VF-101Guy Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Sad to see the tomcat go out. Its amazing that all the modex numbers you guys are talking about the 100 series are now the modex of the Grim Reapers RAG Squadron but sadly as of Sept of this year VF-101 will be no more. As for VF-103 there already getting their hornets now. Seen a few of them up at Oceana when i was there. Ive seen the super hornets upclose and im not really all that impressed with them. I mean other than a wider profile and a few inches longer and lets not forget the square intakes theres nothing really super about it. I wonder how the guys on the carriers are handling that spray on absorbent material on the leading edges? err, I could be wrong.. but modex numbers are generally issued by airwing, not the navy overall... as in, at one point, there could've been multiple CAG tomcats out there with the modex number 100 or 200 (or 300, 400, etc) Well lets see VF-101 uses modex 100 and there CAG bird is modex 101 and showbirds are 163 B tomcat and 164 D tomcat. Their workhorse birds have modex numbers going up to 124 if im not mistaken. Im not saying that 101 uses all the 100 modex numbers. As for CAG birds they are always marked with the first series of modex numbers ie: 100,200 and so on. You are correct in the modex being done by the squadrons. I was making a general statement on the modex that 101 uses which are the 100 series. Nothing more nothing less. As for the Top Gun issue both F-14's were borrowed from VF-124. As a matter of fact one of the planes, cant remember if it was icemans or mavericks was done with an S-3 squadron marking. If you have a chance and can spend 60 bucks on a book, I suggest that you pick up Tomcat Alley: A Picture Roll Call. It shows pretty much everything you want to know about the different squadrons and even gives info on the planes from the Top Gun movie..
David Hingtgen Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 (edited) Actually, AFAIK Maverick's plane was from VF-51, while Iceman's was from VF-111. And I believe most carrier scenes are actually of the Ranger. Just off the top of my head. PS--while we're here, the whole "no rudder paint" is quite true for Super Bugs. And there's new rules limiting LOGO SIZE!!!! That's why VFA-103's markings are as they are--they're the first to come from the factory following the new rules. Also, they've been cut to one colored plane per squadron, no exceptions. Also, no fuselage stripes/bands. VFA-2, despite winning every color scheme and markings award at Farnborough just a few weeks ago (with their normal colors no less, not painted up special for the show like all the other planes), has already been forced to repaint some of their low-vis planes to follow the new rules, so they're even lowER-vis. And their gorgeous CAG and CO ones might not last much longer. Edited August 16, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 Dave So why the E models get the nice paintjobs ? Just because so admiral comes from the single seat community ?
David Hingtgen Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 The new rules might apply to all squadrons. VFA-14 is believed to have applied for (and received) special dispensation, being the first ex-F-14 E-model user, or something. They might have to repaint the CO plane as well. From what I can see, now only 1 plane per squadron is allowed any color, painted rudders, or stripes. The current theory is that somebody is on a MAJOR power trip, hates Shornets more than anyone else, and enjoys changing the rules every week and making people repaint Hornets 24/7.
hellohikaru Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 The current theory is that somebody is on a MAJOR power trip, hates Shornets more than anyone else, and enjoys changing the rules every week and making people repaint Hornets 24/7. Oh i see then Anasazi and the other custom decal makers should be able to accomodate them Maybe next they will be forced to paint their jets pink or use some weird font for any lettering.
VF-101Guy Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 David.. thanks for correcting me on the 2 tomcats... i couldnt remember and just looked it up. Your right on the hornets..somebody doesnt want any colors on the tails.. not even black. The picture of the VFA-103 Hornet is the color scheme that was put on the plane before it left the factory from what the PAO tells me.. kind of sick looking if you ask me. I mean i dont mind a 3 tone TPS or even a 2 tone Tps but as for myself personally I like a little color on the plane. VFA-2 just wont look the same without the red, white and blue stripes. Just like 103 doesnt look right without black tails. I was thinking about the color rule but "correct me if im wrong" all of VFA-41F's have red fin caps on their planes. Im just wondering how the mant. crews are going to handle that spray-on radar reflective material on the leading edges when their on the carriers...
David Hingtgen Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 (edited) VFA-41 is also said to have gotten an exception, but they are also an early user---you can assume all future squadrons will have to follow the new rules, and VFA-41 and the other earlier ones (VFA-102 almost certainly) will have to repaint. VFA-102 already did partial repaints earlier to move the lettering off the rudders, now they'll have to get rid of their diamondback stripes on the nose to comply with the "no stripes" rule. That new rule also explains why no vagabond stripe on the new Jolly Rogers. Edited August 16, 2004 by David Hingtgen
VF-101Guy Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 just money down the drain.. having to repaint
USMCBebop Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 (edited) wasn't the aircraft carrier used in this movie the "nimitz" or at least some of the stock footage of her? i heard kawamori visited & spent time on the nimitz studying the tomcats & watching how they moved to get background info for the valks.jolly-roger squad was serving on her at that time,so hence our roy valk's appearance.only makes sense that he probably saw the vf-1 on 1 of the pilots helmets & decided to use it too Negative, the movie you are referring to is 1980's "The Final Countdown" where the Nimitz traveled back to December 1941. VF-84 was featured in the movie. VF-41 was shown briefly too. my dad took me to see topgun in the theaters in '84.i think that was the hey-day of jollyroger squad & nimitz. See above. Also "Top Gun" was 1986. Edited August 16, 2004 by USMCBebop
rdenham Posted August 16, 2004 Posted August 16, 2004 We were lucky enough to get a visit from both a Low-Vis & Hi-Vis CAG VFA-14 Super Bug, at last weeks Hillsboro Airshow. Since the weather conditions were not that great, and my monitor is on its last legs so these pics may look a little off. I had a great conversation with a Lt. Cdr. Who “browed the CAG Bird” for the show. I asked him some questions about this ridiculous paint scheme issue and he said that although he would never want to fly a “black tail in combat” the Hi-Vis colors have always been a point of pride for the Navy and they were fighting to reverse the trend. Although I don’t ever see the glory days of the mid-70’s early 80’s, hopefully someone will get their head out of their ass soon. I find it funny that in a day and age were air-to air combat is so unlikely, especially anything other than BVR, people are so concerned about a little paint.
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 (edited) Though everyone knows I'm not the biggest Hornet fan, I'm the first to admit they tend to have awesome high-vis schemes. ESPECIALLY black-tails. I like black-tail Hornets even more than black-tail Tomcats. VFA-14 is likely to have the best-looking E-models for quite some time. Unless of course they're forced to repaint... However, you might notice they've already had to take the letters off the rudders. When delivered, they had BIG "NH" lettering on the rudders. Now they're much smaller and moved ahead of the rudders, even on the CAG. Edited August 17, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Dave When did VFA-41/14 and the Nimitz switch over to the pacific fleet ?
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 41 was with the Reagan in July. There's been some shifting around now that the Reagan's about to deploy for the first time. AFAIK, 14 and 41 should currently wear Reagan markings, not Nimitz. They've got the NH tailcode, which is CVW-11, which has been on the Nimitz lately. Maybe they just haven't gotten Reagan markings yet. I think the Nimitz is in refit at the moment.
Knight26 Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Reagan is no where near ready to deploy, it has event had its CSSQT yet. All its going to be doing until at least January is local ops area work, no deployments.
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Well at least it's in the right ocean, which couldn't be said last year.
USMCBebop Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 I find it funny that in a day and age were air-to air combat is so unlikely, especially anything other than BVR, people are so concerned about a little paint. Unlikely, but not impossible. When they designed the F4H-1/F-4 Phantom II back in the fifties, I'm sure they said the samething. Hell, they designed it without an internal gun! Boy were they wrong a few years later in Vietnam! Lo-viz isn't just for the fighter roles, but for the attack roles aswell. As the Blue Angel narration says, "Now that Blue Angels five and six has got your attention, you have witnessed the ability of a small aircraft to enter a target area virtually UNDETECTED." Sure it's nice blue paint and going real fast, but imagine that in lo-viz? It will be too late before you notice. Yes, it would be nice to be nice to see those gray and white Navy birds once again, but tactical reasons will make that unlikely.
rdenham Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 Unlikely, but not impossible. When they designed the F4H-1/F-4 Phantom II back in the fifties, I'm sure they said the samething. Hell, they designed it without an internal gun! Boy were they wrong a few years later in Vietnam! . Your historical recap concerning the F-4 is a very good point, still paint schemes were not modified until long after the military had recognized the importance of close quarter dissimilar ACM training. The multi tone Low-Vis livery topic should be a mute point considering most of our strike missions are carried out at night or at medium to high altitudes; both of which minimize the tactical significance of paint schemes. Now that low radar cross sections and stand off weapons are the preferred method of dealing with enemy threats concerns over paint should not as important, unless we get in a mess with Russia, China, or heaven forbid the EU.
Nied Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 The whole argument that the high vis markings are bad for a wartime situation is a red herring. Navy planes are almost constantly being repainted at sea anyway (that's how older planes like the F-14 and A-6 get to look so mottled, spot re-paint after re-paint). It shouldn't be too hard to cover over the high vis markings with some water based paint if a war breaks out. I think someone in the Navy has just gone on a power trip.
Skull Leader Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 You're correct, Dave. The Nimitz is in port getting worked on at the moment. the "no stripes" thing is just about retarded... several squadrons of tomcats had them (even with low-vis markings) with no problems whatsoever... and now this Bullshit. BVR combat is the only thing likely to happen from here on out, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that having stripes is gonna get one of our jets shot down.
Skull Leader Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 Actually, AFAIK Maverick's plane was from VF-51, while Iceman's was from VF-111. And I believe most carrier scenes are actually of the Ranger. Just off the top of my head. err, several of the launch sequences from the opening show tomcats with NH (CAW-11, then stationed on the big E) stenciled on the tailfins.. and then it mentions the USS Enterprise- "present day" (early 1980s) the actual planes that flew in their place at Miramar may have actually been that, but during the opening part of the movie, Maverick is from the VF-213 Black Lions. And there WAS a few seconds of brief footage of the VF-1 moving around on a carrier deck and aircraft being launched with NL (CAW-15, then stationed on the Ranger), but very little. What's more, all missile shots filmed in the final dogfight were done by the VF-114 Fighting Aardvarks (IIRC they had JUST given up their nose-stripes), you can again plainly see the "NH" and "VF-114" in several shots. Not that we should really be giving this any great deal of thought... TopGun certainly doesn't work very hard to be consistent in their action footage.
USMCBebop Posted August 18, 2004 Posted August 18, 2004 Actually, AFAIK Maverick's plane was from VF-51, while Iceman's was from VF-111. And I believe most carrier scenes are actually of the Ranger. Just off the top of my head. err, several of the launch sequences from the opening show tomcats with NH (CAW-11, then stationed on the big E) stenciled on the tailfins.. and then it mentions the USS Enterprise- "present day" (early 1980s) the actual planes that flew in their place at Miramar may have actually been that, but during the opening part of the movie, Maverick is from the VF-213 Black Lions. What's more, all missile shots filmed in the final dogfight were done by the VF-114 Fighting Aardvarks (IIRC they had JUST given up their nose-stripes), you can again plainly see the "NH" and "VF-114" in several shots. Not that we should really be giving this any great deal of thought... TopGun certainly doesn't work very hard to be consistent in their action footage. That's affirmative on the CVW-11 a/c being shown in "Top Gun." I think they were stock footage shot by both the Navy and the producers And there WAS a few seconds of brief footage of the VF-1 moving around on a carrier deck and aircraft being launched with NL (CAW-15, then stationed on the Ranger), but very little. Actually CVW-15 was with the U.S.S. Carl Vinson CVN-70 at the time (also one of three carriers used in the movie!). And VF-1 was with CVW-2 with Ranger.
VF-101Guy Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 Just to let you guys know ive spoken to the PAO and VF-101 will be decomissioned in August 2005. They will still be doing their normal airshow schedual this year and may make an apperance next year if time/ training permit. After August the new RAG squadron will be VFA-106, as the east coast hornet training squadron
The Nighthawk Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Now that low radar cross sections and stand off weapons are the preferred method of dealing with enemy threats concerns over paint should not as important, unless we get in a mess with Russia, China, or heaven forbid the EU. Truth is it's not likely we'll ever again see air-to-air combat. The Russians can't pay their pilots, the EU is chicken and the Chinese like our corporate money too much to get into a fight with us. Even if someone was stupid enough to jump into the latest export fighters and come tangle with our guys they'd be dead before they knew it. It's not about the aircraft, it's about pilot training and conditioning and mulit-tiered control of the airspace through AWACS and satellite uplink. In this day and age of the digital battelfield we could go back to WWI schemes, paint our planes bright red and it still wouldn't make a difference. Hence why the F-22 Raptor is little more than a gigantic corporate welfare program--too much emphasis on the non-existent A2A role and not enough on strike. It's a trillion-dollar corporate welfare program for Lockheed. The days of manned combat aircraft are numbered anyway. With testing of sophisicated stealth UCAVs, improved uplink technology, the ability to handle G-forces that would instantly kill a meat pilot, and autonomous control systems getting smarter on a weekly basis the scarf-and-goggle days will soon be over... Watch out folks, the X-9 Ghost is the airshow demonstration craft of the future.
Coota0 Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 The days of manned combat aircraft are numbered anyway. With testing of sophisicated stealth UCAVs, improved uplink technology, the ability to handle G-forces that would instantly kill a meat pilot, and autonomous control systems getting smarter on a weekly basis the scarf-and-goggle days will soon be over... Watch out folks, the X-9 Ghost is the airshow demonstration craft of the future. You'll never replace the pilot. Some people think you can but you can't there's always going to be apilot in an aircraft hanging his butt out there, he's going to be onscene and see what's going on. UCAVs can be jammed Fire and forget hits where you tell it to, it doesn't care if that's a convoy of refugees or an enemy armored column on the ground. AI doesn't adapt and is far more predictable than any human
Final Vegeta Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Fire and forget hits where you tell it to, it doesn't care if that's a convoy of refugees or an enemy armored column on the ground. No offense, but in real world only few people would care about this. 'Indiscriminate effects' was one of the reason napalm was banned in 1980 by Convention of Geneva, but napalm is still used today. FV
Coota0 Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 (edited) Fire and forget hits where you tell it to, it doesn't care if that's a convoy of refugees or an enemy armored column on the ground. No offense, but in real world only few people would care about this. 'Indiscriminate effects' was one of the reason napalm was banned in 1980 by Convention of Geneva, but napalm is still used today. FV Bullshit. Why does the Govt. freak out everytime we kill civilians and the news jumps all over anything that looks like a civilian bystander may have been killed. Look at the drop in civilian casualties in the last 50 years, why don't we still carpet bomb countries to get rid of terrorist. Why did we use tons of LGBs to hit Baghdad when we could of leveled the city in 1991, whay did we risk the lives of U.S. servicemen in Iraq to leave power and water on and running in Baghdad. World/Public opinion cares and it is therfore an issue. P.S. the U.S no longer uses Napalm we use Fuel Air Explosives (FAVs) and cluster bombs which have much of the same effect. Edited August 25, 2004 by Coota0
David Hingtgen Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 And now we have all those people complaining about the A-10's uranium shells, and left-over bomblets from clusterbombs... Yeesh, the BLU-108 (main clusterbomb munition) is one of the few weapons that falls into the "brilliant" (smarter than smart-bombs) category IMHO (it changes its attack based on what it senses, and automatically self-destructs under various conditions to avoid civillians and friendlies) and that's STILL not good enough for them. Apparently we need to add a full DNA-scanner to the thing...
Majestic Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 If you look closely, you can sorta make out a VF-1 in the background of this poster.
The Nighthawk Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 [ You'll never replace the pilot. Some people think you can but you can't there's always going to be apilot in an aircraft hanging his butt out there, he's going to be onscene and see what's going on.UCAVs can be jammed Fire and forget hits where you tell it to, it doesn't care if that's a convoy of refugees or an enemy armored column on the ground. AI doesn't adapt and is far more predictable than any human Assuming of course you believe the crap Popular Mechanics feeds us about the level of sophistication of our military systems. If you're willing to step outside the realm of accepted belief in what's considered "cutting edge" you might not like just how far ahead things really are. Remember what they tell us is the "latest" tech level is actually about 5-15 years old.
Final Vegeta Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 From another thread: I was shocked because here's a guy that works with web sites and the internet, yet he hasn't touched upon the subject of Macross vs RT. >EXO< shouldn't be shocked, Americans don't use internet as a source of information. Why does the Govt. freak out everytime we kill civilians and the news jumps all over anything that looks like a civilian bystander may have been killed. Look at the drop in civilian casualties in the last 50 years I am very sorry, I don't have seen these drops. I have seen genocides, though. (Google) Vietnam, outside war Vietnam, war (Google) Iraq, killing without war why don't we still carpet bomb countries to get rid of terrorist. Why did we use tons of LGBs to hit Baghdad when we could of leveled the city in 1991, whay did we risk the lives of U.S. servicemen in Iraq to leave power and water on and running in Baghdad. World/Public opinion cares and it is therfore an issue. Just a simple question: why do you use bombing to get rid of terrorists? Terry Jones's (from Monty Python) guide for fighting terrorism P.S. the U.S no longer uses Napalm we use Fuel Air Explosives (FAVs) and cluster bombs which have much of the same effect. (Google) First, it seems you actually used napalm in Iraq Then, some CRUDE images about why people complain about uranio shells in a country where sand and dust is everywhere (Google) This experience teachs why people complain about cluster bombs Then, what you won't ever hear in TV: Killed Iraqi civilians and both killed and wounded US soldiers How your buddies do If you think it's not enough I can go on, but the thread is turning nasty and I think I should really stop even if I don't have said the worst. FV
KingNor Posted August 26, 2004 Posted August 26, 2004 (edited) from this link: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/ this is such a stupid comment (if it's intended to make things look bad for casualty rates in war) In the Persian Gulf War, about three troops were wounded in action for every fatality. In Iraq, about seven are being wounded for every one killed.Bavley, Alan. "New technology and medical practices save lives in Iraq." Knight Ridder Newspapers, 17 Dec 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003. ok so we have 8 soldiers.. 2 die, the rest are wounded. only 3 wounded for every death we have 8 soldiers... 1 die the rest are wounded. we have 7 wounded for every death. wich one had more killings? this quote is sorely with out context to figure wich war is loosing more men. yet it makes it look like things are getting worse. more people are wounded per death because less people are dieing! we are careing for the troops better than ever. Edited August 26, 2004 by KingNor
Recommended Posts