If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Cub Driver writes: the ANG units are much more often activated for federal military service deployed. The New Hampshire Air Guard was, as I recall, called up for a couple weeks every December to fly packages to Vietnam. While this tour of duty would no doubt be sneered at by the Good People who never in their lives put on a uniform, it did serve a purpose. I was going to bring this one up, and you beat me to it. Actually, the 157th ATG/MAG (Air Transport Group/Military Airlift Group _was_ flying missions into Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia from about 1963 on. They were flying C-97s, and later, C-124s, out of Grenier Field (MHT), and, later, Pease AFB. They weren't called up, though. They voluntarily placed the unit into the MATS/MAC schedule to fly "for real" airlift missions. Other ANG and Air Force Reserve airlifters did the same thing. ANG crews also ended up doing "Detached Duty" in all manner of, shall we say, "Interesting Places". Fer example, most of the aircraft and crews used by Balair, the Inernational Red Cross, and Joint Church Aid for relief flights into Biafra came from various Air National Guard units, the NH ANG among them. This was ugly, intense duty, and as dangerous as an airlifter could get. (the Kenyan MiGs, which were active and shot down several relief aircraft, were the least of their problems.) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Sheesh! What a bunch of wasted electrons over a hasty ill-considered
remark. 'Nuf said on that. ROE - to make it sweet and simple we were cleared to fire without seeking permission on 'a hostile aircraft committing a hostile act'. Both were defined but it boiled down to any 'not clearly marked or recognized friendly aircraft' doing a bad thing - firing on the interceptor, releasing weapons, paratroops, attacking a vessel not marked as an enemy (I am paraphrasing here as I forgot the exact wording), that sort of thing. So we had some latitude - more than in SEA! FWIW anybody who straps on a single seat jet and takes off has guts. I well remember my first solo in the T33 after learning how to fly in props up to the T28 (270 knots in a dive was red line - 505 level in the T-bird) I ran it up, looked down the runway, asked myself 'do I really want to do this?' The answer was 'hell, yes!' and off I went. That was (gulp) 49 years ago. FWIW here goes on the Deuce. Even now - at night, mind you - the Deuce would be a serious opponent. It had excellent radar, excellent IR, missiles that worked if you fired all 6 at once ( I actually killed a Firebee with a single obsolete radar Falcon despite its warhead being dearmed) and was a very accurate - as accurate as strafing!) rocket launcher in air to ground. Of course 24 later 12 2.75s won't do much but we blew an old Navy destroyer (Patricia target) to pieces with live (!) 2.75s. 40 sorties with 12 RX apiece left the poor thing very much the worse for wear - bridge and deck houses flattened. As for range a Deuce with two tanks is equal to an F4 with 3 and a lot better handling and faster cruise for 1300 nautical with IFR reserves (approach plus 20 minutes). You start at 35,000 and .87. Clean, you go to 42-45+ and .92, and you can go 900 miles and still have IFR reserve fuel. When the Deuce was new it was good for 1.3M at 35-38000 (tropopause). Then the engines got tired and 1.2 was about it. But it could fly level at 59000 in AB - subsonic. It could snap-up and launch on a U2 above 60. (Never did let us do it for real). But in daylight - that 60 degree blind cone behind one made dayight air to air dicey and something like a Thach weave mandatory - which of course ADC never trained in. No RHAW gear. No armor at all. Wet wings, a candidate for battle damage. No (sob!) gun. It did have an air to air rocket sight supposed to be good up to 3G - I never got to try it on a rag, though. That was incorporated for a radar-inop curve of pursuit shot at a bomber. I guess you could say that beats ramming him which was the last option we had. Very sweet handling, very difficult to depart (coarse rudder at 95 KIAS will get you in a spin - recovery is standard, simple, quick), fully controllable down to 110-115 KIAS, capable of one great bat turn and then no more energy. Flown delicately it would out maneuver a navy F4D Skyray at altitude quite nicely. But, like I said, at night . . . it could lurk and listen to GCI "bogey dope" (range and bearing to target, target heading altitude and actions) and never say a word, never turn the radar on, intercept a bogey using IRSTS and close to missile range and then 3 seconds before fire 'radar on, lock on, shoot' 6 fully guided missiles from a low six. How did we range in IR? get level, drop 3000 feet, close to a 30 angle-up on the bogie, you're a mile behind and in range, get set and shoot. But it was a bomber-killer and with a GAR11/AIM26 a good bomb-killer. (The bomber was collateral damage.) Nice airplane. A couple serious design goofs: vision, no fuselage fuel tank to feed the engine from a central point, no Sidewinder mounts, wrong engine (it was supposed to get a 30K engine, Gyron or Olympus, but design problems with them resulted in the J57 at 16K). One other point - it was made of 7075ST which was NOT alclad hence they had to be painted - more weight and drag, and airframe problems from intergranular corrosion late in life. Case in point - I have heard the Okinawa 102s were scrapped there rather than brought back to the States because of the results of the vicious sea-salt environment there...any body know about this? Cheers - Walt BJ |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:35:11 GMT, Juvat
wrote: Kevin Brooks posted: Be that as it may, what matter is that they were serving in a first line role through mid-73 with the AC, and still standing full alert even later with the ANG. And again... July 73 for the AC (57th FIS), and October 76 with the ANG (a HIANG unit). Please allow me to apologize in advance if you are offended by the question...but what the heck is AC? You posted that several times and I'm sure it means Active C-something. I used AD for Active Duty or are slipping in some army jargon on us AF types? Juvat (curious minds want to know) Aircraft Al Minyard |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
In article t, Jim
Thomas wrote: F-102s were stationed in Thailand, in 1967, primarily as weather recon aircraft. At one point in 1967, (I think around September) there was a Search and Rescue (SAR) effort near Route 9 (in N. Vietnam, just east of the border with Laos). I was Sandy lead for this mission. Several SAMs were fired; turns out, all or most were fired at the F-102s, our MIG cap, not at us. None hit (and the downed pilot was rescued). Later on, I talked to some of the F-102 pilots. This was the high point of their tour: they were shot at. Seems to me that the worst thing that can happen to a warrior is not to be allowed to take part. There were lots of warriors in the F-102 bunch. Jim, wondering about your thoughts on RCS of the F-102 vs the A-1's? (Assuming you were in A-1's) Did they get shot at because of that big wing/big RCS, or because of operating altitude? regards -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks posted:
Active Component, versus RC (Reserve Component). I believe the term is commonly used in both the Army and Air Force these days. As opposed to Guard pukes, and Reserve pukes...the circle of AF types I routinely communicate with didn't get the memo. I believe it can prevent some degree of confusion, And yet... A lot of ANG and ARNG units are on "active duty" right now in Iraq--but they remain "reserve component" units. My fault for not applying current nomenclature for historical purposes. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Juvat wrote: Ed Rasimus posted: snip If the 366th moved out of Danang in July of '72 at the peak of Linebacker, it's a surprise to me. Ummm, respectfully are you being sarcastic with the last part? See Thompson page 223...talks about the movement of the 366th from Da Nang to Takhli in June of 1972. So I ask the question again, sincerely, who do we believe? And why am I doing all the citations/research? OK, I knew that Tahkli got the 4th deployment for S-J when the base was re-activated. Didn't realize that the Gunfighters moved there as well. Squadrons of the 366th moved from DaNang, as stated. Offhand I don't remember if they remained part of the 366th at first, or were put under some other wing's control. Walt BJ can say, as he commanded one of the 366th's squadrons (390th IIRR) at the time, and has mentioned the move in the past. And, you're doing the research because you love it! Speaking for myself, it's more often because I hate having to depend on filktered, inaccurate accounts and urban legends, when the truth can be so much more interesting (if less hyperbolic). But sometimes you come across a nugget or vein of real gold in research, and you say "Ah Ha!, why they did what they did now makes sense," and that is very satisfying. Guy |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Walt BJ" wrote in message om... intergranular corrosion late in life. Case in point - I have heard the Okinawa 102s were scrapped there rather than brought back to the States because of the results of the vicious sea-salt environment there...any body know about this? Anecdotal only, a guy I worked with on Guam was on Okinawa when the Deuce came off alert, if I remember the story correctly, they had put all the jets on alert for some big international emergency(USS Pueblo?), when the order came to download, the planes were downloaded and cut up. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
In this case, I think the F-102s were targets because they were high. We
A1s and Jollys were at a couple thousand feet, as I recall. Jim Thomas Harry Andreas wrote: In article t, Jim Thomas wrote: F-102s were stationed in Thailand, in 1967, primarily as weather recon aircraft. At one point in 1967, (I think around September) there was a Search and Rescue (SAR) effort near Route 9 (in N. Vietnam, just east of the border with Laos). I was Sandy lead for this mission. Several SAMs were fired; turns out, all or most were fired at the F-102s, our MIG cap, not at us. None hit (and the downed pilot was rescued). Later on, I talked to some of the F-102 pilots. This was the high point of their tour: they were shot at. Seems to me that the worst thing that can happen to a warrior is not to be allowed to take part. There were lots of warriors in the F-102 bunch. Jim, wondering about your thoughts on RCS of the F-102 vs the A-1's? (Assuming you were in A-1's) Did they get shot at because of that big wing/big RCS, or because of operating altitude? regards |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Info on a P-51 mustang called "Spare Parts" | eg | Home Built | 3 | October 28th 03 02:02 AM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |