What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam

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

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.

Interesting. I mentioned George W. in one post. You have in seven
that I've counted so far, using me as the excuse. Of course, it does
make a good excuse to avoid other questions.

I have not avoided squat.


Seems like you have the problem here.

Nope, seems like you made the mistake of trying to insert an
irrelevant, and essentially incorrect, political point into a military
discussion. That more than a couple of folks have called you on it may
tell you something, if you have the common sense to consider it.


As far as what the NG is/was, I guess it was just coincidence that as
draft rates went up in the sixties, so did guard enlistments and
waiting lists. ....and when they went down, so did......

What service did they dodge? Those ANG and ARNG folks who were sent to
Vietnam in 68-69; what kind of "dodging" was that? Or those AC vets
who went into the Guard--what were they "dodging"? How about the
members of that "champagne unit" you ridiculed who volunteered for
Palace Alert, were they "shirkers"? Are you beginning to see the
problem with making overly generalized characterizations of groups
like the Guard?


Pure coincidence, I suppose.

FYI, *none* of the military services were *real* popular in the
aftermath of Vietnam (do you even know what a "VOLAR blanket" was?).
That the cessation of the draft hurt Guard recruiting efforts was
undeniable (as it also hampered AC efforts), but you are forgetting
that those who had joined the Guard because they thought it may (a big
*may* in the case of those who found themselves activated anyway) have
kept them from being drafted were not "dodging" the draft, but instead
were performing military service that exempted them from it. Not
unlike the folks who volunteered for the USN or USAF instead of
waiting for their draft notices--does that make those services "havens
for draft dodgers"?

Brooks





Scott Peterson

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
Juvat wrote in message
. ..
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.

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

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?

No, he was incorrect. He said none were deployed (which was wrong)
because there was no need for interceptors (wrong again, as in fact an
interceptor force was maintained in Vietnam, and in Thailand
(including some RAAF folks with F-86's at one point, IIRC) throughout
the period of major US involvement).


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.

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.

If I recall my reading correctly(an article I read about 34 years ago), the
ANG F100 units were flying "C" models, while the Regular Air Force was
flying "D " models. A difference which may seem minor, but apparently was
significant.

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:



So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.

Well, since he is so willing to brush the entire 111th FIS, a unit
that did contribute pilots to fly F-102's in Vietnam, with his "I hate
GWB" brush, I would disagree that he demonstrates such willingness.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about this unit or
their activities.

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

When?

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, after
the US had concluded the treaty with Hanoi

What the heck does that treaty have to do with the service of the
102's? This is like saying that the F-102 was taken out of service
after the 1973 Fords were announced. It's an absolutely true
statement but also absolutely meaningless.

If you look at my other post, I give better dates of when it went out
of service.

(source:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...468/ch11-4.htm). They continued
in ANG service for only a few more years (77 IIRC). So, throughout
this period of the Vietnam conflict, the Dagger remained in "front
line" service.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by front line service. I
think that suggesting that it was a front line aircraft past the mid
sixties is more accurate.

It was the *first* US combat aircraft deployed to the
RVN after the Tonking Gulf incident, and remained in theater throught
the time of US major involvement. Not bad for Scott's "second echelon"
fighter, as he would call it, no?

Well, in Korea when the war broke out, some of the first aircraft
deployed were P-51's, not jets. Not because they were the best, but
because they were close. As far as remaining in theatre, it was
pointed out that the total deployment was a total of 24 aircraft. Do
you know the numbers for similar aircraft? For all we know, it may
simply have been more trouble to return them than it was worth.....I
don't know.



No, that was NOT the question. The question was about F-102 service in
Vietnam, period. Which Scott managed to fumble--but hey, that's
excusable, we all make mistakes, and he admitted as much (which is
better than a lot of folks hereabouts...). But he left the ballpark
when he tried to go political and engaged in wholesale libel with his
"the Guard was a haven for draftdodgers" crap.

Wasn't it? That's certainly the way I remember it....and I knew a
quite a few people who were in it for exactly that reason.

My brother served in
the Guard at the very end of the Vietnam conflict--AFTER serving on
active duty and pulling a year flying DUSTOFF missions out of Danang
and Phu Bai...but hey, that tarbrush Scott was wielding casts a broad
stroke, does it not?

More power to him. There were a lot of personnel that came into the
guard that way. In fact, to bring it back on subject, that was one of
the few career paths for many of the F-102 pilots that were considered
excess as the number of F-102 squadrons was reduced. Many of them
were not going to be retrained on a newer aircraft. If they could
find a NG unit that would take them, they could keep flying.


