We're mixing apples and oranges a bit here. There's regular staff work, then there's Joint coded billets. You can make valid arguments about the usefulness and bloat of staffs in general, or the proportion that the aviation community gets assigned, but saying, "Hey, I'm a pilot and I just want to fly" isn't a particularly realistic approach from an HR standpoint. At any rate, the number of post-DH flying billets is pretty minimal anyway. What kind of flying billet did you think you should have been assigned as a non-due course O4? I can't think of many.
I'm suggesting that staffs, all staffs joint or otherwise, are bloated and excessive - and less desirable for a lot of people than staying within their specialty. I can't stress enough how important it is to have well rounded people on staffs, specifically people with upward mobility. But there is also a need, I believe, for the tactical/practical expertise to stay operating aircraft. The system of "up or out", when the only way up is a very narrow path that gets very staffy later on (or early on in some cases), is a significant contributor to retention issues. Yet I never hear any leadership discussing this problem, they just throw money at it hoping it will go away.
What did I want post DH? Well, I knew going into my DH tour that it was likely my last as I knew what the Navy had for post OP-T types. But in an ideal world, the Navy would have made some effort to keep my tactical experience in the P-3 (complemented with a joint staff tour and a navy staff tour), and my flying experience as an IP. But the Navy doesn't really have an option for that, which I knew, so I left at almost 15 years, got at job in The Show, and went Air Guard. Spending my last 5 years in the Navy pushing paper with slim hopes of flying just didn't sit well with me.
I considered myself a pretty good officer and a damn good pilot. I would have liked to continue to fly for the Navy, I liked the P-3 a great deal, and would have been happy freezing my rank at O4. If the Navy had some sort of O4 squadron billets that were non-DH, you could retain a great deal of experience. Or if there were simply an operator path, where you stuck to operating, got really damn good at it, and could contribute significantly as a true SME on your platform, I would have gone that way. Hell, freeze my rank at O3 if thats what it took, and let people retire. That operator path could involve SOME staff experience, as having the tactical expertise on a staff is valuable, but the opportunity to have more than ONE operational tour for those not on the golden path should be available.
The officer focus is not on making good warfighters, it's on making skippers. But great leaders emerge from a group of good warfighters, not people who simply punch the right tickets in the right order. My staff experience generally reflected this, those on the path focus on getting that right staff, reinvent a wheel while there, get a great fitrep, move on to the next step - little real progress for the Navy was made. I'm not saying there aren't some good leaders created by the Navy's current system, I'm saying that the Navy is losing great warfighters because it only focuses on making skippers.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here. The Navy is run by people who've followed the path, got the punches, been "successful", and now run the system - so they don't see it as broken or less than optimal. I don't foresee it ever changing, which is sad because I don't see the Navy getting any better at warfighting for all the staff work that gets done. I do see it getting better at warfighting if it chooses to make great operators, in addition to great skippers.
