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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
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 |