WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 09 Apr 2025, 15:48

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 08:00 
Offline

Joined: 12 Oct 2002, 11:09
Posts: 2857
'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5
published washington times feb 11, 2004

Mudd what was the fatality rate of those early centry fighters, I can not see how Kerry can claim Bush did not serve his country in a risky position. Instead of having bullets fired at him, he had other dangers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 08:01 
Offline

Joined: 12 Oct 2002, 11:09
Posts: 2857
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210 ... -8424r.htm the url


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 09:26 
Offline

Joined: 17 Nov 2003, 08:55
Posts: 70
This is good to hear. I have been annoyed by the press and other politicians using the smear tactics already. Don't they know that any real dirt on Bush would have been found by Gore's people.

He is not only dull himself, but the cause of dullness in others. --Samuel Johnson, LL.D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 09:53 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
<i>While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
</i>

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/



Edited by - tritonal on Feb 12 2004 09:12 AM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 10:32 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 10:29
Posts: 5935
Location: S of St Louis but in IL
So now Lt. Bush is Commander-In-Chief and Kerry isn't...does he want some cheese with that whine? I sure as heck don't want a whiner in the White House!

I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect, therefore, I am perfect.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 11:06 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
Maybe the media will eventually pick up on some of this and call him to blows over it. It would be interesting.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 11:07 
Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 20:45
Posts: 2802
The legacy fighters were spooky, they had an extremely high Fatality rate. We were building, buying, flying, crashing so many fighters I dont think any airframe served longer than 5-10 years before a replacement type came in to being. Those that survived the engineering curve can be counted on five fingers.

The 50's and 60's era jets were technologically very new in our understandings of jet Fighter designs. We were now in the mach envelope asking the pilots of a former piston era, to take a manually flown aircraft beyond Mach, with bombs/missiles and prosecute a mission.

In the fundemental building blocks of becoming a fighter pilot today you are being taught lessons and understandings that were only brought into existence by that previous generation of fighter pilots. It is an overwhelming holy grail of knowledge for a young uninitiated person to take on.

I thought I was a pretty squared away dude with 2500 hours under my harness before I went into the test community. I come to find out, what I thought I knew was the very tip of the iceberg. As an aeronautical engineer I found myself at times overwelmed with the amount of data being thrown at me. At the end of my flying career, I realised that what I know today would probably make me less aggressive of a fighter pilot than when I was a young stud.

The point im makeing here. Measured risk is neccesary to take it to the next level. It is no differnt than getting into your car. you accept the risk andare oblivious to it.

The big transition in aeronautical knowledge is the seperation of the Subsonic, transonic, and supersonic and now today the hypersonic ranges.

The problem with the 60's designs is that they didnt know how to make the aircraft good at doing the first two. Their was no engineering data for it.
An inherantly good subsonic design was dangerous at high speeds, Piston fighters, F-80's etc. Then you get into the F-102's. They were an awesome Interceptor at high speeds, but had a poor low speed handling and recovery ability. The F102 was also near impossible to take out of a full blown departure. I remember vividly the departure instructions in the F4G. When in full departure, Punching out was the Sop regardless of your confidence of regaining control. the measure of safety margin was that low in the design. I recall my first departure in an F4g it took over 15,000 Feet before I recovered. It was not pretty. I had previosly flown the F16. In that aircraft you can shut off the Computer and perform a Phase out of state manuever(rocking the jet) to get the nose down and regain airspeed. Their was enough mechanical design in the aircraft to allow this. You cant do that in an F4, that nose will not drop if your positive AOA is significant enough. There is no airflow over the surfaces to provide any benefit to inputs. My luck was that I was positive enough to eventualy get it to Semi tailslide and snap the nose forward and right. When that happaned I thought. Oh shit, here we go were going to spin. I dont like spins, when they get fast there is no sky and ground. it is all soup. I got on the rudder with opposite deflecton early and Aileron roll into the spin direction and held the nose down. A total blow against the conventional wisdom of spin recovery. Fortunately I Converted it into a vertical roll. At that point I was able regain airspeed and recover. The aircraft suffered structual damage as the end result. The violent buffeting and rate of decent placed loads were loads didnt belong. While we brought the aircraft back. It never flew again. The type were being sendt off to AMARC anyways.

