F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: VaANG to fly their last F-16 sorties - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8365-start-150-sid-f346952dee9bd5fbc69beb73fc865cb2.html
Printed on: 13 October 2008

Forum: F-16 News

VaANG to fly their last F-16 sorties



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
ACMIguy
PostPosted: Feb 06, 2008 - 07:46 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 667

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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 13, 2008 - 6:13 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
Purplehaze
PostPosted: Feb 06, 2008 - 08:00 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1198

Status: Offline
I am so sorry....they "Should have some of there own"...........what does everyone else think?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Feb 06, 2008 - 11:55 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

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'.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Loader2088
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 12:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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.



116th Open House 1986.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  761.23 KB
 Viewed:  3470 Time(s)

116th Open House 1986.jpg


 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 02:01 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
Loader2088 wrote:
I have no reason to think the SC tail code isn't still assigned to the SCANG.


It is not.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Loader2088
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 07:16 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 09:00 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

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??
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Loader2088
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 09:44 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103

Status: Offline
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Ace02
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2008 - 11:32 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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.
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
ACMIguy
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2008 - 06:38 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 667

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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2008 - 06:53 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ACMIguy
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2008 - 07:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 667

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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Loader2088
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2008 - 09:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
JoeSambor
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2008 - 11:25 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 387

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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Ace02
PostPosted: Feb 12, 2008 - 03:55 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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,
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel