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

I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have checked
this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I haven't post
much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.

I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or whichever
side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and that
is this.

Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE Asia'.
Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or whatever you
want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a MiG
wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the USAF.
There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
detachments, that did go over there also.

As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war is
long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger, and
liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just got
caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.

Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in danger of
going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
other.

On 01 Sep 2004 13:23:49 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

Dudley You know Pechs, I for one deeply resent your insistent back door
implications about the ANG BRBR

Calm down and try to read all of my posts. I never said the ANG wasn't flying
dangferous A/C but the ANG is not the USAF. It is different organization,
different ways of doing business.

Try to step back and look at the world in 1968 when this so called 'patriot'
who wanted to 'serve his country' decided to join the national guard instad of
going into the 'military'.
He went into the military. Thats why he has an Honorable Discharge.
You're coming very close to lying to a bunch of people who know the
truth. Prove in your next post that National Guard service is not
"going into the military". Then try to explain it to the NG troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq.


Ya know, flying anything is dangerous and some of the very best pilots I have
ever fought were ANG or USN reserve guys but try to see the context of what I'm
saying.
Thats the problem - we do...
Regards,


Dudley- I don't know what Bush's aims were and frankly I don't give a damn
BRBR

Do ya care what Kerry's aims were? can't have it both ways.
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

"Red Rider" wrote in message
m...
I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have
checked
this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I
haven't post
much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.

I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or
whichever
side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and
that
is this.

Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE
Asia'.
Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or
whatever you
want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a
MiG
wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the
USAF.
There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
detachments, that did go over there also.

As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war
is
long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger,
and
liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just
got
caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.

Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in
danger of
going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
other.

And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.

RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
"political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
personally don't even bother with it any longer.

RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
technique. It WORKS!

And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

On 9/1/04 10:31 PM, in article
, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

SNIP

And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.

RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
"political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
personally don't even bother with it any longer.

RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
technique. It WORKS!

And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

Here's the pile on. Pechs, weren't you the guy who was quitting RAMN a
couple of months ago because of all of the off-topic posts that were all
over the NG? Didn't a bunch of others on the group ask you to stay?

I agree. Let's end the political portion of this thread.

Your discussion starter on the ANG is a good one though.

--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

And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years making
RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g political bull
****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!

Concur.

Another poster to this general thread suggested that we all recall the
admonition against discussing politics in the wardroom and reapply same to
RAMN. Again, I concur.

--
Mike Kanze

"Dear Abby: I am a twenty-three year old, liberated woman who has been on
the pill for two years. It's getting very expensive and I think my boyfriend
should share half the cost, but I don't know him well enough to discuss
money with him."

- "Dear Abby" letters that never saw print


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

"Red Rider" wrote in message
m...
I have been watching this thread since it started. In fact I have
checked
this newsgroup daily since about the time it got started, but I
haven't post
much in the last couple of year, because it is very very seldom about
anything that has the least to do with naval aviation.

I don't think much of the thread, no matter who supports what, or
whichever
side they support. However there is one thing I would like to add, and
that
is this.

Pechs you said 'F-102's were the aircraft least likely to go to SE
Asia'.
Wrong. They (and F-104's were in fact deployed to SE Asia to support
operations during the Vietnam conflict (War, Firex, TrainEx or
whatever you
want to call it). And one F-102 was shot down by a MiG. This loss to a
MiG
wasn't a maybe, or we think. It was a loss to a MiG confirmed by the
USAF.
There were also a few (not many, but a few) reserve/guard units or
detachments, that did go over there also.

As for the rest of this thread, it doesn't mean sh*t. The Vietnam war
is
long over and done with. We already had a self-confessed draft-dodger,
and
liar, serve two terms as President. Incidentally he was also a
self-confessed womanizer, and not the first president who was, he just
got
caught. Heck he wasn't even the first president to be caught lying.

Actually I don't have much use for those that weren't there, or in
danger of
going there, making any kind of judgments about Vietnam one way or the
other.

And I'll add this well for all the good it will do; which isn't much.

RAM has just about been ruined by the idiots over there espousing their
"political" preferences and using the group to argue political comment
back and forth. Most of the pilots and the interested aviation people
have either gone completely or post very little over there any more. I
personally don't even bother with it any longer.

RAM has become a garbage dump for clever people who have discovered that
by posting political crap on a military newsgroup, they can sucker
reaction answering posts, and unfortunately it's a VERY viable
technique. It WORKS!

And if the people around here who have worked and slaved for years
making RAMN the fine newsgroup that it is don't quit this f*****g
political bull ****, this group will end up in the same GD dumper!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

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


For any number of reasons. He didn't want to serve in the military full
time, he wanted to minimize his chances of going to Vietnam, etc.



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?


Probably because the closest ANG unit was operating the F-102.



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?


At the time Bush joined the ANG the F-102 was in service in Vietnam and had
been so for years.