ANG and ARNG units were serving in Vietnam as
well, along with a few thousand former ARNG "individual replacements"
(see what happened to the HIARNG infantry brigade that was
activated....). Then we get the attempt to tar the entire 111th FIS
because Scott does not like GWB; again, uncalled for.

Again, not what I said.

Not really. The F-102's went in when the curtain went up, and returned
only when it went down. ANG F-102 folks played in the same sandbox as
their AC counterparts.

OK. ....and a list of their major accomplishments while there would
be?????? # missions, troops killed, planes shot down, missiles
fired.


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.

I don't know if that's really a fair comparison. After all, that was
less than 2 1/2 years after WWII ended.


OK. Just how did the states leverage this control? Appointing
officers? Not really--they had to be vetted by a federal rec board
before the appointments were effective. Training plans? Nope--that was
controlled by the federal side. IET? Nope, because this was after it
was decided that all NG personnel would attend AC IET. Money,
organization, and/or equipment? Heck no--that was firmly the purview
of the feds. So, where was all of this state control really
manifested?

Good question. I thought that through the 1980's the chain of command
for the NG went to the Governor unless the unless the units had been
federalized.

The example that comes to mind was Eisenhower doing this to keep NG
troops from being used by segratationist governors in the school
integration efforts in the mid-1950's.

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? Good way to
get a bloody nose (see what happened when we had B-29's caught on
Saipan during WWII by that "remote" threat).

It's a good question. In all seriousness, maybe it was simply easier
to keep them there than return them. I've seen pictures of
Davis-Monahan in this time frame, it was covered with little delta
dots. There was no shortage of low-hour 102 airframes.

Anyway, I did a quick search and apparently at least some of them were
on alert sitting armed with the cockpits open. So someone expected
some trouble and wanted them there. Apparently they also escorted some
B-52 missions according to the SAC Museum.

http://www.dposs.com/t_jensen-dab-bush-account-1965.htm


Scott Peterson


Don't accept your dog's admiration
as conclusive evidence that you're
wonderful.

Scott Peterson wrote:

But he left the ballpark
when he tried to go political and engaged in wholesale libel with his
"the Guard was a haven for draftdodgers" crap.

Wasn't it? That's certainly the way I remember it....and I knew a
quite a few people who were in it for exactly that reason.

Well, I've got the distinct impression that the period in question is
prior to your birth, but let me point out that there is a considerable
difference between ANG and Army NG. During the SEA period, a lot of
folks sought Guard duty specifically to avoid active Army draft
service. But, to stretch the Guard responsibility to fit the mission
and extensive training requirements of an ANG pilot is a significant
move.


Good question. I thought that through the 1980's the chain of command
for the NG went to the Governor unless the unless the units had been
federalized.

The example that comes to mind was Eisenhower doing this to keep NG
troops from being used by segratationist governors in the school
integration efforts in the mid-1950's.

While you are technically correct, in that NG units are under the
control of the Governor of the state, there is a parallel chain of
command to the NGB and then reporting to the appropriate service CinC
and then JCS. While Army Guard units were activated to enforce federal
policy and also for disaster relief and riot duty (in '68) the ANG
units are much more often activated for federal military service
deployed.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Well, I've got the distinct impression that the period in question is
prior to your birth, but let me point out that there is a considerable
difference between ANG and Army NG. During the SEA period, a lot of
folks sought Guard duty specifically to avoid active Army draft
service. But, to stretch the Guard responsibility to fit the mission
and extensive training requirements of an ANG pilot is a significant
move.


I don't know why you'd think that. But no, I'm one of the baby
boomers.

Scott Peterson


If one synchronized swimmer drowns,
do the rest have to drown too?

the ANG
units are much more often activated for federal military service
deployed.

The New Hampshire Air Guard was, as I recall, called up for a couple
weeks every December to fly packages to Vietnam. While this tour of
duty would no doubt be sneered at by the Good People who never in
their lives put on a uniform, it did serve a purpose.

In Vietnam in 1964, I fell into conversation with a C-123 pilot who'd
been stationed next door to me at (then) Pease AFB. He'd been flying
B-52s (I think) and was really really annoyed when he found himself
assigned to an aerial pickup truck in Vietnam. Some of his SAC mates,
he said, had gotten out of the service rather than suffer the
indignity. But he had concluded that flying for the air force was
better than not flying for the air force, so he took the assignment
and found himself enjoying it.

It ain't how you got there that matters, it's how the do the job once
you're there.


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:

the ANG
units are much more often activated for federal military service
deployed.

The New Hampshire Air Guard was, as I recall, called up for a couple
weeks every December to fly packages to Vietnam. While this tour of
duty would no doubt be sneered at by the Good People who never in
their lives put on a uniform, it did serve a purpose.

I was going to bring this one up, and you beat me to it.
Actually, the 157th ATG/MAG (Air Transport Group/Military Airlift
Group _was_ flying missions into Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia
from about 1963 on. They were flying C-97s, and later, C-124s, out
of Grenier Field (MHT), and, later, Pease AFB. They weren't called
up, though. They voluntarily placed the unit into the MATS/MAC
schedule to fly "for real" airlift missions. Other ANG and Air Force
Reserve airlifters did the same thing. ANG crews also ended up doing
"Detached Duty" in all manner of, shall we say, "Interesting Places".
Fer example, most of the aircraft and crews used by Balair, the
Inernational Red Cross, and Joint Church Aid for relief flights into
Biafra came from various Air National Guard units, the NH ANG among
them. This was ugly, intense duty, and as dangerous as an airlifter
could get. (the Kenyan MiGs, which were active and shot down several
relief aircraft, were the least of their problems.)


--
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:



So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.

Well, since he is so willing to brush the entire 111th FIS, a unit
that did contribute pilots to fly F-102's in Vietnam, with his "I hate
GWB" brush, I would disagree that he demonstrates such willingness.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about this unit or
their activities.

Bullpoopie. "...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." Your words, right? And the 111th was a
component of the 147th FG, right?


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

When?

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, after
the US had concluded the treaty with Hanoi

What the heck does that treaty have to do with the service of the
102's? This is like saying that the F-102 was taken out of service
after the 1973 Fords were announced. It's an absolutely true
statement but also absolutely meaningless.

It bears upon your assertion that there was no likelihood of the
F-102's seeing combat during this period, as they were in your
estimation truly second-line equipment. Be that as it may, what matter
is that they were serving in a first line role through mid-73 with the
AC, and still standing full alert even later with the ANG.


If you look at my other post, I give better dates of when it went out
of service.

July 73 for the AC (57th FIS), and October 76 with the ANG (a HIANG
unit).


(source:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...468/ch11-4.htm). They continued
in ANG service for only a few more years (77 IIRC). So, throughout
this period of the Vietnam conflict, the Dagger remained in "front
line" service.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by front line service. I
think that suggesting that it was a front line aircraft past the mid
sixties is more accurate.

Huh? Not sure I follow the meaning of that last sentence. But suffice
it to say that one of the more regular Bear hunting outfits was the
*last* AC unit to lose its Deuces in July 73, which would seem to
indicate that contrary to your theory that Bush was safely serving in
an aircraft that was unlikely to see combat service, it was indeed
seeing "front line" use during that period.


It was the *first* US combat aircraft deployed to the
RVN after the Tonking Gulf incident, and remained in theater throught
the time of US major involvement. Not bad for Scott's "second echelon"
fighter, as he would call it, no?

Well, in Korea when the war broke out, some of the first aircraft
deployed were P-51's, not jets. Not because they were the best, but
because they were close. As far as remaining in theatre, it was
pointed out that the total deployment was a total of 24 aircraft. Do
you know the numbers for similar aircraft? For all we know, it may
simply have been more trouble to return them than it was worth.....I
don't know.

So what? The NV threat did not require a greater force (that would
generally have been considered a good thing, right?).




No, that was NOT the question. The question was about F-102 service in
Vietnam, period. Which Scott managed to fumble--but hey, that's
excusable, we all make mistakes, and he admitted as much (which is
better than a lot of folks hereabouts...). But he left the ballpark
when he tried to go political and engaged in wholesale libel with his
"the Guard was a haven for draftdodgers" crap.

Wasn't it?

Not in my opinion. Sure, there were those who joined the Guard in
order to perform their service in a manner which was less likely to
see them having to deploy; but there were a lot more folks who were
already in the Guard when the war heated up and stayed the course.
There were others, like my brother, who did their AC tours, to include
many Vietnam veterans, and then joined the Guard after their return
home. Do you classify either of these latter two categories as
"draftdodgers"? What about the thousands of Guardsmen who just a few
short years earlier were called up for the Berlin Crisis--were they
draft dodgers as well? Or the thousands of Guardsmen who were
activated to serve in Korea and Vietnam in 68? Let me give you a
hint--a draftdodger took off for Canada, or strung educational
deferrments together in search of a degree he really did not want, or
made a half-assed gesture at joining ROTC and then canned it when he
was safe and joined the protesters in Merry Ol' England--he did not
don a uniform in the Guard or Reserves.

