What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam

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

Sheesh! What a bunch of wasted electrons over a hasty ill-considered
remark.
'Nuf said on that.
ROE - to make it sweet and simple we were cleared to fire without
seeking permission on 'a hostile aircraft committing a hostile act'.
Both were defined but it boiled down to any 'not clearly marked or
recognized friendly aircraft'
doing a bad thing - firing on the interceptor, releasing weapons,
paratroops, attacking a vessel not marked as an enemy (I am
paraphrasing here as I forgot the exact wording), that sort of thing.
So we had some latitude - more than in SEA!
FWIW anybody who straps on a single seat jet and takes off has guts. I
well remember my first solo in the T33 after learning how to fly in
props up to the T28 (270 knots in a dive was red line - 505 level in
the T-bird) I ran it up, looked down the runway, asked myself 'do I
really want to do this?' The answer was 'hell, yes!' and off I went.
That was (gulp) 49 years ago.
FWIW here goes on the Deuce. Even now - at night, mind you - the Deuce
would be a serious opponent. It had excellent radar, excellent IR,
missiles that worked if you fired all 6 at once ( I actually killed a
Firebee with a single obsolete radar Falcon despite its warhead being
dearmed) and was a very accurate - as accurate as strafing!) rocket
launcher in air to ground. Of course 24 later 12 2.75s won't do much
but we blew an old Navy destroyer (Patricia target) to pieces with
live (!) 2.75s. 40 sorties with 12 RX apiece left the poor thing very
much the worse for wear - bridge and deck houses flattened.
As for range a Deuce with two tanks is equal to an F4 with 3 and a lot
better handling and faster cruise for 1300 nautical with IFR reserves
(approach plus 20 minutes). You start at 35,000 and .87. Clean, you go
to 42-45+ and .92, and you can go 900 miles and still have IFR reserve
fuel. When the Deuce was new it was good for 1.3M at 35-38000
(tropopause). Then the engines got tired and 1.2 was about it. But it
could fly level at 59000 in AB - subsonic. It could snap-up and launch
on a U2 above 60. (Never did let us do it for real).
But in daylight - that 60 degree blind cone behind one made dayight
air to air dicey and something like a Thach weave mandatory - which of
course ADC never trained in. No RHAW gear. No armor at all. Wet wings,
a candidate for battle damage. No (sob!) gun. It did have an air to
air rocket sight supposed to be good up to 3G - I never got to try it
on a rag, though. That was incorporated for a radar-inop curve of
pursuit shot at a bomber. I guess you could say that beats ramming him
which was the last option we had.
Very sweet handling, very difficult to depart (coarse rudder at 95
KIAS will get you in a spin - recovery is standard, simple, quick),
fully controllable down to 110-115 KIAS, capable of one great bat turn
and then no more energy.
Flown delicately it would out maneuver a navy F4D Skyray at altitude
quite nicely. But, like I said, at night . . . it could lurk and
listen to GCI "bogey dope" (range and bearing to target, target
heading altitude and actions) and never say a word, never turn the
radar on, intercept a bogey using IRSTS and close to missile range and
then 3 seconds before fire 'radar on, lock on, shoot' 6 fully guided
missiles from a low six. How did we range in IR? get level, drop 3000
feet, close to a 30 angle-up on the bogie, you're a mile behind and in
range, get set and shoot. But it was a bomber-killer and with a
GAR11/AIM26 a good bomb-killer. (The bomber was collateral damage.)
Nice airplane. A couple serious design goofs: vision, no fuselage fuel
tank to feed the engine from a central point, no Sidewinder mounts,
wrong engine (it was supposed to get a 30K engine, Gyron or Olympus,
but design problems with them resulted in the J57 at 16K). One other
point - it was made of 7075ST which was NOT alclad hence they had to
be painted - more weight and drag, and airframe problems from
intergranular corrosion late in life. Case in point - I have heard the
Okinawa 102s were scrapped there rather than brought back to the
States because of the results of the vicious sea-salt environment
there...any body know about this?
Cheers - Walt BJ

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:35:11 GMT, Juvat
wrote:

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)

Aircraft

Al Minyard

On 9 Sep 2003 19:50:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

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

Ahh, that is what I get for being a old Navy type, thought you meant
aircraft (that was what "ac" meant in my day). Thanks for setting me
straight. ;-)

Al Minyard

In article t, Jim
Thomas wrote:

F-102s were stationed in Thailand, in 1967, primarily as weather recon
aircraft.

At one point in 1967, (I think around September) there was a Search and
Rescue (SAR) effort near Route 9 (in N. Vietnam, just east of the border
with Laos). I was Sandy lead for this mission. Several SAMs were fired;
turns out, all or most were fired at the F-102s, our MIG cap, not at us.

None hit (and the downed pilot was rescued). Later on, I talked to some
of the F-102 pilots. This was the high point of their tour: they were
shot at.

Seems to me that the worst thing that can happen to a warrior is not to
be allowed to take part. There were lots of warriors in the F-102 bunch.

