![]() |
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |