A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New NavAir Changes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 1st 06, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Weeks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default New NavAir Changes


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.

Ads
  #12  
Old December 1st 06, 02:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Tom Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default New NavAir Changes

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.

Tom
USN Ret now a NAVAIR bubba.


  #13  
Old December 1st 06, 03:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Weeks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default New NavAir Changes


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.

  #14  
Old December 1st 06, 11:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default New NavAir Changes

On 30 Lis, 21:51, "Mike Weeks" wrote:
wrote:

I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
the squadron then). The link is great!I think that means no more _dedicated_ ASW missions. Just as VS went

from anti-submarine to sea control. The S-3s still did _some_ (or
little) ASW work.


In this case it is a matter of hardware - the squadron is slated to
transition to MH-60S - so, as HSC-8, it will be probably paired with
one of new HSMs within one of the PACFLT air wings...


All the fleet HS squadrons are going to become HSC, as have the HC
squardons. This is really going to be fun to keep straight.


I am not sure, would have to look it up in a MH-60R/S transition plan
I've seen. In fact, many HSC or HSMs will be redesignated current HS,
HC, and HSLs, but also there are going to be some totally new
squadrons...

  #15  
Old December 1st 06, 02:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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...

  #16  
Old December 1st 06, 10:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
R Leonard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default New NavAir Changes


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

  #17  
Old December 1st 06, 11:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default New NavAir Changes


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


  #18  
Old December 2nd 06, 01:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Weeks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default New NavAir Changes


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


  #19  
Old December 2nd 06, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default New NavAir Changes


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


  #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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Controlvision's Anywhere vs Airgator's NavAir Andrew Gideon Products 5 November 25th 04 01:13 AM
NAVAIR NATOPS MANUALS Naval Aviation 2 September 25th 04 11:28 AM
Navy Navair Natops Flight Manuals General Aviation 0 September 25th 04 08:29 AM
Navy I and other NAVAIR profiles available stephen.mudgett Naval Aviation 0 September 22nd 04 03:35 PM
Navair Natops Flight Manuals Mike @ Roelake.com Naval Aviation 1 June 25th 04 03:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.