Jim,
wondering about your thoughts on RCS of the F-102 vs the A-1's?
(Assuming you were in A-1's)

Did they get shot at because of that big wing/big RCS, or because of
operating altitude?

regards

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks posted:

Active Component, versus RC (Reserve Component). I believe the term is
commonly used in both the Army and Air Force these days.

As opposed to Guard pukes, and Reserve pukes...the circle of AF types
I routinely communicate with didn't get the memo.

I believe it can prevent some degree of confusion,

And yet...

A lot of ANG and ARNG units are on "active duty" right now in
Iraq--but they remain "reserve component" units.

My fault for not applying current nomenclature for historical
purposes.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Juvat wrote:

Ed Rasimus posted:

snip

If the 366th moved out of Danang in July of '72 at the peak of
Linebacker, it's a surprise to me.

Ummm, respectfully are you being sarcastic with the last part? See
Thompson page 223...talks about the movement of the 366th from Da Nang
to Takhli in June of 1972.

So I ask the question again, sincerely, who do we believe? And why am
I doing all the citations/research?

OK, I knew that Tahkli got the 4th deployment for S-J when the base
was re-activated. Didn't realize that the Gunfighters moved there as
well.

Squadrons of the 366th moved from DaNang, as stated. Offhand I don't
remember if they remained part of the 366th at first, or were put under some
other wing's control. Walt BJ can say, as he commanded one of the 366th's
squadrons (390th IIRR) at the time, and has mentioned the move in the past.

And, you're doing the research because you love it!

Speaking for myself, it's more often because I hate having to depend on
filktered, inaccurate accounts and urban legends, when the truth can be so
much more interesting (if less hyperbolic). But sometimes you come across a
nugget or vein of real gold in research, and you say "Ah Ha!, why they did
what they did now makes sense," and that is very satisfying.

Guy

"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...

intergranular corrosion late in life. Case in point - I have heard the
Okinawa 102s were scrapped there rather than brought back to the
States because of the results of the vicious sea-salt environment
there...any body know about this?

Anecdotal only, a guy I worked with on Guam was on Okinawa when the Deuce
came off alert, if I remember the story correctly, they had put all the jets
on alert for some big international emergency(USS Pueblo?), when the order
came to download, the planes were downloaded and cut up.

In this case, I think the F-102s were targets because they were high. We
A1s and Jollys were at a couple thousand feet, as I recall.

Jim Thomas

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article t, Jim
Thomas wrote:


F-102s were stationed in Thailand, in 1967, primarily as weather recon
aircraft.

At one point in 1967, (I think around September) there was a Search and
Rescue (SAR) effort near Route 9 (in N. Vietnam, just east of the border
with Laos). I was Sandy lead for this mission. Several SAMs were fired;
turns out, all or most were fired at the F-102s, our MIG cap, not at us.

None hit (and the downed pilot was rescued). Later on, I talked to some
of the F-102 pilots. This was the high point of their tour: they were
shot at.

Seems to me that the worst thing that can happen to a warrior is not to
be allowed to take part. There were lots of warriors in the F-102 bunch.


Jim,
wondering about your thoughts on RCS of the F-102 vs the A-1's?
(Assuming you were in A-1's)

Did they get shot at because of that big wing/big RCS, or because of
operating altitude?

regards

Originally Posted by Tex Houston

"Scott Peterson" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I want this for a political newsgroup.

thanks

I don't think any were. This plane was strictly an interceptor for
shooting down bombers. No guns, no ground attack capability.
Absolutely no use in Viet Nam.

Adding a political comment, when George W. joined the Texas ANG, he
was assigned to an F-102 unit. Some of the comments about that were
that it was a very safe unit to join as there was no possibility of
overseas assignment.

Scott Peterson

F-102s did indeed serve in SEA and early on too. The 509FIS sent F-102s to
Tan Son Nhut on 21 March 1962 under Project "Water Glass" and they remained
under Project "Candy Machine". In addition to Tan Son Nhut tey were
stationed at Bien Hoa. Some of these deployments were from the unit at
Clark. The F-102s also served at Don Muang from 1961-1964. I think they
were also at Udorn at one time (but maybe not...it was a long time ago).
Since so many F-102 were ANG service in SEA was opened to them on an
individual basis under Project "Palace Alert".

I did not see the original message (I don't see Tarver messages unless
quoted) so I don't know whose ox I'm goring.

Tex Houston

The reason the 509th was sent to Ton Son Nhut was that low level tracks were observed flying over laos and Cambodia to reach the delta areas. These tracks were only on moonlit nights and were believed to be dropping supplies to rebel forces. Initially only two seat aircraft were deployed because the targets were slow and low and it was thought that it would be too hazardous for one man to fly the aircraft and operate the radar system flying at low altitudes at night.

Single seat fighters were also used in Waterglass in an attempt to keep viet cong awake during the day. From very high altitude the F1-2 would enter a steep supersonic dive at a specific location. By pulling out about 25,000' a loud sonic boom woould be heard on the ground and the aircraft would not be seen or heard. It was hoped that this would be interpreted as artillery fire and disrupt the sleeping habits of the enemy.

As for being a safe airplane I can tell you from personal experience that it is no fun to eject from one, especially when over water.

Ed Clark