![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Info on a P-51 mustang called "Spare Parts" | eg | Home Built | 3 | October 28th 03 02:02 AM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |