Master Jet Base

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
-Moe

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
>
> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
> very helpful.
>

I've never heard of those terms. Where did you encounter them?

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
> news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
>>
>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
>> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
>> very helpful.
>>
>
> I've never heard of those terms. Where did you encounter them?
>
They are predominately on the websites and entry signs at the bases.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

I don't know for sure any more, but I had an old timer tell me once that
Master Jet Base meant that the field was open (not necessarily controlled in
the tower) 24/7.

The term may not be applicable any more.

--Woody

On 4/16/05 1:55 PM, in article Bcd8e.13889$Zn3.8536@trnddc02, "MICHAEL
OLEARY" > wrote:

>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
>> news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>>> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
>>> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
>>> very helpful.
>>>
>>
>> I've never heard of those terms. Where did you encounter them?
>>
> They are predominately on the websites and entry signs at the bases.
>
>

[Allen]

In article <HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06>,
"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:

> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
> -Moe

My understanding it's a facilities issues and at a minimum, parallel
runways and fuel pits must be part of it. That works at the three I can
think of off the top of my head, Cecil (gone of course) Oceana and now
MCAS Miramar. NUW with it's single runways and truck pits (at least whe
I left in 95) just set up for FCLP's doesn't.

Pugs

[Ogden Johnson III]

"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:

>Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
>base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
>a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.

There are no such criteria. There isn't even a "criteria" for
"jet base". The only criteria for those two bases is contained in
their official, and identical, designations, Naval Air Station.
Which means a U. S. Navy base whose primary purpose and
facilities are designed for the operation of aircraft, primarily
USN aircraft, although they will allow USMC, USA, and even USAF
aircraft to use their facilities. While some NASs are populated
mainly by jet aircraft, other NASs are tenanted primarily by
rotary-winged aircraft, or by propellor-driven aircraft -
although technically nowadays those are mostly turbo-props rather
than the reciprocating engines of yesteryear. And most NASs will
graciously allow all three types of aircraft to use their
station, regardless of what constitutes their primary aircraft
population. Ergo, there is no such thing, officially, as a Navy
"jet base". Just naval air stations.

The "master" of Oceana is probably compliments of a very
imaginative public affairs officer whose name is lost in the
mists of time. As is the "premier" of Whidbey Island. Wonder if
it was the same LT at both places? Hmmm.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Dave in San Diego]

Allen > wrote in
:

> In article <HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06>,
> "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a
>> master jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS
>> Whidbey Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great.
>> Google wasn't very helpful. -Moe
>
> My understanding it's a facilities issues and at a minimum, parallel
> runways and fuel pits must be part of it. That works at the three I
> can think of off the top of my head, Cecil (gone of course) Oceana and
> now MCAS Miramar. NUW with it's single runways and truck pits (at
> least whe I left in 95) just set up for FCLP's doesn't.

Lemoore was also a Master Jet Base at one time, and may still be. It
certainly fits into the above criteria. AFAIK, that was an official
designation by the Navy, and not just "compliments of a very
imaginative public affairs officer". IIRC, there was a big article in one
of the glossy rags (All Hands? Approach?) when the first one was
designated back in the 60s but don't recall the details. I think NAS Jax
is designated as a Master ASW Base, too.

Dave in San Diego

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
news:Bcd8e.13889$Zn3.8536@trnddc02...
>
> They are predominately on the websites and entry signs at the bases.

Sounds like a bit of meaningless self-promotion then.

[Allen]

In article >,
Dave in San Diego > wrote:

> Allen > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article <HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06>,
> > "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a
> >> master jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS
> >> Whidbey Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great.
> >> Google wasn't very helpful. -Moe

With my curiosity now piqued I did some searching and found this out of
a Navy Fire Safety Article. at the link

http://www.cni.navy.mil/newsletters/Fire_Mar_05.pdf.

What is a Master Jet Base?
One of the earliest conversations in the old NAVFAC F&ES Program Office
centered on the Master Jet Base designation. We¹d seen signs and
prominent internet banners proclaiming Naval Air Station So & So as a
MASTER JET BASE, but is that an official designation and what exactly
constitutes such a designation? A careful look at NATOPS came up
empty, as did a direct inquiry to NAVAIR. So is this an urban legend
or what? District Fire Chief Steve Vogt of Navy Region Mid
Atlantic provided us with what we assume is a definitive answer: I
have talked with retired Chief Warrant Officer Joseph Salt (also retired
Assistant Fire Chief NAS Oceana) about the MASTER JET BASE designation.
It is a term to signify the consolidation of assets given to select air
base sites based on the assignment of like aircraft from multiple
locations to a single base to support the Fleet mission. Service,
support, and supply facilities also had to be consolidated at these
Master Jet Bases. Pilot Qualification Training and Fleet Pilot Combat
Training for assigned aircraft must also be provided, as well as
training facilities and schools to provide the fleet with support
personnel (LSO, flight simulators, etc.). Basically; House, Repair,
Equip, Train, and Deploy Combat Ready Aircraft to be the Tip of the
Nations Sword! Original Master Jet Base Designation was given to; East
Coast: NAS Oceana and NAS Cecil Field West Coast: NAS Lemoore and
NAS Miramar Since NAS Miramar was transferred to the Marine Corps and
NAS Cecil Field was closed, the only remaining MASTER JET BASES are NAS
Lemoore and NAS Oceana.

While that's interesting I also found a reference in the history of NAS
Brunswick at the site http://www.nasb.navy.mil/nasb_history.htm

On March 15, 1951, the national ensign was again hoisted to the peak of
the flag pole, recommissioning the dormant-base as a Naval Air Facility
with the established mission of supporting three land-plane patrol
squadrons and one Fleet Aircraft Service Squadron, and a planned future
mission as a master jet base.

The Navy, in December of 1950, requested $35,000,000 from Congress to be
used for this master jet project. Such a base required dual 8,000 foot
runways and two outlying fields, one for gunnery and one for carrier
practice landings. In June of 1951, the Secretary of Defense submitted a
request to Congress for approximately $20,000,000 for the station. This
money was to be used for additional barracks, officers' quarters, and
enlisted mens' club, control tower, storage, and communication
buildings, new galleys and mess facility, to make it a permanent
installation.

While Brunswick never become a master jet base it still remains a fine
place to get a Prowler cheek panel full of lobsters :)

Pugs

[Mike Kanze]

The previous posts by Allen and OJ come closest to my recollection. As a
Navy brat in the 1950s and 1960s I first heard the term with reference to
consolidating aircraft types at certain bases.

Mini-backgrounder: Back in the 1950s, each active duty Air Group was based
as a unit at one location, ex all the cats and dogs. (They weren't called
Air Wings until sometime in the 1960s IIRC.) Thus all the squadrons of Air
Group Nine - VF-91, VF-92, VA-93, VA-94 and VA-95 - were based at NAS
Alameda. When the Master Base concept was implemented on the west coast, all
the fighters went to NAS Miramar and all the light attack went to the then
brand-new NAS Lemoore.

I'm not sure but this may have come about at the same time as (or as the
result of) the implementation of NATOPS. In any event, it made better sense
to consolidate types for purposes of training and equipment maintenance.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

"'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

"Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

"'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman."

- The Beatles

"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
> very helpful.
> -Moe
>

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

Thanks to all for all the good information. It was a question posed to me a
couple of years ago at a base ops meeting. I was one of the FRS paddles and
the base OPS-O was questioning our requirements for base equipment
(arresting gear, FLOLS, IFLOLS, ACLS, ICLS, etc). [No doubt to make Whidbey
look lean and efficient on the forthcoming BRAC] With P-3 and C-9 aircraft
coexisting on Whidbey with EA-6s, I brought up the point of adding a
parallel runway to allow for FCLP/CCAs to occur simultaneously with non-FCLP
traffic. I also pointed out that the arresting gear could be derigged on
the non-FCLP runway which would allow P-3/C-9s to land without knocking the
gear out of battery. This led to the discussion of then redesignating
Whidbey as a Master Jet base. I was kidding around, but the OPS-O was
intrigued. Therefore, I attempted to find out the criteria( if there was
any criteria) for designation as a master jet base. Anyway, it is a long
story to explain my interest in the topic. Again thanks to all.
-Moe

