Career Reflections by Pickle

[Mos]

Well gents,

Poor Argies have reportedly lost their SS San Juan, the only their boat that have been in operative status... News show that USN P-3C takes part in efforts to locate the boat or a wreck of her. Two naive question - why Orion instead of Poseidon and is MPRA good enough in the shipwreck seeking?

I would answer this question, but it'd be highly offensive to just about everyone.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

The one I knew and the few others I have heard of went from subs to aviation so yes, they would wear wings over dolphins.

I suppose, though, that the one with such intricate career path should have been inevitably changing his mind just days (months at best) after earning the Dolphins. Let's try to count it: average age of commissioning in USN is 22, then if a boy goes undersea he takes a year of nuclear school and a year of submariner school, so this guy is appearing on his first boat usually as Ltjg and sometimes even as Lt. Note, at this point he is not qualified at all. And I have never heard that someone have earned the Dolphins as JO in a couple of days submerged - usually it takes another half of a year or longer. So, our guy at the day of the "dolphining" would be pretty much as old as 25+. Meanwhile, the age limit to enter SNA, AFAIK, is 26. So even if USN still has a few breasts with gold Dolphins under the gold Wings, one can suggest that anyone of them wasn't experienced and seasoned submariner before the sky attracted him.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I would answer this question, but it'd be highly offensive to just about everyone.

No way. Please be quiet. Just help to find that boat, nothing more.

 

[Gatordev]

Meanwhile, the age limit to enter SNA, AFAIK, is 26.

The age limit for COMMISSIONING for a SNA is 27 (waiverable beyond that for active-duty time). If one is already commissioned, then that limit doesn't apply.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

If one is already commissioned, then that limit doesn't apply.

Well, thanks, it explains a lot. I.e., if I understood you correctly, the seasoned LtCdr after a tour as SSN's DH can be treated as applicable for SNA? I'm really not exaggerating for fun - at the eve of the NavAir about a century ago, the common JCLs' age have started from about 35-40. But anyway, it seems to be strange enough to change the career path so radically, since learning to fly is, in my opinion, just a piece of cake in comparison with the nuke brain-drying pipeline...

 

[Gatordev]

Well, thanks, it explains a lot. I.e., if I understood you correctly, the seasoned LtCdr after a tour as SSN's DH can be treated as applicable for SNA?

I didn't say that. What I said is that the commissioning age limit doesn't apply if you're already commissioned. There are other career and community restrictions that may come into play.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok, got it. My mostly naive questions, whatever the particular reason for each of them is, are all about my inability to grasp the rationale behind average contemporary naval career in US of A. To not foul this interesting thread, just a few words: in my time and in my country (then USSR) there were three reasons to become naval officer:
- to be excluded from conscription, the most amazing one - you can choose the officer career in any military branch at the age of 16-17 and it's better to do so, because at the age of 18 nobody will care about you and your opinion, grabbing you for infantry training;
- to see the world - especially from beyond the Iron Curtain, what the Navy could but Army mostly couldn't offer for their respective officers;
- to play with big mighty toys of grey and black colors in the real world.
Those were the three main driving forces for majority of naval cadets (there were several more, like naval brats, but of significantly lesser importance). No communistic bullshit at all - at least, not in the Navy.
So what about similar forces in nowadays States? Maybe it's better by PM.

 

[Flash]

Ok, got it. My mostly naive questions, whatever the particular reason for each of them is, are all about my inability to grasp the rationale behind average contemporary naval career in US of A. To not foul this interesting thread, just a few words: in my time and in my country (then USSR) there were three reasons to become naval officer:
- to be excluded from conscription, the most amazing one - you can choose the officer career in any military branch at the age of 16-17 and it's better to do so, because at the age of 18 nobody will care about you and your opinion, grabbing you for infantry training;
- to see the world - especially from beyond the Iron Curtain, what the Navy could but Army mostly couldn't offer for their respective officers;
- to play with big mighty toys of grey and black colors in the real world.
Those were the three main driving forces for majority of naval cadets (there were several more, like naval brats, but of significantly lesser importance). No communistic bullshit at all - at least, not in the Navy.
So what about similar forces in nowadays States? Maybe it's better by PM.

- Serve our country
- Get to do really cool stuff, for some at least
- Learn a trade/skill
- See the world

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

^100% agree, plus to do something different. Most of my friends from college are pulling 100+ hour work weeks and eating three meals at their desks every day, and not even a year after being commissioned I get to fly around in a $6m plane every day, and I'm not even winged yet.

 

[picklesuit]

And no Communistic bullshit (we leave that to the Army and West Point)

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Thanks Flash. Pickle, just a little bit of thought in your thread, ok?

- Serve our country

The major one, right? Look, with all due respect, I think this is the unique American thing and a basic for pride as such, in itself. It is quite interesting that, if I not mistake in all Euroasian history since ancient Babylon, China/Mongol empires and all the old European monarchies, the pure meaning of "to serve our country" in a military sence was addressed mostly to citizen soldiers. In a sence, all Americans fall in this category, at least roughly. The professional soldiers in Eurasia were "to serve their crown, regiment and God" rather than the country, and the taste of it is still on the lips of every military professional inside the Eurasian rim, I'm pretty sure. Crown, regiment and God, whatever these words could mean now. In my time the first and the third were almost nullified, but "regiment" has still meant much more than "country", which has been erroded by some inner politics. Given all that, I'd like to say that the proper feeling to your first point is "envy", but I'm rather be glad for USA for this reason.

- Get to do really cool stuff, for some at least

Coinciding with my "playing the big toys" to a degree. Really cool stuff that has no close parallels in civilian life. That is the truth. Here I see no big difference between us.

- Learn a trade/skill

Rather a style of solving the problems, at least from the Russian standpoint. I.e. it is about breeding/nurturing rather than learning to something. Practice is that while education in European continental military and naval academies was close always to university level and the alumne were clearly overeducated for the primary officer job in a platoon or ship/squadron division, it has no close relations to the economic or manufacturing needs of civilian world. Again, in 1917, the final year of Russian Empire, the Army counted 146.000 officers and the Navy had only about 8.000 officer billets. The infantry held about 112.000 of those 146.000, and the infantry officers en masse were rather trained than educated. So I'd rather like to speak about the general "Navy way" or "Navy style" than some "trade or skill" possessed while in the Navy.

- See the world

Pure bingo, just like here.

So we have two of four the same, one almost the same, and just the first one with the great difference. Though, this is the decisive difference. Repeat, with all due respect.

 

[CommodoreMid]

There's a VP skipper at the moment that commissioned as a submariner and lat transferred to NFO after his initial shore duty.

 

[zippy]

Well gents,

Poor Argies have reportedly lost their SS San Juan, the only their boat that have been in operative status... News show that USN P-3C takes part in efforts to locate the boat or a wreck of her. Two naive question - why Orion instead of Poseidon and is MPRA good enough in the shipwreck seeking?

P-3s have MAD which is another tool in the box.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

There's a VP skipper at the moment that commissioned as a submariner and lat transferred to NFO after his initial shore duty.

Wow. I.e. finished a tour at sea as DivO, then shore tour and all that before going NFO? Then he spent at least four years as submariner, probably more. Cool enough - he saw the world from both sides of the watershed, first as a prey and then as a hunter. In my experience, when I was naval cadet (about sophomore ARAIR) I have seen the 667BDR (Delta III in NATO parlance) with a stains of color clearly visible on her black dorsal hump. We spoke something like: "Well, this BDR is "painted" - it does mean that some Orion ambushed her on the periscope depth during communications and drop a cask of strong blue paint on her back to mark and send a message - buddy, you're gonna be dead in a real war - and no one of the sub's crew noticed that before the surfacing for the port call!". The SUBRON CO who was at the pier then and saw all that, had whispered "Fuck, this one too, fuck, fuck, fuck!!!!" - there were two more boats of this SUBRON had been "painted" earlier...
It was a game, just like baseball or hockey, or soccer. Yes, with billion-$$$ toys and nuke risks, but a game, just a game. Really, it is better than war...

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

P-3s have MAD which is another tool in the box.

Thanks. Il-38's MAD is poor enough to get the bottomed boat that is deeper than 200 meters. Hope P-3C' one is better, meaning purely the aim to find the Argie boat which is clearly dead for now, regretfully with all hands lost...