Comments on: Visual Aircraft Recognition Revisited http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:35:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: John http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html/comment-page-1#comment-876 John Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:04:22 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_revisited.html#comment-876 Thanks for the warm comments on FM 3-01.80. I have been given the task of updating this FM. I will be adding and deleting many aircraft along with a line by line review. Some of the comments that have been posted are valid, some are not. This FM is used to teach soldiers how to identify aircraft. If you have ever tried to do this while an aircraft is in flight it is very hard and I am not talking about doing this in your driveway but under any and all conditions using binoculars or your naked eye possibly for hours while remaining unseen by any aircraft. Aircraft are constantly being modified in some way -- take the B52, it has gone over so many major upgrades and is likely to get many more. These changes take time to get into print. I will get this FM straight ASAP and have many changes already, so if any of you Wingnuts out there see anything you have issue with I will research your issue and get it fixed. My email is John.Faber@us.army.mil. Please put VACR as the subject or my email service will send your comment into the trash. Rest assured there is no one that wants this FM to be accurate more then me. I look the soldiers that use this FM in the eye every day they demand and deserve to have the most accurate information possible and that is what they will have. Thanks for your help. John Thanks for the warm comments on FM 3-01.80. I have been given the task of updating this FM. I will be adding and deleting many aircraft along with a line by line review. Some of the comments that have been posted are valid, some are not. This FM is used to teach soldiers how to identify aircraft. If you have ever tried to do this while an aircraft is in flight it is very hard and I am not talking about doing this in your driveway but under any and all conditions using binoculars or your naked eye possibly for hours while remaining unseen by any aircraft. Aircraft are constantly being modified in some way — take the B52, it has gone over so many major upgrades and is likely to get many more. These changes take time to get into print. I will get this FM straight ASAP and have many changes already, so if any of you Wingnuts out there see anything you have issue with I will research your issue and get it fixed. My email is John.Faber@us.army.mil. Please put VACR as the subject or my email service will send your comment into the trash. Rest assured there is no one that wants this FM to be accurate more then me. I look the soldiers that use this FM in the eye every day they demand and deserve to have the most accurate information possible and that is what they will have.
Thanks for your help.
John

]]> By: Aiso Vos http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html/comment-page-1#comment-767 Aiso Vos Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:33:55 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_revisited.html#comment-767 I found this a very interesting publication. Apart from the fact that there are many mistakes in this manual, like the countries that are using certain aircraft for instance. From a recognition point of view it is not that important. My general comment is that the 3 view drawings are of a very poor quality: in some cases I had to go the the pictures to recognize the aircraft on the drawings. In two cases (and I only had a brief look at the manual) the wrong drawings have been used: The Mirage 2000 shows the drawing of the Mirage III/5, and the Super Frelon shows the drawing of the Sikorsky Sea King (the previous entry). I found this a very interesting publication. Apart from the fact that there are many mistakes in this manual, like the countries that are using certain aircraft for instance. From a recognition point of view it is not that important. My general comment is that the 3 view drawings are of a very poor quality: in some cases I had to go the the pictures to recognize the aircraft on the drawings. In two cases (and I only had a brief look at the manual) the wrong drawings have been used:

The Mirage 2000 shows the drawing of the Mirage III/5, and

the Super Frelon shows the drawing of the Sikorsky Sea King (the previous entry).

]]> By: S.G. Spires http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html/comment-page-1#comment-766 S.G. Spires Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:22:33 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_revisited.html#comment-766 Just a cursory glance at this document shows how many errors it contains. The U.S. Air Force DID NOT purchase 563 F-117 stealth attack bombers. At the most it was about 60. Either that, or the USAF is hiding about 10 F-117 wings somewhere. This document seems like something generated for disinformation or else the people who drafted it were ignorant. Just a cursory glance at this document shows how many errors it contains. The U.S. Air Force DID NOT purchase 563 F-117 stealth attack bombers. At the most it was about 60. Either that, or the USAF is hiding about 10 F-117 wings somewhere. This document seems like something generated for disinformation or else the people who drafted it were ignorant.

]]> By: S.G. Spires http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html/comment-page-1#comment-765 S.G. Spires Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:07:40 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_revisited.html#comment-765 The first entry of this manual has the A-10 being used by Vietnam and a host of other nations. The picture page just after the A-10 specifications indicates that only the U.S.A. used the A-10. I seem to remember talk of a deal with a few Central American nations that a "gunless" A-10 would be sold to them in the mid 1990s. However, I don't remember anything about the People's Republic of Vietnam being sold A-10s. The first entry of this manual has the A-10 being used by Vietnam and a host of other nations. The picture page just after the A-10 specifications indicates that only the U.S.A. used the A-10. I seem to remember talk of a deal with a few Central American nations that a “gunless” A-10 would be sold to them in the mid 1990s. However, I don’t remember anything about the People’s Republic of Vietnam being sold A-10s.

]]> By: VP http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_re.html/comment-page-1#comment-764 VP Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:36:11 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/visual_aircraft_recognition_revisited.html#comment-764 The incorrect info in Visual Aircraft Recognition, concerning Finland as an user country: That Finland was a F-35 JSF (future) user - INCORRECT That Finland was still using Saab Draken and Mig-21, INCORRECT - both were replaced in mid-nineties by F/A-18s That Finland IS NOT a Mi-8 "Hip" user country, It IS That Finland IS NOT a (Super)Puma user country, IT IS That Finland IS NOT a MD-500 Defender user Country, IT IS That Finland IS NOT a Jet Ranger (OH-58) user IT IS The incorrect info in Visual Aircraft Recognition, concerning
Finland as an user country:

That Finland was a F-35 JSF (future) user – INCORRECT

That Finland was still using Saab Draken and Mig-21, INCORRECT – both were
replaced in mid-nineties by F/A-18s

That Finland IS NOT a Mi-8 “Hip” user country, It IS

That Finland IS NOT a (Super)Puma user country, IT IS

That Finland IS NOT a MD-500 Defender user Country, IT IS

That Finland IS NOT a Jet Ranger (OH-58) user IT IS

]]>