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

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old July 20th 04, 09:26 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guess the "Shamu" paint job will be a thing of the past..

Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

Ads
  #552  
Old July 20th 04, 09:30 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Was he flying "company"
SR-71?


I didnt think there was such a thing, other than the A-11, which were well
before F-18.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

  #554  
Old July 20th 04, 10:28 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First of all I apologise for the poor quality of the earlier article.
I was tired and let it go without proofreading. You all have been
kind in avoiding criticism.

"ian maclure" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

[snip]

Over in sci.mil a while ago a fellow who said he was a vegteran of
the Swedish army (don;t know if he was as they say, 'on the net
no one knows you're a dog and that doesn;t jsut apply to
alt.personals)
who said in his basic training he was taught to not fire their
heavy machine gun (equivalent to .50 cal) ar individual personell.


Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
though.


I haven't been able to find the discussion but recall that he was
refering to their 'heavy' machine gun which if they had one I
would guess to have been 12.7 mm or equivalent. Like most Swedes,
he seemed to have a better grasp of English than most Americans
but might have faltered on some of the technical lingo.


He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,


Incorrect.


Ambiguous.

Historically, (and on-topic for re.aviation.military) some .50
caliber ammunition has been incinidiery or explosive. It is
probably a violation of the GCs the Hague, or other treaties
to use these directly against persons.

Possibly there were objections voiced by other nations about the
use of .50 caliber machine guns in Vietnam predicated on the
presumption that explosive or incindiery (or tracer) rounds
were the norm.

I agree that the statement by Kerry appears on its face to be wrong,
absent elaboration.

My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?

--

FF
  #555  
Old July 20th 04, 10:33 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Rasimus" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.


I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)


That doesn't track.


Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.


Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
window.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.


The glass mod does include a HUD.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8



  #556  
Old July 20th 04, 10:55 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:33:39 -0400, "Brett"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)


That doesn't track.


Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

All the more reason to say it wasn't "B" models.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
  #557  
Old July 20th 04, 11:17 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"ian maclure" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

....

Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
though.

He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,


Incorrect.


Oh, here's someone else you can argue with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Cuy36B.1DJ%40ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com&o utput=gplain

Though his comment may be based on something more recent that the 1949
GCs.

--

FF
  #558  
Old July 21st 04, 12:58 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mary wrote:

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?


Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
the SUPT T-38s?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #559  
Old July 21st 04, 01:09 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Shatzer wrote:

There was never any possibility that they were going to -not- continue
the conflict - with or without the anti-war movement.


Of course, perhaps instead of "continue the war", I should have typed "the U.S.
anti-war effort actually encouraged NVN to resist peace inititives".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #560  
Old July 21st 04, 01:13 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Typhoon502 wrote:

I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky"

landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


Yeah, you just had to push the "autoland" button, right?


Yep, and tell the instuctor; "no sir, I swear I landed it by myself..."


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
 




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
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve WalterM140 Military Aviation 196 June 14th 04 11:33 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.