That's certainly the way I remember it....and I knew a
quite a few people who were in it for exactly that reason.

They were not "draftdodgers" IMO.


My brother served in
the Guard at the very end of the Vietnam conflict--AFTER serving on
active duty and pulling a year flying DUSTOFF missions out of Danang
and Phu Bai...but hey, that tarbrush Scott was wielding casts a broad
stroke, does it not?

More power to him. There were a lot of personnel that came into the
guard that way. In fact, to bring it back on subject, that was one of
the few career paths for many of the F-102 pilots that were considered
excess as the number of F-102 squadrons was reduced. Many of them
were not going to be retrained on a newer aircraft. If they could
find a NG unit that would take them, they could keep flying.

But hey, gosh forbid they could have ended up in the "champagne
group", upon which you heap scorn? And if you are willing to admit
that "a lot of personnel" came into the Guard from the AC's, how do
you then turn around and label it merely a haven for draftdodgers?



ANG and ARNG units were serving in Vietnam as
well, along with a few thousand former ARNG "individual replacements"
(see what happened to the HIARNG infantry brigade that was
activated....). Then we get the attempt to tar the entire 111th FIS
because Scott does not like GWB; again, uncalled for.

Again, not what I said.

Then I guess "champagne unit" was a term of endearment?


Not really. The F-102's went in when the curtain went up, and returned
only when it went down. ANG F-102 folks played in the same sandbox as
their AC counterparts.

OK. ....and a list of their major accomplishments while there would
be?????? # missions, troops killed, planes shot down, missiles
fired.

How about, "No enemy aircraft attempted to attack US installations
while they were on duty"? Not a bad record.



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.

I don't know if that's really a fair comparison. After all, that was
less than 2 1/2 years after WWII ended.

WWII ended in 1960?! I was referring to the activation of troops and
airmen by Kennedy; a few ANG units made the trip across the big pond
at that time. Richard bach, author of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull",
was one of those F-84F pilots so involved; he wrote a short book about
one of his flights in Europe.



OK. Just how did the states leverage this control? Appointing
officers? Not really--they had to be vetted by a federal rec board
before the appointments were effective. Training plans? Nope--that was
controlled by the federal side. IET? Nope, because this was after it
was decided that all NG personnel would attend AC IET. Money,
organization, and/or equipment? Heck no--that was firmly the purview
of the feds. So, where was all of this state control really
manifested?

Good question. I thought that through the 1980's the chain of command
for the NG went to the Governor unless the unless the units had been
federalized.

And that chain has little meaning outside of the use of the Guard in a
state active duty role for disaster response or riot control.


The example that comes to mind was Eisenhower doing this to keep NG
troops from being used by segratationist governors in the school
integration efforts in the mid-1950's.

By which both Eisenhower and later Kennedy established beyond a doubt
that the Guard's first duty was to the nation. This does not exactly
buttress your argument that the states' had some major control over
the Guard, now does it?


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? Good way to
get a bloody nose (see what happened when we had B-29's caught on
Saipan during WWII by that "remote" threat).

It's a good question. In all seriousness, maybe it was simply easier
to keep them there than return them. I've seen pictures of
Davis-Monahan in this time frame, it was covered with little delta
dots. There was no shortage of low-hour 102 airframes.

Then one wonders why we brought them back after their duty was
complete?


Anyway, I did a quick search and apparently at least some of them were
on alert sitting armed with the cockpits open. So someone expected
some trouble and wanted them there. Apparently they also escorted some
B-52 missions according to the SAC Museum.

Yep. And undoubtedly examined a few bogies which were experiencing
difficulties or were not sqawking proper IFF. The fact is that at
least three were lost to enemy fire (in the air-- a few more were
destroyed on the ground), so they had to be doing something.

Brooks


http://www.dposs.com/t_jensen-dab-bush-account-1965.htm


Scott Peterson

Kevin Brooks posted:

Be that as it may, what matter
is that they were serving in a first line role through mid-73 with the
AC, and still standing full alert even later with the ANG.

And again...

July 73 for the AC (57th FIS), and October 76 with the ANG (a HIANG
unit).

Please allow me to apologize in advance if you are offended by the
question...but what the heck is AC?

You posted that several times and I'm sure it means Active
C-something. I used AD for Active Duty or are slipping in some army
jargon on us AF types?

Juvat (curious minds want to know)

In message , Juvat
writes
Please allow me to apologize in advance if you are offended by the
question...but what the heck is AC?

Air Component? (may be too modern, I'm getting regular purple
transfusions at the moment).

Active Component?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk