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
  #31  
Old September 8th 03, 03:42 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Peterson wrote in message ...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

You are aware that the Cold War was still alive and well through
the *eighties*?


Yes. But I'm also aware that 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. Its ranks included John Conally's
son, Lloyd Benston's son, John Tower's son, George Bush's son and
seven Dallas Cowboys


I wonder if you'd have the temerity to utter such a thing to, say, the
personnel from the ANG units like those in CO and NM that were
activated and flew in Vietnam, or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...



And that despite the fact that the TXANG units were
based in Texas, they could have been assigned air defense duties
*anywhere*?


Could of, maybe shudda, but weren't and considering that in that time
frame the F-102 was no longer a first-line aircraft, were probably
close to the bottom of the list for doing that.


Was no longer a "first line aircraft"? Uhmmm...care to guess when the
last F-102's left active duty? Since you did not even have a ghostly
idea that they had served in Vietnam, how the heck are we supposed to
believe your assessment of their operational status? As to even the
definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown
in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many
of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing
alert on a routine basis.


The situation today is not all that different (except that
today's threat is unlikely to shoot back), with ANG fighters flying AD
missions from detached locations on a routine basis.


You've lost me here. I'm not aware of any 'threats' that shot back at
air defence missions around the Continental US. In the seventies or
now.


You had no idea that the TU-95 was armed?! Or that Bears routinely
trolled down the eastern seaboard, and into the Gulf? That the USSR
used Cuba as a refueling point for those Bears (even into the 90's
IIRC)?


I believe that in the sixties and seventies, the units were much more
tightly tied to the state than they are now.


Not really. The degree of state control has always been exaggerated by
those who have never served in a Guard unit, which number I am
guessing from your sneering tone you would be a part of.

Also since they were
flying aircraft that were not in first-line service, and fairly
high-maintenance, moving them to other bases not equipped to handle
them would have been a major logistical move that would be difficult
to justify.


Uhmmm...take a gander at when the F-102 retired from active service,
and recall that two NATO allies continued to fly them even after they
left ANG service--and you can't see where they might have been used?


You may not like
GWB, but attacking the service of the F-102 pilots who did their duty
*wherever* it occured is not gaining you very much.


I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them. Anyone who did
their duty honorably can be justifiably proud, regardless of how
memorable it was.


Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and
read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell
me you were not "attacking".

Brooks



Scott Peterson


  #32  
Old September 8th 03, 05:12 PM
Juvat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks blurted out:


I wonder if you'd have the temerity to utter such a thing to, say, the
personnel from the ANG units like those in CO and NM that were
activated and flew in Vietnam,


Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?

or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...


Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled"
gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX
ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated
and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.

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


When?

Since you did not even have a ghostly
idea that they had served in Vietnam, how the heck are we supposed to
believe your assessment of their operational status?


Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG
F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons
served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed.

As to even the
definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown
in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many
of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing
alert on a routine basis.


Fair point...then read Charles J Gross book published by the Office of
Air Force History "Prelude to Total Force" The Air National Guard
1943-1969." Apparently the USAF AD Corona (generals) held the notion
the ANG was second echelon for quite awhile, highlighted by the
deployment of ANG forces to Korea for the Pueblo Crisis. The highly
successful F-100 deployment to SEA was quite the eye-opener for AD
commanders.

Not really. The degree of state control has always been exaggerated by
those who have never served in a Guard unit, which number I am
guessing from your sneering tone you would be a part of.


OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly.
I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from
asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV

Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and
read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell
me you were not "attacking".


OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate
to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in
SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s.

Juvat
  #33  
Old September 8th 03, 06:58 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Juvat wrote:

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?


Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here. If we are searching for
full unit deployments of F-102, specifically from ANG units, for SEA,
then I'm not sure that there were any. But, I do know that there were
Deuces in SEA in '66 when I was there, and there were Deuces in SEA in
'72-'73 when I was there. The convolutions of ADC (Air-then-Aerospace
Defense Command) and it's relationships between ANG and USAF are
sometimes difficult to decipher.

or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...


Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled"
gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX
ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated
and sent into harm's way. So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no
problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers.


Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored
point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the
President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We
have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and
arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush.

Given the choice between being a tactical aviator and an infantryman,
he made the same choice I did (although my choice was made a few years
earlier.) Now, we had the comparisons with Bush's opponent, who,
despite being a college graduate and being able to arguably make a
greater contribution to his nation as an officer, chose to be an
enlisted Army admin clerk.

Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT,
then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational
qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century
Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of
single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation.

This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in
was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more
than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit
more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of
a year tour in SEA.



Again...simply from a comprehension stand point the question was ANG
F-102 sqdns recalled for SEA...NOT, I repeat NOT if any AD squadrons
served. Scott was correct on this score even if he simply guessed.

As to even the
definition of 'first line", have you ever looked at what the breakdown
in the old ADC force was during that period? Take a gander at how many
of those forces you call "second echelon", I presume, were standing
alert on a routine basis.


Well, throughout most of SEA, there were units in combat flying the
F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-105. There were units flying C-47,
C-119, C-123, AT-37, A-1, B-57, B-66, O-1, O-2, etc. etc. It seems as
though the "second echelon" question isn't a very good one.

OK your AD and ANG service and my AD and ANG service differed greatly.
I agree with Scott's POV on state control in the past (only from
asking the question of career ANG guys). YMMV

Too little, too late (in terms of backpeddling, that is). Go up and
read your first paragraph in *this* post and then come back and tell
me you were not "attacking".


OK...I don't think he was attacking. And I think it is fairly accurate
to postulate that the USAF didn't think the F-102 was essential in
SEA, short legs and an adversary with a token number of IL-28s.


The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat
effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your
last statement here.

No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of
apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over
Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert
interceptor force was always deployed.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038
  #34  
Old September 8th 03, 07:44 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
At a guess... Find an IR source (running engine, camp fire, etc.) with
the IR sensor, then fire unguided FFARs at IR source.


I believe the gent may be mixing up his situations a bit. There was an
experament conducted in the theater of operations where F-102's used
their IR sensor, paired with their IR Falcons, to strike heat sources
along the Ho Chi Minh Trail--more of a nuisance program than anything
else.


A modified Sidewinder got similar use (AGM-87A Focus I, apparently) -
said to be intended for use on truck headlights (visible or IR)
according to Friedman.

Wouldn't have thought the Falcon would be much use for the role, with
its reliability problems and small warhead, but if it's what you've got
I guess you use it and hope...


--
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
  #35  
Old September 8th 03, 08:40 PM
Juvat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Rasimus posted:

Juvat wrote:

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO. The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?


Well, I think you're word-smithing a bit here.


No sir...simply reading the question as posted (looking up at the
thread topic). If the topic were "F-102s units deployed to SEA" you
might have a leg to stand on. Honest, I've got the whole thread saved
because the topic is interesting and was going to post some details
that others beat me to the punch.

If we are searching for full unit deployments of F-102,
specifically from ANG units, for SEA, then I'm not sure that there were any.


Respectfully, you do know the answer. None. I will direct you to the
book by Gross...published by the USAF Office of History.

Well, again. Here the question revolves around the somewhat belabored
point of the two political parties in America. The fact is, that the
President probably could have avoide military service entirely. We
have a lot of documentation that his predecessor was successful and
arguably when he was avoiding, a lot less "privileged" than Bush.


No argument...but we're getting off on a tangent I suspect.

Now, as you well understand, Bush went through a full year of UPT,
then the various required USAF survival schools, then full operational
qualification and a couple of years of ANG service flying a Century
Series jet. That seems to me (based on what I know of
single-engine/single-seat aviation) a somewhat hazardous occupation.


You and I have differing POV on what constitutes GWB becoming MR and
maintaining that status. I'll agree he did achieve MR status, but that
as far as I will go...

However, I'm somewhat surprised that you consider he met all his
obligations. Or have I inferred something you are not implying?

Belay that last...it is not my desire to let this thread turn into a
groveling, low speed, knife fight at the bottom of the TRA on ths
subject of GWB...but I can.

This was in a period in which the aircraft which he was qualified in
was continously deployed to SEA. I'd say there was a little bit more
than "ZERO chance" of winding up in harm's way. Again, arguably a bit
more chance than being a body-guarded PIO clerk who spent 151 days of
a year tour in SEA.


And I suspect if the names were reversed you would find it EQUALLY
plausible that the swinging dick that served in SEA had a better
chance of going into harm's way than a guy that was suspended from
flying status in Aug 1972 for failing to take a physical.

The continual deployment (despite the fairly dismal combat
effectiveness) of the F-102 during SEA seems to disagree with your
last statement here.


Fair enough, and fairly close in the details, I believe that F-102s
were gone from SEA by Jul 1970. Yes? No?

I should have posited that had the NVAF threat been deem
greater...there would have been a greater force than four Dets of
roughly 6 jets each. Mea Culpa.

No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of
apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over
Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert
interceptor force was always deployed.


