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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Peterson wrote in message ...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote: You are aware that the Cold War was still alive and well through the *eighties*? Yes. But I'm also aware that throughout the Viet Nam era National Guard units were regarded as draft dodgers refuges. Specifically, the TxANG 147th fighter group was considered a "champagne" unit that was a refuge for the area's privileged. Its ranks included John Conally's son, Lloyd Benston's son, John Tower's son, George Bush's son and seven Dallas Cowboys I wonder if you'd have the temerity to utter such a thing to, say, the personnel from the ANG units like those in CO and NM that were activated and flew in Vietnam, or to those "champagne unit" (your description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam? Methinks not... And that despite the fact that the TXANG units were based in Texas, they could have been assigned air defense duties *anywhere*? Could of, maybe shudda, but weren't and considering that in that time frame the F-102 was no longer a first-line aircraft, were probably close to the bottom of the list for doing that. Was no longer a "first line aircraft"? Uhmmm...care to guess when the last F-102's left active duty? Since you did not even have a ghostly idea that they had served in Vietnam, how the heck are we supposed to believe your assessment of their operational status? As to even the definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing alert on a routine basis. The situation today is not all that different (except that today's threat is unlikely to shoot back), with ANG fighters flying AD missions from detached locations on a routine basis. You've lost me here. I'm not aware of any 'threats' that shot back at air defence missions around the Continental US. In the seventies or now. You had no idea that the TU-95 was armed?! Or that Bears routinely trolled down the eastern seaboard, and into the Gulf? That the USSR used Cuba as a refueling point for those Bears (even into the 90's IIRC)? I believe that in the sixties and seventies, the units were much more tightly tied to the state than they are now. Not really. The degree of state control has always been exaggerated by those who have never served in a Guard unit, which number I am guessing from your sneering tone you would be a part of. Also since they were flying aircraft that were not in first-line service, and fairly high-maintenance, moving them to other bases not equipped to handle them would have been a major logistical move that would be difficult to justify. Uhmmm...take a gander at when the F-102 retired from active service, and recall that two NATO allies continued to fly them even after they left ANG service--and you can't see where they might have been used? You may not like GWB, but attacking the service of the F-102 pilots who did their duty *wherever* it occured is not gaining you very much. I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly memorable. That's a long way from attacking them. Anyone who did their duty honorably can be justifiably proud, regardless of how memorable it was. Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell me you were not "attacking". Brooks Scott Peterson |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks blurted out:
I wonder if you'd have the temerity to utter such a thing to, say, the personnel from the ANG units like those in CO and NM that were activated and flew in Vietnam, Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that score. Yes? No? or to those "champagne unit" (your description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam? Methinks not... Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled" gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers. Was no longer a "first line aircraft"? Uhmmm...care to guess when the last F-102's left active duty? When? Since you did not even have a ghostly idea that they had served in Vietnam, how the heck are we supposed to believe your assessment of their operational status? Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed. As to even the definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing alert on a routine basis. Fair point...then read Charles J Gross book published by the Office of Air Force History "Prelude to Total Force" The Air National Guard 1943-1969." Apparently the USAF AD Corona (generals) held the notion the ANG was second echelon for quite awhile, highlighted by the deployment of ANG forces to Korea for the Pueblo Crisis. The highly successful F-100 deployment to SEA was quite the eye-opener for AD commanders. Not really. The degree of state control has always been exaggerated by those who have never served in a Guard unit, which number I am guessing from your sneering tone you would be a part of. OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly. I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell me you were not "attacking". OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s. Juvat |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Juvat wrote:
Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that score. Yes? No? Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here. If we are searching for full unit deployments of F-102, specifically from ANG units, for SEA, then I'm not sure that there were any. But, I do know that there were Deuces in SEA in '66 when I was there, and there were Deuces in SEA in '72-'73 when I was there. The convolutions of ADC (Air-then-Aerospace Defense Command) and it's relationships between ANG and USAF are sometimes difficult to decipher. or to those "champagne unit" (your description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam? Methinks not... Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled" gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers. Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush. Given the choice between being a tactical aviator and an infantryman, he made the same choice I did (although my choice was made a few years earlier.) Now, we had the comparisons with Bush's opponent, who, despite being a college graduate and being able to arguably make a greater contribution to his nation as an officer, chose to be an enlisted Army admin clerk. Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT, then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation. This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of a year tour in SEA. Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed. As to even the definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing alert on a routine basis. Well, throughout most of SEA, there were units in combat flying the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-105. There were units flying C-47, C-119, C-123, AT-37, A-1, B-57, B-66, O-1, O-2, etc. etc. It seems as though the "second echelon" question isn't a very good one. OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly. I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell me you were not "attacking". OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s. The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your last statement here. No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert interceptor force was always deployed. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... At a guess... Find an IR source (running engine, camp fire, etc.) with the IR sensor, then fire unguided FFARs at IR source. I believe the gent may be mixing up his situations a bit. There was an experament conducted in the theater of operations where F-102's used their IR sensor, paired with their IR Falcons, to strike heat sources along the Ho Chi Minh Trail--more of a nuisance program than anything else. A modified Sidewinder got similar use (AGM-87A Focus I, apparently) - said to be intended for use on truck headlights (visible or IR) according to Friedman. Wouldn't have thought the Falcon would be much use for the role, with its reliability problems and small warhead, but if it's what you've got I guess you use it and hope... -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus posted:
Juvat wrote: Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that score. Yes? No? Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here. No sir...simply reading the question as posted (looking up at the thread topic). If the topic were "F-102s units deployed to SEA" you might have a leg to stand on. Honest, I've got the whole thread saved because the topic is interesting and was going to post some details that others beat me to the punch. If we are searching for full unit deployments of F-102, specifically from ANG units, for SEA, then I'm not sure that there were any. Respectfully, you do know the answer. None. I will direct you to the book by Gross...published by the USAF Office of History. Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush. No argument...but we're getting off on a tangent I suspect. Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT, then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation. You and I have differing POV on what constitutes GWB becoming MR and maintaining that status. I'll agree he did achieve MR status, but that as far as I will go... However, I'm somewhat surprised that you consider he met all his obligations. Or have I inferred something you are not implying? Belay that last...it is not my desire to let this thread turn into a groveling, low speed, knife fight at the bottom of the TRA on ths subject of GWB...but I can. This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of a year tour in SEA. And I suspect if the names were reversed you would find it EQUALLY plausible that the swinging dick that served in SEA had a better chance of going into harm's way than a guy that was suspended from flying status in Aug 1972 for failing to take a physical. The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your last statement here. Fair enough, and fairly close in the details, I believe that F-102s were gone from SEA by Jul 1970. Yes? No? I should have posited that had the NVAF threat been deem greater...there would have been a greater force than four Dets of roughly 6 jets each. Mea Culpa. No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert interceptor force was always deployed. I'd be willing to speculate that "somebody" in 13th/7th AF thought IL-28s were a threat. The reason for my statement is simply that I've read about the Beagle threat perception in CHECO reports, inferred on my part becasue the reports mention the Beagle being able to reach Saigon. Juvat |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:43:17 -0400, av8r
wrote: Hi Peter The first operational deployment to Viet by F-102's was actually on the 21st of March 1962. Deuces of the 509th FIS deployed to Tan Son Nhut. They returned 8 days later on the 29th. For the next year during Water Glass ops, they rotated every six weeks with U.S. Navy AD5Q's. Project Bell Tone 1 commenced in December 1960 with six F-100D's of the 510th TFS were deployed to Don Muang Airport. They were replaced by six F-102A's of the 509th FIS nine months later. Peter, let's keep this thread going if possible. It's extremely interesting. Are you interested in F-102 losses in country? I used to love watching the F-102's of the 59th FIS roaring around while I was at Goose Bay, Labrador (June 64-June 67). The odd time a Deuce of the 57th FIS would come down from Kef for a visit. Lots of good Bear hunting back in those days too. Cheers...Chris Does anyone know what the accidental lose rate for the -102 was? I have heard that it was pretty high, which for an early single engine delta is easy to believe. Al Minyard |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:49:38 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote: I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly memorable. That's a long way from attacking them. That's not the way I read it. I saw mockery for the Cowboy pilots and sons of the elite, riding herd on Cuban invaders. I think that a) you are back-pedaling, b) you seize any opportunity to run down the incumbent prezdint, and c) you really don't care squat about F-102s or the men who flew them. Often in the cocktail parties I attend, I hear the Good People being shocked--shocked!--that Bush failed to attend the last year's meetings of the Guard. These are of course the same people who would rise up with dignity and leave any room which a military officer had the ill manners to enter. all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com You need to find some higher quality cocktail parties to attend. Al Minyard |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Peter
Any and all constructive nitpicking is welcome. I do not have the exact date, but sometime in August of 1962, the U.S. Navy sent a five AD-5Q (EA-IF) Skyraider detachment from VAW-13 to Tan Son Nhut. While there, the five-aircraft interceptor team, alternated with detachments from the 509th FIS. It was a learning process for theme as they practiced the best methods od identifying airborne intruders. The deployments which were under operational control of COMUSMACV ranged from August to September, 1962; January to February, 1964 and finally during November of 1963. Speaking of the F-102, it got down to 40 and 50 below up in Goose Bay quite often. The sound of the A/B kicking in on a cold day or even colder night was deafening. It used to rattle all the dishes in the china cabinet of our married quarters. It could really get off the ground in a short distance on cold days as well. Cheers...Chris |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Hello
Nice discussion. :-) I would like to ask about A-A load used on F-102s during Vietnam war. In J. Baughers article about F-102 was writem that it usually carries 6 AIM-4s, both in SARH or IR version. Or 3 AIM-4s and 1 AIM-26. The second load seems strange to me, AIM-26 should be carried in central missile bay, but 3 AIM-4s, 2 in starboard and 1 in port missile bay? Combo 4x AIM-4 (per 2 in side bays) and 1xAIM-26 seems to me rather realistic. In other forum one guy have told me that combination of 3xAIM-4Ds, 2xAIM-4As, single AIM-26B and some FFARS was used in SEA. So where is the true? Ivan |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Juvat wrote:
Ed Rasimus posted: Fair enough, and fairly close in the details, I believe that F-102s were gone from SEA by Jul 1970. Yes? No? I should have posited that had the NVAF threat been deem greater...there would have been a greater force than four Dets of roughly 6 jets each. Mea Culpa. No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert interceptor force was always deployed. I'd be willing to speculate that "somebody" in 13th/7th AF thought IL-28s were a threat. The reason for my statement is simply that I've read about the Beagle threat perception in CHECO reports, inferred on my part becasue the reports mention the Beagle being able to reach Saigon. Juvat Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
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 |