Jump to content

463 Airlift Group to 19th BW


bobdaley
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...