Wednesday, 4 April, 2001, 09:39 GMT 10:39 UK

Inside the US spy plane

The US spy plane that made an emergency landing in China on Sunday after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet belongs to an elite highly classified reconnaissance unit.

The EP-3E Aries II is the US Navy's principal long-range electronic surveillance aircraft, described by one expert as "a really big flying tape recorder".

It is packed with sensitive receivers and antennas capable of intercepting and analysing military and civilian radio and other electronic communications, including e-mails, faxes, and telephone conversations.

All the information is fed for analysis into a huge on-board computer which sends information back to defence officials at the Pentagon, in Washington.

The crew on this particular flight included Chinese linguists.

'Intelligence disaster'

Admiral Dennis Blair, commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Command, refused to go into details about the capability of the aircraft involved.

But it was certainly carrying top-secret information that experts say China would be very interested to discover.

"It's a disaster if that equipment is analysed by the Chinese Government," said US aviation expert Jim Eckes. "It's a really major intelligence disaster.

"It's one of the most sensitive aircraft in the US fleet.

"It's totally designed to intercept communications anywhere in the world."

Damage limitation

The US crew, knowing they were going to land in China, would have gone through routine procedures to destroy codes and wipe computer disks. They may even have smashed key parts of the aircraft's intelligence-gathering machinery.

But experts agree the Chinese could still glean much valuable information, especially if they dismantled some of the on-board equipment.

Robert Karniol, Asia-Pacific editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said it was routine for US planes to patrol China in this way, and for them to be challenged.

"The only thing unusual about this particular incident is that it led to a collision," he said. "And certainly the collision was not planned by either side."

Specifications

The EP-3 came into operation in 1969, and is based on the P-3 Orion anti-submarine patrol aircraft. The US Navy has about 11 EP-3s, although there are other aircraft that carry out similar tasks.

It is powered by four Allison T-56-A-14 turboprop engines, and can fly for more than 12 hours at a time, with a range of more than 3,000 nautical miles (5,555km).

Each plane carries a crew of 24, including seven officers.

The plane is 32.28m long (about 106 feet), with a wing span of 30.36m.

The US Navy operates two squadrons of the aircraft, according to the Federation of American Scientists. One is based on the US west coast at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in Washington state, and also operates out of bases in Guam and Japan, while the other is based in Spain.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Answers

BBC - Wednesday, 4 April, 2001, 11:06 GMT 12:06 UK

Spy plane row escalates

China wants the US to end surveillance flights China has renewed its demand for an apology from the United States over the collision between an American spy plane and a Chinese fighter aircraft.

President Jiang Zemin repeated the call just hours after US President George W Bush urged the early release of the American plane and its 24 crew members.

The US Navy EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft landed on Hainan Island after being damaged in the collision off southern China on Sunday. The Chinese fighter crashed into the sea and its pilot is missing.

The BBC Beijing correspondent says that, with each passing hour, the US air crew look increasingly like hostages and the potential grows for serious long-term damage to Sino-American relations.

In his latest statement, President Jiang said the incident was entirely the fault of the United States and Washington should apologise to the Chinese people.

"The United States should do something favourable to the smooth development of China-US relations, rather than make remarks that confuse right and wrong and are harmful to relations."

He also urged the US to stop surveillance flights off China's coasts.

China's Foreign Minister, Tang Jiaxuan, has called in the US ambassador to China, Joseph Prueher, in a move apparently designed to reinforce Jiang's remarks.

American diplomats who visited the crew for the first time on Tuesday said they were in good health. They are trying to arrange further meetings with them.

Families of the crew members are anxiously awaiting news of their loved ones. Yellow ribbons - a popular symbol indicating support for those held overseas - have been tied to trees, fences and traffic signs across the US.

Mr Bush has meanwhile been stepping up pressure on China.

"This accident has the potential of undermining our hopes for a fruitful and productive relationship between our two countries," he said.

"To keep that from happening, our servicemen and women need to come home."

The Associated Press news agency quoted White House officials as saying that Mr Bush's national security team was considering a range of options in the event that China did not release the crew quickly.

These include cancelling the president's planned trip to Beijing - announced just last month during a White House visit by China's deputy prime minister - and withdrawing some diplomats from China.

But our correspondent says the increasingly tough rhetoric coming from President Bush could complicate the situation further.

An early release of the US air crew would now be viewed in China as caving in to American pressure - something President Jiang will be at pains to avoid.

US military authorities say it was more likely that the faster, lighter Chinese plane brushed against the slower EP-3.

The White House said the spy plane suffered severe damage to the nose cone and two engines of the plane. It dropped several thousand feet after its collision with the Chinese fighter, before the pilots regained control.

The Americans are concerned that highly sensitive electronic intelligence-gathering equipment on board the plane is now being subjected to close scrutiny by the Chinese.

But US officials said the crew had indicated that they managed to destroy at least some of the equipment and data on board the plane before it landed.

Relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained since Mr Bush took office in January.

Taiwan on Wednesday broke its silence on stand-off, urging Washington to supply the high-tech weapons its says it needs to defend itself against China.

Prime Minister Chang Chun-hsiung said Taiwan's interests must not be sacrificed in any deal to resolve the dispute between the two countries.

Meanwhile, a human rights group in New York says a US-based Chinese scholar detained in Beijing, Gao Zhan, has been charged with espionage.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

If this plane is as sensitive as some are saying it is, I can only wonder why the aircraft commander chose to land it in China? Seems like a stupid thing to do with high level espionage equipment. They surely could have ditched at sea after giving good radio position reports. They must be very well trained in how to sucessfully ditch at sea and must also carry life rafts with both radios and emergency supplies. I know all commercial passenger jets carry such survival equipment in case of a ditching at sea. Perhaps the commander of the plane valued his own skin more than his obligation to protect high level government secrets and equipment?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Gordon,

I can't speak for the EP-3, but I know on my husbands plane, they don't carry parachutes, life rafts or the like. If my husbands plane goes down, they (men and women) are sitting ducks in the water if they get out of the plane.

Guess we won't really know what happens until the 24 get to talk, and then I think they'll say what only the .mil wants them to say. Sad thing, but it's the truth.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

He also urged the US to stop surveillance flights off China's coasts.

Yeah right,like that's gonna happen! LOL

I am without proof, but I am positive that the plane was only going in as backup to current intelligence. Seems to me that we have satellites that can count the number of lice on any ChiComm person's head.

And if we don't, we should, shouldn't we? Just don't aim them things at me! {Did you know that kids with clean hair are more susceptible to lice than kids with dirty hair? It's true. Really.]

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Gordon, they would have followed Standard Operating Procedure and that is why they did what they did. All possible scenarios are included in drills and, providing they knew they had time to destroy the important bits, they would have chosen the landing over the ditching. If they didn't have emergency equipment, then the lives of the crew would have been paramount at that point. Imagine what the diplmatic situation would be now if those 24 people, or even some of them had been killed in the ditching. You might also add in the money the Clinton Administration and Congress denied to the military. Some infantry units were practically practicing with broom handles when Bush came in.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Old Git,

I guess we will find out *if* in fact they practiced SOP. You can see the level of international incident now in process, sort of like when our folks were taken hostage in Iran. They are being held there now, and the Chinese will take that plane apart, count on it. Is that standard operating procedure during a recon flight next to China, namely to land there if something goes wrong with the spy plane? I don't think so.

People in command make horrible mistakes sometimes, we saw that with the submarine crashing into the Japanese fishing boat. I have a feeling the aircraft commander made a big mistake in deciding to land in China. Now he has all his people being held in custody, certainly being interogated, possibly with the use of drugs, etc. And, he has lost the equipment he was being held responsible for. All by his own decision to land there.

What it comes down to is whether or not military people on spy missions are prepared to risk their life in a ditching, versus just landing and giving up their equipment to the Chinese. We know the Chinese government is at odds with us, and has been for a long time. The problem of Taiwan is part of it, and you can bet that will be a major item in negotiating a return of the people and the plane.

As far as forcing them to return anyone or anything right now, I can't see that as an option. The US has backed off on Saddam Hussein for less in regard to his building nasty weapons again. We are not going to be able to force the Chinese to do anything now. Let's not forget they have a population 4 times the US and a military willing to take us on. All we have to do is give them a reason and the nukes will fly. We are at their mercy here, like it or not.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

As I recall, the plane was told to land there by a higher authority in the comand chain.

Also, there was the armed fighter escort that threatened to open fire if they didn't land.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Barefoot,

*If* the pilot was ordered to land in China, he's still got a career when he comes back. Otherwise, I wouldn't bet on it. As far as being threatened with a shootdown, so what? Does that mean that every time some highly sensitive equipment is being demanded from our military at gunpoint we just hand it over? Really? You think that's SOP?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

It could have been SOP for this particular patrol job, it being well-known that Chinese pilots were harrassing the planes and an accident was a good bet. Could be too that with all the technology Clinton gave away to China, they have the computer circuitry on the plane anyway! I know Sweetie's SOP was to ditch the plane under those circumstances but he didn't have 22 passengers on board. I still think the risk to those 22 souls was a large part of the reason to land rather than ditch. Again, imagine what the state of the country would be now if we knew the Chinese were responsible for killing 22 sailors and crew.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Does that mean that every time some highly sensitive equipment is being demanded from our military at gunpoint we just hand it over? Really? You think that's SOP?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I was referring to something that I read, in which it was said that the commander was instructed to land instead of ditching. As soon as I find it, I will post it. I cannot remember where it was or who said it.

As for SOP, I have no idea what that is officially, but I would assume that it does not include giving the opposition the plane. To infer otherwise would be insulting.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Old Git,

These were not "passengers" on board that plane. These were specialist, working, military personnel with security clearances. Probably fairly high level clearances due to the sensitive nature of what they were doing. Frankly, the possibility of being intercepted and what to do about it must have been part of their routine training. When I see some higher ranking officer state that either they were ordered to land in China or that SOP indicated they should land in China when they had some mechanical problem, then I will absolve the pilot for doing that.

Otherwise, I think he put his own life and/or the lives of those on board as the higher priority, versus protecting the secret equipment and records. I just can't understand how our military could possibly survive if that is SOP. Was that sort of "turn-over" of secrets SOP in England during WWII? In other words, if a plane with very sensitive equipment, such as the latest radar or bomb sights, ran into trouble during that period, would they be expected to land in Germany or ditch it at sea?

And let's not forget that a ditching is certainly survivable, at least for some of those on that plane. If the plane had enough control to fly to China and make a safe landing, it could have made a proper controlled ditching as well. So the radom was knocked off the nose, that only causes a lot of vibration due to loss of streamlining. So they had an engine (or two) that was no longer running correctly, any two engines still running will keep that plane in the air, just shut down the ones with a problem. You can see in the picture that all 4 engines are still on the wings.

After such a ditching the survivors would be able to tell us exactly what happened to them, and how the Chinese fighter caused that collision. As it now stands, we may not get that information for many weeks, during which time the Chinese can squeeze both the plane and the crew to their heart's content. All interrogation being done to the crew now is under the Chinese "position" that they were spies and law breakers. They will never admit that they caused the accident themselves and then took the opportunity handed to them to pick the whole mess apart with a fine tooth comb.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001