New NavAir Changes

[Mike Weeks]

It might interest some to know that:

HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
Whiting Field.

VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
VF-11 _The Sundowners_.

and last, but not least -

VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.

Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:

http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx

MW

[[email protected]]

Of course, among us there are still ones who like to hear such news,
especially when including F/A-18 squadrons;-)

I wonder what finally happens with VFC-12... The Scramble site
(www.scramble.nl) lists them as "in due course to transition to F/A-18C
and redesignation to VFA".

I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
the squadron then). The link is great!

Best regards,
Jacek Zemlo


Mike Weeks napisal(a):
> It might interest some to know that:
>
> HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
> Whiting Field.
>
> VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
> 2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
> VF-11 _The Sundowners_.
>
> and last, but not least -
>
> VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.
>
> Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:
>
> http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx
>
> MW

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Of course, among us there are still ones who like to hear such news,
> especially when including F/A-18 squadrons;-)
>
> I wonder what finally happens with VFC-12... The Scramble site
> (www.scramble.nl) lists them as "in due course to transition to F/A-18C
> and redesignation to VFA".

Reserve VFA squadron??

I thought the USN learned it's lesson about getting rid of adversary
squadrons..
>
> I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
> the squadron then). The link is great!
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek Zemlo
>
>
> Mike Weeks napisal(a):
> > It might interest some to know that:
> >
> > HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
> > Whiting Field.
> >
> > VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
> > 2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
> > VF-11 _The Sundowners_.
> >
> > and last, but not least -
> >
> > VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.
> >
> > Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:
> >
> > http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx
> >
> > MW

[Don McIntyre]

<snip>

> Reserve VFA squadron??
>
> I thought the USN learned it's lesson about getting rid of adversary
> squadrons..
> >
> > I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
> > the squadron then). The link is great!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jacek Zemlo
> >

No, they don't learn. They have to have enough people KIA'd to remind
them. It always seems like when the budget gets cut back, Training is
the first thing to suffer. NAVAIR seems to forget, that despite the
lack of opposition in Iraq, there are a few Air Forces out there with
capable platforms and probably capable pilots. Hey even a dope can get
lucky once in a while.

[[email protected]]

Don McIntyre wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Reserve VFA squadron??
> >
> > I thought the USN learned it's lesson about getting rid of adversary
> > squadrons..
> > >
> > > I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
> > > the squadron then). The link is great!
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jacek Zemlo
> > >
>
> No, they don't learn. They have to have enough people KIA'd to remind
> them. It always seems like when the budget gets cut back, Training is
> the first thing to suffer. NAVAIR seems to forget, that despite the
> lack of opposition in Iraq, there are a few Air Forces out there with
> capable platforms and probably capable pilots. Hey even a dope can get
> lucky once in a while.

tell me about it, I was the next to the last CO of VF-126..

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
>
> I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
> the squadron then). The link is great!

I think that means no more _dedicated_ ASW missions. Just as VS went
from anti-submarine to sea control. The S-3s still did _some_ (or
little) ASW work.

All the fleet HS squadrons are going to become HSC, as have the HC
squardons. This is really going to be fun to keep straight.

[W. D. Allen[_1_]]

"...Hey even a dope can get lucky once in a while...."

Or as we say down home, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in while"

WDA
NAVAIR Program Manager - 1966 to 1969

end


"Don McIntyre" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> <snip>
>
>> Reserve VFA squadron??
>>
>> I thought the USN learned it's lesson about getting rid of adversary
>> squadrons..
>> >
>> > I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
>> > the squadron then). The link is great!
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Jacek Zemlo
>> >
>
> No, they don't learn. They have to have enough people KIA'd to remind
> them. It always seems like when the budget gets cut back, Training is
> the first thing to suffer. NAVAIR seems to forget, that despite the
> lack of opposition in Iraq, there are a few Air Forces out there with
> capable platforms and probably capable pilots. Hey even a dope can get
> lucky once in a while.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 993 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[W. D. Allen[_1_]]

Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it was
NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.

WDA
Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer

end

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> It might interest some to know that:
>
> HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
> Whiting Field.
>
> VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
> 2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
> VF-11 _The Sundowners_.
>
> and last, but not least -
>
> VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.
>
> Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:
>
> http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx
>
> MW
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 993 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Mike Weeks]

Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
one year ago.

It's Navy-wide (NAVAIR/OPNAV (AIR)?) regarding the redesignation of all
the operational helo squadrons -- one big, happy community w/ a basic
airframe in use.

In addition, it might be a way some folks are staying *employed* ...
<g>

W. D. Allen wrote:
> Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it was
> NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.
>
> WDA
> Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer
>
> end
>
> "Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > It might interest some to know that:
> >
> > HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
> > Whiting Field.
> >
> > VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
> > 2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
> > VF-11 _The Sundowners_.
> >
> > and last, but not least -
> >
> > VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.
> >
> > Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:
> >
> > http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx
> >
> > MW
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 993 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[R Leonard]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> one year ago.
>

Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
what a load of crap.

Rich

[Mike Weeks]

R Leonard wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > one year ago.
> >
>
> Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> what a load of crap.

Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.

[Tom Clarke]

Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it was
NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.

WDA
Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer

end
---------------------snip-----------------------------

NAVAIR is the systems command (Pax River). NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT have
become Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in San Diego, I think. NAVAIR is
the hardware crowd.

Tom
USN Ret now a NAVAIR bubba.

[Mike Weeks]

Tom Clarke wrote:
> Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it was
> NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.
>
> WDA
> Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer
>
> end
> ---------------------snip-----------------------------
>
> NAVAIR is the systems command (Pax River). NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT have
> become Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in San Diego, I think. NAVAIR is
> the hardware crowd.

I believe that it's NAVAIRPAC who has become CNAF (two hats) in 2001.
AIRLANT reports to CNAF and is now a two-star versus three.

[[email protected]]

On 30 Lis, 21:51, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I could even find HS-8 redesignating to HSC-8 (no more ASW missions for
> > the squadron then). The link is great!I think that means no more _dedicated_ ASW missions. Just as VS went
> from anti-submarine to sea control. The S-3s still did _some_ (or
> little) ASW work.

In this case it is a matter of hardware - the squadron is slated to
transition to MH-60S - so, as HSC-8, it will be probably paired with
one of new HSMs within one of the PACFLT air wings...


> All the fleet HS squadrons are going to become HSC, as have the HC
> squardons. This is really going to be fun to keep straight.

I am not sure, would have to look it up in a MH-60R/S transition plan
I've seen. In fact, many HSC or HSMs will be redesignated current HS,
HC, and HSLs, but also there are going to be some totally new
squadrons...

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> R Leonard wrote:
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > one year ago.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > what a load of crap.
>
> Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.

I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
become a VC squadron...

[R Leonard]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > R Leonard wrote:
> > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > > one year ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > what a load of crap.
> >
> > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
>
> I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> become a VC squadron...

Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
North Island.

Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.

They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
themselves.

Rich

[[email protected]]

R Leonard wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > R Leonard wrote:
> > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > > > one year ago.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > what a load of crap.
> > >
> > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> >
> > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > become a VC squadron...
>
> Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> North Island.

Bunch of reservists, not surprised.......
>
> Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
>
> They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> themselves.
>
> Rich

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> R Leonard wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > R Leonard wrote:
> > > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > > > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > > > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > > > > one year ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > > what a load of crap.
> > > >
> > > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> > >
> > > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > > become a VC squadron...
> >
> > Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> > establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> > patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> > claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> > before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> > North Island.
>
> Bunch of reservists, not surprised.......

It wasn't the reservists who OK'd it ...

> > Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> > NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> > say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
> >
> > They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> > difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> > themselves.
> >
> > Rich

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> wrote:
> > R Leonard wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > R Leonard wrote:
> > > > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > > > > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > > > > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > > > > > one year ago.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > > > what a load of crap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> > > >
> > > > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > > > become a VC squadron...
> > >
> > > Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> > > establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> > > patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> > > claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> > > before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> > > North Island.
> >
> > Bunch of reservists, not surprised.......
>
> It wasn't the reservists who OK'd it ...

Gotta wonder if a CO/XO that had been in the active duty USN, and
perhpas had been a genuine Sundowner, would have suggested it. This
idea didn't come from NavAir...
>
> > > Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> > > NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> > > say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
> > >
> > > They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> > > difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > Rich

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > R Leonard wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > > R Leonard wrote:
> > > > > > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > > > > > > Given the examples of late; it's coming from all over the place. i.e.,
> > > > > > > > VFC-13 Det KW wanted to use a _famous_ number, lineage history and
> > > > > > > > patch as a separate squadron. As a det it had only been established
> > > > > > > > one year ago.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > > > > what a load of crap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > > > > become a VC squadron...
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> > > > establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> > > > patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> > > > claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> > > > before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> > > > North Island.
> > >
> > > Bunch of reservists, not surprised.......
> >
> > It wasn't the reservists who OK'd it ...
>
> Gotta wonder if a CO/XO that had been in the active duty USN, and
> perhpas had been a genuine Sundowner, would have suggested it. This
> idea didn't come from NavAir...

Don't know. The story from the NAS KW paper (17 NOV issue) loads up
from this link (as a full-color PDF file):

http://www.naskw.navy.mil/inc/cmodules/dms/download-rel.php?secid=42&id=6&filesystem_id=3852&dialogFsId=3852

Perhaps one of the COs mentioned had been a JO in the '90's w/ 111 (the
2nd Sundowers).

> >
> > > > Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> > > > NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> > > > say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
> > > >
> > > > They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> > > > difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Rich

[[email protected]]

Per OPNAVINST 5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b: "...The insignia used
by the [deactivated] squadron is also retired and remains with the
history of that deactivated squadron. A newly established or
redesignated squadron cannot adopt the insignia of a deactivated unit."
I would think this would satisfy any concerns the VF-111 "Sundowners"
alumni have about the possibility of VFC-111 using their insignia.

[R Leonard]

wrote:
> Per OPNAVINST 5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b: "...The insignia used
> by the [deactivated] squadron is also retired and remains with the
> history of that deactivated squadron. A newly established or
> redesignated squadron cannot adopt the insignia of a deactivated unit."
> I would think this would satisfy any concerns the VF-111 "Sundowners"
> alumni have about the possibility of VFC-111 using their insignia.

Then what is the squadron insignia on the new CO's right side . . . and
note his comments. Sure looks like VF-11 to me . . . and I've two or
three of their original circa 1942 leather patches to which to compare.
Sounds to me like he/they are inviolation of your cited OPNAVINST
5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b. see

http://www.naskw.navy.mil/inc/cmodules/dms/download-rel.php?secid=42&id=6&filesystem_id=3852&dialogFsId=3852

Rich

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> Per OPNAVINST 5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b: "...The insignia used
> by the [deactivated] squadron is also retired and remains with the
> history of that deactivated squadron. A newly established or
> redesignated squadron cannot adopt the insignia of a deactivated unit."
> I would think this would satisfy any concerns the VF-111 "Sundowners"
> alumni have about the possibility of VFC-111 using their insignia.

It should be pointed out that VFC-111 is calling _itself_ the
"Sundowners" and using the old patch ...

Not aware that the patch worn by the new skipper is authorized and
what, if anything, is in the pipeline for patch/nickname approval.

There's two basic issues, the re-issuing of the number 111 and the new
outfit using a patch/nickname that had a long history, and attempting
to hitch a ride on that history.

[[email protected]]

On 7 Dec 2006 07:51:28 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>> Per OPNAVINST 5030.4F, Enclosure (1), Para 3.b: "...The insignia used
>> by the [deactivated] squadron is also retired and remains with the
>> history of that deactivated squadron. A newly established or
>> redesignated squadron cannot adopt the insignia of a deactivated unit."
>> I would think this would satisfy any concerns the VF-111 "Sundowners"
>> alumni have about the possibility of VFC-111 using their insignia.
>
>It should be pointed out that VFC-111 is calling _itself_ the
>"Sundowners" and using the old patch ...
>
>Not aware that the patch worn by the new skipper is authorized and
>what, if anything, is in the pipeline for patch/nickname approval.
>
>There's two basic issues, the re-issuing of the number 111 and the new
>outfit using a patch/nickname that had a long history, and attempting
>to hitch a ride on that history.

IMO there's a difference between "hitching a ride on history" and
wearing the emblem of a unit with a long and honorable history, as a
tribute to and extension of that history.

While YMMV I don't see this as a Big Deal.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Ralph_S]

R Leonard wrote:

> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > what a load of crap.
> > >
> > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> >
> > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > become a VC squadron...
>
> Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> North Island.
>
> Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
>
> They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> themselves.
>
> Rich

Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
The Sundowners name revived.

It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
strips.
VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
either.

Cheers,
Ralph

[Mike Weeks]

Ralph_S wrote:
> R Leonard wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, Mike, but it does NOT make them 'Sundowners'. Frankly I think
> > > > > it's a shame that they're going around pretending that they are . . .
> > > > > what a load of crap.
> > > >
> > > > Couldn't agree more, Rich. Really sad in a way.
> > >
> > > I agree also. If they want to imitate a piece of history, they ught to
> > > become a VC squadron...
> >
> > Yeah, and they just couldn't wait. Someone sent me a photo of the
> > establishment festivities and there was the CO, complete with Sundowner
> > patch on his flight jacket. I can see that in a few years they'll be
> > claiming lineage to Fighter I on the Canal . . . and Puuene on Maui
> > before that . . . and all the way back to Charlie Fenton on day 1 at
> > North Island.
> >
> > Somone at the command level should have said, "Not only no, but HELL
> > NO! Go get your own damn legacy." I don't often have unkind things to
> > say about the Navy, but they really screwed the pooch on this one.
> >
> > They're fakes, and, sadly, in a couple of years no one will know the
> > difference. They, the squadron, and the Navy ought to be ashamed of
> > themselves.
> >
> > Rich
>
> Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
> them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
> I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
> The Sundowners name revived.
>
> It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
> VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
> strips.

Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".

Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.

http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm

> VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
> and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
> either.

And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.

The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
instructions.

MW

[Ralph_S]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Ralph_S wrote:
> > R Leonard wrote:

> >
> > Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
> > them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
> > I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
> > The Sundowners name revived.
> >
> > It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
> > VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
> > strips.
>
> Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
> official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
> are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".
>
> Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
> another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.
>
The patch they used indeed wasn't that of the Flying Chiefs, but it
definately tied into the original VF-2 from the Langley (There's even a
biplane in there), as did the Langley stripes.


> http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm
>
> > VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
> > and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
> > either.
>
> And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
> keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
> nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
> the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
> and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.
>
Well, you had VF-17 Jolly Rogers. This was stood down. Some of it's
personel became part of a new unit, VF-84, which called itself the
Jolly Rogers as well. Around the same time, VF-17 is stood up gain
under the same name, gets renumbered as VF-5B and later VF-61. Now you
have two squadrons named the Jolly Rogers.
VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established
as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
the Jolly Rogers.
VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

This sort of thing really is only relevant to aviation geeks such as
myself and historians.

> The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
> history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
> Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
> instructions.
>

While there may be official guidelines for this sort of thing, it
doesn't seem as though they are applied very consistently.

Cheers,
Ralph

> MW

[Mike Weeks]

Ralph_S wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > Ralph_S wrote:
> > > R Leonard wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
> > > them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
> > > I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
> > > The Sundowners name revived.
> > >
> > > It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
> > > VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
> > > strips.
> >
> > Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
> > official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
> > are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".
> >
> > Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
> > another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.
> >
> The patch they used indeed wasn't that of the Flying Chiefs, but it
> definately tied into the original VF-2 from the Langley (There's even a
> biplane in there), as did the Langley stripes.

And the squadron doesn't claim to have been _that_ squadron, which BTW,
had more time on the old Lex then it did on Langley. <g>

Again, they aren't using the original VF-2 patch (or name), yet VFC-111
apparently is going to -- at least unofficially. Time will only tell
if it becomes official (the patch & name), which will be interesting to
watch what happens.

>
>
> > http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm
> >
> > > VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
> > > and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
> > > either.
> >
> > And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
> > keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
> > nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
> > the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
> > and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.
> >
> Well, you had VF-17 Jolly Rogers. This was stood down. Some of it's
> personel became part of a new unit, VF-84, which called itself the
> Jolly Rogers as well.

