http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
they end up with?

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
range weapons?

your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......



"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
.. .
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>
> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
> it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many
would
> they end up with?
>
> Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat
to
> the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting
phased
> out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the
US
> carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
> sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
> specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
> was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
> Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.
>
> Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
> life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
> missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
> capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller,
medium
> range weapons?
>
>

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:02:07 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>
>Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
>it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
>they end up with?
>
>Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
>the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
>out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
>carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
>sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
>specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
>was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
>Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.
>
>Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
>life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
>missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
>capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
>range weapons?

The AMRAAM has a pretty good range - most of the extremely long range
shots taken by the Phoenix were test runs unlikely to be repeated in
real life.

And with the improvements in stealthy ships, the steady improvement in
SM-2, and the far superior last ditch defenses (compared to
pre-Phalanx days when Phoenix was first deployed) of Phalanx, RAM, and
ESSM, the USN shouldn't be too concenred until China actually looks
like gettign *dozens* of Tu-22Ms.

If the worst comes to the worst, the US can always buy Meteor ;-)

Peter Kemp

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:02:07 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. > wrote:
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>
>Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
>it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
>they end up with?

I guess they'd be expecting to buy about 10-30. If not, they could
always use a Flanker derivative as a long-range bomber.

>Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
>the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
>out with no real comparable replacement,

They could always use the Meteor, if NIH considerations don't
prevent that.

>Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
>life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
>missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
>capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
>range weapons?

A long range missile makes more sense for the F/A-18 than for the
F-35, because it will be big. This isn't an issue with the F/A-18,
becasue that carries weapons externally. But the F-35 uses an
internal weapons bay, for stealthing; giving it external missiles
would remove its stealth and make it more vulnerable. It may be that
lack of stealth isn't a problem for some missions the F-35 may have
to perform, but it think we can expect that a long-range missile
isn't going to be a routine part of its armament (as it probably
will for the European delta-canard fighters).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

In message >, Thomas J.
Paladino Jr. > writes
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>
>Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
>it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
>they end up with?

Say rather, "How many could they support"?

>Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
>the carrier group,

Only in sufficient numbers and with good targeting.

>and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
>out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
>carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
>sometime in the near future.

The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it. AEGIS was the answer and
remains in US service.

>The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
>specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
>was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
>Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

As others have said, if you need a long-range AAM then buy into Meteor.
The F-18 can carry a decent number of them, and the E-2 can detect
Backfires at long range, and the AEGIS/SM-2 remains the best shipborne
AAW in the world. (Type 45 may be better but is yet to appear, and then
AEGIS will get an update...)

>Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
>life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
>missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
>capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
>range weapons?

The enemy has to reliably locate the US carrier.

The enemy has to get that data back to HQ.

The strike must be authorised.

The strikers must take off, form up, and get into launch range without
being disrupted by anything from comms jamming to fighter attack.

The missiles must reliably tell chaff, floating decoys and offboard
jammers from real ships: then tell real escorts from real HVUs: then
survive the hardkill defences: then defeat the softkill: and finally
inflict mission-lethal damage on the carrier.

This is not an easy chain to follow, and if any link breaks the whole
thing falls down.


If China bought MiG-23s would you panic? The Backfire and its weapons
are of the same vintage. The fundamental problem remains that you can
only mass a strike against a known target.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>From: "rstro"
>Date: 8/21/2004 2:09 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
>as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
>flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......
>

F-14s age much faster due to higher stress loads. For one thing B-52s don't do
cat shots and wire landings. If B-52s had to do the yanking and banking F-14s
do they'd age much faster too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>
>your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
>as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
>flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......
>

Different animals, different life expectances. The Buff, for all its
longevity, doesn't do its craft at 7-10G on a typical day. It also isn't
subjected to routine impacts with steel objects, or to months of salt water
mist at a time. If you want something to last fifty years AND compete as a
front line tactical aircraft, don't land it on a carrier. Two out of three
ain't bad.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

>
>The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
>located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it.

Having seen that scenario played out in 1:1 scale, I would report that the
event would be, if nothing else, glorious. Being pelted in the chest by sonic
booms from Soviet supersonic bombers while chaff banged and glittered was one
of the more interesting moments I've had. Back in the US at a war college, we
wargamed it to no end - which just plain never showed what 48 Backfires, a
couple dozen Tu 22s, 16s, SSNs and SSM-armed patrol boats could really do.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

> >
> >The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
> >located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it.
>
> Having seen that scenario played out in 1:1 scale, I would report that the
> event would be, if nothing else, glorious. Being pelted in the chest by sonic
> booms from Soviet supersonic bombers while chaff banged and glittered was one
> of the more interesting moments I've had. Back in the US at a war college, we
> wargamed it to no end - which just plain never showed what 48 Backfires, a
> couple dozen Tu 22s, 16s, SSNs and SSM-armed patrol boats could really do.


Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
didn't seem likely to happen? From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
real **** happened. Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
ocean floor in the process.



--Mike

>Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
>didn't seem likely to happen?

The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea battles,
after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.

> From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
>of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
>deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
>against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
>seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
>them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
>real **** happened.

My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to
reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact.
It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters; the other main
reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never heard
anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be full of
yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing. :)

>Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
>would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
>ocean floor in the process.

Like I said, it would have been glorious -- at least for a little while :))

Later, Mike.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Thomas J.
> Paladino Jr. > writes
>>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>>
>>Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
>>it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many
>>would
>>they end up with?
>
> Say rather, "How many could they support"?
>
>>Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat
>>to
>>the carrier group,
>
> Only in sufficient numbers and with good targeting.

And good training

>
>>and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
>>out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the
>>US
>>carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
>>sometime in the near future.
>
> The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
> located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it. AEGIS was the answer and remains
> in US service.
>
>>The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
>>specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
>>was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
>>Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.
>
> As others have said, if you need a long-range AAM then buy into Meteor.
> The F-18 can carry a decent number of them, and the E-2 can detect
> Backfires at long range, and the AEGIS/SM-2 remains the best shipborne AAW
> in the world. (Type 45 may be better but is yet to appear, and then AEGIS
> will get an update...)
>
>>Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
>>life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
>>missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
>>capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller,
>>medium
>>range weapons?
>
> The enemy has to reliably locate the US carrier.
>
> The enemy has to get that data back to HQ.
>
> The strike must be authorised.
>
> The strikers must take off, form up, and get into launch range without
> being disrupted by anything from comms jamming to fighter attack.
>
> The missiles must reliably tell chaff, floating decoys and offboard
> jammers from real ships: then tell real escorts from real HVUs: then
> survive the hardkill defences: then defeat the softkill: and finally
> inflict mission-lethal damage on the carrier.
>
> This is not an easy chain to follow, and if any link breaks the whole
> thing falls down.
>
>
> If China bought MiG-23s would you panic? The Backfire and its weapons are
> of the same vintage. The fundamental problem remains that you can only
> mass a strike against a known target.
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
>>didn't seem likely to happen?
>
> The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea
> battles,
> after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.
>

Maybe after they caught John Walker and provided they didn't have any other
spies with their paws in our commo.


>> From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
>>of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
>>deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
>>against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
>>seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
>>them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
>>real **** happened.
>
> My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981
> to
> reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine
> contact.
> It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters; the other
> main
> reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never
> heard
> anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be
> full of
> yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing. :)
>
>>Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
>>would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
>>ocean floor in the process.
>
> Like I said, it would have been glorious -- at least for a little while
> :))
>
> Later, Mike.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
> Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
>

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>
> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
> it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
> they end up with?

Irrelevant


> Second, what does this mean to the the US?

Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's
how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians
too. They just don't like to admit it much.

The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?


Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.


p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ?

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>>
>> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually
>> succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if
>> so, how many would they end up with?
>
> Irrelevant
>
>
>> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
>
> Bugger all !
>
> China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
> with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant
> trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
>
> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much.
>
> The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
>
>
> Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.
>
>
> p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days
> ?
>
>

you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack
Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that
the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:


> > Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
> > it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
> > they end up with?
>
> Irrelevant
>
>
> > Second, what does this mean to the the US?
>
> Bugger all !
>
> China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with.


China needs the USA to have someplace to dump its cheap quality products.

> That's
> how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
> Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
>
> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians
> too. They just don't like to admit it much.

Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
the rest of the world creates.

>
> The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?


Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
even speak with the outside world.


--Mike

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:50 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>>
>> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
>> it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
>> they end up with?
>
>Irrelevant
>
>
>> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
>
>Bugger all !
>
>China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's
>how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
>Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

Trade isn't the be all and end all of avoiding war. France was
Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939.

Peter Kemp

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

> >Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
> >didn't seem likely to happen?
>
> The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea battles,
> after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.


Did you guys ever have to fly with a funky "magic box" hooked into AC in
the cargo area and which was supposed to attract enemy missiles toward
it (and the helo) and way from Mother? They told us it would deflect the
missile path at the last moment...but none of us trusted it and vowed to
shove it out the door if the balloon went up.


>
> > From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
> >of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
> >deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
> >against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
> >seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
> >them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
> >real **** happened.
>
> My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to
> reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact.
> It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters;


I could never understand why the VS squadrons we did ASW exercises with
at the SOAR range never seemed to get sub contact or maintain contact on
a target we localized and passed off to them. Was it an avionics thing?
I know we were spoiled having active sonar and all that, but I would
think their active buoys and what I understood to be a more refined
acoustical analysis avionic package what have scored them some hits.


> the other main
> reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never
> heard
> anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be full
> of
> yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing. :)

Yeah, I noticed that a bit with our CVW's VS squadron (VS-33), but
nothing too bad. We never really cared, as we proved time and time again
that we were far more effective at inner-zone ASW than they were.


Cheers,

--Mike

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:50 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
> >>
> >> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed
in
> >> it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many
would
> >> they end up with?
> >
> >Irrelevant
> >
> >
> >> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
> >
> >Bugger all !
> >
> >China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with.
That's
> >how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
> >Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
>
> Trade isn't the be all and end all of avoiding war. France was
> Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939.
>

And from June 1940 onwards, the difference is that the West is
unlikely to resume trade with China while a
war is going on.

Keith

>Did you guys ever have to fly with a funky "magic box" hooked into AC in
>the cargo area and which was supposed to attract enemy missiles toward
>it (and the helo) and way from Mother?

Never flew with it. They showed it to us in HS-10 and the crews basically
snickered and walked away.

>They told us it would deflect the
>missile path at the last moment..

"No....really."

>I could never understand why the VS squadrons we did ASW exercises with
>at the SOAR range never seemed to get sub contact or maintain contact on
>a target we localized and passed off to them. Was it an avionics thing?

It was caused by a tragic inability to hover.

>I know we were spoiled having active sonar and all that,

*Bingo* :)

v/r
Gordon

<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
> >>
> >> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually
> >> succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if
> >> so, how many would they end up with?
> >
> > Irrelevant
> >
> >
> >> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
> >
> > Bugger all !
> >
> > China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
> > with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant
> > trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
> >
> > The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> > Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> >
> > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
> >
> >
> > Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.
> >
> >
> > p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days
> > ?
>
> you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack
> Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that
> the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move.

There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'.

Posturing is another matter.

Hong Kong hasn't become or been forced to be 'Communist' btw since becoming a
special administrative region.


Graham

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
>
> Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
> prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
> even speak with the outside world.

Compare that to Gary Powers' treatment if you want to make a Cold War comparison.

If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes to try
and deter such action. I would be interested to see the reaction of the USA to
Chinese spy planes off its shores !


Graham

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes to
> try and deter such action.

Ramming aircraft in international airspace seems, well, clumsy of them.

> I would be interested to see the reaction of the USA
> to Chinese spy planes off its shores !

They use "fishing" boats, instead.

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:

> > > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
> >
> > Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
> > prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
> > even speak with the outside world.
>
> Compare that to Gary Powers' treatment if you want to make a Cold War
> comparison.
>
> If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes to
> try
> and deter such action. I would be interested to see the reaction of the USA
> to
> Chinese spy planes off its shores !

The number of Chinese apologists spouting this BS sickening.

Chinese ELINT aircraft have plaid spook on the Koreans and Japanese for
years. They are intercepted by those countries' assets as well as those
of our USAF and USN.

Would Japan be justified to recklessly intercept their PRC spy planes in
international airspace and then take the crew prisoner when they are
forced to land as a consequence of an incompetently flown intercept?



--Mike

Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
> >
> > If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes to
> > try and deter such action.
>
> Ramming aircraft in international airspace seems, well, clumsy of them.

From what I heard it wasn't actually 'ramming'. Foolish airborne jousting perhaps
?


> > I would be interested to see the reaction of the USA
> > to Chinese spy planes off its shores !
>
> They use "fishing" boats, instead.

In international waters no doubt ?

Somewhat less effective though.

Don't ever forget that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too.


Graham

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>> >>
>> >> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually
>> >> succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and
>> >> if so, how many would they end up with?
>> >
>> > Irrelevant
>> >
>> >
>> >> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
>> >
>> > Bugger all !
>> >
>> > China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
>> > with. That's how they are modernising their country via a
>> > significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
>> >
>> > The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like
>> > the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much.
>> >
>> > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
>> >
>> >
>> > Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.
>> >
>> >
>> > p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these
>> > days ?
>>
>> you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack
>> Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and
>> that the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move.
>
> There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'.

At some point in China's modernization,they may decide they can go it alone
or just trade with counties such as France and Germany.
>
> Posturing is another matter.

Who wants to gamble on it being 'posturing'?
They've STATED they intend to retake Taiwan,and their actions in
modernizing their military support this.

>
> Hong Kong hasn't become or been forced to be 'Communist' btw since
> becoming a special administrative region.

HK is slowly being converted.(the 'boil the frog' concept)
You need to keep up with the news.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:50 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm
>> >>
>> >> Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually
>> >> succeed
> in
>> >> it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how
>> >> many
> would
>> >> they end up with?
>> >
>> >Irrelevant
>> >
>> >
>> >> Second, what does this mean to the the US?
>> >
>> >Bugger all !
>> >
>> >China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
>> >with.
> That's
>> >how they are modernising their country via a significant trade
>> >surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.
>>
>> Trade isn't the be all and end all of avoiding war. France was
>> Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939.
>>
>
> And from June 1940 onwards, the difference is that the West is
> unlikely to resume trade with China while a
> war is going on.
>
> Keith
>
>
>

These days,with the French and Germans having illegally traded with Iraq,I
would not be so certain that some 'Western' nations would not continue
their trade with red China even if war broke out against Taiwan with the US
supporting Taiwan.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
>

>
> These days,with the French and Germans having illegally traded with Iraq,I
> would not be so certain that some 'Western' nations would not continue
> their trade with red China even if war broke out against Taiwan with the
US
> supporting Taiwan.
>

There's damm little evidence for either of those nations
trading on any significant scale with Iraq and they are
unlikely to rush to buy the plastic gewgaws China makes
for Walmart etc.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Actually, PRC assets do not monitor the U.S. Pacific Command in the number
or manner Ivan did. Very few (if any) air shadowing of CVBGs, let alone sub
or AGI activity off of U.S. bases in Okinawa, Guam or Hawaii. They do concentrate
on Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Koreas, Japan, Russia and their own dissidents,
though.


Pooh Bear > wrote:
>Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Pooh Bear >
>wrote:
>> >
>> > If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm
>unsurprised that the PRC wishes to
>> > try and deter such action.
>>
>> Ramming aircraft in international airspace
>seems, well, clumsy of them.
>
>From what I heard it wasn't actually 'ramming'.
>Foolish airborne jousting perhaps
>?
>
>
>> > I would be interested to see the reaction
>of the USA
>> > to Chinese spy planes off its shores !
>>
>> They use "fishing" boats, instead.
>
>In international waters no doubt ?
>
>Somewhat less effective though.
>
>Don't ever forget that what's sauce for the
>goose is sauce for the gander too.
>
>
>Graham
>
>


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:10:27 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians
>> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
>
>Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
>the rest of the world creates.

Didn't people use to say that about Japan?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'.
>
> At some point in China's modernization,they may decide they can go it alone
> or just trade with counties such as France and Germany.

With regard to that specific point, don't forget that France and Germany are in
the EU. Selective trade with certain EU members only would attract the
attention of the European Comission which would embargo such a stance (
assuming that France and Germany for example were even dumb enought to go along
with such a situation in the first place ). Also there is free trade in the EU.

It makes as much sense as suggesting that you could trade with Texas and
California but not the rest of the USA.

Graham

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> > > > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
> > >
> > > Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
> > > prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
> > > even speak with the outside world.
> >
> > Compare that to Gary Powers' treatment if you want to make a Cold War
> > comparison.
> >
> > If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes to
> > try
> > and deter such action. I would be interested to see the reaction of the USA
> > to
> > Chinese spy planes off its shores !
>
> The number of Chinese apologists spouting this BS sickening.

I'm sorry that you are sickened by impartial comment.


> Chinese ELINT aircraft have plaid spook on the Koreans and Japanese for
> years. They are intercepted by those countries' assets as well as those
> of our USAF and USN.

Sure, I don't doubt it.

> Would Japan be justified to recklessly intercept their PRC spy planes in
> international airspace and then take the crew prisoner when they are
> forced to land as a consequence of an incompetently flown intercept?

If such a thing happened I'm sure that they crew would be 'invited' to explain
what happened. I doubt that this would happen in public. You can choose whether
that constitutes holding someone prisoner. Unless the crew were carrying passports
( as per civilian flights ) , I'm sure that there would be at the very minimum
immigration procedures to deal with.

Graham

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:


> > > > > The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?
> > > >
> > > > Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
> > > > prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
> > > > even speak with the outside world.
> > >
> > > Compare that to Gary Powers' treatment if you want to make a Cold War
> > > comparison.
> > >
> > > If the USA chooses to spy on the PRC, I'm unsurprised that the PRC wishes
> > > to
> > > try
> > > and deter such action. I would be interested to see the reaction of the
> > > USA
> > > to
> > > Chinese spy planes off its shores !
> >
> > The number of Chinese apologists spouting this BS sickening.
>
> I'm sorry that you are sickened by impartial comment.

I see, so you would have no problem with a ROK fighter intercepting a
Chinese spy plane in international airspace; causing serious damage to
it; ignoring all radio calls on international distress frequencies
requesting an emergency landing in Korea (closest field); making the
crew exit the plane at gun point; holding the crew incommunicado with
their country and the rest of the world; and then proceeding to examine
in detail the proprietary systems in that aircraft?
>
>
> > Chinese ELINT aircraft have plaid spook on the Koreans and Japanese for
> > years. They are intercepted by those countries' assets as well as those
> > of our USAF and USN.
>
> Sure, I don't doubt it.


Do you doubt those countries don't recklessly intercept PRC spook planes
and don't make a habit of taking the crew of other "Most Favored" tading
nations prisoner?


>
> > Would Japan be justified to recklessly intercept their PRC spy planes in
> > international airspace and then take the crew prisoner when they are
> > forced to land as a consequence of an incompetently flown intercept?
>
> If such a thing happened I'm sure that they crew would be 'invited' to
> explain
> what happened. I doubt that this would happen in public. You can choose
> whether
> that constitutes holding someone prisoner.


If in the course of this "invitation" they were denied any contact with
the outside world and their own country for several days....then they
were prisoners.


> Unless the crew were carrying
> passports
> ( as per civilian flights ) , I'm sure that there would be at the very
> minimum
> immigration procedures to deal with.


"Immigration procedures" which require the crew to be held without being
allowed contact with the outside world for several days?




--Mike

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> >> Russians
> >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> >
> >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
> >the rest of the world creates.
>
> Didn't people use to say that about Japan?


I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.


Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
electronics, etc.)


The same cannot be said for China.



--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> > >> Russians
> > >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> > >
> > >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
> > >the rest of the world creates.
> >
> > Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
>
> I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.

Yes, they did, in the '50s and early '60s, at least. their products were
generally laughed at in the U.S. as poorly made rubbish, often cheap plastic
toys and the like. But times change.

> Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
> property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
> Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
> otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
> electronics, etc.)
>
> The same cannot be said for China.

Yet, but then it couldn't be said for Japan either for ca. 30 years after WW2.
They started out at the low end, as did e.g. South Korea and Taiwan, and built
up their industrial infrastructure and design abilities until their products
were able to compete on a world stage. I expect China will follow a similar
arc - as it is, chances are pretty good that any plush toy or piece of clothing
you might buy was made in the PRC.

Guy

In article >,
Guy Alcala > wrote:

> > > >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> > > >> Russians
> > > >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> > > >
> > > >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
> > > >the rest of the world creates.
> > >
> > > Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
> >
> > I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
>
> Yes, they did, in the '50s and early '60s, at least. their products were
> generally laughed at in the U.S. as poorly made rubbish, often cheap plastic
> toys and the like. But times change.


Simply making cheap quality goods doesn't equate to
copying/counterfeiting.

Are you saying that after WWII, Japan was the world's biggest infringer
of counterfeiting other peoples' work and/or goods?


>
> > Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
> > property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
> > Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
> > otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
> > electronics, etc.)
> >
> > The same cannot be said for China.
>
> Yet, but then it couldn't be said for Japan either for ca. 30 years after
> WW2.
> They started out at the low end, as did e.g. South Korea and Taiwan,


Again, you're response continues to ignore the main thrust of my point
and that point is not that China makes cheap quality stuff. My point is
that China steals (something like 90% of all software, music, and
videos) are ripped off copies.


> built
> up their industrial infrastructure and design abilities until their products
> were able to compete on a world stage.


A country's products will never be able to compete on a world stage if
that country cannot or will not innovate. As an IT professional, I can
say China hasn't produced a single piece of hardware or software that
any network or IT professional would even remotely consider
deploying...although that doesn't stop them from bootlegging everybody
else's work.

> I expect China will follow a similar
> arc - as it is, chances are pretty good that any plush toy or piece of
> clothing
> you might buy was made in the PRC.

Perhaps. But living in the U.S. city with the largest Chinese community
(some 32% of SF's population is Chinese) and in a neighborhood which is
well over 70% Chinese, and having kids in a public school which is about
85% Chinese...I have a pretty darn good idea how to discern Chinese
products and services. Where possible, I avoid purchasing anything made
in China.


--Mike

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:37:00 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
>> >> Russians
>> >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
>> >
>> >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
>> >the rest of the world creates.
>>
>> Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
>
>
>I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
>
>
>Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
>property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
>Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
>otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
>electronics, etc.)
>
>
>The same cannot be said for China.

I guess they didn't invent printing then. Or gunpowder.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:19:01 GMT, Guy Alcala > wrote:
>Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> (phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>> > >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
>> > >> Russians
>> > >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
>> > >
>> > >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
>> > >the rest of the world creates.
>> >
>> > Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
>>
>> I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
>
>Yes, they did, in the '50s and early '60s, at least. their products were
>generally laughed at in the U.S. as poorly made rubbish, often cheap plastic
>toys and the like. But times change.

And in the 70s and 80s they said the same things about Hong Kong.
Now it's China's turn.

I wonder who'll be next? India?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:47:56 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
>Perhaps. But living in the U.S. city with the largest Chinese community
>(some 32% of SF's population is Chinese) and in a neighborhood which is
>well over 70% Chinese, and having kids in a public school which is about
>85% Chinese...I have a pretty darn good idea how to discern Chinese
>products and services. Where possible, I avoid purchasing anything made
>in China.

You come across as a racist bigot.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:


> >Perhaps. But living in the U.S. city with the largest Chinese community
> >(some 32% of SF's population is Chinese) and in a neighborhood which is
> >well over 70% Chinese, and having kids in a public school which is about
> >85% Chinese...I have a pretty darn good idea how to discern Chinese
> >products and services. Where possible, I avoid purchasing anything made
> >in China.
>
> You come across as a racist bigot.


Race has nothing to do with it. Everything I've said about China is
true. If you disagree, then please point out where you feel I'm
incorrect instead of slamming down a tired ol' race card.



--Mike

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:


> >> >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> >> >> Russians
> >> >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> >> >
> >> >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
> >> >the rest of the world creates.
> >>
> >> Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
> >
> >
> >I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
> >
> >
> >Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
> >property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
> >Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
> >otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
> >electronics, etc.)
> >
> >
> >The same cannot be said for China.
>
> I guess they didn't invent printing then. Or gunpowder.



Care to name anything worthwhile they've invented in the last century?
How about last two centuries? No need to invent when they can just steal
and copy. At that (and taking Americans prisoner) they seem quite good.


--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> > > > >> The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
> > > > >> Russians
> > > > >> too. They just don't like to admit it much.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
> > > > >the rest of the world creates.
> > > >
> > > > Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
> > >
> > > I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
> >
> > Yes, they did, in the '50s and early '60s, at least. their products were
> > generally laughed at in the U.S. as poorly made rubbish, often cheap plastic
> > toys and the like. But times change.
>
> Simply making cheap quality goods doesn't equate to
> copying/counterfeiting.
>
> Are you saying that after WWII, Japan was the world's biggest infringer
> of counterfeiting other peoples' work and/or goods?

Beats me. ISTR a fair number of big-name knock-offs, but that could be my memory
playing me false. But as to copying what others designed, oh yeah, they were
accused of that, going back at least into the 1920s. There was some truth to that,
as well as a large dose of racism involved -- see US and British attitudes towards
Japanese a/c and ship designs prior to WW2. The Japanese undoubtedly borrowed a
lot of ideas from others, but they modified them to suit their own needs and added
some of their own ideas.

> > > Japan does not have a history of openly tolerated theft of intellectual
> > > property (media, software, etc.), and I think most of us would agree
> > > Japan has created (as opposed to copied) a number of innovative or
> > > otherwise excellent products (automotive, cellular, consumer
> > > electronics, etc.)
> > >
> > > The same cannot be said for China.
> >
> > Yet, but then it couldn't be said for Japan either for ca. 30 years after
> > WW2.
> > They started out at the low end, as did e.g. South Korea and Taiwan,
>
> Again, you're response continues to ignore the main thrust of my point
> and that point is not that China makes cheap quality stuff. My point is
> that China steals (something like 90% of all software, music, and
> videos) are ripped off copies.

And if power revolved around software, music and videos, I'd be fairly concerned.
Granted, software piracy can be a serious matter, but music and videos are
entertainment. Costly losses to the people involved, but hardly strategic issues.

> > built
> > up their industrial infrastructure and design abilities until their products
> > were able to compete on a world stage.
>
> A country's products will never be able to compete on a world stage if
> that country cannot or will not innovate. As an IT professional, I can
> say China hasn't produced a single piece of hardware or software that
> any network or IT professional would even remotely consider
> deploying...although that doesn't stop them from bootlegging everybody
> else's work.

Then they will stagnate and only provide cheap labor for manufacturing. But given
China's history of trading and invention, I expect them to follow the Japanese
path. And it's not as if Japan is a world leader in innovative products; they have
certainly established a niche especially in consumer electronics, but most of their
commercial success has been by making high quality but otherwise conventional
products (generally at lower prices, although that's changing) that any
industrialised society could manufacture. Is a Lexus more technically innovative
than a BMW? No, but it tends to be put together better, and generally costs less.
By and large Japan's forte remains incremental improvement and constant refinement
of well-made but conventional products. For every innovative company like Honda or
Sony, you've got quite a few more Toyotas or Nissans. And unless things have
changed, much of Honda's advanced project design work is done in California.

> > I expect China will follow a similar
> > arc - as it is, chances are pretty good that any plush toy or piece of
> > clothing
> > you might buy was made in the PRC.
>
> Perhaps. But living in the U.S. city with the largest Chinese community
> (some 32% of SF's population is Chinese) and in a neighborhood which is
> well over 70% Chinese, and having kids in a public school which is about
> 85% Chinese...I have a pretty darn good idea how to discern Chinese
> products and services. Where possible, I avoid purchasing anything made
> in China.

I've lived in the East Bay all my life, and went to public school with the sort of
ethnic mix typical in the Bay Area -- my first girlfriend was Chinese/Japanese as
far as her grandparents went. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with
being able to discern Chinese products and services. As far as products go,
reading "Made in China" on the label seems to work adequately for me. I'm unclear
on just what you're trying to do with this skill -- are you carrying out a personal
boycott of Chinese goods and services for political/economic reasons, or is there
some other reason for your avoidance?

Guy

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981
to
> reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine
contact.

Er, isn't that bad. Can you tell us more?

>
>> My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981
>to
>> reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine
>contact.
>
>Er, isn't that bad. Can you tell us more?

/seastory mode on/

Now, this is no ****.

We spent the previous year (1980) deployed - we started workups in December 79
and the developing crisis gave Ike's crew and airwing reason to prepare for a
war with Iran, not a traditional Cold War deployment with the probability of an
Echo II or a few Foxtrots to keep the "outer zone" defenders well trained in
the art of ASW.

During America's frequent brush wars since WWII, Soviet and other country's
submarines tend to get as far away from the US Navy as possible, for all the
obvious reasons. During 1980, there were few opportunities to cross paths with
subs and in those few cases, our S-3s suffered an embarrassingly common main
computer dump. It was brutally common, and each time, it 'mission killed' the
Viking. More than once, the heat of North Arabian Sea ops up in Gonzo station
downed our birds before they even got airborne, or worse, just as they checked
on station. They brought out tech reps, they tried different procedures (often
just short of the Apollo 13/McGyver-genre of creative engineering), and changed
out hundreds of black boxes, after they failed in the 120 degree weather of the
NAS.

Our squadron patch sported a black and white alleycat sitting on a cloud,
preparing to pounce upon an unsuspecting seaborne mouse with a tiny periscope
on its back, replaced unofficially with a lovely representation of that same
patch with a few differences. The new (and quickly banned) Topcats patch was a
blind, cane tapping cat up in a cloud, above a sea brimming with mice.

The Topcats spent that year involved in every other kind of operation, setting
a few records on the way. One that I recall was 'the longest divert in US
carrier history', a record that has probably fallen by now. During a flight up
in the Persian Gulf, a broken cable in the MAD boom caused the crew to divert
away from the ship, but the only place they could get to, was Dodge. A KA-6E
(God love them) went along as moral support We were already running COD
missions to and from Diego Garcia in stripped out S-3s with gigantic cargo
pods, and ultimately, we were the first stewards of the snow white US Mail
maiden of the sky, Miss Piggy herself. That gave the crew enough confidence to
fly thousands of miles in a damaged aircraft, in a time when getting dip
clearances was tougher than even today. The Topcats did other things, more
directly aimed at the Ayatollah's forces. Glad to have been there to see it,
wondering when we'll ever get OUT of the Mideast for good - leave that region
to the people who want it, if we would pour every resource into finding
alternatives to fossil fuels.. but here I digress.

The Ike did well on that cruise, without a lot of port calls to cloud it's
purpose - we were at sea 351 days that year: 93 days continous steaming, 4
days in Singapore, then an additional 251 days underway, most of them in the
North Arabian Sea, as an instrument of war to drop the hammer on Iran if they
started killing the hostages. We waited that entire year for orders from
President Carter, to go in and pave Iran; what we couldn't know was that the
Soviets had moved forces to Iran's northern border, poised to dart in "coming
to Iran's aid" if we landed a Marine rescue force in Teheran. Christmas brought
the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, chilling the world to the bone. On top of
that, those ****ers in the Walker family were keeping the Soviets up to date on
our deepest secrets. Carter couldn't pull the trigger, but we never knew it.
We wallowed along on a sun-baked flat sea, loading bombs, rigging barricades,
fighting imaginary fires and practicing war drills, for a war that wasn't
coming.

No submarines came, either. I think a couple Topcat crews saw a cowboy on the
surface, but it didn't count as "sub time", so the patch came into existance.
I seriously doubt if any survive.

We had a few interesting moments -- my future Jeopardy "co-star", an F-14 pilot
named 'Burner', earned his immortal callsign by bringing his charred Turkey
down safely, to the cheers of the whole deck crew. Our Chaplain dropped dead
as we departed on our globe-spanning voyage - omen, anyone? The last thing the
Skipper ordered before we left Norfolk was all liberty boats be removed. Not
needed for this one. We passed Africa at 30 knots. Madagascar at 30 knots.
Ike, Virginia, and South Carolina, sailing in a nuclear-powered spearhead
formation for weeks at a time.

I spent the cruise sneaking any kind of ride I could with HS-5, until I had
more than 50 hours and was able to apply for aircrew school. The VS AWs from
my squadron were supportive and went to great lengths to get me ready for AW
A-school, to the point that I was able to challenge the course and graduate
with honors. VS-31's aircrew were a cocky bunch, but they really knew their
stuff. Their failure to find subs was not due to the ASW operators, it was the
balky computers. Think about the date - 1980. Not exactly Pentiums and
128-bit processing. The S-3s computers just plain sucked in that hot, sandy
environment. If anyone could have made them work, AWC Doug Lane probably could
have; it wasn't meant to be. The result was that more and more of VS-31s
missions were SSSC, COD, and tanking. It made my desire to go heloes even more
intense.

/seastory mode off/

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

phil hunt wrote:

> Some people wrote ;
>
> >> > Didn't people use to say that about Japan?
> >>
> >> I don't know. If they did, I wasn't one of them.
> >
> >Yes, they did, in the '50s and early '60s, at least. their products were
> >generally laughed at in the U.S. as poorly made rubbish, often cheap plastic
> >toys and the like. But times change.
>
> And in the 70s and 80s they said the same things about Hong Kong.
> Now it's China's turn.
>
> I wonder who'll be next? India?

Been there ( Bombay - Mumbai ) - done that.

India has great aspirations.

Trouble is - they keep thinking they know better than us ( westerners ). In the UK, the BBC
produced a hilarious sitcom called the Kumars at #42 ( number 42 - street number - we don't
have like 2062 street numbers in the UK ).

The programme made a certain amount of fun of the Indian self-obseession with being right
about everything. That might sound racist. Funny thing is - it was immigrant Indians who
loved it best ! They just found it so funny to see this side of them revealed in its true
glory.

( a bit like - the best jewish jokes are told by jews )

Advice - getting any task acheived in India is measured in units of 3 months. It doesn't take
3 months of course. I takes 1 month to talk about it - 1 month for the Indians to say the
project was delayed for unknown / unspecified reasons - a bit more to explain it was delayed
a bit more - then it gets done ( normally a month late ) in a few weeks.

Oh - and it gets done with errors.

The errors are the fault of *someone else* of course ( Indians are always right ) . If
pressed - the spec will be examined to the bone - criticised and the client told they were
wrong.

*Real story* - a ( very competent ) friend of mine was pressed into agreeing to work with an
Indian sub-contractor on a software project ( Indians are meant to be good at software ).

I warned him about the tricks they play - and - sure enough - he had every single one pulled
on him. The Indian company finally managed to conspire to convince his employer to relieve
him of the project !

My advice - don't touch India with a bargepole.

The Chinese are far more co-operative. I suspect that they are sensible enought to realise
that *don't* know better than us and want to learn - at which point we become redundant !


Graham

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

>... During 1980, there were few opportunities to cross paths with
> subs and in those few cases, our S-3s suffered an embarrassingly common main
> computer dump. It was brutally common, and each time, it 'mission killed'
> the Viking.

This, I am very curious about. During several of the multi-platform ASW
ops I flew on in the mid 80's (84-87), the S-3's experienced computer
data dumps and withdrew from the ex. I have to wonder how this problem
could have been left to remain chronic for so many years (given that you
saw it a lot years earlier)? Was the cause ever determined?


> ...wondering when we'll ever get OUT of the Mideast for good - leave that region
> to the people who want it, if we would pour every resource into finding
> alternatives to fossil fuels.


This ain't gonna happen as long as the big oil companies (and the people
in power they are in bed with) continue to poor money ("lobbying") our
government to thwart or slow down usage and even examination of
alternate energy sources or do things like give tax breaks to people who
buy gas-guzzling SUV's.



> ...The last thing the Skipper ordered before we left Norfolk was all liberty boats be removed. Not
> needed for this one.

You guys had liberty boats?? Every port we ever went to where we needed
to go ashore via boat, the boats were always of the local chartered
ilk...and not always seemingly seaworthy. I can't recall ever having
used a boat from Mother.


--Mike

>
>This, I am very curious about. During several of the multi-platform ASW
>ops I flew on in the mid 80's (84-87), the S-3's experienced computer
>data dumps and withdrew from the ex. I have to wonder how this problem
>could have been left to remain chronic for so many years (given that you
>saw it a lot years earlier)? Was the cause ever determined?

They told us that the computer just plain couldn't hold a load - Mid-east heat,
cat strokes, 18 year old maintainers, it all takes its toll... I never heard
of the same problem in ES-3s, but then they came along later, after computers
had grown up a bit.

>> ...wondering when we'll ever get OUT of the Mideast for good - leave that
>region
>> to the people who want it, if we would pour every resource into finding
>> alternatives to fossil fuels.
>
>
>This ain't gonna happen as long as the big oil companies (and the people
>in power they are in bed with) continue to poor money ("lobbying") our
>government to thwart or slow down usage and even examination of
>alternate energy sources or do things like give tax breaks to people who
>buy gas-guzzling SUV's.

At a time when everyone else on the planet realizes that personal vehicles need
to be as small and efficient as possible in urban environments, we get to deal
with the new Mercury Leviathans and Cadillac Pachyderms. It seems silly that
so many folks are willing to pour that much of their gas money down the drain.

>> ...The last thing the Skipper ordered before we left Norfolk was all
>liberty boats be removed. Not
>> needed for this one.
>
>You guys had liberty boats??

They came with the undercoating and sports package. Not that I ever saw them
*used*, mind you. Wil can probably tell us if they used them on the 1979 Med
Cruise - I got to the Ike too late to know.

> Every port we ever went to where we needed
>to go ashore via boat, the boats were always of the local chartered
>ilk...and not always seemingly seaworthy.

Singapore had good harbor transport - HK had a bit dicier water cabs. What I
noticed was that over the years, the contracters stayed the same, but they had
newer boats when we returned.

>I can't recall ever having
>used a boat from Mother.

Hmmm.. I think I rode launches a couple of times - Bahamas and St. Thomas I
think. Wondering why its so hard to recall the other circumstances - perhaps
due to a few painted label San Migoos, I think.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

> >
> >This, I am very curious about. During several of the multi-platform ASW
> >ops I flew on in the mid 80's (84-87), the S-3's experienced computer
> >data dumps and withdrew from the ex. I have to wonder how this problem
> >could have been left to remain chronic for so many years (given that you
> >saw it a lot years earlier)? Was the cause ever determined?
>
> They told us that the computer just plain couldn't hold a load - Mid-east
> heat,
> cat strokes, 18 year old maintainers, it all takes its toll...


Makes sense. We rarely had problems with our ASW avionics package not
performing in the same Mid-East heat and 18 year-old maintainers
(although minus the cat shots). Any ideas why the VS community didn't
scrap what they had and go with something which actually worked?



> >> ...wondering when we'll ever get OUT of the Mideast for good - leave that
> >region
> >> to the people who want it, if we would pour every resource into finding
> >> alternatives to fossil fuels.
> >
> >
> >This ain't gonna happen as long as the big oil companies (and the people
> >in power they are in bed with) continue to poor money ("lobbying") our
> >government to thwart or slow down usage and even examination of
> >alternate energy sources or do things like give tax breaks to people who
> >buy gas-guzzling SUV's.
>
> At a time when everyone else on the planet realizes that personal vehicles
> need
> to be as small and efficient as possible in urban environments, we get to
> deal
> with the new Mercury Leviathans and Cadillac Pachyderms. It seems silly that
> so many folks are willing to pour that much of their gas money down the
> drain.

And even more silly is a current government which falls over itself to
give them tax breaks for buying such gas guzzlers and which does
everything it can to stymie alternative energy research.



> > Every port we ever went to where we needed
> >to go ashore via boat, the boats were always of the local chartered
> >ilk...and not always seemingly seaworthy.
>
> Singapore had good harbor transport

We were screwed out of Singapore. Our ship took some sort of E-7 an
above vote on whether to give up an Australia port of call for two Asian
ports (Thailand and Singapore). Much to the vast majority of the ship's
disappointment...the vote passed. Of course, we ended up not getting
those two ports either.


--Mike

>
>> They told us that the computer just plain couldn't hold a load - Mid-east
>> heat,
>> cat strokes, 18 year old maintainers, it all takes its toll...
>
>Makes sense. We rarely had problems with our ASW avionics package not
>performing in the same Mid-East heat and 18 year-old maintainers
>(although minus the cat shots). Any ideas why the VS community didn't
>scrap what they had and go with something which actually worked?

Beats me - I'm just "a knuckle-dragging stupid SAR swimmer, without the brains
necessary to be an Acoustic AW". Heh.

That computer dump problem was a part of S-3 ASW throughout its career - its
interesting that no Viking guys have stepped forward to say, "Hey, our
computers worked GREAT!" - we both know they crapped at the worst possible
time.

>> At a time when everyone else on the planet realizes that personal vehicles
>> need
>> to be as small and efficient as possible in urban environments, we get to
>> deal
>> with the new Mercury Leviathans and Cadillac Pachyderms. It seems silly
>that
>> so many folks are willing to pour that much of their gas money down the
>> drain.
>
>And even more silly is a current government which falls over itself to
>give them tax breaks for buying such gas guzzlers and which does
>everything it can to stymie alternative energy research.

That is my #1 frustration - I think if we can ween ourselves from 25' long
personal vehicles dependent on gas, we've got the terrorist countries half
beat.

>> > Every port we ever went to where we needed
>> >to go ashore via boat, the boats were always of the local chartered
>> >ilk...and not always seemingly seaworthy.
>>
>> Singapore had good harbor transport
>
>We were screwed out of Singapore. Our ship took some sort of E-7 an
>above vote on whether to give up an Australia port of call for two Asian
>ports (Thailand and Singapore). Much to the vast majority of the ship's
>disappointment...the vote passed. Of course, we ended up not getting
>those two ports either.

That _blows_.

We got gyped out of Australia twice, HK once, and Mombasa ... oh, who cares
about THAT sewer. Did you ever make it into Oz? We pulled into Freemantle
while the Midway scored Perth, but I am willing to bet we had more fun!

v/r
Gordon

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
| >
|
| We got gyped out of Australia twice, HK once, and Mombasa ... oh, who
cares
| about THAT sewer. Did you ever make it into Oz? We pulled into
Freemantle
| while the Midway scored Perth, but I am willing to bet we had more fun!
|
| v/r
| Gordon




Fremantle would have been an attractive city back then, I was first there
in '86. When Australia won the Americas' Cup in '83, Fremantle was
picked as the site for the defence in '87 and money came out of the woodwork
to 'pretty' it up for the yacht races.


Interestingly, there were stories in all of our media, the last time one
of the CBGs wisited Perth, of all the brothels going onto a war footing
during the visit. Before the last of the sailors left, several
venues had to shut down for the health and safety of some of the girls.
Apparently 5,000+ enthusiastic sailors and marines tends to 'drain' the
resources of even the largest of establishments.


Would be an interesting exercise on the Sydney-Melbourne-Adelaide to Perth
flights, to spot the pinch hitters.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

Dave says:

>Fremantle would have been an attractive city back then, I was first there
>in '86.

We were there in mid 85 - lovely spot, absolutely salt of the earth people that
made it the most enjoyable port call of my life. It was as if our little
frigate was welcomed home by the whole town, which then proceeded to get us
bombed for several days. I got in a bit of site-seeing; met the local Quokkas
and a freakin giant 'roo (in Murrica, we sort of have the impression that
kangaroos are small, bright eyed and cuddly, not exactly the finger-nipping,
ass-kicking, horse-sized creatures that I met!) and did everything else you'd
expect a squid to do after two months at sea. It was a really cool experience
- local cabby and his wife took me in for the duration of the visit, giving me
a great insight into the culture and the hearts of the Aussie people. It
appears not all of them are as perverted as my friend Dave, but luckily, a lot
of them were.

> When Australia won the Americas' Cup in '83, Fremantle was
>picked as the site for the defence in '87 and money came out of the woodwork
>to 'pretty' it up for the yacht races.

Strange to see that connection - here in San Diego, my son's Elementary School
hosted several children of Aussie racers; there was an extended period of
preparation between the races and some families stayed between them. You
couldn't walk around town without bumping into groups of racers. Saddest part
was the Soviet race team - wanting to compete in this rich man's sport, they
sent a Cup Racer (all-Red, natch) and a small amount of support. When the
races were over and they had done poorly, there were no funds provided to get
them home! We had fund raisers to get them back to the Rodina, which had
thoroughly turned her back on the racers. Strapped for cash, they reluctantly
sold their yacht for the ridiculous sum of $50,000 to the first taker. That
boat had to have been worth 10x that amount... anyway, sorry to drift off
topic.

>
>Interestingly, there were stories in all of our media, the last time one
>of the CBGs wisited Perth, of all the brothels going onto a war footing
>during the visit.

Who would need a brothel in Perth??? Ladies came out of the woodwork to pick
and choose between us! I felt like a piece of meat, I tell you. It was years
in therapy - mostly just enjoying telling someone about the experience. One
sentence sticks forever in my mind - in a crowded bar, a woman broke free of a
table of her friends, snatched me by the hand and all but ran out of the bar;
she turns and shouts as she runs, "I'm getting married next weekend and my
friends think I should be acting like a nun!" (minor cleanup, slight deletion)
I had looked forward to a trip to Australia since I was a child and it lived
up to every expectation. For a bunch of castoff criminals, they really know
how to toss a party and make ya feel welcome.

>Before the last of the sailors left, several
>venues had to shut down for the health and safety of some of the girls.
>Apparently 5,000+ enthusiastic sailors and marines tends to 'drain' the
>resources of even the largest of establishments.

I would think it would be seen as more of a 'massive injection' to the uhhhh
local economy. :")

>Would be an interesting exercise on the Sydney-Melbourne-Adelaide to Perth
>flights, to spot the pinch hitters.

As I said, with the attitudes displayed while I was there, I can't imagine
hookers getting much business there! The wimmin were downright friendly;
squids, reputation aside, crave someone silky to talk to - I never felt more
welcome.

yf
Gordon

>
> Back to the IO -- as one of the "junior" Ensigns, I had the
>"privilege" of walking vice flying onbd at cruise start. As we passed
>the row of liberty boats with IKE on their sterns, I was thinking
>"this is going to be one long cruise...."
>
>Will Dossel
>Last of the Steeljaws (VAW-122)

I felt exactly the same way - it was a glum ship that left Pier 12 that day.
When the Chaplain dropped dead outside his stateroom, that sealed it. To look
back across the next year and realize we didn't lose anyone else is still
amazing to me. When we got home, I was flown off in a CH-53, on my way to
aircrew school at Pensacola. That next year turned out pretty exciting, too!

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.