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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide needlessly restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being accurate. D These were not only errors, I think. It seems they have a lot of problem with telling the difference between some members of Fittter family - ancient Su-7B and swing-wing Su-17/Su-20/Su-22 (I saw a photo of the latter together with photos of the former). Also Sea King drawings went twicence with the actual Sea King, but repeated for French Super Frelon heavy helicopter. No wonder - it's just a U.S. Army manual... Best regards, Jacek |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message nk.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message news In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article . net, mumbled ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide concerning the dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide needlessly restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being accurate. Needlessly restricted ? That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications account with USAPA It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up the post at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin. It is FOUO. If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing it to the web. You can't request classified publications from USAPA. While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype things. The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a damned thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of expertise; trolling on a non related subject. Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified. I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with USAPA. You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition, since you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the mid 1950's A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's. The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a Mig-21 while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make that mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think it's easy? Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better to go over to the other side and help them. P-38... Tell us again daryl... And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the proof that I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID attacks, now wouldn't it, Achmed. Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the P38 left unit service in the late 1940's. And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit anywhere in 1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124 Globemasters left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the test. The instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of the coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf AFB, AK up to my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot better records and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a little paperwork get in your way of a good lie. If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault. And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify this fact? Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet. Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the mid-50's you could easily provide the unti they were assigned to. LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of course, only those items that bolster your fairytale. I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF or any of it's entities were still operating any by that time. Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk back then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I worked on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they never had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message news In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article et, mumbled ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing it to the web. Actually, that's not true. Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net and not get in trouble ? I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing some kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else or dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind direction. Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like. While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the 1960's. LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess you are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke loaded Phantom. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking together soon. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Flashnews" wrote in message news Again guys it all depends on where you are looking from The twin tails - F-14 / F-15C / F-15E / MiG-29 / Su-27 / Su-30 all have some view that will confuse and bother you trying to sort them out of a many-vs-many, each looks like the other from some view, perhaps the Su-30 is the most recognizable especially if it has canards The F-4 and F-14 at ranges over 1.5 miles seemed to have had lots of mis-que's, smoke or not The MiG-21 and F-5 are essentially the smallest fighters short of a few who have seen or flown against the Gnat but they too can be deceiving in planform - but just for a second. From head - on they are simply "dots" and it takes a lot of practice to actually see one after he has turned in on you - and that's all training of course. I do believe the majority of US losses in Vietnam were suffered without the crew knowing they were being shot at, and that means we were surprised a whole bunch and likewise the majority of people downed were not turning and burning in a dogfight they were lay a chaff corridor, smoking along on an ingress route or running home - but taken from the N Vietnamese AF, they were still kills Tinkerbell flies a desk and has never been involved in any of this. Besides, you are correct. The one that gets you is the one you don't see. That's been the lament of flyers and more since the Plane was introduced into warfare. "Tankfixer" wrote in message nk.net... In article .com, mumbled The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in flight. The Mig21 and the F4 look almost identical in flight ? I'm sure that is a suprise to any number of USAF and USN fighter pilots. OPEN THIS FILE AT HOME, NOT AT WORK!!! Why not at work ? MIKE from Secrecy News www.fas.org VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION (FOUO) You do know what FOUO means ? See "Visual Aircraft Recognition," U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-01.80, January 2006 (413 I guess I should put my 1983 copy up for historical purposes -- -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
----------
In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing it to the web. Actually, that's not true. Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net and not get in trouble ? Yes. Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. It is actually not illegal to publish classified information (with some very specific exceptions). Newspapers do it all the time. If you want other examples, next time you go to a big bookstore, look for books by Bill Gertz. Gertz (a reporter for the conservative newspaper The Washington Times) has published classified documents in the back of several of his books. He has never been charged with anything. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. D |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
You guys are discussing one of the hottest subjects that totally
captivated the whole fighter community from the 1950's to the end of the Cold War - the identification, analysis, and comparisons of enemy (Russian and Chinese) fighters with our own - and in most cases the original investigations were a disaster until Boyd / Christie / Hillikar / Richioni, and others I am ashamed to have forgotten now pulled together the concept of Energy Maneuverability that started to review the defining characteristics of fighters (actually all aircraft) and in snap shots of time, configuration, power, speed, altitude, and AOA they could let you know fairly well how the aircraft was performing against your at the same conditions. Now the whole effort was wasn't always concise it took a whole lot of effort and actually until our pilots starting flying the enemy jets on a regular basis did we really learn what they did and how they performed. It may have been the greatest time in fighter history because it evolved with the spirit and skills of many people tempered all the time with real combat experience and subsequent exploitation. The Foreign Technology Division (FTD) tried very hard to get to the performance specifics of enemy fighters by modeling performance and it took an incredible effort because there were not the computers of today. Now almost all computer games have exact aero and performance data on the whole spectrum of western and eastern fighters so you can play with them on your laptop or Playstation. Some stories of course - the USAF flew the MiG-21 in early experiemnets and together with the restrictive Russian flight handbook considered it a piece of cake against the F-4 - then the Navy took a lok and Tom Cassidy the salty CEO today of the Predator company who always was a handful and SOB to boot took the MiG and started flying circles around the F-4 simply because he was flying it by the seat of his pants through touchy areas that had Russian designers worried (certain fuel state changed the CG radically and made it quite unpredictable for a bit) and ruled out for Russian pilots - that is they could not fly slower then 400 kph except to land. Cassiday took it to zero and flopped it around like an acrobatic toy, drilling the F-4's who were trying to flight the slow fight with a heavy wing loaded beast that would not do it. As time went on people recognized that the F-4 could beat the MiG-21 with power using the vertical and slice turning (cross-controlling using the adverse yaw and dihedral effects) to get your nose around. But US pilots flying the MiG's also assumed US properties like better missiles and better avionics so the MiG was at its best flown by our folks. Now going back to FTD and their many evolutions of bad assessments - the MiG-23 Flogger and Su-17 Fitter (swing wing) family of aircraft had more powerful engines but also many new restrictions - but in the pure state the resultant energy envelopes could be stagering so they were briefed that way yet in reality when the Isreali's (who were the first) started engaging them they performed worse then the MiG-21 although they could carry more and go faster longer. Many times the pure analytical assessment was way off - in fact it was not until the MiG-29 came around that anyone believed the geeks at FTD and in the MiG-29 they characteristically under-estimated it. In short - it was our great relationships with the Israeli and Pakistani Air Forces that perhaps provided the US the greatest amount of real combat data in how to beat the Russian fighters and their weapons and very little of what was learned was ever predicted correctly - so take that for what it is worth thinking about the future now. Our experience against North Vietnam with the beginning or Topgun and the USAF Aggressor Program was a turning point for all of this, a point in time so profound that it shaped ouir military capability. Only in the Iraq war since 2001 when the Army and USAF parted ways has the overcoat of air power been stripped from our troops - and if there is a thombstone for this decade of war to underscore our failure it will be in the Army's refusal to understand the vertical dimension and the Air Forces's half hearted effort to try to jerk them back to reality - the services all grabbed for their budgetary pots and gave up trying to sorth things out. Today it is a compl;etely different war and you see outposts and convoys standing alone with virtually little air cover and even less air presence because attack helicopters are too vulnerable, UAV's are too difficult and too few, AC-130's are grounded, and tactical fighters with pods and bombs make too big a splash for the restrictive ROE's and we keep loosing people to complex ambushes with no capacity to go after the attackers let along try to stop them before. The Army dumped all this and billions on the IED Task force that only grew in organizational size (4 star level no less JIEDDO) and not in the generation of solutions to IED's and ambushes and after five years have nothing to show for it except the continuing casualties - now the Congress will gut them but if it remains an Army war and not a SOF or Marine joint war nothting will change. The SOF and Marines have figured out the third dimension but they also need the right air vehicles for COIN. wrote in message ups.com... A little aware of capabilities of both types, I don't think mistaking Fishbed with Fitter would have "no impact" on the troops. Fighter capabilities of Su-17 are poor, but MiG-21 cannot haul heavy air-to- ground ordnance (like H-29 missile) or a nuclear bomb, though I don't remember if the latter capability was well-advertised in the Warsaw Pact forces... Best regards, Jacek On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally considered hostile." |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Of all the Russian fighters you can see by "who's left" and "who's being built & refurbished" to get a feel as to which ones really made it with pilots and maintainers. The MiG-21 / F-7 Fishbed / Mongol Series are still in limited production in China and still have a few modernization programs going on the two most noted perhaps are the Russian MiG-2000 and Romanian-Israeli upgrade Program. The Chinese have many new variants of the F-7 and all of them now have modern avionics and can carry all kinds of Western and Eastern weapons - but in essence they are all still MiG-21's, handle the same way and are all range limited on a modern scale. Of all the attack birds the Su-22 Fitter H/G da da seems to have become the THUD of the east and is still liked by pilots in former Communist countries such as Poland that actually upgraded them. It had lots of power, carries a lot, stable as hell in bombing, adapts to all kinds of junk, handles well and maintains good. Not a digital cockpit but it was one of the best before the MiG-29 came out. The Floggers / Fencers / Fitters and what have you have all been replaced by the Sukhoi Su-27 family and for a while the MiG-29 had trouble but now it is steaming ahead. I would not rely on army manuals for anything aviation wise - there is such a volume of open source material available in books stores and on the web you can find just about anything you need, anything dated before 2000 isn't worth the paper its on - my opinion wrote in message ups.com... In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide concerning the dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide needlessly restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being accurate. D These were not only errors, I think. It seems they have a lot of problem with telling the difference between some members of Fittter family - ancient Su-7B and swing-wing Su-17/Su-20/Su-22 (I saw a photo of the latter together with photos of the former). Also Sea King drawings went twicence with the actual Sea King, but repeated for French Super Frelon heavy helicopter. No wonder - it's just a U.S. Army manual... Best regards, Jacek |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
----------
In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;') Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the belief in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press that can publish information that the government does not want released. It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do it get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose their security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to convict two people for accepting classified information and making if public. Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question. Put it this way: Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign govt. He goes to jail for espionage. Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper and gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering that top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in the White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look better. That's how the game is played in Washington.) The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. I may give them a look. Read up on the AIPAC case. D |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US aviation hero receives RP recognition | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | November 30th 06 01:14 AM |
"Going for the Visual" | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 101 | May 18th 04 05:08 AM |
Face-recognition on UAV's | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 3 | April 15th 04 03:18 PM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |
Qn: Casein Glue recognition | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 0 | August 20th 03 10:00 PM |