Re: Was Bush AWOL in 1972 & 1973? | Re: Cuckoo!!! Cuckoo!!! Cuckoo!!! [Archive]

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

August 30th 04, 05:04 PM

On 8/30/04 8:36 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Big Red-<< President
> Bush has an honorable discharge proving he fulfilled his military
> commitment. Where's yours? >> 
>
> What 'military commitment' would that be?
>
> If you wish to view GW as some sort of military hero, go right ahead but he
> ineptitude during hs firsat 3.5 years is a matter of record. If ya love the
> guym, vote for him but 'serve' in the military he did not. If ya think the ANG
> is the USAF(as many civilians seem to think) then you are ignorant of the
> military in general and the USAF specifically.
>
> BTW-your military service??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs,

I've flown against the 111th more than once. They're as USAF as any other
USAF squadron. They potentially get called up and go to war the same as any
other reserve unit.

GWB served in the Air Guard and was honorably discharged. He's no war hero
and never claimed to be. His opponent served in the Navy, got honorably
discharged and does claim to be a war hero and despite the decorations,
appears not to be (although admittedly did see combat and got the splinters
to prove it).

Essentially, their service doesn't matter much. It's their conduct after
the war with regard to decisions and policy that does matter.

If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.

One man's good deal is not another man's bad deal.

--Woody

Bill Kambic

August 30th 04, 08:31 PM

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> NOT Bush-
>
> A Governor in TX stated he helped GW get into the ANG.

I thought it was a speaker of the Texas House? No matter, though. One
"highly placed friend" is as good as another.

GW chose the one A/C
> least likely to go to SE Asia(F-102).

IIRC, F-102s were used in SEA.

Knowing what I do of the A/C(F-102
> capabilities at the time), the ANG(a flying club using USAF equipment),
ther
> selection and training process of the ANG(selected for a ANG unit, get
wings,
> return to that unit, not the 'unversally assignable pilot like the USAF).

I'll take your word for it.
>
> Anybody that thinks GW 'served' his country by joining the ANG to fly ADC
> F-102s is in Disneyland.

Well, my son serves in the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Knoxville. I
didn't pull any strings to get him in. He did it all by himself. Is he,
also, in Disneyland?????

> If he 'wanted to serve' and 'be a fighter pilot', why not join the USAF or
> USN??

So only active duty guys really ever count for anything?

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

Steven P. McNicoll

August 31st 04, 12:52 AM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> NOT Bush-
>
> A Governor in TX stated he helped GW get into the ANG. GW chose
> the one A/C least likely to go to SE Asia(F-102).
>

The F-102 was serving in SEA at the time Bush joined the ANG.

>
> Knowing what I do of the A/C(F-102 capabilities at the time), the
> ANG(a flying club using USAF equipment), ther selection and
> training process of the ANG(selected for a ANG unit, get wings,
> return to that unit, not the 'unversally assignable pilot like the USAF).
>

You appear to know very little about those things.

>
> Anybody that thinks GW 'served' his country by joining the ANG to
> fly ADC F-102s is in Disneyland.
>

GWB served his country by joining the ANG and flying F-102s. That is a
fact. Those that think otherwise are simply ignorant.

>
> If he 'wanted to serve' and 'be a fighter pilot', why not join the USAF or
> USN??
>

Apparently because he preferred to serve as a fighter pilot by joining the
ANG, which is what he did.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 31st 04, 12:52 AM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Big Red-<< President
> Bush has an honorable discharge proving he fulfilled his military
> commitment. Where's yours? >> 
>
> What 'military commitment' would that be?
>

The Texas ANG.

>
> If you wish to view GW as some sort of military hero,
>

Nobody views GWB as any kind of military hero and he never claimed to be
one.

>
> go right ahead but he ineptitude during hs firsat 3.5 years is a matter
> of record.
>

Really? Well, then, it should be a simple matter for you to post that
record. Please do so.

>
> If ya love the guym, vote for him but 'serve' in the military he did not.
>

GWB served in the ANG. If you think the ANG is not the military then you
know damn little about the military.

>
> If ya think the ANG is the USAF(as many civilians seem to think) then
> you are ignorant of the military in general and the USAF specifically.
>

Actually, it is you that has demonstrated ignorance of the military in
general and the USAF in particular.

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 02:34 PM

Doug-<< If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
>> 

Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
USN?

Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
likely to go to VN?

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 02:36 PM

Tex-<< Political considerations aside, the F-102s were in SEA for a period
of...gasp...ten years. >> 

When did they go? When did they convert the F-102 to be able to carry a gun pod
and Aim-9?

Or was it the F-106?

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 02:39 PM

Bill-<< So only active duty guys really ever count for anything? >> 

I knew 'active duty guys' that pulled strings to go to east coast squadrons
instead of west coast ones to NOT go to VN. Their actions are as suspect as
GWB.

Anybody that thinks GWB, in 1968, chose the Texas ANG to 'serve' and 'become a
fighter pilot regardless of the consequences' is ignoring the times, the
circumsyances and GWBs motivations.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 02:42 PM

Ronca-<< You appear to know very little about those things. >> 

Trained ANG guys when in USAF exchange with 61st TFS and 13th TFTS. Flew
against the Conneticutt ANG, when they flew F-100s, Know many USN guys now
flying with ANG units all over the US.

Tell me how the ANG works then, for a young butter bar 'hired' by a guard unit?

ronca<< GWB served his country by joining the ANG and flying F-102s. That is a

fact. Those that think otherwise are simply ignorant. >> 

be sure to vote then. Be ignorant of GWB, and be sure to rant and rave about
Kerry, regardless of what the 'facts' and documentation say.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Tex Houston

August 31st 04, 03:22 PM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Tex-<< Political considerations aside, the F-102s were in SEA for a period
> of...gasp...ten years. >> 
>
> When did they go? When did they convert the F-102 to be able to carry a
gun pod
> and Aim-9?
>
> Or was it the F-106?
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm

Started deploying in small detachments to SEA in April 1961, larger
detachments in 1964, first loss of 14 total was 27 November 1964. Since
they served primarily in the air defense role no weapons changes necessary
except no nuclear warheads. Biggest problem was providing a cobbled
together probe as the F-102 had no provision for air refueling.

The F-106 did not serve in SEA.

A www.google.com search using F-102 Southeast Asia returns 793 hits.

Tex Houston

John S. Shinal

August 31st 04, 04:32 PM

(Pechs1) wrote:

>Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
>instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

I'm a little unclear on what you are asking here ? Interested,
though. Have you seen Dan Ford's site on Bush's F-102 career ? He has
focused on facts, and the presentation is pretty impressive .

>Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
>USN?
>
> Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
>against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
>all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
>likely to go to VN?

As I understand it from Ed Rasimus's post a month back, the
ANG didn't have a "dream sheet" per se that gave him a choice. So
since it was Texas ANG and they had Deuces, that's what George The 2nd
got trained for. Apparently later on he wasn't re-trained to another
type due to the glut of ACs that were senior and trying to stay in, so
a lot of less senior people got early "drops", much like Army Aviation
was doing. The length of the drop was notable, though - his was rather
larger than *I* have heard was typical. I don't know what stats there
are on the average length of drop people got when they were cut loose.

John S. Shinal

August 31st 04, 04:39 PM

(Pechs1) wrote:

>be sure to rant and rave about
>Kerry, regardless of what the 'facts' and documentation say.

Heck, I think most of the hoopla is just because of fuzzy
memories. In dire situations so much stuff is going on that people
remember different things in different order, etc. It even happens
with car wrecks - it appears to happen with combat actions, too. The
"resume padding" that intrigues me isn't the Silver Star award - the
descriptions of that seem pretty plausible to me - but I have to
wonder why the award was re-written three times, signed by a bigger
fish each time. Perhaps that's punching it up a little to get a big
shot like Lehman on the signature line. I don't pretend to understand
how that process works, it's just that it seems strange.

Voting record...that's something else. Both candidates have
done plenty to displease me. I hate choices like that.

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 04:51 PM

Thanks Tex. how many ANG F-102 units?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 04:53 PM

jshimal-<< The
"resume padding" that intrigues me isn't the Silver Star award - the
descriptions of that seem pretty plausible to me - but I have to
wonder why the award was re-written three times, signed by a bigger
fish each time. >> 

It happens all the time. My MSN writeup, written by an O-6, was rewritten by
him twice and once by a RADM...still was downgraded to a NCM..XO of VX-4.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

August 31st 04, 04:56 PM

Last time...I was an educated, patriotic, healthy young man in the late 60s.
The USA was at war, I too wanted to serve my country via the military. Choosing
the 'national guard' just wasn't in my scan nor in the scan of anybody I knew.

I place GWB in the same catagory as those Naval Aviators that pulled strings to
stay on the east coast, making Med cruises during VN.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Tex Houston

August 31st 04, 05:22 PM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Tex. how many ANG F-102 units?
> P. C. Chisholm

No complete squadrons for F-102 but individual ANG pilots served there in a
program called "Palace Chase". The ANG did send squadrons to SEA for
example Colorado, New York, Iowa and New Mexico furnished F-100 squadrons.
I don't want to get into the Guard and Reserve vs active duty argument but I
think you are wrong about their service. They fly modern (as modern as we
have) equipment, often serve in associate wings and even combined units.
Colorado has both an F-16 wing and a C-130 wing in their ANG.

Tex

José Herculano

August 31st 04, 06:56 PM

> When did they go? When did they convert the F-102 to be able to carry a
> gun pod
> and Aim-9?
>
> Or was it the F-106?

They carried the Falcon. Lost two F-102 to MiG-21 when they tried to play
with them. The F-106 never went, it was the mainstay of the ADC CONUS at the
time. As Ed Rasimus says often, the only two birds that didn't go where the
F-106 and the B-58. If the NVC started using bombers against the US or the
guys in the south, then more F-102 and/or F-104 would go.
_____________
José Herculano

Leanne

August 31st 04, 08:31 PM

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
> I don't want to get into the Guard and Reserve vs active duty argument but
I
> think you are wrong about their service. They fly modern (as modern as we
> have) equipment, often serve in associate wings and even combined units.
> Colorado has both an F-16 wing and a C-130 wing in their ANG.

The ANG of the Georgia Wing has a C-130 unit out of Savannah that is split
with half being in the Iran/Afghanistan theaters rotating on a continual
basis and has been for a couple years now. I think it was last week or the
week before that one group returned when they were replaced by the other
part of the squadron.

Leanne

Bill Kambic

August 31st 04, 08:59 PM

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> Last time...I was an educated, patriotic, healthy young man in the late
60s.

Me, too. Did four years NROTC '64-'68. Not a great time to wear a uniform
on campus, even at a Jesuit school.

> The USA was at war, I too wanted to serve my country via the military.

Me, too.

Choosing
> the 'national guard' just wasn't in my scan nor in the scan of anybody I
knew.

So what? Should your narrow horizons govern all who would serve? Is
National Guard or Reserve service less honorable than Active Service?

> I place GWB in the same catagory as those Naval Aviators that pulled
strings to
> stay on the east coast, making Med cruises during VN.

I was LANTFLT VS. My brother in law LANTFLT HS. Some of my classmates were
LANTFLT VP, VF, VA, VAW, VR, VRC, etc.. We went where we told to go. No
strings pulled, just "dream sheets" like anyone else. What we may, or may
not, have put on those sheets are between us and our detailers and God.

Or are "dreamsheets" now "strings"?

No one questions your choice. You made it. You live with its consequences.
That choice neither elevates nor demeans you morally or ethically.

Frankly, the entire issue amounts to a mosquito fart in a hurricane. The
evidence appears to be that Kerry was an effective JO under fire. That
neither makes him more nor less qualified to be C-in-C. We don't know what
Bush might have done under fire. This neither makes him more nor less
qualified to be C-in-C.

We do know that Kerry declared his opposition ot the War upon his return to
CONUS and stated that he would return his medals. He did not do so. That
makes him either a liar or constitutes his first, big "flip-flop." Either
way it raises questions in my mind.

We also know that Kerry has "carried water" for Teddy K. for decades. When
a Kennedy says "frog" then Kerry jumps. We know that his legislative record
as a senator is remarklybly blank. We know that he is a very rich, very
liberal MA politician married to an even richer wife. Somehow this does
not, necessarily, equate to concern for either the common man or the average
veteran.

Regarding W, I am a V2R (Very Reluctant Republican). I seriously mistrust
many of the "social conservatives" that surround him. His performance at
Bob Jones University damn near made me stay home on '2000. But, living in
TN, I knew enough about Prince Albert to know that he was not the guy I
wanted to be C-in-C (in spite of his "Vietnam Combat Experience). Thus, my
reluctant choice.

His performance in office up to 9/11 was in the finest traditions of Millard
Filmore. But, then, he got an opportunity to excell. And, IMO, has done a
much better job that the Prince would have done. Since the Prince and Kerry
are cut from the same cloth (rich, liberals living in the shelter of their
family's connections) my choice is, again, to be a V2R.

I lived as a USN and a USNR. There were men of honor and scoundrals in both
worlds. Such is life.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

August 31st 04, 10:46 PM

On 8/31/04 8:34 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Doug-<< If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
> Guard
> or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
>>> 
>
> Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
> instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?
>
> Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
> USN?
>
> Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
> against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
> all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
> likely to go to VN?

Dunno. Don't care.

No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to Viet Nam
in an active duty unit--good deal for President Bush. His good deal was
nobody else's bad deal. Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal.

Cut President Bush a wide swath for his ANG duty and/or cut Senator Kerry a
wide swath for his 3 purple hearts and post-combat conduct in front of
Congress... and/or former President Clinton for his ability to avoid the war
entirely. These events contribute specifically to defining each man's
character. I leave that definition based on those events to you.

It seems to me that folks pick the side they like (or dislike) most first,
then justify their candidate's military service based on that like or
dislike.

What matters to me is the politician's conduct, decisions, and policy-making
skill.

--Woody

Dudley Henriques

September 1st 04, 04:29 AM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...

>the ANG(a flying club using USAF equipment),

You know Pechs, I for one deeply resent your insistent back door
implications about the ANG, and I don't give a rat's ass which side of
the political coin you have chosen. That's your business. Frankly, I
wouldn't expect to be reading crap like this coming from you. You,above
all people should know better.

I'm here to tell you that flying high performance airplanes in any
man's cockpit is a GD dangerous business, and it doesn't matter a rat's
damn whether you're in the guard or the active AF.
My best friend died in a guard F86 when the GD maintenance nightmare J47
he had under him swallowed a f*****g bucket on pitchout with his side of
the pattern over a heavily populated area. He did his best to point the
damn thing in a marsh before he punched, but by that time he was way too
low and way out of the seat envelope. He got out, but hit strapped in
the seat; so don't try and tell me the ANG is a soft ticket.
I don't know what Bush's aims were and frankly I don't give a damn. The
102 was no easy ride, and the guard isn't the softest place to be on
many occasions! Woody's right!
So ease up pardner; you're WAY off base here!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

Charlie Wolf

September 1st 04, 02:07 PM

On 31 Aug 2004 13:34:38 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

>Doug-<< If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
>Guard
>or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
> >> 
>
>Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
>instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?
>
>Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
>USN?
Your question is just plain silly - or stupid, take your pick.
Why did serve in the Navy, Commander? You could have been a Marine,
or a special forces, or a SEAL or a plane captain, or a ???????

>
> Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
>against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
>all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
>likely to go to VN?
Hindsight is a marvelous thing but in the hands of someone like you -
it appears to be dangerous...
Regards,

>
>
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

September 1st 04, 02:23 PM

Dudley<< You know Pechs, I for one deeply resent your insistent back door
implications about the ANG >> 

Calm down and try to read all of my posts. I never said the ANG wasn't flying
dangferous A/C but the ANG is not the USAF. It is different organization,
different ways of doing business.

Try to step back and look at the world in 1968 when this so called 'patriot'
who wanted to 'serve his country' decided to join the national guard instad of
going into the 'military'.

Ya know, flying anything is dangerous and some of the very best pilots I have
ever fought were ANG or USN reserve guys but try to see the context of what I'm
saying.

Dudley-<> 

Do ya care what Kerry's aims were? can't have it both ways.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

September 1st 04, 02:27 PM

Doug-<< No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to
Viet Nam
in an active duty unit-- >> 

Sorry, don't get this. Altho nobody in the military wants to go to combat, I
would have liked to experience it. The people I have read about, including Ed
R., view SEA combat operations as the best times of their military careers.

Doug<< Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. >> 

Surprised at you. Why?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

September 1st 04, 02:30 PM

charlie-<< Why did serve in the Navy, Commander? You could have been a Marine,
or a special forces, or a SEAL or a plane captain, or a ??????? >> 

Wanted to fly in the active duty Navy off CVs, fleet aviator, which I view as
the best of the best. I went to HS and college during the midst of the VN war,
and continued the path regardless of this. I did my best and would have been
sent to where ever the USN told me to go. West or east. Even a fast track into
a CV/squadron on Yankee station.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

September 1st 04, 02:35 PM

Bill-<< So what? Should your narrow horizons govern all who would serve? Is
National Guard or Reserve service less honorable than Active Service?
>> 

In general no, but during a 'war', it just doesn't make sense to me. It would
be like just after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, a yound man would join the 'guard'
instead of the active duty military.

Bill-<< Frankly, the entire issue amounts to a mosquito fart in a hurricane.
The
evidence appears to be that Kerry was an effective JO under fire. That
neither makes him more nor less qualified to be C-in-C. We don't know what
Bush might have done under fire. This neither makes him more nor less
qualified to be C-in-C. >> 

That's the crux of my beef. Throwing stones at an active duty USN officer, by a
group that supports somebody that was not(including his VP).

This is over for me. I will focus on the election considering other things like
Iraq, the envionment, the economy, health care......
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Dudley Henriques

September 1st 04, 02:54 PM

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley<< You know Pechs, I for one deeply resent your insistent back
door
> implications about the ANG >> 
>
> Calm down and try to read all of my posts. I never said the ANG wasn't
flying
> dangferous A/C but the ANG is not the USAF. It is different
organization,
> different ways of doing business.
>
> Try to step back and look at the world in 1968 when this so called
'patriot'
> who wanted to 'serve his country' decided to join the national guard
instad of
> going into the 'military'.
>
> Ya know, flying anything is dangerous and some of the very best pilots
I have
> ever fought were ANG or USN reserve guys but try to see the context of
what I'm
> saying.
>
> Dudley-< >> 
>
> Do ya care what Kerry's aims were? can't have it both ways.

As far as I'm concerned, you're taking your politics and putting them in
my cockpit. What you have said about the ANG has absolutely nothing to
do with politics. Your opinions about the President are a separate
issue, and you above all people should know that.
Your comments about either Bush or Kerry is you own business, but when
you start branching off that context into saying that the ANG "is a
flying club using Air Force Equipment", you're WAY out of line with me
anyway!
You will notice as an indication of my point, that I have not had to get
into politics at all in dealing with you on this issue.
I'm sorry we have to disagree, and it's perfectly ok with me that you
have political fervor and the need to express it; but FWIW, the Air
National Guard is NOT a flying club using Air Force equipment, and you
can take THAT to the bank and Ps on it!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

Bill Kambic

September 1st 04, 03:12 PM

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> Bill-<< So what? Should your narrow horizons govern all who would serve?
Is
> National Guard or Reserve service less honorable than Active Service?
> >> 
>
> In general no, but during a 'war', it just doesn't make sense to me.

OK.

It would
> be like just after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, a yound man would join the
'guard'
> instead of the active duty military.

Or maybe the Coast Guard?

Again, don't allow your prejudices to blacken the decisions of others who
may have/had very good reasons for doing what they are/were doing.

> Bill-<< Frankly, the entire issue amounts to a mosquito fart in a
hurricane.
> The
> evidence appears to be that Kerry was an effective JO under fire. That
> neither makes him more nor less qualified to be C-in-C. We don't know
what
> Bush might have done under fire. This neither makes him more nor less
> qualified to be C-in-C. >> 
>
> That's the crux of my beef. Throwing stones at an active duty USN officer,
by a
> group that supports somebody that was not(including his VP).

Asking a question is not "throwing stones." The motivation of the
questioner has nothing to do with accuracy of the answer.

> This is over for me. I will focus on the election considering other things
like
> Iraq, the envionment, the economy, health care......

Good choice.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

Red Rider

September 1st 04, 04:02 PM

I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have checked
this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I haven't post
much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.

I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or whichever
side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and that
is this.

Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE Asia'.
Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or whatever you
want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a MiG
wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the USAF.
There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
detachments, that did go over there also.

As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war is
long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger, and
liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just got
caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.

Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in danger of
going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
other.

Charlie Wolf

September 1st 04, 04:12 PM

On 01 Sep 2004 13:23:49 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

>Dudley<< You know Pechs, I for one deeply resent your insistent back door
>implications about the ANG >> 
>
>Calm down and try to read all of my posts. I never said the ANG wasn't flying
>dangferous A/C but the ANG is not the USAF. It is different organization,
>different ways of doing business.
>
>Try to step back and look at the world in 1968 when this so called 'patriot'
>who wanted to 'serve his country' decided to join the national guard instad of
>going into the 'military'.
He went into the military. Thats why he has an Honorable Discharge.
You're coming very close to lying to a bunch of people who know the
truth. Prove in your next post that National Guard service is not
"going into the military". Then try to explain it to the NG troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

>
>Ya know, flying anything is dangerous and some of the very best pilots I have
>ever fought were ANG or USN reserve guys but try to see the context of what I'm
>saying.
Thats the problem - we do...
Regards,

>
>Dudley-<>> 
>
>Do ya care what Kerry's aims were? can't have it both ways.
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

September 1st 04, 05:26 PM

On 9/1/04 8:27 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Doug-<< No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to
> Viet Nam
> in an active duty unit-- >> 
>
> Sorry, don't get this. Altho nobody in the military wants to go to combat, I
> would have liked to experience it. The people I have read about, including Ed
> R., view SEA combat operations as the best times of their military careers.
>
> Doug<< Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
> active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
> ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. >> 
>
>
> Surprised at you. Why?

Two reasons:

1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over 90
aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

2. Conversely, you can get into the ANG as a guard-baby, fly tactical
aircraft (for longer than you can in the USN/USNR), never move, and live the
good life for 8-10 years as a full-timer and then slide into a part time
position, still fly the same tactical aircraft, and make that move young
enough to pursue the career you'll hang your hat on for the rest of your
life.

e.g. the most successful airline pilots I know (IMHO) are the guard-babies
that left their full time ANG jobs at 26-30 years of age and snagged airline
jobs while sliding into their part-time positions. They're check-airmen and
chief pilots. I also know of at least two ANG F-16 pilots who are
physicians. Not to mention ANG units (despite having MORE bureaucracy than
USN/USNR) still have less than the active duty USAF. All in all, it's a
better life.

Still, none of them have any CV landings...

--Woody

John Carrier

September 1st 04, 09:24 PM

SNIP

>> Doug<< Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
>> active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for
>> an
>> ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. >> 
>>
>>
>> Surprised at you. Why?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
> airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
> the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
> increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over
> 90
> aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
> more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

Long term, the fleet is going to have less jets. Of course, the commitment
will be unchanged. This has already come out through official channels,
roughly a 30% reduction in combat aircraft on the boat. A mix of F-18E/F
and F-35C. The solution is to keep op ready rates way up there with the
improved maintainability and emphasis on the maintenance/logistics effort.
I wonder if the geniuses who devised this plan realize the bean counters
won't take the increased utilization into account as far as the support end
or pilot manning is concerned.

Gee Woodie, 15 pilots for 10 jets? How did you manage? My last cruise we
had 11 1/2 crews for 10 jets. Borrowed CAG ops to get to 12 even. Made for
an interesting schedule when the CARGRU wanted 27-28 lines plus alert 5/15.

> 2. Conversely, you can get into the ANG as a guard-baby, fly tactical
> aircraft (for longer than you can in the USN/USNR), never move, and live
> the
> good life for 8-10 years as a full-timer and then slide into a part time
> position, still fly the same tactical aircraft, and make that move young
> enough to pursue the career you'll hang your hat on for the rest of your
> life.

Great deal for sure, and the reserves weren't half bad either. Of course,
they're paying the piper now. The one weekend a month and two weeks a year
thing have become a considerably greater commitment. Not too bad for the
aviators (tanker guys locally rotate in and out every month or so), but the
troops in support units that are sometimes on hiatus from a high-paying job
for a year and pulling E-5 pay in a combat zone are getting hammered pretty
good on the economic front. And the guard family-support structure (which
had no reason for being for 50-odd years) ain't exactly the same as USN
family services, and various other formal and informal organizations
designed to make deployments more manageable for those left behind.

> e.g. the most successful airline pilots I know (IMHO) are the guard-babies
> that left their full time ANG jobs at 26-30 years of age and snagged
> airline
> jobs while sliding into their part-time positions. They're check-airmen
> and
> chief pilots. I also know of at least two ANG F-16 pilots who are
> physicians. Not to mention ANG units (despite having MORE bureaucracy
> than
> USN/USNR) still have less than the active duty USAF. All in all, it's a
> better life.
>
> Still, none of them have any CV landings...

I'll mail you five bucks and you can take it and your landings to Starbucks.

R / John

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

September 2nd 04, 02:29 AM

On 9/1/04 3:24 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> SNIP
>
>> 1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
>> airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
>> the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
>> increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over
>> 90
>> aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
>> more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.
>
> Long term, the fleet is going to have less jets. Of course, the commitment
> will be unchanged. This has already come out through official channels,
> roughly a 30% reduction in combat aircraft on the boat. A mix of F-18E/F
> and F-35C. The solution is to keep op ready rates way up there with the
> improved maintainability and emphasis on the maintenance/logistics effort.
> I wonder if the geniuses who devised this plan realize the bean counters
> won't take the increased utilization into account as far as the support end
> or pilot manning is concerned.

I couldn't agree more. F-35 has some great maintainability features along
the lines of AIMD and logistics. I like the way it's going. It has some
CV/O-level issues that still need to be addressed.

> Gee Woodie, 15 pilots for 10 jets? How did you manage? My last cruise we
> had 11 1/2 crews for 10 jets. Borrowed CAG ops to get to 12 even. Made for
> an interesting schedule when the CARGRU wanted 27-28 lines plus alert 5/15.

Life has changed since the days you flew single-seat with Ely from the
BIRMINGHAM, my friend. (Couldn't pass it up.) A single-seat strike fighter
squadron works pretty hard with just 17 pilots. As a 2-seat medium attack
JO, I watched those guys slave to learn the A/A (AIM-7 Blue Collar BVR only)
and A/G missions while I hung out as an AQ branch O writing a few evals
during movie night and studying gravity technology in my spare time. Since
then the tactics have become more complicated with AIM-120, JDAM (easy, but
not without quirks), JSOW, and the rest. Add to that the SFWT syllabus and
all of the added NEW administrivia that the Navy has piled on in the last 18
years, and you've got a pretty tough nut for the JO's to crack.

<SNIP>
> Great deal for sure, and the reserves weren't half bad either. Of course,
> they're paying the piper now. The one weekend a month and two weeks a year
> thing have become a considerably greater commitment. Not too bad for the
> aviators (tanker guys locally rotate in and out every month or so), but the
> troops in support units that are sometimes on hiatus from a high-paying job
> for a year and pulling E-5 pay in a combat zone are getting hammered pretty
> good on the economic front. And the guard family-support structure (which
> had no reason for being for 50-odd years) ain't exactly the same as USN
> family services, and various other formal and informal organizations
> designed to make deployments more manageable for those left behind.
>

Yep, the grunts have it worst.

My observation is that the tanker guys and trash haulers deploy and work
harder than almost all aviation reserve/ANG units. VMGR's and USAF C-130
squadrons have been nearly non-stop for the last 2 1/2 years.

With regard to the current topic (why ANG over active USN), the USNR is
still a great deal (IMHO one of the best deals in aviation), but you need to
do the active duty thing before you can make it to a USNR VFA, so there's a
cost-benefit ratio to consider.

<SNIP>
>>
>> Still, none of them have any CV landings...
>
> I'll mail you five bucks and you can take it and your landings to Starbucks.

I'll send you a SASE!

--Woody

Dudley Henriques

September 2nd 04, 04:31 AM

"Red Rider" > wrote in message
m...
> I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have
checked
> this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I
haven't post
> much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
> anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.
>
> I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or
whichever
> side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and
that
> is this.
>
> Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE
Asia'.
> Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
> operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or
whatever you
> want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a
MiG
> wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the
USAF.
> There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
> detachments, that did go over there also.
>
> As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war
is
> long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger,
and
> liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
> self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just
got
> caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.
>
> Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in
danger of
> going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
> other.

And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.

RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
"political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
personally don't even bother with it any longer.

RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
technique. It WORKS!

And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

September 2nd 04, 12:27 PM

On 9/1/04 10:31 PM, in article
, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.
>
> RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
> "political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
> back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
> have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
> personally don't even bother with it any longer.
>
> RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
> by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
> reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
> technique. It WORKS!
>
> And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
> making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
> political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

Here's the pile on. Pechs, weren't you the guy who was quitting RAMN a
couple of months ago because of all of the off-topic posts that were all
over the NG? Didn't a bunch of others on the group ask you to stay?

I agree. Let's end the political portion of this thread.

Your discussion starter on the ANG is a good one though.

--Woody

Pechs1

September 2nd 04, 01:56 PM

Doug-<< 1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. >> 

Gee, a thread about NavAir. The more things change, the more they stay the same
I guess. We said the same things as you when S-3s came aboard on 'small'
decks(VF-33, 9 a/c, USS Independence), and said it again when F-14s were
deployed on 'small' decks(VF-31, USS Forrestal).

In spite of all the 'bad' times in the late 70s, training anchorages, no
flying(72 traps total for a 6 month cruise AND workup), no parts, etc., I still
loved it, and didn't really consider getting out.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Mike Kanze

September 2nd 04, 07:21 PM

>And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years making
>RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g political bull
>****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!

Concur.

Another poster to this general thread suggested that we all recall the
admonition against discussing politics in the wardroom and reapply same to
RAMN. Again, I concur.

--
Mike Kanze

"Dear Abby: I am a twenty-three year old, liberated woman who has been on
the pill for two years. It's getting very expensive and I think my boyfriend
should share half the cost, but I don't know him well enough to discuss
money with him."

- "Dear Abby" letters that never saw print

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Red Rider" > wrote in message
> m...
>> I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have
> checked
>> this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I
> haven't post
>> much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
>> anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.
>>
>> I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or
> whichever
>> side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and
> that
>> is this.
>>
>> Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE
> Asia'.
>> Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
>> operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or
> whatever you
>> want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a
> MiG
>> wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the
> USAF.
>> There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
>> detachments, that did go over there also.
>>
>> As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war
> is
>> long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger,
> and
>> liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
>> self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just
> got
>> caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.
>>
>> Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in
> danger of
>> going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
>> other.
>
> And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.
>
> RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
> "political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
> back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
> have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
> personally don't even bother with it any longer.
>
> RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
> by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
> reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
> technique. It WORKS!
>
> And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
> making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
> political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
>
>