What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

You are aware that the Cold War was still alive and well through
the *eighties*?

Yes. But I'm also aware that throughout the Viet Nam era National
Guard units were regarded as draft dodgers refuges. Specifically, the
TxANG 147th fighter group was considered a "champagne" unit that was a
refuge for the area's privileged. Its ranks included John Conally's
son, Lloyd Benston's son, John Tower's son, George Bush's son and
seven Dallas Cowboys


And that despite the fact that the TXANG units were
based in Texas, they could have been assigned air defense duties
*anywhere*?

Could of, maybe shudda, but weren't and considering that in that time
frame the F-102 was no longer a first-line aircraft, were probably
close to the bottom of the list for doing that.

The situation today is not all that different (except that
today's threat is unlikely to shoot back), with ANG fighters flying AD
missions from detached locations on a routine basis.

You've lost me here. I'm not aware of any 'threats' that shot back at
air defence missions around the Continental US. In the seventies or
now.

I believe that in the sixties and seventies, the units were much more
tightly tied to the state than they are now. 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.

You may not like
GWB, but attacking the service of the F-102 pilots who did their duty
*wherever* it occured is not gaining you very much.

I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them. Anyone who did
their duty honorably can be justifiably proud, regardless of how
memorable it was.


Scott Peterson


"Placebos raise a problem in these days of the pharmacist
labeling pill bottles with their contents. One cannot admit
that the pill is nothing but sugar if it is to work, so a fancy
brand name is needed. Among the proposals made for what
to name a brandname placebo are Confabulase, Gratifycin,
Deludium, Hoaxacillin, Dammitol, Placebic Acid and Panacease."

I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them.

That's not the way I read it. I saw mockery for the Cowboy pilots and
sons of the elite, riding herd on Cuban invaders. I think that a) you
are back-pedaling, b) you seize any opportunity to run down the
incumbent prezdint, and c) you really don't care squat about F-102s or
the men who flew them.

Often in the cocktail parties I attend, I hear the Good People being
shocked--shocked!--that Bush failed to attend the last year's meetings
of the Guard. These are of course the same people who would rise up
with dignity and leave any room which a military officer had the ill
manners to enter.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:49:38 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them.

That's not the way I read it. I saw mockery for the Cowboy pilots and
sons of the elite, riding herd on Cuban invaders. I think that a) you
are back-pedaling, b) you seize any opportunity to run down the
incumbent prezdint, and c) you really don't care squat about F-102s or
the men who flew them.

Often in the cocktail parties I attend, I hear the Good People being
shocked--shocked!--that Bush failed to attend the last year's meetings
of the Guard. These are of course the same people who would rise up
with dignity and leave any room which a military officer had the ill
manners to enter.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

You need to find some higher quality cocktail parties to attend.

Al Minyard

In article ,
Alan Minyard writes:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:49:38 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them.

That's not the way I read it. I saw mockery for the Cowboy pilots and
sons of the elite, riding herd on Cuban invaders. I think that a) you
are back-pedaling, b) you seize any opportunity to run down the
incumbent prezdint, and c) you really don't care squat about F-102s or
the men who flew them.

Often in the cocktail parties I attend, I hear the Good People being
shocked--shocked!--that Bush failed to attend the last year's meetings
of the Guard. These are of course the same people who would rise up
with dignity and leave any room which a military officer had the ill
manners to enter.

You need to find some higher quality cocktail parties to attend.

Dan lives in a College Town. It might not be the People's Republic of
Berkeley, but some of the attitudes are still there.
(I was born on Gasoline Alley, so I can say that)

Dan, are the Good People still Up in Arms and Pointing With Alarm that
the resurgent Bear population (Ursine, not Soviet) are finding their
bir feeders and garbage cans a convenient supermarket? You'd think
that those Greeney Folks would like getting close to Cuddly Nature.
(Well, as long as it's the squirrels. If it's big enough to invite
_you_ to dinner, it seems to be different)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Dan, are the Good People still Up in Arms and Pointing With Alarm that
the resurgent Bear population

I haven't heard anything about bears lately, but most every year we
have a moose sighting.

Is there a plaque on Gasoline Alley to mark your birthplace?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article ,
Cub Driver writes:

Dan, are the Good People still Up in Arms and Pointing With Alarm that
the resurgent Bear population

I haven't heard anything about bears lately, but most every year we
have a moose sighting.

Is there a plaque on Gasoline Alley to mark your birthplace?

Not yet. But someday, perhaps... My student days much later did have
a few distinguishing moments - Struggling back to Stoke Hole from the
McConnell Hall computer cluster during the Blizzard of '78, and having
to put into Smith Hall (a Women's Dorm at the time) to wait out the
storm. It was Hell I say! We were trapped for 3 days. (The tough part
was sheaking out * piling more snow in front of the door)

It was the brick place on the
corner - 2nd floor. Of course, I was rather young at the time, so my
memory could be a bit off, but I recall wanting to be near my mother.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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

You are aware that the Cold War was still alive and well through
the *eighties*?

