VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

[Daryl Hunt]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon" >
> wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
> aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!

Was that an electric or a gas scooter?

[Mike[_1_]]

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.

OPEN THIS FILE AT HOME, NOT AT WORK!!!
MIKE

from Secrecy News www.fas.org

VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION (FOUO)
More than 160 U.S. and foreign military aircraft are catalogued in a
U.S. Army manual which describes their distinctive physical
characteristics in order to permit visual identification of the
aircraft in flight. The manual is nominally a restricted document,
marked "for official use only," and it has not been approved for
public release. But a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. Proper
identification of aircraft is obviously a matter of military
significance. Incorrectly identifying a friendly aircraft (such as an
F-15 Eagle) as an enemy aircraft (such as a MiG-29 Fulcrum) in wartime
"could cause fratricide," meaning the destruction of friendly
aircraft, the manual states. Conversely, incorrectly identifying an
enemy aircraft (a Su-24 Fencer) as a friendly one (such as a Tornado)
"might allow a hostile aircraft entry into, or safe passage through,
the defended area." On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
considered hostile." Likewise, mistaking one type of friendly aircraft
(an F-4 Phantom) for another (an A-4 Skyhawk) would normally not be a
great problem unless "a hostile country was using an aircraft type
that is normally considered friendly." The manual covers both well-
known and relatively obscure systems, but does not include classified
aircraft. Although an earlier edition of the manual was published
without access restrictions, the current edition (2006) was not
approved for public release. But as the government imposes publication
restrictions on an ever larger set of records, the control system
seems to be breaking down at the margins, permitting unauthorized
access with increasing frequency. In this case, contrary to the
restriction notice on the title page, the document does not reveal
sensitive "technical or operational information." See "Visual Aircraft
Recognition," U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-01.80, January 2006 (413
pages in a very large 28 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-01-80.pdf

[Gordon[_2_]]

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.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon" >
wrote:

>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.
>
It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Bill Shatzer]

Mike wrote:
> 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.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

[Tiger]

Mike wrote:

>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.
>
>OPEN THIS FILE AT HOME, NOT AT WORK!!!
>MIKE
>
>from Secrecy News www.fas.org
>
>VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION (FOUO)
>More than 160 U.S. and foreign military aircraft are catalogued in a
>U.S. Army manual which describes their distinctive physical
>characteristics in order to permit visual identification of the
>aircraft in flight. The manual is nominally a restricted document,
>marked "for official use only," and it has not been approved for
>public release. But a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. Proper
>identification of aircraft is obviously a matter of military
>significance. Incorrectly identifying a friendly aircraft (such as an
>F-15 Eagle) as an enemy aircraft (such as a MiG-29 Fulcrum) in wartime
>"could cause fratricide," meaning the destruction of friendly
>aircraft, the manual states. Conversely, incorrectly identifying an
>enemy aircraft (a Su-24 Fencer) as a friendly one (such as a Tornado)
>"might allow a hostile aircraft entry into, or safe passage through,
>the defended area." On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
>aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
>MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
>friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
>considered hostile." Likewise, mistaking one type of friendly aircraft
>(an F-4 Phantom) for another (an A-4 Skyhawk) would normally not be a
>great problem unless "a hostile country was using an aircraft type
>that is normally considered friendly." The manual covers both well-
>known and relatively obscure systems, but does not include classified
>aircraft. Although an earlier edition of the manual was published
>without access restrictions, the current edition (2006) was not
>approved for public release. But as the government imposes publication
>restrictions on an ever larger set of records, the control system
>seems to be breaking down at the margins, permitting unauthorized
>access with increasing frequency. In this case, contrary to the
>restriction notice on the title page, the document does not reveal
>sensitive "technical or operational information." See "Visual Aircraft
>Recognition," U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-01.80, January 2006 (413
>pages in a very large 28 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-01-80.pdf
>
>
>
People who think they look alike need to go to Pearl Vision worse than I
do.............

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Apr 15, 12:14 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.


But the MiG 21 is the one on fire. ;)

[Pat Flannery]

Mike wrote:
> 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 two that would have been very difficult to identify properly would
have been the MiG-21 and Su-9; they looked almost identical.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Gordon wrote:
> 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.
>

Watch the movie "Ice Station Zebra" sometime- the MiG-21s magically
transform into F-4s as they overfly the ice station.

Pat

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Apr 15, 6:15 pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Watch the movie "Ice Station Zebra" sometime- the MiG-21s magically
> transform into F-4s as they overfly the ice station.


I can do better than that. :)) I have the 3' long MiG 21 model from
the movie on a shelf over my desk. They only used one, set up among
mirrors to make it appear to be a small formation of jets. Watch them
bank in the movie - that formation is almost "magically" tight...

The guy that made the movel originally is still breathing - we are
going to get him to replace the canopy which has deformed over the
years. Neat model, lots of detail, however most of it is painted on.

v/r Gordon

[Pat Flannery]

Gordon wrote:
> I can do better than that. :)) I have the 3' long MiG 21 model from
> the movie on a shelf over my desk. They only used one, set up among
> mirrors to make it appear to be a small formation of jets. Watch them
> bank in the movie - that formation is almost "magically" tight...
>

Speaking of being "magically tight", I once saw that model displayed up
on a wall in another movie...in a porn movie to be specific.
How and when exactly did you come into possession of it?

> Neat model, lots of detail, however most of it is painted on.
>

That's what they used to say about Seka also.

Pat

[Mike Kanze]

....And two holes' worth of smoke at that.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

Mr. Johnson: "What's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?"
Evelyn: "Jail."

- The Elderberries (comic strip), 4/14/2007



"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message . ..
Mike wrote:
> 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.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

[Gordon[_2_]]

The man that built it donated it to the San Diego Aerospace Museum in
approximately 1982 -- I have a photo of myself with it in September
1983 in the library of the museum.

v/r
Gordon

Seka? Did you really just invoke the name of Seka?? You are talking
to a fan of KEISHA, a *real* woman!

[TJ]

On 15 Apr, 17:00, "Mike" > wrote:
> 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.
>
> OPEN THIS FILE AT HOME, NOT AT WORK!!!
> MIKE
>
> from Secrecy Newswww.fas.org
>
> VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION (FOUO)
> More than 160 U.S. and foreign military aircraft are catalogued in a
> U.S. Army manual which describes their distinctive physical
> characteristics in order to permit visual identification of the
> aircraft in flight. The manual is nominally a restricted document,
> marked "for official use only," and it has not been approved for
> public release. But a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. Proper
> identification of aircraft is obviously a matter of military
> significance. Incorrectly identifying a friendly aircraft (such as an
> F-15 Eagle) as an enemy aircraft (such as a MiG-29 Fulcrum) in wartime
> "could cause fratricide," meaning the destruction of friendly
> aircraft, the manual states. Conversely, incorrectly identifying an
> enemy aircraft (a Su-24 Fencer) as a friendly one (such as a Tornado)
> "might allow a hostile aircraft entry into, or safe passage through,
> the defended area." On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
> aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
> MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
> friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
> considered hostile." Likewise, mistaking one type of friendly aircraft
> (an F-4 Phantom) for another (an A-4 Skyhawk) would normally not be a
> great problem unless "a hostile country was using an aircraft type
> that is normally considered friendly." The manual covers both well-
> known and relatively obscure systems, but does not include classified
> aircraft. Although an earlier edition of the manual was published
> without access restrictions, the current edition (2006) was not
> approved for public release. But as the government imposes publication
> restrictions on an ever larger set of records, the control system
> seems to be breaking down at the margins, permitting unauthorized
> access with increasing frequency. In this case, contrary to the
> restriction notice on the title page, the document does not reveal
> sensitive "technical or operational information." See "Visual Aircraft
> Recognition," U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-01.80, January 2006 (413
> pages in a very large 28 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-01-80.pdf

Who did the proof reading on that document. Some of the errors are
atrocious. I hope nobody was tested on 'user countries'

Jaguar

user countries

'Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, USA'

MiG-29 Fulcrum

User countries

'Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Israel,
Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela'

Same for the Mirage III/V and Orao user countries.

The imagery is generally good. The only glaringly obvious mistake was
that one of the images of the Su-15 Flagon is a J-8 Finback

Su-27 Flanker

User country

'Germany'

The old mistake of 'Tu-26' for Tu-22M

'TU-26 Backfire'

There is a lot of aircraft in that document that have retired or even
never entered service.

Yak-28
Su-15

They even have the Nimrod AEW3!

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Apr 15, 1:14 pm, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.
>
> Cheers,

Only the USAF ones...late models of USN had smokeless engines..flew
'em in VF-151-'S' model.

[John Carrier]

"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.

Actually, an F-4 in planform at about 4-5 miles looks a lot like an A-4 at
3-4 miles. It's easy to VID when your looking at pictures in a book, not so
easy when the aircraft is near the limits of vision (sun position, clear sky
background or not, etc).

We altered the rules for an ACM derby a number of years back. A mistaken
VID and shot cost the shooters points. With a mixed F-5 / A-4 section (you
couldn't ask for more dissimilar aircraft), head-on VID ranges came down
from 3+ miles to less than a mile.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:56 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> wrote:

>Mike wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.
>
>Cheers,

Believe it or not, that was a huge advantage for us in SEA. It was a
quick clue whether or not a bogie was friendly. When you've got
numerical superiority you don't mind being visible and gaining a
little protection from an over-eager shooter.

But, the smoke pretty much went away from the F-4 fleet around 1980 as
I recall. The upgraded combustion section of the J-79 came around the
same time as the wrap-around camo pattern.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[John[_1_]]

On Apr 15, 3:06 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon" >
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
> aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Hey, hey, hey . . . just a minute . . . details, details, we want
details on this.

Seriously, I don't remember this particular war story. I am sure that
I am not the only one in the group would appreciate it if you could
tell us more about this experience.

Thanks and blue skies to all

John

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 16 Apr 2007 08:51:48 -0700, "John" > wrote:

>On Apr 15, 3:06 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
>> aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>Hey, hey, hey . . . just a minute . . . details, details, we want
>details on this.
>
>Seriously, I don't remember this particular war story. I am sure that
>I am not the only one in the group would appreciate it if you could
>tell us more about this experience.
>
>Thanks and blue skies to all
>
>John

Stories that don't get told, are usually stories with not much to
tell. This one was simply a case of milling around over N. Vietnam and
finding myself directly below a suspicious silouhette--in those days,
the general rule that I followed was that you can't be too fast, and
you can almost never be too low.

Clearly defined black silhouette above of small aircraft with narrow
fuselage, fairly small delta wing and a distinct tail plane. All the
components of the MiG-21 silhouette. Single exhaust, no smoke.
Instantaneous analysis was enemy aircraft--three seconds later, the
bogie rolled and the humpbacked, stubby fuselage of an A-4 was clearly
indentifiable and my equally instantaneous analysis was "how could I
have ever thought it looked like a MiG?"

Fortunately the whole sequence took place too quickly for me to engage
mouth and broadcast my stupidity to the civilized (i.e. USAF) world.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

A little aware of capabilities of both types, I don't think mistaking
Fishbed with Fitter would have "no impact" on the troops. Fighter
capabilities of Su-17 are poor, but MiG-21 cannot haul heavy air-to-
ground ordnance (like H-29 missile) or a nuclear bomb, though I don't
remember if the latter capability was well-advertised in the Warsaw
Pact forces...

Best regards,
Jacek

> On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
> aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
> MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
> friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
> considered hostile."

