MOAA: Your Views

I always look forward to receiving Military Officer. I especially enjoyed the article “Fighters for All Time” [September 2004]. Inadvertently, the F-15 Strike Eagle was omitted. This fighter is still operational. To the best of my knowledge it is stationed at Langley AFB, 1st Fighter Wing.

[“Fighters for All Time”] was a good article, but could have been better ... if it had included the F-105 Thunderchief. The F-105 was the toughest fighter ever built. No other single-engined tactical fighter was able to keep flying when its engine was coming apart. It got the pilot (and GIB [guy in back]) home, or out of harm’s way, more often than not! The F-105 originally was designed as a tactical bomber with an internal bomb bay large enough to accommodate a nuclear device. The [Pratt & Whitney] J75-P-19WS provided nearly twice the thrust of alternative engines operating in most of the aircraft originating in the 1950s. The delivery tactic was high speed, on the deck, toss the weapon and reverse course, on the deck, maintain high speed, and egress the target area. Never was it employed in the nuclear role, yet it put the good design to use in the Vietnam War.

For World War II fighters, the honor should have been shared by the P-38 and the P-51. Certainly in Europe versus the Germans the P-51 was the best, but in the Pacific Ocean area, [the P-38 was] better suited given [Japan’s] lack of fighters for air-to-air combat-type missions and the P-51’s relatively short period of use. The P-38 won the air war [as far as] AAnumber of missions in fighters in the Pacific Ocean area. …

Activated in early 1943, the 13th Air Force, with parallel actions of 5th Air Force, pursued the offensive versus Japanese bases toward Indonesia, island-hopping via New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Bougainville, etcetera. With no P-51s available, the P-38 was invaluable. The P-38’s twin-engine design, size, weight, and no-engine torque enabled great pilot visibility forward, outstanding firepower through the nose with no engine in front, very long range, and instrument-flying capability, among stable flying characteristics.

During the later part of World War II, with the arrival of the P-51, pilots leading p-38 formations with P-51 formations on the same missions to dive-bomb/strafe enemy strong points reported that they continued on to target through bad weather while the P-51s formations were forced to abort. The P-51, of course, like other single-engine fighters, was not stable enough to fly with instruments.

Excuse me for being prejudiced, but [“Fighters for All Time”] was seriously flawed. Its cover and eight pages … fail to show any modern Navy/Marine fighter aircraft, such as the F-8, F-14, or F/A18.

[“Fighters for All Time”] has a photograph of Eddie Rickenbacker in a 94th Aero Squadron aircraft ... labeled SPAD XIII. He is clearly sitting in a Nieuport 28. Small clues [include]: the much more rounded fuselage, paint scheme, machine gun placement, strut configuration, [and ] no side stacks and exhaust from the v-8 engine because the plane he is in has a rotary engine. ...

This is a small detail, but former Air Force personnel are a bit sensitive about aircraft identification.

Editor’s note: After reading the many letters submitted regarding “Fighters for All Time,”—only a fraction of which are printed here — the editors can attest to the enthusiasm and attention to detail of former Air Force personnel.

Point of Clarification

I enjoyed Don Huff’s September Encore article, “Good Morning, Vietnam” [September 2004], but I would like to clarify an important point. Many readers might confuse Pat Sajak with the originator of the signature sign-on “Good Morning, Vietnam,” as portrayed by Robin Williams in the movie of the same name. That Air Force sergeant was Adrian Cronauer, a college classmate and good friend [of mine] at American University in the early 1960s. Cronauer is now a Washington, D.C., attorney and an activist and lobbyist on Vietnam issues of importance to veterans and their families. He retired his famous sign-on in 1966 when he left the Army. No one who has ever known or heard Adrian will ever forget his gift for speaking and his remarkably sonorous voice.

State of Confusion

I admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, [but] I usually am able to sort out even the most confusing matters with a bit of reading and study. Not so with [the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)]. I’m confused. When [Military Officer] arrives, my wife sees the articles about the SBP offset and is convinced that, after I die, she’ll be eating dog food.

Is it possible for MOAA to publish a simple, clearly-worded document that lays out how to calculate the amount of SBP and Social Security benefit to which a surviving spouse is eligible? For example: I was born in 1944 and soon will be 60; my wife will be 62 in November and will start drawing social security then; I retired as an O6 in 1995 and I signed up for full SBP. What does my wife receive from my military pension if I die before I reach 62? What happens to her survivor’s benefit on my 62nd birthday? What does she get if I die after I am 62? I may be the only one who is confused, but I doubt it. A magazine article written in the vein of “see Spot run” would be helpful. A chart would be nice. Also, my understanding is that there is a difference between SBP for those who retired before 1985 and after 1985—how about explaining this point?

Editor’s note: MOAA’s Benefits Information Department can explain SBP to you. Call (800) 234-MOAA (6622). We also publish two booklets, SBP Made Easy and SBP: Yesterday and Today, available via our Web Base, www.moaa.org.

We Can’t List Them All II

[Victor Parachin’s] “Battle Stars” article in the August issue was a nice piece as far as it went, but you did leave out some very significant Hollywood figures. Those who come to mind off the top of my head include: Rear Adm. John Ford, Clark Gable, Gene Autry, Robert Montgomery (Navy Cross), Ronald Reagan, James Doohan (Royal Canadian Field Artillery), James Garner (Purple Heart, Korea), David Niven (British Army), Richard Todd (British Army), and Brig. Gen. James Stewart. I’m sure there are quite a few others whose wartime military service merits continued recognition.

Correction: Page 45 of the October issue gave an incorrect location for the Coronado Chapter, which is in Arizona. MOAA regrets the error.

I was chagrined to read Lieutenant General Blum’s statement, “If the Army goes to nine-month or six-month rotations, so will the Guard” [“Cutting a New Path,” August 2004]. My problem with this statement is that it is not active duty soldiers who are being put in the impossible position of trying to maintain totally separate careers during 545-day deployments. Why would any Guard leader let the active Army take the lead on this issue? It is not their issue anywhere near as much as it is ours. National Guard soldiers both need and deserve better leadership than this.

— CWO2 William J. Strange, ARNG
via e-mail