U.S. and Hong Kong (2001)

Pentagon Spokesman's Briefing, May 29, 2001

Following is the Pentagon transcript:

(begin transcript)

DoD News Briefing - Rear Admiral Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA

Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EDT

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Q: Can you bring us up to date on the EP-3 return, plans for return?

Quigley: Yeah. Well, the stories that were running yesterday stating that the United States and China have an agreement in principle to return the EP-3 via disassembling the aircraft and loading the components onboard an AN-124, a very large -- the largest in the world -- cargo-carrying aircraft are essentially correct as written.

Now beyond that, details have yet to be worked out. The folks at Pacific Command are putting together a small, I think four people, assessment team that will travel to China later on this week to, I believe, first stop at Beijing and then travel from there down to Lingshui to work out the details of you name it: the transportation; the communication; the provision of supporting materials, tools, power, all of it that you will need to do the disassembly and ultimately to land the aircraft: the parts, the tools the technicians at Lingshui to affect the disassembly, loading up of the components, the large components on board the AN-124, and then out.

So first is the assessment team has their discussions with the Chinese authorities, both political and military authorities, to ascertain the level of support that will be required to either bring in with us or perhaps contract with firms there in China. And then when you get that understanding, you would then move to the next step, which would be then contracting for the balance here in the United States and working out the details.

That's where we are now. Probably no resolution, I would suspect, on the details of the contracting and whatnot until, gosh, sometime next week would be my best guess I think.

Q: When will this team go there?

Quigley: Later on this week.

Q: A particular day?

Quigley: I do not know the exact day.

Q: From where will the United States be able to lease an AN-124?

Quigley: There are a variety of nations and companies in the world that own the AN-124. And you would then enter into a contract with those entities to lease it, basically, for a period of time and use it or them, depending on if you needed more than one, to bring in the people, the equipment, the components you would need to perform the task.

Q: Any discussions with the Russian government about -- since it's --

Quigley: Not that I'm aware of so far, no.

Q: And you said --

Quigley: But all's fair, though, let me quickly say. I mean, we'll shop around and try to get the -- once we have a good explanation -- understanding, I should say, with the Chinese as to what, you know, the circumstances are as to how many planes, in what order, what time of the day, what length of time, things of that sort, then you can go to organizations that actually own these things and say "This is what I would like to contract for." But until that we're kind of guessing.

Q: You've said repeatedly over the last couple of weeks that the United States preferred to be able to repair the plane and fly it out. Are you disappointed with the way this has turned out?

Quigley: I think that at the end of the day we're glad to get the airplane back in a condition that it can be repaired and used again. It's an $80 million airplane that is perfectly repairable and flyable and fit to be used again. Had we needed to have gone the smaller plane route -- an IL-76 or something of that size -- we would have then been obliged to cut it up into such small pieces that it could not have been used again. And that would have been a shame. So the preference would have been still to have repaired it to the point of flying it out. It would have been faster, would have been fewer people, would have been less time, it would have been less money. But if this is an acceptable solution to both nations, we'll press on and be satisfied with that.

Q: How many pieces do you estimate that it would need to be disassembled to?

Quigley: When you go to a -- well, if you go to the -- how do we build an EP-3 in the first place, you go down to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, where you have P-3s stored in long-term storage, and you choose one that has a good, long life left in its airframe and things of that sort, and you disassemble it there. And you load it onto a very large cargo carrier, and you move it to a Lockheed Martin facility where it is refurbished and rebuilt in a different configuration. So the parts that are really the key are the wings and the tail assembly and the fuselage, of course. Now, how many flights, what are the particulars of the loading characteristics of the AN-124? We still have to work our way through that.

Q: Can you definitively say that the plane will be put back together and flown again? I presume that -- I mean, the cost of disassembling it and then the cost of repairing it, is that not a factor in whether in fact you do put that plane back together again or refurbish one of these others that you have in storage?

