VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

----------
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.




D

"DDAY" wrote:

:----------
: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,

FOUO isn't a classification.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

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.



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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:54:10 GMT, "DDAY"
wrote:

----------
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.




D


FOUO For Official Use Only. That's not a classification but is a
restriction, I.E. not for release to the public. IIRC it becomes
releasable after a newer version is printed or after a certain length
of time.
Walt

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.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

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

On 26 Kwi, 06:15, "Flashnews" wrote:
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.

Thanks for your kind words on our hardware. Actually, what Polish Air
Forces still fly is Su-22M4 Fitter K. The aircraft is like a dragster
lorry, needs quite a lot of space to make a turn, but indeed, can
carry quite a lot. Some Japanese visitors to one of the units back in
the mid-1990's were very surprised to see the only real avionics on
board is... the radar.

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.

One more mistake in the manual: among the drawings in the manual I saw
only flat-nose MiG-23BM/MiG-27 version, as if large-nose variants
(e.g.MiG-23MF/ML/MLD) did not exist at all.

Best regards,
Jacek

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



"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."

"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."