New NavAir Changes

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...

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.

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

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.......

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

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 ...

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

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...

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

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

Per OPNAVINST 5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b: "...The insignia used
by the [deactivated] squadron is also retired and remains with the
history of that deactivated squadron. A newly established or
redesignated squadron cannot adopt the insignia of a deactivated unit."
I would think this would satisfy any concerns the VF-111 "Sundowners"
alumni have about the possibility of VFC-111 using their insignia.

R Leonard wrote:


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.

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

Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
The Sundowners name revived.

It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
strips.
VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
either.

Cheers,
Ralph

Ralph_S wrote:
R Leonard wrote:


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.

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

Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
The Sundowners name revived.

It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
strips.

Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".

Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.

http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm

VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
either.

And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.

The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
instructions.

MW

Mike Weeks wrote:
Ralph_S wrote:
R Leonard wrote:


Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
The Sundowners name revived.

It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
strips.

Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".

Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.

The patch they used indeed wasn't that of the Flying Chiefs, but it
definately tied into the original VF-2 from the Langley (There's even a
biplane in there), as did the Langley stripes.


http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm

VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
either.

And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.

Well, you had VF-17 Jolly Rogers. This was stood down. Some of it's
personel became part of a new unit, VF-84, which called itself the
Jolly Rogers as well. Around the same time, VF-17 is stood up gain
under the same name, gets renumbered as VF-5B and later VF-61. Now you
have two squadrons named the Jolly Rogers.
VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established
as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
the Jolly Rogers.
VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

This sort of thing really is only relevant to aviation geeks such as
myself and historians.

The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
instructions.


While there may be official guidelines for this sort of thing, it
doesn't seem as though they are applied very consistently.

Cheers,
Ralph

MW