View Single Post
  #20  
Old December 2nd 06, 09:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Weeks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default New NavAir Changes


wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
wrote:
R Leonard wrote:
wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
R Leonard wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
one year ago.


Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
what a load of crap.

Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.

I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
become a VC squadron...

Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
North Island.

Bunch of reservists, not surprised.......


It wasn't the reservists who OK'd it ...


Gotta wonder if a CO/XO that had been in the active duty USN, and
perhpas had been a genuine Sundowner, would have suggested it. This
idea didn't come from NavAir...


Don't know. The story from the NAS KW paper (17 NOV issue) loads up
from this link (as a full-color PDF file):

http://www.naskw.navy.mil/inc/cmodul...logFsI d=3852

Perhaps one of the COs mentioned had been a JO in the '90's w/ 111 (the
2nd Sundowers).


Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.

They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
themselves.

Rich