Why does the Marine Corps have its own "Air Force"?

[busdriver]

Broke link above:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post...n_review_xvi_army_helicopter_pilots_beat_ours

This is probably not in the right place, but....

I don't buy the hate, I've worked with Marine Cobras for real and have no complaints. I have no experience with their assault guys, but I can't imagine that their tactics are as bad as what this CW02 describes, I think he built his opinion on a few bad experiences. Simple fact is, if you botch the first approach the dust is gonna linger and make any follow on really bad and take a lot of time.

Solution: take your time and do it right the first time. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

 

[HeyJoe]

Broke link above:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post...n_review_xvi_army_helicopter_pilots_beat_ours

This is probably not in the right place, but....

I don't buy the hate, I've worked with Marine Cobras for real and have no complaints. I have no experience with their assault guys, but I can't imagine that their tactics are as bad as what this CW02 describes, I think he built his opinion on a few bad experiences. Simple fact is, if you botch the first approach the dust is gonna linger and make any follow on really bad and take a lot of time.

Solution: take your time and do it right the first time. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

I don't buy the discontent either, but agree that some Army pilots are top notch, especially the 160th SOAR (there are Marines on exchange there as well as a few who transitioned from Marines to Army).

There's goods and others in all the services and Marine Assualt Support drivers take their jobs very seriously. I bet you could interview others who rank and stack pilot proficiency with Marines at top. Better link.

 

[phrogdriver]

My thoughts have always been that the best units in the Army, both air and ground, are indeed better than the best in the Marine Corps. The average unit in the Marine Corps is better than the average in the Army.

I have a hard time taking the CWO quoted seriously when he's clearing exaggerating and flaming Marine air.

The sentence," I noticed it before when these units have flown for me but not like this time," makes me think he's just fed up with the Marine unit supporting him.

 

[eddie]

So what about his comment about the 60 vs. 46/53/22?

Is it really such a different way of doing business (the guy is a Marine, yes?)?

 

[phrogpilot73]

I could take the time to dissect his arguments, but it would be a waste. He's your typical Battalion Gunner who thinks he knows everything about everything. When you start peeling the layers back, you find out that in order to become a Gunner, they have to spend a disproportionate amount of time in the grunts. He has a very, very narrow worldview. Also from my experience (a phrase the Gunner should figure out how to use), one bad experience colors a grunt's perception until the end of time. It took the bulk of my deployment to convince my OpsO that assault support didn't suck, and didn't give a shit about the Marines. It was all because one of his Marines bled out before the CASEVAC arrived. The kid bled out in 20 minutes, and it wasn't until I explained that Al Asad was a 20 minute flight away that he understood that it wasn't for lack of trying from the assault support guys.

 

[bobbybrock]

My thoughts have always been that the best units in the Army, both air and ground, are indeed better than the best in the Marine Corps. The average unit in the Marine Corps is better than the average in the Army.

I'll buy that. The one advantage thye Army does have is the ability to keep it pilots in the cockpit. And it is also a little more specialized due to it's size. A good example would be Medevac vs. Casevac. The 160th guys just get better training and equipment.
I guess the only advantage I could see an Army aviator having is when he gets to the senior CW3 or CW4 level. At that point most have around 3000-4000 hours .
We have a former Marine H-1 driver in my guard unit. I would put him in the catagory of solid to above average.

 

[Jim123]

I'll buy that. The one advantage the Army does have is the ability to keep it pilots in the cockpit.

[/quote]

I'd say this is apples and oranges rather than an advantage or disadvantage- let me explain what I mean (and please add/correct as necessary) in an institutional sense. I want to step back and start with a Navy example to help make my point:

Navy pilot (1)
-Gets wings, does FRS, joins fleet squadron (deployable unit) with ~300hrs TT, often gets to 400~500hrs before actually deploying (due to workup cycles, timing, etc.)
-3 years (+/- a few months), finishes with ~1000hrs
-might or might not fly for next 3 years on shore duty (non-deployable unit)
-probably won't fly for next 2 years* but is expected to apply that tactical experience and expertise elsewhere in the naval service
-* "Super JO" (flying with deployable unit) tours in lieu of this 2 year non-flying ebb and flow over the years but usually ebb
-probably re-joins fleet squadron as department head for 2-3 years and deploys, otherwise might instruct in a non-deployable training unit instead
-post-department head operational level staff jobs, possible squadron CO
-In 20 year career might be in a deployable aviation unit for as little as 3 years (but 5-10 is typical)

