Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

"Jake McGuire" wrote in message
om...
Like what?

Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc.

Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a
cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour
a plane.

I didn't say "faster". I said "better". Even in the picture I provided,
the markings are still relatively visible. Other planes, the damage missed
entire letters. And of course, there still begs the question of why the
markings would need to be removed. After all, it's just paint. It would be
trivial for someone to reproduce (i.e. forge) the markings. What value do
the markings have that the AF feels they can remove simply by poking holes
in them?

The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
markings in an unorthodox manner.

I can tell by looking at the planes that they are removing the markings in
some manner (perhaps it's orthodox there). The question is, why remove the
markings at all, and why does punching holes in the airplane (which leaves
the markings essentially still there and readable) make more sense than
other methods (which could actually *remove* the markings, and which would
not leave the airframe damaged).

Somehow, it seems like the damage is intentional, not just a byproduct of
the method used. But I just don't see how this particular method solves any
problem worth solving.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jake McGuire" wrote in message
om...
Like what?

Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc.

Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a
cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour
a plane.

I didn't say "faster". I said "better". Even in the picture I provided,
the markings are still relatively visible. Other planes, the damage
missed
entire letters. And of course, there still begs the question of why the
markings would need to be removed. After all, it's just paint. It would
be
trivial for someone to reproduce (i.e. forge) the markings. What value do
the markings have that the AF feels they can remove simply by poking holes
in them?

The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
markings in an unorthodox manner.

I can tell by looking at the planes that they are removing the markings in
some manner (perhaps it's orthodox there). The question is, why remove
the
markings at all, and why does punching holes in the airplane (which leaves
the markings essentially still there and readable) make more sense than
other methods (which could actually *remove* the markings, and which would
not leave the airframe damaged).

Large organizations, especially government ones, have rules to follow;
they follow those rules well past the point the reason for the rules apply
because "those are the rules."
I can easily imagine a rule that says before a plane can leave the grounds
under new ownership all markings declaring it US Air Force must be
obscured and this rule being enforced even for a trip across the street
to the chop shop.

Somehow, it seems like the damage is intentional, not just a byproduct of
the method used. But I just don't see how this particular method solves
any
problem worth solving.

Pete