Was Bush AWOL in 1972 & 1973? | Cuckoo!!! Cuckoo!!! Cuckoo!!!

On 8/30/04 8:36 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" wrote:

Big Red- President
Bush has an honorable discharge proving he fulfilled his military
commitment. Where's yours? BRBR

What 'military commitment' would that be?

If you wish to view GW as some sort of military hero, go right ahead but he
ineptitude during hs firsat 3.5 years is a matter of record. If ya love the
guym, vote for him but 'serve' in the military he did not. If ya think the ANG
is the USAF(as many civilians seem to think) then you are ignorant of the
military in general and the USAF specifically.

BTW-your military service??
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs,

I've flown against the 111th more than once. They're as USAF as any other
USAF squadron. They potentially get called up and go to war the same as any
other reserve unit.

GWB served in the Air Guard and was honorably discharged. He's no war hero
and never claimed to be. His opponent served in the Navy, got honorably
discharged and does claim to be a war hero and despite the decorations,
appears not to be (although admittedly did see combat and got the splinters
to prove it).

Essentially, their service doesn't matter much. It's their conduct after
the war with regard to decisions and policy that does matter.

If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.

One man's good deal is not another man's bad deal.

--Woody

Doug- If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
BRBR

Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
USN?

Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
likely to go to VN?


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

(Pechs1) wrote:

Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

I'm a little unclear on what you are asking here ? Interested,
though. Have you seen Dan Ford's site on Bush's F-102 career ? He has
focused on facts, and the presentation is pretty impressive .


Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
USN?

Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
likely to go to VN?

As I understand it from Ed Rasimus's post a month back, the
ANG didn't have a "dream sheet" per se that gave him a choice. So
since it was Texas ANG and they had Deuces, that's what George The 2nd
got trained for. Apparently later on he wasn't re-trained to another
type due to the glut of ACs that were senior and trying to stay in, so
a lot of less senior people got early "drops", much like Army Aviation
was doing. The length of the drop was notable, though - his was rather
larger than *I* have heard was typical. I don't know what stats there
are on the average length of drop people got when they were cut loose.

On 8/31/04 8:34 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" wrote:

Doug- If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
BRBR

Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
USN?

Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
likely to go to VN?

Dunno. Don't care.

No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to Viet Nam
in an active duty unit--good deal for President Bush. His good deal was
nobody else's bad deal. Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal.

Cut President Bush a wide swath for his ANG duty and/or cut Senator Kerry a
wide swath for his 3 purple hearts and post-combat conduct in front of
Congress... and/or former President Clinton for his ability to avoid the war
entirely. These events contribute specifically to defining each man's
character. I leave that definition based on those events to you.

It seems to me that folks pick the side they like (or dislike) most first,
then justify their candidate's military service based on that like or
dislike.

What matters to me is the politician's conduct, decisions, and policy-making
skill.

--Woody

Doug- No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to
Viet Nam
in an active duty unit-- BRBR

Sorry, don't get this. Altho nobody in the military wants to go to combat, I
would have liked to experience it. The people I have read about, including Ed
R., view SEA combat operations as the best times of their military careers.

Doug Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. BRBR


Surprised at you. Why?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 9/1/04 8:27 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" wrote:

Doug- No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to
Viet Nam
in an active duty unit-- BRBR

Sorry, don't get this. Altho nobody in the military wants to go to combat, I
would have liked to experience it. The people I have read about, including Ed
R., view SEA combat operations as the best times of their military careers.

Doug Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. BRBR


Surprised at you. Why?

Two reasons:

1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over 90
aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

2. Conversely, you can get into the ANG as a guard-baby, fly tactical
aircraft (for longer than you can in the USN/USNR), never move, and live the
good life for 8-10 years as a full-timer and then slide into a part time
position, still fly the same tactical aircraft, and make that move young
enough to pursue the career you'll hang your hat on for the rest of your
life.

e.g. the most successful airline pilots I know (IMHO) are the guard-babies
that left their full time ANG jobs at 26-30 years of age and snagged airline
jobs while sliding into their part-time positions. They're check-airmen and
chief pilots. I also know of at least two ANG F-16 pilots who are
physicians. Not to mention ANG units (despite having MORE bureaucracy than
USN/USNR) still have less than the active duty USAF. All in all, it's a
better life.

Still, none of them have any CV landings...

--Woody

SNIP

Doug Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for
an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. BRBR


Surprised at you. Why?

Two reasons:

1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over
90
aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

Long term, the fleet is going to have less jets. Of course, the commitment
will be unchanged. This has already come out through official channels,
roughly a 30% reduction in combat aircraft on the boat. A mix of F-18E/F
and F-35C. The solution is to keep op ready rates way up there with the
improved maintainability and emphasis on the maintenance/logistics effort.
I wonder if the geniuses who devised this plan realize the bean counters
won't take the increased utilization into account as far as the support end
or pilot manning is concerned.

Gee Woodie, 15 pilots for 10 jets? How did you manage? My last cruise we
had 11 1/2 crews for 10 jets. Borrowed CAG ops to get to 12 even. Made for
an interesting schedule when the CARGRU wanted 27-28 lines plus alert 5/15.

2. Conversely, you can get into the ANG as a guard-baby, fly tactical
aircraft (for longer than you can in the USN/USNR), never move, and live
the
good life for 8-10 years as a full-timer and then slide into a part time
position, still fly the same tactical aircraft, and make that move young
enough to pursue the career you'll hang your hat on for the rest of your
life.