USMC pilot (Marines, help me out here)
-similar, but fleet tour is longer with 4-6 years being the norm
-opportunity to reach much higher tactical proficiency during those extra years
-shore duty/non-flying "B billet" tours are roughly analogous but the timing seems to vary more widely than the typical Navy career path
-re-joins fleet squadron as department head for 2-3 years and deploys
-post-department head operational level staff jobs, possible squadron CO


Army pilot- O (and help me out with this)
-joins deployable unit with typically less flight hours than Navy/Marine (not saying this is good or bad)
-stays with that unit for ??? years
-moves to brigade and higher staffs and is expected to apply that tactical experience and expertise elsewhere in the service
-might re-join deployable flying unit or occasionally fly with them (again, help me out)
-later moves to operational level echelon staff jobs and higher

Army pilot- W
- " "
-tactically focused for entire career
-opportunity to reach much higher tactical proficiency and maintain it


Soooo... institutional apples and oranges in all three services. Tactics are always important but the big machine will slow down a few days into the war if there aren't institutional mechanisms in place to keep the gas, spare parts, and ammo coming, make airspace plans that will actually work or fix them when they don't, and get all the cats and dogs to play nice together and generally be more effective...

Man... I gotta do something better than talk up operational art on my day off....


(1) Navy pilot "W"... still TBD- a similar animal called Flying LDO came and went in the 1990s.

 

[kacraven]

I'd say this is apples and oranges rather than an advantage or disadvantage- let me explain what I mean (and please add/correct as necessary) in an institutional sense. I want to step back and start with a Navy example to help make my point:

Navy pilot (1)
-Gets wings, does FRS, joins fleet squadron (deployable unit) with ~300hrs TT, often gets to 400~500hrs before actually deploying (due to workup cycles, timing, etc.)
-3 years (+/- a few months), finishes with ~1000hrs
-might or might not fly for next 3 years on shore duty (non-deployable unit)
-probably won't fly for next 2 years* but is expected to apply that tactical experience and expertise elsewhere in the naval service
-* "Super JO" (flying with deployable unit) tours in lieu of this 2 year non-flying ebb and flow over the years but usually ebb
-probably re-joins fleet squadron as department head for 2-3 years and deploys, otherwise might instruct in a non-deployable training unit instead
-post-department head operational level staff jobs, possible squadron CO
-In 20 year career might be in a deployable aviation unit for as little as 3 years (but 5-10 is typical)

USMC pilot (Marines, help me out here)
-similar, but fleet tour is longer with 4-6 years being the norm
-opportunity to reach much higher tactical proficiency during those extra years
-shore duty/non-flying "B billet" tours are roughly analogous but the timing seems to vary more widely than the typical Navy career path
-re-joins fleet squadron as department head for 2-3 years and deploys
-post-department head operational level staff jobs, possible squadron CO


Army pilot- O (and help me out with this)
-joins deployable unit with typically less flight hours than Navy/Marine (not saying this is good or bad)
-stays with that unit for ??? years
-moves to brigade and higher staffs and is expected to apply that tactical experience and expertise elsewhere in the service
-might re-join deployable flying unit or occasionally fly with them (again, help me out)
-later moves to operational level echelon staff jobs and higher

Army pilot- W
- " "
-tactically focused for entire career
-opportunity to reach much higher tactical proficiency and maintain it


Soooo... institutional apples and oranges in all three services. Tactics are always important but the big machine will slow down a few days into the war if there aren't institutional mechanisms in place to keep the gas, spare parts, and ammo coming, make airspace plans that will actually work or fix them when they don't, and get all the cats and dogs to play nice together and generally be more effective...

Half the questions on this site can be answered in this single post -- any way to sticky just this part in the required reading section?

 

[highside7r]

I don't buy the hate, I've worked with Marine Cobras for real and have no complaints.

+1, Medevac escort from Al Salad and TQ, great working with them and only issue was leaving them (Cobras) as we hurried to the CSH in slick H-60A's.

@Jim123
Army O/W: approx 160 hrs from flight school.
Army O: After initial JO jobs, stays with unit and picks up Company Command as senior O-3, has a chance to fly 1000+ hrs with current deployment cycle (12 on, maybe 12-14 off, depending on unit/airframe.) Staff guys can be similar to CAG staff guys, flying only when they can get away, including deployed.

 

[Gasman]

It's been around for a long time. Took a section on A-4Ms into Nellis. Parked on the ramp. Got out of the scooter, hung my torso harness and g-suit on the aircraft and started walking to base ops, all the while being watched by the security guy. Crossed the red line with one foot, remembered my wallet in the g-suit pocket and turned around to get it. Guy went ape sh--. Things never change

 

[Uncle Fester]

Slight detour, but bringing it up because of Jim's post. Is there really any good reason for Disassoc tours any more? Helo/Heavy guys don't want to do it, Tailhookers usually either avoid it due to timing or do Super JO/CAG staff, which sorta defeats the purpose of the tour (i.e., bring air expertise to ship's company).

Just seems like the Navy would get a lot more for their dime by keeping that young aviator aviatin' for a couple more years. Make Super JO the standard, go to a 30/30/30 mix - 30 month initial sea, 30 month ashore, 30 months Super JO. Or five years between RAG and Shore, but go from one squadron to another at the 30-month mark. Or do it either way and give guys the choice without career-timing penalty. CAG staff doesn't need that many 1310/1320's, and those they do need could be "seconded" from their squadrons. Air Bosuns could fill the shooter spots they aren't already filling. Weapons School/WTI's can be in lieu of the second squadron gig.

Just seems kind of ridiculous that, as Jim noted, the Navy can drop a million bucks training a guy and could conceivably get 3 years operational flying out of a 20 year career. And I know plenty of dudes who bail because of the rigid career track.

 

[zippy]

Slight detour, but bringing it up because of Jim's post. Is there really any good reason for Disassoc tours any more? Helo/Heavy guys don't want to do it, Tailhookers usually either avoid it due to timing or do Super JO/CAG staff, which sorta defeats the purpose of the tour (i.e., bring air expertise to ship's company).

Just seems like the Navy would get a lot more for their dime by keeping that young aviator aviatin' for a couple more years. Make Super JO the standard, go to a 30/30/30 mix - 30 month initial sea, 30 month ashore, 30 months Super JO. Or five years between RAG and Shore, but go from one squadron to another at the 30-month mark. Or do it either way and give guys the choice without career-timing penalty. CAG staff doesn't need that many 1310/1320's, and those they do need could be "seconded" from their squadrons. Air Bosuns could fill the shooter spots they aren't already filling. Weapons School/WTI's can be in lieu of the second squadron gig.

Just seems kind of ridiculous that, as Jim noted, the Navy can drop a million bucks training a guy and could conceivably get 3 years operational flying out of a 20 year career. And I know plenty of dudes who bail because of the rigid career track.

Certain O-4s who went to the boat like to say that going to the boat shows the selections boards that you have the skills and qualities necessary to be a CO (interestingly enough they are also the ones who already go around acting like they are a CO). An alternate theory that is floating around is that the VP community was, and still is, desperate to prove its worth to big Navy in order to avoid being killed off that they've imbedded personnel in key, high vis fleet jobs, to show that they still are a productive member of the team.

The VP community has just started to bring a Super-JO program back as an option for certain players. They are opening the doors for Weapons Tactics Instructors (WTIs) to go back to a fleet squadron in-leu of their disassociated sea tour after serving in a community WTI billet during their shore tour (Aka Weapons school, Fallon, CPRW Weapon's Tactics Units and FDNF staffs) to serve as the Tactics/Training Officer ( Normally a Department Head billet).

This program is volunteer only, and usually involves a 5 minute disclaimer of any detailer within ear-shot, since they do not know how the boards will look at such a career move instead of going to the boat for the normal disassociated tour. I personally find it humorous that PERS-43 continuously says that success comes sustained superior performance in the jobs you do instead of the gold career path, while at the same time they (and the rest of the community) are so anti- anything else to the point of telling people that it will be very hard for them to even make department head if they go outside of the FRS, Boat Disassociated for their tours.