Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes

[Otis Willie]

Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy
targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes

(EXCERPT) Pacific edition, Monday, June 7, 2004

OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea — The U.S. Air Force in South Korea is
honing a tactic that sends fighter planes behind enemy lines to find
and destroy mobile ground targets.

Called “Killer Scout,” and dating to the 1991 Gulf War, it differs
from another air-to-ground mission known as close-air support, in
which ground troops call in fighter support.

“It’s very proactive,” said Lt. Col. Rob Givens, commander of Kunsan
Air Base’s 35th Fighter Squadron. “We’re not waiting for them to make
contact with our ground forces. We’re going after them.”

Since February, the 7th Air Force has trained pilots in Killer Scout
with an eye on the terrain and other conditions that would likely
surface in an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

“The 8th Fighter Wing is specializing in this now, getting the pr...

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 07 Jun 2004, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22636

---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:55:36 GMT, Otis Willie
> wrote:

>Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy
>targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
>
>(EXCERPT) Pacific edition, Monday, June 7, 2004
>
>OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea — The U.S. Air Force in South Korea is
>honing a tactic that sends fighter planes behind enemy lines to find
>and destroy mobile ground targets.
>
>Called “Killer Scout,” and dating to the 1991 Gulf War, it differs
>from another air-to-ground mission known as close-air support, in
>which ground troops call in fighter support.

Gosh, maybe we weren't doing armed recce in SEA. And maybe they didn't
do it in P-47s in WW II.

Or, maybe it's Fast FACing that wasn't being done?

Or was it called BAI?

I forget.

I know, let's make it round and call it a wheel. Don't think it's been
invented before. Anyone got patent paperwork?



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

[Eunometic]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:55:36 GMT, Otis Willie
> > wrote:
>
> >Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy
> >targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
> >
> >(EXCERPT) Pacific edition, Monday, June 7, 2004
> >
> >OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea ? The U.S. Air Force in South Korea is
> >honing a tactic that sends fighter planes behind enemy lines to find
> >and destroy mobile ground targets.
> >
> >Called ?Killer Scout,? and dating to the 1991 Gulf War, it differs
> >from another air-to-ground mission known as close-air support, in
> >which ground troops call in fighter support.
>
> Gosh, maybe we weren't doing armed recce in SEA. And maybe they didn't
> do it in P-47s in WW II.
>
> Or, maybe it's Fast FACing that wasn't being done?
>
> Or was it called BAI?
>
> I forget.
>
> I know, let's make it round and call it a wheel. Don't think it's been
> invented before. Anyone got patent paperwork?
>

Different armies have different reconaiseance ideas. The British
SAS's role for instance was to stay behined enemy lines and while not
being detected report on enemy opperations. (their celebrated
fighting abillity is a last use tactic; they are not commandos). It
is the same with some types of spy flights.

German tactics dating from the Franco Prussain war through to the
second world war also included fighting for information. Special
reconaisence groups, while trying to be stealthy, would attack the
ememy thereby guaging their response, disposition as well as
inflicting casualities. This also had the effect of confusing the
enemy who did not know what was a major attack or not. In some cases
these probing attacks would turn into a major attack if a weakness was
found. Bismarks remark to Moltke "lets see how big the table cloth is
that we've pulled upon" during one of the battles of the Franco
Prussain war sums up their fluid style of warfare.

It seems to me that the idea of an armed scout is just an extension of
this and possibly driven by the need to locate SCUD like IRBM. It also
seems an idea that would only work in an environment of total aerial
superiority. How would it be possible to have the performance to
avoid destruction and the armament to cause harm in one vehicle?
Probaly will be armed with a light but powerfull guided missile.
Raptor would be too big and Maverick too small. Martell seems about
right but it has been out of production for 35 years. The perfect
platform: Possibly the SEAD Tornados or F15E type aircraft loaded
with sensors.

[Vaughn]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
>The perfect platform: Possibly the SEAD Tornados or F15E type aircraft loaded
> with sensors.

Or a UAV.

[Prowlus]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> >The perfect platform: Possibly the SEAD Tornados or F15E type aircraft loaded
> > with sensors.
>
> Or a UAV.


or howabout a helicopter gunship?

[Prowlus]

Can't they say "ATTACK" Pilots anymore? if those "fighter" pilots are
pounding grounmd targets there are no longer defined as true "Fighter
Pukes"

[Ed Rasimus]

On 8 Jun 2004 11:53:49 -0700, (Prowlus) wrote:

>Can't they say "ATTACK" Pilots anymore? if those "fighter" pilots are
>pounding grounmd targets there are no longer defined as true "Fighter
>Pukes"

If they were in the USN, they would abide by Navy convention. In the
USAF, aviators in high-performance tactical aircraft fly fighters.
F-designated aircraft in the USAF do quite nicely in both roles, and
with the shortage of air threats, they are economically re-roled as
well.

And, we have "Recce Pukes, Bomber Pukes, Trash-hauler Pukes and
Training Command Pukes". We don't have Fighter Pukes. We have fighter
pilots and pilots who fly fighters.


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

[OXMORON1]

Ed wrote:
>And, we have "Recce Pukes, Bomber Pukes, Trash-hauler Pukes and
>Training Command Pukes". We don't have Fighter Pukes. We have fighter
>pilots and pilots who fly fighters.
>
>

So you say! I have met a few fighter pilots who would qualify as "Pukes".
Granted a lot of them were either brown bars or staff wienies, not fully
trained day to day fighter pilots.

oxmoron1
MFE

[John Doe]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:55:36 GMT, Otis Willie
> > wrote:
>
> >Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy
> >targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
> >
> >(EXCERPT) Pacific edition, Monday, June 7, 2004
> >
> >OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea - The U.S. Air Force in South Korea is
> >honing a tactic that sends fighter planes behind enemy lines to find
> >and destroy mobile ground targets.
> >
> >Called "Killer Scout," and dating to the 1991 Gulf War, it differs
> >from another air-to-ground mission known as close-air support, in
> >which ground troops call in fighter support.
>
> Gosh, maybe we weren't doing armed recce in SEA. And maybe they didn't
> do it in P-47s in WW II.
>
> Or, maybe it's Fast FACing that wasn't being done?
>
> Or was it called BAI?
>
> I forget.
>
> I know, let's make it round and call it a wheel. Don't think it's been
> invented before. Anyone got patent paperwork?
>

Oh it gets better Ed. The rest of the world is calling this same thing SCAR
now, for Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance.

Too funny....

[John Doe]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:55:36 GMT, Otis Willie
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Air Force fighter pilots train in tactic that scopes out enemy
> > >targets, By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
> > >
> > >(EXCERPT) Pacific edition, Monday, June 7, 2004
> > >
> > >OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea ? The U.S. Air Force in South Korea is
> > >honing a tactic that sends fighter planes behind enemy lines to find
> > >and destroy mobile ground targets.
> > >
> > >Called ?Killer Scout,? and dating to the 1991 Gulf War, it differs
> > >from another air-to-ground mission known as close-air support, in
> > >which ground troops call in fighter support.
> >
> > Gosh, maybe we weren't doing armed recce in SEA. And maybe they didn't
> > do it in P-47s in WW II.
> >
> > Or, maybe it's Fast FACing that wasn't being done?
> >
> > Or was it called BAI?
> >
> > I forget.
> >
> > I know, let's make it round and call it a wheel. Don't think it's been
> > invented before. Anyone got patent paperwork?
> >
>
> Different armies have different reconaiseance ideas. The British
> SAS's role for instance was to stay behined enemy lines and while not
> being detected report on enemy opperations. (their celebrated
> fighting abillity is a last use tactic; they are not commandos). It
> is the same with some types of spy flights.
>
> German tactics dating from the Franco Prussain war through to the
> second world war also included fighting for information. Special
> reconaisence groups, while trying to be stealthy, would attack the
> ememy thereby guaging their response, disposition as well as
> inflicting casualities. This also had the effect of confusing the
> enemy who did not know what was a major attack or not. In some cases
> these probing attacks would turn into a major attack if a weakness was
> found. Bismarks remark to Moltke "lets see how big the table cloth is
> that we've pulled upon" during one of the battles of the Franco
> Prussain war sums up their fluid style of warfare.
>
> It seems to me that the idea of an armed scout is just an extension of
> this and possibly driven by the need to locate SCUD like IRBM. It also
> seems an idea that would only work in an environment of total aerial
> superiority. How would it be possible to have the performance to
> avoid destruction and the armament to cause harm in one vehicle?
> Probaly will be armed with a light but powerfull guided missile.
> Raptor would be too big and Maverick too small. Martell seems about
> right but it has been out of production for 35 years. The perfect
> platform: Possibly the SEAD Tornados or F15E type aircraft loaded
> with sensors.

