1 - The Black Vault
1 - The Black Vault
1 - The Black Vault
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
COMBAT SPEAR<br />
proper people. Moreover, some of our maritime operations<br />
were being interfered with by friendly aircraft.<br />
Finally, Seventh AF insisted on coordinating all flying<br />
activities, including those of MACSOG. This improved<br />
coordination and control of missions. 35<br />
An AF officer assigned to SOG during the same<br />
period further related difficulties in command and<br />
control and specifically cited problems in the rela -<br />
tionship between SOG and Seventh AF:<br />
We had communications difficulties from our facility in<br />
Saigon in handling air operations, which originated<br />
from bases removed from the Saigon complex. Because<br />
of security requirements and the lack of hot line facilities,<br />
in many cases our hands were tied in coordinating<br />
air operations plans. This resulted in our recommendation<br />
to have an air operations command post, which<br />
would have hot line communications direct to air facilities<br />
and the base camps from which forces would<br />
launch. From an AF standpoint, command relations<br />
were rather tenuous for a while. [Complex] missions<br />
were laid on with very short notice. This caused us a<br />
great deal of anxiety in attempting to get support from<br />
Seventh AF. On many occasions, the Seventh AF frag<br />
for the next day’s combat operations was already cut.<br />
Seventh AF would have to divert air assets from laid-on<br />
strikes. . . . As might be expected, Seventh AF was<br />
constantly badgering us for better advanced planning. 36<br />
To rectify this unsatisfactory situation, a series<br />
of meetings were held between SOG and Seventh<br />
AF, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU)<br />
was signed on 26 October 1967. <strong>The</strong> MOU was<br />
signed by the chief of staff, Air Force (CSAF), Seventh<br />
AF, and the chief, SOG, and established the<br />
Office of Deputy Commander for Special Operations<br />
(DCSO) under the commander, 14th SOW.<br />
In SOG terminology, the DCSO was designated<br />
the commander, Air Studies Group (later changed<br />
to Air Operations Group). Nha Trang-based C-<br />
130E(I) Combat Talons and 1st Flight UWC-123<br />
Heavy Hook aircraft were OPCON to the DCSO.<br />
In addition, the 20th SOS UH-1 gunships were<br />
under tactical control (TACON) to the DCSO for<br />
SOG special operations missions. 37 <strong>The</strong> underlying<br />
concept of this structure was to bring the<br />
unique operations performed by the three units<br />
under one authority.<br />
As a result of this MOU, OPCON of Combat<br />
Talon and Heavy Hook flowed from SOG through<br />
the DCSO directly to the units themselves, effectively<br />
placing an intermediate organization between<br />
SOG and the unit commanders. Through<br />
the 14th SOW, the DCSO was also responsible for<br />
all administration and supervision of assigned<br />
personnel, including (1) flying safety, (2) adherence<br />
to AF regulations, directives, and policy, and<br />
(3) performance of such other functions normally<br />
associated with service responsibility. <strong>The</strong> DCSO<br />
had two 04s (special operations staff officers)<br />
and one airman (administrative supervisor) to<br />
assist him in performing assigned duties, and<br />
he was rated by the 14th SOW commander. A<br />
letter of performance was provided by the SOG<br />
commanding officer for inclusion in the DCSO’s<br />
evaluation report. 38 <strong>The</strong> first DCSO was Col<br />
David C. Collins, who was previously stationed<br />
at Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley<br />
AFB, Virginia. 39<br />
25 November 1967—Loss of Aircraft 64-0563<br />
In November 1967 the first loss of a Combat<br />
Talon aircraft occurred. Lt Col Thomas F. Hines<br />
was the squadron operations officer and had a<br />
policy of flying with all assigned crews at least on<br />
one combat mission over North Vietnam. On 25<br />
November he was scheduled to fly a combat mission<br />
with one of his crews on aircraft 64-0563. He<br />
and the crew had arrived at the aircraft and had<br />
begun the preflight when he was notified by operations<br />
that the mission had been canceled. By<br />
this time the crew had completed the outside portion<br />
of the preflight and was preparing to start<br />
the cockpit checklist. Hines picked up his helmet<br />
and flight gear and departed the flight line in the<br />
vehicle that had brought the mission cancellation<br />
orders. He wanted to confirm that SOG had canceled<br />
the mission and tried to determine why. <strong>The</strong><br />
remaining crew members, along with maintenance<br />
personnel, buttoned-up the aircraft and departed<br />
the flight-line area. Since this was the only<br />
mission scheduled that night, the flight line was<br />
deserted in just a few minutes. As Hines entered<br />
the operations center of 1st Flight Detachment<br />
USAF Photo<br />
Wreckage of aircraft 64-0563 after the mortar attack on<br />
Nha Trang AB, 25 November 1967. Note the absence of<br />
revetments in the parking area.<br />
89