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> The previous posts by Allen and OJ come closest to my recollection. As a
> Navy brat in the 1950s and 1960s I first heard the term with reference to
> consolidating aircraft types at certain bases.
>
> Mini-backgrounder: Back in the 1950s, each active duty Air Group was based
> as a unit at one location, ex all the cats and dogs. (They weren't called
> Air Wings until sometime in the 1960s IIRC.) Thus all the squadrons of Air
> Group Nine - VF-91, VF-92, VA-93, VA-94 and VA-95 - were based at NAS
> Alameda. When the Master Base concept was implemented on the west coast,
> all the fighters went to NAS Miramar and all the light attack went to the
> then brand-new NAS Lemoore.
>
> I'm not sure but this may have come about at the same time as (or as the
> result of) the implementation of NATOPS. In any event, it made better
> sense to consolidate types for purposes of training and equipment
> maintenance.
> --
> Mike Kanze
>
> 436 Greenbrier Road
> Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
> USA
>
> 650-726-7890
>
> "Let me tell you
> How it will be.
> There's one for you,
> Nineteen for me,
>
> "'Cause I'm the taxman.
> Yeah, I'm the taxman.
>
> "Should five percent
> Appear too small,
> Be thankful I don't
> Take it all.
>
> "'Cause I'm the taxman.
> Yeah, I'm the taxman."
>
> - The Beatles
>
> "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
> news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
>> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
>> very helpful.
>> -Moe
>>
>
>

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
> -Moe
>
>

No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....

[Yofuri]

IIRC, the "Premier Jet Base" and "Premier Navy Community" designators
were bestowed by the Mayor of Oak Harbor (daughter-in-law of NAS
Whidbey's first paymaster), no doubt for BRAC defense purposes.

Old Whidbey hands may be thrilled to know that after only 62 years, Ault
Field now has a control tower from which all aircraft can be seen on all
runways.

Rick


MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
> Thanks to all for all the good information. It was a question posed to me a
> couple of years ago at a base ops meeting. I was one of the FRS paddles and
> the base OPS-O was questioning our requirements for base equipment
> (arresting gear, FLOLS, IFLOLS, ACLS, ICLS, etc). [No doubt to make Whidbey
> look lean and efficient on the forthcoming BRAC] With P-3 and C-9 aircraft
> coexisting on Whidbey with EA-6s, I brought up the point of adding a
> parallel runway to allow for FCLP/CCAs to occur simultaneously with non-FCLP
> traffic. I also pointed out that the arresting gear could be derigged on
> the non-FCLP runway which would allow P-3/C-9s to land without knocking the
> gear out of battery. This led to the discussion of then redesignating
> Whidbey as a Master Jet base. I was kidding around, but the OPS-O was
> intrigued. Therefore, I attempted to find out the criteria( if there was
> any criteria) for designation as a master jet base. Anyway, it is a long
> story to explain my interest in the topic. Again thanks to all.
> -Moe
>
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The previous posts by Allen and OJ come closest to my recollection. As a
>>Navy brat in the 1950s and 1960s I first heard the term with reference to
>>consolidating aircraft types at certain bases.
>>
>>Mini-backgrounder: Back in the 1950s, each active duty Air Group was based
>>as a unit at one location, ex all the cats and dogs. (They weren't called
>>Air Wings until sometime in the 1960s IIRC.) Thus all the squadrons of Air
>>Group Nine - VF-91, VF-92, VA-93, VA-94 and VA-95 - were based at NAS
>>Alameda. When the Master Base concept was implemented on the west coast,
>>all the fighters went to NAS Miramar and all the light attack went to the
>>then brand-new NAS Lemoore.
>>
>>I'm not sure but this may have come about at the same time as (or as the
>>result of) the implementation of NATOPS. In any event, it made better
>>sense to consolidate types for purposes of training and equipment
>>maintenance.
>>--
>>Mike Kanze
>>
>>436 Greenbrier Road
>>Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
>>USA
>>
>>650-726-7890
>>
>>"Let me tell you
>>How it will be.
>>There's one for you,
>>Nineteen for me,
>>
>>"'Cause I'm the taxman.
>>Yeah, I'm the taxman.
>>
>>"Should five percent
>>Appear too small,
>>Be thankful I don't
>>Take it all.
>>
>>"'Cause I'm the taxman.
>>Yeah, I'm the taxman."
>>
>>- The Beatles
>>
>>"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote in message
>>news:HTc8e.24133$hB6.9873@trnddc06...
>>
>>>Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>>>jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
>>>Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
>>>very helpful.
>>>-Moe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[John Carrier]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
news:1113745482.d69bc9687e1b901751ac0c8e0f2c07f6@t eranews...
> MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>> jet base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey
>> Island is a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't
>> very helpful.
>> -Moe
>
> No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....

Master jet base is a term used to apply to large multi-mission air stations:
Oceana, Lemoore, Miramar (back in the day), etc. I'm surprised Whidbey
doesn't qualify.

"Premier" is best considered a local term or perhaps part of a laudatory
comment from official or unofficial sources.

As an example, when our friend Trent Lott pressured the Navy into
considering NAS Meridian as an F/A-18E/F second site (stupid idea IMO, but
he didn't ask for nor get advice from anybody with an ounce of sense), the
Environmental Impact Statement referred to Meridian as the Navy's "premier
aviation training base." Despite CNATRA's clear bias, I think the statement
is half right. That honor is shared between Kingsville and Meridian.

R / John

[Mike Weeks]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> The previous posts by Allen and OJ come closest to my recollection.
As a
> Navy brat in the 1950s and 1960s I first heard the term with
reference to
> consolidating aircraft types at certain bases.
>
> Mini-backgrounder: Back in the 1950s, each active duty Air Group was
based
> as a unit at one location, ex all the cats and dogs. (They weren't
called
> Air Wings until sometime in the 1960s IIRC.) Thus all the squadrons
of Air
> Group Nine - VF-91, VF-92, VA-93, VA-94 and VA-95 - were based at NAS

> Alameda. When the Master Base concept was implemented on the west
coast, all
> the fighters went to NAS Miramar and all the light attack went to the
then
> brand-new NAS Lemoore.

And the same held for Air Group 14 -- all based at NAS Miramar, then
the VAs to Lemoore and the VFs stayed at Miramar. Discovered this when
researching the history of then-VF-142 "Fighting Falcons."

> I'm not sure but this may have come about at the same time as (or as
the
> result of) the implementation of NATOPS. In any event, it made better
sense
> to consolidate types for purposes of training and equipment
maintenance.

IIRC from the research, it also came within the time period of Air
Group 12 becoming the RAG on the west coast. Or is the "implementation
of NATOPS" also part of the RAG establishment?

MW

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/17/05 8:47 AM, in article
1113745482.d69bc9687e1b901751ac0c8e0f2c07f6@terane ws, "Qui si parla
Campagnolo" > wrote:

> MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
>> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
>> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
>> -Moe
>>
>>
>
> No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....

Dude, you're dating yourself. There are no attack pukes at Whidbey... Or
anywhere else in the Navy.

Whidbey is populated by Prowler crews and P-3's. Attack pukes died when the
Intruders were turned into coral reefs. It's all Strike-Fighter now.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

No offense taken, Fudog. Throw right in, but keep a close eye on the
carrots of the posts.

I responded to Peter Vecchio's (seemingly tongue and cheek):

"No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base...."

Not Moe's rather intelligent question (which I didn't know the answer to).

In fact, I'm slightly surprised that I don't know Moe (no mo?), but I find
that the longer I do this thing, the less folks I know.

I've got no beef with Whidbey, VAQ, or VA pilots (having been one myself).
I simply state that the terms "attack pilot" or "attack puke" died with the
Intruder, and that strike-fighter is the "new" thing (still about 8 or so
years old), and there haven't been attack aircraft at Whidbey since
1996/7--unless you want to count Electronic Attack (what used to be called
Tactical Electronic Warfare).

By the way, I haven't lived in a desert since 1996. |:-)

--Woody

On 4/18/05 10:01 PM, in article ,
"fudog50" > wrote:

> Been a long time posting follow ups. but had to clear things up here,
> desert woody. Moe is a Prowler Stick and one of the best. Don't know
> where you got that "dating yourself" stuff. No offense intended, just
> wanted to throw that in.
>
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:06:37 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/05 8:47 AM, in article
>> 1113745482.d69bc9687e1b901751ac0c8e0f2c07f6@terane ws, "Qui si parla
>> Campagnolo" > wrote:
>>
>>> MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>>>> jet
>>>> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island
>>>> is
>>>> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
>>>> -Moe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....
>>
>> Dude, you're dating yourself. There are no attack pukes at Whidbey... Or
>> anywhere else in the Navy.
>>
>> Whidbey is populated by Prowler crews and P-3's. Attack pukes died when the
>> Intruders were turned into coral reefs. It's all Strike-Fighter now.
>>
>> --Woody
>

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>
>>No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....
>
>
> Dude, you're dating yourself. There are no attack pukes at Whidbey... Or
> anywhere else in the Navy.
>
> Whidbey is populated by Prowler crews and P-3's. Attack pukes died when the
> Intruders were turned into coral reefs. It's all Strike-Fighter now.
>
> --Woody
>

Welll yep!! Getting old ain't for sissies.

[John Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...

> It's all Strike-Fighter now.

