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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PanAm flt943 ditching | Private | Piloting | 0 | February 18th 09 06:26 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 09:58 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 |