Yes. But I'm also aware that throughout the Viet Nam era National
Guard units were regarded as draft dodgers refuges. Specifically, the
TxANG 147th fighter group was considered a "champagne" unit that was a
refuge for the area's privileged. Its ranks included John Conally's
son, Lloyd Benston's son, John Tower's son, George Bush's son and
seven Dallas Cowboys

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...



And that despite the fact that the TXANG units were
based in Texas, they could have been assigned air defense duties
*anywhere*?

Could of, maybe shudda, but weren't and considering that in that time
frame the F-102 was no longer a first-line aircraft, were probably
close to the bottom of the list for doing that.

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


The situation today is not all that different (except that
today's threat is unlikely to shoot back), with ANG fighters flying AD
missions from detached locations on a routine basis.

You've lost me here. I'm not aware of any 'threats' that shot back at
air defence missions around the Continental US. In the seventies or
now.

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)?


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.

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?


You may not like
GWB, but attacking the service of the F-102 pilots who did their duty
*wherever* it occured is not gaining you very much.

I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them. Anyone who did
their duty honorably can be justifiably proud, regardless of how
memorable it was.

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".

Brooks



Scott Peterson

Kevin Brooks blurted out:


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,

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?

or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...

Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled"
gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX
ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated
and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.

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

When?

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?

Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG
F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons
served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed.

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.

Fair point...then read Charles J Gross book published by the Office of
Air Force History "Prelude to Total Force" The Air National Guard
1943-1969." Apparently the USAF AD Corona (generals) held the notion
the ANG was second echelon for quite awhile, highlighted by the
deployment of ANG forces to Korea for the Pueblo Crisis. The highly
successful F-100 deployment to SEA was quite the eye-opener for AD
commanders.

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.

OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly.
I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from
asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV

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".

OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate
to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in
SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s.

Juvat

Juvat wrote:

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?

Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here. If we are searching for
full unit deployments of F-102, specifically from ANG units, for SEA,
then I'm not sure that there were any. But, I do know that there were
Deuces in SEA in '66 when I was there, and there were Deuces in SEA in
'72-'73 when I was there. The convolutions of ADC (Air-then-Aerospace
Defense Command) and it's relationships between ANG and USAF are
sometimes difficult to decipher.

or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...

Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled"
gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX
ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated
and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.

Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored
point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the
President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We
have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and
arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush.

Given the choice between being a tactical aviator and an infantryman,
he made the same choice I did (although my choice was made a few years
earlier.) Now, we had the comparisons with Bush's opponent, who,
despite being a college graduate and being able to arguably make a
greater contribution to his nation as an officer, chose to be an
enlisted Army admin clerk.

Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT,
then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational
qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century
Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of
single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation.

This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in
was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more
than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit
more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of
a year tour in SEA.



Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG
F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons
served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed.

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.

Well, throughout most of SEA, there were units in combat flying the
F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-105. There were units flying C-47,
C-119, C-123, AT-37, A-1, B-57, B-66, O-1, O-2, etc. etc. It seems as
though the "second echelon" question isn't a very good one.

OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly.
I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from
asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV

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".

OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate
to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in
SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s.

The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat
effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your
last statement here.

No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of
apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over
Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert
interceptor force was always deployed.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus posted:

Juvat wrote:

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?

Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here.

No sir...simply reading the question as posted (looking up at the
thread topic). If the topic were "F-102s units deployed to SEA" you
might have a leg to stand on. Honest, I've got the whole thread saved
because the topic is interesting and was going to post some details
that others beat me to the punch.

If we are searching for full unit deployments of F-102,
specifically from ANG units, for SEA, then I'm not sure that there were any.

Respectfully, you do know the answer. None. I will direct you to the
book by Gross...published by the USAF Office of History.

Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored
point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the
President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We
have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and
arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush.

No argument...but we're getting off on a tangent I suspect.

Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT,
then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational
qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century
Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of
single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation.

You and I have differing POV on what constitutes GWB becoming MR and
maintaining that status. I'll agree he did achieve MR status, but that
as far as I will go...

However, I'm somewhat surprised that you consider he met all his
obligations. Or have I inferred something you are not implying?

Belay that last...it is not my desire to let this thread turn into a
groveling, low speed, knife fight at the bottom of the TRA on ths
subject of GWB...but I can.

This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in
was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more
than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit
more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of
a year tour in SEA.

And I suspect if the names were reversed you would find it EQUALLY
plausible that the swinging dick that served in SEA had a better
chance of going into harm's way than a guy that was suspended from
flying status in Aug 1972 for failing to take a physical.

The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat
effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your
last statement here.

Fair enough, and fairly close in the details, I believe that F-102s
were gone from SEA by Jul 1970. Yes? No?

I should have posited that had the NVAF threat been deem
greater...there would have been a greater force than four Dets of
roughly 6 jets each. Mea Culpa.

No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of
apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over
Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert
interceptor force was always deployed.

I'd be willing to speculate that "somebody" in 13th/7th AF thought
IL-28s were a threat. The reason for my statement is simply that I've
read about the Beagle threat perception in CHECO reports, inferred on
my part becasue the reports mention the Beagle being able to reach
Saigon.

Juvat