| Author |
Message |
|
ACMIguy
|
Posted: Feb 06, 2008 - 07:46 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 668
Status: Offline
|
I found this picture on the 16.net
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item42305.html
Funny you can see the AFRC unit is marked TX and the ANG is marked SA, I presume for San Antonio?
In South Carolina the 157FW ANG has SC and the 125FW ANG has FL, so it's hard to tell why they do things like they do.
Maybe someone on this site knows.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Nov 18, 2008 - 7:11 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Purplehaze
|
Posted: Feb 06, 2008 - 08:00 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1215
Status: Offline
|
| I am so sorry....they "Should have some of there own"...........what does everyone else think? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Feb 06, 2008 - 11:55 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1035
Status: Offline
|
|
ACMIguy wrote:
In South Carolina the 157FW ANG has SC
The 157 FS (not FW) does not have SC on the tails. South Carolina Air Guard is one of a couple of guard units that instead of putting a (state) code on the tails, spells it out 'South Carolina'. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Loader2088
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 12:57 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103
Status: Offline
|
|
checksixx wrote:
ACMIguy wrote:
In South Carolina the 157FW ANG has SC
The 157 FS (not FW) does not have SC on the tails. South Carolina Air Guard is one of a couple of guard units that instead of putting a (state) code on the tails, spells it out 'South Carolina'.
You are right as of now. But, when the 157th FS of the 169th FW first got A and B model F-16's in the early 1980's, they had SC tail codes. I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.
The attached picture was taken in 1986 at a GA ANG open house and shows a (going away) Georgia F-4D, a (coming in) Georgia F-15A and a visiting SC F-16A. At the time, Georgia used tail bands with "GEORGIA" and South Carolina used SC. The practices now are just the reverse. |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
761.23 KB |
| Viewed: |
3689 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 02:01 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1035
Status: Offline
|
|
Loader2088 wrote:
I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.
It is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Loader2088
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 07:16 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103
Status: Offline
|
|
checksixx wrote:
Loader2088 wrote:
I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.
It is not.
OK, I'll bite. To what unit is SC assigned? Every site I checked on the seb showed it was still assigned to the 169th FW. I suppose you have different new information. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 09:00 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1035
Status: Offline
|
|
Loader2088 wrote:
checksixx wrote:
Loader2088 wrote:
I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.
It is not.
OK, I'll bite. To what unit is SC assigned? Every site I checked on the seb showed it was still assigned to the 169th FW. I suppose you have different new information.
Every year in the Airman 'The Book', they give a list of current base codes. SC is not on the list and VA has been removed this year. What are the sites your checking?? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Loader2088
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 09:44 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ace02
|
Posted: Feb 07, 2008 - 11:32 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: 204
Location: N. Va. DC area
|
| "if leadership decides to do so" I believe therin lies the key, guys. I remember that there was quite the long process when the 35th FW at Misawa finally went from MJ to WW and that was just an all active duty issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ACMIguy
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2008 - 06:38 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 668
Status: Offline
|
|
checksixx wrote:
Loader2088 wrote:
I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.
It is not.
Okay my bad the 169FW now has the words written as you said. So I stopped by and asked them why this was. The answer was they wanted to have a distinctive look. So it was a decision by management to make the change on the jets. SC still reflects the same unit on listings so it is synonymous with the painted tail.
The point I was trying to make was not all tail codes reflect a base, and all aircraft on the base may or may not have the same fin flash.
Here is another example, FL is the tail code for the AFRES unit at Patrick AFB, but is also the code for the ANG base in Jacksonville.
Now the last time I drove from JAX to Patrick it was about 4 hours heading south on I-95, hardly the same base or location.
Ace02 was right it does seem to be more what the unit picks rather than a strict code for a base.
I still think one F-22 marked as VA would be a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2008 - 06:53 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1035
Status: Offline
|
| I understand that some codes on jets may be the same..even at different locations, but in fact...it IS a base code...nothing more. Doesn't matter if you agree or not...its a base code. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ACMIguy
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2008 - 07:22 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 668
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Loader2088
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2008 - 09:36 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103
Status: Offline
|
|
ACMIguy wrote:
So what base is FL, or WI, or OH or OT the list goes on and on.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0208/PDFs ... rkings.pdf
This is a pointless argument.
You got that right! How can you convince someone that claims you can have in effect multiple "bases" at one air base if indeed "it IS a base code...nothing more."
It would hurt nothing to paint VA on one or more of the Raptors. Why not one of the squadrons when they're all stood up? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JoeSambor
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2008 - 11:25 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 399
Status: Offline
|
|
Ace02 wrote:
"if leadership decides to do so" I believe therin lies the key, guys. I remember that there was quite the long process when the 35th FW at Misawa finally went from MJ to WW and that was just an all active duty issue.
Ah, but it wasn't the 35th FW that had MJ on the tails, it was the 432d FW. The 432d was deactivated. Wasn't the 35th at George?
Best Regards, |
_________________ Joe Sambor
LM Aero Field Service Engineer
Woensdrecht Logistics Center, The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ace02
|
Posted: Feb 12, 2008 - 03:55 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: 204
Location: N. Va. DC area
|
yea the 35th was at George, the base closed and the wing technically "went away." At Misawa I believe there was some hold over initally of the MJ code when they became the 35th. If I remember right it Was Gen. Gary North that pushed to get the chenge when they got their block 50s and a SEAD mission. They didn't just bring the code with them.
JoeSambor wrote:
Ace02 wrote:
"if leadership decides to do so" I believe therin lies the key, guys. I remember that there was quite the long process when the 35th FW at Misawa finally went from MJ to WW and that was just an all active duty issue.
Ah, but it wasn't the 35th FW that had MJ on the tails, it was the 432d FW. The 432d was deactivated. Wasn't the 35th at George?
Best Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|