CIA Vietnam war controlled USAF aircraft missions

[Aerophotos]

I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.

These aircrafts were painted overall black for night operations and
operated by only a pilot, no wso, due to CIA mission rules.

They were operated in Strike and Recon roles as i have been told. This
leading to a possible use of RF-4Cs i was told.
Time spent on the subject wasnt long so i wasnt able to get a confirm or
denial from the person.

The aircraft would depart their bases early in morning/late evenings and
no radio chatter was observed.

If they were shot down they were not given any chances to be rescued due
to the nature of their mission.

Anyone else ever heard of this operation before?

The person told me, not many people knew it even existed at the base the
planes flew from.... he didnt know which base/s the planes flew from...

What i was told... sounds like a unknown low key CIA/USAF secret
operation only known by a few people? eg never made public yet since the
war .. or could it be a fake story?

Since i dont know what the CIA would want from USAF aircraft in these
roles... it does make me wonder..

What was so sensitive in Laos and Cambodia that would require them there
?

[Ron]

> have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
>that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
>controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
>Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.
>
>These aircrafts were painted overall black for night operations and
>operated by only a pilot, no wso, due to CIA mission rules.

Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
the right. Better have some really long right arms.

If you just read what you typed, you can see how silly it sounds.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Aerophotos]

Ron wrote:
>
> > have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
> >that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
> >controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
> >Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.
> >
> >These aircrafts were painted overall black for night operations and
> >operated by only a pilot, no wso, due to CIA mission rules.
>
> Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
> the right. Better have some really long right arms.
>
> If you just read what you typed, you can see how silly it sounds.
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Well the person who told me is adamant the CIA used the F-111 in the
role.

What other kind of aircraft could of been used if he is mistaken??

A-7D is the other i think... regardless he says to me F-111 were used ..
strike or recon who knows..?

CIA ran the program.... so its a mystery... much like they are run
anyway... dark, quiet and out of the way.

[Ron]

>
>Well the person who told me is adamant the CIA used the F-111 in the
>role.
>
>What other kind of aircraft could of been used if he is mistaken??
>
>A-7D is the other i think... regardless he says to me F-111 were used ..
>strike or recon who knows..?
>
>CIA ran the program.... so its a mystery... much like they are run
>anyway... dark, quiet and out of the way.

Well what about all the B-52 strikes in Laos and Cambodia? Probably all types
of aircraft crossed over the border for strike missions. Some that flew in
SEA here, would know a lot more about it. But black F-4s and F-111s, without
the WSO, well thats kinda far fatched.

There were extensive CIA ops in Laos and Cambodia, but they didnt do it by
taking weapon systems officers out of the aircraft.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[BUFDRVR]

>Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
>the right.

How about the Phantom pilot operating the *rear seat* equipment?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Yeff]

On 28 Feb 2004 13:43:50 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

>>Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
>>the right.
>
> How about the Phantom pilot operating the *rear seat* equipment?

You know, if I wanted to covertly spy on someone's house, the first thing
I'd do is paint my car black. If I wanted to covertly hide out from the US
government I'd paint my house black. Apparently, if you're going to do
something covertly the first thing you do is paint everything black so no
one has any illusions that you aren't covert.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Smartace11]

>>Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
>>the right.
>
>How about the Phantom pilot operating the *rear seat* equipment?
In 1972, I flew night triple turn missions out of Tahkli - one sortie out of
Tahkli in Laos, N and S Vietnam recover at Danang, reload/rearm, do it again,
recover at Danang and do it again then go home. Occaisionally we recovered at
Udorn because it was closer than Danang when we were operating in nothern Laos
around the PDJ.

I saw an black F-4s once at Udorn taxi past the dearm area when I recovered
there one night. Couldn't tell how many crew members. Maybe not black but one
dark color all over - the camo paint scheme was visible at night in that
scenario once you got some night vision and had the fuselage belly lights on
for the weapoins guys to pin you back up. The F-4 could be operated by one
crewmember - the INS just had to be aligned before taxi. Dropping nukes was
about the only thing that supposedly couldn't be done alone though I guess one
could enable the PAL stuff on the ground before TO.

There were also rumors floating around of the existance of the black F-4s but
few had actually seen them. Never heard anything about F-111s though the
F-111As out of Nellis that replaced us could have flown that mission.

When we worked at night in Laos we were usually under the control of a Nightowl
FAC, an F-4 Fast FAC with Loran and plenty of flares. Once in a while we
worked with a Raven but I have no idea what type of aircraft, their usual O-1
or something else. Sometimes a Specter on the trails would control us. Very
few times, Moonbeam the ABCCC ship wold turn us over to the Combat Skyspot guys
to drop from their ground radar.

Working in Laos at night was spooky. Like flying inside an ink bottle as there
was just a campfire here and there and few if any other lights on the ground.
Little or no horizon under the haze. The FAC would lay down a "log" that
burned on the ground for a while and we would attempt to use it as an aiming
point. Hard enough to gage "100 meters north of my smoke" in the daytime but a
real trick at night.

Definitely enjoyed night flying as there was little or no adult supervision
around. Plus it was a helluva lot cooler. Doubtless, the missions were in
support of the Lima recon sites there and possibly the BMT TACAN though it had
been overrun when I was there..

Steve

[Howard Berkowitz]

Yhere certainly were covert military flights in Southeast Asia, but the
were not necessarily controlled by CIA. For the cases we know that were
controlled by CIA, such as Air America, there's no indication that the
crews were reduced.

Black aircraft aren't implausible for agent dropping and such, but these
would be most likely to be under the operational control of MACSOG.
Transports, of course, would be the likely aircraft in this role.

There were covert operations such as the bombing of Laos, or the weather
modification flights of Operation Popeye, but, while classified (perhaps
improperly), they were performed by the regular military chain of
command.

My reading of the Pentagon Papers suggests no combat aircraft were under
direct CIA control, although CIA operational people could certainly ask
for, and get support. Sedgwick Tourson's book on agent infiltration in
the north clearly speaks of the aircraft being military.

[Aerophotos]

bingo you are spot on see it has happened...everyhting you said below
reminds me of the story the guy told me, he said i rember now INS was
set but thats all that was needed...

Smartace11 wrote:
>
> >>Those Vark pilots would have a heck of a time operating the weapons panel on
> >>the right.
> >
> >How about the Phantom pilot operating the *rear seat* equipment?
> In 1972, I flew night triple turn missions out of Tahkli - one sortie out of
> Tahkli in Laos, N and S Vietnam recover at Danang, reload/rearm, do it again,
> recover at Danang and do it again then go home. Occaisionally we recovered at
> Udorn because it was closer than Danang when we were operating in nothern Laos
> around the PDJ.
>
> I saw an black F-4s once at Udorn taxi past the dearm area when I recovered
> there one night. Couldn't tell how many crew members. Maybe not black but one
> dark color all over - the camo paint scheme was visible at night in that
> scenario once you got some night vision and had the fuselage belly lights on
> for the weapoins guys to pin you back up. The F-4 could be operated by one
> crewmember - the INS just had to be aligned before taxi. Dropping nukes was
> about the only thing that supposedly couldn't be done alone though I guess one
> could enable the PAL stuff on the ground before TO.
>
> There were also rumors floating around of the existance of the black F-4s but
> few had actually seen them. Never heard anything about F-111s though the
> F-111As out of Nellis that replaced us could have flown that mission.
>
> When we worked at night in Laos we were usually under the control of a Nightowl
> FAC, an F-4 Fast FAC with Loran and plenty of flares. Once in a while we
> worked with a Raven but I have no idea what type of aircraft, their usual O-1
> or something else. Sometimes a Specter on the trails would control us. Very
> few times, Moonbeam the ABCCC ship wold turn us over to the Combat Skyspot guys
> to drop from their ground radar.
>
> Working in Laos at night was spooky. Like flying inside an ink bottle as there
> was just a campfire here and there and few if any other lights on the ground.
> Little or no horizon under the haze. The FAC would lay down a "log" that
> burned on the ground for a while and we would attempt to use it as an aiming
> point. Hard enough to gage "100 meters north of my smoke" in the daytime but a
> real trick at night.
>
> Definitely enjoyed night flying as there was little or no adult supervision
> around. Plus it was a helluva lot cooler. Doubtless, the missions were in
> support of the Lima recon sites there and possibly the BMT TACAN though it had
> been overrun when I was there..
>
> Steve
>

[Smartace11]

I think it would be called under operational control by the military in support
of CIA ops.

Per a friend who flew A-26s early on and did a few drops of agents in the North
out of the bomb bay. His flight plan showed a slight delay in the arming area
with the bay doors open while a little guy in a black suit and chute climbed
into the bomb bay, then a place on the map were the doors were to be opened
enroute then closed, while over indian country.


>Black aircraft aren't implausible for agent dropping and such, but these
>would be most likely to be under the operational control of MACSOG.
>Transports, of course, would be the likely aircraft in this role.
>
>There were covert operations such as the bombing of Laos, or the weather
>modification flights of Operation Popeye, but, while classified (perhaps
>improperly), they were performed by the regular military chain of
>command.
>
>My reading of the Pentagon Papers suggests no combat aircraft were under
>direct CIA control, although CIA operational people could certainly ask
>for, and get support. Sedgwick Tourson's book on agent infiltration in
>the north clearly speaks of the aircraft being military.

[Mike Marron]

>Aerophotos > wrote:

>I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
>that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
>controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
>Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.

Dad said he flew the A-1E in cloak and dagger sorties into Laos
coordinated by the CIA, Air America, SEALS, Green Beanies etc.
Those sorties weren't logged and he has significantly more combat
hours than what's shown in his USAF pilot records.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Aerophotos > wrote:
>
> >I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
> >that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
> >controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
> >Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.
>
> Dad said he flew the A-1E in cloak and dagger sorties into Laos
> coordinated by the CIA, Air America, SEALS, Green Beanies etc.
> Those sorties weren't logged and he has significantly more combat
> hours than what's shown in his USAF pilot records.

That is not uncommon for those times. What the original poster is missing
is that CIA was paired with personal from the militay.

[George Ruch]

Aerophotos > wrote:

>I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
>that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
>controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
>Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.
>
>These aircrafts were painted overall black for night operations and
>operated by only a pilot, no wso, due to CIA mission rules.

1. No WSO: Physically impossible in an F-111 (any model), and even more so
in an F-4. Google "F-111" and check the cockpit layout.

2. I was stationed at Takhli 10/72 to 4/73. While I was there, there were
_NO_ overall black F-111s there at the time. Most operations were night
missions, so the paint scheme would have been appropriate for that use
(jungle green mix, going to black on the bottom, IIRC). We had painted our
ALQ-87 jammer pods black so they wouldn't wouldn't stand out.

The overall grey/black paint scheme came in much later.

3. I doubt the CIA had 'control' of any military aircraft. They did have
their own resources ('Air America', mainly based in northern Thailand), but
not for the kind of missions you're describing. They may have requested
missions through the NCA, but that would require documentary proof.

>The aircraft would depart their bases early in morning/late evenings and
>no radio chatter was observed.

Radio silence would be common for operational security. A squadron
commander at the time described the silence as 'deafening' when Korat TACAN
finally faded out.

>What was so sensitive in Laos and Cambodia that would require them there?

Political fallout. Laos and Cambodia were officially neutral at the time,
but tolerated the flow of men and materials through their countries via the
Ho Chi Mihn Trail.

Let's use Occam's Razor here. The enemy is using the Ho Chi Mihn trail to
resupply their forces, the Nixon administration wants to get out while
giving the South Vietnamese a fighting chance, so they order missions into
neutral territory to disrupt that resupply.

George

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

[George Ruch]

Aerophotos > wrote:

>Well the person who told me is adamant the CIA used the F-111 in the
>role.

Right... And how many pints did you have to buy him to get that so-called
'information'?

>A-7D is the other i think... regardless he says to me F-111 were used ..
>strike or recon who knows..?

Strike, if anything. There has never been a recon version of the F-111 in
the USAF inventory. The only thing _remotely_ close to that would be the
KB-18 strike camera on the non-SAC versions.

George

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

[Smartace11]

>1. No WSO: Physically impossible in an F-111 (any model), and even more so
>in an F-4. Google "F-111" and check the cockpit layout.

There was nothing in the F-4 that would prevent it from being flown without
someone in the rear cockpit. The only necessary system there is the Inertial
Nav and that can be ser up on the ground with power connected. Radar wold be
inop and no contro lover jammers but not needed in an area like Laos.

[RobbelothE]

>Subject: Re: CIA Vietnam war controlled USAF aircraft missions
>From: George Ruch
>Date: 2/29/2004 12:05 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Aerophotos > wrote:
>
>>I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
>>that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
>>controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
>>Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.

/\/\ Snip /\/\

>>What was so sensitive in Laos and Cambodia that would require them there?
>
>Political fallout. Laos and Cambodia were officially neutral at the time,
>but tolerated the flow of men and materials through their countries via the
>Ho Chi Mihn Trail.
>
>Let's use Occam's Razor here. The enemy is using the Ho Chi Mihn trail to
>resupply their forces, the Nixon administration wants to get out while
>giving the South Vietnamese a fighting chance, so they order missions into
>neutral territory to disrupt that resupply.
>
>George

I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of 69) and
have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.

While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original poster claims
ever took place.

There were some black-painted aircraft though. O-2 Forward Air Controllers
(FAC) who worked at night directing airstrikes, but not many of them. For the
most part, the air war went into "standby" mode at night because our abilities
to operate in the dark were limited to gunships, B-57s and A-26s which operated
over the Trail. The gunships and the A-26s had black lower surfaces.

The only other black aircraft I know of was an H-3 helicopter that inserted
ground teams into Laos (I knew/know the pilot).


Ed

"There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.
We must have the courage to do what we know is morally
right." --Ronald Reagan



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[George Ruch]

(Smartace11) wrote:

>>1. No WSO: Physically impossible in an F-111 (any model), and even more so
>>in an F-4. Google "F-111" and check the cockpit layout.
>
>There was nothing in the F-4 that would prevent it from being flown without
>someone in the rear cockpit. The only necessary system there is the Inertial
>Nav and that can be ser up on the ground with power connected. Radar wold be
>inop and no contro lover jammers but not needed in an area like Laos.

I stand corrected. I was thinking that a conventional strike mission would
need radar, jammers and a WSO to run them.

Another correction. I have seen local incentive flights with various
versions of the F-111 (once INS is aligned), but again, the typical deep
strike mission absolutely needed a full-time WSO to manage the nav/attack
functions. The AC had his hands full flying the airplane and making sure
the auto-TF did its job.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

[George Ruch]

(RobbelothE) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: CIA Vietnam war controlled USAF aircraft missions
>>From: George Ruch
>>Date: 2/29/2004 12:05 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Aerophotos > wrote:
>>
>>>I have on good source from a knowledgeable aviation enthusiast, info
>>>that in the late stages of the Vietnam war for some operations the CIA
>>>controlled a limited amount of USAF assets, eg F-4 Phantoms and F-111s
>>>Adavarks for attacks in Laos and Cambodia.
>
>/\/\ Snip /\/\
>
>>>What was so sensitive in Laos and Cambodia that would require them there?
>>
>>Political fallout. Laos and Cambodia were officially neutral at the time,
>>but tolerated the flow of men and materials through their countries via the
>>Ho Chi Mihn Trail.
>>
>>Let's use Occam's Razor here.

[snip]

>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of 69) and
>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
>
>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original poster claims
>ever took place.

I expected as much.

>There were some black-painted aircraft though. O-2 Forward Air Controllers
>(FAC) who worked at night directing airstrikes, but not many of them.

[snip]

And my memory may have been playing tricks on me. Hell, it's been 30+
years... I don't know if I'm mixing up memories with the later LO gray SAC
FB-111s, but some of the A/C at Takhli may have gone to a gray/black night
low observable paint scheme.

Thanks for the info, Ed.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

[Smartace11]

>>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of 69) and
>>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
>>
>>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original poster
>claims
>>ever took place.
>
>I expected as much.
>

The poster said later stages of the war. His information source was there in
1972. Different war under Nixon, maybe!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of 69)
and
> >>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
> >>
> >>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original poster
> >claims
> >>ever took place.
> >
> >I expected as much.
> >
>
> The poster said later stages of the war. His information source was there
in
> 1972. Different war under Nixon, maybe!

The original poster (Aerophotos, AKA Jolly Green Giant) has demonstrated
little credibility; this latest flight of fantasy he has engaged in is just
another example of that.

Brooks

[Mike Marron]

In 1969 when Nixon announced that "no American has died in Laos,
200 airmen (many of whom were Spad pilots from my Dad's unit --
the 602nd Fighter "Commando" Squadron) had already died there.

[Aerophotos]

Kevy,

I wont rave on about your total lack of understanding in general about
what i do with information ive collected over the last 20yrs in
researching vietnam war operations which is close to my family's heart
in more ways then one, but ill let you be the judge when you talk 1-1 to
a highly talented, smart and interesting vietnam war era pilot and see
who comes off best..

Let me ask YOU a question...

Did you ever serve in Laos or Cambodia? ....


If not i suggest you be quiet. Because your out of order.

My source who i spoke to long time ago... knows what he is talking
about.. if you knew his qualifcations you be impressed.. i know i was.

Maybe my memory has gone fuzzy since i discussed the issues with the
source... and i mixed the F-111 with another aircraft that was black
painted.. maybe if so sorry.. not everyone is perfect at remebering
things in time .. even my source had some recollection issues.. 30yrs is
a long time ....but im not one to doubt this person who told me....and
furthermore i know stuff via the source that this group doesnt even know
yet about the usaf/vietnam war.. so maybe youd be smarter to keep your
lid shut...

Also a hint go and read up on many books as you can on the CIA
operations in SEA in general and you might learn more about the war...
dark and mysterious it was...



Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of 69)
> and
> > >>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
> > >>
> > >>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original poster
> > >claims
> > >>ever took place.
> > >
> > >I expected as much.
> > >
> >
> > The poster said later stages of the war. His information source was there
> in
> > 1972. Different war under Nixon, maybe!
>
> The original poster (Aerophotos, AKA Jolly Green Giant) has demonstrated
> little credibility; this latest flight of fantasy he has engaged in is just
> another example of that.
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> Kevy,
>
> I wont rave on about your total lack of understanding in general about
> what i do with information ive collected over the last 20yrs in
> researching vietnam war operations which is close to my family's heart
> in more ways then one, but ill let you be the judge when you talk 1-1 to
> a highly talented, smart and interesting vietnam war era pilot and see
> who comes off best..

