View Single Post
  #51  
Old September 9th 03, 03:56 AM
Scott Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

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...


You're absolutely correct. I would not. I have the utmost respect
for those people.

Was no longer a "first line aircraft"? Uhmmm...care to guess when the
last F-102's left active duty?


From what I have, the last ADC units in the Air Force were converted
in 1973. It was a unit in Iceland. In the Pacific, it was 1971. In
Alaska, it was 1970, Europe, 1970. Almost all ANG units were
converted to other aircraft by 1975. The last units, the 195th in the
Calif. ANG in 1975 and the 199th ANG in Hawaii, stopped flying them
in Jan, 1977.

FWIW, someone just posted a series of nice pictures of the 195th
planes just before they converted on alt.binaries.pictures.military.


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.

You got me on the Viet Nam part. I'd completely forgotten about that.
And yes, I have an idea of what the forces were like and what second
echelon means. They were second-line units with older, less capable
or even obsolete equipment.


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)?

Yes, I am aware of that. The problem is that you're so anxious to find
fault that you are misquoting me. I said " I'm not aware of any
'threats' that shot back". Operative word being shot, not armed.

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.

It's sneering to say they were tied to a state? The rest of what you
say doesn't really make sense. which number what?

Also, that's not how I understood it, but if you can expand on how the
NG units were not tied to a state, I'd appreciate your explaining how
it did work.

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?


What is your point? The real question seems to be when the Air Force
no longer considered the 102 to be a first line aircraft.I can't give
you a date for that. Although, it might be when they started giving
them to ANG units. But it's a fact that within 3 years of the time
we're talking about (1970) you could count the number of units still
flying F-102's on one hand and in 3 more, they were all gone except
for targets...and, of course, the Greeks and Turks.

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".


I remember those years very well, and I knew a lot of people who were
able to get into the National Guard as an alternative to the draft. It
was a very popular option and every National Guard unit had waiting
lists with hundreds or even thousands of names. Joining those units
was not a crime or a black mark. The ones I have no respect for are
the ones who used their influence or their family's influence to get
into these units ahead of other people who were in line. I guess my
question is why you would want to defend people who would do that?


Scott Peterson


If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck
and walks like a duck, then it probably
needs a few more minutes in the Microwave