I'd be willing to speculate that "somebody" in 13th/7th AF thought
IL-28s were a threat. The reason for my statement is simply that I've
read about the Beagle threat perception in CHECO reports, inferred on
my part becasue the reports mention the Beagle being able to reach
Saigon.

Juvat
  #36  
Old September 8th 03, 08:53 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:43:17 -0400, av8r
wrote:

Hi Peter

The first operational deployment to Viet by F-102's was actually on the
21st of March 1962. Deuces of the 509th FIS deployed to Tan Son Nhut.
They returned 8 days later on the 29th. For the next year during Water
Glass ops, they rotated every six weeks with U.S. Navy AD5Q's.

Project Bell Tone 1 commenced in December 1960 with six F-100D's of the
510th TFS were deployed to Don Muang Airport. They were replaced by six
F-102A's of the 509th FIS nine months later.


Peter, let's keep this thread going if possible. It's extremely
interesting. Are you interested in F-102 losses in country?

I used to love watching the F-102's of the 59th FIS roaring around while
I was at Goose Bay, Labrador (June 64-June 67). The odd time a Deuce of
the 57th FIS would come down from Kef for a visit. Lots of good Bear
hunting back in those days too.


Cheers...Chris


Does anyone know what the accidental lose rate for the -102 was? I
have heard that it was pretty high, which for an early single engine
delta is easy to believe.

Al Minyard
  #37  
Old September 8th 03, 08:55 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:49:38 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


I said it wasn't the stuff of legend. i.e. not particularly
memorable. That's a long way from attacking them.


That's not the way I read it. I saw mockery for the Cowboy pilots and
sons of the elite, riding herd on Cuban invaders. I think that a) you
are back-pedaling, b) you seize any opportunity to run down the
incumbent prezdint, and c) you really don't care squat about F-102s or
the men who flew them.

Often in the cocktail parties I attend, I hear the Good People being
shocked--shocked!--that Bush failed to attend the last year's meetings
of the Guard. These are of course the same people who would rise up
with dignity and leave any room which a military officer had the ill
manners to enter.

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


You need to find some higher quality cocktail parties to attend.

Al Minyard
  #38  
Old September 8th 03, 09:55 PM
av8r
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Peter

Any and all constructive nitpicking is welcome.

I do not have the exact date, but sometime in August of 1962, the U.S.
Navy sent a five AD-5Q (EA-IF) Skyraider detachment from VAW-13 to Tan
Son Nhut. While there, the five-aircraft interceptor team, alternated
with detachments from the 509th FIS. It was a learning process for
theme as they practiced the best methods od identifying airborne
intruders. The deployments which were under operational control of
COMUSMACV ranged from August to September, 1962; January to February,
1964 and finally during November of 1963.

Speaking of the F-102, it got down to 40 and 50 below up in Goose Bay
quite often. The sound of the A/B kicking in on a cold day or even
colder night was deafening. It used to rattle all the dishes in the
china cabinet of our married quarters. It could really get off the
ground in a short distance on cold days as well.

Cheers...Chris






  #39  
Old September 8th 03, 09:59 PM
Zajcevi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello

Nice discussion. :-)

I would like to ask about A-A load used on F-102s during Vietnam war.

In J. Baughers article about F-102 was writem that it usually carries
6 AIM-4s, both in SARH or IR version. Or 3 AIM-4s and 1 AIM-26.

The second load seems strange to me, AIM-26 should be carried in
central missile bay, but 3 AIM-4s, 2 in starboard and 1 in port
missile bay?

Combo 4x AIM-4 (per 2 in side bays) and 1xAIM-26 seems to me rather
realistic.

In other forum one guy have told me that combination of 3xAIM-4Ds,
2xAIM-4As, single AIM-26B and some FFARS was used in SEA.

So where is the true?

Ivan
  #40  
Old September 8th 03, 10:12 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Juvat wrote:

Ed Rasimus posted:

Fair enough, and fairly close in the details, I believe that F-102s
were gone from SEA by Jul 1970. Yes? No?




I should have posited that had the NVAF threat been deem
greater...there would have been a greater force than four Dets of
roughly 6 jets each. Mea Culpa.

No one thought the Beagles were coming, but there was a lot of
apprehension about a singleton MiG-17 or 21 making a penetration over
Laos into the Thai bases or across the DMZ to Danang. An alert
interceptor force was always deployed.


I'd be willing to speculate that "somebody" in 13th/7th AF thought
IL-28s were a threat. The reason for my statement is simply that I've
read about the Beagle threat perception in CHECO reports, inferred on
my part becasue the reports mention the Beagle being able to reach
Saigon.

Juvat


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




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 11:46 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.