Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S. Air
Force" markings on the side had been torn up.

Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
defacement.

You can find a picture of one of the airplanes he
http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg

(Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S.
Air
Force" markings on the side had been torn up.

Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
defacement.

You can find a picture of one of the airplanes he
http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg

(Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).

Look's like you're right.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm

As for the markings...there doesn't have to be a sensical reason, does
there?

In article ,
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S.
Air
Force" markings on the side had been torn up.

Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
defacement.

You can find a picture of one of the airplanes he
http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg

(Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).

Look's like you're right.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm

As for the markings...there doesn't have to be a sensical reason, does
there?



Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
beyond their service life?

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
beyond their service life?

I dunno. But I don't think that would be it. The thing that's interesting
is that the damage is ONLY where the "U.S. Air Force" markings are. I don't
see the connection between fatigue service life and paint on the side of the
plane. Seems like you could just as easily chop off the wings, for example
(and that would make moving the hunk of metal around the storage yard a lot
easier).

Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
ways to do that as well.

As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
"sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
hoping someone here would know the answer.

Pete

To show compliance with some treaty?


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

news
Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
beyond their service life?

I dunno. But I don't think that would be it. The thing that's
interesting
is that the damage is ONLY where the "U.S. Air Force" markings are. I
don't
see the connection between fatigue service life and paint on the side of
the
plane. Seems like you could just as easily chop off the wings, for
example
(and that would make moving the hunk of metal around the storage yard a
lot
easier).

Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
ways to do that as well.

As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
"sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
hoping someone here would know the answer.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?



Ahh, yeah, that big, we don't have many jet heavy lift vehicles to,
ummm, crash into your buildings treaty?

umm, probably not

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet. You
have a better theory?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
You
have a better theory?

There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:



To show compliance with some treaty?


[...] umm, probably not


I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.


You


have a better theory?



There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks




Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.