A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old September 9th 03, 11:28 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Juvat wrote:

Regarding the Berlin call-up (there's that expression again) there
were bright spots (no aircraft lost in the deployment) and some less
than stellar deals like three of the four provisional Fighter Wings
BUSTING their ORIs, one actually busted twice. All deployed ANG
tactical fighter (versus interceptor) squadrons were not currently
qualified in conventional surface attack, but had mistaken qualified
in nukes....


Sometimes stuff just jumps out at me and I've got to comment.

The "omigod, they busted an ORI" business, for example. In January of
'73, the 388th wing at Korat had an ORI. This, commencing just days
after the end of Linebacker II, when the Korat wing exclusively flew
all of the SAM-suppression, both day and night for all the effort.
When we flew all of the EB-66 counter-measures and where we had
successfully absorbed and integrated the three squadron wing of the
354th with A-7s.

The LG, Chief of Maintenance, Chief of supply and Munitions Squadron
CC were all off the base within 24 hours. I became exec to Jack Chain
*(later CINCSAC), as he moved from Wing DO to become LG and "fix"
things as well as respond to the IG report.

Was Korat not "operationally ready"? By whose warped interpretation?

Or, there was the "operationally ready" issue when after a bit of time
in the F-4, I asked if I qualified for the Operational Readiness
Medal, which took three or four years of OR status. I learned that my
time in the F-105 didn't count. I was never "operationally ready"!!!
Despite 110 combat missions, I was never OR, because I never had the
requisite checkride.

Something is occasionally rotten in Denmark and in the Inspector's
offices. It ain't always what the reports say that indicates the fact.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038
  #82  
Old September 10th 03, 01:33 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Juvat wrote in message . ..
Kevin Brooks posted:


By deploying them into the theater of operations from their current
station would be one manner of "calling up" an AC unit.


OK but that's not how I would interpret it when I was active duty.
Different strokes...

I took it as a total force question.


Again, fair enough...not how I read it.

Take away the "strictly"; as it was indeed used in ground attack
missions, albeit not very effectively...why put blinders on only in regards to the F-102's
history?


Not trying to put blinders on it, I did post that Scott was incorrect
on this score. He made an easy mistake.

Sorry to inform you of this, but this thread began to meander
(something that is rather common in Usenet) after Scott made his post
and tried to link it to an anti-GWB thrust. As others have commented,
the only folks who seem restricted to the ANG-only approach appear to
be you and Scott.


OK, guilty as charged I was honestly trying to keep it on topic.
Respectfully, I'm happy NOT to discuss GWB service record. Nuff said.

OK. So your earlier statement that no ANG units were deployed was
apparently misworded--I would assume that you mean no F-102 units were
activated?


You are correct on that score, I fumble fingered the text when I left
out F-102.

Which would be true enough--but that leaves one wondering
whether F-102 units would indeed have been activated if sufficient
*volunteers* had not stepped forward?


A very small detail regarding F-102 pilots on active duty from Colonel
(PhD) Gross' "Prelude to the Total Force..." page 150

"Pilot shortages due to Southeast Asia operations increasingly
affected the Air Guard. Small numbers of Air Guard F-102 were
encouraged to volunteer for temporary active duty overseas. In July
1968, twenty-four of these pilots were on active duty at bases in
Holland, Germany, Alaska, the Philippines, and Okinawa."


I believe what he is describing here was the Palace Alert program; I
had thought that was a SEA-only operation, but in reading some info
found on the web during this discussion I noted that the program sent
ANG pilots to various locales. Since it was/is impossible for the USAF
to activate individuals (other than IRR, which likely had few F-102
pilots at the time), the use of volunteers was required. Had those
volunteers not materialized, the only real solution (given that they
were apparently *required*, not just "nice to have along" assets)
would have been to activate an F-102 squadron (and this could easily
have been the case in 68, as you are well aware of the other
activations of both ANG and ARNG units that happened at this time).



Gee, I was unaware you were so picky... Good enough?


The devil is in the details...

Well, the folks in Bien Hoa did not have to deploy into the theater of
operations after the Gulf resolution, now did they (see, this playing
with finite word definitions can work both ways)?


You win...my sincere apologies for not staying on topic.

I did read where the 509th FIS claims to have been the first
unit to deploy into the RVN after the GT incident--is that wrong?


My humble apologies again, since there were so many deployments to SEA
from back in 1961 up until the GT incident, I honestly don't think a
great deal about which outfit gets the "honor" of being first.

But it is germane to the fact that the USAF already regarded the ANG
as a real, honest to goodness go-to-war asset well before the entry of
GWB into ANG service.


I encourage you to read Gross' book, it might get you to reconsider
that remark.

Regarding the Berlin call-up (there's that expression again) there
were bright spots (no aircraft lost in the deployment) and some less
than stellar deals like three of the four provisional Fighter Wings
BUSTING their ORIs, one actually busted twice. All deployed ANG
tactical fighter (versus interceptor) squadrons were not currently
qualified in conventional surface attack, but had mistaken qualified
in nukes....

Anyway lots of great stuff in the book. Good and bad.


Not unusual. That the units had problems with the ORI is not a
surprise; it leaves wanting the more important question of how good
the pilots and their ground crews were (and yes, a unit, be it ground
or air, with superlative crews could still bust a major inspection,
for as you note "the devil is in the details"). As to the question of
nuclear versus conventional delivery training, the fault would have to
lie with the AC on that one--those units training plans had to be
approved ultimately by the AC side of the house, and if they were that
far off-track, then they had to have either (a) been given bad
training guidance, or (b) were given guidance without requisite
resourcing to allow accomplishment of the additional tasks.

I can recall one of my (Regular Army) tac officers in college, who had
entered active duty back in the mid-70's, commenting about the quality
of Guard units--he was amazed at the teamwork they displayed, if not
their (universal) military bearing. He laughed about his active duty
mortar platoon having been rather humiliated in a competition with an
ARNG mortar platoon that was training with them, said they may have
looked like old geezers who called each other by their first names,
but by golly could they hustle in setting up their tubes and putting
rounds downrange and on-target. And this was during one of the Guard's
worst periods (but then again, it was not such a swell time to be in
the "Volar" army, either).


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, ...
The first is a gross exaggeration born of enough folks making the
claim in the past, so it must be true, right?


Again read Gross, he writes..."President Johnson's decision to rely on
draftees rather than reservists raised questions about the expense and
military utility or reserve programs. Many Americans were incensed
that their sons and husbands were being drafted to risk death in
Southeast Asia while men who received drill pay stayed home. The
draft-exempt status of the National Guard, as well as other reserve
programs, became a major incentive to volunteer for those programs."

You can disagree with Gross, but I think he nailed it.


"Many Americans" also served in the Guard, or had friends or relatives
who did. More than a few thousand of them served in Vietnam (and yes,
there were even cases of Guardsmen volunteering for active duty during
the war), and ISTR something like seven to eight thousand ARNG troops
found themselves deploying to Vietnam during the 68-69 timeframe (a
few arty units, a lot of CS/CSS units, and that infantry brigade that
was broken down to provide replacements to the AC divisions already in
country; even, IIRC, Co D/51st Inf Rgt (Ranger), which was an Indiana
ARNG LRRP unit). I believe Mr. Gross is making a generalization that
does not serve the purposes of accuracy, either in the fact that
Guardsmen did indeed serve in Vietnam (and LBJ's mistake was not their
doing), or that there was some kind of universal groundswell of
identifying the Guard as a "draftdodgers haven".


Finally...my apologies, reasonable men can disagree (still scratching
my head over Dan's post) and with that you are welcome to the last
word.


Hey, I have not seen you step beyond the bounds of amicable discussion
here, nor have I seen you really endorse all of Scott's comments, so
no problem.

Brooks


Juvat

  #83  
Old September 10th 03, 01:45 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #84  
Old September 10th 03, 01:57 AM
David Hartung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Having said that and for those who are interested, my Dad was one
of the first group of fighter pilots to operate supersonic fighters
(e.g: Dueces) with operational FIS squadrons back in the mid to
late '50's. A while back I shared with the NG a local newspaper
story about him ejecting from an F-102 over Wisconsin (predictably,
the nitpicker contingent here even picked apart THAT!) Anyway,
he especially loved the Duece's maneuverability and often spoke
fondly of the ol' bird. Seems Walt BJ who also flew the Duece felt
exactly the same way about it.


Perchance was your dad flying out of Truax at Madison? My Dad was a Pilot
for the ANG squadron at Madison. When he joined the unit in about 1956 they
were flying F89s, in late 1964 Dad was TDY to Perrin in Texas to learn to
fly the 102, he flew the Deuce from then until his retirement from the unit
in 1972. This doesn't have much to do with the 102 in SEA discussion, please
accept my apologies.


  #85  
Old September 10th 03, 02:53 AM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Hartung" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:


Having said that and for those who are interested, my Dad was one
of the first group of fighter pilots to operate supersonic fighters
(e.g: Dueces) with operational FIS squadrons back in the mid to
late '50's. A while back I shared with the NG a local newspaper
story about him ejecting from an F-102 over Wisconsin (predictably,
the nitpicker contingent here even picked apart THAT!) Anyway,
he especially loved the Duece's maneuverability and often spoke
fondly of the ol' bird. Seems Walt BJ who also flew the Duece felt
exactly the same way about it.


Perchance was your dad flying out of Truax at Madison? My Dad was a Pilot
for the ANG squadron at Madison. When he joined the unit in about 1956 they
were flying F89s, in late 1964 Dad was TDY to Perrin in Texas to learn to
fly the 102, he flew the Deuce from then until his retirement from the unit
in 1972. This doesn't have much to do with the 102 in SEA discussion, please
accept my apologies.


No apologies necessary. Yes, he was out of Truax when he bailed out
and he also checked out in the Duece at Parrin in the mid/late '50's.
Here's the post I sent to RAM last year:

***

My Dad punched out of an F-102A over Wisconsin in the late '50's.
Here's a few excerpts from local newspaper clippings:

Truax Jet Crashes; Pilot Safe

PORTAGE -- A Dagger F-102 jet from Truax Field crashed and exploded in
a wooded swamp north of here today, minutes after the pilot, 1st Lt.
Robert Marron, 29, jumped to safety.

The plane crashed about 10 miles from the spot where Marron's
parachute landed. The Air Force put up a security guard around
the wreckage this afternoon. The plane crashed in a sparsely populated
area on the Marquette-Columbia County line.

An Air Force spokesman at Truax Field said the plan suffered
"mechanical difficulties" during a two-plane flight. The spokesman
said Marron stayed with the plane until he had guided it away from
populous areas then bailed out.

The Air Force spokesman indicated that the plane was armed and
probably caused a tremendous explosion when it crashed into the swamp.


An eyewitness, Gary Stevens, was plowing about a quarter mile away,
ran across the swamp and arrived at the plane, "just as the pieces
stopped smouldering." He said that the plane exploded "like a small
atomic bomb" when it hit the ground and that when he reached the scene
"there wasn't a piece of the plane so big you couldn't hold it in your
hand." Stevens watched the pilot come down and said later that he
"just got there when the pilot walked over to me."

Truax Field immediately sent a team to the scene to disarm and
retrieve the armaments and to take wreckage back to Madison where
investigators will attempt to determine the cause of the fire.

Marron, a pilot, with the 325th fighter interceptor squadron, has been
stationed at Truax since he graduated from pilot school in 1957.

#30#

Of course, over a few beers, Dad explained his ejection story in much
more vivid detail.

One particular aspect of his story that stands out in my memory is
when the flabbergasted farmer ran over to him and asked, "Are
you OK!??!??"

His typical fighter-pilot manner of irreverence reply to the farmer
was, "Yeah...are *you* OK?!!?" ;-))

-Mike Marron
Clearwater, FL

***

-Mike Marron
  #86  
Old September 10th 03, 03:50 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Juvat wrote in message . ..
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)


Active Component, versus RC (Reserve Component). I believe the term is
commonly used in both the Army and Air Force these days. I believe it
can prevent some degree of confusion, because RC units frequently are
on "AD" of one type or another, as are their individual unit members.
A lot of ANG and ARNG units are on "active duty" right now in
Iraq--but they remain "reserve component" units.

Brooks
  #87  
Old September 10th 03, 04:22 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Peterson wrote in message ...
(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.


Are you saying you did NOT say, "Guard units were regarded as draft
dodgers refuges. Specifically, the TxANG 147th fighter group was
considered a "champagne" unit"?

It's your incorrect intrepretation that
I'm responding to.


It is not that hard to interpret that quote.



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.


Well gee, I guess the USAF routinely placed incapable aircraft at a
location that saw a significant chunk of the active intercepts of that
period? ISTR that the 57th FIS was frequently out and about
intercepting Soviet Bears, Bisons, etc.?


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.


I believe that was the official date that they began operating the
F-4C (IIRC), but they had ceased being an operational F-102 element
back in October of 76 according to what I read at one of the various
websites; sounds reasonable to me.



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.


No, because there is no "quote" there; I ammerely trying to define
your position based upon your statements. It appeared to me (again,
the snippage makes it a bit difficult...) that you were saying that
because they saw no combat action in their CONUS ADC role, the
likelihood of their seeing combat in that role was not a realistic
possibility. A bit of a logic fault in that approach if you ask me.

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.


Along the CONUS border, you are correct. But that does not mean that
we should have, or could have, dismantled our air defenses at that
point in time. The F-102 was a significant player in that air defense
network up through the early 70's.


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.


I believe a former F-102 pilot (Walt?) lurks hereabouts and could
answer that question.


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.


You don't have to. Answer one question--do you think that all of the
Guardsmen who were already serving before the war heated up just
pulled pitch and left the Guard in 1965-68? How does your "draft
dodger" moniker fit them?


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.


I have, and in the company of a fair number of Vietnam veterans who
did not dodge diddly.



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.


OFCS, then please tell us what that Governor actually controlled?
Training plans and inspections? Nope. Officer appointments? Not
without federal approval of each and every one. Equipment? Nope.
Organization? Nope again. Logistical support? No. Funding? Heck no. So
what was this tremendous control they exerted over their state Guard
units?


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


Among others.....


Gee, you cover your political sentiments so well...


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.


And just what the heck do you think your "first line" F-106's and
F-4C's would have been facing in CONUS? Reallly looong range high
performance Migs? le tme get this straight--since the Bear was the
primary threat, it was OK to have the F-102 serve in Iceland, but
those same F-102's were somehow outclassed when facing the *same*
threat here in CONUS??


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.


You are trolling without bait. GWB joined, he trained, and he flew.
Condemn that if you waqnt, but it ain't gonna carry much water with
most of us. Ever notice how the military, down at the
rubber-hits-the-road-level, responds to GWB when he appears with them?
Compare that to how they conducted themselves when his predecessor was
in office (you do recall the incident where that predecessor flew out
to a CVN (without the media whining that accompanied GWB's similar
trip) and was actually booed by his audience?). Case closed.


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.


And volunteering for service in another military branch or component
does not equate to "draft dodger". Or are you gonna fling that
accusation at all of those folks who joined the Navy, Coast Guard, or
Air Force because they preferred that to serving in the Army? My, what
a long list of "draft dodgers" you have created there...

Brooks


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

  #88  
Old September 10th 03, 10:28 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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
  #89  
Old September 10th 03, 11:16 AM
David Hartung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank Vaughan" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed
Rasimus wrote:



Something is occasionally rotten in Denmark and in the Inspector's
offices. It ain't always what the reports say that indicates the fact.


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



When I was loading nukes on B-52's for SAC, we used to joke that
we could predict with great accuracy when the next ORI would
"happen".

The following conditions had to be met:

Payday was on a Friday.
It was a 3-day weekend.
There was a Saturday somewere in the middle of that weekend.

Never failed!


My only SAC ORI experience was at Anderson, we had an advantage over other
Bases. The IG Team came through Hickam, we had at least eight hours notice
that they were on the way, and yes, the managed to show up on Friday! I had
been at Anderson about two weeks, and was not yet on a load crew, thus I
played gopher, and discovered that B52 generations can be an interesting
spectator sport.


  #90  
Old September 10th 03, 11:21 AM
David Hartung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"David Hartung" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:


Having said that and for those who are interested, my Dad was one
of the first group of fighter pilots to operate supersonic fighters
(e.g: Dueces) with operational FIS squadrons back in the mid to
late '50's. A while back I shared with the NG a local newspaper
story about him ejecting from an F-102 over Wisconsin (predictably,
the nitpicker contingent here even picked apart THAT!) Anyway,
he especially loved the Duece's maneuverability and often spoke
fondly of the ol' bird. Seems Walt BJ who also flew the Duece felt
exactly the same way about it.


Perchance was your dad flying out of Truax at Madison? My Dad was a Pilot
for the ANG squadron at Madison. When he joined the unit in about 1956

they
were flying F89s, in late 1964 Dad was TDY to Perrin in Texas to learn to
fly the 102, he flew the Deuce from then until his retirement from the

unit
in 1972. This doesn't have much to do with the 102 in SEA discussion,

please
accept my apologies.


No apologies necessary. Yes, he was out of Truax when he bailed out
and he also checked out in the Duece at Parrin in the mid/late '50's.
Here's the post I sent to RAM last year:

***

My Dad punched out of an F-102A over Wisconsin in the late '50's.
Here's a few excerpts from local newspaper clippings:

Truax Jet Crashes; Pilot Safe

PORTAGE -- A Dagger F-102 jet from Truax Field crashed and exploded in
a wooded swamp north of here today, minutes after the pilot, 1st Lt.
Robert Marron, 29, jumped to safety.

The plane crashed about 10 miles from the spot where Marron's
parachute landed. The Air Force put up a security guard around
the wreckage this afternoon. The plane crashed in a sparsely populated
area on the Marquette-Columbia County line.

An Air Force spokesman at Truax Field said the plan suffered
"mechanical difficulties" during a two-plane flight. The spokesman
said Marron stayed with the plane until he had guided it away from
populous areas then bailed out.

The Air Force spokesman indicated that the plane was armed and
probably caused a tremendous explosion when it crashed into the swamp.


An eyewitness, Gary Stevens, was plowing about a quarter mile away,
ran across the swamp and arrived at the plane, "just as the pieces
stopped smouldering." He said that the plane exploded "like a small
atomic bomb" when it hit the ground and that when he reached the scene
"there wasn't a piece of the plane so big you couldn't hold it in your
hand." Stevens watched the pilot come down and said later that he
"just got there when the pilot walked over to me."

Truax Field immediately sent a team to the scene to disarm and
retrieve the armaments and to take wreckage back to Madison where
investigators will attempt to determine the cause of the fire.

Marron, a pilot, with the 325th fighter interceptor squadron, has been
stationed at Truax since he graduated from pilot school in 1957.

#30#

Of course, over a few beers, Dad explained his ejection story in much
more vivid detail.

One particular aspect of his story that stands out in my memory is
when the flabbergasted farmer ran over to him and asked, "Are
you OK!??!??"

His typical fighter-pilot manner of irreverence reply to the farmer
was, "Yeah...are *you* OK?!!?" ;-))

-Mike Marron
Clearwater, FL


Thanks for the info, since I was born in 1954, my memories of the late
fifties to not include much ANG stuff, I do remember that the Regular AF
flew out of Truax, and that when they moved out, the ANG took over their
facilities. I also seem to recall that after the Deuce unit left Madoson,
there was a detachment of 101s there for a while.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The joke called TSA Spockstuto Instrument Flight Rules 58 December 27th 04 01:54 PM
RV-7a baggage area David Smith Home Built 32 December 15th 03 05:08 AM
Info on a P-51 mustang called "Spare Parts" eg Home Built 3 October 28th 03 03:02 AM
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War Evan Brennan Military Aviation 34 July 18th 03 11:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.