I'm sure we crossed paths I remember your brother and Wally. I was at the Wing from 84-87.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Great, Constantly Changing Picture Gallery
- Thread starter HeyJoe
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure we crossed paths I remember your brother and Wally. I was at the Wing from 84-87.
In addition to reflecting their new mission (adversary), I wonder if the name change had anything to do with the H-60 Seahawk coming into service. HSL-41 now bears the name "Seahawks".
That seems to bother a lot of people however I could care less. Not to sure why people get so upset.
Not sure... but there are several squadrons that have the same nickname.
Checkmates (VFA-211 and VS-22)
Black Knights (VFA-154 and HS-4) ... I think that for a time they were in the same air wing
I'm sure there are others...
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
That seems to bother a lot of people however I could care less. Not to sure why people get so upset.
It just seems so "anti-YUT".
They go to great ass-pain so everybody wears same flight suit color, same exact name tag regardless of unit, then they have a not-quite-the-same patch.
I don't care. But the same IPs who wore it when I was a SNA in HT-8 would freak about me wearing subdued patches (legal at the time) and such.
Not this one much longer... I think VS-22 Decoms at the end of the month..
Not this one much longer... I think VS-22 Decoms at the end of the month..
They are to be deactivated on 30 March 2009.
As a point of order... only ships are commissioned and decommissioned.
Squadrons are now (since the late '90s) established (in the case of new unit numbers) or activated (in the case of bringing back an old squadron) and deactivated.
Quote from the Naval History Center:
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol2/Chap_2.pdf
Under current Navy policy for squadron designations
and lineage, as set forth by CNO’s OPNAV Instruction
5030.4E of 19 March 1998, once a squadron letter and
number have been assigned to a squadron, that letter
and number combination can never be assigned to another
squadron.
VAW-126 are also "Seahawks."
Thanks for setting me straight... The lingo, I knew, has mostly and quickly been forgotten.. But I think the last Hoovs stop flying this month.. I just seem to remember getting an email that said 'Decommissioning' party, golfex, etc in Jan but that could have been a mistake by their PAO.. I didn't really pay that much attention since it was quite a while ago (nearly 10 years-Wow, time flies) that I was in VS-22; and I hadn't planned on going...
VMAQ-4 are also "Seahawks."
-ea6bflyr
Then color me disappointed in the Nav's sense of originality..
The operational Navy's always been fast and loose with terminology. Before the 1998 OpNav came out, when a squadron went away, it was supposed to be gone for good (disestablished), but that didn't stop the Navy from bringing back squadrons that were "dead" (VF-191 and VF-194, for instance in the mid-80s). Now (since 1998), the Navy's following the lead of the other services by just "deactivating" squadrons so they can come back later.
One squadron that lately established, VFC-111, picked up the name, insignia, and paint schemes of the VF-111 that went away in the mid-'90s, but by the letter of the law, they really can't claim any legacy from the old Sundowners... of course that doesn't stop them from doing it
.There was a shit storm between the PAO of VFA-2 and several noted Naval Historians a few years ago when the Bounty Hunters were claiming they went back to the original VF-2 on board USS Langley (CV-1). Actually, VF-2 was established in 1972 or 73 when the first two Tomcat squadrons were stood up at Miramar. They adopted the Langley Stripe and a patch that was like the original VF-2, but technically they could not claim the legacy, according to the rules set up by the OpNav instruction. It became a "my mind's made up... don't confuse me with facts" kinda thing in the end.
never let the truth stand in the way of a good story...The operational Navy's always been fast and loose with terminology. Before the 1998 OpNav came out, when a squadron went away, it was supposed to be gone for good (disestablished), but that didn't stop the Navy from bringing back squadrons that were "dead" (VF-191 and VF-194, for instance in the mid-80s). Now (since 1998), the Navy's following the lead of the other services by just "deactivating" squadrons so they can come back later.
One squadron that lately established, VFC-111, picked up the name, insignia, and paint schemes of the VF-111 that went away in the mid-'90s, but by the letter of the law, they really can't claim any legacy from the old Sundowners... of course that doesn't stop them from doing it
There was a shit storm between the PAO of VFA-2 and several noted Naval Historians a few years ago when the Bounty Hunters were claiming they went back to the original VF-2 on board USS Langley (CV-1). Actually, VF-2 was established in 1972 or 73 when the first two Tomcat squadrons were stood up at Miramar. They adopted the Langley Stripe and a patch that was like the original VF-2, but technically they could not claim the legacy, according to the rules set up by the OpNav instruction. It became a "my mind's made up... don't confuse me with facts" kinda thing in the end.
One squadron that lately established, VFC-111, picked up the name, insignia, and paint schemes of the VF-111 that went away in the mid-'90s, but by the letter of the law, they really can't claim any legacy from the old Sundowners... of course that doesn't stop them from doing it
I was in VAQ-128 and it was pretty much the same deal, though we had a different 'name'. We really didn't claim the lineage but we had the patches and the same number.
The operational Navy's always been fast and loose with terminology. Before the 1998 OpNav came out, when a squadron went away, it was supposed to be gone for good (disestablished), but that didn't stop the Navy from bringing back squadrons that were "dead" (VF-191 and VF-194, for instance in the mid-80s). Now (since 1998), the Navy's following the lead of the other services by just "deactivating" squadrons so they can come back later.
One squadron that lately established, VFC-111, picked up the name, insignia, and paint schemes of the VF-111 that went away in the mid-'90s, but by the letter of the law, they really can't claim any legacy from the old Sundowners... of course that doesn't stop them from doing it
There was a shit storm between the PAO of VFA-2 and several noted Naval Historians a few years ago when the Bounty Hunters were claiming they went back to the original VF-2 on board USS Langley (CV-1). Actually, VF-2 was established in 1972 or 73 when the first two Tomcat squadrons were stood up at Miramar. They adopted the Langley Stripe and a patch that was like the original VF-2, but technically they could not claim the legacy, according to the rules set up by the OpNav instruction. It became a "my mind's made up... don't confuse me with facts" kinda thing in the end.
I think what gets confusing is the Naval Aviation history folks encourage adopting "legacy" Insignia and traditions of a deactivated squadron even though they technically cannot claim a direct lineage/legacy. The World Famous Red Rippers and Jolly Rogers all adopted their insignia in that manner and cannot claim to be "direct descendents" of the original squadrons, but they do include the history of the markings and of the units form whence they came. Only the Tophatters can claim to go so far bar to a well-known insignia from Naval Aviation's early days. PAOs need to be careful with how they state their squadron's legacies and either the History office or even Tailhook will gladly lend a hand.
As to the VF-2 debacle, that was generated from the Ship's PAO staff by an enlisted Public Affairs type not versed in history and it did turn into quite a brouhaha between purists and the individual who wrote the copy and wasn't up to debating with top historians in that field.
- Status