• 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

Summary of NFO flight school

ea6bflyr

Working Class Bum
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Back in 2010, VT-86 was producing more than 200 NFOs a year. The current demand signal is about 125 or so.
 

cfam

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Not trying to fan the flames (although this will undoutably do so), but has anyone heard anything to the effect of a lessening demand for NFOs in the future? I have a great friend who was a F-14D and F/A-18F NFO who said that the community is shifting in a big way soon with the upcoming retirement of the T-39 and the gradual elimination of the EA-6B from Navy service (USMC will continue to fly it I believe).

I was under the impression that the Navy was managing the draw down by simply letting current Prowler folks transition to other platforms and then lengthening the current NFO pipeline, so his comments surprised me. Does anyone have any hard numbers on historic NFO hiring trends or more current gouge on the topic?

Anyway, sorry if this is the wrong place for the discussion..

I can't speak to the potential for a future drawdown in WSOs, but at least up here in Growler land I don't see the EWO going anywhere anytime soon. We're in the process of standing up two additional squadrons, and the position is pretty essential to our mission. Most of the Prowler guys whose timing worked out have found a seat in a Growler.

I'd be legitimately interested to see how the Marines plan on executing the EA mission single seat though. It'd be pretty busy for one guy.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The last I heard was 143 and 144, but I haven't heard anything on mascots/nicknames yet.

I am disappointed to hear they aren't going to go with 128, my old squadron. Pretty cool patch and a nice 'lineage' though unofficial since a squadron can't be 'reactivated' in the Navy officially. The VAQ-33 'Firebirds' would be pretty cool too. I just hope they aren't going with the 143 patch and logo they tried when that unit almost came into being 10 years ago, the 'Cobras' with their orange and blue patch was pretty 'bleah' to me.

vaq128sqblk.JPG
$(KGrHqMOKooFF021WfeNBRe1qty3qg~~60_35.JPG
vaq33_insig_pos9-70.jpg

I am still baffled why the Navy is the only service that doesn't let units get deactivated then reactivated, even the USAF has a better job keeping its unit history alive with their squadrons.
 
Last edited:

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I am disappointed to hear they aren't going to go with 128, my old squadron. Pretty cool patch and a nice 'lineage' though unofficial since a squadron can't be 'reactivated' in the Navy officially. The VAQ-33 'Firebirds' would be pretty cool too. I just hope they aren't going with the 143 patch and logo they tried when that unit almost came into being 10 years ago, the 'Cobras' with their orange and blue patch was pretty 'bleah' to me.

vaq128sqblk.JPG
$(KGrHqMOKooFF021WfeNBRe1qty3qg~~60_35.JPG
vaq33_insig_pos9-70.jpg

I am still baffled why the Navy is the only service that doesn't let units get deactivated then reactivated, even the USAF has a better job keeping its unit history alive with their squadrons.
I thought 137 went away at one point in the 90s (as evidenced by the tombstone they dug up from the O Club and kept in their RR). Anyhow, from the documents I've read, I don't think anything is quite set in stone yet.
 

BusyBee604

St. Francis/Hugh Hefner Combo!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I am still baffled why the Navy is the only service that doesn't let units get deactivated then reactivated, even the USAF has a better job keeping its unit history alive with their squadrons.
Either they make exceptions; or it's a relatively new rule. I recall VA-55 f'lying A-4F Skyhawks at the time, was disestablished in 1975. At the time, ended a lineage dating back to Torpedo Squadron VT-5 in WWII.

VA-55 rose from the dead in 1983, and reactivated as an A-6B Intruder Squadron, retaining the name "Warhorses", the same patch & callsign GARFISH. VA-55 again was deactivated in 1991.:(
VA-55-1.png
BzB
 
Last edited:

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Either they make exceptions

According to the regs we researched when my squadron was shutting down the Navy doesn't officially 'reactivate' squadrons, unless they have changed the regs/rules since then but I haven't seen it. Once a squadron is disestablished in the Navy its history ends and if another squadron is established with the same number, insignia and name then it officially has no affiliation or lineage to the old one. This doesn't new keep squadrons from claiming an old squadron's heritage, much like VF-103 did after they took over the 'Jolly Roger' insignia and name when VF-84 shut down, but there is nothing official like there is in the other services. It is a small but important distinction, especially to us amateur historians ;).
 
Last edited:

Notorious Nate

Well-Known Member
Did the Navy not just reactivate VFA-101? I thought the Grim Reapers died out with the F-14, but now they're back with the F-35.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Did the Navy not just reactivate VFA-101? I thought the Grim Reapers died out with the F-14, but now they're back with the F-35.

Read what I said above, unless the regs have recently changed the squadron was not 'officially' reactivated since the Navy doesn't allow it.
 

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
No dog in this fight, but the Tomat RAG was VF-101, so VFA-101 would be different.......though I guess they are going with the Grim Reapers theme so not entirely
 
Top