I learned a hard an invaluable lesson. If you fuck around to much, you can get yourself killed. Knowing I had a very Senior Ip in the backseat didnt help much. We both wanted that kill and wernt going to give it up. I was ashamed at what I had did over maxperforming the jet at 30+ thousand feet in thin air. He admitted to me he didnt think we could of pulled it off. What we done was just not proven data. It was another feather of luck to put in our cap. There was so many indications in that whole flight that could of prevented me from getting into the situation. It is something you just dont garner from flying a FBW jet. Fuckit if theres still air between me and the ground I wasnt going to give up. It was EGO pure and simple. We had an advantageous position on a viper and I wasnt giving that up for the world. We had buffeted, stalled, regained speed and just kept pressing our luck and the fight. Two highly competitive men that would rather fight to the bottom of a smokeing hole than punch out of a perfectly good airplane cause they got stupid with it. I dont advocate it. It is just the way it happens to us. It will be a sick feeling in your gut the rest of your flying career. Its one thing to know that flying jets is a dangerous buisness and dudes die. It is another to know that you have borrowed some luck, and that day is comeing when your chips are going to get cashed in. Some accidents have no warning. You pray that if an accident does arrive you recieved ample warning to do something about it and not get your self or anyone else killed over it.

The guys that flew the early jets had a big Sack. Theres no doubt about it, many brave men died to help provide the knowledge and technology that is keeping the same breed of men alive today.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 13:16 
I remember Alfa Kilo saying the same thing a long time back(though not with mudd's legendary eloquence ;)).

Wonder what ever happened to him.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 16:10 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
I saw Andy on the newsgroup just the other day, I guess he's ok :-)

Some F-102 stuff I gathered, this is from "Walt BJ" some of you probobly have heard of him:

The delta configuration can be treacherous if you don't watch out. The
Deuce could develop one hell of a sink rate if you got too slow. Just
pulling the nose up and adding a little bit of power results in a
higher sink rate. Getting careless on final approach was dangerous. It
could just hold level flight at 115 KIAS and full afterburner with
about a 35 degree angle of attack. Getting out of that state required
lowering the nose and losing altitude) to reduce the induced drag to
where the bird could accelerate. This was insidious because the bird
was controllable in all three axes. Pulling power to idle at 115 left
you in apparent 'level' flight but the vertical velocity indicator was
pegged - downward. Pulling G - it could develop about 6 1/2 G at 300
KIAs - but stay there too long and all your airspeed disappeared real
quick. It could fly a tighter overhead pattern than any other century
series fighter - pull too many G and the downwind would be in so close
it'd take a ninety degree bank to make the base turn. WingCos got
red-faced when they saw that. BTW its absolute altitude was 59,000
plus, subsonic in full AB. Got up there once after completing a test
hop - had read Jackie Cochrane had set a level flight altitude record
in a T38 of something like 54000 and I thought the Deuce could top
that. It did, handily. FWIW it was good XC bird and had lots of carry
room. There was the main electronic bay behind the cockpit where two
guys coudl get in there and close the hatch. I have it on good
authority that eight cases of Crown Royal would fit in there. We
genrally used the missile bay because we normally didn't take the
missiles on cross countries. Some bases (SAC) got huffy if you had
ordnance aboard.
That's about it - cheers, Walt BJ




"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 22:28 
Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 20:45
Posts: 2802
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I remember Alfa Kilo saying the same thing a long time back(though not with mudd's legendary eloquence ;)).

Wonder what ever happened to him.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I talk to Andy quite a bit. He writes articles over at www.simhq.com I assisted him with some FAC(A) info for a LOMAC A10 CAS article he published a while back. beforethe snow fell he and hisboys got into ww1-ww2 era bolt rifles.... He is still flying forthe airlines.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2004, 22:43 
See if you can't entice him to drop baxck over.

I(i think i can safely say we) miss my favorite Century series stick actuator. ;)

If not tell him i said YO.

Good Troop that AK fellow. ;)

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2004, 06:05 
Offline

Joined: 05 Jan 2003, 08:17
Posts: 305
Location: Holyoke Massachusetts
There's a big difference of flying ADC Missions over the Gulf of Mexico and flying air combat insurgent missions over the Gulf of Hanoi and having to worry about your ass getting shot down by a SAM.

"GLAD TO HAVE BEEN THERE AND HAVE BEEN PROUD TO HAVE SERVERED"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2004, 10:07 
Statisticly, flying a century series fighter in peacetime was more dangerous than being a 'General Issue' soldier in Vietnam.

Bush coulda gone and been a photographer too- with bodyguards(like big Al Gore).

Gonna tell me flying an unstable fighter is safer than being a photographer?

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group