What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam

Cub Driver posted:

I read the post pretty much the same way.

Understood...I focused on the first paragraph not the political note.

I can appreciate your feelings WRT GWB, and I'm happy not to engage
you on this topic. You have great day...I'm gonna go put some miles on
my road bike.

Juvat

(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.

Seems like you have the problem here.

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......

Pure coincidence, I suppose.





Scott Peterson


If genetic scientists crossed a chicken
with a zebra would they get a four-legged
chicken with its own barcode?

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?

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:30:27 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

Hmm, As I understand it, the Australians were also present as well,
flying Avon Sabres. Do you have anything on their activities?

"Ubon air force base in Thailand during the period 31 May 1962 to 31
August 1968" Air Defense of Thailand
google search will turn up more info..

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

Then why make the comment in this forum? It has to be either safety
through remoteness, or a case of a really bad
slip-of-the-tongue(typing finger)--I'd hope it was the latter.


Becaue it's not what I said. It's your incorrect intrepretation that
I'm responding to.


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

From what I have, the last ADC units in the Air Force were converted
in 1973. It was a unit in Iceland. In the Pacific, it was 1971. In
Alaska, it was 1970, Europe, 1970. Almost all ANG units were
converted to other aircraft by 1975. The last units, the 195th in the
Calif. ANG in 1975 and the 199th ANG in Hawaii, stopped flying them
in Jan, 1977.

Dates vary. The 57th FIS did indeed not give their last Deuces up
until July 73--meaning that by *any* definition they were in "first
line" service until then.

Fine, then what is "any" definition. To me, the fact that they were
still in use by an Air Force unit does not mean it was a first-line
unit. Cynically, I'd think that there was a good reason that unit was
chosen to be last, but I don't know what it was in this case.

The actual last use by the ANG is a bit more
murky from what I have read--the 77 date is floated, but at least one
source I ran into indicated that the HIANG actually conducted its last
operational Deuce flight in October 76.

They claim 1/77, but who knows.


Oh....so combat is not a realistic possibility unless it has already
occurred? I believe you were insinuating that US interceptors of that
period faced no real danger, right? I am having a bit of a problem
here, since the previous statements have been snipped.

Again, you are misquoting me me for your own benefit. This was a very
touchy situation. There's always the possibility of accidents on both
sides. But neither side ever did shoot at each other.

I've always wondered what the orders given to the intercepting
aircraft were in these cases. Given the very serous consequences of
an incident, did they have permission to fire if fired on or would
they have had to wait for a decision by their superiors.

It's sneering to say they were tied to a state?

No, the sneering bit was your snide little "Guard as a haven for
draftdodgers" crap in the earlier paragraph.

Well, as stated elsewhere, that's the way I remember it, but I really
don't have time to look up why people joined back then.

That you are one of the number who have never served in a Guard
unit--the meaning is rather clear if you actually read the wording.


I did read it several times. ....and no, I never served in a Guard
unit.


Also, that's not how I understood it, but if you can expand on how the
NG units were not tied to a state, I'd appreciate your explaining how
it did work.

Nice try, but nope, that is not what I said. I seem to recall that you
were mumbling about the Guard being much more firmly state controlled
during the Vietnam era (hard to get your wording right, as it has been
snipped and I lack the resolve to dig back into the old posts). I
believe that is a much exaggerated claim--please show me what area(s)
the state exerted real control over? In fact, the states really have
their "control" limited to administrative matters (and then only IAW
federal guidelines and significant federal supervision).

Discussed in another post. And yes, the guard did report to and take
orders from the governor of the state, unless the unit was
federalized.

I am sure you
are harkening back to the sinister "GWB got appointed unfairly..."
stance,

Among others.....

That the demise was quick after it began is immaterial. That the AC
was replacing the F-102 with F-106's as quickly as possible is true,
and understandable. But from an operational standpoint, there is no
way you can claim that the F-102 was out-to-pasture while it was still
being flown by active duty squadrons (especially the 57th in Iceland,
where they ran a pretty regular Bear greeting service IIRC). The fact
is that while GWB was training and beginning his squadron service the
Deuce was not some has-been/never-going-nowhere player as you would
have us believe, but was still serving with both frontline units on
the AC side and was standing alert at various CONUS stations as well.


I disagree. The fact that it was still being flown by Air Force
squadrons does not mean that it's regarded as a first-line aircraft.
The Air Force bought 1,000 of the things and they were still a usable
aircraft, just not the best.

As far as the 57th continuing to fly them. I would speculate that that
the 102 was a adequate aircraft for that location and that role even
into the Seventies. The only hostile aircraft they would be expecting
there would be the subsonic Bears....which are exactly what they were
designed to intercept.

Because while I am sure it may have happened (just as I am equally
sure that Senator Shmedlap could have influenced the Army's decision
to have his son serve as a clerk on a rather short tour--or maybe
Senator Gore?), I am reluctant to smear folks without darned good
evidence (which apparently in the case of GWB has never been given,
even after journalists from such anti-GWB forums as the Boston Herald
and the Washington Post (or Washington Pravda as we used to refer to
it) spent considerable effort trying to do just that), for one.

I would suggest that you do a web search on GWB and National Guard. A
number of sites have his entire military history on line. Give this
an honest look to sites reporting all POV's and see if you still want
to discuss it.

Second, when you take that tack, you run the risk of smearing a lot of
other good folks, especially when you use wording such as that that
you chose in your earlier post--there were a lot of folks serving in
the Guard before the war ever began, for example, and more than a few
vets joined Guard units upon their return.

I never said all. But I think that suggesting that the NG's
popularity during the Viet Nam years was not due to the draft borders
on ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact
that, despite LBJ/McNamara's stupid mistake of not using Guard and
Reserve forces earlier, there were a significant number of both ANG
and ARNG folks mobilized during the conflict, and a number of other
ANG crews and personnel performed support missions as well (to include
transport runs into the RVN, IIRC). And BTW, are you sure that ALL of
the Guard units had those waiting lists? Rather definitive and
inclusive statement you are making there...

Individuals, not units.

You're right, though. ALL is very inclusive. What guard units did
not have long waiting lists at this time? It would be intersting to
try to figure out why.....


Scott Peterson

Mike Marron wrote:

I realize that second-hand accounts shared by "non-participants" is
viewed with contempt by many on this NG so if you happen to fall
into that category go ahead and stop reading now...


Really having fun with this aren't you Marron?...you're showing a
very ugly aspect of your mental makeup IMO, one where you're most
comfortable when you have lot's of people that you can hate.

I can see no other reason for taking such unreasonable offense at
Gordon's very polite request awhile ago.

You're actually a rather scary guy you know...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Really having fun with this aren't you Marron?...you're showing a
very ugly aspect of your mental makeup IMO, one where you're most
comfortable when you have lot's of people that you can hate.

I can see no other reason for taking such unreasonable offense at
Gordon's very polite request awhile ago.

You're actually a rather scary guy you know...

Huh? You just love to argue about off-topic crap doncha' Gord?
What does this have to do with what I posted about the Duece?


-Mike (scary guy) Marron

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