F-15Es with 9xGBU-12s each and a Litening target pod worked pretty well
during OIF.

[John Doe]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >The perfect platform: Possibly the SEAD Tornados or F15E type
aircraft loaded
> > > with sensors.
> >
> > Or a UAV.
>
>
> or howabout a helicopter gunship?

Yea, just ask the Apache's how well they did during OIF. They couldn't seem
to get above the AAA to be effective.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 08 Jun 2004 20:57:56 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

>Ed wrote:
>>And, we have "Recce Pukes, Bomber Pukes, Trash-hauler Pukes and
>>Training Command Pukes". We don't have Fighter Pukes. We have fighter
>>pilots and pilots who fly fighters.
>>
>>
>
>So you say! I have met a few fighter pilots who would qualify as "Pukes".
>Granted a lot of them were either brown bars or staff wienies, not fully
>trained day to day fighter pilots.
>
>oxmoron1
>MFE

Reread the last sentence of my post slowly. Savor the nuance. You met
a few pilots assigned to fly fighters.

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

[OXMORON1]

Ed wrote:
>Reread the last sentence of my post slowly. Savor the nuance. You met
>a few pilots assigned to fly fighters.

But Ed, they all claimed to be "fighter pilots". That is the trouble, "everyone
wants to be a fighter pilot" not all who make the claim are fighter pilots.
Thus my claim that some "fighter pilots" are "pukes".
You have to watch your step in a stag bar with a bunch of people who "look"
like "fighter pilots" Hell there might even be a WSO in the crowd!

Oxmoron1
MFE
Mapreading, DR Photo equipment operator. Known celestial observer when
everything else fails.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 09 Jun 2004 15:41:45 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

>Ed wrote:
>>Reread the last sentence of my post slowly. Savor the nuance. You met
>>a few pilots assigned to fly fighters.
>
>But Ed, they all claimed to be "fighter pilots". That is the trouble, "everyone
>wants to be a fighter pilot" not all who make the claim are fighter pilots.
>Thus my claim that some "fighter pilots" are "pukes".
>You have to watch your step in a stag bar with a bunch of people who "look"
>like "fighter pilots" Hell there might even be a WSO in the crowd!
>
>Oxmoron1

The WSO might even be a "Fighter-gator" or, worse yet, a "Bear".

I used to tell the new guys in my squadron that they flew fighters.
They would be a "Fighter Pilot" when someone else told them they were.
Until then, they were authorized to say they "fly fighters."

You can always tell a fighter pilot....but you can't tell him much.

Cheers, and check six.

