nycfuturepilot
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:50 am

Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:03 am

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
 
ftrguy
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:17 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:21 am

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...
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:56 am

Navy has some F16Ns that were not ship based, also the Marines have F5s that aren't carrier based.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:10 pm

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.
 
Woodreau
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:25 am

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.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:39 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:55 pm

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.
 
SWAbubba
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 2:15 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carri

Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:43 am

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]
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:52 am

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
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Stimpy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:20 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:18 am

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".
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Sat May 07, 2005 9:09 am

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".
 
dash8tech
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 1999 8:40 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri May 20, 2005 1:06 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri May 20, 2005 3:45 am

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.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri May 20, 2005 5:56 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri May 20, 2005 7:26 am

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.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Sat May 21, 2005 1:37 am

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
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Sat May 21, 2005 4:38 am

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.
 
SWAbubba
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 2:15 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Sat May 21, 2005 11:33 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Sat May 21, 2005 1:30 pm

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.
 
kbfispotter
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon May 23, 2005 6:21 am

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!!!
 
daveflys0509
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:15 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon May 23, 2005 11:43 am

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.
 
kbfispotter
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue May 24, 2005 3:12 am

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!!!
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue May 24, 2005 7:04 am

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

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed May 25, 2005 1:56 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
Woodreau
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed May 25, 2005 2:43 am

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.
 
daveflys0509
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:15 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed May 25, 2005 11:43 am

E2/C2's aren't bad either, multiengine turboprop time plus the fun of landing on the boat
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu May 26, 2005 3:45 am

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 aircraft will most likely be transferred to the USMC.
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue May 31, 2005 5:31 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
More the 100 Tornado IDS were operated to contain the Russian navy in the Ost See.

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 not too long ago there was a discsussion what could be a Tornado successor with the navy. Since the Eurofighter is not very well suited for this and there was the idea that a new plane should be capable of landing on carriers of allies. The idea was to buy some F-35, Super Hornets or Rafales.
But maybe they realise someday that the Eurofighter can not do anything and buy some additional aircraft, too. Just like it was with the Tornado back then as they had to realise that the Tornado is a poor fighter and got some F-4F Phantoms.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
bully707
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:29 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:16 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 27):
.....they had to realise that the Tornado is a poor fighter and got some F-4F Phantoms.

WHAT?????

The Tornado is one great aircraft...even as a fighter!!!!  Wink
Especially at low-level...I doubt there is one fighter that can match it's performance here in Europe....

Anyways...do the E-3 with some US-Navy crew qualify as non carrier based Navy aircraft???  Wink  Wink  Wink

Godspeed

Bully
"That's the good thing about the 707...it can do anything, but read!" Joe Patroni, Airport '70
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:51 am

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.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
daveflys0509
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:15 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:35 am

No way.. landing on the boat is way cooler than landing on a 10000 ft runway, unless it's a night
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
They are just a notch above any Air Force "O

Them be fightin words Chief.

Quoting SWAbubba (Reply 17):
E-6A

Does the Navy still have the A models or are they all Bs now?

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
Why? Please elaborate.

The E-6 does some rather long missions which translates into a lots of multi-engine jet time. Looks great on a job app.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting Daveflys0509 (Reply 30):
Reply 30, posted Wed Jun 1 2005 13:35:17 your local time (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago)

Way to bump an old one...  eyepopping 

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 31):
Does the Navy still have the A models or are they all Bs now?

All B's now.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 31):
The E-6 does some rather long missions which translates into a lots of multi-engine jet time.

Yeah, and lots of boredom.
Crye me a river
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:44 pm

2005 called....they want their thread back.

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.

There are many ways to avoid being stuck out in the blue water Navy. The P-3 guys are good at this.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 29):
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.

And how to enjoy extensive TDY pay and beer at a nice O'Club.

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 26):
The two USN F/A-18 squadrons based at MCAS Beaufort (82/86) have received orders to be deactivated;

Just VFA-82, and they stood down recently. Those two squadrons got shafted when Cecil closed, I guess Oceana just didn't have the room. Bad moves all around really.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 33):
2005 called....they want their thread back.

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.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 33):
beer at a nice O'Club

Gotta say Mustin Beach O Club ain't bad

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 33):
guess Oceana just didn't have the room

The locals are making quite a noise about the of all things the noise, jet noise that is. I've heard some talk here that it might cause the end of Oceana. Stupid if you ask me.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:25 am

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.

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 said it was a vacation on the ship they couldn't really go anywhere off base.