[Pat Flannery]

Gordon wrote:
> The man that built it donated it to the San Diego Aerospace Museum in
> approximately 1982 -- I have a photo of myself with it in September
> 1983 in the library of the museum.
>
Now that's interesting, as the movie probably dated from the late 70's.
Did they film a porn movie at his house?
It was obviously the one from the movie; it was about three feet in
length, silver, and of the early MiG-21F type.
It was mounted flat on the wall, topside outwards IIRC.

> v/r
> Gordon
>
> Seka? Did you really just invoke the name of Seka?? You are talking
> to a fan of KEISHA, a *real* woman!
>

Aunt Peg. You can tell she's really enjoying it all.

Pat

[Tankfixer]

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."

[DDAY]

---------
In article t>, Tankfixer
> wrote:

>> 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

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

[Tankfixer]

In article . net>,
mumbled
> ---------
> In article t>, Tankfixer
> > wrote:
>
> >> 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
>
> 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


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

[DDAY]

----------
In article et>, 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

[Fred J. McCall]

"DDAY" > wrote:

:----------
:In article et>, 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

[Tankfixer]

In article et>,
mumbled
> ----------
> In article et>, 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."

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article et>,
> mumbled
> > ----------
> > In article et>,
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.

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.

[Flashnews]

Or there were those who were never out of burner having been way to
afraid or smart to slow down -----






"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:56 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> > wrote:
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.
>>
>>Cheers,
>
> Believe it or not, that was a huge advantage for us in SEA. It was a
> quick clue whether or not a bogie was friendly. When you've got
> numerical superiority you don't mind being visible and gaining a
> little protection from an over-eager shooter.
>
> But, the smoke pretty much went away from the F-4 fleet around 1980 as
> I recall. The upgraded combustion section of the J-79 came around the
> same time as the wrap-around camo pattern.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:23:40 GMT, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

>Or there were those who were never out of burner having been way to
>afraid or smart to slow down -----
>

Reheat was a good way to kill the smoke signature, but consumption,
even in min burner was way too high to give adequate endurance for the
NVN mission. And, there's always the problem that if you are running
around in reheat the rest of the formation is either way behind or way
ahead. The wingman can't do it consistently and stay with the leader,
the leader can't do it and keep his wingmen.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

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

>----------
>In article et>, 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

[DDAY]

----------
In article et>, Tankfixer
> wrote:

> If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
> it to the web.

Actually, that's not true.



D

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In article et>,
> > > mumbled
> > > > ----------
> > > > In article et>,
> > 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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article t>,
> mumbled
> > ----------
> > In article et>,
Tankfixer
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
> > > it to the web.
> >
> > Actually, that's not true.
>
> Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> and not get in trouble ?

I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing some
kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else or
dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind direction.

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article et>,
> > mumbled
> > > ----------
> > > In article et>,
> 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...



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

[Tankfixer]

Back in the 80's our local Air Guard unit had F-4's.

We were in Medford for the 4th of July and they were doing the usual
circuit of small airports that had flyins/airshows on the 4th.

The pair had completed a low pass with gear up and one with gear down.

They were departing to the east and I figured they were headed to
K-Falls and another show.

I was watching the smoke trails and noticed the were curving a bit
north, away from K-Falls.
Then the smoke stopped and I knew they were coming back for one more
pass.
Nudged my late father-in-law and told him to look east. He was an old
crew cheif who had started his naval career pre-Pearl Harbor in PBY's
and had ended his time working on A3D in 1963.
Gave the rest of my family a heads up and as the pair of F-4 glided past
the crowd at 100 AGL and about 600 knots we all had our fingers in our
ears.
They did a nice zoom and disapeared going up.




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

[Tankfixer]

In article t>,
mumbled
> ----------
> In article et>, Tankfixer
> > wrote:
>
> > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
> > it to the web.
>
> Actually, that's not true.

Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
and not get in trouble ?


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

[RAP Flashnet]

Right Ed, that's for sure, but you had to stick around there, we were just
poking around at 650 knots and then bugging out - we didn't smoke and we
didn't look back - but for sure the Thud could hang on in MIL pretty much -
and when it opened up to 750 or 800, we were waving bye-bye


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:23:40 GMT, "Flashnews" >
> wrote:
>
>>Or there were those who were never out of burner having been way to
>>afraid or smart to slow down -----
>>
>
> Reheat was a good way to kill the smoke signature, but consumption,
> even in min burner was way too high to give adequate endurance for the
> NVN mission. And, there's always the problem that if you are running
> around in reheat the rest of the formation is either way behind or way
> ahead. The wingman can't do it consistently and stay with the leader,
> the leader can't do it and keep his wingmen.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Flashnews]

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."
>

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > In article et>,
> > > > mumbled
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > 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.

If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault.

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.

I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF or
any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.



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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article t>,
> > mumbled
> > > ----------
> > > In article et>,
> Tankfixer
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
> > > > it to the web.
> > >
> > > Actually, that's not true.
> >
> > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> > and not get in trouble ?
>
> I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing some
> kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else or
> dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind direction.


Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.


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

[[email protected]]

> 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 twice:once 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

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > mumbled
> > > >
> > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > In article
et>,
> > > > 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.

>
> 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.


>
> 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.



>
> I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF or
> any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.

Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk back
then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I worked
on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they never
had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In article t>,
> > > mumbled
> > > > ----------
> > > > In article et>,
> > Tankfixer
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
> > > > > it to the web.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > >
> > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> > > and not get in trouble ?
> >
> > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing
some
> > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else
or
> > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
direction.
>
>
> Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
>
> 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get in
the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
together soon.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Flashnews" > wrote in message
. net...
> 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."
> >
>
>

[DDAY]

----------
In article et>, Tankfixer
> wrote:

>> > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
>> > it to the web.
>>
>> Actually, that's not true.
>
> Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> and not get in trouble ?

Yes.

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.

It is actually not illegal to publish classified information (with some very
specific exceptions). Newspapers do it all the time. If you want other
examples, next time you go to a big bookstore, look for books by Bill Gertz.
Gertz (a reporter for the conservative newspaper The Washington Times) has
published classified documents in the back of several of his books. He has
never been charged with anything.

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.



D

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
> ----------
> In article et>, Tankfixer
> > wrote:
>
> >> > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing
> >> > it to the web.
> >>
> >> Actually, that's not true.
> >
> > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> > and not get in trouble ?
>
> Yes.
>
> 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.. ;')

>
> It is actually not illegal to publish classified information (with some very
> specific exceptions). Newspapers do it all the time. If you want other
> examples, next time you go to a big bookstore, look for books by Bill Gertz.
> Gertz (a reporter for the conservative newspaper The Washington Times) has
> published classified documents in the back of several of his books. He has
> never been charged with anything.



>
> 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.


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

[Flashnews]

You guys are discussing one of the hottest subjects that totally
captivated the whole fighter community from the 1950's to the end of the
Cold War - the identification, analysis, and comparisons of enemy
(Russian and Chinese) fighters with our own - and in most cases the
original investigations were a disaster until Boyd / Christie / Hillikar
/ Richioni, and others I am ashamed to have forgotten now pulled
together the concept of Energy Maneuverability that started to review
the defining characteristics of fighters (actually all aircraft) and in
snap shots of time, configuration, power, speed, altitude, and AOA they
could let you know fairly well how the aircraft was performing against
your at the same conditions. Now the whole effort was wasn't always
concise it took a whole lot of effort and actually until our pilots
starting flying the enemy jets on a regular basis did we really learn
what they did and how they performed. It may have been the greatest time
in fighter history because it evolved with the spirit and skills of many
people tempered all the time with real combat experience and subsequent
exploitation.

The Foreign Technology Division (FTD) tried very hard to get to the
performance specifics of enemy fighters by modeling performance and it
took an incredible effort because there were not the computers of today.
Now almost all computer games have exact aero and performance data on
the whole spectrum of western and eastern fighters so you can play with
them on your laptop or Playstation.

Some stories of course - the USAF flew the MiG-21 in early experiemnets
and together with the restrictive Russian flight handbook considered it
a piece of cake against the F-4 - then the Navy took a lok and Tom
Cassidy the salty CEO today of the Predator company who always was a
handful and SOB to boot took the MiG and started flying circles around
the F-4 simply because he was flying it by the seat of his pants through
touchy areas that had Russian designers worried (certain fuel state
changed the CG radically and made it quite unpredictable for a bit) and
ruled out for Russian pilots - that is they could not fly slower then
400 kph except to land. Cassiday took it to zero and flopped it around
like an acrobatic toy, drilling the F-4's who were trying to flight the
slow fight with a heavy wing loaded beast that would not do it. As time
went on people recognized that the F-4 could beat the MiG-21 with power
using the vertical and slice turning (cross-controlling using the
adverse yaw and dihedral effects) to get your nose around. But US
pilots flying the MiG's also assumed US properties like better missiles
and better avionics so the MiG was at its best flown by our folks.

Now going back to FTD and their many evolutions of bad assessments - the
MiG-23 Flogger and Su-17 Fitter (swing wing) family of aircraft had more
powerful engines but also many new restrictions - but in the pure state
the resultant energy envelopes could be stagering so they were briefed
that way yet in reality when the Isreali's (who were the first) started
engaging them they performed worse then the MiG-21 although they could
carry more and go faster longer. Many times the pure analytical
assessment was way off - in fact it was not until the MiG-29 came around
that anyone believed the geeks at FTD and in the MiG-29 they
characteristically under-estimated it. In short - it was our great
relationships with the Israeli and Pakistani Air Forces that perhaps
provided the US the greatest amount of real combat data in how to beat
the Russian fighters and their weapons and very little of what was
learned was ever predicted correctly - so take that for what it is worth
thinking about the future now. Our experience against North Vietnam
with the beginning or Topgun and the USAF Aggressor Program was a
turning point for all of this, a point in time so profound that it
shaped ouir military capability. Only in the Iraq war since 2001 when
the Army and USAF parted ways has the overcoat of air power been
stripped from our troops - and if there is a thombstone for this decade
of war to underscore our failure it will be in the Army's refusal to
understand the vertical dimension and the Air Forces's half hearted
effort to try to jerk them back to reality - the services all grabbed
for their budgetary pots and gave up trying to sorth things out. Today
it is a compl;etely different war and you see outposts and convoys
standing alone with virtually little air cover and even less air
presence because attack helicopters are too vulnerable, UAV's are too
difficult and too few, AC-130's are grounded, and tactical fighters with
pods and bombs make too big a splash for the restrictive ROE's and we
keep loosing people to complex ambushes with no capacity to go after the
attackers let along try to stop them before. The Army dumped all this
and billions on the IED Task force that only grew in organizational size
(4 star level no less JIEDDO) and not in the generation of solutions to
IED's and ambushes and after five years have nothing to show for it
except the continuing casualties - now the Congress will gut them but if
it remains an Army war and not a SOF or Marine joint war nothting will
change. The SOF and Marines have figured out the third dimension but
they also need the right air vehicles for COIN.



> wrote in message
ups.com...
>A little aware of capabilities of both types, I don't think mistaking
> Fishbed with Fitter would have "no impact" on the troops. Fighter
> capabilities of Su-17 are poor, but MiG-21 cannot haul heavy air-to-
> ground ordnance (like H-29 missile) or a nuclear bomb, though I don't
> remember if the latter capability was well-advertised in the Warsaw
> Pact forces...
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
>
>> On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
>> aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
>> MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
>> friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
>> considered hostile."
>
>

[Flashnews]

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 twice:once 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
>
>

[DDAY]

----------
In article et>, 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.



D

[Daryl Hunt]

"DDAY" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> ----------
> In article et>,
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.