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

[Jim Thomas]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jun 2004 11:53:49 -0700, (Prowlus) wrote:
>
> >Can't they say "ATTACK" Pilots anymore? if those "fighter" pilots are
> >pounding grounmd targets there are no longer defined as true "Fighter
> >Pukes"
>
> If they were in the USN, they would abide by Navy convention. In the
> USAF, aviators in high-performance tactical aircraft fly fighters.
> F-designated aircraft in the USAF do quite nicely in both roles, and
> with the shortage of air threats, they are economically re-roled as
> well.
>
> And, we have "Recce Pukes, Bomber Pukes, Trash-hauler Pukes and
> Training Command Pukes". We don't have Fighter Pukes. We have fighter
> pilots and pilots who fly fighters.

OK, Ed; let's define which are "pukes".

Were recce pilots who flew "alone and unarmed" into North Vietnam in
RF-101s, and became the first POWs, pukes? Or their later RF-4
brothers?

Were "Trash Haulers" who landed their C-130s and C-123s into places
like Khe Son pukes?

Were the Misty Facs pukes?

Were B-52 pilots who flew their Buffs over Hanoi during Linebacker
pukes?

Were the Jolly Greens pukes? Or the Sandys that covered for them?

Or are the only "pukes" those "fighter pilots" who need to feel that
they are the chosen few.


JimThomas

Fighter Pilot, also Sandy and more.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Jun 2004 21:55:36 -0700, (Jim Thomas)
wrote:

>OK, Ed; let's define which are "pukes".

Are we a bit peckish this morning?

>Were recce pilots who flew "alone and unarmed" into North Vietnam in
>RF-101s, and became the first POWs, pukes? Or their later RF-4
>brothers?

Well, other than the hyperbole regarding "became the first POWs", you
make a point. Ev Alvarez and the guys who were early internees were
mostly tactical fighter types. We don't want to get into Kramerism
here regarding combat versus non-combat folks who through no fault of
their own had less than a total "opportunity to excel".
>
>Were "Trash Haulers" who landed their C-130s and C-123s into places
>like Khe Son pukes?

I like to reserve the appellation for guys who wouldn't give a buddy a
hop in their dead-head flight back to Naha, because the residual fuel
in the tank of the motor-bike they bought constituted "hazardous
cargo", hence no pax. Or the transport crews who scheduled their
in-theater rotations over the end of the month to get two months
credit for "combat pay" and tax exclusion.
>
>Were the Misty Facs pukes?

I correspond regularly with Don Sheppard. As you know, the Mistys
included guys like Bud Day. They are Fighter Pilots.
>
>Were B-52 pilots who flew their Buffs over Hanoi during Linebacker
>pukes?

Lots of BUFF-Rats show up at Reunions each year. Highly regarded,
especially by the ex-cons who had a front line seat for the show.
>
>Were the Jolly Greens pukes? Or the Sandys that covered for them?

By now, you're getting tedious. You know of course that the
Recce-puke, trash-puke, etc. are all terms of endearment. Hang around
a club stag bar for whatever type and you'll hear the other types
called "xxxx-pukes."

BTW, you still trying to scrub those green footprints off your
back-side?
>
>Or are the only "pukes" those "fighter pilots" who need to feel that
>they are the chosen few.

Well, you do know of course, that Fighter Pilots are indeed "the
chosen few." How could it be otherwise?
>
>
>JimThomas
>
>Fighter Pilot, also Sandy and more.

Cheers, and Check 6!



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

[OXMORON1]

Jim Thomas made a couple of comments ending with:
>Or are the only "pukes" those "fighter pilots" who need to feel that
>they are the chosen few.

Jim,
You are taking Ed too seriously! You have to understand the "Fighter Pilot"
mentality and sense of humor.

Ed is not knocking the valor or skills of the "pukes", he is stating the
"Fighter Pilot" outlook on life, "Dawn Patrol" and all that crap. It is part of
the "character" of fighter pilots in particular to take on the persona of "Yeah
though I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear no evil....'cause I am
the meanest SOB in the Valley".

In various forms the attitude affects most aircrew in different ways. What you
don't want is the B-52 pilot who thinks he can do a Cuban Eight in a BUFF or
the multiplace a/c pilot who "knows" he can do the whole enchilada by himself
or the Nav who "never" makes a mistake or the guy who thinks his war was the
only one ever fought or the expert who "knows" everything.

