Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers  
User currently offlineNycfuturepilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 791 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

I was wondering which naval aircraft are not stationed on carriers? Are all fighters assigned to one or could you fly one and be stationed on a base? How much of a choice do you get as to your base and aircraft?


Father, Son, HOYA spirit
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6995 times:

The E-6, P-3, C-9, C-40, C-130, C-12, are the ones that I can think of that don't go to the CVN.

There are a couple of Hornet squadrons (VFA-86 in Beaufort and one Lemoore squadron) that aren't currently stationed with a CAG. They're doing stuff with the Marines and a few Marine squadrons are in various CAGs with the Navy. Its the whole Navy/Marine Corps team thing.

As far as getting your choice of base and aircraft. Basically the Navy owns you and they will send you wherever they need you and tell you what they want you to fly. As long as you have the grades to get jets that could be an option. However, if the week that you select they don't have any jet slots, say hello to the world of helos. Its all about luck and timing my friend...


User currently offlineNbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 816 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

Navy has some F16Ns that were not ship based, also the Marines have F5s that aren't carrier based.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6936 times:

The navy has just taken on some more F-16's. and they also have F-5's. You are correct, they are not carrier based.

User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1042 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6858 times:

All fighter squadrons are based at a shore air station.

When your fighter squadron gets assigned to a carrier air wing, and when that air wing embarks, your squadron goes out on the carrier when the carrier gets underway, when the carrier comes back into port (in the US), you "fly off" back to your shore base.

You can always submit a dream sheet - basically a preference list (like bidding in the airlines) saying this is what you want. You list your base, your platform (aircraft) and your desired job description. Based on that and where you rank among your peers and what's available at the time, your detailer will try to meet your preferences, but as someone said above, it's what's available and what the Navy needs.

Once you're tracked into a particular airframe, it's a difficult to transition to another platform, but you can always ask though. It doesn't mean you'd get it though.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6774 times:

If you want to be in the navy and not step foot on a ship you could go the P-3 route. If you become a P-3 pilot or FE you could spend an entire career in the Navy and only fly over ships.

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6761 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 5):
P-3 pilot or FE you could spend an entire career in the Navy and only fly over ships.

Not true.

P-3 pilots have to go to sea also. They are arresting gear and catapult officers during their stint at sea, usually 2-3 yrs.


User currently offlineSWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6733 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 6):
Not true.

P-3 pilots have to go to sea also. They are arresting gear and catapult officers during their stint at sea, usually 2-3 yrs.

Most P-3/E-6 folks do go to sea for their third tour, but not all. There are a few ways to get out of disassociated sea tours (FTS, super JO, TPS...) I know plenty of folks who did 20 years with a sea time counter of 0.

Your chances of avoiding the boat are directly proportional to retention trends for your year group; i.e. the fewer folks they have the worse they want you on the boat.

As for the original question, all trainers are also land based (T-34, T-6, T-44, TC-12, T-45, T H-57)

[Edited 2005-04-06 17:45:30]

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6723 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 6):
P-3 pilots have to go to sea also. They are arresting gear and catapult officers during their stint at sea, usually 2-3 yrs.

Only the Navy would make someone who has never had any carrier time a catapult and arresting gear officer. Smile


User currently offlineStimpy From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6713 times:

Quoting Ftrguy (Reply 1):
There are a couple of Hornet squadrons (VFA-86 in Beaufort and one Lemoore squadron) that aren't currently stationed with a CAG. They're doing stuff with the Marines and a few Marine squadrons are in various CAGs with the Navy. Its the whole Navy/Marine Corps team thing

At least the last time I was in Lemoore, the only squadrons that weren't attached to a CAG were VFA-122 and VFA-125, both of which are RAG squadrons. I'm pretty sure everyone else has a CAG, with the exception of the squadrons that just got there to transistion to the Super Hornet. Even those squadrons are attached, but technically aren't since they haven't been declared "Safe For Flight".


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6518 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 8):
Only the Navy would make someone who has never had any carrier time a catapult and arresting gear officer.

It's no biggie, compared to actually flying on and off the boat. They should be glad they are even allowed on board. They are just a notch above any Air Force "O".


User currently offlineDash8tech From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 732 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6354 times:

There are also a number of EA-6B squadrons out of Whidbey Island that do not deploy aboard ship, instead going to Aviano, Misawa, etc. These are called 'Expeditionary Squadrons' and are filling the void left from the EF-111's the air force used to deploy in similar roles. In fact, many of these squadrons have USAF aircrew members, although I think that is slowly being phased out now.

[Edited 2005-05-19 18:07:13]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6331 times:

Doesn't the USN have a few C-20s (G-IV), too. Those don't go to the CVNs.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
It's no biggie, compared to actually flying on and off the boat. They should be glad they are even allowed on board. They are just a notch above any Air Force "O".

Only those few USAF "O"s who feel the need to go live on a big boat, with 5,000 other guys for 9 months at sea (without seeing land or women). Most USAF Crew Dogs don't see the need to spend "time in the barrel". If that is a notch below the P-3 guys, they can have it.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6315 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Only those few USAF "O"s who feel the need to go live on a big boat, with 5,000 other guys for 9 months at sea (without seeing land or women). Most USAF Crew Dogs don't see the need to spend "time in the barrel". If that is a notch below the P-3 guys, they can have it.

Actaully there are women on board aircraft carriers now.


User currently offlineNbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 816 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6295 times:

KC-135, yes we have some G-V and G-IV squadrons that do not deploy on CVs...A bit more info, a Carriers designation is CV...the N stands for Nuclear. Ships like the Kitty Hawk and Kennedy are only designated as CV because they are conventionally powered, where as the Enterprise and Nimitz class carriers are nuclear powered so they carry the desigination of CVN.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Last time I checked, VFA-86 was asigned to CVW-1, but last time I heard this was probably a year and a half ago, it may have changed since. (friend's dad was skipper at the time).

I'll tell ya what, the E-6 route is a perfect match for those who are looking for quick, high quality airline resume time. Hell, even the recruiters will tell you "If you're looking for airline time, go fly E-6's".  Smile

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5395 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6199 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 15):
Last time I checked, VFA-86 was asigned to CVW-1

And they still are, to the best of my knowledge.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 16):
I'll tell ya what, the E-6 route is a perfect match for those who are looking for quick, high quality airline resume time. Hell, even the recruiters will tell you "If you're looking for airline time, go fly E-6's". Smile

I wouldn't consider eight years after wings "quick", but that's just me. And I wouldn't pay too much attention to what recruiters have to say about flying, talk to folks in the squadrons if you want to find out what's really going on.

That said, it was an easy transition from the E-6A to the 737.  Smile


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6151 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 8):
Only the Navy would make someone who has never had any carrier time a catapult and arresting gear officer.

I knew a guy who spent his entire naval career at China Lake.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6071 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 15):
I'll tell ya what, the E-6 route is a perfect match for those who are looking for quick, high quality airline resume time. Hell, even the recruiters will tell you "If you're looking for airline time, go fly E-6's".

Why is that?

KBFIspotter



Proud to be an A&P!!!
User currently offlineDaveflys0509 From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

You go from Primary flight training to fly the T-1A at Vance AFB, then on to the E-6 at Tinker, which is a modified 707, and fly all around the world.. I think there's some 737 time thrown in there somewhere too.

User currently offlineKBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Thanks........ But I should have known the answer to that if it were not for a moment of sheer stupidity. I was reading E-6 as EA-6..... My bad!


KBFIspotter



Proud to be an A&P!!!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6025 times:

More the 100 Tornado IDS were operated to contain the Russian navy in the Ost See.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Higgins - AirTeamImages



User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 5983 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 15):
I'll tell ya what, the E-6 route is a perfect match for those who are looking for quick, high quality airline resume time.