Quigley: It's a factor, Tom, but I think we've already come to the conclusion in this case that it is very much a more cost- effective option to repair it and fly it again. You do have some number of P-3s. I don't know what the number is, at Davis-Monthan, but the production line is not open anymore, so you really need to husband your resources here fairly carefully, and the assessment is that this plane can quite readily -- that's a relative term, I know, -- but quite readily be repaired and made perfectly flyable once again. In this case, the judgment was to go with that option, and it was not so damaged that it would be something you would take out of commission.

Bob?

Q: Last week the Chinese said that there had been an agreement to do just this, apparently, and you and others had said there was no agreement. I'm curious about the timing of this. When did this come together? Subsequent to that, or was there in fact some miscommunication of what the Chinese had in mind last week?

Quigley: I don't think I can still provide you a very good explanation on that. Last Thursday afternoon when we were here, it was the United States government's firm understanding, no matter who you talk to, that there was no agreement yet with the Chinese government as to the methods to go about doing this. I heard of this over the weekend, that an agreement in principle had been reached with the Chinese government. It was either Saturday or Sunday, I believe. To the best of my knowledge, that was the time when both governments agreed that that was an acceptable way ahead. So I still think that's -- it was either Saturday or Sunday of this weekend. I still can't explain Thursday.

Q: Okay.

Q: Why did the Chinese government -- what was their justification for not allowing us to go there and repair it and fly it out? Quigley: I do not know. You'd have to ask them directly.

Q: They are saying Chinese are really -- they are celebrating and they are saying this is a pride for the Chinese people, not to let the plane fly back to the United States, otherwise the Chinese government will be in trouble because the people are asking, and that means they are saying that -- they are celebrating -- (inaudible) -- that not to let the U.S. to take the plane in the air.

Quigley: Well, again, our preference would have been for the quicker, faster way of repairing it for flight, but if that was unacceptable to the Chinese government, for whatever reason, then you continue negotiating and you find a way ahead that both nations can agree to, and we're pleased that we have been able to do that.

Q: How much are we talking -- the cost of the total from bringing the plane to when it goes back in the air?

Quigley: Don't know that yet.

Q: No estimate yet?

Quigley: No, not until we have had an opportunity to actually go out to countries and companies that own these planes and find out how much it would cost; and they don't know, in all fairness to them, what we're asking them to do. So first things first, and that's the discussions with the Chinese, and try to ascertain from that kind of what the ground rules would be and then enter into discussions with the organizations that own the planes.

Q: Craig, do you have anything on the Chinese canceling a port visit, a scheduled port visit to Hong Kong by a U.S. naval ship?

Quigley: No, I had not heard that at all.

Jim?

Q: I believe the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that a U.S. minesweeper was -- you know, a visit to Hong Kong by a U.S. mine sweeper -- I can't remember the name of it --

Q: That was the Inchon, a helicopter carrier.

Q: A helicopter carrier?

Q: Well, it's a mine command ship.

Q: Mine countermeasures headquarters.

Quigley: Let me take that one, because I had not --

Q: (Off mike) -- to step up here to the microphone? (Laughter.)

Quigley: I had simply not heard that. The Inchon is a mine countermeasures command and control ship. It's a former helicopter carrier, but it was converted some years ago.

But I had not heard that. Let me take that.

Q: Craig, are there any other port visits to Hong Kong scheduled, have future visits been --

Quigley: I have not looked a long ways downstream, but I don't know of any in the near term, no.

Q: There are already wire service stories out quoting merchants as being very disappointed about the loss of business from American crew. Anything on that?

Quigley: Chris?

Q: Do you know where the parts of the EP-3 will be taken to be reassembled? Is it Guam? Do they go back to Whidbey Island? Does it go to the Lockheed facility? Do we know what happens after the Antonov takes off?

Quigley: You would probably go to the Lockheed Martin facilities themselves. And if -- again, I'll go back to my example of how you make an EP-3. When you choose a P-3 from Davis-Monthan and disassemble it, I think it goes to the Lockheed Martin facility at Marietta, Georgia, I believe, for refurbishment and rebuilding in its new configuration.

Now, I don't know if Lockheed Martin would choose or recommend that that be the place that it has to go, or if it would simply be the wisest choice; I'm not sure. But the honest answer is we just don't know that.

Q: So Lockheed is sort of the lead on this and you'll take their advice on what to do with it?

Quigley: Mm-hm. Mm-hm. (Affirmative response.)

Q: It's obviously not an easy job, so you think it's going to have to go back to the Lockheed facility in Marietta?

Quigley: I mean, this is a doable job, but it is a very complex job to do the disassembly and the reassembly. This can be done; we have done it before. But it is simply a more complex, time-consuming, costly evolution than repair to fly.

Q: Craig, the Chinese government has said to allow the plane to be repaired and flown out would be an affront to China's government. Isn't it an affront to the United States to be forced to dismantle this plane and take it out in pieces?

Quigley: No, I mean, I don't think so. I think it's -- our preference was for the quicker way to go. But we really do want to get our plane back, and if in the course of the negotiations this was the solution that was acceptable to both nations, we're more than happy to enter into that.

Can I go back a question or two ago to Jim and Jonathan's?

China did inform the U.S. consulate on May 15th that it has denied a request for the Inchon to visit Hong Kong. This was to have been the 28th of June to the 3rd of July. No reason was given for the disapproval, but it was disapproved.

Q: Was that request for the port visit made prior to the E-3 incident, I assume, or subsequently?

Quigley: I don't know.

Q: Will you take that question, please?

Quigley: Yeah, we'll try.

Q: Did you say no reason was given?

Quigley: No reason was given, right.

Yes, sir.

Q: Even though they've reached an agreement in principle with China on the EP-3, are efforts still being made to try and fly it out or have those efforts been given up?

Quigley: No, no, we're pressing on with the disassembly and flying it out on the AN-124.

Q: Would it be the U.S. position that only U.S. people -- personnel be involved in that disassembly and that whole operation or will the Chinese military be involved?

Quigley: No, we won't know that until we have the results of the assessment team's discussion with both the military and the political leadership.

Alex.

Quigley: Craig, have to date the Chinese indicated their intention to bill the United States any charges in connection with the keeping of the EP-3 at its present location?

Quigley: Not to my knowledge, no.

Q: Are we seeking any compensation from the Chinese for the damage that was caused to the aircraft?

Q: Again, not that I have heard, Alex, no.

Now, if -- in the course of the coming weeks as we disassemble the plane and load it on board the AN-124s and fly it out, if there are costs associated with entering into some sort of local service contract, that would certainly be fair game and costs that we'd be more than willing to entertain.

Q: New subject?

Quigley: Sure.

Q: I have one more.

Quigley: Go ahead.

Q: Do you have anything on the Bowditch being buzzed -- Navy -- I mean Chinese jets harassing this ocean research vessel?

Quigley: The Bowditch is an oceanographic survey vessel that has been at sea -- wow, some time, I think a couple of weeks I want to say -- between Japan and China in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea doing oceanographic survey operations.

The Chinese did send out a long-range maritime patrol plane to have a look. That's fairly standard practice. There was a Chinese surface vessel that has come out periodically during the course of its underway period to have a look as well.

Q: Wasn't that same survey vessel in another incident prior to the EP-3 thing in which it was actually -- had to leave the area because a Chinese surface combatant came out and --

Quigley: They had a Chinese surface combatant -- I think a small frigate that came out to take a look. And the master of the Bowditch thought that it was their better course of action to depart the area at that point and he did so.

Q: Is the Bowditch covered by any escort ships?

Quigley: Yeah, she is. The cruiser Cowpens is with her. We do that from time to time, escorting vessels of this sort.

Q: So there was no request this time to leave the area and --

Quigley: Not that I'm aware of Chris, no.

Q: Was the Bowditch actually buzzed, or did it -- was there just a plane in the area?

Quigley: I think it came fairly close aboard, but I don't think it was all that close, Jim. "Buzz" to my way of thinking means somebody that's trimming the tops of the antennas at a high rate of speed, and I do not think that was how I would characterize the flying.

Q: So it was --

Quigley: It was fairly close, but it was also well abeam of the vessel and did not fly directly over the top.

Q: Several passes?

Quigley: Yes. Two or three or four, something like that.

Q: When was this?

Quigley: A week or a week and a half ago.

Q: Is there any reason to think that the Chinese have been kind of continuing to plague U.S. ships and aircraft in the area, are they harassing these ships? Is this normal conduct for other countries, for example, if there are U.S. ships operating off their shores in international waters?

Quigley: I don't -- I can't speak to how they would treat vessels or aircraft from other nations, Chris. I don't know. But the --

Q: How about how other nations treat U.S. ships off of -- and U.S. aircraft off of their borders --

Quigley: It is very common for other nations to send out either aircraft or surface vessels to ascertain, physically look at the identity of ships that are passing through either their exclusive economic zone, or certainly areas that are close by their territorial waters or their contiguous zone. Frequently the vessels or aircraft come close enough to get a visual ID of what the vessel is, what it's doing, frequently speak with the vessel on international voice radio communication circuits. And once -- and they'll spend some amount of time in physical proximity to the vessel and then return to their home fields.

Q: Was there any contact?

Q: I suppose the question is, are the Chinese particularly aggressive compared to other nations when it comes to this sort of thing?

Quigley: Well, I think they've shown that they certainly can be, and the collision of the 1st of April certainly being the most obvious example. But it would depend on circumstances. The various nations come within various distances of both surface vessels and aircraft. It also has to do with pilot proficiency and weather and a variety of issues that caused the vessels or the aircraft to come further apart or closer together.

Q: Craig, was there any contact --

(Cross talk.)

Q: I'm sorry. Just one more. Since April first, it's still pretty aggressive conduct.

Quigley: Well, certainly they have maintained their interest in knowing who is either sailing or flying in the vicinity of their coastlines. That is safe to say. I would not see that changing.

Q: Craig, was there any --

Quigley: Can I go back one step? There was a question asked, Chris, I think it was yours -- to whether or not the Inchon port visit request was before or after the 1st? It was after the 1st of April.

Q: Did this plane come close enough to the American vessel that there here was concern voiced over international frequencies, by either the vessel itself or its escort, to the Chinese aircraft?

Quigley: No. No, not at all. Again, the altitude was fairly low, and I don't have a measurement for you, but it was fairly low, but it was well abeam of the Bowditch, so that it did to come -- I mean, again, that's kind of, in my mind, Jim, when you say "buzz," that's kind of like right over the top of my head. And that's my understanding; it did not do that. It was well abeam of the vessel.

Q: How would you describe the manner in which the Chinese are performing aerial intercepts on American surveillance flights in recent weeks?

Quigley: They have remained at a considerable distance; enough to get the information, I guess, that they are looking to gain, and then returning to their bases.

Q: How about the intercept flights flown from Hainan Island? Have they been mowing that same pattern?

Quigley: Yes. Yes.

Jim?

Q: Has there been any progress on setting a date for that meeting with the maritime commission?

Quigley: No. Still have no response back from the Chinese.

Jamie?

Q: On the resumption of surveillance flights, just a couple of things. Have EP-3s as well as RC-135s flown those surveillance flights?

Quigley: I won't provide that information.

Q: Can you tell us whether any plane has flown along the general route -- perhaps not specifically, but the general area in which the EP-3 was conducting surveillance back on April 1st?

Quigley: No, I won't, other than to say that we continue to fly surveillance flights and reconnaissance flights in a variety of places around the world.

Q: Have the Chinese repeated in any way what you have called harassing tactics against these surveillance flights?

Quigley: No.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(end transcript)