Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:49 pm
Vietnam War beyond the rhetoric of 1941 and 1971
I think I have a pretty good understanding based on those who were there. Why am I wrong in thinking the military won, but the press and politician and Hollywood caused us to lose and allow Communism to spread? I think the facts support my stand. Hollywood, and the same 1970's may just allow us to lose this war. We've been talking for 60 years, now is the time to act.
It is a FACT Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to the enemy. You cannot change her actions.
I think I have a pretty good understanding based on those who were there. Why am I wrong in thinking the military won, but the press and politician and Hollywood caused us to lose and allow Communism to spread? I think the facts support my stand. Hollywood, and the same 1970's may just allow us to lose this war. We've been talking for 60 years, now is the time to act.
It is a FACT Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to the enemy. You cannot change her actions.
Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:32 pm
I'd have to agree with K5083. It is a reminder of the USAF's inability to protect the CONUS while projecting US ppower everywhere else in the world.
I still can't believe that jets from Cape Cod were scrambled to protect New York. Sending jets from Langley to protect Washington DC, especially when the DC ANG was sitting at Andrews just a couple of miles from the Pentagon was unbelievable. There are no alert barns at Andrews for Air Force or Navy aircraft. Am I the only one that is amazed that the Armed Forces aircraft based in our nation's capital did not have the ability to defend it on short notice ?
An Air Force that can't protect the continental US is a paper tiger. And the powers that be in the Air Force have learned NOTHING from 9/11 !! During the BRAC hearings I heard Gen. "FIG" Newton say that "they were adding a couple of extra F-16s to San Antonio's compliment to handle any threats to the Houston area." These jets are 30 minutes out, at best. He was the influencing member the committee listened too to go along with the AF recomendation for removing the fighters sitting a warm alert at EFD. They leave the whole Gulf Coast with all the refineries, the 4,000,000 + population and 1 ea Nuke plant undefended from potential immediate airial threats. By the time jets show up from S.A., DFW, or N.O. it will be over. New York and Wash. DC all over !
They say the F-22 is a force multiplier, I'm sure it is, but how much good do they do you if they are nowhere near the threat ? Saving bucks by parking aircraft to be able to afford the F-22 is putting all of their eggs in one basket. It could bite them big time in the end.
Sorry, ,I'll be quiet now, rant off.
I still can't believe that jets from Cape Cod were scrambled to protect New York. Sending jets from Langley to protect Washington DC, especially when the DC ANG was sitting at Andrews just a couple of miles from the Pentagon was unbelievable. There are no alert barns at Andrews for Air Force or Navy aircraft. Am I the only one that is amazed that the Armed Forces aircraft based in our nation's capital did not have the ability to defend it on short notice ?
An Air Force that can't protect the continental US is a paper tiger. And the powers that be in the Air Force have learned NOTHING from 9/11 !! During the BRAC hearings I heard Gen. "FIG" Newton say that "they were adding a couple of extra F-16s to San Antonio's compliment to handle any threats to the Houston area." These jets are 30 minutes out, at best. He was the influencing member the committee listened too to go along with the AF recomendation for removing the fighters sitting a warm alert at EFD. They leave the whole Gulf Coast with all the refineries, the 4,000,000 + population and 1 ea Nuke plant undefended from potential immediate airial threats. By the time jets show up from S.A., DFW, or N.O. it will be over. New York and Wash. DC all over !
They say the F-22 is a force multiplier, I'm sure it is, but how much good do they do you if they are nowhere near the threat ? Saving bucks by parking aircraft to be able to afford the F-22 is putting all of their eggs in one basket. It could bite them big time in the end.
Sorry, ,I'll be quiet now, rant off.
Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:37 pm
I agree, we could use a better patrol/intercept program in place in the air and on the ground.
Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:50 pm
RickH wrote:I still can't believe that jets from Cape Cod were scrambled to protect New York. Sending jets from Langley to protect Washington DC, especially when the DC ANG was sitting at Andrews just a couple of miles from the Pentagon was unbelievable.