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > In article t>,
> > > > mumbled
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > Tankfixer
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
> publishing
> > > > > > it to the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
> > > > and not get in trouble ?
> > >
> > > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing
> some
> > > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else
> or
> > > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
> direction.
> >
> >
> > Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
> >
> > 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get in
> the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
> together soon.

There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"

No one every supported that claim.


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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > mumbled
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > In article
> et>,
> > > > > 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.


> >
> > I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF or
> > any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.
>
> Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk back
> then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I worked
> on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they never
> had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie.



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

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> "DDAY" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > ----------
> > In article et>,
> 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

[TMOliver]

"redc1c4" > wrote ...

>
> tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.
>

I'd like to have seen them too.

Unfortunately, both of my print sources claim "Neba Hachee", with one of
them maintaining that P-38s, even a few scattered photo birds, were gone
from active service long before 1950 (1946 withdrawn from squadron service),
and were not assigned to Air Guard units. The reasons were twofold. 1.
The P-51s, line dup in vast quantities on ramps around the world had
equivalent range and performance (along with a lower accident rate). & 2.
Even more important, those two turning made the Lighting an expensive gas
hog, a real problem with post war cutbacks.

P-51s remained in Air Guard Service into the mid50s, but the only P-38s
around were a handful of privately owned Pylon racers and the dusty ones
parked in boneyards like Davis Monathan.

I guess I saw the last of the TB-25s used for navigator training at James
Connally AFB, Texas, plus what must have been one of the last operational
sorties by a P-47, Haitian AF, off Haiti's coast in 1963, plus later that
year, Spanish versions of the He111 and a real Ju52 operating out of Palma,
Majorca.

In early 1942, when I was a little over 2, I am told a P-38 crashed across
the street from our house on Pont Loma (overlooking the then empty flats of
Mission Bay). I remember the excitement, but wasn't up on P-38s back then.
My old friend and infrequent story teller, Paul Murphy of Clifton, TX,
passed last year, one of those pilots who survived combat tours in P-39s and
P-38s in the South Pacific.

We still have an "operational" B-26 (not the old Marauder) and a TBF flying
around here. On its rare flights, the B-26 takes off across the lake and
passing over my ridgetop at less than 1000'. Loud!

Prop-driven memories....The sound of a sortie of A1Hs flying off the deck of
CVA-38. Sort of an ear-splitting stream if you had forgotten to close the
hatch to the Port Wing and Vultures' Row.

TMO

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > mumbled
> > > >
> > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > In article >,

> > > > > mumbled
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > In article
et>,
> > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > In article
> > et>,
> > > > > > 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.

>
>
> > >
> > > I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF
or
> > > any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.
> >
> > Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk
back
> > then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I
worked
> > on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they
never
> > had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie.
>
>
>
> --
> Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
> diet of static text and
> cascading "threads."

[Yeff]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...

<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.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > mumbled
> > > >
> > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > In article t>,
> > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > In article
et>,
> > > > Tankfixer
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
> > publishing
> > > > > > > it to the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the
net
> > > > > and not get in trouble ?
> > > >
> > > > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
showing
> > some
> > > > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere
else
> > or
> > > > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
> > direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
> > >
> > > 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get
in
> > the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
> > together soon.
>
> There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
> The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"
>
> No one every supported that claim.

McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

[Daryl Hunt]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > ----------
> > > In article et>,
> > 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.... %-)

You prove me wrong. You have yet to do that. You weren't even a twinkle in
your daddy's eye in 53.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
>
> <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.

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.

[Andreas Parsch]

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.

Andreas

[Yeff]

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 here: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hpnpg>

Your search - FB-4 - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "FB-4".

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.



Copyright © Boeing. All rights reserved.

-----

> I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once
> again.

If you call me giving cites that contradict the thing's you're saying as
help, then I guess I am.

> I thought you had given up on that.

I'm still partial to the truth. You?

> Well, you just got demoted back to the dismal 404thk00ks.

Is there a secret handshake I have to learn?

> Nice job.

Thank you.

> You are now wide open for any and all criticism that comes their way.

Okay.

> Guess you will never learn.

Learn what, hanging on to an idea despite all contradictory evidence that
proves I'm wrong? I guess I never will.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

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.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[TMOliver]

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.....

TMO

[La N]

"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.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

As per usual, Daryl is so BUSTED yet again!

- nilita

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > mumbled
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > In article t>,
> > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > In article
> et>,
> > > > > Tankfixer
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
> > > publishing
> > > > > > > > it to the web.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the
> net
> > > > > > and not get in trouble ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
> showing
> > > some
> > > > > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere
> else
> > > or
> > > > > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
> > > direction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
> > > >
> > > > 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get
> in
> > > the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
> > > together soon.
> >
> > There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
> > The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"
> >
> > No one every supported that claim.
>
> McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
> wrong and you are right?

They certainly did call it that.
So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
service.

>
> Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

I ask simple questions.
Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.


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

[Tankfixer]

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
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > In article >,
>
> > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > In article
> et>,
> > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > et>,
> > > > > > > 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.

Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom
they get it ?



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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> >
> > <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.


> 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.

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, TMOliver
> writes
>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).

Plus the FB-106 (what, you couldn't use improvise and use Genie as an
air-to-ground weapon? Fire to get an airburst over desired target?)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

I have never stated that the US Air Force EVER used the term FB-4. But we
both know that the 4 comes at the end of a time that a Fighter/Bomber was
classed just that way. Of course, it was also the first Multirolled Fighter
that all others follow even today. But it's more than a bit of a stretch
not to include it as a bomber as well as a fighter since it did both roles
equally well depending on the loadout.

BTW, Ed, the 404thk00ks also stated that there was nothing ever named with a
FB yet there were more than a few. All I have stated is that the 4 met the
criteria of a FB at the time it was introduced and even MD classed it as a
FB originally.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > mumbled
> > > >
> > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > In article >,

> > > > > mumbled
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > In article
t>,
> > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > In article
> > et>,
> > > > > > Tankfixer
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed
for
> > > > publishing
> > > > > > > > > it to the web.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on
the
> > net
> > > > > > > and not get in trouble ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
> > showing
> > > > some
> > > > > > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play
somewhere
> > else
> > > > or
> > > > > > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the
wind
> > > > direction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts
get
> > in
> > > > the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
> > > > together soon.
> > >
> > > There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
> > > The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"
> > >
> > > No one every supported that claim.
> >
> > McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
> > wrong and you are right?
>
> They certainly did call it that.
> So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
> service.

I already explained why. But that was long ago and you just keep bringing
it up like the 404thk00k that you are.


>
> >
> > Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.
>
> I ask simple questions.
> Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.

Your question is nothing more than another attempt to kill off yet another
Military Usenet Group. How many does that make now, 7 at least?

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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 here: <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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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
> > > > ink.net...
> > >
> > > <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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > et>,
> > > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > et>,
> > > > > > > > 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.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"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

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > ----------
> > > In article et>,
> > 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

[Andreas Parsch]

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

[TMOliver]

"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.

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >
> > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > mumbled
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > In article >,
>
> > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > In article
> t>,
> > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > et>,
> > > > > > > Tankfixer
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed
> for
> > > > > publishing
> > > > > > > > > > it to the web.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually, that's not true.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you saying one can post current classified publications on
> the
> > > net
> > > > > > > > and not get in trouble ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
> > > showing
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play
> somewhere
> > > else
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the
> wind
> > > > > direction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts
> get
> > > in
> > > > > the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
> > > > > together soon.
> > > >
> > > > There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
> > > > The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"
> > > >
> > > > No one every supported that claim.
> > >
> > > McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
> > > wrong and you are right?
> >
> > They certainly did call it that.
> > So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
> > service.
>
> I already explained why. But that was long ago and you just keep bringing
> it up like the 404thk00k that you are.

You gave some lame explanations that no one bought at the time.
And they still do not agree with you.



>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.
> >
> > I ask simple questions.
> > Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.
>
> Your question is nothing more than another attempt to kill off yet another
> Military Usenet Group. How many does that make now, 7 at least?

0, but then we know how you like to make crap up.


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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "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
> > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > >
> > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > et>,
> > > > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > et>,
> > > > > > > > > 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.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.




>
> >
> > Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom
> > they get it ?
>
> Better than you are, k00k.
>
>
>
>
>

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

[Tankfixer]

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
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > <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 ?


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

[Tankfixer]

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.

> 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


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

[Tankfixer]

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 ??????





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

[AUK Registrar]

In >, redc1c4
> wrote:

>Daryl Hunt wrote:

>> "DDAY" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> > ----------
>> > In article et>,
>> 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.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 29, 3:56 pm, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> "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...
>
> TheF4was 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.

The F-4 still flies as the QF-4 target drone at Tyndall AFB, if we can
believe the History Channel and its program "The Boneyard".

My neighbor, Bob Downey, flew several of the big Thompson racers in
the post war and later the 85 hp Continental "Midgets". That and
running a paint store.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tankfixer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "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
> > > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
ink.net...
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > et>,
> > > > > > > > > > > mumbled
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > et>,
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
> tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?
>
> Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.



>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom
> > > they get it ?
> >
> > Better than you are, k00k.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> --
> Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
> diet of static text and
> cascading "threads."

[Daryl Hunt]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

There were many more than that but I can see you really won't believe it so
why would I bother.

And thank you for playing "Bowling for Breadloaves" you can pick up your
parting gifts at the door.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > <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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> > Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > > ----------
> > > > In article et>,
> > > 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.

[redc1c4]

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

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 29, 6:18 pm, AUK Registrar > wrote:
> In >, redc1c4
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >> "DDAY" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >> > ----------
> >> > In article et>,
> >> 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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "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.


hjahahahahahahahahaaaaa

Daryl, you are a gem


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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
> > >

> > > 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.
> >
> > Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
> > tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?
> >
> > Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.
>
> No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was
> a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
> what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
> believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question
> then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

You were 3 or 4.
I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.

We arn't discussing what he said.
What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.


> Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it
> over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.

I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.

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

[Tankfixer]

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
> > > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <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."

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "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.

Funny but the F/A-18 was considered multi role from the very beginning.

And I didn't know you worked at DOD and made decisions on what aircraft
are designated. For all we know they may call the USMC version of the
JSF F/A....

>
> 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.

The tiny differance is that 40 years from now it will be easy to find
any number of sources that will show the F/A was used as an aricraft
designation by both the USN and the USMC.
In this case you can't provide one single shred of proof the F-4 was
ever designated the "FB-4" by any service OR its maker.


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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "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.

That many times ?
Wow
So you should have no problem finding it and posting yet one more time
and shutting up all the people here telling you that you are wrong.

Or are you lying, again ?

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

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> > > Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > > 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.

Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
versions were still in military service.

But you knew that already

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

[redc1c4]

Tankfixer wrote:
>
> In article >,
> mumbled
> >
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> > > > Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > 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.
>
> Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
> versions were still in military service.
>
> But you knew that already


well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so
*obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead.....

redc1c4,
after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> Tankfixer wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > mumbled
>
> > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > > On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> > > > > > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
> > versions were still in military service.
>
> > But you knew that already
>
> well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so
> *obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead.....
>
> redc1c4,
> after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-)
> --
> "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
> considerable watching."
>
> Army Officer's Guide

Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing
statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam.

In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count?

[TMOliver]

"Tankfixer" > wrote ...
>
> mumbled
>>
>> "Tankfixer" > wrote...
>> >
>> > mumbled
>> > >
>
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
>> > tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?
>> >
>> > Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.
>>
>> No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He
>> was
>> a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
>> what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
>> believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that
>> question
>> then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.
>
> You were 3 or 4.
> I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.
>
> We arn't discussing what he said.
> What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
> acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.
>
>
>> Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get
>> it
>> over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.
>
> I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
> subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
> It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
> admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.
>

Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable
claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or
derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that
includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep
requirements for the engine models and superchargers).

Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have
likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative.

An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953 and
(b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary P-82
Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look in
some aspects.

The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many,
and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the first
of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service
because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly it
well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service.

Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids
on L'Orient....

TMO

[Andreas Parsch]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> There were many more than that but I can see you really won't believe it
> so why would I bother.

Yes, don't bother. Given the number of original USAF and DOD designation
records I have seen, none of which supports your "FB-4" BS, I will indeed
not believe you.

>
> And thank you for playing "Bowling for Breadloaves" you can pick up your
> parting gifts at the door.

Nice try, but if you want to win the r.a.m. "Crackpot of the Month" contest
against Mr. Arndt, you'll have to do better :-)!

Andreas

[Daryl Hunt]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tankfixer" > wrote ...
> >
> > mumbled
> >>
> >> "Tankfixer" > wrote...
> >> >
> >> > mumbled
> >> > >
> >
> >> > > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't
you
> >> > tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?
> >> >
> >> > Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your
point.
> >>
> >> No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He
> >> was
> >> a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and
USAF)
> >> what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
> >> believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that
> >> question
> >> then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.
> >
> > You were 3 or 4.
> > I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.
> >
> > We arn't discussing what he said.
> > What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
> > acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.
> >
> >
> >> Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it.
Get
> >> it
> >> over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.
> >
> > I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
> > subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
> > It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
> > admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.
> >
>
> Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable
> claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or
> derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that
> includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep
> requirements for the engine models and superchargers).
>
> Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have
> likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative.
>
> An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953
and
> (b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary
P-82
> Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look
in
> some aspects.
>
> The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many,
> and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the
first
> of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service
> because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly
it
> well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service.
>
> Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids
> on L'Orient....

Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the
404thk00ks. You live it down well.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 > wrote:
> > Tankfixer wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > mumbled
> >
> > > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > > > On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 >
wrote:
> > > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > "DDAY" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > In article
et>,
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > > Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
> > > versions were still in military service.
> >
> > > But you knew that already
> >
> > well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so
> > *obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead.....
> >
> > redc1c4,
> > after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-)
> > --
> > "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
> > considerable watching."
> >
> > Army Officer's Guide
>
> Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing
> statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam.
>
> In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count?

Thanks for the assist, Jack but it will do no good. These are wannabe
people that actually think that the movie Green Beret showed what it was
really like. They actually want us to believe the "Army of One" crap.

[[email protected]]

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

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Here's the 1955 version of the same thing:
http://www.kilroywashere.org/005-Pages/AC-Rec/05-AC-Recog-01-.html
Watch out for the Bison/Badger mix-up.

Pat

[Paul Elliot]

wrote:
> 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
>
Thanks Jacek,
Are the Polish Marines still deployed to southern Iraq? They really
kicked ass there! God bless them.

Paul

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

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

[God's Creator!]

Paul Elliot wrote:
> wrote:
>> 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
>>
> Thanks Jacek,
> Are the Polish Marines still deployed to southern Iraq? They really
> kicked ass there! God bless them.
>
> Paul
>

Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*

How many Iraqi children did _THEY_ slaughter?


God's Creator!
( Sorry, I don't forgive ****! )

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : ---> http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[[email protected]]

On 2 Maj, 15:28, Paul Elliot > wrote:
>
> Thanks Jacek,
> Are the Polish Marines still deployed to southern Iraq? They really
> kicked ass there! God bless them.
>
> Paul
>

Thanks, Paul. Obviously, they are. It must be not easy for them, but I
guess meeting with some Soviet-school military realities still
remaining in Iraq may sometimes make feel them like home. They also
have some opportunity to test their new hardware, like Rosomak
armoured personnel carrier. I bet some Polish F-16s also end up there
when their training ends...

Best regards,
Jacek

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 2, 9:28 am, Paul Elliot > wrote:
> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Thanks Jacek,
> Are the Polish Marines still deployed to southern Iraq? They really
> kicked ass there! God bless them.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
> German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.
>
> Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
> French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.
>
> http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

Flag of Poland Poland - Currently, 900 non-combat troops from the
'First Warsaw Division', based at Camp Echo in Diwaniyah. Poland leads
the Multi-National Division (South Central) which consists of forces
from several other countries. In accordance with the decision of the
former Polish Minister of Defense Jerzy Szmajdziński, the number of
troops was reduced from 2,500 to 1,500 during the second half of 2005.
Poland's former leftist government, which lost September 25, 2005
elections, had planned to withdraw the remaining 1,500 troops in
January. However, the new defense minister, Radosław Sikorski, visited
Washington on December 3 for talks on Poland's coalition plans, and
Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz declared that he would decide
after the Iraqi elections on December 15, whether to extend its
troops' mandate beyond December 31.[18] On Tuesday 22 December, Prime
Minister Marcinkiewicz announced that he had asked President Lech
Kaczyński to keep Polish troops in Iraq for another year, calling it
"a very difficult decision."[19] On January 5, 2006, Polish troops
handed over control of the central Babil province to U.S. troops and
decided to remain on bases in Kut and Diwaniyah for the remainder of
their mandate,[20] cutting their contingent from 1,500 troops to 900
troops two months later,[21] and switching their main objective from
patrolling their sector to the training of Iraqi security forces.
Poland has lost 20 soldiers in Iraq: 14 in bombings or ambushes and 6
in various accidents. In July 2004, Al Zarqawi released a statement
threatening Japan, Poland and Bulgaria over their troop deployments.
He demanded of the Polish government 'Pull your troops out of Iraq or
you will hear the sounds of explosions that will hit your country.'
Hours later Prime Minister Marek Belka denied, and deputy Defence
Minister Janusz Zemke said pulling out would be a 'terrible mistake.'

Wiki Multinational force

[Flashnews]

This is what in thought was so cool and so pragmatic and so Russian. In
one of the Su-22's that landed in Pakistan by a defector during the
border war with Pakistan the cockpit had been "upgraded" to handle
precision guided bombs utilizing TV imagery being fed to the "scope"
mounted on the right side of the cockpit. Now the pilot had to guide the
munitions (like our old Bullpup from Vietnam days) into the target as he
drove down the bombing run and of course the most important factor for
his was "where is the ground - or what is his altitude". Now we are not
talking about digital displays or HUD's so the good Sukhoi design team
just conveniently located a second altimeter right their under the TV...
worked real nice.

Now the Su-22 was a swing wing jet - old question on the thread - which
way did the manual wing sweep work - (1) the bomber way - wings back,
lever back as in F-111, MiG-23/27, Mirage G, or (2) the fighter way -
wing lever forward to put wings back to match adding power with throttle
as with F-14 and B-1.

The Su-22 did neither - it was a lock set, but the lever back moved the
wings back. Yet it still has the best "feel" of all the Russian jets -
more like a Phantom and shares the strong rudders


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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
>

[Flashnews]

Afghanistan and Central Asia guys - Iraq is an American war and NATO
will never let us forget it





> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 2 Maj, 15:28, Paul Elliot > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Jacek,
>> Are the Polish Marines still deployed to southern Iraq? They really
>> kicked ass there! God bless them.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> Thanks, Paul. Obviously, they are. It must be not easy for them, but I
> guess meeting with some Soviet-school military realities still
> remaining in Iraq may sometimes make feel them like home. They also
> have some opportunity to test their new hardware, like Rosomak
> armoured personnel carrier. I bet some Polish F-16s also end up there
> when their training ends...
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
>

[TMOliver]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...

>
> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
> the
> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>
>
No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
dreams before anybody will believe you...

To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
potential credibility.

TMO

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>
>
>
> > Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
> > that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
> > don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
> > the
> > 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>
> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>
> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
> potential credibility.
>
> TMO

http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html

A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
exist.

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
>>> the
>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>>
>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
>> potential credibility.
>>
>> TMO
>
> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>
> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> exist.
>
>
not really
The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
skywarrior which was a success

Vince

[Tex Houston]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
> As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for
> station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not
> Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force
> strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to
> "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before
> anybody will believe you...

If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would feel.

Tex

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>
> >>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
> >>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
> >>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
> >>> the
> >>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
> >> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
> >> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
> >> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
> >> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
> >> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
> >> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
> >> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
> >> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
> >> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
> >> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
> >> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
> >> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
> >> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>
> >> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
> >> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
> >> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
> >> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
> >> potential credibility.
>
> >> TMO
>
> >http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>
> > A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> > was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> > especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> > exist.
>
> not really
> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> skywarrior which was a success
>
> Vince

They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.

By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
sites were operational.

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
>>>>> the
>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
>>>> potential credibility.
>>>> TMO
>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>> exist.
>> not really
>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>> skywarrior which was a success
>>
>> Vince
>
> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> sites were operational.
>
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>

Cuba was not a "battlefield"

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
> >>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links
> >>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But
> >>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
> >>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one
> >>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in
> >>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend
> >>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory,
> >>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable
> >>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough
> >>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
> >>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have
> >>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training
> >>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by
> >>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're
> >>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized
> >>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
> >>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're
> >>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be
> >>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple
> >>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all
> >>>> potential credibility.
> >>>> TMO
> >>>http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
> >>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> >>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> >>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> >>> exist.
> >> not really
> >> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> >> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> >> skywarrior which was a success
>
> >> Vince
>
> > They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> > By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> > sites were operational.
>
> > and
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>
> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
> Vince

Tell that to the guys who flew over it.

President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
rendered them ineffective.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:

>>>>>> TMO
>>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>>> exist.
>>>> not really
>>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>> Vince
>>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>>> sites were operational.
>>> and
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>>
>> Vince
>
> Tell that to the guys who flew over it.
>
> President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
> Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
> 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
> Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
> at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
> sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
> copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
> office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
> three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
> launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
> conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
> rendered them ineffective.
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876
>

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

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>> TMO
> >>>>>http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
> >>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> >>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> >>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> >>>>> exist.
> >>>> not really
> >>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> >>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> >>>> skywarrior which was a success
> >>>> Vince
> >>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> >>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> >>> sites were operational.
> >>> and
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
> >> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Tell that to the guys who flew over it.
>
> > President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
> > Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
> > 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
> > Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
> > at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
> > sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
> > copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
> > office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
> > three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
> > launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
> > conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
> > rendered them ineffective.
> >http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876
>
> Spies get shot at all the time
> Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
> they were CIA flights
>
> Vince

Air Force. http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp

Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was
shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii
and his like in so they can't remember anything later.

[TMOliver]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two
>>>>>> links
>>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite,
>>>>> one
>>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
>>>>> service in
>>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
>>>>> comprehend
>>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
>>>>> inventory,
>>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more
>>>>> capable
>>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great
>>>>> enough
>>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
>>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may
>>>>> have
>>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
>>>>> Training
>>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
>>>>> used by
>>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
>>>>> you're
>>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
>>>>> agaonized
>>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
>>>>> You're
>>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought
>>>>> to be
>>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
>>>>> simple
>>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have
>>>>> all
>>>>> potential credibility.
>>>>> TMO
>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>> exist.
>>> not really
>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>
>>> Vince
>>
>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>> sites were operational.
>>
>> and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>>
>
> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
I wouldn't want to tell that to the VFP-62 pilots flying low level photo
recon in RF8 Crusaders who (while certainly guilty of violating Cuban
airspace were being regularly fired upon with both 57mm and 23mm AA as the
transited missile sites flying "nap of the ground". The Soviets erecting
the sites seemed somewhat hostile toward being photographed.

