Posted on 12/05/2018 2:46:01 PM PST by BenLurkin
Hopefuly they all had the time.
Policy must have changed in the USAF then. We had parachutes, they were hanging in a rack by the boomers station. We didn't wear them routinely but they were there.
Bttt.
5.56mm
#16. Time to demand that the Fuel tankers HAVE parachutes. Not to have them is just plain stupid and deadly.
I’ll give you an example of possibly NOT having something you need in a time of war (or even peace-time operations).
At my first and last “Five O’clock Folly” press briefing at the Pentagon, about 1971 or 72 (I have the article somewhere), I asked PIO Jerry Friedheim about a news article clipping in the “Currents Events/News” handouts we got several time a day from DOD/DDI (Directorate of Defense Information).
One article said that several No. Vietnamese MIG 21s flew through a a plane “cell” of B-52’s on a bombing mission (probably over NVN).
Apparently none of the bombers were damaged but I don’t know, and still do not know, if they were shot at.
I asked Friedheim about this incident and asked whether these B-52’s had any Machine-Gun defenses on them and manned. He refused to tell us anything.
Many B-52’s never had Gunners though later they had a Tail Gunner because one got wounded fighting off NVN planes.
The stupidity of NOT having defense weapons on a very large plane, like NOT having parachutes on a large aerial refueler, is beyond belief.
The same thing happened to a lot of our UNARMED RF-4C’s. Some were shot down because they couldn’t escape from enemy aircraft who were faster then them, and armed with machine guns and anti-aircraft missiles.
WHY THE HELL DOES OUR MILITARY CONTINUE TO DO THESE STUPID THINGS THAT COST AMERICAN LIVES? It has been 48 years since I was a journalist in SVN/Cambodia and as soon as I got there, I met a Major in charge of press credentials who was a total fool regarding the safety of a group I was with (I had MACV credentials but never picked them up in disgust).
The So. Vietnamese were much more concerned with our safety and within a couple of hours everyone of our group had SVN Press Credentials which could have been a lifesaving document if we ran into the enemy.
Time to shove STUPIDITY out the door and put back plain old common sense as an official policy. It will save American lives.
Refueling in midair is as dangerous as it looks and accidents are inevitable. Hopefully there are survivors.
Reconnaissance planes are not armed. Never have been. Speed and altitude is their protection. And no, the North Vietnamese did not have a single aircraft that could outrun an RF-4. And you can go to the bank on that. As for B-52s, they had a tail stinger and that’s all B-52s ever had. The B-52 that shot one down is on display at the Air Force Academy now.
Not all B-52s had gunners.
When I asked Friedheim about this incident, he refused to discuss it even though it was in the newspapers. I said to him, “Well, our B-52’s knew about the fly-thru, the No. Vietnamese pilots knew about it since they were there, and someone told the newspapers about it, so why can’t you say something”? CRICKETS.
I walked out of the briefing with Gen. Chappie James and said to him (he was the Pentagon’s highest DDI officer), paraphrasing myself, “This is a lot of crap”. He just gave me his big old smile and walked off laughing.
We lost a number of Recon planes from F-4s to possibly the B-57 Canberras earlier on, and maybe a couple of Navy AD’s. Most, if not all, were NOT ARMED. Still STUPID after all these years.
They were often listed on the DOD Daily or Weekly Combat Losses Blue Sheets.
It’s real. Confirmed by multiple sources.
Prayers up, may God bless...
B-52's always had a tail gun position until 1991. BUF models A-F had tail gunners equipped with quad 50 caliber machine guns and they were located at the tail of the airplane. BUF models G and H had the tail gunner position moved to the front cabin. The H model also changed armament to a 20 mm rotary cannon.
During ARC Light missions in the south, the gunner was under employed although the did use their position to help the pilot do a strike assessment. I know of one instance where a mission was flown without a gunner due to food poisoning. It was SAC policy that an entire crew fly each mission because it helped maintain crew integrity and proficiency. SAC never gave up control of the B-52s they just rotated them and their crews from CONUS bases to Guam or Thailand to support the war.
Up north in route pac six , gunners were definitely busier, calling SAMs and helping the pilot keep position in the cell. One shot down a mig and several gunners were killed or captured during the Christmas bombings.
In 1991 the tail gunner ws eliminated because SAC decided that the B-52 would not be a survivable penetration bomber. Planners only use it where an air to air threat is not present.
https://www.940arw.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-View/Article/169673/air-force-pulls-parachutes-from-kc-135s/
MY experiences were in the 70's and 80's and I thought I was keeping up with the tanker community. My apologies to you for the bad post and best wishes for your son on his deployment.
It’s all good. Thank you
I wish I knew. Probably longer if the plane was able to make a controlled water landing, and the fuselage was intact, and the seas are not rough. Too many variables to say, hopefully long enough for the crew to get out safely.
Can the F/A-18 reliably cruise slow enough for a long-enough period of time behind a prop-driven C-130 to accomplish an effective mid-air refueling? How is it affected by the turbulence from the props and the engine exhaust?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.