VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"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.

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

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

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,

mumbled

"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.


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?

"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.

"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 he 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.

"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
news
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.

"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.

"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
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.

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.

"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

On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
link.net...
----------
In article . net,
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

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