After October 23, I was "only 90 miles away", and the average visitor would
have surely thought life was "combatish", VF-101 's F4 Phantoms crouched at
the end of the runway, air crew in their seats, for backup CAP, and the
airborne birds "on station" in the air off Havana. The RoE was pretty
flexible and no one doubted that it was a "missiles free" air defense
environment.

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

[TMOliver]

"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

[TMOliver]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TMOliver" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for
>> station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not
>> Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force
>> strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to
>> "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before
>> anybody will believe you...
>
> If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would
> feel.
>
I apologize for the brain fart. There's one of the last of them still
flying sitting in a hangar just across the lake about 3 miles away.

I'd appreciate your guess as to the last P-38 service date.

TMO

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>>> TMO
>>>>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>> not really
>>>>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>>>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>>>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>>>>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>>>>> sites were operational.
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>>>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>>>> Vince
>>> Tell that to the guys who flew over it.
>>> President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
>>> Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
>>> 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
>>> Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
>>> at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
>>> sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
>>> copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
>>> office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
>>> three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
>>> launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
>>> conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
>>> rendered them ineffective.
>>> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876
>> Spies get shot at all the time
>> Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
>> they were CIA flights
>>
>> Vince
>
> Air Force. http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp
>
> Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was
> shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii
> and his like in so they can't remember anything later.
>

the pilots were airforce but the flights were CIA. They were reported
by the CIA

The track of the mission approved on 9 October was plotted to include
coverage of the San Cristóbal trapezoid. The overflight did not actually
occur until 14 October, owing to inclement weather forecasts and the
time needed to train an air force pilot in the intricacies of the more
powerful U-2s operated by the CIA.[79] But eventually, Maj. Richard
Heyser piloted the U-2 that took 928 photographs in six minutes over an
area of Cuba that had not been photographed for 45 days.[80] The film
was rushed to Suitland, Maryland, for processing and arrived at NPIC on
the morning of 15 October. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., the CIA
photo-interpreter on a team of four analysts announced, “We’ve got MRBMs
[medium range ballistic missiles] in Cuba.”[81] It was a “moment of
splendor” for the U-2, its cameras and film, and the photo-interpreters,
as Sherman Kent later put it, if not the CIA’s finest hour of the Cold
War.[82] The president issued blanket authority for unrestricted U-2
overflights on 16 October, and the missile crisis commenced in earnest.


https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm


"On the morning of October 14, 1962, a U-2 aircraft, piloted by Air
Force Major Richard D. Heyser, flew a reconnaissance mission over the
western part of Cuba, flying from south to north. The 928 photographs
obtained during the 6-minute flight over the island produced the first
verified evidence of the existence of Soviet offensive missile sites in
Cuba. Analysis and interpretation of the photographs at the National
Photographic Intelligence Center revealed that three medium-range
ballistic missile sites were being developed near San Cristobal, in
Pinar del Rio province. Photo analysts counted eight large MRBM
transporters at the three locations and four erector launchers in
tentative firing positions. Two further U-2 missions, flown on October
15 by pilots of the Strategic Air Command, revealed a fourth MRBM site
near San Cristobal, and two intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM)
sites were discovered at Guanajay. Photos also revealed 21 crates for
Soviet IL-28 Beagle medium-range bomber aircraft at San Julian airfield.
(Chronology of Air Force Actions During the Cuban Crisis, 14 October-30
October 1962; USAF Historical Division Liaison Office, pages 11-12)

At 8:30 p.m. on October 15 CIA Deputy Director Carter reported to
McGeorge Bundy the hard evidence of the MRBM's, but the President's
Special Assistant decided not to notify the President that evening. In a
memorandum to the President, dated March 4, 1963, Bundy explained his
reasons for this decision: "

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba016.htm




On October 10, NSA reported that the Cuban air defense system seemed to
be complete. They had just begun passing radar tracking from radar
stations to higher headquarters and to defensive fighter bases using
Soviet procedures. Their system, with Russians in advisory positions at
every point, was ready for business. It was into this defensive thicket
that a CIA U-2 flew four days later. Although it survived, on October 25
another U-2 was shot down.

http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00033.cfm



Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 4:03 pm, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> TMO
> >>>>>>>http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
> >>>>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> >>>>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> >>>>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> >>>>>>> exist.
> >>>>>> not really
> >>>>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> >>>>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> >>>>>> skywarrior which was a success
> >>>>>> Vince
> >>>>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> >>>>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> >>>>> sites were operational.
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
> >>>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
> >>>> Vince
> >>> Tell that to the guys who flew over it.
> >>> President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
> >>> Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
> >>> 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
> >>> Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
> >>> at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
> >>> sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
> >>> copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
> >>> office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
> >>> three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
> >>> launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
> >>> conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
> >>> rendered them ineffective.
> >>>http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876
> >> Spies get shot at all the time
> >> Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
> >> they were CIA flights
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Air Force.http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp
>
> > Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was
> > shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii
> > and his like in so they can't remember anything later.
>
> the pilots were airforce but the flights were CIA. They were reported
> by the CIA
>
> The track of the mission approved on 9 October was plotted to include
> coverage of the San Cristóbal trapezoid. The overflight did not actually
> occur until 14 October, owing to inclement weather forecasts and the
> time needed to train an air force pilot in the intricacies of the more
> powerful U-2s operated by the CIA.[79] But eventually, Maj. Richard
> Heyser piloted the U-2 that took 928 photographs in six minutes over an
> area of Cuba that had not been photographed for 45 days.[80] The film
> was rushed to Suitland, Maryland, for processing and arrived at NPIC on
> the morning of 15 October. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., the CIA
> photo-interpreter on a team of four analysts announced, "We've got MRBMs
> [medium range ballistic missiles] in Cuba."[81] It was a "moment of
> splendor" for the U-2, its cameras and film, and the photo-interpreters,
> as Sherman Kent later put it, if not the CIA's finest hour of the Cold
> War.[82] The president issued blanket authority for unrestricted U-2
> overflights on 16 October, and the missile crisis commenced in earnest.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm
>
> "On the morning of October 14, 1962, a U-2 aircraft, piloted by Air
> Force Major Richard D. Heyser, flew a reconnaissance mission over the
> western part of Cuba, flying from south to north. The 928 photographs
> obtained during the 6-minute flight over the island produced the first
> verified evidence of the existence of Soviet offensive missile sites in
> Cuba. Analysis and interpretation of the photographs at the National
> Photographic Intelligence Center revealed that three medium-range
> ballistic missile sites were being developed near San Cristobal, in
> Pinar del Rio province. Photo analysts counted eight large MRBM
> transporters at the three locations and four erector launchers in
> tentative firing positions. Two further U-2 missions, flown on October
> 15 by pilots of the Strategic Air Command, revealed a fourth MRBM site
> near San Cristobal, and two intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM)
> sites were discovered at Guanajay. Photos also revealed 21 crates for
> Soviet IL-28 Beagle medium-range bomber aircraft at San Julian airfield.
> (Chronology of Air Force Actions During the Cuban Crisis, 14 October-30
> October 1962; USAF Historical Division Liaison Office, pages 11-12)
>
> At 8:30 p.m. on October 15 CIA Deputy Director Carter reported to
> McGeorge Bundy the hard evidence of the MRBM's, but the President's
> Special Assistant decided not to notify the President that evening. In a
> memorandum to the President, dated March 4, 1963, Bundy explained his
> reasons for this decision: "
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba016.htm
>
> On October 10, NSA reported that the Cuban air defense system seemed to
> be complete. They had just begun passing radar tracking from radar
> stations to higher headquarters and to defensive fighter bases using
> Soviet procedures. Their system, with Russians in advisory positions at
> every point, was ready for business. It was into this defensive thicket
> that a CIA U-2 flew four days later. Although it survived, on October 25
> another U-2 was shot down.
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00033.cfm
>
> Vince

The analysis was CIA, the collection was by the Air Force. "The other
U-2" was Air Force

President John F. Kennedy directed Strategic Air Command to begin U-2
high-altitude reconnaissance flights over the island. The U-2 flights
were made by Major Anderson and Maj. Richard S. Heyser and were
supplemented later by low-altitude RF-101 coverage.

On Oct. 27, while negotiations between President Kennedy and Premier
Khrushchev were still under way, Major Anderson's U-2 was shot down by
an SA-2 missile and he was killed. By personal direction of the
President, Major Anderson was posthumously awarded the first Air Force
Cross. (By regulation, the Bronze Star was then the highest combat
decoration that could be made for Cold War action.) The photographs
provided by him and other Air Force pilots had rallied worldwide
support behind the US refusal to allow Soviet nuclear-armed missiles
in the western hemisphere.

I have seen pictures of kennedy down on the carpet in one of his
offices, looking at the large blow-up of the U-2 camera take with a
magnifying glass. At one point he found a missile sticking out from
under a canopy and was faithfully recorded with an ID.

[Paul Elliot]

Vince wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed
>>>>>> two links
>>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until
>>>>>> 1959. But
>>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing
>>>>>> member of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent
>>>>> cite, one
>>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
>>>>> service in
>>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
>>>>> comprehend
>>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
>>>>> inventory,
>>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of
>>>>> more capable
>>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not
>>>>> great enough
>>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
>>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there
>>>>> may have
>>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
>>>>> Training
>>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
>>>>> used by
>>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
>>>>> you're
>>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
>>>>> agaonized
>>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
>>>>> You're
>>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You
>>>>> ought to be
>>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
>>>>> simple
>>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to
>>>>> have all
>>>>> potential credibility.
>>>>> TMO
>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>> exist.
>>> not really
>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>
>>> Vince
>>
>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>> sites were operational.
>>
>> and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>>
>
> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
> Vince

Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs.

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

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

[Vince]

TMOliver wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two
>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
>>>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite,
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
>>>>>> service in
>>>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
>>>>>> comprehend
>>>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
>>>>>> inventory,
>>>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more
>>>>>> capable
>>>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great
>>>>>> enough
>>>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
>>>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
>>>>>> Training
>>>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
>>>>>> used by
>>>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
>>>>>> agaonized
>>>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
>>>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
>>>>>> You're
>>>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
>>>>>> simple
>>>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> potential credibility.
>>>>>> TMO
>>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>>> exist.
>>>> not really
>>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>>> sites were operational.
>>>
>>> and
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>>>
>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>>
> I wouldn't want to tell that to the VFP-62 pilots flying low level photo
> recon in RF8 Crusaders who (while certainly guilty of violating Cuban
> airspace were being regularly fired upon with both 57mm and 23mm AA as the
> transited missile sites flying "nap of the ground". The Soviets erecting
> the sites seemed somewhat hostile toward being photographed.
>

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

[Vince]

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

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot > wrote:
> Vince wrote:
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
> >>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed
> >>>>>> two links
> >>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until
> >>>>>> 1959. But
> >>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing
> >>>>>> member of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
> >>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent
> >>>>> cite, one
> >>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
> >>>>> service in
> >>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
> >>>>> comprehend
> >>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
> >>>>> inventory,
> >>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of
> >>>>> more capable
> >>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not
> >>>>> great enough
> >>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
> >>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there
> >>>>> may have
> >>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
> >>>>> Training
> >>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
> >>>>> used by
> >>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
> >>>>> you're
> >>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
> >>>>> agaonized
> >>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
> >>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
> >>>>> You're
> >>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You
> >>>>> ought to be
> >>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
> >>>>> simple
> >>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to
> >>>>> have all
> >>>>> potential credibility.
> >>>>> TMO
> >>>>http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
> >>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> >>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> >>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> >>>> exist.
> >>> not really
> >>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> >>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> >>> skywarrior which was a success
>
> >>> Vince
>
> >> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> >> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> >> sites were operational.
>
> >> and
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>
> > Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
> > Vince
>
> Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs.
>
> --
> Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
> German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.
>
> Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
> French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.
>
> 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

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 3, 4:03 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> TMO
>>>>>>>>> http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
>>>>>>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>>>>>>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>>>>>>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>> not really
>>>>>>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
>>>>>>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
>>>>>>>> skywarrior which was a success
>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
>>>>>>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
>>>>>>> sites were operational.
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>>>>>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Tell that to the guys who flew over it.
>>>>> President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the
>>>>> Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov.
>>>>> 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph).
>>>>> Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place
>>>>> at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons
>>>>> sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A
>>>>> copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's
>>>>> office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a
>>>>> three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several
>>>>> launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to
>>>>> conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera
>>>>> rendered them ineffective.
>>>>> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1876
>>>> Spies get shot at all the time
>>>> Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
>>>> they were CIA flights
>>>> Vince
>>> Air Force.http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp
>>> Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was
>>> shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii
>>> and his like in so they can't remember anything later.
>> the pilots were airforce but the flights were CIA. They were reported
>> by the CIA
>>
>> The track of the mission approved on 9 October was plotted to include
>> coverage of the San Cristóbal trapezoid. The overflight did not actually
>> occur until 14 October, owing to inclement weather forecasts and the
>> time needed to train an air force pilot in the intricacies of the more
>> powerful U-2s operated by the CIA.[79] But eventually, Maj. Richard
>> Heyser piloted the U-2 that took 928 photographs in six minutes over an
>> area of Cuba that had not been photographed for 45 days.[80] The film
>> was rushed to Suitland, Maryland, for processing and arrived at NPIC on
>> the morning of 15 October. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., the CIA
>> photo-interpreter on a team of four analysts announced, "We've got MRBMs
>> [medium range ballistic missiles] in Cuba."[81] It was a "moment of
>> splendor" for the U-2, its cameras and film, and the photo-interpreters,
>> as Sherman Kent later put it, if not the CIA's finest hour of the Cold
>> War.[82] The president issued blanket authority for unrestricted U-2
>> overflights on 16 October, and the missile crisis commenced in earnest.
>>
>> https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm
>>
>> "On the morning of October 14, 1962, a U-2 aircraft, piloted by Air
>> Force Major Richard D. Heyser, flew a reconnaissance mission over the
>> western part of Cuba, flying from south to north. The 928 photographs
>> obtained during the 6-minute flight over the island produced the first
>> verified evidence of the existence of Soviet offensive missile sites in
>> Cuba. Analysis and interpretation of the photographs at the National
>> Photographic Intelligence Center revealed that three medium-range
>> ballistic missile sites were being developed near San Cristobal, in
>> Pinar del Rio province. Photo analysts counted eight large MRBM
>> transporters at the three locations and four erector launchers in
>> tentative firing positions. Two further U-2 missions, flown on October
>> 15 by pilots of the Strategic Air Command, revealed a fourth MRBM site
>> near San Cristobal, and two intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM)
>> sites were discovered at Guanajay. Photos also revealed 21 crates for
>> Soviet IL-28 Beagle medium-range bomber aircraft at San Julian airfield.
>> (Chronology of Air Force Actions During the Cuban Crisis, 14 October-30
>> October 1962; USAF Historical Division Liaison Office, pages 11-12)
>>
>> At 8:30 p.m. on October 15 CIA Deputy Director Carter reported to
>> McGeorge Bundy the hard evidence of the MRBM's, but the President's
>> Special Assistant decided not to notify the President that evening. In a
>> memorandum to the President, dated March 4, 1963, Bundy explained his
>> reasons for this decision: "
>>
>> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba016.htm
>>
>> On October 10, NSA reported that the Cuban air defense system seemed to
>> be complete. They had just begun passing radar tracking from radar
>> stations to higher headquarters and to defensive fighter bases using
>> Soviet procedures. Their system, with Russians in advisory positions at
>> every point, was ready for business. It was into this defensive thicket
>> that a CIA U-2 flew four days later. Although it survived, on October 25
>> another U-2 was shot down.
>>
>> http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00033.cfm
>>
>> Vince
>
> The analysis was CIA, the collection was by the Air Force. "The other
> U-2" was Air Force
>
> President John F. Kennedy directed Strategic Air Command to begin U-2
> high-altitude reconnaissance flights over the island. The U-2 flights
> were made by Major Anderson and Maj. Richard S. Heyser and were
> supplemented later by low-altitude RF-101 coverage.
>

Heyser was clearly a cia flight



> On Oct. 27, while negotiations between President Kennedy and Premier
> Khrushchev were still under way, Major Anderson's U-2 was shot down by
> an SA-2 missile and he was killed. By personal direction of the
> President, Major Anderson was posthumously awarded the first Air Force
> Cross. (By regulation, the Bronze Star was then the highest combat
> decoration that could be made for Cold War action.) The photographs
> provided by him and other Air Force pilots had rallied worldwide
> support behind the US refusal to allow Soviet nuclear-armed missiles
> in the western hemisphere.
>
> I have seen pictures of kennedy down on the carpet in one of his
> offices, looking at the large blow-up of the U-2 camera take with a
> magnifying glass. At one point he found a missile sticking out from
> under a canopy and was faithfully recorded with an ID.
>

the 'flights" were CIA

"Once the formerly villainous U-2 had been transformed, virtually
overnight, into a heroic tool, it was more than awkward for the
administration to admit that the CIA, in Helms’s words, had been
“enjoined to stay well away from what we called the business [western]
end of the island.”[92] Although no one inside the executive branch had
been exactly complacent, President Kennedy faced the uncomfortable
prospect of explaining why his administration had degraded the only
intelligence-gathering tool that was indispensable until it was almost
too late.[93] The photo gap also left the president vulnerable to
charges, reasonable or otherwise, that he had been taken in by the
Soviets’ elaborate deception, to a point where the administration had
even tried to foist a false sense of security onto the country.[94]"


Vince

[Vince]

Paul Elliot wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:

>> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>>
>> Vince
>
> Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs.
>
we were discussing the Cuban missile crisis


vince

[Vince]

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

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

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 3, 4:13 pm, Vince > wrote:
> TMOliver wrote:
> > "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>>>> On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
> >>>>>>> Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two
> >>>>>>> links
> >>>>>>> that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> 404thk00ks. You live it down well.
> >>>>>> No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite,
> >>>>>> one
> >>>>>> with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
> >>>>>> service in
> >>>>>> 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
> >>>>>> comprehend
> >>>>>> that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
> >>>>>> inventory,
> >>>>>> both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more
> >>>>>> capable
> >>>>>> a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great
> >>>>>> enough
> >>>>>> to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
> >>>>>> derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
> >>>>>> Training
> >>>>>> Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
> >>>>>> used by
> >>>>>> the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
> >>>>>> you're
> >>>>>> going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
> >>>>>> agaonized
> >>>>>> dreams before anybody will believe you...
> >>>>>> To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
> >>>>>> You're
> >>>>>> simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought
> >>>>>> to be
> >>>>>> ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
> >>>>>> simple
> >>>>>> minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have
> >>>>>> all
> >>>>>> potential credibility.
> >>>>>> TMO
> >>>>>http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
> >>>>> A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
> >>>>> was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
> >>>>> especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
> >>>>> exist.
> >>>> not really
> >>>> The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
> >>>> Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
> >>>> skywarrior which was a success
>
> >>>> Vince
> >>> They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
> >>> By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
> >>> sites were operational.
>
> >>> and
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
>
> >> Cuba was not a "battlefield"
>
> > I wouldn't want to tell that to the VFP-62 pilots flying low level photo
> > recon in RF8 Crusaders who (while certainly guilty of violating Cuban
> > airspace were being regularly fired upon with both 57mm and 23mm AA as the
> > transited missile sites flying "nap of the ground". The Soviets erecting
> > the sites seemed somewhat hostile toward being photographed.
>
> 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

So the Navy low-level flights were also just CIA pilots in nNavy
flight suits?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm

Vince, I worked for CIA for four and a half years, I was right across
the hall from many of the people who did this work, the pilots were
Air Force, by Kennedy's request, the analysts were by and large CIA
people with a few DIA types thrown in, at a place called the National
Photographic Interpetation Center, NPIC.. All your belief doesn't make
Anderson a CIA officer, he was Air Force, the Air Force management
sold the idea of an Air Force Cross for him, the first in the Cold
War.

Live with it.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
[ SNIP ]
> Spies get shot at all the time
> Doesn't make it a "battlefield"
> they were CIA flights
>
> Vince

That's nitpicking. If two subs are playing hide and go seek during
"peacetime", or recce overflights are conducted over "non-hostile" territory
during "peacetime", it's still a battlefield. I don't believe the term
battlefield is formally defined in international laws of war...so most
people pragmatically assume it's a place where you could get shot at if you
do a certain thing.

When the US reinforced the Panama Canal Zone in 1988, there was no war. But
when the PDF tried little incursions, and we countered with combat patrols,
we certainly thought of the op area as a battlefield. I'm sure troops
stationed at the DMZ in Korea think of that area as one. And back in the day
when we did REINFORCEX's into Gitmo, it was quite difficult *not* to think
of the entire base as a battlefield...tower/fence guards die first, then the
minefields kill some Cubans (not anymore, though, not on the US side), then
an improvised base defence force delays the Cuban advance while evacuation
happens, while the artillery battery way down on Cable Beach shells away
frantically.

Considering where Cable Beach is
(http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=19.893992,-75.156451&spn=0.006396,0.009892&t=h&z=17&om=1
.... you can clearly see the gun positions) in relation to the rest of Gitmo
(http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=19.982061,-75.149574&spn=0.204563,0.316544&z=12
Cable Beach is on the promontory bottom centre) I often wondered exactly
what provision there was to evacuate *our* young asses once the Cubans had
overrun mainside, Leeward Point Field, and were overlooking and shelling and
mortaring McCalla field (which is actually a useable airstrip, because we
did so use it on occasion). I don't think there was a plan for that, to be
honest. :-)

AHS

[Arved Sandstrom]

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

What was he in violation of, specifically?

AHS

[Daryl Hunt]

"Vince" > wrote in message
...
> 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

No, Vince, they were Air Force. Although the data collected is "share" with
the CIA and other branches of the Government.

[Daryl Hunt]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "TMOliver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for
> >> station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not
> >> Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force
> >> strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to
> >> "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before
> >> anybody will believe you...
> >
> > If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would
> > feel.
> >
> I apologize for the brain fart. There's one of the last of them still
> flying sitting in a hangar just across the lake about 3 miles away.
>
> I'd appreciate your guess as to the last P-38 service date.

What has been shown is that there are "Conflicting" reports of the actual
date.

The dates given by the Air Force Records might not be correct. I use the
C-124 as an example where there may be a condition that won't allow you to
take it out of service even though it's past the "Official" retirement date.
The Records show that the last C-124 was boneyarded in 1974 yet in 1974 we
did a flight down to DM with an out of time C-124, stripped it, rebuilt one
that still had airframe time and flew it back to Elmendorf. As late as 1975
there were two Shakeys still flying out of Anchorage with only one mission.
They resupplied Radar Sites on the Aleutians (sp). And they were the only
AC in the inventory that you could drive an 8 wheeled fire engine onboard
and deliver it on a Gravel or Crushed Rock runway.

We lost one at one of the sites. The runway was very, very short, angled up
and had a sheer drop-off into the ocean or channel (depending what you wish
to call it). The Runway was covered with gravel and crushed rock. Here is
the story that the Flight Engineer told. (not verbatim)

<quote>
We were landing when we hit a wind sheer just before touchdown. It forced
us down. We crash landed. The bird skidded to a stop with it's landing
gears sheared off. We all stood next to the Aircraft. The pilot asked me,
"Don't you think you should shut the engines off?". All 4 were still
turning with just the stubs of the propellers left. <unquote>

Now for the rest of the story. Luckily the old shakey veered off the runway
and allowed us to come in with a C-130 and Maint Crews. We stripped the
good stuff and the engines off the crashed bird. Then they shoved the bird
off the edge of the runway into the Ocean with a D-9 Cat. On the Herky
Pig, we took off with 4 but landed back in Elmendorf with 3 a churnin. We
Hoovered their runway on either the way in or the way out or probably both.
That equipment we stripped off the stricken bird was taken back to DM and
another one was built up and flown back. I don't know of ANY AC that could
have had that type of crash and everyone walk away from and still have all 4
turning. Ask about the time (I wasn't there for this one) that the C-124
ditched in the Inlet and what they had to sink the danged thing.

The point is, the "Official" records show the C-124 was completely taken out
of service by 1974 yet those two flew years afterwards since nothing could
replace them without FODing out engines.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
news:h2t_h.1584$Vi6.1305@edtnps82...
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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
> >
> > He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of
> > international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission.
> >
> > Vince
>
> What was he in violation of, specifically?

In the Recon world, if you ain't caught you ain't guilty of a damned thing.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"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]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>>
>> He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation
>> of international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the
>> mission.
>>
>> Vince
>
> What was he in violation of, specifically?
>
> AHS

Cuban sovereign airspace

Vince

[Tex Houston]

"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?

Tex

[Vince]

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
>
>

A firing squad is a dangerous place but its not a "battlefield"


Vince

[Tex Houston]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
> I'd appreciate your guess as to the last P-38 service date.
>
> TMO
Anything I would venture would indeed be a guess. I think early as I never
saw one fly until 1976 (Lefty Gardner's "White Lightning").

Tex

[cdr]

"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

[Tex Houston]

"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

[Tankfixer]

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."

[Derek Lyons]

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

[Derek Lyons]

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

[Jack Linthicum]

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/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba013.htm

[Vince]

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

[Jack Linthicum]

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/77ColdWarStory/05.02byndu-2.htm

[Vince]

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

[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

[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/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba013.htm
>


We never made it to that point

We never made Cuba a battlefield in october of 1962


Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 8:15 am, Vince > wrote:
> 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

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/77ColdWarStory/05.02byndu-2.htm

I will keep this up until you stop making inaccurate statements

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 8:15 am, Vince > wrote:
> 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

I presume all of the people on these flights were dressed as Maytag
repairmen?

Cold war shoot downs: Part one
Air Classics, Apr 2001 by Larson, George A


DETAILING AMERICAN AIRCRAFT LOSSES IN THE DEADLY GAME Of GATHERING
INTELLIGENCE OVER THE SOVIET UNION

The Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union can
be traced to a diplomatic and arms race which started with a speech on
12 March 1947, in the United States. In this speech, before a Joint
Session of the United States Congress, President Harry S Tman
requested a one-time funding appropriation of $400,000,000 which
Congress approved. The funds requested were to provide military
assistance to a beleaguered Greek government to counter a Communist
insurgency in that country.

The term Cold War refers to an intense period of diplomatic and
military hostility, often through client states, blowing up during the
Cuban Missile Crisis which was a near nuclear confrontation between
the United States and the Soviet Union. This confrontation did not end
until the 1990s, with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in Germany,
and the break up of what President Ronald Reagan referred to as the
"Evil Empire." During this Cold War, United States military aircraft
flew thousands of covert reconnaissance intelligence flights. These
intelligence collection flights gathered electronic signals and
photographic intelligence to verify and identify strategic targets in
the event of a nuclear war between the two Super Powers, and provide
the Strategic Air Command's (SAC) bombers penetration routes into the
Soviet Union.

These missions were classified top secret and considered high risk
military operations because of deliberate violations of Soviet air
space. When and where possible, the Soviet Air Force sent up fighters
to shadow US intelligence flights and to harass, intimidate, and shoot
down these aircraft. Some of these aircraft crew members were captured
by Soviet military forces, survived, and returned to US authorities.
There have been, over a period of years, supposedly live sightings of
American airmen at various confinement camps.
<more>

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287

[Vince]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>
> No, Vince, they were Air Force. Although the data collected is "share" with
> the CIA and other branches of the Government.
>
>
>
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]


overflights were always CIA operations

https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm


there were ongoing "turf battles" over the COMOR and idealist programs

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 8:31 am, Vince > wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > "Vince" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 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
>
> > No, Vince, they were Air Force. Although the data collected is "share" with
> > the CIA and other branches of the Government.
>
> 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]
>
> overflights were always CIA operations
>
> https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm
>
> there were ongoing "turf battles" over the COMOR and idealist programs
>
> 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/77ColdWarStory/05.02byndu-2.htm

I will keep this up until you stop making inaccurate statements

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> 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
>

jane Franklin is a respectable source on Cuba but even her chronolgy
points out

October 15: Analyzing U-2 photographs taken a day earlier, the CIA
informs National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy that the Soviet Union
is constructing sites for intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The report is formt he CIA, not the air force



> 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)

the problems is that the citation 125 is to

Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the
Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998.

which is not a primary source
the Avalon project also contains no such document.

Finally as a matter of law the reasoning is ridiculous.

Military officers in peacetime are still spies.


They were still CIA "flights"
conducted by USAF people


Vince

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 4, 8:15 am, Vince > wrote:
>> 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
>
> I presume all of the people on these flights were dressed as Maytag
> repairmen?
>
> Cold war shoot downs: Part one
> Air Classics, Apr 2001 by Larson, George A
>
>
> DETAILING AMERICAN AIRCRAFT LOSSES IN THE DEADLY GAME Of GATHERING
> INTELLIGENCE OVER THE SOVIET UNION
>
> The Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union can
> be traced to a diplomatic and arms race which started with a speech on
> 12 March 1947, in the United States. In this speech, before a Joint
> Session of the United States Congress, President Harry S Tman
> requested a one-time funding appropriation of $400,000,000 which
> Congress approved. The funds requested were to provide military
> assistance to a beleaguered Greek government to counter a Communist
> insurgency in that country.
>
> The term Cold War refers to an intense period of diplomatic and
> military hostility, often through client states, blowing up during the
> Cuban Missile Crisis which was a near nuclear confrontation between
> the United States and the Soviet Union. This confrontation did not end
> until the 1990s, with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in Germany,
> and the break up of what President Ronald Reagan referred to as the
> "Evil Empire." During this Cold War, United States military aircraft
> flew thousands of covert reconnaissance intelligence flights. These
> intelligence collection flights gathered electronic signals and
> photographic intelligence to verify and identify strategic targets in
> the event of a nuclear war between the two Super Powers, and provide
> the Strategic Air Command's (SAC) bombers penetration routes into the
> Soviet Union.
>
> These missions were classified top secret and considered high risk
> military operations because of deliberate violations of Soviet air
> space. When and where possible, the Soviet Air Force sent up fighters
> to shadow US intelligence flights and to harass, intimidate, and shoot
> down these aircraft. Some of these aircraft crew members were captured
> by Soviet military forces, survived, and returned to US authorities.
> There have been, over a period of years, supposedly live sightings of
> American airmen at various confinement camps.
> <more>
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
>


Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)


Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:15 am, Vince > wrote:
> >> 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
>
> > I presume all of the people on these flights were dressed as Maytag
> > repairmen?
>
> > Cold war shoot downs: Part one
> > Air Classics, Apr 2001 by Larson, George A
>
> > DETAILING AMERICAN AIRCRAFT LOSSES IN THE DEADLY GAME Of GATHERING
> > INTELLIGENCE OVER THE SOVIET UNION
>
> > The Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union can
> > be traced to a diplomatic and arms race which started with a speech on
> > 12 March 1947, in the United States. In this speech, before a Joint
> > Session of the United States Congress, President Harry S Tman
> > requested a one-time funding appropriation of $400,000,000 which
> > Congress approved. The funds requested were to provide military
> > assistance to a beleaguered Greek government to counter a Communist
> > insurgency in that country.
>
> > The term Cold War refers to an intense period of diplomatic and
> > military hostility, often through client states, blowing up during the
> > Cuban Missile Crisis which was a near nuclear confrontation between
> > the United States and the Soviet Union. This confrontation did not end
> > until the 1990s, with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in Germany,
> > and the break up of what President Ronald Reagan referred to as the
> > "Evil Empire." During this Cold War, United States military aircraft
> > flew thousands of covert reconnaissance intelligence flights. These
> > intelligence collection flights gathered electronic signals and
> > photographic intelligence to verify and identify strategic targets in
> > the event of a nuclear war between the two Super Powers, and provide
> > the Strategic Air Command's (SAC) bombers penetration routes into the
> > Soviet Union.
>
> > These missions were classified top secret and considered high risk
> > military operations because of deliberate violations of Soviet air
> > space. When and where possible, the Soviet Air Force sent up fighters
> > to shadow US intelligence flights and to harass, intimidate, and shoot
> > down these aircraft. Some of these aircraft crew members were captured
> > by Soviet military forces, survived, and returned to US authorities.
> > There have been, over a period of years, supposedly live sightings of
> > American airmen at various confinement camps.
> > <more>
>
> >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
>
> Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
> territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)
>
> Vince

Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit
or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs
are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and
Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the
Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the
pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot. Still need to explain all
those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield.

Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph
Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement,
increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It
was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a
Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was
is a matter of some debate. Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m.,
several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired
upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base.

[TMOliver]

"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?
>
None, and I'll admit to the syntax above being a bit confusing.

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince > wrote:

>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
>> Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
>> territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)
>>
>> Vince
>
> Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit
> or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs
> are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and
> Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the
> Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the
> pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot.


it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation




Still need to explain all
> those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield.
>

This is a separate issue
Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield

> Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph
> Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement,
> increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It
> was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a
> Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was
> is a matter of some debate.

Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress?
the reason is that its not a battlefield


Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m.,
> several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired
> upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base.
>

Still not a "battlefield"

Vince

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Vince" > wrote in message
...
> 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

The argument could be made that if you fly as high as a U-2, especially back
in the early days, were you really in national airspace anyway? According to
the FAI (Int'l Aeronautical Federation) near-space starts at 75,000 feet,
and according to Wiki the U-2R has a service ceiling of 90,000 feet.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't even any accepted altitude below
which one is in territorial airspace. Clearly there sort of must be such an
altitude, because nobody reasonably suggests that a satellite at 250 km is
violating anything. Also, you can't necessarily say that airspace goes up to
the level that balloons can reach or suborbital craft can reach or airfoils
can maintain lift, because the definition of the maximum limits of a
territorial sea is 12 miles, which in this day and age is highly artificial
also.

AHS

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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
>
> A firing squad is a dangerous place but its not a "battlefield"
>
> Vince

No, but overflights where you may be shot at does qualify. A battlefield (or
battle airspace) does not have as part of its definition that there needs to
be a formally declared war.