First off, realize that outside the designated interceptors, no fighter aircraft are sitting around on ramps with live ordnance on board. A live-loaded jet is completely unuseable for training, which is 99% of what CONUS-based fighters do on a daily basis. The Andrews Vipers could have taken off, but with no live ordnance on board, what good would it have been?
In addition, I can tell you from personal experience that the idea of shooting down hijacked airliners NEVER came up in any training I did prior to 9/11. It wasn't on the minds of NORAD, either, since the typical methodology for hijacking pre-9/11 was to let the airliners go where the hijackers wanted and appease them to get the pax off safely.
Even if the Andrews jets had been able to get airborne, I GUARANTEE you that the pilots would not have shot down the airliners.
So...
It's nice to say that "coulda, shoulda" in hindsight, but you have to remember that the paradigms were all different 5 years ago.
Now, with respect to the current air defense posture, I can also tell you from personal experience that the current NOBLE EAGLE posture will allow an easy intercept should the scenario occur again today. In addition, there have been procedures established and training for the trigger-pullers in the cockpit about how to conduct a hijacked airliner intercept and, if necessary, shoot it down.
Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:07 pm
Randy, I agree with you and understand completely about what you are saying about the pre 911 posture.
What I'm saying is, I know there have been armed jets sitting Continental defense since the cold war. There have been armed alert birds here in Houston since the 50s. The 147th also maintained alert aircraft at Holloman and New Orleans. That tasking has shrunk to just EFD and it will soon be turned over to some transient unit, so they tell us. The unit will stay but the Block 25s will be gone. When 9/11 was going on those two armed aircraft from the 147th rendevoused with Air Force One and gave it an armed escort to Offat.
Knowing that there were ADF alert aircraft around pre 911, I can't understand why no armed aircraft were kept on at least a warm alert at Andrews as part of the CONUS ADF chain.
What I'm saying is, I know there have been armed jets sitting Continental defense since the cold war. There have been armed alert birds here in Houston since the 50s. The 147th also maintained alert aircraft at Holloman and New Orleans. That tasking has shrunk to just EFD and it will soon be turned over to some transient unit, so they tell us. The unit will stay but the Block 25s will be gone. When 9/11 was going on those two armed aircraft from the 147th rendevoused with Air Force One and gave it an armed escort to Offat.
Knowing that there were ADF alert aircraft around pre 911, I can't understand why no armed aircraft were kept on at least a warm alert at Andrews as part of the CONUS ADF chain.
Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:34 pm
In addition, there have been procedures established and training for the trigger-pullers in the cockpit about how to conduct a hijacked airliner intercept and, if necessary, shoot it down.
Other than the obvious, don't they still train for a similar mission, bomber intercepts?
Other than the obvious, don't they still train for a similar mission, bomber intercepts?
Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:36 am
RickH wrote:Knowing that there were ADF alert aircraft around pre 911, I can't understand why no armed aircraft were kept on at least a warm alert at Andrews as part of the CONUS ADF chain.
Without getting into specific tactics, let's just say that nobody was looking for the attack to come from within. The interceptor posture was fine for getting aircraft inbound to the CONUS from over the oceans or from Canada and Mexico.
Second, you've got to remember that airliners had never been used as missiles before. There was no procedure established for how to go about trying to stop an airliner from going someplace that it shouldn't. Again, without getting specific, there are established interceptor visual signals in the Flight Information Handbook...but there weren't policies as to what to do if the intercepted aircraft didn't abide by those orders to land immediately.
As OscarDeuce asked, a hijacked airliner is a totally different beast than a bomber -- because it has 400 civilians on board. A Tu-95 heading toward Washington is pretty easy to identify as hostile...but is a 757? Especially when there is an airport 10 miles from the Mall? At what point do you determine that the 757 isn't trying to land at National and IS going to fly straight into the White House or the Capitol?
Once you do determine that the jet has hostile intent, what do you do about it? Splash the entire airplane? Shoot out an engine so the airplane is disabled but still flyable? When do you cross that line where you have to sacrifice 300 passengers for the unknown loss on the ground? Even more important...who authorizes the pilot to do that? Is that guy awake and able to get on the UHF radio on the fighter's freq at that time of the morning? The NEADS commander was probably not specifically authorized to kill a jetliner full of civilians to spare a ground target in DC.
These are ALL things that were simply not considered prior to 9/11. Again, even IF there were armed jets right at KADW, I can guarantee that they wouldn't have shot down any of the 9/11 airliners because there was just too much confusion and not enough time to sort it out before the airliners impacted their targets.
Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:44 am
This aircraft does not have the historical significance to warrant preservation as a memorial. Many other airplanes were flying that day too! Do they deserve to be preserved as memorials to something?
I'll vote No.
David
I'll vote No.
David
Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:05 am
oscardeuce wrote:Why am I wrong in thinking the military won, but the press and politician and Hollywood caused us to lose and allow Communism to spread?
The military (in the USA) is a subordinate part of the political unit, in the same way that 'war is diplomacy by other means'. That's part of a democratic state. Otherwise the military can win at home, too, any you really don't want that; Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler all did it.
The Vietnam War was lost, never mind the blame game.
Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:16 am
A think its a good idea to save the 9/11 F-15. Aircraft have always been at the top to be saved.
Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:52 am
skippyscage wrote:to be even more of a devils advocate:
This F15 did nothing except patrol the skys when it was all over. No shots were fired. No hijacked aircraft were intercepted. May as well have had a microlight up there.
seems pointless to me at least - just looking at facts here pain and simple - tihis would be more a memorial on how the govnmt didn't respond.
[start the flaming]
now a fire engine or something like that would be far more sensible - something that actually made a difference.
anyway - back to real aircraft!
I have to agree with Scippy & Mudge on this topic. It would be different if the F-15's actually did something during the attacks.
Just my 2 cents worth.
John
Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:02 am
I agree with the folks who say this aircraft didn't really do much on 9/11 and thus doesn't need any special recognition.
The fact of the matter is that there are Eagles (and Vipers and Hogs and BONEs and BUFFs, and...) that are making current combat history every day that passes. Aircraft that are actively engaging the enemy in the War On Terror and making significant contributions. Will THOSE aircraft be saved the scrapper when the time comes?
HOWEVER
It doesn't cost anyone anything to pull the Otis jet out of AMARC and give it to a museum that will display it. It's certainly a historically interesting airframe even if it's not historically significant.
The fact of the matter is that there are Eagles (and Vipers and Hogs and BONEs and BUFFs, and...) that are making current combat history every day that passes. Aircraft that are actively engaging the enemy in the War On Terror and making significant contributions. Will THOSE aircraft be saved the scrapper when the time comes?
HOWEVER
It doesn't cost anyone anything to pull the Otis jet out of AMARC and give it to a museum that will display it. It's certainly a historically interesting airframe even if it's not historically significant.
Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:19 am
Randy Haskin wrote:It doesn't cost anyone anything to pull the Otis jet out of AMARC and give it to a museum that will display it. It's certainly a historically interesting airframe even if it's not historically significant.
Agreed.
Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:11 am
Django wrote:Randy Haskin wrote:It doesn't cost anyone anything to pull the Otis jet out of AMARC and give it to a museum that will display it. It's certainly a historically interesting airframe even if it's not historically significant.
Agreed.
Well, that's not entirely true. A group representing K.I. Sawyer Heritage Air Museum. sucessfully petitioned to aquire one of the last surviving six's at AMARC. I believe the group had to fulfill a $30,000 transportation fee prior to it's release.
If it wasn't for that, heck, I'd park an F-15 in my yard and wax it every other month!
regards,
t~
Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:23 pm
Originalboxcar's right. If the jet is already at AMARC the receiving entity will pay AMARC for epa cleanup, demil, disassembly, crating and then pay a hauler to transport. They are responsible for reassembly and it must be displayed to meet USAFM or DoD guidelines. All in all it's not a cheap proposition.
If the aircraft is flown in from its last duty station the costs are somewhat mitigated but they still have to cover the expenses of the team that dearms the seats, pulls the engines, remove sensitive equipment, etc...
If the aircraft is flown in from its last duty station the costs are somewhat mitigated but they still have to cover the expenses of the team that dearms the seats, pulls the engines, remove sensitive equipment, etc...