Oxmoron1
MFE
"Oh my GAWD! I lost my eraser!"
"You want me to do this in ink?"
"Tonight Wake City, Hot Damn"
"Number three is running a little rough!, No. 3 is Ok, it is 1, 2 and 4 that
are sick today"
"No LORAN, No Radar Altimeter, Overcast, No Sweat, I'll just DR for 14 hours
and declare Minimum Navaids when we bust the ADIZ"
"Right handle, left handle, squeeze right"

All of which are better than "The US Rifle, caliber .30, M-1 is a clip fed, gas
operated, semi-automatic shoulder weapon...."

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:09:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On 09 Jun 2004 15:41:45 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>>Reread the last sentence of my post slowly. Savor the nuance. You met
>>>a few pilots assigned to fly fighters.
>>
>>But Ed, they all claimed to be "fighter pilots". That is the trouble, "everyone
>>wants to be a fighter pilot" not all who make the claim are fighter pilots.
>>Thus my claim that some "fighter pilots" are "pukes".
>>You have to watch your step in a stag bar with a bunch of people who "look"
>>like "fighter pilots" Hell there might even be a WSO in the crowd!
>>
>>Oxmoron1
>
>The WSO might even be a "Fighter-gator" or, worse yet, a "Bear".
>
>I used to tell the new guys in my squadron that they flew fighters.
>They would be a "Fighter Pilot" when someone else told them they were.
>Until then, they were authorized to say they "fly fighters."
>
>You can always tell a fighter pilot....but you can't tell him much.
>
>Cheers, and check six.
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

With all due respect, fighter pilots are no more special than any other
Serviceman. The OOD of a nuclear submarine has far more responsibility
than some guy flying around. Being a "fighter pilot" is no more (or less)
deserving of respect than a grunt Company Commander, a tanker pilot.
or a Surface Warfare OOD.

The self appointed "gods" that fighter types make of themselves only
serves to demean all Servicemen, including themselves.

Al Minyard

[Jack]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Well, you do know of course, that Fighter Pilots are indeed "the
> chosen few." How could it be otherwise?


I have mucho respect for former Thud drivers, as well as Jollys and Sandys. But,
I often wonder why it is that the Thud drivers are the ones who insist on their
own superiority in such an annoying manner? They aren't the only military units
that have been misused and abused, that's for sure. They just seem to whine
about it longer and louder (even worse than those F-4 blowhards).

If it's true, as I suspect, that a higher percentage of 105 pukes shot down
(than Sandys or Jollys) survived to become POWs, that could be perceived as an
advantage, though perhaps not more highly deserved.

As always, Sandys and Jollys drink for free around here. Those whose airplanes
are propelled by many very small enclosed rotating blades, without the use of a
few very large ones, should bring cash.



Jack
(SEA FAC)

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:46:06 -0600, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On 8 Jun 2004 11:53:49 -0700, (Prowlus) wrote:
>
>>Can't they say "ATTACK" Pilots anymore? if those "fighter" pilots are
>>pounding grounmd targets there are no longer defined as true "Fighter
>>Pukes"
>
>If they were in the USN, they would abide by Navy convention. In the
>USAF, aviators in high-performance tactical aircraft fly fighters.
>F-designated aircraft in the USAF do quite nicely in both roles, and
>with the shortage of air threats, they are economically re-roled as
>well.
>
>And, we have "Recce Pukes, Bomber Pukes, Trash-hauler Pukes and
>Training Command Pukes". We don't have Fighter Pukes. We have fighter
>pilots and pilots who fly fighters.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

And, apparently, all fighter types have egos at least ten orders
of magnitude greater than either their abilities or their egos.

Al Minyard

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:31:17 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>And, apparently, all fighter types have egos at least ten orders
>of magnitude greater than either their abilities or their egos.
>
>Al Minyard

My ego is not bigger than my ego. It seems to hover around the same
size, no matter which angle I view it from. As for my abilities, my
ego is unrelated.

