bobdaley Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Just heard 463 AG which is supposed to become a Wing is going to be named 19AW after some B52-KC135 unit that is closing? True? More Airlift tradition. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I would put good money on 19 AW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10FE Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Now that\'s just not right!! I started my Air Force career in the 463rd Troop Carrier (Assault) Wing in 1963 at Langley & finished it in the 463rd TAW in 1985 at Dyess. Don R. [img size=472]http://herkybirds.com/images/fbfiles/images/463_TCW_1.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 I dunno, I gave up all hope for any common sense after McDork changed wings at Rhine Main/Ramstein from the 435th and gave it to a C-5 wing for \"historical\" purposes?!?!?!?WTFO Its all BS that wastes money better spent on tangible things and not stupid stuff. Bet this paper change of a stinking number costs in the millions, time to be writing you congressmen. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Yup...nothing to do with airlift, only because of the fact the unit has a long history. It was the Robins tanker group most recently, bombers before that. Some kind of big worksheet goes into the process, and apparently the older the designation, the more points it is worth. Guess who is in charge of running the worksheet...you got it, personnel. Figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The same goes for the Firebirds losing their 17th designation, and become the 517th, just so the frigging C-17s could get the designator. Glad I missed all the BS with that one. Sill have my 3 17th patches (basic, Instructor, and Flight Examiner). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1685FCC Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 SEFEGeorge wrote: The same goes for the Firebirds losing their 17th designation, and become the 517th, just so the frigging C-17s could get the designator. Glad I missed all the BS with that one. Sill have my 3 17th patches (basic, Instructor, and Flight Examiner). George, I just want to make sure I\'m reading this right (quote). The 517th has been around since 1992. They were redesignated to separate themselves from a group level to be apart of the 3rd wing. See link below and last paragraph. Have a good one! DaveB) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/517as.htm This is also a pretty good link for firebird information. www.firebirds.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 You\'re correct about that. Just meant to say that they took the 17th designator away from the 17th TAS and gave it to the C-17 Sqd for the same type of political BS. It may have been 16 years ago but it is the same type of BS as is happening now and costs a ton of money, not withstanding the history of the \"losing\" squadron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Its all BS and for no apparent reason for it, the real bad part is it costs MILLIONS to just change these designators around and at a time when the Air Force has so mismanaged its budget that it doesn\'t have two shekels to rub together they go and do some more changing to spend the money they don\'t have. I still have my 37th TAS patches, that a T as in TACTICAL - take that McDork! Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleagle Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Well, Heck! KDYS - 1993 - 2001. they \"slipped\" us over to the BW for a while then back out to the tenant unit status. I must say I liked the tenant unit stuff far better. Was in Stan/Eval during a few exercises (BW has exercise - the whole base including tenant units \"played\" - Tenant unit runs an exercise, BW wouldn\'t blink....)Saw a B-1B engine set up for a chalk - the thing was \"frustrated\" for a half dozen reasons to include the Haz-mat paperwork. BW SSgt rails into the load planning room (where we had two LM\'s assisting as a courtesy) and verbally blasted away at them for the LM\'s not coming down to BW to check it out before it processed. We got that straightened out and pressed on. Two months later, same SSgt, same type load, same errors - - that was one of the few moments where I was truly happy to take a name for the evening debrief! gads.... Rowdy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.