Jump to content

F-18E/F and EA-18G


Recommended Posts

Others have explained VF-161. But as far as I read, VF-161 was flying Phantoms with CAG 5. When it came time to transition to Tomcats it did not happen. I guess they ran out of money or had enough squadrons by then. They were not the only ones, VF-151, VF-92, VF-96, VF-191 and 194 also did not get the call to transition and all became history.

Later someone found a few bucks laying around, and CVW-10 was breifly formed but sadly disbanded again before their schedualed cruise on USS Indepndance with NM codes. Since its nice to remember history (apart from the first Tomcat squadrons VF-1 and 2 which as far as I am concerned should have become VF-92 and 96....but no one asked me) recently retired squadron numbers were used to form the "new" airwing. VF-191 and 194 got the Tomcats , VF-161 and (was it?) 151 got the Hornets.

Shortly after this came the BIG cuts when near half the Tomcat squadrons disbanded.

Now keep in mind that 74% of all statistics on the internet are pulled out of ones butt :monkeydance: or questionable memory so take my info with a bag of salt........ But I think I am mostly right. :rolleyes:

Edited by phantom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also don't overlook that all the Essex class carriers went away post-Vietnam, which lead to the deactivation of several airwings and a slew of light attack squadrons as the Navy got out of the A-4 buisness. As for VF-1 & 2, it's always better to stand up a couple new (old?) squadrons to start the fleet introduction as you don't have to fill holes in airwings if things go slower than planned to getting a reasonably mature product out there. Remember back in the '80's it was felt that the Hornet was fielded prematurely (only 1 cleared A/G weapon) but politics come into play.

HTH

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, VFA-131, -132, -136 and -137 were all new squadrons when activated in the Hornet while long established Attack Squadrons were deactivated before transition from A-7 soon after ...

Just read that VAQ-209 Star Warriors will relocate to NAS Whidbey Island soon ...

-Gregg

Edited by GreyGhost
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just read that VAQ-209 Star Warriors will relocate to NAS Whidbey Island soon ...

A pretty contentious one too from my friends there. My understanding is the VAQ Wing is hot to have more control over the "free" pool of bodies and they basically decreed that the G transition is the perfect reason to move them to Whidbey. On the flip side, almost 100% of their people are in the DC/Baltimore area (unlike my squadron where none of are local to it) and it sounds like there are few takers in the transcon drill program...not like Whidbey is easy to get to by airline and there's not a lot of relevant jobs there for the SelRes.

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty contentious one too from my friends there. My understanding is the VAQ Wing is hot to have more control over the "free" pool of bodies and they basically decreed that the G transition is the perfect reason to move them to Whidbey. On the flip side, almost 100% of their people are in the DC/Baltimore area (unlike my squadron where none of are local to it) and it sounds like there are few takers in the transcon drill program...not like Whidbey is easy to get to by airline and there's not a lot of relevant jobs there for the SelRes.

Spongebob

I was wondering the same thing Sponge when I heard about the move. FTS wise they will have manning in Whibey, but the SELRES pool will be shallow. All the Reserve HW squadrons I flew with drew SELRES from the local area (and some that flew in, like our gaggle from Pax River). I don't know where Whibey will draw part timers from other than Seattle, the rest will be deadheading it or paying for airline tickets to get to drills.....not a great arrangement for 0-3/0-4 types with a full time civilian job.

Collin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the space needed at Andrews or does the Navy feel they will cut costs by having all of the EA-s in VAQ Country ? :huh:

Reading your comments on it, it doesn't seem to make much sense ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

We (VAW-77) were pretty lucky after moving to NOLA that we didn't lose many folks...but as I said none of the SELRES live anywhere near NOLA. We've got a small cluster in Houston (driveable), another in Atlanta (easy Delta flight or one of our doc's loads his Bonanza up) and about 1/3 the squdron is actually Pax/DC area. Then we've got "onesy's" all around the country...actually had a Cathay pilot who was living in London who recently left. For me, it's $250 round trip from DCA, a little cheaper on SWA from BWI (longer drive) but when you throw in a car (since the base is 45 mins fromt the airport and 1/2 hour from anything else) if I go down on drills I need to put about 4 days together to make it financially worth it....or do the old orders/drills mix. It's workable, but that's because Pax River - NOLA isn't that hard a trip; 2 hours in the air, there's great flight frequency and empty seats (I've never not gotten bumped up on USAirways) so it's workable.

Whidbey would be a pain...the folks I work with that are in 209 are just going to quit and move to desk jobs/coloring books.

Gregg,

Andrews is fine for space. The G transition will be significantly easier with the squadron at Whidbey, but the wing has been trying to get the squadron moved for years because then they can use the reservists to cover fleet/FRS manning/maintenance/planning incompetence. Basically, it lets them fill holes in the active duty side vice 209 being a stand alone asset.

HTH

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sponge ...

I get the move for the transition but a permanent one seems like they're going to lose personnel in the long run so how will that help the FRS ?

I know, I'm just pondering ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey spongebob! sorry this is offtopic but is VAW-77 still scheduled to go away?

That's the plan short of a congressional mark that puts funding back in the budget. It'll be intersting down the road since SOUTHCOM has stated the (our) requirement is not going away. Going to suck hard for the fleet guys having to do down south in between their 10 month deployments. Right now we cover 180 days a year in theater and the reserve model works very well at supporting it.

I get the move for the transition but a permanent one seems like they're going to lose personnel in the long run so how will that help the FRS ?

The people making the decision are not reservists, let alone part time guys.

Sponge

Edited by Spongebob
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other added level of hilarity in VAQ-209 moving is that a lot of the folks who went there as 'active duty folks who keep the lights on for reservists,' in addition to having lined up good jobs over there for when they jump to reserves, went there in the first place because they hated it here.

The manning argument makes a perverse amount of sense - in our nominally shore-duty command of 20 or so aircrew we've got 2 forward deployed with an undermanned Prowler squadron, we cover wing requirements for planning conferences, still get mentioned for IAs, etc etc. It makes sense that CVWP would want some more folks to spread the fun.

On the other hand, maybe there'll be a non-screened O-5 sea duty billet for yours truly when my boondoggle here ends...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, maybe there'll be a non-screened O-5 sea duty billet for yours truly when my boondoggle here ends...

I was told if I commit early the detailer *might* be able to get me my choice of location for the carrier he was going to send me to..... Since it's Friday I'll hoist a beer and wish that your next job doesn't involve a CSG or CVN nametag.

Edited by Spongebob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory 204 now is now "Flying the Colors" ...

web_120809-N-SE064-160.jpg

ARABIAN SEA (Aug. 9, 2012) An F/A-18F Super Hornet from the Jolly Rogers of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103 prepares to launch from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Dwight D. Eisenhower is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations, theater security cooperation efforts and support missions as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice John Haynes/Released)

>>> Hi Res <<<

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, maybe there'll be a non-screened O-5 sea duty billet for yours truly when my boondoggle here ends...

Lot of Air Ops/Strike Ops jobs out there right?

Cheers

Collin

Edited by Collin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the new vaq-132 CAG??????

On July 14, 2012, VAQ-132 began a six month deployment to NAF Misawa, Japan. NL 540 is the "Boss Bird" and arrived without tail markings. The other aircraft arriving with it were wearing the lo-viz scorpion tails. The photo jai5w4 posted is the latest photo available online of the "Boss Bird."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...