With a few special Units and squadrons thrown in there too ?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Flight Training
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
lol the VP RAG is allocated something like 1 or 2 WTI billets for a JO cadre of what seems like 60.So it's about the same as a 10-12 years ago when my peer group was starting our shore tours, with a little more emphasis on the WTI.
I just looked at the bios of all the COs and XOs in the former Wing 2 (VP4, VP9, and VP47). One did Dallas. The other five all did disassociated tours (two of the five were flag aides). Zero did training officer tours. Hardly an overwhelming majority. Sure, they were all "patch wearers," but every wing guy and RAG guy should be a WTI.
Here's the thing that I don't get--earlier in the thread you (or maybe the other guy) said that they should give the flying jobs to the guys who don't want to make command, climb the ladder, etc. But why in the world would they give the "best" jobs to the people who have already made it known that they want out? It's not punitive--I made it known that I wanted out, so I didn't get to go get my WTI patch while I was in the squadron. Fair enough. The TRARON question is a better one--again, if they're chucking pilots while simultaneously needing pilots, well, that's an (unsurprising) level of insanity.
Also, guys, please stop comparing VP to VFA. I'm not commenting on the value, professionalism, or "coolness" of either community--but I will tell you, from mission to structure to training to deployment: They are not. at. all. the same.
I know this because I did a disassociated sea tour
Edit: Fun fact, VP-46's CO was my classmate in shooter school. Also, there are only 6 active VP squadrons now??
You incur an extra commitment to your service requirement if you complete WTI.
Extra fun fact, being a WTI is not required to be a Wing instructor or even at the weapons school. To my knowledge the only billets that hard write in WTI qualifications are the CTF WTI jobs. On the slate you can deny interest in WTI, and still be chosen as a wing instructor or at MPRWS. Seems ironic and counterintuitive but thats just how the community is set up. I think the fact that doing WTI in your shore tour is uncommon at best is hurting it being a pre-req, and the staffing and course scheduling isn’t there to make it something that every single person would do enroute. Frequently people will be 1 year into their shore tour before a slot is open.
Guys (all of you), I'm really with you on this. The Navy frequently does things that appear to make no sense because there's something driving a process that is not visible to anyone outside the halls of Millington or OPNAV. I mentioned that I lateral transferred--I became a FAO and had some truly horrible experiences with the detailing. It's everyone. (btw, if anyone wants to talk about FAO or the lateral transfer process, happy to do so--the good, the bad, and the ugly)
The big point I want to make is not to hate too much on the disassociated tour. You certainly can make it a waste of time, but I had a great time, learned a lot, and met a bunch of good people who I never would otherwise have crossed paths with. And wore a turtleneck for probably the first time in my life.
Not sure if you were directly replying to me, but if so: I dont think it makes sense to give out WTI Patches to people who make it known that they’re getting out, and giving away the Community’s best billets obviously does not make sense for someone who’s just gonna bounce to Delta. But if someone were able to (for example) stay an extra year in their fleet tour, and then (assuming they go
production) were able to aid production for another year, hit MSR and either bounce out of the Navy or bounce to DH I think the Navy would benefit far more.
As I stated before, with the seriously high number of SNAs backed up in the pipeline, and fleet squadrons having to turn over their most qualified individuals earlier now, wouldn’t that make more sense? We are sacrificing pilot experience and the potential effectiveness of our pilot cadre(s) in order to fill boat billets. Is “Career Management” and CVN staffing really more important than that? PERS seems to think so.
Would it mess with career timing and “milestones”? Sure. But what if the individual is willing to accept that risk?
And sure, VP and VFA are two entirely different beasts. I’m no VP koolaid drinker, trust me. But that doesnt mean that we can’t adapt good practices from other communities. Just because we -have- done things a certain way for a long time, doesn’t mean we -need- to do things like that forever. Adaptability/flexibility, right?
This effectively creates two problems. One, it stops the up and out fitrep progression. I hate it too but until we fix it, holding senior people on station their first tour just fucks the people behind them.
Two, it puts the JO back in the drivers seat with respect to getting out current and near their MSR. Wings + 8 gave Millington all the leverage and any “give me a third flying tour and I won’t drop papers” verbal deals dried up (really they went to post DHs, at least in helo world). Unless manning across the board gets as bad as VFA and VT(J), those boat jobs really are a priority than teaching FAMs in VTs.
And if we’re honest, barring big events like 08/09 recession or Covid, most JOs know if they’re in or out going to their disassociated. You’re either going to eat whatever shit boat sandwich and take the bonus, or you’re done and playing for the exits/TAR/FAO/whatever. Occasionally I’ve met the “don’t wanna fly just sea/shore to 20 LCDR” but there’s usually extenuating circumstances like dual mil, spousal employment, special needs kid, etc.
Edit: accidental quote
Orders to Nebraska?
But wouldn’t the FITREP issue be a short term one only? (Assuming my hypothetical scenario was possible), If PERS adjusted the rate at which individuals join and depart a command, and that became the standard, wouldn’t those issues be ironed out after a few cycles? I’m legitimately asking.
It would take longer- there are a lot of downstream effects with respect to every individual’s career timing versus community expectations. Board precepts and good community briefs can go a long way, but inevitably there would be misunderstandings.
I would love to see the USN get away from “up or out” (as much as they are able within title 10 law) and match personnel qualifications with jobs, rather than detailing everyone to a disassociated or staff, just because it’s “time”. The mechanization of doing so is incredibly difficult, and there would be loss of talent. However, I think the current loss of talent and ROI is bad enough to make the case to try.
At the end of the day, I know PERS is dealt a shit hand and has to be the bad guy with all of this, but I just think doing whatever they possibly can to maximize personnel QOL should be as high of a priority as they can make it. Overly optimistic? Sure. But one can hope.
If it is WW3, I would imagine the retired would get called back. 3 months to get spooled up at North Field? I was thinking 3 weeks to be ready to teach X’s at South Field.
The attached SAU always had more hours than the active duty CO / XO - but we made it clear that we were there to provide support.
Don’t care how good the CO / XO is at wiggling the sticks - can they see and manage the big picture is more of a priority.
I feel like today’s Navy would be more like 3 months to get spooled up to hand out basketballs in Djibouti.
But it’s nice to think they’d at least consider all that we have done during and since leaving AD.
If big NAVAIR wanted to write 4 year orders for everyone’s JO Sea Tours, they could do that. It would be a one time change and the front offices could adapt. But onesey-twosey extensions at sea (more than the 90 days allowed now) could quickly turn into favoritism. Front offices should be managing their JOs, even if it varies from one CO’s opinion to the next.
We’re mixing things up. Xs to get SNAs spun up, reservists and salty CDRs are great. Front office of TRARONs should be good managers. Agreed.
Front line tactical squadrons? Flying LDOs and super senior pit pilots undermine the leadership. When it’s time to go downtown, the CO, XO, and DHs should be the leaders. Some concepts like HSC Exp and VQ/VP have more of a detachment concept that push that down, but they’re also farther away from the threat.
Close enough. Before lat transferring, I had three OCONUS tours in a row. First orders after lat transfer: boom, OPNAV
My perception is the FAO just relegates you to staff work for the rest of your career. Is that perception accurate, and if so, did you know that going in? How often was your foreign area expertise utilized vs. just being a plug and play staff action officer?