AHS

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
> >> Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
> >> territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit
> > or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs
> > are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and
> > Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the
> > Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the
> > pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot.
>
> it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation
>
> Still need to explain all
>
> > those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield.
>
> This is a separate issue
> Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield
>
> > Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph
> > Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement,
> > increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It
> > was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a
> > Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was
> > is a matter of some debate.
>
> Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress?
> the reason is that its not a battlefield
>
> Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m.,
>
> > several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired
> > upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base.
>
> Still not a "battlefield"
>
> Vince

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba011.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba013.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba017.htm

[Vince]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>
> The argument could be made that if you fly as high as a U-2,
> especially back in the early days, were you really in national
> airspace anyway? According to the FAI (Int'l Aeronautical Federation)
> near-space starts at 75,000 feet, and according to Wiki the U-2R has
> a service ceiling of 90,000 feet.


no question

if a plane can reach it is national airspace

(ad coelem)

>
> To the best of my knowledge there isn't even any accepted altitude
> below which one is in territorial airspace. Clearly there sort of
> must be such an altitude, because nobody reasonably suggests that a
> satellite at 250 km is violating anything. Also, you can't
> necessarily say that airspace goes up to the level that balloons can
> reach or suborbital craft can reach or airfoils can maintain lift,
> because the definition of the maximum limits of a territorial sea is
> 12 miles, which in this day and age is highly artificial also.
>
> AHS

there is a treaty on outer space. satellites are in outer space
But that is a long way up


Vince

[Vince]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> 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
>> A firing squad is a dangerous place but its not a "battlefield"
>>
>> Vince
>
> No, but overflights where you may be shot at does qualify. A battlefield (or
> battle airspace) does not have as part of its definition that there needs to
> be a formally declared war.

not it doesn't. an escaping prisoner may be shot at, does not make it a
"battlefield. Unless both sides can legally shoot its not a battlefield.

Vince

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
>>>> Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
>>>> territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)
>>>> Vince
>>> Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit
>>> or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs
>>> are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and
>>> Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the
>>> Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the
>>> pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot.
>> it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation
>>
>> Still need to explain all
>>
>>> those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield.
>> This is a separate issue
>> Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield
>>
>>> Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph
>>> Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement,
>>> increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It
>>> was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a
>>> Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was
>>> is a matter of some debate.
>> Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress?
>> the reason is that its not a battlefield
>>
>> Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m.,
>>
>>> several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired
>>> upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base.
>> Still not a "battlefield"
>>
>> Vince
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba011.htm
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba013.htm
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba017.htm
>


The President approved the recommendation for a U-2 flight, to be
piloted by a Strategic Air Command pilot, or a military pilot attached
to the Central Intelligence Agency. document 11

it was up to the CIA to decide



It was then agreed that future information would be disseminated to
members of USIB, with appropriate instructions that only those
responsible for giving the President advice be given the information.
Furthermore, that within CIA circles a minimum number of experts be
informed. McCone stated there was no problem in CIA, that it was secure.
It was therefore agreed that the USIB members would be instructed to
restrict the information to their personal offices and fully and
currently inform the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman, the Service
Secretaries and the Secretary of Defense document 12

This document clearly shows that the CIA was controlling the
distribution under the direct orders of the president. this is
completely inconsistent with it being a USAF operation


document 13 does not mention the U-2
Docuemnt 17 does not mention the U-2

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200104/ai_n8949287
> >>>> Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of
> >>>> territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace)
> >>>> Vince
> >>> Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit
> >>> or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs
> >>> are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and
> >>> Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the
> >>> Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the
> >>> pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot.
> >> it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation
>
> >> Still need to explain all
>
> >>> those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield.
> >> This is a separate issue
> >> Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield
>
> >>> Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph
> >>> Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement,
> >>> increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It
> >>> was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a
> >>> Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was
> >>> is a matter of some debate.
> >> Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress?
> >> the reason is that its not a battlefield
>
> >> Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m.,
>
> >>> several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired
> >>> upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base.
> >> Still not a "battlefield"
>
> >> Vince
>
> >http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba011.htm
> >http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba013.htm
> >http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba017.htm
>
> The President approved the recommendation for a U-2 flight, to be
> piloted by a Strategic Air Command pilot, or a military pilot attached
> to the Central Intelligence Agency. document 11
>
> it was up to the CIA to decide
>
> It was then agreed that future information would be disseminated to
> members of USIB, with appropriate instructions that only those
> responsible for giving the President advice be given the information.
> Furthermore, that within CIA circles a minimum number of experts be
> informed. McCone stated there was no problem in CIA, that it was secure.
> It was therefore agreed that the USIB members would be instructed to
> restrict the information to their personal offices and fully and
> currently inform the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman, the Service
> Secretaries and the Secretary of Defense document 12
>
> This document clearly shows that the CIA was controlling the
> distribution under the direct orders of the president. this is
> completely inconsistent with it being a USAF operation
>
> document 13 does not mention the U-2

But it does outline the options being considered.

> Docuemnt 17 does not mention the U-2

But it does describe an operation (Ortsac) in which an invasion of a
Caribbean land is invaded.

The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a
document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA that
knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who wanted
his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop Jackson's
memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the President who
makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim possibility
they will be made priosners of war and not killed as spies.
>
> Vince

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:

>
> The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a
> document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA
> that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who
> wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop
> Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the
> President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim
> possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as
> spies.
>> Vince

now I know you are deeply confused:
here is the source you supplied for your claim

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)

here is the reference in the source

(125) Jackson, 116.

your cite has a bibliography

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarStory/10.01biblgphy.htm

the reference for the Kennedy claim is to

Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the
Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998.

Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died
in 1983

What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ?

Vince






>
>

[Daryl Hunt]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > "Vince" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 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
> >
> > No, Vince, they were Air Force. Although the data collected is "share"
with
> > the CIA and other branches of the Government.
> >
> >
> >
> 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]

You show nothing to the fact that people resigned to fly for the CIA.
Meanwhile, you are confusing Air America that operated in Loas and Cambodia
where AF people took a 6 mo leave of absence from the service to serve
there. And, you can trust me, there were no U-2 flights by those folks nor
were any supported by those folks and no medals given.

>
>
> overflights were always CIA operations
>
> https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol49no4/Photo_Gap_2.htm
>
>
> there were ongoing "turf battles" over the COMOR and idealist programs

Vince, the CIA shares the U-2 Overflight information along with the various
other Spook....er.... Intel Agencies and that includes the AF, Navy and Army
as well. But the pilots have always been primarily AF pilots with a little
Navy and Marines thrown in for giggles.

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 2:44 pm, Vince > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> > The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a
> > document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA
> > that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who
> > wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop
> > Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the
> > President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim
> > possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as
> > spies.
> >> Vince
>
> now I know you are deeply confused:
> here is the source you supplied for your claim
>
> 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)
>
> here is the reference in the source
>
> (125) Jackson, 116.
>
> your cite has a bibliography
>
> http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarStory/10.01biblgphy.htm
>
> the reference for the Kennedy claim is to
>
> Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the
> Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998.
>
> Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died
> in 1983
>
> What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ?
>
> Vince
>
>

Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books
published after the author dies. I can't find Jackson as anything
other than a book for sale. Two more documentation of Air Force, even
DIA supervision of the October 14th flight. Otherwise I quit.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2005/0805U2.asp
In late August, Sen. Kenneth B. Keat*ing (R-N.Y.)-whose sources were
probably Cuban exiles in Florida-said there was evidence of Soviet
"rocket installations" in Cuba and urged Kennedy to act. Others,
notably Sen. Homer E. Capehart (R-Ind.), joined in the call for
action.

Strangely, U-2 flights ceased for more than a month, from Sept. 5 to
Oct. 14. One reason was bad weather, but another was anxiety on part
of the President's advisors, who worried about the consequences of a
U-2 shootdown.

To the dismay of the CIA, the Air Force took over the U-2 missions
when they resumed. The first flight was by Maj. Richard S. Heyser on
Oct. 14.

http://www2.mmae.ucf.edu/~rrm/mccoyhistg.htm
The first overflight of Cuba by a U-2 occurred on 14 Oct 1962, when
Maj. Steve Heyser left from Edwards AFB, CA and landed at McCoy AFB,
FL. It would also, be the first (Defense Intel Agency) DIA-controlled
U-2 mission. In six minutes over the target area, Major Heyser took
928 photos.

·

[Vince]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 4, 2:44 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on
>>> a document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the
>>> CIA that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay
>>> who wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay.
>>> Scoop Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that
>>> is the President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots
>>> for th slim possibility they will be made priosners of war and
>>> not killed as spies.
>>>> Vince
>> now I know you are deeply confused:

Please accept my apology for the tone of this comment
even confusion on a point should not generate such a comment
this has been a most intelligent and enlightening discussion


>> here is the source you supplied for your claim
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> here is the reference in the source
>>
>> (125) Jackson, 116.
>>
>> your cite has a bibliography
>>
>> http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarStory/10.01biblgphy.htm
>>
>> the reference for the Kennedy claim is to
>>
>> Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and
>> the Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens
>> Limited, 1998.
>>
>> Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson
>> died in 1983
>>
>> What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ?
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>
> Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books
> published after the author dies.

I can't find Jackson as anything
> other than a book for sale. Two more documentation of Air Force, even
> DIA supervision of the October 14th flight. Otherwise I quit.
>
> http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2005/0805U2.asp In late August, Sen.
> Kenneth B. Keat*ing (R-N.Y.)-whose sources were probably Cuban exiles
> in Florida-said there was evidence of Soviet "rocket installations"
> in Cuba and urged Kennedy to act. Others, notably Sen. Homer E.
> Capehart (R-Ind.), joined in the call for action.
>
> Strangely, U-2 flights ceased for more than a month, from Sept. 5 to
> Oct. 14. One reason was bad weather, but another was anxiety on part
> of the President's advisors, who worried about the consequences of a
> U-2 shootdown.
>
> To the dismay of the CIA, the Air Force took over the U-2 missions
> when they resumed. The first flight was by Maj. Richard S. Heyser on
> Oct. 14.
>
> http://www2.mmae.ucf.edu/~rrm/mccoyhistg.htm The first overflight of
> Cuba by a U-2 occurred on 14 Oct 1962,

this is clearly an error


when Maj. Steve Heyser left
> from Edwards AFB, CA and landed at McCoy AFB, FL. It would also, be
> the first (Defense Intel Agency) DIA-controlled U-2 mission. In six
> minutes over the target area, Major Heyser took 928 photos.

What I find fascinating is the total absence in the literature of any
primary documentation for the AF claim.

Very worthwhile discussion


Vince

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Vince
> writes
>Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books
>>published after the author dies.
>
>I can't find Jackson as anything

I've got a very good work called "Air War over Korea" by a Robert
Jackson, though I picked it up second-hand in a sale in Chichester town
hall (and it's at work so I can't give more details instantly) No idea
whether it was published before or after his death, or indeed whether
the author has died yet or not (hope not, it was a good book)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 4, 4:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message >, Vince
> > writes
>
> >Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >> Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books
> >>published after the author dies.
>
> >I can't find Jackson as anything
>
> I've got a very good work called "Air War over Korea" by a Robert
> Jackson, though I picked it up second-hand in a sale in Chichester town
> hall (and it's at work so I can't give more details instantly) No idea
> whether it was published before or after his death, or indeed whether
> the author has died yet or not (hope not, it was a good book)
>
> --
> The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
> warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
> by fools.
> -Thucydides
>
> Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

The reference is in High Cold War: Strategic Reconnaissance and the
Electronic Intelligence War , Haynes, 1998

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
> 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
>

It was in a previous part about the low level flights by both USAF
RF-101 and USN RF-8

>
> 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
>
>
>

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

[Richard Casady]

On 3 May 2007 08:25:08 -0700, Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" > wrote:
>> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote ...
>>
>
>A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
>was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
>especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
>exist.

If you double the altitude you have to double the size of the lens[s]
to maintain the same resolution in the image. Low is more detailed.

Casady