Replies

Vietnam-era deployment

Though essentially useless in the small-war role, F-102s were indeed deployed to South Vietnam. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969.
A few missions were flown over North Vietnam, but the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, Joe Baugher cites an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA or small-arms fire, four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong, and eight were lost in operational accidents.

The F-102A even flew some close-support missions over South Vietnam, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe," the F-102s used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something.

The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing unguided FFAR rockets using the optical sight; 618 day sorties were flown, the last one at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks. There were some later missions flown, especially in emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in South Vietnam. Some TF-102A two-seaters were also used on occasion in Vietnam as forward air controllers.

[Based on material in the USAF Museum website and on Joe Baugher's homepage.]

Sounds like the AF was trying to make some use of the asset they had. Not perfect but better then nothing. All kinds of material that wasn't exactly designed for a small war in the jungle had to be pressed into service. I bet the Marines had a few examples of that too.

Look, Bush joined the Texas ANG. So he wasn't Eisenhower, it was an HONORABLE way to serve. It's not HIS fault the Texas ANG got stuck with a dog. F-4's weren't going to the guard for another decade or two. He did more then the average bear in the guard too, flying in the military in any capacity is challenging and dangerous. He was probably in more danger then many a clerk or cook who did a full tour in Vietnam, where their major danger was picking up a dose of the clap.

Kerry and Bush both served. BUT Kerry, clearly did more harm to US interests AFTER his service then his 4 months in Vietnam could possibly have helped, unless he was Admiral Nelson.

His Senate record is one of voting to deprive US forces of the very weapons that make them so effective. His attacks on intelligence helped to blind us and leave us vulnerable to the Islamo facists. If his Intelligence bill had passed it would be even worse.

Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that the Air Force used the F-102 for anything at all in Vietnam, much less hundreds of sorties! I lived just southwest of Danang for extended periods circa 1966-67 and saw a lot of unlikely aircraft used in unlikely roles, but I never saw a single F-102. Talk about pounding a delta-winged peg into a round hole! It gives an aura of desperation to the whole affair, doesn't it?

Clearly, I owe a salute to the 102 drivers that tried hard to do something with a totally unsuitable bird!

The problem I've got is that George, among many hundreds of thousands of others of our young men, picked a course other than to serve in our war. War is a miserable thing, but occasionally necessary and when a country calls, its young men (and lately young women) should answer. Those of us that did go and endured what we did, did it while many of our country stayed home and enjoyed life (and sometimes enjoyed the young ladies we left behind - there was a strong uptick in "Dear John letters" throughout that war.) Yes, the war was different for nearly everybody that went and some billets, maybe most billets, weren't the infantry (and God help you if you were a grunt in Vietnam: I never met one that hadn't been wounded at least once). Yet you could die and die quickly anywhere you were. The VC made a point of being everywhere and striking anywhere. I used to watch the 122mm rockets light up one horizon and arc across the sky to hit the airfield or the ammo dump or the fuel farm on the other horizon in Danang. You are wrong about the cooks and the drivers and the clerks in Vietnam. Lots of them were killed (a friend of mine was a clerk in a convoy between Danang and Phu Bai that was hit by a battalion-sized ambush. He led a small part of the counterattack and was shot through the midsection and nearly died.) The key thing is that all of knew that they could be killed and they were there with us anyway.

You know what we ran into when we came back, so I won't elaborate (the icing on the cake was blowhard Kerry - a sailor on a riverine craft - telling the world that we were atrocity-committing murdering rapists. Like he spent any time in the bush with the grunts and had any way of knowing how well we did. Thanks a whole lot John!) but I can't help but believe that if every able-bodied American man had volunteered, Vietnam would be free today and we would be prouder of ourselves as a nation. Maybe the Cold War would have ended even earlier and many other confrontations could have been avoided. Nobody could've driven a wedge between the fighting men and their country, not the pro-communist Left, not the weasels that hid out in other countries, not Hanoi Jane nor the hostile press. We could've been one solid entity to confront the enemy's "National Liberation War" and a force to be reckoned with.

But it didn't work out that way - the rich and the privileged and the sneaky opted out and left the job to "other people's kids".

We really didn't need F-102 drivers in Texas. We needed to have George over there with us - I'd have been a lot prouder of him if we HAD been a cook in Bien Hoa. He would have one of us.

Thanks for your reply and your research. Geez...I can't imagine using an F-102 for close air support. That would take a combination of desperation and guts!

I think you're right about the danger aspect regarding Bush's flying. There are many ways to kill yourself in the military, but flying fighters, especially the century series aircraft, is a quick and efficient way to do it.

Seriously, you can't be stupid and survive the Darwin cleansing of the gene pool that is part and parcel with flying fighters. Flying an F-102 may not have been as demanding as landing on a carrier at night in bad weather, but it's still impressive.