So you want to be a CAG (but can't)...

[revan1013]

Here's a new random stupid question I haven't found an answer for. (ie. my Google-fu is lacking in proficiency)

I know the CVNs are very fixed-wing centric, and rightfully-so. What's a vague ratio of fixed-wing -to - helicopter pilots becoming CVN CO's?

I would assume most sea command-oriented helicopter guys command the LHA/LHD types, but I have no basis for that assumption.

 

[helolumpy]

My info is a few years dated, but when the idea of a helo pilot becoming a CAG was brought up again (happens every 10 years or so) the word was that HS had the highest percentage of "nuke pipeline guys" of any community.

You have to be a carrier aviator to be the CO of the carrier. Since the TACAIR guys split their top folks between deep draft and CAG, the TACAIR folks had a smaller PERCENTAGE of carrier opportunity as compared to HS.
Now with HSC and HSM being on the carrier it is unknown I'd helo guys will:

A. Get a higher percentage than they already have. (you now have 3 (HS, HC & HSL) communities operating off the carrier as opposed to just HS)

B. if the helo pilot as CAG will rear it's head again. (Lots of passion on both sides of this argument)

 

[revan1013]

Thanks Helolumpy. Don't know where else I'd find this random information, so I appreciate it.

Does that mean HS (now HSC/HSM) types get a "equal" shot at CAG as well? Or that they basically said "You guys have the Deep Drafts, let the TACAIR guys take CAG" ?

I'm always fascinated by the inner workings of the big machine, as odd as that may sound.

 

[Brett327]

If by equal shot you mean they both have zero chance of being CAG, then yes.

Brett

 

[helolumpy]

Thanks Helolumpy. Don't know where else I'd find this random information, so I appreciate it.

Does that mean HS (now HSC/HSM) types get a "equal" shot at CAG as well? Or that they basically said "You guys have the Deep Drafts, let the TACAIR guys take CAG" ?

I'm always fascinated by the inner workings of the big machine, as odd as that may sound.

The decision a few years ago was that Helo bubbas would not be considered for CAG. They promotion opportunity for flag was available through the deep draft pipeline, so the Helo guys had suffient opportunity to make Flag, so the CAG job would continue to be fixed wing only.

 

[HokiePilot]

Who made this decision and what was the justification? The CVN CO is harder and longer than the CAG route.

 

[Brett327]

Who made this decision and what was the justification? The CVN CO is harder and longer than the CAG route.

One can argue that since the helo guys aren't involved in strike warfare, per se, which is the Airwing's bread and butter, they'd be at a significant disadvantage in leading an organization that does mostly strike. It's not an iron-clad argument, but I think it's a pretty solid one.

Brett

 

[revan1013]

Interesting.

I would imagine the TACAIR guys that go CAG would be "brought up to speed" on the way rotary aviation works. Or at least have a senior rotary guy in that staff somewhere making sure the fixed-wing CAG knows how to properly utilize his helo assets right?

 

[insanebikerboy]

Or at least have a senior rotary guy in that staff somewhere making sure the fixed-wing CAG knows how to properly utilize his helo assets right?

That's pretty funny.

 

[wlawr005]

I remember we were properly utilized to rush an "urgent" shipment of toilet seats to USS OUTHOUSE one day. We had to spend an hour in the D waiting for a break in the cycle...

 

[Brett327]

Interesting.

I would imagine the TACAIR guys that go CAG would be "brought up to speed" on the way rotary aviation works. Or at least have a senior rotary guy in that staff somewhere making sure the fixed-wing CAG knows how to properly utilize his helo assets right?

Yeah, but the airwing doesn't focus on helo stuff, big difference. The airwing's primary mission is strike. It's not something you can be brought up to speed on by watching a couple PP briefs. It's something you need years of experience at to lead the airwing effectively and to have the judgement to make the appropriate calls on issues. The converse is not true. The helo guys pretty much do their thing and don't usually get a whole lot of input from the CAG.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

It's something you need years of experience at to lead the airwing effectively and to have the judgement to make the appropriate calls on issues.