Why? Please elaborate.


User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1042 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 5982 times:

An E-6 is a modified 707, so the time you acquire in an E-6 would translate very well into an air carrier pilot career. Whereas an EA-6, or other tactical jet, the time would be good, just have to remove the centerline thrust limiation on the pilot certificate that the FAA would issue.


Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
25 Daveflys0509 : E2/C2's aren't bad either, multiengine turboprop time plus the fun of landing on the boat
26 Flynavy : The two USN F/A-18 squadrons based at MCAS Beaufort (82/86) have received orders to be deactivated; VFA-136 will take their place in CVW-1. The aircra
27 Columba : Sadly the days of German Navy jets are over. The Tornados will be transfered to the air force which now takes over the navy´s tasks. Too bad because
28 Post contains images Bully707 : WHAT????? The Tornado is one great aircraft...even as a fighter!!!! Especially at low-level...I doubt there is one fighter that can match it's perfor
29 Venus6971 : The best way for a Navy Pilot to avoid sea time was to join the USAF to begin with and learn how to flair instead of a AOA approach.
30 Daveflys0509 : No way.. landing on the boat is way cooler than landing on a 10000 ft runway, unless it's a night
31 KevinSmith : Them be fightin words Chief. Does the Navy still have the A models or are they all Bs now? The E-6 does some rather long missions which translates in
32 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Way to bump an old one... All B's now. Yeah, and lots of boredom.
33 DeltaGuy : 2005 called....they want their thread back. There are many ways to avoid being stuck out in the blue water Navy. The P-3 guys are good at this. And ho
34 KevinSmith : Dude come on. You do that everytime an old thread gets bumped!!! If you're gonna aggervate at least come up with some new material. All in fun I know
35 Mike89406 : You know its funny you say that we had some AF pilots ride with Navy pilots fly on the ship that were deployed to Saudi Arabia in like 1997 and they
36 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : You never saw it after the hurricane.
37 Post contains images DeltaGuy : Yes, alas, it is a universal slam Long and sordid affair really. Those of us in Jacksonville who have some association with Cecil Field feel rather b
38 Usnseallt82 : Pathetic, really. Especially when he was the guy who started all the talks with the Navy again and tried to pitch it to the city.....then turning his
39 Post contains links DeltaGuy : You saw it too huh? Piece of shit he is....."it's just not safe to have the jets here"....lies lies. He has proven time and time again that he's no f
40 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : I know....it was retarded. Nothing more than backpeddling to keep his military supporters out there. He's nothing but a squirrelly little puss who eb
41 KevinSmith : True. It wasn't open for the first 4 months that I was here. They did a hell of job restoring it. You'd never know that place was water logged.
42 Usnseallt82 : So I've heard. That's good, because it was a damn good place before the storm came through. I'm glad to hear its all up and running again.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Andrews AFB-Stationed Aircraft posted Thu Mar 23 2006 22:07:05 by DIA
Irony Is Not Lost On USN posted Sat Feb 19 2005 04:35:58 by SATL382G
Other F/A-18 Nations Crosstraining On US Carriers? posted Sun Jul 18 2004 03:00:07 by N328KF
British Aircraft Carriers Sunk In WW2 (help) posted Thu Sep 29 2005 19:09:47 by FlagshipAZ
Number On Aircraft Carriers posted Mon Jul 25 2005 05:46:31 by AR1300
New Naval Aircraft Pilot Section posted Wed Feb 2 2005 04:17:13 by Nycfuturepilot
F-16's And Aircraft Carriers posted Sun Mar 23 2003 05:57:07 by BartiniMan
Russian Aircraft Carriers Sold? posted Sun Aug 25 2002 18:08:29 by Silverstreak
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
Favorite Vietnam War Aircraft posted Tue Oct 24 2006 20:45:00 by PJFlysFast

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format