VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

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."

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."

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
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

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."

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
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

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

On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Tankfixer wrote:

In article ,
mumbled

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
roups.com...
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

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?

"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

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

"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.

"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
roups.com...
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

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.

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