Also with t way things are now even if you deploy on land you'll most likely go to Iraq/Afganistan as a Individual Augmentee's going office work for the Army becuase the Army is stretched so thin they have been asking for volunteers to go to Iraq adding of course incentives like faster promotions etc...
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:13 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 34):
Gotta say Mustin Beach O Club ain't bad

You never saw it after the hurricane.  eyepopping 
Crye me a river
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:40 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 34):
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.

Yes, alas, it is a universal slam  Wink

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 34):
The locals are making quite a noise about the of all things the noise, jet noise that is. I've heard some talk here that it might cause the end of Oceana. Stupid if you ask me.

Long and sordid affair really. Those of us in Jacksonville who have some association with Cecil Field feel rather bitter about the subject. Just another example of the less-equipped base (Oceana) winning out due to political connections (Warner), and the larger, more capable base, going to hell. Oceana is a rat trap and always will be. And the town is nothing to write home about either.

We had a possible chance to persuade the Navy to come back, but unfortunately the mayor of Jacksonville doesn't know what the word 'ethics' means- he owns several thousand acres near the base (for future development), that would be worthless with F-18's overhead....so, once again, it's never about what's good for the Navy. Just your politicians.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 37):
but unfortunately the mayor of Jacksonville doesn't know what the word 'ethics' means- he owns several thousand acres near the base (for future development),

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 back on it when his land came into play.

I hated that damn commercial with him and the other two former mayors. Buncha idiots.
Crye me a river
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:00 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 38):
I hated that damn commercial with him and the other two former mayors. Buncha idiots.

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 friend of the Navy. Oddly enough, right after he yanked support, he launched some big "military appreciation" program for Jax, where mil. folks were supposed to recieve benefits, discounts, etc...have yet to see it. Just a bunch of ass kissing. He ran practically unopposed in this last election, his competition being a black dem. woman...and yes, I voted for her (first time I've ever voted for a dem, and the last). Ah well...

Give it 10 more years and the Navy will be a small smear in Jacksonville, if they get their way. We lost the Kennedy and now that we don't have a Master Hornet base to justify bringing another flattop down, I think you'll see Mayport go away one day...and those greedy developers get what they want. It's never about what's good for those of us defending the country...only about those with the $$$. The mil folks in Jax aren't stupid, and we know when we're not welcome anymore.

A good friend of mine/former CO of my dad's did this commercial, you may recognize the name....he campaingned with the POS mayor, and even did a hearing in front of the BRAC commission with him.
http://www.votejacksonville.com/?p=commercial.html&music=stop

Anyways, sorry to hijack the thread.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 39):
Oddly enough, right after he yanked support, he launched some big "military appreciation" program for Jax, where mil. folks were supposed to recieve benefits, discounts, etc...

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 ebbs and flows with the tides of popular belief.

If Jax becomes interested in Cecil again, all of a sudden he'll be the biggest support.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 39):
his competition being a black dem. woman...

Saw her too, but wasn't impressed. He won big time, but she hardly put up a fight. I don't remember her even speaking much about the whole campaign. I think she just started giving up about midway through.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 39):
We lost the Kennedy and now that we don't have a Master Hornet base to justify bringing another flattop down, I think you'll see Mayport go away one day...and those greedy developers get what they want.

See, this is the part I'm not so sure about. It makes sense that the city would eventually smoke out the Navy, but the Navy is still pretty damn interested in the city. I don't think we've seen the end of the Cecil field deal, especially if enough pressure is put on the congressional guys from that area by the DoD(which is happening as we speak). Since they lost the JFK, there's a whole pier out there at Mayport that could easily take another carrier. Norfolk is too crowded to take another one up there, so I think you'll see some more pressure by the Navy to get the deal done.

Then again, who knows. If Peyton still wanks around the issue, it may stay at a standstill long enough for the Navy to just give up. Too bad if that happens because Cecil is still in damn good shape with the runways just finishing improvements.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 39):
The mil folks in Jax aren't stupid, and we know when we're not welcome anymore.

Yeah, Jax was never real warm to the military. Another unfortunate situation because damn near every town around there IS.

But if the Navy pulls out completely one day, you'll see a sharp decrease in an already tight city budget.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 39):
A good friend of mine/former CO of my dad's did this commercial, you may recognize the name..

Yeah, I recognize it. I really like the one with the hot chick talking about her husband needing the breast, I mean best training.  Big grin
Crye me a river
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:54 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 36):
You never saw it after the hurricane

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.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Naval Aircraft Not Stationed On Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:06 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 41):
They did a hell of job restoring it.

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.
Crye me a river

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angad84, litz and 10 guests