BS. Do you need years of experience as an Infantry Officer to be an effective COCOM? Do you need years of experience as an Intelligence Officer to be an effective Director of the CIA? On a lower level, do you need years of experience as an Infantry Officer to be a Company Commander?

Leadership is leadership. A good leader can stand up in front of a group of people and lead them, and will likely also be able to see the big picture and make appropriate decisions.

Adm Fallon was an NFO, and was CENTCOM in the middle of two wars. How much experience did he have in land warfare? ZERO.
Gen Patreus is a career infantry officer, and is now the Director of the CIA. How much experience does he have in intelligence? ZERO.
I'm a pilot, and a forward air controller. Yet, I was the H&S Company Commander in an Infantry Battalion. Yup. ZERO experience.

My point being, good leaders lead. Doesn't matter what their background is, or how much experience they have. All that leads to is how steep their learning curve is. I'd bet the rest of my paychecks from now until the day I retire that there are RW aviators in the Navy that are MORE than capable of leading a carrier airwing.

The same thing happens in the Marine Corps. When has there EVER been an aviator that was Commandant? After all, you've got to have YEARS of experience as an Infantry/MAGTF officer in order to effectively lead a MEF, much less the Marine Corps. So, for 234 years - the USMC didn't have an aviator as Commandant. Now we have a broken time, former airline pilot, naval aviator as Commandant. And he was a former commander of II MEF as well.

Sorry, but I disagree. A MEF Commander has a lot more than just strike to think about, and II MEF didn't fail miserably with a non-traditional aviator at the helm. I don't think a CAG would either.

 

[bert]

Who fills those jobs is a function of community fiefdoms, same-same as almost all other such billets in the Navy. Don't sweat it.

Personally, I believe it is a good idea to keep your ears open and mouth shut about detailing on the senior end of the Navy as a young guy. Watch your CO's and DH's to learn how it works, set achievable intermediate goals for the community you are in, and observe what billets you need to take on the way to get where you want to be. (Hint for first tour guys - being a RAG instructor will work 95%+ of the time). Other than that, you are way too junior to care.

Oh, and volunteer to be an assistant recorder on a board at the first chance you get; you will never learn more about your career any other way.

 

[Brett327]

Stuff

I knew this would flush guys like you into the open. You're entitled to your opinion, but consider this: First, you have zero experience being in a CVW. I know you think that your MAG/MEU/MAGTF apples are just like our CVW/CSG apples, but they're not. If I started telling you who I think should be qualified to run your MAGTF, you'd tell me to pack sand, and rightfully so. So, to review, you have zero experience with a CVW. On the other hand, the guys making these decisions at the Big Navy level have all probably been CAGs and CSG commanders. I'd say that makes them marginally more qualified to make an informed decision on who's got the skills to be a GOOD CAG than the likes of you. Let's drill down a bit farther. We (I.E. the Navy) accepts your paradigm of leadership (leadership is leadership) when guys get to the Flag level, like when a SWO or sub guy is the CSG commander. By your standard, we should be able to make SWOs and sub guys CAGs too. Still onboard with that logic? Hell, some squadron COs are so busy running their organizations that they barely fly. Why not put a SWO in charge of a squadron if leadership is leadership?

Are there RW guys that could do it? Probably, but why set someone up for failure from the outset? Why not put the most qualified individuals in the jobs that require specialized skills? There's too much on the line here to play affirmative action games to assuage RW's collective egos.

The fact is, there is a point where an officer transitions from technical expertise to a purely managerial/leadership role. In the Navy, more often than not, this happens between the O6 and O7 level. Being CAG requires a significant amount of technical skill and experience in strike warfare - something a RW O6 will never, ever have. The leadership in Naval Aviation - most of whom have been CAGs or CVN COs have made this call year after year based on their experience and for you to second guess that is... well... ridiculous. And you have zero experience in this matter. You're out of your element, Donny. This is the part of the post where I tell YOU to pack sand, shipmate.

Brett

 

[jmcquate]

Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit *don't fucking roll*!