In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Quoting Michel directly,

OK, I was apparently confusing the situation with Red Crown.

Hey, Michel is good but not perfect. I daresay he's close to the facts,
but I would never claim that Teaball was the one and only SIGINT
distributor - I've read a book, others were _there_. I'm quoting a
participant's book, not Holy Writ.

(Hopefully Ed will offer experience or Guy study, they're the SMEs here)

You might find
an article by a USAF intel/EWO type of interest; it indicates Red Crown was
getting its info from EA-3B's and EC-121M's, and then forwarding that info
to the strike packages (though their info may have been only available to
the USN packages).

I did indeed find it of interest - thanks.

Red Crown was also apparently exchanging info with
Teaball, but did not require Teaball to originate warnings/directions. I am
wondering how accurate the assertion that Teaball info had to come from
Teabll via that relay RC-135 was, since that source also indicates Teaball
was exchanging info with USAF AWACS EC-121's--we know that these early
generation AWACS did also directly control intercepts that resulted in Migs
being downed (first occured in July '67).

I think there was then a significant difference between "AEW or picket
ships controlling intercepts" and "compromising the unbelievable
possibility that the US could both monitor radio frequencies and find
someone who could interpret Vietnamese".

From a very distant perspective, SIGINT folks seem to get jumpy about
their results being used tactically, sometimes with good reason: if
you've got a reliable way to eavesdrop on the enemy and you believe it's
of significant strategic value, is it worth compromising it for a
short-term tactical advantage? Sometimes this approach is justified:
perhaps other times it may be reflex rather than reason.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk