What our pilots saw....
Posted on 03/04/2003 8:33:48 AM PST by RCW2001
Tue March 4, 2003 11:23 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States denounced North Korea's intercept of a U.S. surveillance plane as reckless on Tuesday and said it was consulting with allies on how to formally protest the incident. President Bush was quoted as saying he still believed the stand-off with North Korea, triggered by its resumption of a nuclear weapons program, could be settled diplomatically but that military options were not ruled out.
Bush told newspaper writers on Monday that if diplomatic efforts did not work, "they'll have to work militarily." He said: "(The) military option is our last choice. Options are on the table, but I believe we can deal with this diplomatically. I truly do."
Since the United States does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, Washington was looking at ways to lodge a formal protest with Pyongyang over the weekend incident.
Four North Korean fighters intercepted a U.S. air force RC-135 reconnaissance plane in international airspace over the Sea of Japan on Sunday and came within 50 feet of the big U.S. jet while shadowing it, the Pentagon said.
The tension with North Korea is complicating Washington's difficult diplomatic task of drawing international support for possible military action against Iraq to ensure the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the United States was discussing how to respond to the surveillance plane interception with South Korea and other allies.
"We are consulting on how this incident will be protested and discussing with them the most appropriate way to lodge it. This kind of reckless behavior by North Korea will only lead to further international isolation of North Korea," he said.
One avenue was through North Korea's mission at the United Nations in New York.
The United States believes North Korea is ramping up pressure on Washington for direct talks that the communist state hopes would lead to renewed assistance and a nonaggression pact.
Washington says it will only hold talks with North Korea about how Pyongyang will dismantle its nuclear weapons program and wants South Korea, Japan and China to exert diplomatic pressure on North Korea.
What our pilots saw....
1. Why our surveillance aircraft do not fly routinely with a fighter escort?
2. Why the E3 that was forced down by the Chinese did not have a 'destruct' button which would destroy all sensitive equipment and data?
3. If the E3 did have such a system, why the mission commander did not use it?
--Boris
1. Why our surveillance aircraft do not fly routinely with a fighter escort?
Three reasons. One, is that the long range recon planes would outdistance short range fighters. Two, the fuel for the fighters would be very expensive. Three, in peacetime, there should be no need for either one or two at all, because all these planes operate in international waters / airspace. (Granted, the situation in North Korea will soon rate fighter escorts. I personally think it does now.)
2. Why the E3 that was forced down by the Chinese did not have a 'destruct' button which would destroy all sensitive equipment and data?
Because anything that the military makes is bound to not work at least once a year. A faulty self destruct system or accident could blow hundreds of millions of dollars and a dozen highly skilled operators out of the sky for no reason, and we'd have no way of knowing that they weren't shot down.
3. If the E3 did have such a system, why the mission commander did not use it?</>
They wouldn't need to, even if they did. Once the encryption is zeroed (which takes a few seconds) , the remaining stuff is on the whole nothing you couldn't buy off the shelf (in China, for that matter). We used to help Soviet planes that landed in Alaska in trouble, and sent them on their way. We had no reason to think that China would send our plan back UPS, after tearing it apart.
Fighters can be refueled. Fuel is expensive. How expensive is the E3 and the crew?
"Because anything that the military makes is bound to not work at least once a year. A faulty self destruct system or accident could blow hundreds of millions of dollars and a dozen highly skilled operators out of the sky for no reason, and we'd have no way of knowing that they weren't shot down."
You misunderstand. I mean slag down the electronics so they cannot be reverse-engineered, and physically destroy (automatically) all storage media. Such a system would (if I were on the design team) require 'two keys', i.e., two different individuals would have to turn keys at different positions and then the commander hits The Big Red Button. It seems to me that this is only prudent; I would regard any design of a state-of-art surveillence plane deficient if it did not possess such a system.
" They wouldn't need to, even if they did. Once the encryption is zeroed (which takes a few seconds) , the remaining stuff is on the whole nothing you couldn't buy off the shelf (in China, for that matter). We used to help Soviet planes that landed in Alaska in trouble, and sent them on their way. We had no reason to think that China would send our plan back UPS, after tearing it apart."
I beg to disagree. As I indicate above, electronics can be reverse engineered. Intact electronics will suggest--at the very least--what electronic countermeasures they might be vulnerable to. And I have less faith than "zeroing the encryption" than you do. When the E3-A was forced down by the Chinese there were reports of the crew using fire axes(!) to try to destroy some of the equipment.
--Boris
Two more possibilities. It would give the impression that we're (a) looking for a fight, or (b) unsure of our location/mission/status/justification.
Yeah; so would I if the alternative was a court-martial.
Being facetious. But my comments about reverse-engineering the electronics remain. How did they "clean up" all those circuit boards?
Remember the Chi-coms had full and complete access to the aircraft for weeks before we got it back. Anything they wanted--and was still there--they got...or so we must assume.
I would bet a lot of that stuff is now being redesigned since the old stuff must be considered compromised.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.