"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
US
military history.

Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.

By the early 1960s the F-102As had a new wing with a
cambered leading edge, a larger fin, and larger airbrakes,
improving their handling and stability. The troublesome
MG-3 avionics system was replaced by the MG-10, and
in Vietnam the F-102s were considered reliable aircraft
that required considerably less maintenance than F-4s.
Their loss rate in Vietnam was relatively low, despite the
abuse of F-102s for "campfire hunting" and other forms
of ground support, for which they emphatically had not
been designed.

George W's absence from Vietnam was probably a good
thing. He has demonstrated a lack of talent for evaluating
intelligence seriously, an inability to plan ahead even for
the most obviously predictable events, and a strong propensity
for ignoring glaring but inconvenient facts. Add to that an
admitted record of abuse of alcohol and drugs during his
youth, and one can hardly escape the conclusion that he
would have been a very dangerous comrade-in-arms.

Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence seriously",
not to mention those surrounding Saddam's stomping grounds (both Jordanian
and Egyptian heads of state, among others, backed up the WMD analysis in
discussions with General Franks prior to hostilities--see his recent book).
As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you spout
off such nonsense. Finally, speaking as a guy who once had the temerity
(gasp!) to "abuse alcohol" at the weekly O-Club parleys in his youth, I find
it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the latter
fact which is the most important). But hey, you don't have a vote in the
outcome anyway, right?

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin