What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

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...

You're absolutely correct. I would not. I have the utmost respect
for those people.

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.

FWIW, someone just posted a series of nice pictures of the 195th
planes just before they converted on alt.binaries.pictures.military.


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.

You got me on the Viet Nam part. I'd completely forgotten about that.
And yes, I have an idea of what the forces were like and what second
echelon means. They were second-line units with older, less capable
or even obsolete equipment.


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)?

Yes, I am aware of that. The problem is that you're so anxious to find
fault that you are misquoting me. I said " I'm not aware of any
'threats' that shot back". Operative word being shot, not armed.

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.

It's sneering to say they were tied to a state? The rest of what you
say doesn't really make sense. which number what?

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.

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?

What is your point? The real question seems to be when the Air Force
no longer considered the 102 to be a first line aircraft.I can't give
you a date for that. Although, it might be when they started giving
them to ANG units. But it's a fact that within 3 years of the time
we're talking about (1970) you could count the number of units still
flying F-102's on one hand and in 3 more, they were all gone except
for targets...and, of course, the Greeks and Turks.

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".

I remember those years very well, and I knew a lot of people who were
able to get into the National Guard as an alternative to the draft. It
was a very popular option and every National Guard unit had waiting
lists with hundreds or even thousands of names. Joining those units
was not a crime or a black mark. The ones I have no respect for are
the ones who used their influence or their family's influence to get
into these units ahead of other people who were in line. I guess my
question is why you would want to defend people who would do that?


Scott Peterson


If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck
and walks like a duck, then it probably
needs a few more minutes in the Microwave

In article ,
Alan Minyard writes:
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.

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

Dan lives in a College Town. It might not be the People's Republic of
Berkeley, but some of the attitudes are still there.
(I was born on Gasoline Alley, so I can say that)

Dan, are the Good People still Up in Arms and Pointing With Alarm that
the resurgent Bear population (Ursine, not Soviet) are finding their
bir feeders and garbage cans a convenient supermarket? You'd think
that those Greeney Folks would like getting close to Cuddly Nature.
(Well, as long as it's the squirrels. If it's big enough to invite
_you_ to dinner, it seems to be different)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
av8r writes:
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.

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

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.

Yepper. I've heard some amazing tales about the performance boost
that cold weather gives a jet from some of the Canadian CF-101
drivers. At 50 below, the Voodoo really gets up & goes.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

The February '91 issue of Wings has a cover photo of two camouflaged
F-102s in a revetment, and an article called "Unsheathing the Dagger,"
about the F-102 in Vietnam.

Author Warren Thompson says the 509th FIS at Clark AB got orders to
deploy on the morning of 5 August 1964. Within 2 1/2 hours they had
four planes at Danang, "making the 509th the first fighter squadron to
deploy aircraft to Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

There are some interesting war stories in the article. One describes
hunting VC at night with the IRST. It was "an excellent piece of
equipment," according to a former pilot, able to track a guy smoking a
cigarette from 30,000 feet. They would detect campfires and fire IR
missiles at them, then follow up with radar missiles visually aimed at
the explosions.

Another pilot thought the F-102's dozen 2.75 inch rockets were better
(but not much better) than its AIM-4s, which he called "of little
value against ground targets." However, on one of his missions they
fired AIM-4s unguided and saved a downed aircrew from capture.

Somebody asked about the F-102 accident rate. Statistics for current
and retired USAF aircraft are he
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

(Javascript must be enabled for the page to work.)

--

Paul Hirose

In article ,
Alan Minyard writes:
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.

Check out the USAF Safety Office at:

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

They've got stats on all manner of stuff, from 1950 on, ranging, with
some holes, from F-47s to the F-22, and all manner of types in
between.

According to them, the F-102 had a lifetime Class A accident rate of
13.69/100K flight hours, with 357 Class A accidents between 1953
(first loss), to 1981 (last loss)

For a bit of context, here are some of the other fighter's lifelim
numbers for the Class A rate:

F-84 52.86
F-86 44.18
F-89 24.54
F-100 21.22
F-101 14.65
F-102 13.69
F-104 30.63
F-105 17.83
F-106 9.47
F-4 4.64
F-5 8.82
F-15 2.47
F-16 4.19

The Century Series and later numbers don't include combat losses.
I can't tell if that's the case for the F-84 adn F-86.

It ought to be noted that in 2 years of service, about half of all teh
F-84s built had been written off.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(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.

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.

If you look at my other post, I give better dates of when it went out
of service.

(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.

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.



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? That's certainly the way I remember it....and I knew a
quite a few people who were in it for exactly that reason.

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.


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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.dposs.com/t_jensen-dab-bush-account-1965.htm


Scott Peterson


Don't accept your dog's admiration
as conclusive evidence that you're
wonderful.

Dan, are the Good People still Up in Arms and Pointing With Alarm that
the resurgent Bear population

I haven't heard anything about bears lately, but most every year we
have a moose sighting.

Is there a plaque on Gasoline Alley to mark your birthplace?

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

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

When?

1976 in U.S. service.

Greece and Turkey also had a few, and perhaps ran them longer.

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

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO.

I read the post pretty much the same way. Nor has he softened his
implications any in his followup, only saluted a few times toward the
active-service veterans.

Does anyone seriously believe that Scott or anyone else would care a
fig about the F-102 and the Texas Air Guard except as a way to
denigrate the rather remarkable accomplishment of the incumbent
prezdint--who is, after all, the first pilot of a supersonic fighter
(or interceptor, if that helps you choke back the tears) to hold the
office?

I recently changed my party affiliation to Unaffiliated. I was asked:
"Does this mean you have developed reservations about Mr. Bush?"
Actually, I've always had reservations about Mr. Bush, father and son.
But to scoff at the latter's academic (Andover, Yale, Harvard Business
School) or military (two years on active duty as a jet jockey--a fact
that seems to go unmentioned when his ANG service is under
discussion--followed by however many years in the Guard) is just plain
comical.

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

Kevin cool your jets pardner...the title of this thread is what?

Now you're being ridiculous. The title of the thread has nothing to do
with the discussion, and it was Scott's post that moved it into its
present territory. If he didn't mean to do that, he can always
apologize and set the record straight.

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