Show me a humble fighter pilot and I'll show you a loser.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:28:48 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:09:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>>I used to tell the new guys in my squadron that they flew fighters.
>>They would be a "Fighter Pilot" when someone else told them they were.
>>Until then, they were authorized to say they "fly fighters."
>
>With all due respect, fighter pilots are no more special than any other
>Serviceman. The OOD of a nuclear submarine has far more responsibility
>than some guy flying around. Being a "fighter pilot" is no more (or less)
>deserving of respect than a grunt Company Commander, a tanker pilot.
>or a Surface Warfare OOD.
>
>The self appointed "gods" that fighter types make of themselves only
>serves to demean all Servicemen, including themselves.

Gimme a break. Taking pride in your training and specialization in no
way demeans someone else. Pride is not a zero-sum game.

You might also want to quickly review the distinction between
"authority" and "responsibility". If as I assume, OOD means Officer of
the Deck, then he/she only has authority to act on behalf of the
ship's Captain who bears the responsibility.



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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:30:22 GMT, Jack > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Well, you do know of course, that Fighter Pilots are indeed "the
>> chosen few." How could it be otherwise?
>
>
>I have mucho respect for former Thud drivers, as well as Jollys and Sandys. But,
>I often wonder why it is that the Thud drivers are the ones who insist on their
>own superiority in such an annoying manner? They aren't the only military units
>that have been misused and abused, that's for sure. They just seem to whine
>about it longer and louder (even worse than those F-4 blowhards).

I appreciate your respect. I also note, for the record, that I have
four times as much F-4 time (C, D & E) as I do F-105 time and almost
twice as much F-4 combat time as F-105 combat.

I don't insist on my own superiority at all. I simply have a strong,
positive self-image.

You might want to check When Thunder Rolled out at your local library
to read about the development of that self-image.
>
>If it's true, as I suspect, that a higher percentage of 105 pukes shot down
>(than Sandys or Jollys) survived to become POWs, that could be perceived as an
>advantage, though perhaps not more highly deserved.

Exposure to threat leads to losses. More exposure, more losses. It
doesn't equate with better or lesser capability or skill.
>
>As always, Sandys and Jollys drink for free around here. Those whose airplanes
>are propelled by many very small enclosed rotating blades, without the use of a
>few very large ones, should bring cash.

Sandys and Jollys drink for free here as well. Proud to buy top shelf
for them any time. Just put away that damn stencil and green spray
can.
>
>
>
>Jack
>(SEA FAC)

Ed, peace-time FAC/ALO, 2d Bde, 4th ID(Mech).


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

[OXMORON1]

Al wrote:
>And, apparently, all fighter types have egos at least ten orders
>of magnitude greater than either their abilities or their egos.

Ever meet a SAC StanEval Flight Examiner, Light Bird or Full Bull, from the
"olden" days?

or

An Airborne 2LT just out of jump school

or

A Rookie Highway Patrol Trooper

or

A very good "Lady of the Evening"

Just an EGO thing.

While I liked to crew with pilots who had "A silent air of confidence". An ego
was better than a WIMP if there was no option.

Oxmoron1
MFE

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:09:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >On 09 Jun 2004 15:41:45 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:
> >
> >>Ed wrote:
> >>>Reread the last sentence of my post slowly. Savor the nuance. You met
> >>>a few pilots assigned to fly fighters.
> >>
> >>But Ed, they all claimed to be "fighter pilots". That is the trouble,
> >>"everyone
> >>wants to be a fighter pilot" not all who make the claim are fighter pilots.
> >>Thus my claim that some "fighter pilots" are "pukes".
> >>You have to watch your step in a stag bar with a bunch of people who "look"
> >>like "fighter pilots" Hell there might even be a WSO in the crowd!
> >>
> >>Oxmoron1
> >
> >The WSO might even be a "Fighter-gator" or, worse yet, a "Bear".
> >
> >I used to tell the new guys in my squadron that they flew fighters.
> >They would be a "Fighter Pilot" when someone else told them they were.
> >Until then, they were authorized to say they "fly fighters."
> >
> >You can always tell a fighter pilot....but you can't tell him much.
> >
> >Cheers, and check six.
> >
> With all due respect, fighter pilots are no more special than any other
> Serviceman. The OOD of a nuclear submarine has far more responsibility
> than some guy flying around. Being a "fighter pilot" is no more (or less)
> deserving of respect than a grunt Company Commander, a tanker pilot.
> or a Surface Warfare OOD.
>
> The self appointed "gods" that fighter types make of themselves only
> serves to demean all Servicemen, including themselves.

Did you miss you last humor booster, Al?

[Jim Thomas]

Ed:

Thanks for clearing all that up.

I don't understand "BTW, you still trying to scrub those green
footprints off your back-side?"

Jim Thomas

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message news
> >Were recce pilots who flew "alone and unarmed" into North Vietnam in
> >RF-101s, and became the first POWs, pukes? Or their later RF-4
> >brothers?
>
> Well, other than the hyperbole regarding "became the first POWs", you
> make a point. Ev Alvarez and the guys who were early internees were
> mostly tactical fighter types. We don't want to get into Kramerism
> here regarding combat versus non-combat folks who through no fault of
> their own had less than a total "opportunity to excel".
> >
> >Were "Trash Haulers" who landed their C-130s and C-123s into places
> >like Khe Son pukes?
>
> I like to reserve the appellation for guys who wouldn't give a buddy a
> hop in their dead-head flight back to Naha, because the residual fuel
> in the tank of the motor-bike they bought constituted "hazardous
> cargo", hence no pax. Or the transport crews who scheduled their
> in-theater rotations over the end of the month to get two months
> credit for "combat pay" and tax exclusion.
> >
> >Were the Misty Facs pukes?
>
> I correspond regularly with Don Sheppard. As you know, the Mistys
> included guys like Bud Day. They are Fighter Pilots.
> >
> >Were B-52 pilots who flew their Buffs over Hanoi during Linebacker
> >pukes?
>
> Lots of BUFF-Rats show up at Reunions each year. Highly regarded,
> especially by the ex-cons who had a front line seat for the show.
> >
> >Were the Jolly Greens pukes? Or the Sandys that covered for them?
>
> By now, you're getting tedious. You know of course that the
> Recce-puke, trash-puke, etc. are all terms of endearment. Hang around
> a club stag bar for whatever type and you'll hear the other types
> called "xxxx-pukes."
>
> BTW, you still trying to scrub those green footprints off your
> back-side?
> >
> >Or are the only "pukes" those "fighter pilots" who need to feel that
> >they are the chosen few.
>
> Well, you do know of course, that Fighter Pilots are indeed "the
> chosen few." How could it be otherwise?

[Ed Rasimus]

On 11 Jun 2004 21:00:49 -0700, (Jim Thomas)
wrote:

>Ed:
>
>Thanks for clearing all that up.
>
>I don't understand "BTW, you still trying to scrub those green
>footprints off your back-side?"
>
>Jim Thomas

You said you were a Sandy and spent a lot of time around JG folks. If
you were in a stag bar with JG guys you should have had the
opportunity to either participate in or become the victim of their
custom of spray-painting Jolly Green Giant footprints on the naked
posterior of those who visited their lair.


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

[Jim Thomas]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message news:
>
> You said you were a Sandy and spent a lot of time around JG folks. If
> you were in a stag bar with JG guys you should have had the
> opportunity to either participate in or become the victim of their
> custom of spray-painting Jolly Green Giant footprints on the naked
> posterior of those who visited their lair.


To tell you the truth, I never heard of this being done at Udorn
(1967). Must have started after the Jollys and Sandies moved to Nakhom
Phanom.

Jim Thomas