Still making stuff up, eh JGG? What, the folks in the aus NG finally
succeeded in running you off?

>
> Let me ask YOU a question...
>
> Did you ever serve in Laos or Cambodia? ....

No, but someone "close to my family's heart" did indeed serve in the RVN and
pulled a few missions into Laos during his tour. He talked about a lot of
things he saw and did, but never any fantastic CIA fast-mover force.
Strangley enough, no other reputable source has indicated the existance of
such a force, either. Or would you be thinkin' that a few T-28's, UH-34's,
and UH-1's also qualify under that *fascinating* (hysterically so)
description you provided us of this mythical force?

>
>
> If not i suggest you be quiet. Because your out of order.

You can suggest a lot of crap (and you often have..crap, that is). Do you
think that anybody really gives a rat's ass what you suggest, JGG?

>
> My source who i spoke to long time ago... knows what he is talking
> about.. if you knew his qualifcations you be impressed.. i know i was.

Now that is not exactly a ringing personal endorsement, considering the
source (you). Your track record thus far in this group ain't exactly that
hot, now is it? But at least here, unlike that Aussie group that so often
spanks you en mass, you don't have folks volunteering to search you out in
person (the trip's a bit too far for most, I guess).

>
> Maybe my memory has gone fuzzy since i discussed the issues with the
> source... and i mixed the F-111 with another aircraft that was black
> painted.. maybe if so sorry.. not everyone is perfect at remebering
> things in time .. even my source had some recollection issues.. 30yrs is
> a long time ....but im not one to doubt this person who told me....

So now it may not have been F-111's, and this wonderful source may have been
a bit fuzzy...but you don't doubt his story. That figures.

and
> furthermore i know stuff via the source that this group doesnt even know
> yet about the usaf/vietnam war.. so maybe youd be smarter to keep your
> lid shut...

Oh, boy. The old, "I know seeecret stuff" ploy, coming from a kid who
supposedly just enetered the RAAF? Spare us.

>
> Also a hint go and read up on many books as you can on the CIA
> operations in SEA in general and you might learn more about the war...
> dark and mysterious it was...

When you have a guy who can mistake a T-28 (not a black painted one, either)
for a F-111, then you got a credibility problem. Something you should be
plenty familiar with.

Brooks

>
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of
69)
> > and
> > > >>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
> > > >>
> > > >>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original
poster
> > > >claims
> > > >>ever took place.
> > > >
> > > >I expected as much.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The poster said later stages of the war. His information source was
there
> > in
> > > 1972. Different war under Nixon, maybe!
> >
> > The original poster (Aerophotos, AKA Jolly Green Giant) has demonstrated
> > little credibility; this latest flight of fantasy he has engaged in is
just
> > another example of that.
> >

[Aerophotos]

So what stuff am i making up?, regarding fast movers under non us
military control?..... simple quote the source again

he flew black painted fast movers under non us military control and did
stuff that was different to other crews..

are you jealous?

So you claim, a talented person who is a amazing in what he acheived and
who served in vietnam is a liar? thats a low blow to him.

I ask can you recall anything you saw in a war that was covert at that
time? I dont think you will.. cause you werent there...

I wont comment any further on non us military forces as in fast movers
as i dont know beyond what ive been told by my source.

It seems you dont know it either cause your debating something new...so
everytime something new is released as info you claim someones a liar?

please keep going i like your trolling.

please i beg you, you are just making your self even more stupid now.



just cause i dont name sources of info for you is like some kind of
endorsement is it? what if they were proven to be right doesnt that make
you look like a idiotic critic then.

Just cause some people personelly hate the US political doctrine that
sent the US to war, doesnt mean the same people hate those who served..
please note that difference before you rant off ...



Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kevy,
> >
> > I wont rave on about your total lack of understanding in general about
> > what i do with information ive collected over the last 20yrs in
> > researching vietnam war operations which is close to my family's heart
> > in more ways then one, but ill let you be the judge when you talk 1-1 to
> > a highly talented, smart and interesting vietnam war era pilot and see
> > who comes off best..
>
> Still making stuff up, eh JGG? What, the folks in the aus NG finally
> succeeded in running you off?
>
> >
> > Let me ask YOU a question...
> >
> > Did you ever serve in Laos or Cambodia? ....
>
> No, but someone "close to my family's heart" did indeed serve in the RVN and
> pulled a few missions into Laos during his tour. He talked about a lot of
> things he saw and did, but never any fantastic CIA fast-mover force.
> Strangley enough, no other reputable source has indicated the existance of
> such a force, either. Or would you be thinkin' that a few T-28's, UH-34's,
> and UH-1's also qualify under that *fascinating* (hysterically so)
> description you provided us of this mythical force?
>
> >
> >
> > If not i suggest you be quiet. Because your out of order.
>
> You can suggest a lot of crap (and you often have..crap, that is). Do you
> think that anybody really gives a rat's ass what you suggest, JGG?
>
> >
> > My source who i spoke to long time ago... knows what he is talking
> > about.. if you knew his qualifcations you be impressed.. i know i was.
>
> Now that is not exactly a ringing personal endorsement, considering the
> source (you). Your track record thus far in this group ain't exactly that
> hot, now is it? But at least here, unlike that Aussie group that so often
> spanks you en mass, you don't have folks volunteering to search you out in
> person (the trip's a bit too far for most, I guess).
>
> >
> > Maybe my memory has gone fuzzy since i discussed the issues with the
> > source... and i mixed the F-111 with another aircraft that was black
> > painted.. maybe if so sorry.. not everyone is perfect at remebering
> > things in time .. even my source had some recollection issues.. 30yrs is
> > a long time ....but im not one to doubt this person who told me....
>
> So now it may not have been F-111's, and this wonderful source may have been
> a bit fuzzy...but you don't doubt his story. That figures.
>
> and
> > furthermore i know stuff via the source that this group doesnt even know
> > yet about the usaf/vietnam war.. so maybe youd be smarter to keep your
> > lid shut...
>
> Oh, boy. The old, "I know seeecret stuff" ploy, coming from a kid who
> supposedly just enetered the RAAF? Spare us.
>
> >
> > Also a hint go and read up on many books as you can on the CIA
> > operations in SEA in general and you might learn more about the war...
> > dark and mysterious it was...
>
> When you have a guy who can mistake a T-28 (not a black painted one, either)
> for a F-111, then you got a credibility problem. Something you should be
> plenty familiar with.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >>I flew aboard an airborne command post over there (mid 68 to end of
> 69)
> > > and
> > > > >>have more time over Laos than either Thailand or Vietnam.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>While CIA had a presence, Air America, nothing like the original
> poster
> > > > >claims
> > > > >>ever took place.
> > > > >
> > > > >I expected as much.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The poster said later stages of the war. His information source was
> there
> > > in
> > > > 1972. Different war under Nixon, maybe!
> > >
> > > The original poster (Aerophotos, AKA Jolly Green Giant) has demonstrated
> > > little credibility; this latest flight of fantasy he has engaged in is
> just
> > > another example of that.
> > >

--

[Aerophotos]

Furthermore, in dealing with life there are many things i can bet you
know that i dont and vice versa. Thats fine, i dont have a worry with
that.

But when other people know things that you dont know and tell you...your
like where is the evidence?

Sadly somethings in life are only verbally dictated, i learnt this early
on in life, i wonder did you... and there is no direct photos or written
evidence to suport it.


One only has to look at the crazy US govt to see lies covering up more
lies apon more lies on any issue you wish to choose. Military is a
goldmine.. health care is another.. etc etc.

I wont bother going into detail as some of the things dont even remotely
regard you or anyone else here. Anyway this is military issues :)

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:44:20 +1100, Aerophotos >
wrote:

>So what stuff am i making up?, regarding fast movers under non us
>military control?..... simple quote the source again

Well, I've been reading the thread, so now must ring in. "Fast movers
under 'non-us' military control"? That's a bit of an oxymoron for
several reasons.

First--'under control' usually means simply under the control of a
forward air controller, not manned and flown by some outside force.
Yes, there were a lot of fast mover sorties controlled by non-US FACs,
mostly S. Vietnamese, but also Laotian FACs. More commonly there were
host nation observers in US FAC aircraft.

Second--'non-military' can certainly mean Air America, which was
arguably a CIA operation.

Third--the operation of "fast movers" of the period was a highly
technical business requiring a lot of training. If one accepts your
premise of CIA operation of F-4 or F-111 aircraft, then it would be
done by USAF trained crews, posted to CIA for a period of time out of
uniform. Much like most of the Air America operatives.
>
>he flew black painted fast movers under non us military control and did
>stuff that was different to other crews..

Sorry, no black painted fast movers that I ever encountered. That
includes 1966 and again 1972-1973.
>
>are you jealous?
>
>So you claim, a talented person who is a amazing in what he acheived and
>who served in vietnam is a liar? thats a low blow to him.

You don't yet offer details about the resume of this source. Is he US?
Is he US military? Did he fly US fast-movers? When? Where? What unit?

Give me a name and I'll validate. Otherwise the odds are just as good
that you're dealing with another wannabe.
>
>I ask can you recall anything you saw in a war that was covert at that
>time? I dont think you will.. cause you werent there...

I was there. Yes, there were covert ops. I'm close friends with
several Ravens. Still doesn't relate to anything you've offered.
>
>I wont comment any further on non us military forces as in fast movers
>as i dont know beyond what ive been told by my source.

Let's detail a bit on your source.
>
>just cause i dont name sources of info for you is like some kind of
>endorsement is it? what if they were proven to be right doesnt that make
>you look like a idiotic critic then.

You don't have to give me a name (although that would help). Simply
give me some biography to validate.
>
>Just cause some people personelly hate the US political doctrine that
>sent the US to war, doesnt mean the same people hate those who served..
>please note that difference before you rant off ...

Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn what you hate. But, when you
spout the incredible then it merits questioning.

>> > Let me ask YOU a question...
>> >
>> > Did you ever serve in Laos or Cambodia? ....

Well, to be honest, yes. I flew a lot of missions into Barrel Roll and
Steel Tiger in the F-105. Participated in a few rescues in that area
as well. Also was back over the Barrel in the F-4 and by January of
'73 we were operating daily over Cambodia. Been to Angkor Wat and Siam
Reap a lot.
>>
>> > If not i suggest you be quiet. Because your out of order.

The perfect riposte to disagreement. Simply be quiet.
>>
>> > My source who i spoke to long time ago... knows what he is talking
>> > about.. if you knew his qualifcations you be impressed.. i know i was.

I eagerly await being impressed.
>>
>> > Maybe my memory has gone fuzzy since i discussed the issues with the
>> > source... and i mixed the F-111 with another aircraft that was black
>> > painted.. maybe if so sorry.. not everyone is perfect at remebering
>> > things in time .. even my source had some recollection issues.. 30yrs is
>> > a long time ....but im not one to doubt this person who told me....

I do pretty good at remembering. It's easier if you were there. Read
"When Thunder Rolled" for some details. Book on the F-4 in Linebacker
is coming out in the fall.

Never saw a black F-4 or F-111 in theater. F-111's weren't there most
of the time except for a short deployment in '67 and then returned in
the fall of '72.

Impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery sortie in either airplane
without a second crewmember. (Note that the F-4 can be flown quite
nicely solo as the Thunderbirds did, but not as a weapon system.)
>>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tex Houston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Never saw a black F-4 or F-111 in theater. F-111's weren't there most
> of the time except for a short deployment in '67 and then returned in
> the fall of '72.

> Ed Rasimus

Minor correction, Ed. The Combat Lancer deployment was in the year 1968. I
was at Takhli when they returned to the States. Had to look up the exact
dates but knew the year. See
http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_242.html .

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> Impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery sortie in either airplane
> without a second crewmember. (Note that the F-4 can be flown quite
> nicely solo as the Thunderbirds did, but not as a weapon system.)

Ed, you couldn't make a manual delivery in the F-4E using only the front seat?
(Not that I'm buying any of JGG's fantasies, just wondering). I can see no
reason why you couldn't in an F-4C, and probably the same holds true for a D or E
as well. All the switches you'd need are in the F/C/P. If you wanted to make a
radar-assisted delivery that's another matter, and I'm sure that both accuracy
and safety were improved during manual deliveries at night by having the GIB call
out the 3 As during a pass, but he doesn't seem essential.

Guy

[Cub Driver]

>First--'under control' usually means simply under the control of a
>forward air controller, not manned and flown by some outside force.

This reminds me of something that continually crops up in the Bush /
ANG wars. People who don't understand (and generally don't like) the
military can be clueless about the meaning of military terms. They
define them by other rules, and then draw conclusions from the
inappropriate definition.

For example, Bush got orders to do some weekend training drills. This
is understood to mean: he was ordered to do some weekend training, and
the obvious corrollary is that it was a disciplinary measure. And all
because in the military, "orders" follow you like dandruff. When I
went on leave, I had orders. But the army wasn't demanding that I go
on leave, it was permitting me to do so.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:39:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery sortie in either airplane
>> without a second crewmember. (Note that the F-4 can be flown quite
>> nicely solo as the Thunderbirds did, but not as a weapon system.)
>
>Ed, you couldn't make a manual delivery in the F-4E using only the front seat?
>(Not that I'm buying any of JGG's fantasies, just wondering). I can see no
>reason why you couldn't in an F-4C, and probably the same holds true for a D or E
>as well. All the switches you'd need are in the F/C/P. If you wanted to make a
>radar-assisted delivery that's another matter, and I'm sure that both accuracy
>and safety were improved during manual deliveries at night by having the GIB call
>out the 3 As during a pass, but he doesn't seem essential.
>
>Guy
>

Of course you could get bombs off with a manually depressed reticle.
But, your INS is still telling you distance back to home plate, you've
had no nav updates for the length of the sortie. You've got no radar,
since you can't get out of standby to even access a boresight A/A lock
on. You've got no ECM operative, although you can turn your RWR on.

It simply makes no sense. If you've got a mission critical enough that
you've taken a system off the operational line and painted it black,
why wouldn't you put a bod in the R/C/P. It isn't to minimize number
of folks in the loop, because you've got a passle full of ground
support troops to arm, fuel and launch the bird.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Buzzer]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:46:12 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:39:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery sortie in either airplane
>>> without a second crewmember. (Note that the F-4 can be flown quite
>>> nicely solo as the Thunderbirds did, but not as a weapon system.)
>>
>>Ed, you couldn't make a manual delivery in the F-4E using only the front seat?
>>(Not that I'm buying any of JGG's fantasies, just wondering). I can see no
>>reason why you couldn't in an F-4C, and probably the same holds true for a D or E
>>as well. All the switches you'd need are in the F/C/P. If you wanted to make a
>>radar-assisted delivery that's another matter, and I'm sure that both accuracy
>>and safety were improved during manual deliveries at night by having the GIB call
>>out the 3 As during a pass, but he doesn't seem essential.
>>
>>Guy
>>
>
>Of course you could get bombs off with a manually depressed reticle.
>But, your INS is still telling you distance back to home plate, you've
>had no nav updates for the length of the sortie. You've got no radar,
>since you can't get out of standby to even access a boresight A/A lock
>on. You've got no ECM operative, although you can turn your RWR on.
>
>It simply makes no sense. If you've got a mission critical enough that
>you've taken a system off the operational line and painted it black,
>why wouldn't you put a bod in the R/C/P. It isn't to minimize number
>of folks in the loop, because you've got a passle full of ground
>support troops to arm, fuel and launch the bird.

Basically any control box within the pressure bulkheads can be easily
moved from back to front. Probably could even move the rear radar
unit up front or at least duplicate whatever controls you need..

What I can't figure out is why the CIA needed to bomb Laos with black
airplanes?

Maybe they were running their own Igloo White on the sly and dropping
sensors instead? Maybe it wasn't just Laos they were dropping sensors
on? Maybe use a black aircraft at night to drop a sensor near a
runway and listen to the planes come and go? Maybe the backseats were
full of equipment (F-105 Combat Martin) that picked up their sensor
info and relayed it to their own out of the loop listening posts?
Maybe the back seat area had a trap door and an agent dropped out over
NVN?<G>

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:39:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery sortie in either airplane
> >> without a second crewmember. (Note that the F-4 can be flown quite
> >> nicely solo as the Thunderbirds did, but not as a weapon system.)
> >
> >Ed, you couldn't make a manual delivery in the F-4E using only the front seat?
> >(Not that I'm buying any of JGG's fantasies, just wondering). I can see no
> >reason why you couldn't in an F-4C, and probably the same holds true for a D or E
> >as well. All the switches you'd need are in the F/C/P. If you wanted to make a
> >radar-assisted delivery that's another matter, and I'm sure that both accuracy
> >and safety were improved during manual deliveries at night by having the GIB call
> >out the 3 As during a pass, but he doesn't seem essential.
>
> Of course you could get bombs off with a manually depressed reticle.
> But, your INS is still telling you distance back to home plate, you've
> had no nav updates for the length of the sortie. You've got no radar,
> since you can't get out of standby to even access a boresight A/A lock
> on. You've got no ECM operative, although you can turn your RWR on.

Okay, that's what I thought. Actually, I've been told on reasonably good authority
that the Israelis occasionally flew A/G missions with only the front seat occupied, if
they were short of bods. I imagine they'd try to restrict that to CAS, but can't say
for sure. And at least in SVN, I don't believe having an operative radar (or ECM) was
mission essential equipment for the CAS role -- between the radar stations and TACAN
you could find your way to the FAC. Certainly that would be the case for the F-100
units, who lacked either capability in the first place. In any case, operable
Radar/ECM doesn't seem seem to have been required for the Marines, and I hope Walt
will chime in on what policy was for the 366th.

> It simply makes no sense. If you've got a mission critical enough that
> you've taken a system off the operational line and painted it black,
> why wouldn't you put a bod in the R/C/P. It isn't to minimize number
> of folks in the loop, because you've got a passle full of ground
> support troops to arm, fuel and launch the bird.

As I said, I wasn't buying into JGG's fevered imagination, just wondering about your
blanket comment that it was "impossible to fly a combat weapons delivery without a
second crewman."

Guy