Forum: F-16 News

Elite Joined: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 664 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.
Shrug

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

I am so sorry....they "Should have some of there own"...........what does everyone else think?

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 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'.

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.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

Loader2088 wrote:

I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.

It is not.

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.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 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??

http://www.globemaster.de/cgi-bin/tail/ ... mit=Search

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/air_acce ... il_cod.htm

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0102/tails.pdf

http://www.aerofiles.com/buzz-tails.html

These are all consistent. I think "The Book" may only list the codes that are currently in use, i.e. painted on jets. I believe the 169th could go back to using SC if leadership decides to do so.

"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.

Elite Joined: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 664 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.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 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.

Elite Joined: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 664 Status: Offline

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.

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?

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,

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,

Forum: F-16 News

VaANG to fly their last F-16 sorties