Yeah... For some reason the "Fighter/Attack Guy" moniker wasn't accepted in
the community... :-)

[fudog50]

Been a long time posting follow ups. but had to clear things up here,
desert woody. Moe is a Prowler Stick and one of the best. Don't know
where you got that "dating yourself" stuff. No offense intended, just
wanted to throw that in.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:06:37 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 4/17/05 8:47 AM, in article
>1113745482.d69bc9687e1b901751ac0c8e0f2c07f6@terane ws, "Qui si parla
>Campagnolo" > wrote:
>
>> MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
>>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master jet
>>> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island is
>>> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
>>> -Moe
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....
>
>Dude, you're dating yourself. There are no attack pukes at Whidbey... Or
>anywhere else in the Navy.
>
>Whidbey is populated by Prowler crews and P-3's. Attack pukes died when the
>Intruders were turned into coral reefs. It's all Strike-Fighter now.
>
>--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/19/05 4:00 PM, in article ,
"fudog50" > wrote:

> Guess i wasn't following the carrots then and I thought you were at
> the lake, sorry.
>

No harm, no foul. I WAS at The Szechuan Pond until about 9 years ago, and I
used to make that fact well-known here.

--Woody

[fudog50]

Guess i wasn't following the carrots then and I thought you were at
the lake, sorry.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:38:41 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>No offense taken, Fudog. Throw right in, but keep a close eye on the
>carrots of the posts.
>
>I responded to Peter Vecchio's (seemingly tongue and cheek):
>
>"No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base...."
>
>Not Moe's rather intelligent question (which I didn't know the answer to).
>
>In fact, I'm slightly surprised that I don't know Moe (no mo?), but I find
>that the longer I do this thing, the less folks I know.
>
>I've got no beef with Whidbey, VAQ, or VA pilots (having been one myself).
>I simply state that the terms "attack pilot" or "attack puke" died with the
>Intruder, and that strike-fighter is the "new" thing (still about 8 or so
>years old), and there haven't been attack aircraft at Whidbey since
>1996/7--unless you want to count Electronic Attack (what used to be called
>Tactical Electronic Warfare).
>
>By the way, I haven't lived in a desert since 1996. |:-)
>
>--Woody
>
>On 4/18/05 10:01 PM, in article ,
>"fudog50" > wrote:
>
>> Been a long time posting follow ups. but had to clear things up here,
>> desert woody. Moe is a Prowler Stick and one of the best. Don't know
>> where you got that "dating yourself" stuff. No offense intended, just
>> wanted to throw that in.
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:06:37 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/17/05 8:47 AM, in article
>>> 1113745482.d69bc9687e1b901751ac0c8e0f2c07f6@terane ws, "Qui si parla
>>> Campagnolo" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> MICHAEL OLEARY wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone know what the criteria are for designating a NAS as a master
>>>>> jet
>>>>> base? For example NAS Oceana is a master jet base but NAS Whidbey Island
>>>>> is
>>>>> a premier jet base. Any leads would be great. Google wasn't very helpful.
>>>>> -Moe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No place full of attack pukes would be a 'Master' base....
>>>
>>> Dude, you're dating yourself. There are no attack pukes at Whidbey... Or
>>> anywhere else in the Navy.
>>>
>>> Whidbey is populated by Prowler crews and P-3's. Attack pukes died when the
>>> Intruders were turned into coral reefs. It's all Strike-Fighter now.
>>>
>>> --Woody
>>

[leadfoot]

So if you are a "master jet base" does that increase your transient ops?

[Jim McDowell]

Leadfoot,

I have not seen any stats from any time before Oceana earned the designation
"Master Jet Base". I can only say we (Oceana) are as busy as we have ever
been supporting transients, detachments and other country aircraft. .

v/r
Gramps
"leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:Y9P9e.28575$lv1.16024@fed1read06...
> So if you are a "master jet base" does that increase your transient ops?
>

[leadfoot]

"Jim McDowell" > wrote in message
news:mkX9e.15311$Z73.9157@lakeread04...
> Leadfoot,
>
> I have not seen any stats from any time before Oceana earned the
> designation "Master Jet Base". I can only say we (Oceana) are as busy as
> we have ever been supporting transients, detachments and other country
> aircraft. .

I really had my tongue in cheek when I wrote that.

>
> v/r
> Gramps
> "leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:Y9P9e.28575$lv1.16024@fed1read06...
>> So if you are a "master jet base" does that increase your transient ops?
>>
>
>