And you don't choose jets when you can choose helos :icon_tong
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
-
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
More bases added to BRAC? Oceana?
- Thread starter Dawgfan
- Start date
If the bean-counters are not reined in .... NAS Whidbey is going to be the only "good" locale left ... for jets and/or maritime. Close Lemoore and move ALL the F-18's to NUW I say ...... 
Threadjack: When I got my Wings (?) we DID pick what we wanted to fly (kinda -- grades and needs of Navy) and where we wanted to go (kinda -- several bases ) ... i.e., at least there were a couple of choices on the menu back then .... .Fly Navy said:
I know guys who could have got A-4's or A-7's who went A-6's or F-4's because they did NOT want to "experience" the joys of Lemoore .... and some guys went A-4's or A-7's --- not because of the joys of Lemoore --- but because they wanted to fly single seat. We had CHOICES then !!! ... around 15-16 carriers or more and beaucoup AirWings .
.... as Brett would say ... GOOD TIMES !!!
end Threadjack...
A4sForever said:Minimal encroachment and good airspace --- that's what counts today.
And politics, politics, politics . . . imagine how much more training hours we would get done if we did flight school in the desert instead of SIGMET-happy Mississippi. But the good ol' boys from MS scored a base back in the 60's and Naval Aviation's been in P-cola since Moby Dick was a sardine. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, and fog galore.
You go to the head of the class --- politics ---that's a given. Sometimes the politicians wear grey suits ... sometimes they wear Navy Blue uniforms with gold buttons.nittany03 said:
Perhaps I should have said encroachment, "noise", and airspace are the rationalizations given for closing or keeping bases. Oh yeah .... what's best for the country and national defense, too .... right??? Right ???
Of course the love of the country and national defense don't matter to some of those folks, as long as they have their Starbucks coffee and their always quiet neighborhood with their white picket fences. The sheep never want the wolves anywhere near them....right..
Sounds good anyway. :icon_smilA4sForever said:Oh yeah .... what's best for the country and national defense, too .... right??? Right ???
I don't think so ..... Yumo .... I think he is Komusubi or Sekiwake at this point in time .....UInavy said:
UInavy said:
It was different with each class --- usually every month of graduates was a "class" which included Kingsville and Chase .... it's hard to answer your question, but as an average, general rule:
Fighters:
F-4's were always high on the list ... F-8's and their decks were dying .... if they weren't : the F-8's would be in first place, assuming you wanted fighters and there were slots. So because the F-8 was disappearing, in general, if you wanted to fly fighter, go F-4's .....
Attack:
The A-6 was still a relatively "new", sophisticated beast and STUDs who got the Intruder were considered "gifted" or "savants" ... no matter what the grades. But then, only the top got A-6's .... no newly minted Aviators were going to EA-6's at that time --- that followed about a year later. EA-6's were not high on the list if one wanted to fly attack, obviously.
The A-4's and A-7's were about a draw --- maybe a little more weight on the Scooter side as the Scooter was traditional attack and had proven herself handily --- lots of history and tradition in those squadrons. We -- the new Aviators -- had also just put about 150 hours and CQ'ed in her in the TRACOM and thus felt "comfortable" with the A-4 --- it was very high on the list of choices when available. The A-7 was still new and was understood to be the A-4's replacement .... soooooo .... if you wanted to stay in the single-seat attack community for a career --- you might consider the A-7. The Corsair II was also just really starting to make itself felt in the North Vietnam skies and more guys were paying attention to her .... definitely a good choice.
The rest:
RA-5's ... A-3's .... further down the list. Not as desireable for a variety of reasons. I am glad they didn't have SPADs (still attack) when I got Winged ... I would have liked to fly them --- but no future in that seat.
Well, the A-7 guys will disagree with me (I've got a whole 11 hours in it --- LSO crosstrain) but it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. They should have spent some money (a whole lot less than the A-7 program cost) and improved and bought more A-4's. The Marines loved the A-4 for CAS and the Navy loved it for it's reliability. The A-7 was designed to replace the A-4 .... but the A-4 outlived it.Fly Navy said:
It was a lesser A/C at the boat than the A-4 from the LSO standpoint and it was not as reliable as the A-4 from a maintenance perspective. I used to love to bounce (as in dogfight) A-7's .... a guaranteed kill, even in the A-6. the only defensive maneuver the A-7 had was to depart from controlled flight. You waited until he pulled out .... and then "shot" him. Game over.
On Alpha stikes .... the A-6's and F-4's were constantly having to pull power so the A-7 could keep up when carrying a strike load of ordnanace. Not good.
It was used a lot in the last few years of the Air War in VN, but it seldom was able to use it's vaunted visual dive/day capabilities in the WX and operations of SE Asia and later. I'm not an expert on the Gulf War 1 ... I was flying 747's into the sand when the Air Wing was going downtown Baghdad .... but the A-7 was rapidly being eclipsed by the FA-18 and, of course, the venerable A-6.