Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steel Wolf
"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.)"

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

7 posted on 03/04/2003 9:15:39 AM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: boris
I agree, good points Boris.
8 posted on 03/04/2003 9:29:48 AM PST by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: boris
You're preaching to the choir, brother. I'm just telling you the official line. I'm all in favor of fighter escorts, physical destruct of some kind (I prefer the incindiary grenade, myself) and leaving nothing for the enemy. I'm not micromanaged by a dozen layers of officers who think they know better than me, though. People who fly those planes are not so lucky. ;-)

11 posted on 03/04/2003 9:53:24 AM PST by Steel Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: boris
I thought the Orion pilot reported that they "cleaned up real good."...meaning the equipment on board was rendered useless as intell-bonanza.They certainly took their time opening the door once they got down on the tarmac.
12 posted on 03/04/2003 10:43:58 AM PST by Dixiekraut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: boris
Slight nit pick Boris. It was an EP-3E not an E-3. An E-3 is the Sentry (AWACS)
13 posted on 03/04/2003 12:19:10 PM PST by Tommyjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: boris
If you have an automatic system, there is always the possibility of it buggering up and screwing up a flight.
That and storage media can be wiped easily with a magnet and a hammer.
14 posted on 03/04/2003 12:23:19 PM PST by Saturnalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson