A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question on ditching an Orion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 1st 10, 05:26 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question on ditching an Orion

On Oct 29, 7:49*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Il 28/10/2010 17:49, a425couple ha scritto:

Odds and probabilities. That is how most of us make many decisions each
and every day. Yes, every action MIGHT result in disaster. But we still
get out and do things. But we do try to do things in a reasonable manner
to increase the odds of a reasonable outcome. And this is even more
important when something has already gone badly wrong.


IIRC there was experiments on crew survivability during Victorian age,
done putting mannequins (and in these happy pre-PETA days, also sheeps
&c.) on stricken target ships, and counting splinting &c in the
mannequins after the live fire exercise and counting dead/dying sheeps,
the results was substantially the same: splintered mannequin and intact
mannequin together.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.


Best was a bear in the B-58 escape capsule.

1. One ****ed off bear
2. Lots of bear shat in the capsule.

We used dummies. Then we used enlisted parachute testers. Then we
certified the system. Go figure. Best was the B-1 bottom bailout (are
you out of your @#$^%@$%&@#$ mind????).
  #32  
Old November 1st 10, 05:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question on ditching an Orion

On Oct 29, 4:00*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
In message , a425couple
writes



"Paul J. Adam" wrote...
If you think worst-case, ditching or baling out offers the Chinese a
nasty *option. "We picked up nine of the crew, here they are. Mission
Supervisor *Snuffy, who knows all about what the aircraft can do and
what its mission *was? No, haven't found a trace of him, but we're
still searching..." And *who's to know different? Once the crew lose
sight of each other, there's *no way to know whether Supervisor Snuffy
died during the bailout, drowned *in the ocean, is on a slow fishing
boat with no comms on his way to port, *or is being forcibly persuaded
to be detailed and explicit about EP-3 *capabilities in a Beijing basement.


Very interesting valid point of view, thanks.


I certainly admit that I do not know what 'equipment' and
software was destroyed and what was still discoverable.
I'm also not sure how knowledgable the crew was!


They for sure knew enough to deal with "Drop everything, we've got the
Premier's private phone!" or similar prioritisation: they'd know what
they could and could not get, what they were tasked to receive, what
they'd been ordered to be alert to "just in case", and so on.

For example, in WWII it was policy that nobody who
had knowledge of important secrets should ever be allowed
in areas where it might be possible to be captured.


Depends on the compartments. You have to hit the balance between
protecting your secrets, and achieving the mission.

The crew are the real prize which could compromise the capability:


Are you really sure about that?


Utterly certain? No.

Pretty confident? Yes.

Knowing how to use a computer program, does not
at all mean, you know the program. *Or the equipment
that runs the program.


But you know what you're listening to, what can be cracked and
translated aboard, what has to be recorded for later analysis, what the
priorities and orders for the mission were, what the aircraft can and
can't achieve.

For a slightly forced armour analogy: the gunner doesn't know how the
code in the ballistic computer runs and couldn't rewrite it from memory.
But, with the computer properly trashed, the gunner is the person who
potentially could be made to say what he can and can't hit in various
circumstances, aided by whatever radar pixies dance inside the little
boxes. "How do we copy that?" is one risk: "Dear God, we never knew they
were that good" is another; and exposing "Is *that* the best they can
actually do?" a third.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam


Sometimes you keep things from people for this reason. Gunner knows he
can hit a target. Not told is limitations or that defensive systems
will keep things away. Or how the AWACS finds the targets for him.

Current example would be, get this package its a bomb. You don't need
to let out Saudis had an ex terrorist who went back then came in from
the cold and gave the plot up. Or how well the bomb was made. Now did
the bad guys know about the bomb, yeah. But going public let other bad
guys know if it was a decent bomb or not. That ex terrorist is not
'burned' as far as other terrorist groups are concerned.

Thing is, you can spin this stuff so much your head hurts.

I recall a secret missive a few decades ago, listing stuff that might
be compromised. One was something on a platform that was shot down in
Vietnam. Well, you either keep it secret, AND DO NOT USE IT, or you
put the secret do hickey out there and do use it and maybe kill
gomers. There is a risk using it against gomers, that gomers will find
it and usually send it out so somebody who does know about whatever it
was can figure things out. But keeping stuff in inventory sort of
negates the reason you built it.

Whining about it being lost pretty much is stupidity. But that's an
intell weenie for you.

In this case, burning key cards would be first priority. Stuff that
could compromise stuff elsewhere. Then you start going over the rest
of the paper stuff and maybe what you can whack inside the airframe.
Hopefully this has been thought out before hand.

In one case I worked on,it was paper and computer tapes. Set up a burn
pile, put the tapes on top and screw the environmental laws. Indians
are coming over the ridge, some things just aren't important. Rest was
take out your frustrations on pay, management, whatever. Get an axe
and have at it. Run stuff without cooling fans.
  #33  
Old November 1st 10, 05:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Question on ditching an Orion

On Oct 29, 6:20*pm, Tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 29/10/10 00:05, Tankfixer wrote:
In ,
says...


In , Dave Kearton
*writes
IMHO Lt Osborn made all the right decisions under very trying
circumstances. He kept the plane aloft, long enough for all the
sensitive gear to be destroyed, he KEPT HIS CREW ALIVE and what was
left of the plane was flown back to the US after the Chinese were done
with it.


If you think worst-case, ditching or baling out offers the Chinese a
nasty option. "We picked up nine of the crew, here they are. Mission
Supervisor Snuffy, who knows all about what the aircraft can do and what
its mission was? No, haven't found a trace of him, but we're still
searching..." And who's to know different? Once the crew lose sight of
each other, there's no way to know whether Supervisor Snuffy died during
the bailout, drowned in the ocean, is on a slow fishing boat with no
comms on his way to port, or is being forcibly persuaded to be detailed
and explicit about EP-3 capabilities in a Beijing basement.


Once the hard discs, memory cards, crypto modules, whatever have been
dealt with, the EP-3 is an elderly turboprop with a lot of radio
receivers feeding to dead systems. Not a lot of genuine intel value
the it's an ELINT platform, gee whiz, who knew?


The crew are the real prize which could compromise the capability:
keeping them together, alive, and getting them all home protects the
most important asset.


Who cares what the Chinese would see on the plane, they would get that
hardware via other means anyway.


A cynical part of me wonders how much of the hardware is "Made in China"
anyway. Radio receivers aren't exactly new or secret, it's what they
feed, what you can achieve with them and what you were sent to get that
matter.


I always wondered why once they had landed and all that a rather nasty
fire didn't break out onboard...


I read somewhere that the Chinese were unable to gain access for almost
an hour after the aircraft landed.


That's what I understand..
Seems like plenty of time to do some mischief...



Oner is forced to assume that everything too big to dump out of the
aircraft was comprehensibly smashed before they opened the doors...


Remember the history books where Japanese were having burn parties in
the back yard before Pearl? Of course part of the problem is learning
how to burn huge amounts of crap (where the lesson is, don't keep a
lot of crap in the safe). You end up with the huge pile of paper
smothers stuff on bottom and does not burn.

Or you have poor procedures to destruct like Iran embassy did when it
was overrun, Iranian rug merchants put the shredding back into
documents and they were published.
  #34  
Old November 1st 10, 01:56 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Jeff Crowell[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Question on ditching an Orion

Gordon wrote:
Ultimately, the pilot has responsibility for the safety of his crew --
but when it involves spyplanes or other strategic assets that would
obviously help the enemy, crews should understand that every effort
must be made to keep those aircraft out of the hands of the enemy. I
was appalled by the EP-3 pilots decision to land in China..


Gordon, I have to agree.

I try not to get too critical a pilot's actions when I don't
know the full meal deal on the situation, but this seemed fairly
egregious.

Orions do have a poor record in ditching AND in bailouts, IIRC,
but in my humble opinion that is part of what you sign up for.
That may take me (once again) outside the run-of-mill opinion....



Jeff
--
YOU KNOW YOU'RE A REDNECK IF...
Your dog can't watch you eat without gagging.
  #35  
Old November 1st 10, 02:02 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Jeff Crowell[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Question on ditching an Orion

guy wrote:
Fascinating Gordon, thank you, However it leads to another question,
how easy is it to bale out of a P-3, especially the last man out?


Too lazy to look it up, but ISTR reading that the Orion's door
position relative to the empennage is not well suited to bailing
out. The bird has a poor record both in ditching and in bailouts.
As for the last man, it depends--is the autopilot capable of
holding the plane stable enough, in its damaged condition, for the
pilot to climb out of his seat, attach his chute (they do carry
them), and attempt an exit?


Jeff
--
The enemy diversion you are ignoring will turn out to be the main
attack.
Murphy's Laws of Combat
  #36  
Old November 1st 10, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
a425couple
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default Question on ditching an Orion

"frank" wrote in message...
- Tankfixer wrote:
Oner is forced to assume that everything too big to dump out of the
aircraft was comprehensibly smashed before they opened the doors...

-Remember the history books where Japanese were having burn parties in
-the back yard before Pearl? Of course part of the problem is learning
-how to burn huge amounts of crap (where the lesson is, don't keep a
-lot of crap in the safe). You end up with the huge pile of paper
-smothers stuff on bottom and does not burn.
-
-Or you have poor procedures to destruct like Iran embassy
-did when it was overrun, Iranian rug merchants put the shredding
-back into documents and they were published.

Yes, sad. The new rulers found that many of the
generals had been willing to talk to the Americans.
Of the 80 Iranian top generals, later, more than 70
were tortured and executed.
Certainly not a good thing to have others read the
records kept in the embassy.

  #37  
Old November 11th 10, 12:22 AM
Vsemkoma Vsemkoma is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Oct 2010
Location: Россия
Posts: 3
Send a message via ICQ to Vsemkoma
Default

I mean the navlights.They look like navlights but maybe those are antennas housing of ECM/SIGINT/RWR systems...or maybe not.
This is my question.

I have read several times Yefim Gordons book on the Foxbat but coulndt find anything on this point....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PanAm flt943 ditching Private Piloting 0 February 18th 09 07:26 AM
Information on Ditching Dylan Smith Piloting 2 May 5th 05 02:19 AM
Ditching at Sea Mike Keown Naval Aviation 5 November 17th 03 10:58 PM
Ditching Gear Down Dave Kearton Military Aviation 18 October 7th 03 10:27 PM
Ditching Gear Down Mike Keown Naval Aviation 6 October 6th 03 04:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.