Talk:Operation Looking Glass

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eyepatch

I read somewhere that the pilot(s) of this aircraft (or it may have been Nightwatch) wore an eyepatch at all times, so that if there were a surprise nuclear airburst anywhere in front of them, they would not be blinded; they would take off the eyepatch and keep flying using the remaining good eye. If anyone can find a reliable source for this it would be a nice flavorful piece of data for the article. Tempshill (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was mentioned in the novel Trinity's_Child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.53.190 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's partially true. I flew on Looking Glass for several years-- over 4,000 hours. The eye patch was part of the Emergency War Order (EWO) kit carried by the front end aircrew. At DEFCON 2 or higher, the pilot and co-pilot were required to don their eye patches. Same was true for the Nightwatch crew on E-4B.--DSanders (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word substitution

I'm going to change the word "we" with "US" in the sentence "... since one of its roles would be to direct NORAD forces to retaliate after we have suffered a massive attack.". I think it should sound better, given the en.wikipedia being an international Encyclopedia. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.222.161 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NORAD is a command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) element of the US Air Force and is one of the three National Military Command Centers, along with the National Military Command Center and USSTRATCOM. NORAD has no nuclear forces to be directed by Looking Glass. The mission of NORAD, in partnership with Canada, is aerospace warning and control for North America. As mentioned above, I flew on Looking Glass for several years.--DSanders (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-4 and Looking Glass

The article states that there were plans to use the E-4 as Looking Glass (The SAC Airborne Command Post), but the plan was cancelled by Jimmy Carter. It also says they intended to buy more than 4 of the aircraft. I however cannot find a source for this. Google shows nothinng supporting this claim. Neither do Air Force Facts Sheets: http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=99 . Is there a basis for this claim or is it simple speculation? I suggest that someone either varify or remove this claim in the intrest of accuracy.

The intro, at least, is decent now

I've done a fair bit of editing on the intro. Boundarylayer (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]