Skip to comments.George Bush was trained to bring down Soviet TU-95
Posted on 10/21/2007 12:51:12 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The present US president George Bush was trained to intercept Soviet bomber carrier TU-95 Bear aircraft while he was in the Texas Air National Guard.
The US archives and retired colonel William Kampenii, Mr. Presidents fellow soldier since 1970 till 1971 have proved this fact.
Pilots from Air National Guard used to intercept TU-95 regularly. The Bears used to make patrol flights, the aircrafts were usually intercepted along the eastern US coast, sometimes just near Cuba, says colonel Kampenii.
George Bush J. reminisces in his autobiography A Charge To Keep how they were taught to direct to the target with the help of the radar, how to remain unnoticeable or simulate aerial combat maneuvers.
This year TU-95 were used by Russia Air Forces again since the end of the Cold War.
WOW, I do believe that IS exactly how they would have written it up.
That’s a mighty believable piece, mk. You’ve got the spin and tone down to a fine pitch.
Bush flew the F-102.
Also, did Dan Rather serve in the military. Who is he to criticize if he didn't serve.
Also known as the 'Thud'.
Hate to correct you, but the F-102 was known as the ‘Delta Dagger.’ The F-105 was known as the ‘Thud.’
F-101 was Voodoo.
F-102 was the Delta Dagger.
F-103. Republic design, never built. Looks ike a cruise missile. From the web: http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Icho/3902/jf/jf_e_century.html
It was an up-too-date jet fighter. Pilot needed to watcth periscope to see forward. Only little skylights attached for see upward, or to soften closed and tight feeling. Material of body mainly used by titanium. Powered by turbo-ram-jet engine for over mach 3 speed in high altitude.
By the reason of too reckless spec, exploration cost raised awfully. And the comparison of SAM with F-103, SAM estimated better cost performance than F-103. So this project cancelled at mockup stage, August 1957. Interceptor requirement assigned by F-102, a rather conventional airplane compared to the F-103, as planned from the beginning.
Span:10.92m Length:24.89m Height:5.59m Weight max40t Engine Xj-67-W-1 turbo_ramjet 15,000lbs/18,800lbs Cf:kl Vmax M=3+ Vc=M=2.2/75,000ft Combat Radius:400nm Armament:Falcon AAM*6 FFAR(MightyMouse)*36
F-104 was Starfighter.
“Thud” was a Thunderchief F-105, USAF bomber-fighter (almost always serving in the bomber role) in Vietnam & overseas.
F-106 was Delta Dart.
F-106 was derived from the F-102 - 102 was harder to handle, slightly slower and shorter range. Pretty dangerous to fly - about 28% were lost in crashes/ejection seat “landings” over the plane’s lifetime.
Obviously, 27% of all flights didn’t result in a loss, but over time, more pilots were lost in “routine” fighter delta-wing training missions than in delta-wing combat.
That is slightly misleading - since the delta wings served in Europe & east coast/far north ops against the bomber threat, rather than close air support in Vietnam, but still....
OTOH, you should expect the Spawn of Satan to flunk divinity school.
This is one thing that always got my goat. This insane idea that AlGore is some kind of intellectual, and that Bush has the intellect of a dolt. Let’s see Gore fly a fighter airplane. While Bush was up, up in the air, Gore was down on the earth taking pictures in Viet Nam as a photographer, while being followed around by someone to protect him and keep him out of harm’s way. Plus he did this for about 2 seconds (slight exaggeration). And Gore is a flunkout from Divinity and Law School, whereas Bush got his MBA. But of course, the mainstream media decides who is brilliant and who is not. Makes me ill.
Never thought of it that way.
but you're right :o)
I think he long ago flunked out of the human race - oh, wait, he was never in it
USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65)
Thanks for the new desktop background. : )
Subject: H.3. USAF/USN fighters and attack aircraft
A complete list of US aircraft would take up far too much space; instead,
I’ve listed only the post-war “F” and “A” series, the ones most often asked
One star indicates a type that existed only as one or more prototypes and
never entered service; two stars indicate a type that never left the
drawing board; three stars indicate that the number was never assigned at
all (as far as I could determine).
USAF fighter designations, since the initiation of the “F” series in 1948:
F-80: Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star
F-81: * Convair XF-81 (experimental mixed-power jet/turboprop fighter)
F-82: North American F-82 Twin Mustang
F-83: * Bell XF-83
F-84: Republic F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak/RF-84 Thunderflash
F-85: * McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (parasite fighter experiment)
F-86: North American F-86 Sabre
F-87: * Curtiss XF-87 Blackhawk
F-88: * McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo
F-89: Northrop F-89 Scorpion
F-90: * Lockheed XF-90
F-91: * Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor
F-92: * Convair XF-92
F-93: North American YF-93 (F-86 derivative)
F-94: Lockheed F-94 Starfire (F-80/T-33 derivative)
F-95: North American YF-95 (became F-86D)
F-96: Republic YF-96 (became F-84F)
F-97: Lockheed YF-97 (became F-94C)
F-98: Hughes F-98 Falcon (air-to-air missile; became GAR-1, later
F-99: Boeing F-99 Bomarc (ground-to-air missile; became IM-99, later
F-100: North American F-100 Super Sabre
F-101: McDonnell F-101 Voodoo
F-102: Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
F-103: ** Republic XF-103 (turbojet/ramjet hypersonic interceptor)
F-104: Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
F-105: Republic F-105 Thunderchief
F-106: Convair F-106 Delta Dart
F-107: * North American YF-107 (F-100 derivative)
F-108: ** North American XF-108 Rapier (long range interceptor and
F-109: ** Bell XF-109 (but see below)
F-110: McDonnell F-110 Spectre (designation used briefly for USAF
version of F4H/F-4 Phantom II)
F-111: General Dynamics F-111 (the common name “Aardvark” is
F-112: ***? (may have been attached to Russian aircraft)
F-113: ***? (may have been attached to Russian aircraft)
F-114: ***? (may have been attached to Russian aircraft)
F-115: ***? (may have been attached to Russian aircraft)
F-116: ***? (may have been attached to Russian aircraft)
F-117: Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk
Note: Bell applied the designation “XF-109” to a VTOL fighter project of
the late 1950s (one prototype was built but never flew); however, this was
assigned unilaterally by the company, and was not sanctioned by the USAF.
The “F-109” designation has never been officially used, probably as a
result of Bell’s breaking the rules.
USAF/USN fighter designations, since the adoption of the Tri-Service
designations in 1962:
F-1: North American F-1 Fury (formerly FJ)
F-2: McDonnell F-2 Banshee (formerly F2H)
F-3: McDonnell F-3 Demon (formerly F3H)
F-4: McDonnell F-4 Phantom II (formerly F4H, briefly F-110)
F-5: Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II
F-6: Douglas F-6 Skyray (formerly F4D)
F-7: * Convair F-7 Sea Dart (formerly F2Y)
F-8: Vought F-8 Crusader (formerly F8U)
F-9: Grumman F-9 Panther/Cougar (formerly F9F)
F-10: Douglas F-10 Skyknight (formerly F3D)
F-11: Grumman F-11 Tiger (formerly F11F)
F-12: * Lockheed YF-12 (A-12/SR-71 derivative)
F-13: *** (never used)
F-14: Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) F-14 Tomcat
F-15: McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
F-16: General Dynamics (now Lockheed) F-16 Fighting Falcon
F-17: * Northrop YF-17 Cobra (lost to F-16 in Lightweight Fighter
F-18: McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (YF-17 derivative)
F-19: *** (never used, at least officially)
F-20: * Northrop F-20 Tigershark (F-5 derivative)
F-21: IAI F-21 Lion (leased Kfirs, used as Aggressors in training)
F-22: Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Lightning II
F-23: * Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 (lost to F-22 in Advanced
Technology Fighter contest)
Note: The Rockwell XFV-12 was number 12 in the “V” series, not part of the
USAF/USN attack designations, since the adoption of the Tri-Service
designations in 1962:
A-1: Douglas A-1 Skyraider (formerly AD)
A-2: North American A-2 Savage (formerly AJ)
A-3: Douglas A-3 Skywarrior (formerly A3D)
A-4: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (formerly A4D)
A-5: North American A-5 Vigilante (formerly A3J)
A-6: Grumman A-6 Intruder (formerly A2F)
A-7: Vought A-7 Corsair II (F-8 derivative)
A-8: British Aerospace/McDonnell Douglas AV-8 Harrier
A-9: ** Northrop YA-9 (lost to A-10 in AX contest)
A-10: Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II
A-11: ***? (apparently never used)
A-12: ** McDonnell Douglas A-12 (cancelled A-6 replacement)
Notes: The Harrier seems to have taken the number 8 slot in both the “A”
and “V” series. The designation A-12 for the original, single-seat version
of the aircraft that became the SR-71/YF-12/M-21 was an internal Lockheed
designation, not an official USAF one (the A-12s were operated by the CIA
and never officially entered military service). The designation A-37 for
the attack version of Cessna’s T-37 was derived from the trainer version of
the aircraft and was not part of the real “A” series.
The author(s) list a series of “Russian” aircraft numbers being designated between the FB-11 and the F/A-117 (Stealth) fighter.
Could be: If we “took” Russian and East Europe planes from Egypt/Israel/MidEast/India sources, repainted them at the USAF restricted bases with the USAF aircraft nbr, then it’d be easy to give them a “real” aircraft designation for budgetary purposes.
People wouldn’t ask too many questions: after all, the F-99 was a missile, the F-103 never was built, etc.. Why ask questions about “research project” aircraft it would be a great way to fly and maintain Russian aircraft by confusing the fuel and parts issues with a research project.
A good write-up of the F-103 is at http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-103.htm.
There is a mind-boggling amount to see there, and, perhaps the old memory is foggy, but, I believe that the USAF Museum at WPAFB in Dayton has a mock-up or a good model -- or a good artist's rendering of the F-103 on display:
Too many sacrifices to speed; looks more like a cruise missile of the era...
Isn’t that why they developed the “over the shoulder” method where the fighter would fire the missile and immediately go into an Immelmann back the way it came?
That would do it.
Too seldom are Cold Warriors (and, yeah, me too) given credit for the risks they signed up for rather than the casualty rates we actually faced when the late, unlamented USSR didn't do anything really stupid.
Not that service in those years was without risk, just that we didn't have the losses we would have if push had come to shove. As it surely would have if we hadn't been as prepared as we were.
Bush was statistically in much greater danger flying a tempramental accident prone high performance fighter like the F-102 than the REMF Gorebot risking CTS as he pounded on his typewriter in a relatively safe FSB.