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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are wrong and you are right? Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4 nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions. The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111. You may wish to check out that the 404thk00ks have wasted at least 7 military NGs that they have infested so be real careful about how you interact. This includes LAN, the resident Camp follower with the mattress strapped to her back. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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 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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Yeff" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:21:07 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote: Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. So MD/Boeing would know all about the FB-4 Phantom, right? From a search using Boeing's own search engine at http://search-www2.boeing.com/: The search results are he http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hpnpg Your search - FB-4 - did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "FB-4". Nope, but if you dig a bit deeper, you will find the old MD pages that clearly calls it a Fighter/Bomber. Now, remember, you are now fair game so you might wish to be a bit more careful. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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 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. You are still a low grade troll and Internet Terrorist just like all the rest of the 404thk00ks. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "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. Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska. Not suprising given your abrasive nature. 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. So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was still flying them in squadron strenght in 1953.. 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. Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish to reconsider your bluster. Nope, your site only cites what was in the ACTIVE DUTY Air Force and has nothing to do with the Air National Guard during the early 50s. You are just lying to suit your own story. You keep it up, even in the face of other folks telling you that you are wrong. Your cites are only from Actives. And the 38 went out of service in 49, not 46 like you claim using your own cites.. But it was out of service from the ACTIVES in 49. Using the C-124 Globemaster as an example, according to all sources on the net, it was completely phased out of Actives by 1974. Guess what, there were two stationed at Elmendorf well past that time frame. But there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you. Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom they get it ? Better than you are, k00k. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message ... 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. Huh? "All others before it carried that designation." - what kind of bull**** is _that_!? There was exactly _one_ USAF aircraft which was ever designated "FB", and that was the FB-111! But when you put a B up there certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was dropped and never returned [...] Many FB-111As were indeed redesignated as F-111G late in their service career. But this absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there were never any _other_ "FB"-designated aircraft in the USAF. Andreas |
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 |