Jump to content

USN Legacy Squadrons Group Build  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you join this Group Build?



Recommended Posts

Aww, Pick.

 

I didn't even think of the VFPs and RVAHs, etc, not qualifying.

 

That is a bummer, I was looking forward to your build. I don't remember, is your's going to be 1/48? Mine are all 1/72.

 

Well, there is always room for a different sort of Group Build someday,,,,,,,,,how about "All Navair squadrons that never flew the Bug"? or "any Navair aircraft that had the "dreaded Easter Egg scheme"? (my Sandburner VA-16 AD-6 with the Nuke would qualify for those two, lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the Airmodel conversion.

 

I use the Falcon and ollllld Ventura conversion sets, with Muroc noses to get that shape right.

 

When Wolfpak released the VFP-63 markings for the aircraft that had the "PP" changed to the "??" markings on the tail, I decided to only go ahead with one RF-8 for the near future.

 

Someday, when I get more Muroc noses and more Academy kits,,,,,,,,I will add "one of each of the RF-8 variations" to the collection,,,,,,,,,but, that will be a while off, I have a ton of Skyhawks and Phantoms to do before time for that expansion comes.

 

And Ackk !!, now I have to apologize to the group,,,,,,RF-8 talks are now off-topic for this Group Build.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can build any aircraft that your chosen squadron has flown during their history. If they flew F4F during WW2 then you can build it. This GB is not going to be all Bugs and Superbugs. I love the Hornet cause that is what I worked on when I served but I like all aircraft for the most part. There may be a few I wouldn't consider building but I ain't going to exclude them from the GB if someone wants to build it. If you look on the link for your chosen squadron there is a list of aircraft that the squadrons flew during their history.

 

 

http://www.gonavy.jp/SqnDeploymentf.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, adamitri said:

No offense, but I dont really understand why you wont allow a jet to be in both this group build and the MiG/Su killer group build. But your rules so......

 

I'd say it wouldn't be fair for example if you entered the same aircraft into 2 GB's that had raffle prizes on offer and you win both with one build, it's sort of double dipping.

 

That being said I still haven't had the official communication that the MiG, Mil and Su killer GB has got a Sept start date, and besides  where's the fun in only building one model at a time :whistle:

 

Brendon 

Edited by Aussie_superbug
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aussie_superbug said:

 

I'd say it wouldn't be fair for example if you entered the same aircraft into 2 GB's that had raffle prizes on offer and you win both with one build, it's sort of double dipping.

 

That being said I still haven't had the official communication that the MiG, Mil and Su killer GB has got a Sept start date, and besides  where's the fun in only building one model at a time :whistle:

 

Brendon 

Yeah, it makes sense now. No worries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK gang we are 6 days away from start date. Now I need some input from you all cause I have came up with a question. Do we want to allow a squadron that had an inactive time of service? The unit in question is VFA-115 Established 10 October 1942 as VT-11 then had some resignations along the way. They had a 3 year inactive period  August 1967 to 1 January 1970. Lets put this one to a vote.

Edited by tosouthern66
Link to post
Share on other sites

American squadrons tend to go away / come back and were renumbered a lot. I think as long as the modeller can trace the history with brief brakes in service it should be good.  For example a 10 year break is too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking on the matter is an inactive period less than 5 years is resonable. An inactve period to means they were still there just not activly partiapating in operations. I could be wrong in my thinking on this part and if I am someone who knows can correct me on it. Now if the squadron was diestablished and then restablished for operational priorities then there is no lineage between the two. Just my thoughts but will go with what the group thinks. Right now it's 1 yes and 1 no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should be okay with -115.

A lot of squadrons had periods of time that they spent without aircraft assigned, or in some cases, had aircraft that they knew they couldn't deploy with, such as VF-14 when they had F3Ds.

 

Add in events such as VA-86 working up with CVW-7 for their ground period (the last wing they were assigned to before getting A-7s), and then deploying with a different CVW when their training on the type was finished. We aren't going to exclude -86 because of that time period.

 

-115 is a unique case, existing and still being active, but with no aircraft for a time.

 

if a unit just plain didn't exist that long, it wouldn't qualify.

 

But I think -115 is okay.

 

Just my two cents, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still confused about a couple of things, I hope somebody can clarify them for me: Are the squadrons only limited to those that are still flying today with a continuous linage like VFA-11? What about disestablished squadrons like VF-111? Are squadrons that took on the designation and name of previous squadrons like VF-84/VF-103 allowed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

WW

ok here is the short answer for you. Can't give the long version right now, I'm at work. I'll give more details to you after I get off work at 5AM

squadron must be currently active

VFA-11 yes

VF-111 no

VFA-103 yes

VF-84 no

I

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, White Wolf said:

I'm still confused about a couple of things, I hope somebody can clarify them for me: Are the squadrons only limited to those that are still flying today with a continuous linage like VFA-11? What about disestablished squadrons like VF-111? Are squadrons that took on the designation and name of previous squadrons like VF-84/VF-103 allowed?

According to wiki, vf-111 heritage dates back to 1942 as vf-11 

Link to post
Share on other sites

White Wolf

 

 Here is your long answer to your question on the squadrons you mentioned. ( had to ride the bike home, forgot to take my lunch with me )

All information found on:  http://www.gonavy.jp/SqnDeployment02f.html

 

VFA-11 Red Rippers

1 September 1950 established as VF-43

16 February 1959  Re designated as VF-11

1 April 2005 Re designated as VFA-11

 

VF-11 ( Two Different Squadrons )

Squadron # 1 Sundowners

10 October 1942 Established as VF-11

15 November 1946 Re designated as VF-11A

19 January 1959 Disestablished

Squadron # 2 Iron Tigers/Sundowners

4 June 1956 Established as VA-156

20 January 1959 Re designated as VF-111

1 September 1964 Re designated as VF-26

31 March 1995 Disestablished

 

VFA-103 Flying Cougars/Sluggers/Jolly Rogers

1 May 1952 Established as VF-103

1 February 2005 Re designated VFA-103

 

VF-84 Jolly Rogers

1 July 1955 Established VA-86

1 July 1955 Red designated as VF-84

10 October 1995 Disestablished

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tosouthern66 said:

Adamitri

 I checked it out and that is very interesting. I am going to go with the info from http://www.gonavy.jp/SqnDeployment02f.html on this one. Thanks for the heads up!

I would like to see VF-84 included.  The lineage of the "Jolly Rogers" being traced back to VF-17 was even recognized by VF-103 on their 60th ann tails for the F-14....

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, adamitri said:

I would like to see VF-84 included.  The lineage of the "Jolly Rogers" being traced back to VF-17 was even recognized by VF-103 on their 60th ann tails for the F-14....

I would love to say yes but it doesn't qualify. 84 and 103 were two different squadrons. When 84 disbanded 103 just took over the name and started a new line of history for the Jolly Rogers squadron. I have a plan in the works for another group build that 84 would qualify for. Just going to have to wait till this one is almost over before I put it up to a vote. Hang in there we'll get 84 in the game!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2017 at 5:05 PM, tosouthern66 said:

OK gang...The unit in question is VFA-115...They had a 3 year inactive period  August 1967 to 1 January 1970. Lets put this one to a vote...

 

 

I say, yes, there are two reasons that -115 should be allowed to participate.

 

 

23 hours ago, Rex said:

I think you should be okay with -115....-115 is a unique case, existing and still being active, but with no aircraft for a time....

 

 

First, according to this source, "there are hundreds of former U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons which have been disestablished and no longer exist and there are approximately 40 or so U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons which have been deactivated and which currently exist only "on paper" in an inactive status. These disestablished and/or deactivated squadrons are sometimes incorrectly referred to as "decommissioned" squadrons, but proper usage prior to 1998, was that squadrons were "established" and "disestablished" and after 1998, squadrons are "established", "deactivated" and sometimes "reactivated". It has never been correct to refer to U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons as being "commissioned" and "decommissioned", ships are commissioned and decommissioned, U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons are not. [Prior to 1998], a squadron's history and lineage began when it was established and ended when it was disestablished. Since March 1998, with the issuance of OPNAVINST 5030.4E (and its subsequent updates) US Navy aircraft squadrons are no longer disestablished, instead, they are now "deactivated." The difference being that a deactivated squadron still exists, though in an inactive status, and only "on paper", awaiting possible future "re-activation". Its last held designation along with all former designations are not available to be used for a newly established squadron, and should a deactivated squadron ever be re-activated its lineage would resume and trace back past the re-activation date all the way back to the squadron's original establishment date and would include the entire period during which it was in the inactive status." (Emphasis added by author. Me!)

 

According to the Navy itself, -115 has always existed. It's lineage was never broken. Therefore, I think -115 should be included.

 

A second reason I think -115 should be included is because I was considering entering this GB with a -115 Super Hornet. Of course, this reason is strictly self-interested. 

 

So I say yes for -115. Of course, this is ultimately up to the GB gods. If they decide against -115, then I guess me, my Super Hornet, and this GB weren't meant to be...

 

Cheers!

-O

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an error in this part.

 

"

Squadron # 2 Iron Tigers/Sundowners

4 June 1956 Established as VA-156

20 January 1959 Re designated as VF-111

1 September 1964 Re designated as VF-26

31 March 1995 Disestablished"

 

That entry left out the part where VF-26 was redesignated back to VF-111 after just a few days. And then Disestablished as VF-111 in 1995.

 

That is one of the dangers or using Wiki "facts" to sort this stuff out. Since it is done by any ole hobbyist that comes along, it gets "corrected" all of the time with inaccurate info. (just like Scalemates, someone fixes it, goes back a week later, and it is "fixed" again, with the inaccurate info back up on the web as "facts." And then the people that know this stuff slowly give up, one by one)

 

And O, those of use that know, use Established, Disestablished, Activated, and Deactivated (and Called Up, and Stood Down),,,,,,,,,sometimes we do slip up and say Commisioned and Decommisioned, though. But, we try not to do it too often, it is just sometimes a mental slip-up, for me it happens when I read "Com and Decom" in a thread for an hour or so, and then I slip into the popular, incorrect, usage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rex, my post was not a commentary on anyone's proper or improper use of nomenclature. More than anything, it was just for me to get myself straight on what would or would not be allowed for this group build. Also, to make my case for -115 to be allowed in this group build. Hope I didn't wag my finger at anyone. I meant no offense.

 

Regards,

-O

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to wait for another Group Build.

 

I have too many models in my "one of each squadron" collection to build that don't qualify for this,,,,,,,,and since I am building that in stages, I need to build them in those sets.

 

There is too much skipping ahead for me to do to try and build "Bug Squadron past history Only" squadrons.

 

I can't just build the VFA-22 Super Hornet now for the CVN-76 model in the "each carrier" set, while letting VA-135 Skyraider sit and wait, leaving "one of each Wing" incomplete.

 

And I also can't spend the time checking to make sure I am building the "right" VA-25 and VA-65. (one of each qualifies, one of each doesn't)

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...