Great deal for sure, and the reserves weren't half bad either. Of course,
they're paying the piper now. The one weekend a month and two weeks a year
thing have become a considerably greater commitment. Not too bad for the
aviators (tanker guys locally rotate in and out every month or so), but the
troops in support units that are sometimes on hiatus from a high-paying job
for a year and pulling E-5 pay in a combat zone are getting hammered pretty
good on the economic front. And the guard family-support structure (which
had no reason for being for 50-odd years) ain't exactly the same as USN
family services, and various other formal and informal organizations
designed to make deployments more manageable for those left behind.

e.g. the most successful airline pilots I know (IMHO) are the guard-babies
that left their full time ANG jobs at 26-30 years of age and snagged
airline
jobs while sliding into their part-time positions. They're check-airmen
and
chief pilots. I also know of at least two ANG F-16 pilots who are
physicians. Not to mention ANG units (despite having MORE bureaucracy
than
USN/USNR) still have less than the active duty USAF. All in all, it's a
better life.

Still, none of them have any CV landings...

I'll mail you five bucks and you can take it and your landings to Starbucks.

R / John

On 9/1/04 3:24 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


SNIP

1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over
90
aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

Long term, the fleet is going to have less jets. Of course, the commitment
will be unchanged. This has already come out through official channels,
roughly a 30% reduction in combat aircraft on the boat. A mix of F-18E/F
and F-35C. The solution is to keep op ready rates way up there with the
improved maintainability and emphasis on the maintenance/logistics effort.
I wonder if the geniuses who devised this plan realize the bean counters
won't take the increased utilization into account as far as the support end
or pilot manning is concerned.

I couldn't agree more. F-35 has some great maintainability features along
the lines of AIMD and logistics. I like the way it's going. It has some
CV/O-level issues that still need to be addressed.

Gee Woodie, 15 pilots for 10 jets? How did you manage? My last cruise we
had 11 1/2 crews for 10 jets. Borrowed CAG ops to get to 12 even. Made for
an interesting schedule when the CARGRU wanted 27-28 lines plus alert 5/15.

Life has changed since the days you flew single-seat with Ely from the
BIRMINGHAM, my friend. (Couldn't pass it up.) A single-seat strike fighter
squadron works pretty hard with just 17 pilots. As a 2-seat medium attack
JO, I watched those guys slave to learn the A/A (AIM-7 Blue Collar BVR only)
and A/G missions while I hung out as an AQ branch O writing a few evals
during movie night and studying gravity technology in my spare time. Since
then the tactics have become more complicated with AIM-120, JDAM (easy, but
not without quirks), JSOW, and the rest. Add to that the SFWT syllabus and
all of the added NEW administrivia that the Navy has piled on in the last 18
years, and you've got a pretty tough nut for the JO's to crack.

SNIP
Great deal for sure, and the reserves weren't half bad either. Of course,
they're paying the piper now. The one weekend a month and two weeks a year
thing have become a considerably greater commitment. Not too bad for the
aviators (tanker guys locally rotate in and out every month or so), but the
troops in support units that are sometimes on hiatus from a high-paying job
for a year and pulling E-5 pay in a combat zone are getting hammered pretty
good on the economic front. And the guard family-support structure (which
had no reason for being for 50-odd years) ain't exactly the same as USN
family services, and various other formal and informal organizations
designed to make deployments more manageable for those left behind.


Yep, the grunts have it worst.

My observation is that the tanker guys and trash haulers deploy and work
harder than almost all aviation reserve/ANG units. VMGR's and USAF C-130
squadrons have been nearly non-stop for the last 2 1/2 years.

With regard to the current topic (why ANG over active USN), the USNR is
still a great deal (IMHO one of the best deals in aviation), but you need to
do the active duty thing before you can make it to a USNR VFA, so there's a
cost-benefit ratio to consider.

SNIP

Still, none of them have any CV landings...

I'll mail you five bucks and you can take it and your landings to Starbucks.

I'll send you a SASE!

--Woody

Doug- 1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. BRBR

Gee, a thread about NavAir. The more things change, the more they stay the same
I guess. We said the same things as you when S-3s came aboard on 'small'
decks(VF-33, 9 a/c, USS Independence), and said it again when F-14s were
deployed on 'small' decks(VF-31, USS Forrestal).

In spite of all the 'bad' times in the late 70s, training anchorages, no
flying(72 traps total for a 6 month cruise AND workup), no parts, etc., I still
loved it, and didn't really consider getting out.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 31 Aug 2004 13:34:38 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

Doug- If you like Kerry more, that's your business, but serving in the Air
Guard
or reserves is still serving until defined otherwise by the government.
BRBR

Agree but why not look at the specifics of the time and the people involved
instead of brushing this with such a wide swath?

Why did GWB join the F-102 guard instead of another type unit, the USAF or the
USN?
Your question is just plain silly - or stupid, take your pick.
Why did serve in the Navy, Commander? You could have been a Marine,
or a special forces, or a SEAL or a plane captain, or a ???????



Why the F-102? Did have some love affair with the mission of flying intercepts
against big targets, letting loose a Genie and goin home? Did he know that of
all the A/C in the ANG and USAF inventory at the time, the F-102 was the least
likely to go to VN?
Hindsight is a marvelous thing but in the hands of someone like you -
it appears to be dangerous...
Regards,



P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer