Juvat wrote in message . ..
I posted:
Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO.

Kevin Brooks posted:
No, I am not reading anything "into it". His words are quite clear in
their meaning and intent.

Kevin cool your jets pardner...the title of this thread is what?

"What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam"

What does "called up" mean to you? To me it means what non-active duty
units, Guard or Reserve were activated for duty. How do you "call up"
an active duty unit?

By deploying them into the theater of operations from their current
station would be one manner of "calling up" an AC unit. I note that
the other posters who anwered the initial question also did not take
the "this solely deals with the RC" approach--are all of us wrong?


It does NOT mean which Acitve Duty squadrons deployed. But I'd bet
that's how you're reading this thread.

I took it as a total force question.


No, he was incorrect. He said none were deployed (which was wrong)

Actually he said "I don't think any were. This plane was strictly an
interceptor for shooting down bombers. No guns, no ground attack
capability."

I'm pretty sure history will confirm that F-102s were indeed
interceptors lacking a surface attack mission. I acknowledge the
kludged attempts to use it's IRST in a surface attack role, but that
was NOT it's mission (Air Defense as you acknowledge).

Take away the "strictly"; as it was indeed used in ground attack
missions, albeit not very effectively (I do believe a couple of their
three total losses occurred when performing this mission that they
supposedly could not even undertake). The Fairey Battle was by all
accounts a rather lousy ground attack aircraft, but it was indeed used
in that role; the F-104 was never originally intended to serve in the
CAS/BAI role, but that is the role it later found itself serving with
many NATO nations. Why put blinders on only in regards to the F-102's
history?


And history will confirm that no ANG unit was called up for active duty in SEA.

No ANG unit was called up for active duty in SEA?! I thought you
already acknowledged the fact that ANG units were indeed called up?


because there was no need for interceptors (wrong again, as in fact an
interceptor force was maintained in Vietnam, and in Thailand
throughout the period of major US involvement).

Okay...you're absolutely right. He was incorrect WRT to the presence
of ANY F-102s.

Zero chance? That's probably what the F-100 jockeys from CO thought,
too, right up until they deployed to the RVN. An airplane that had
ZERO percent chanc??? Odd, since that very same aircraft served in SEA
throughout most of the war, with ANG pilots forming part of the
manning that supported them.

Come on Kevin...I'm sincerely trying to keep this on topic about ANG
F-102 sqdns and Scott's post.

Sorry to inform you of this, but this thread began to meander
(something that is rather common in Usenet) after Scott made his post
and tried to link it to an anti-GWB thrust. As others have commented,
the only folks who seem restricted to the ANG-only approach appear to
be you and Scott.


ZERO chance of an ANG F-102 pilot flying combat unless he volunteered.

Uhmmm...like when Bush reportedly volunteered for Palace Alert (but
did not meet the experience requirement, which according to one
responsible individual was a minimum of one thousand hours)?

The issue regarding the four ANG F-100 units that deployed, it's a
great display of what the citizen airman has been willing to do for
our country from the gitgo. The USAF was very pleased with that
deployment. (Not back pedaling...before you suggest that I am)

OK. So your earlier statement that no ANG units were deployed was
apparently misworded--I would assume that you mean no F-102 units were
activated? Which would be true enough--but that leaves one wondering
whether F-102 units would indeed have been activated if sufficient
*volunteers* had not stepped forward?


The last F-102's left active duty service (as interceptors, that
is--they would later return in the guise of the QF-102) in 73, ... They continued
in ANG service for only a few more years (77 IIRC).

I guess you won't be surprised when I was hoping for a little more
detail, like last AD sqdn date and last ANG date. Guess I'll do the
reasearch [sigh].

Gee, I was unaware you were so picky, when the issue had meandered to
whether the F-102 was a viable go-to-war/get-activated asset while GWB
was boring holes in the sky during his training and with the 111th FIS
(which question has already been answered, as they were still serving
with AC units while he was flying). But...the 57th FIS ceased Deuce
operations out of Iceland in July 73, and the HIARNG unit reportedly
flew its last Deuce operational sortie in October 76. Good enough?


It was the *first* US combat aircraft deployed to the
RVN after the Tonking Gulf incident,

You'd be hard pressed to make a case of "first" deployed after the
Gulf of Tonkin. Afterall, the 1st Air Commando (Farm Gate) guys were
already flying combat sorties from Bien Hoa before GoT, as were RF-101
guys (Able Mable) from Misawa (45th TRS) and Kadena (15th TRS). You
get the picture.

Well, the folks in Bien Hoa did not have to deploy into the theater of
operations after the Gulf resolution, now did they (see, this playing
with finite word definitions can work both ways)? Actually, I believe
I read where the first F-102's to enter the area preceeded this by a
few years (1962, when they apparently started running a det out of the
RVN). I did read where the 509th FIS claims to have been the first
unit to deploy into the RVN after the GT incident--is that wrong?


No, that was NOT the question. The question was about F-102 service in
Vietnam, period.

Kevin, re-read the title of this thread. "What F-102 units were called
up for Viet Nam," not what F-102 units served in SEA. Sir you are in
error...but I bet you disagree with me.

As apparently do the other folks who took exception with Scott's post,
not to mention those who answered the original post with the data on
the AC F-102 units that did indeed find themselves flying combat
missions.


Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed.

Not really.

OK...I say tomato...you say cantalope.

I believe you, or the author maybe, forgot another earlier
example--the activation and deployment to Europe of various ANG
fighter units as a result of the Berlin crisis earlier that same
decade.

Phew...uhhh my bad, I was trying to keep the discussion close to
topic, sorta, hoping to keep it on SEA deployments of ANG F-102s. I
mentioned the only activations during SEA.

If you wish I can cite every ANG squadron activated for Berlin and the
deployment location, but I don't think it is germaine to F-102s in
SEA.

But it is germane to the fact that the USAF already regarded the ANG
as a real, honest to goodness go-to-war asset well before the entry of
GWB into ANG service.


Gee, then why did they keep them in service over there throughout the
war? Do you think if your opponent has a weak, but existant, air
strike capability, then it is OK to ignore air defense?

Fair question, one I cannot answer. If the threat were that great,
then why not bring the superior interceptor (the F-106) in to replace
the F-102, I cannot answer that one either. I guess the F-102 was so
good at it's mission the AF only needed 24 or so in SEA (four 6 plane
Dets) and that might be proof of its effectiveness as an Interceptor.

I would suspect that, like happened during the Korean conflict, the
USAF was examining the degree of threat (admittedly not great in SEA,
but then again it could not be completely discounted, either) and
decided that the F-106's were better deployed against the more serious
threat and the F-102's could handle the threat posed by the North
Vietnamese.


Truly sorry for the bad blood. You have misconstrued my intent. That
being Scott was correct that no ANG F-102 unit was called up for Viet
Nam, and he was mistaken that no F-102 units served in SEA.

No bad blood. But I get a bit tired when folks like Scott traipse out
the old "the Guard was a bunch of draftdodgers" mantra, not to mention
why he had to even enter into the "bash GWB" mode in the first place.
The first is a gross exaggeration born of enough folks making the
claim in the past, so it must be true, right? The second was just
another attempt at a backhanded swipe at a guy who performed military
service and flew combat aircraft in the defense of this nation-- a
much better alternative to refusing to serve at all, and then
attacking those who did, as many of his then-compatriots did, and none
of which he should be ashamed of, IMO.

Brooks


Juvat