06.03.2015 Views

1 - The Black Vault

1 - The Black Vault

1 - The Black Vault

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!