VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

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

----------
In article . net, Tankfixer
wrote:

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up the post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin.




D


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

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

----------
In article . net, Tankfixer
wrote:

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

Actually, that's not true.



D

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
In article ,
mumbled

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

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin.

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

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition, since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the proof that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

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

In article ,
mumbled

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

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin.

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

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition, since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think it's easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better to go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...



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

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."

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

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

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."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
In article ,
mumbled

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

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin.

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

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition, since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the proof that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the
P38 left unit service in the late 1940's.

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."