VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"cdr" wrote in message
.. .
"Tex Houston" wrote in message
.. .

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
As for the RB-66's use in combat photo recon, the bird performed didn't
last long in that role (just as it had not done well as a bomber),
replaced quickly by far more survivable RF4s. The RB-66 was unsuited
for
low level battlefield recon, too slow (and to the air crew who flew
them
sharing with the A3 and EA3s the dicey escape method, down, instead of
the more conventional upward ejection). The RB-57s were developed to
do
what the RB-66 did, while the Navy's last version of a similar a/c, the
EA3, flew on for many years, longer than the attempt to salvage the
Navy's
A-5 program with the RA5C.

TMO
Which model A3 had ejection seats?

Only USAF's B-66s


Thought so.

Tex

In article ,
mumbled
TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote ...

Spies get shot at all the time
Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
they were CIA flights

I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight
suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West,
JAX or off CVA decks.

TMO


the U-2 flights were cia

Yes, but did they take the photo's of the SA-2 sites from under 500 feet
and in excess of 700 mph ?

No, they didn't


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

Vince wrote:

TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote ...

Spies get shot at all the time
Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
they were CIA flights

I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight
suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West,
JAX or off CVA decks.

TMO


the U-2 flights were cia

There were more recce planes shot down than just Gary Powers's U2
Vince. Quite a few of 'em had 'USN' painted on the side.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Vince wrote:

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote:
Vince wrote:

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over
and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be
asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real
goof by the Air Force and Kennedy.

http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm


There is nothing that prevents the president from giving a medal to an
air force officer flying for the CIA

You do know that the USAF operated U2's as well?

He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of
international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission.

Um... Wrong.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On May 3, 8:35 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message

...
[ SNIP ]

The hostility of the environment is clear. However Reconnaissance in an
environment where you cannot openly protect your aircraft and are not
establishing targets is not a battlefield.

Vince

???

That makes no sense.

AHS

Vince has been reading too many CYA accounts of the Cuban Missile
Crisis. There was a full scale assault planned and several variations,
including air strikes of up to 600 planes.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba013.htm

Tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
mumbled
TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote ...

Spies get shot at all the time
Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
they were CIA flights

I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight
suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West,
JAX or off CVA decks.

TMO


the U-2 flights were cia

Yes, but did they take the photo's of the SA-2 sites from under 500 feet
and in excess of 700 mph ?

No, they didn't

that is correct, but not the point of the discussion


the Military is much better equipped and focused on battlefield
reconnaissance than the CIA

The U-2 was overwhelmingly a CIA project at that time.
Part of the reason was that CIA missions violated the domestic or
municipal law of the countries we were overflying. A U-2 pilot on an
overflight was a spy and could be shot quite legally. No one could be
"ordered" on such a mission.

The low level flights were different. They were clearly belligerent
acts by the US armed forces. As an act of war, anyone shot down was a
POW.

Vince

On May 4, 7:37 am, Vince wrote:
Tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
mumbled
TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote ...

Spies get shot at all the time
Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
they were CIA flights

I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight
suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West,
JAX or off CVA decks.

TMO

the U-2 flights were cia

Yes, but did they take the photo's of the SA-2 sites from under 500 feet
and in excess of 700 mph ?

No, they didn't

that is correct, but not the point of the discussion

the Military is much better equipped and focused on battlefield
reconnaissance than the CIA

The U-2 was overwhelmingly a CIA project at that time.
Part of the reason was that CIA missions violated the domestic or
municipal law of the countries we were overflying. A U-2 pilot on an
overflight was a spy and could be shot quite legally. No one could be
"ordered" on such a mission.

The low level flights were different. They were clearly belligerent
acts by the US armed forces. As an act of war, anyone shot down was a
POW.

Vince

In the military there is a concept which we have seen rather
extensively in the past four years, it is called volunteering.

October 14: A U-2 flies over western Cuba, the first Strategic Air
Command (SAC) mission since authority for U-2 surveillance flights was
transferred from the CIA to the Air Force on October 12.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/missile.htm

and

As more U-2 missions, combined with HUMINT from inside Cuba, began to
build a case for the possible installation of nuclear missiles,
President Kennedy authorized an increase of U-2 missions over the
island. This increase in aerial reconnaissance coverage was caveated
with the limit that all future U-2 flights were to be conducted with
USAF personnel and U-2's from the Strategic Air Command. (124)
President Kennedy ordered the change from CIA to USAF missions in case
there were any shootdowns or losses. His reasoning was that USAF
pilots could be protected and treated as Prisoners of War versus CIA
pilots who would be considered spies. (125) In the meantime, the JCS
enlisted the support of additional aerial reconnaissance assets. Air
Force RB-47's were brought in to fly ELINT missions around the
periphery of the island along with USN F3D ELINT and EC-121 SIGINT
aircraft. (126)

124) In 1956, SAC rejected Kelly Johnson's U-2 design with General
LeMay quoted as saying he didn't need a glider with no guns or wheels
and if he needed aerial reconnaissance he'd use one of his B-36's. By
the time the U-2 program was approved and placed under SAC, he
understood the importance of having the aircraft because the CIA's
intelligence collection affected his bomber procurement. By 1960, SAC
had its own fleet of 24 U-2's and was using them for peripheral SIGINT
and PHOTINT missions.
(125) Jackson, 116.
(126) Lashmar, 191.



http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarS....02byndu-2.htm

Derek Lyons wrote:
Vince wrote:

TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote ...

Spies get shot at all the time
Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
they were CIA flights

I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight
suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West,
JAX or off CVA decks.

TMO


the U-2 flights were cia

There were more recce planes shot down than just Gary Powers's U2
Vince. Quite a few of 'em had 'USN' painted on the side.

D.

Give dates and we will discuss the incidents.


Vince

Derek Lyons wrote:
Vince wrote:

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote:
Vince wrote:
http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/
Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over
and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be
asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real
goof by the Air Force and Kennedy.

http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm

There is nothing that prevents the president from giving a medal to an
air force officer flying for the CIA

You do know that the USAF operated U2's as well?

yes of course
but later

Operational history

Though both the Air Force and the Navy would eventually fly the U-2, it
was originally a CIA operation. Due to the political implications of a
military aircraft invading a country's airspace, only CIA U-2s conducted
overflights. The pilots had to resign their military commissions before
joining the CIA as civilians, a process they referred to as "sheep
dipping".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2



He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of
international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission.

Um... Wrong.


It's an "unlawful order"

There is a difference between peacetime and wartime. The U-2
overflights violated international and domestic law. One of the reasons
we have the CIA is to have a system for dealing with the need to engage
in deliberate violations of international law.

Vince

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 8:35 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message

...
[ SNIP ]

The hostility of the environment is clear. However Reconnaissance in an
environment where you cannot openly protect your aircraft and are not
establishing targets is not a battlefield.
Vince
???

That makes no sense.

AHS

Vince has been reading too many CYA accounts of the Cuban Missile
Crisis. There was a full scale assault planned and several variations,
including air strikes of up to 600 planes.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba013.htm



We never made it to that point

We never made Cuba a battlefield in october of 1962


Vince