New NavAir Changes

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.

wrote:
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.

Then what is the squadron insignia on the new CO's right side . . . and
note his comments. Sure looks like VF-11 to me . . . and I've two or
three of their original circa 1942 leather patches to which to compare.
Sounds to me like he/they are inviolation of your cited OPNAVINST
5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b. see

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

Rich

wrote:
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.

It should be pointed out that VFC-111 is calling _itself_ the
"Sundowners" and using the old patch ...

Not aware that the patch worn by the new skipper is authorized and
what, if anything, is in the pipeline for patch/nickname approval.

There's two basic issues, the re-issuing of the number 111 and the new
outfit using a patch/nickname that had a long history, and attempting
to hitch a ride on that history.

On 7 Dec 2006 07:51:28 -0800, "Mike Weeks" wrote:


wrote:
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.

It should be pointed out that VFC-111 is calling _itself_ the
"Sundowners" and using the old patch ...

Not aware that the patch worn by the new skipper is authorized and
what, if anything, is in the pipeline for patch/nickname approval.

There's two basic issues, the re-issuing of the number 111 and the new
outfit using a patch/nickname that had a long history, and attempting
to hitch a ride on that history.

IMO there's a difference between "hitching a ride on history" and
wearing the emblem of a unit with a long and honorable history, as a
tribute to and extension of that history.

While YMMV I don't see this as a Big Deal.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

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

Ralph_S wrote:
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.

And the squadron doesn't claim to have been _that_ squadron, which BTW,
had more time on the old Lex then it did on Langley. g

Again, they aren't using the original VF-2 patch (or name), yet VFC-111
apparently is going to -- at least unofficially. Time will only tell
if it becomes official (the patch & name), which will be interesting to
watch what happens.



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.

VF-84 had as its patch a black wolf's head with crossed MGs. Some of
the orig. VF-17 guys did form as a core for VF-84, but it was never
official as to being the Jolly Rogers. Good press however ...

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-17 was not disestablished during the war however. Between
deployments squadrons might lose all but one poor soul until a new set
of pilots reported aboard to start the new workup cycle. And the first
VF-84 went away on 08 OCT 1945. You had one squadron (VF-17) offically
the Jolly Rogers, one squadron (VF-84), unofficially in some circles as
the Jolly Rogers up to 08 Oct. 1945.

VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established

(actually another VF-84 is established -- as you know, squadrons are
not re-established up to a 1995 directive -- now a squadron, if in
existence in 1995, can be. The current terms are reactivated and
deactivated.)

as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
the Jolly Rogers.

In this case, a core group from VF-61 (including the CO) formed up into
VF-84 because they were transitioning from the F3H to the F8U. And
officially the change over in patch/name was approved -- all in the
1958/59 period.

But the Navy only allowed VF-84 to trace its lineage back to 1955.
VF-84 could not, and I don't believe they did, claim their first
skipper as being CDR Tom Blackburn for example. g

VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

As stated, they are _told_ to become the Jolly Rogers. The long
original history of 103 as the Sluggers, just wiped out ... g


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

Given the history of the mess which constitutes NavAir policy to
squadron names & numbers one can allow for a certain amount of slack
thru the late 1950's and into the early 1960's. But not after that
period -- especially given the numerous directives and instructions
which were generated in an attempt to get a handle and to make some
sense of the mess created previously -- which of course aren't followed
by the very folks who not only created them, but who apparently don't
know they exist!

It actually should matter to those who run the Navy. Some in the Navy
try, but it's been an uphill battle to say the least.


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.

That's a fact! g

Mike Weeks wrote:
Ralph_S wrote:
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.

And the squadron doesn't claim to have been _that_ squadron, which BTW,
had more time on the old Lex then it did on Langley. g

Again, they aren't using the original VF-2 patch (or name), yet VFC-111
apparently is going to -- at least unofficially. Time will only tell
if it becomes official (the patch & name), which will be interesting to
watch what happens.



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.

VF-84 had as its patch a black wolf's head with crossed MGs. Some of
the orig. VF-17 guys did form as a core for VF-84, but it was never
official as to being the Jolly Rogers. Good press however ...

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-17 was not disestablished during the war however. Between
deployments squadrons might lose all but one poor soul until a new set
of pilots reported aboard to start the new workup cycle. And the first
VF-84 went away on 08 OCT 1945. You had one squadron (VF-17) offically
the Jolly Rogers, one squadron (VF-84), unofficially in some circles as
the Jolly Rogers up to 08 Oct. 1945.

VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established

(actually another VF-84 is established -- as you know, squadrons are
not re-established up to a 1995 directive -- now a squadron, if in
existence in 1995, can be. The current terms are reactivated and
deactivated.)

as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
the Jolly Rogers.

In this case, a core group from VF-61 (including the CO) formed up into
VF-84 because they were transitioning from the F3H to the F8U. And
officially the change over in patch/name was approved -- all in the
1958/59 period.

But the Navy only allowed VF-84 to trace its lineage back to 1955.
VF-84 could not, and I don't believe they did, claim their first
skipper as being CDR Tom Blackburn for example. g

VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

As stated, they are _told_ to become the Jolly Rogers. The long
original history of 103 as the Sluggers, just wiped out ... g


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

Given the history of the mess which constitutes NavAir policy to
squadron names & numbers one can allow for a certain amount of slack
thru the late 1950's and into the early 1960's. But not after that
period -- especially given the numerous directives and instructions
which were generated in an attempt to get a handle and to make some
sense of the mess created previously -- which of course aren't followed
by the very folks who not only created them, but who apparently don't
know they exist!

It actually should matter to those who run the Navy. Some in the Navy
try, but it's been an uphill battle to say the least.


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.

That's a fact! g

Allright. Let's leave it at that then.

Cheers,
Ralph

"Mike Weeks" wrote in message
ps.com...

Tom Clarke wrote:
Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it
was
NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.

WDA
Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer

end
---------------------snip-----------------------------

NAVAIR is the systems command (Pax River). NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT have
become Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in San Diego, I think. NAVAIR
is
the hardware crowd.

I believe that it's NAVAIRPAC who has become CNAF (two hats) in 2001.
AIRLANT reports to CNAF and is now a two-star versus three.

I knew there was something like that going on. It has been a while since I
have been in the "Fleet"!

Thanks for the clarification.

Tom