VF-84 had as its patch a black wolf's head with crossed MGs. Some of
the orig. VF-17 guys did form as a core for VF-84, but it was never
official as to being the Jolly Rogers. Good press however ...

> Around the same time, VF-17 is stood up gain
> under the same name, gets renumbered as VF-5B and later VF-61. Now you
> have two squadrons named the Jolly Rogers.

VF-17 was not disestablished during the war however. Between
deployments squadrons might lose all but one poor soul until a new set
of pilots reported aboard to start the new workup cycle. And the first
VF-84 went away on 08 OCT 1945. You had one squadron (VF-17) offically
the Jolly Rogers, one squadron (VF-84), unofficially in some circles as
the Jolly Rogers up to 08 Oct. 1945.

> VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established

(actually another VF-84 is established -- as you know, squadrons are
not re-established up to a 1995 directive -- now a squadron, if in
existence in 1995, can be. The current terms are reactivated and
deactivated.)

> as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
> the Jolly Rogers.

In this case, a core group from VF-61 (including the CO) formed up into
VF-84 because they were transitioning from the F3H to the F8U. And
officially the change over in patch/name was approved -- all in the
1958/59 period.

But the Navy only allowed VF-84 to trace its lineage back to 1955.
VF-84 could not, and I don't believe they did, claim their first
skipper as being CDR Tom Blackburn for example. <g>

> VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

As stated, they are _told_ to become the Jolly Rogers. The long
original history of 103 as the Sluggers, just wiped out ... <g>

>
> This sort of thing really is only relevant to aviation geeks such as
> myself and historians.

Given the history of the mess which constitutes NavAir policy to
squadron names & numbers one can allow for a certain amount of slack
thru the late 1950's and into the early 1960's. But not after that
period -- especially given the numerous directives and instructions
which were generated in an attempt to get a handle and to make some
sense of the mess created previously -- which of course aren't followed
by the very folks who not only created them, but who apparently don't
know they exist!

It actually should matter to those who run the Navy. Some in the Navy
try, but it's been an uphill battle to say the least.

>
> > The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
> > history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
> > Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
> > instructions.
> >
>
> While there may be official guidelines for this sort of thing, it
> doesn't seem as though they are applied very consistently.

That's a fact! <g>

[Ralph_S]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Ralph_S wrote:
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > Ralph_S wrote:
> > > > R Leonard wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
> > > > them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
> > > > I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
> > > > The Sundowners name revived.
> > > >
> > > > It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
> > > > VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
> > > > strips.
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
> > > official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
> > > are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".
> > >
> > > Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
> > > another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.
> > >
> > The patch they used indeed wasn't that of the Flying Chiefs, but it
> > definately tied into the original VF-2 from the Langley (There's even a
> > biplane in there), as did the Langley stripes.
>
> And the squadron doesn't claim to have been _that_ squadron, which BTW,
> had more time on the old Lex then it did on Langley. <g>
>
> Again, they aren't using the original VF-2 patch (or name), yet VFC-111
> apparently is going to -- at least unofficially. Time will only tell
> if it becomes official (the patch & name), which will be interesting to
> watch what happens.
>
> >
> >
> > > http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm
> > >
> > > > VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
> > > > and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
> > > keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
> > > nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
> > > the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
> > > and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.
> > >
> > Well, you had VF-17 Jolly Rogers. This was stood down. Some of it's
> > personel became part of a new unit, VF-84, which called itself the
> > Jolly Rogers as well.
>
> VF-84 had as its patch a black wolf's head with crossed MGs. Some of
> the orig. VF-17 guys did form as a core for VF-84, but it was never
> official as to being the Jolly Rogers. Good press however ...
>
> > Around the same time, VF-17 is stood up gain
> > under the same name, gets renumbered as VF-5B and later VF-61. Now you
> > have two squadrons named the Jolly Rogers.
>
> VF-17 was not disestablished during the war however. Between
> deployments squadrons might lose all but one poor soul until a new set
> of pilots reported aboard to start the new workup cycle. And the first
> VF-84 went away on 08 OCT 1945. You had one squadron (VF-17) offically
> the Jolly Rogers, one squadron (VF-84), unofficially in some circles as
> the Jolly Rogers up to 08 Oct. 1945.
>
> > VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established
>
> (actually another VF-84 is established -- as you know, squadrons are
> not re-established up to a 1995 directive -- now a squadron, if in
> existence in 1995, can be. The current terms are reactivated and
> deactivated.)
>
> > as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
> > the Jolly Rogers.
>
> In this case, a core group from VF-61 (including the CO) formed up into
> VF-84 because they were transitioning from the F3H to the F8U. And
> officially the change over in patch/name was approved -- all in the
> 1958/59 period.
>
> But the Navy only allowed VF-84 to trace its lineage back to 1955.
> VF-84 could not, and I don't believe they did, claim their first
> skipper as being CDR Tom Blackburn for example. <g>
>
> > VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.
>
> As stated, they are _told_ to become the Jolly Rogers. The long
> original history of 103 as the Sluggers, just wiped out ... <g>
>
> >
> > This sort of thing really is only relevant to aviation geeks such as
> > myself and historians.
>
> Given the history of the mess which constitutes NavAir policy to
> squadron names & numbers one can allow for a certain amount of slack
> thru the late 1950's and into the early 1960's. But not after that
> period -- especially given the numerous directives and instructions
> which were generated in an attempt to get a handle and to make some
> sense of the mess created previously -- which of course aren't followed
> by the very folks who not only created them, but who apparently don't
> know they exist!
>
> It actually should matter to those who run the Navy. Some in the Navy
> try, but it's been an uphill battle to say the least.
>
> >
> > > The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
> > > history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
> > > Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
> > > instructions.
> > >
> >
> > While there may be official guidelines for this sort of thing, it
> > doesn't seem as though they are applied very consistently.
>
> That's a fact! <g>

Allright. Let's leave it at that then.

Cheers,
Ralph

[Tom Clarke]

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Tom Clarke wrote:
>> Is NAVAIR designating operational squadrons today? Half a century ago it
>> was
>> NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT with that authority.
>>
>> WDA
>> Former Fury [FJ-4B] Flyer
>>
>> end
>> ---------------------snip-----------------------------
>>
>> NAVAIR is the systems command (Pax River). NAVAIRPAC and NAVAIRLANT have
>> become Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in San Diego, I think. NAVAIR
>> is
>> the hardware crowd.
>
> I believe that it's NAVAIRPAC who has become CNAF (two hats) in 2001.
> AIRLANT reports to CNAF and is now a two-star versus three.
>
I knew there was something like that going on. It has been a while since I
have been in the "Fleet"!

Thanks for the clarification.

Tom

[Ski]

was not VF-11 the "Red Rippers" or have I aged, VF-111 is/was "Sundowners"
but not to worry - your keyboard may have typed 111 but it didn't come out
that way - mine is like that all the time






"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> It might interest some to know that:
>
> HT-28 was established 01 NOV 2006 as a new helo training squadron at
> Whiting Field.
>
> VFC-13 Det Key West is _officially_ redesignationed VFC-111 (on 01 NOV
> 2006) and they're going to use the the patch & nickname of WW II's
> VF-11 _The Sundowners_.
>
> and last, but not least -
>
> VFA-201 is to disestablished 30 JUN 2007.
>
> Copies of the 3111 & 5450 notices have been posted here:
>
> http://doni.daps.dla.mil/newdirectives.aspx
>
> MW
>

[R Leonard]

Ski wrote:
> was not VF-11 the "Red Rippers" or have I aged, VF-111 is/was "Sundowners"
> but not to worry - your keyboard may have typed 111 but it didn't come out
> that way - mine is like that all the time
>
>
Briefly, Sun Downers (note, properly two words, not one) were formed in
August 1942. Originally planned as a new incarnation of VF-42 (the
first CO was Charlie Fenton, the last CO of VF-42), assignment to
CVG-11 in October left the actual numbering done deal, VF-11. After
working up at North Island, the Air Group was due to take up residence
aboard USS Hornet (CV-8) and was headed west when the bad news came in.
VF-11 fetched up at Maui and it was here that the famous insignia of
two F4Fs shooting into a setting sun was designed, stenciling worked
out, and applied for the first time. The insignia was applied to the
instrument access panels on both sides forward of the cockpit and
personnel also received leather patches with the insignia stenciled on
them. Thus the beginnings of the Sun Downer insignia; my father (like
Fenton, a VF-42 alumnus) was the gent who designed the insignia. VF-11
proceeded to a tour in the Solomons from early April to mid July 1943
in F4Fs and a second tour, carrier based, in F6Fs.
After the war, the squadron was redesignated VF-11A on 15 Nov 1946 and
on 15 Jul 1948 redesignated VF-111. VF-111 was disestablished on 19
Jan 1959 and on the next day VA-156 was redesignated VF-111 20 Jan
1959. This new VF-111 adopted the insignia of the previous VF-111.
The squadron was briefly redesignated VF-26 from 1 Sep 1964 to 17 Sep
1964 and then reverted back to VF-111 until disestablished on 31 Mar
1995.

The Red Rippers could trace their origin back to 1 Feb 1927 when first
established as VF-5. The squadron went through many redesignations
over the years: to VF-5S on 1 Jul 1927, VF-5B in Jan 1928, VB-1B on 1
Jul 1928, VF-5B on 1 Jul 1930, VF-5S in Jul 1932, VF-5B in Apr 1933,
VF-4 on 1 Jul 1937, VF-41 on 15 Mar 1941, VF-4 on 4 Aug 1943, VF-1A on
15 Nov 1946, and to VF-11 on 2 Aug 1948. The squadron lineage broke
when the squadron was disestablished on 15 Feb 1959. On 16 Feb 1959
VF-43 was redesignated VF-11 and adopted the Rippers insignia of the
previous VF-11.

So, no, Ski, your memory is not faulty, VF-11 was Red Rippers, but only
since 1948. The original VF-11 were Sun Downers which eventually
morphed into VF-111.

Interestingly, VF-42 was formed from VS-41 aboard USS Ranger in March
1941 and drew some of its pilots in a personnel swap with VF-41 and
shared with them flying duties in some of the first F4Fs delivered to
the fleet. My father was one of the VS-41 types who went to VF-42,
Fenton, then XO of the new fighting squadron, was from VF-41.

Rich

[Ski]

And I thought the Marine lineage was weird - great rundown, now when is the
pop quiz (awesome)
But let's see, if one were to do a book on Navy Squadrons the lead
identifier would be the "trade name", say
"Red Rippers" or "Sun Downers" and then the fill in chapters would be all
the unit designations and type aircraft flown by that unit

is that near right



"R Leonard" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Ski wrote:
>> was not VF-11 the "Red Rippers" or have I aged, VF-111 is/was
>> "Sundowners"
>> but not to worry - your keyboard may have typed 111 but it didn't come
>> out
>> that way - mine is like that all the time
>>
>>
> Briefly, Sun Downers (note, properly two words, not one) were formed in
> August 1942. Originally planned as a new incarnation of VF-42 (the
> first CO was Charlie Fenton, the last CO of VF-42), assignment to
> CVG-11 in October left the actual numbering done deal, VF-11. After
> working up at North Island, the Air Group was due to take up residence
> aboard USS Hornet (CV-8) and was headed west when the bad news came in.
> VF-11 fetched up at Maui and it was here that the famous insignia of
> two F4Fs shooting into a setting sun was designed, stenciling worked
> out, and applied for the first time. The insignia was applied to the
> instrument access panels on both sides forward of the cockpit and
> personnel also received leather patches with the insignia stenciled on
> them. Thus the beginnings of the Sun Downer insignia; my father (like
> Fenton, a VF-42 alumnus) was the gent who designed the insignia. VF-11
> proceeded to a tour in the Solomons from early April to mid July 1943
> in F4Fs and a second tour, carrier based, in F6Fs.
> After the war, the squadron was redesignated VF-11A on 15 Nov 1946 and
> on 15 Jul 1948 redesignated VF-111. VF-111 was disestablished on 19
> Jan 1959 and on the next day VA-156 was redesignated VF-111 20 Jan
> 1959. This new VF-111 adopted the insignia of the previous VF-111.
> The squadron was briefly redesignated VF-26 from 1 Sep 1964 to 17 Sep
> 1964 and then reverted back to VF-111 until disestablished on 31 Mar
> 1995.
>
> The Red Rippers could trace their origin back to 1 Feb 1927 when first
> established as VF-5. The squadron went through many redesignations
> over the years: to VF-5S on 1 Jul 1927, VF-5B in Jan 1928, VB-1B on 1
> Jul 1928, VF-5B on 1 Jul 1930, VF-5S in Jul 1932, VF-5B in Apr 1933,
> VF-4 on 1 Jul 1937, VF-41 on 15 Mar 1941, VF-4 on 4 Aug 1943, VF-1A on
> 15 Nov 1946, and to VF-11 on 2 Aug 1948. The squadron lineage broke
> when the squadron was disestablished on 15 Feb 1959. On 16 Feb 1959
> VF-43 was redesignated VF-11 and adopted the Rippers insignia of the
> previous VF-11.
>
> So, no, Ski, your memory is not faulty, VF-11 was Red Rippers, but only
> since 1948. The original VF-11 were Sun Downers which eventually
> morphed into VF-111.
>
> Interestingly, VF-42 was formed from VS-41 aboard USS Ranger in March
> 1941 and drew some of its pilots in a personnel swap with VF-41 and
> shared with them flying duties in some of the first F4Fs delivered to
> the fleet. My father was one of the VS-41 types who went to VF-42,
> Fenton, then XO of the new fighting squadron, was from VF-41.
>
> Rich
>

[R Leonard]

Ski wrote:
> And I thought the Marine lineage was weird - great rundown, now when is the
> pop quiz (awesome)
> But let's see, if one were to do a book on Navy Squadrons the lead
> identifier would be the "trade name", say
> "Red Rippers" or "Sun Downers" and then the fill in chapters would be all
> the unit designations and type aircraft flown by that unit
>
> is that near right
>

I suppose that calling them by their names rather than designations
might make it easier, but if you say "Sun Downers," I think VF-11
where you might think VF-111; and when you say "Red Rippers" you
think VF-11 and I think VF-4 . . . all a matter of exposure. When I
was growing up "USS Yorktown" meant CV-5, the other one was always
referred to as "CV-10." Even today, when someone mentions the
carrier parked at Patriots Point SC by name, I think, "oh, you mean
CV-10" and I never associate the name with some cruiser unless
someone specifically says something like, "you know, the cruiser."

Rich

[Mike Weeks]

Ski wrote:
> And I thought the Marine lineage was weird - great rundown, now when is the
> pop quiz (awesome)
> But let's see, if one were to do a book on Navy Squadrons the lead
> identifier would be the "trade name", say
> "Red Rippers" or "Sun Downers" and then the fill in chapters would be all
> the unit designations and type aircraft flown by that unit
>
> is that near right

Click here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/insignia/vf/vf-i.html

And you'll get a good representation of the challenge in attempting to
understand the lineage history of Navy squadrons.

Rich presented a nice summary.

[Ski]

you guys are really up on this stuff - awesome
I know I got warmly hoodwinked into buying a set of Marine patch books by
the "US Mule" if you know him, a life long work of compiling USMC aviation
patches and it cost an arm and a leg but what a compendium - it takes a life
time to deal with these things. Actually love the book and when I finish my
new house it will move to the library



"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ski wrote:
>> And I thought the Marine lineage was weird - great rundown, now when is
>> the
>> pop quiz (awesome)
>> But let's see, if one were to do a book on Navy Squadrons the lead
>> identifier would be the "trade name", say
>> "Red Rippers" or "Sun Downers" and then the fill in chapters would be all
>> the unit designations and type aircraft flown by that unit
>>
>> is that near right
>
> Click here:
>
> http://www.history.navy.mil/insignia/vf/vf-i.html
>
> And you'll get a good representation of the challenge in attempting to
> understand the lineage history of Navy squadrons.
>
> Rich presented a nice summary.
>