Scott Peterson wrote in message ...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

Then why make the comment in this forum? It has to be either safety
through remoteness, or a case of a really bad
slip-of-the-tongue(typing finger)--I'd hope it was the latter.


Becaue it's not what I said.

Are you saying you did NOT say, "Guard units were regarded as draft
dodgers refuges. Specifically, the TxANG 147th fighter group was
considered a "champagne" unit"?

It's your incorrect intrepretation that
I'm responding to.

It is not that hard to interpret that quote.



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.

Dates vary. The 57th FIS did indeed not give their last Deuces up
until July 73--meaning that by *any* definition they were in "first
line" service until then.

Fine, then what is "any" definition. To me, the fact that they were
still in use by an Air Force unit does not mean it was a first-line
unit. Cynically, I'd think that there was a good reason that unit was
chosen to be last, but I don't know what it was in this case.

Well gee, I guess the USAF routinely placed incapable aircraft at a
location that saw a significant chunk of the active intercepts of that
period? ISTR that the 57th FIS was frequently out and about
intercepting Soviet Bears, Bisons, etc.?


The actual last use by the ANG is a bit more
murky from what I have read--the 77 date is floated, but at least one
source I ran into indicated that the HIANG actually conducted its last
operational Deuce flight in October 76.

They claim 1/77, but who knows.

I believe that was the official date that they began operating the
F-4C (IIRC), but they had ceased being an operational F-102 element
back in October of 76 according to what I read at one of the various
websites; sounds reasonable to me.



Oh....so combat is not a realistic possibility unless it has already
occurred? I believe you were insinuating that US interceptors of that
period faced no real danger, right? I am having a bit of a problem
here, since the previous statements have been snipped.

Again, you are misquoting me me for your own benefit.

No, because there is no "quote" there; I ammerely trying to define
your position based upon your statements. It appeared to me (again,
the snippage makes it a bit difficult...) that you were saying that
because they saw no combat action in their CONUS ADC role, the
likelihood of their seeing combat in that role was not a realistic
possibility. A bit of a logic fault in that approach if you ask me.

This was a very
touchy situation. There's always the possibility of accidents on both
sides. But neither side ever did shoot at each other.

Along the CONUS border, you are correct. But that does not mean that
we should have, or could have, dismantled our air defenses at that
point in time. The F-102 was a significant player in that air defense
network up through the early 70's.


I've always wondered what the orders given to the intercepting
aircraft were in these cases. Given the very serous consequences of
an incident, did they have permission to fire if fired on or would
they have had to wait for a decision by their superiors.

I believe a former F-102 pilot (Walt?) lurks hereabouts and could
answer that question.


It's sneering to say they were tied to a state?

No, the sneering bit was your snide little "Guard as a haven for
draftdodgers" crap in the earlier paragraph.

Well, as stated elsewhere, that's the way I remember it, but I really
don't have time to look up why people joined back then.

You don't have to. Answer one question--do you think that all of the
Guardsmen who were already serving before the war heated up just
pulled pitch and left the Guard in 1965-68? How does your "draft
dodger" moniker fit them?


That you are one of the number who have never served in a Guard
unit--the meaning is rather clear if you actually read the wording.


I did read it several times. ....and no, I never served in a Guard
unit.

I have, and in the company of a fair number of Vietnam veterans who
did not dodge diddly.



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.

Nice try, but nope, that is not what I said. I seem to recall that you
were mumbling about the Guard being much more firmly state controlled
during the Vietnam era (hard to get your wording right, as it has been
snipped and I lack the resolve to dig back into the old posts). I
believe that is a much exaggerated claim--please show me what area(s)
the state exerted real control over? In fact, the states really have
their "control" limited to administrative matters (and then only IAW
federal guidelines and significant federal supervision).

Discussed in another post. And yes, the guard did report to and take
orders from the governor of the state, unless the unit was
federalized.

