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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "Andreas Parsch" wrote in message ... Daryl Hunt schrieb: Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called "FB-15" either. I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into the 404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since all others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up there certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was dropped Funny but in a previous post you claimed the USAF never used the FB designation. Of course in other posts you claimed they had. Wrong. You are confusing what you drivel with what I report. Now, go back to playing with leturd and wrecking yet another Military NG that you 404thk00ks are so infamous in doing. and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today and use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA designation is pretty well gone as well. That would be news to the USN and the USMC F/A-18 drivers No news here. They know the days of the FA is limited to never return. That will be the last AC that will carry that designation. Much like the FB was phased out for exactly the same reason. The new Superhornet is classed as a Multirole Fighter now that the F-14 is gone. I won't bother explaining to you the system since you don't have the capacity to understand it anyway. I can see it now, 40 years in the future, someone will say that there used to be FA Aircraft and some idiot like you will go into the same routine that you are now over the FB. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled but if you dig a bit deeper, you will find the old MD pages that clearly calls it a Fighter/Bomber. and the link to them is ?????? Post at least 7 years ago and 6 and 5 and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 as well. Go find it yourself. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message nk.net... In article , mumbled "Yeff" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote: "Tankfixer" wrote in message news snip 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. Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when Ed wrote the following: The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF. He's already stated he has. Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it referred to as an FB-4. But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies. He's recycling the very things you yourself have said. Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level troll. Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. You mean the F-110A ? Or the F-4C Or the F-4D and E ? The F-4B being a USN aircraft Fact is daryl when you start down this path folks might start to think perhaps you never were in the USAF. Actually, those folks that spent any time around the early days of the jets know better and know exactly what I am debating. What is clear is that the 404thk00ks are infesting another You mean like those who actually flew them ? The one's who have not aggreed with you on your claim ? I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got demoted back to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any and all criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn. Fact is daryl Yeff pulled up a quote from someone who was there and actually flew the aircraft. I'm sorry it does not agree with what passes for fact in your universe. The fact remains that everyone needs to take a look at a few military ngs that you and your other 404thk00ks have laid to waste. us.military.army us.military.history alt.folklore.military us.military.national-guards, and a few more. All have been laid to waste. And there is no way of know how many Military Message Bases that you have helped to destroy or have the 404thk00ks locked out of. But it might be entertaining for others to get a gander at the aftermath. I see in your haste to beat a retreat from a claim you try to obscure things. Fact is daryl, you were wrong. How hard is it for you to admit that ? Now you are claiming to be a Pilot back in those days? Sure, Sure. In another life right? Now, thank you for playing Bowling for Breadloaves. You can pick up your AK at the door on your way out to bomb yet another Military NG. Go back to Leturd. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"TMOliver" wrote in message ... "Daryl Hunt" wrote in message ... "TMOliver" wrote in message ... Well let's see...... If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then there must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that bird). Now, there was that short lived F4H..... I never said the designation was actually given to it. The 4 was the first to not carry it. I did state the MD classed it as such. You are just helping the 404thk00ks to destroy another NG, they have a long list of Military NGs that they have laid waste to. Be careful. Amazing, old "Selective Recall" himself has trouble remembering what he claimed. You're simply a lying asshole, Hunt, a gormless ****** of minimal ability to comprehend, grotesque incapacity to glance at reference material, and less intelligence. So MD (?) called it a fighter bomber. Quaint, since McDonnell designed and built it back when it was the F4H (and before there wasa McDonnell/Douglas), because it couldn't be the F4D, because Donald Douglas's stable already hasd that lovely bat-winged but short legged AW bird, the Skyray, while McDonnell had the "passing lamented by few" F3H Demon, and the Phantom II (You don't remember the Phantom 1, the FH-1 or the Banshee, second of the line?). Incidentally, you silly twit... The F4 was designed as a carrier based All Weather Interceptor, as originally configured with no ability to drop ordnance, simply fuel tank pylons, pylons/racks for the AIM-9 and a belly configured to nestle Sparrow IIIs comfortably. The first real big time "combat environment" deployment came after October, 22, 1962, to Key West, VF-101 IIRC, in a pure interceptor role. Thanks for showing you are an idiot. Thank your for playing bowling for idgits. You can pick up your parting gift of dog **** on the way out the door. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message link.net... ---------- 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. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5 designations for the camera and recce version. http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message ups.com... Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18- wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it. I've been following the overall thread with interest; good points made, and some neat facts brought out. As a former artillery forward observer, who had to be pretty good at target recognition (it seemed sometimes that half the documents I packed around were recognition sheets and manuals), may I mildly point out that not every soldier (sailor, airman, marine etc) is an avid enthusiast of military vehicles (whether that be AFVs, aircraft, artillery, engineering equipment, trucks etc) and hence to *them* a lot of things do look alike. These recognition manuals get printed for two reasons - one, for the people who genuinely really, really as part of their MOS need to be good at recognition, and two, for the more casual user who hopefully won't fire their ATGM at the wrong AFV or start shooting at the wrong helicopter if they've gotten a few clues that some enemy things look sort of like some of our things. I'll agree that I myself would not, for example, mistake the above three aircraft. But I can think of comparisons where that could easily happen, or could have happened, or has happened, in all of the categories of military vehicles. It's also not just an issue of being _wrong_ - sometimes it's seeing an aircraft or AFV for the first time at 5000 metres, and in the case of the ac moving fast or high, and simply not knowing *what* it is...hence the manuals, so you can scramble through them and try to figure out what you see. I happen to be a military history enthusiast myself, and this also aids in target recognition, and always has. But I found during my time in the Marines that very few of my enlisted peers were also military history/technology enthusiasts (except for the technology that they were using themselves), and hence that broad, studied base of dozens of reference books simply did not exist for them...they were a tabula rasa at the time they enlisted, and identifying vehicles, aircraft and equipment is a time-consuming skill. I'm sure that everyone in this thread remembers how to many Allied soldiers in WW2 every German tank was a Tiger. While this is no doubt exaggerated, I have no doubt that many Allied troops in Normandy, spotting a long-barrelled MkIV at 1500 or 2000 metres, probably did think it was a Tiger. The point I am trying to make is, it's easy to get so caught up in one's own knowledge of vehicle recognition that one forgets that most people aren't that good at it. AHS and if Ed said he made the mistake, anyone could, and undoubtedly did. i know i've mis-ID'd the odd item, now and then, and people weren't even shooting at me at the time. redc1c4, flash cards and RL are *not* the same thing. %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On Apr 29, 6:18 pm, AUK Registrar wrote:
In , redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message hlink.net... ---------- 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. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. I'd rather hear about the geosynchronous satellite over the Kamchatka Pennisula redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) The list is sizeable. Enough for kicks and giggles for several months. esto.nasa.gov/files/1999/Pieri.pdf - http://esto.nasa.gov/adv_planning_studies_archive.html |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In article ,
mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message nk.net... In article , mumbled "Yeff" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote: "Tankfixer" wrote in message news snip 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. Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when Ed wrote the following: The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF. He's already stated he has. Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it referred to as an FB-4. But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies. He's recycling the very things you yourself have said. Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level troll. Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. You mean the F-110A ? Or the F-4C Or the F-4D and E ? The F-4B being a USN aircraft Fact is daryl when you start down this path folks might start to think perhaps you never were in the USAF. Actually, those folks that spent any time around the early days of the jets know better and know exactly what I am debating. What is clear is that the 404thk00ks are infesting another You mean like those who actually flew them ? The one's who have not aggreed with you on your claim ? I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got demoted back to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any and all criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn. Fact is daryl Yeff pulled up a quote from someone who was there and actually flew the aircraft. I'm sorry it does not agree with what passes for fact in your universe. The fact remains that everyone needs to take a look at a few military ngs that you and your other 404thk00ks have laid to waste. us.military.army us.military.history alt.folklore.military us.military.national-guards, and a few more. All have been laid to waste. And there is no way of know how many Military Message Bases that you have helped to destroy or have the 404thk00ks locked out of. But it might be entertaining for others to get a gander at the aftermath. I see in your haste to beat a retreat from a claim you try to obscure things. Fact is daryl, you were wrong. How hard is it for you to admit that ? Now you are claiming to be a Pilot back in those days? Sure, Sure. In another life right? Nope, not claiming to have been apilot at all. That is your poor reading skills once again leading you down a garden path of illusion. A couple of folks in here, Ed Rasemus to note one have told you that you are wrong. I tend to defer to his word, he DID fly them. If you have some beef with his account then take it up with Ed. I'm sure he wouldn't mind spanking you, again. Now, thank you for playing Bowling for Breadloaves. You can pick up your AK at the door on your way out to bomb yet another Military NG. Go back to Leturd. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
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 |