OFCS, then please tell us what that Governor actually controlled?
Training plans and inspections? Nope. Officer appointments? Not
without federal approval of each and every one. Equipment? Nope.
Organization? Nope again. Logistical support? No. Funding? Heck no. So
what was this tremendous control they exerted over their state Guard
units?


I am sure you
are harkening back to the sinister "GWB got appointed unfairly..."
stance,

Among others.....

Gee, you cover your political sentiments so well...


That the demise was quick after it began is immaterial. That the AC
was replacing the F-102 with F-106's as quickly as possible is true,
and understandable. But from an operational standpoint, there is no
way you can claim that the F-102 was out-to-pasture while it was still
being flown by active duty squadrons (especially the 57th in Iceland,
where they ran a pretty regular Bear greeting service IIRC). The fact
is that while GWB was training and beginning his squadron service the
Deuce was not some has-been/never-going-nowhere player as you would
have us believe, but was still serving with both frontline units on
the AC side and was standing alert at various CONUS stations as well.


I disagree. The fact that it was still being flown by Air Force
squadrons does not mean that it's regarded as a first-line aircraft.
The Air Force bought 1,000 of the things and they were still a usable
aircraft, just not the best.

As far as the 57th continuing to fly them. I would speculate that that
the 102 was a adequate aircraft for that location and that role even
into the Seventies. The only hostile aircraft they would be expecting
there would be the subsonic Bears....which are exactly what they were
designed to intercept.

And just what the heck do you think your "first line" F-106's and
F-4C's would have been facing in CONUS? Reallly looong range high
performance Migs? le tme get this straight--since the Bear was the
primary threat, it was OK to have the F-102 serve in Iceland, but
those same F-102's were somehow outclassed when facing the *same*
threat here in CONUS??


Because while I am sure it may have happened (just as I am equally
sure that Senator Shmedlap could have influenced the Army's decision
to have his son serve as a clerk on a rather short tour--or maybe
Senator Gore?), I am reluctant to smear folks without darned good
evidence (which apparently in the case of GWB has never been given,
even after journalists from such anti-GWB forums as the Boston Herald
and the Washington Post (or Washington Pravda as we used to refer to
it) spent considerable effort trying to do just that), for one.

I would suggest that you do a web search on GWB and National Guard. A
number of sites have his entire military history on line. Give this
an honest look to sites reporting all POV's and see if you still want
to discuss it.

You are trolling without bait. GWB joined, he trained, and he flew.
Condemn that if you waqnt, but it ain't gonna carry much water with
most of us. Ever notice how the military, down at the
rubber-hits-the-road-level, responds to GWB when he appears with them?
Compare that to how they conducted themselves when his predecessor was
in office (you do recall the incident where that predecessor flew out
to a CVN (without the media whining that accompanied GWB's similar
trip) and was actually booed by his audience?). Case closed.


Second, when you take that tack, you run the risk of smearing a lot of
other good folks, especially when you use wording such as that that
you chose in your earlier post--there were a lot of folks serving in
the Guard before the war ever began, for example, and more than a few
vets joined Guard units upon their return.

I never said all. But I think that suggesting that the NG's
popularity during the Viet Nam years was not due to the draft borders
on ridiculous.

And volunteering for service in another military branch or component
does not equate to "draft dodger". Or are you gonna fling that
accusation at all of those folks who joined the Navy, Coast Guard, or
Air Force because they preferred that to serving in the Army? My, what
a long list of "draft dodgers" you have created there...

Brooks


Not to mention the fact
that, despite LBJ/McNamara's stupid mistake of not using Guard and
Reserve forces earlier, there were a significant number of both ANG
and ARNG folks mobilized during the conflict, and a number of other
ANG crews and personnel performed support missions as well (to include
transport runs into the RVN, IIRC). And BTW, are you sure that ALL of
the Guard units had those waiting lists? Rather definitive and
inclusive statement you are making there...

Individuals, not units.



You're right, though. ALL is very inclusive. What guard units did
not have long waiting lists at this time? It would be intersting to
try to figure out why.....


Scott Peterson