OCS vs NROTC

[Griz882]

Of the engineering majors, how many can actually graduate in 4 years while taking ROTC?

And, why does the Navy have such a hard on for engineering majors anyway? I mean if you're a pilot, SEAL, shipdriver, or bubbleheard, are you really going to put an engineering degree to use in any of these jobs?

Taken as a whole this is a reasonable question. The navy has struggled for years with the tension between technical and tactical prowess in an officer and, in my humble opinion, has gotten a great deal of OK. In the old days it was sail vs ship fitter, then mariner vs steam engineer, and so on. Even naval aviation got into the mess when it (rightfully) determined that only aviators could command an aircraft carrier thus taking a certain kind of professional out of their profession to make them a different kind of professional. Only a few years ago the House version of the NDAA proposed directing the Navy to “establish two career paths for surface warfare officers. . . . one career path in ship engineering systems and another in ship operations and combat systems.” That didn’t happen…but was it a good idea?

The British use a primary warfare officer model with an engineer model. In short, you are either a warfighter or a fixer. Both have critical responsibilities, but only one can command. In the end, I be,I’ve that your civilian education (including engineering) means very little in the course of your career because the service is going to train you to their standard. Now, if you want to pick a specific career path like Test Pilot or AMDO then an engineering degree is really, really matter. Same for nukes, of course. Some might argue that studying engineering makes learning other career skills easier and that may be right - but I have my doubts.

Still, when I was in primary, a buddy of mine used to joke that “Mechanical Engineering to Mach 1 and History to helicopters.” In our specific examples…he was spot on as he went jets (and on to F-14’s) and I went helicopters. Even then, I knew lots of engineers in the HT and even a few history types in jets.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Of the engineering majors, how many can actually graduate in 4 years while taking ROTC?

And, why does the Navy have such a hard on for engineering majors anyway? I mean if you're a pilot, SEAL, shipdriver, or bubbleheard, are you really going to put an engineering degree to use in any of these jobs?

Answers to your questions in order:
1. A lot.
2. Because engineering skills and knowledge are important to operating technical systems like ships, submarines, and airplanes.
3. Yes.

Taken as a whole this is a reasonable question. The navy has struggled for years with the tension between technical and tactical prowess in an officer and, in my humble opinion, has gotten a great deal of OK. In the old days it was sail vs ship fitter, then mariner vs steam engineer, and so on. Even naval aviation got into the mess when it (rightfully) determined that only aviators could command an aircraft carrier thus taking a certain kind of professional out of their profession to make them a different kind of professional. Only a few years ago the House version of the NDAA proposed directing the Navy to “establish two career paths for surface warfare officers. . . . one career path in ship engineering systems and another in ship operations and combat systems.” That didn’t happen…but was it a good idea?

The British use a primary warfare officer model with an engineer model. In short, you are either a warfighter or a fixer. Both have critical responsibilities, but only one can command. In the end, I be,I’ve that your civilian education (including engineering) means very little in the course of your career because the service is going to train you to their standard. Now, if you want to pick a specific career path like Test Pilot or AMDO then an engineering degree is really, really matter. Same for nukes, of course. Some might argue that studying engineering makes learning other career skills easier and that may be right - but I have my doubts.

Still, when I was in primary, a buddy of mine used to joke that “Mechanical Engineering to Mach 1 and History to helicopters.” In our specific examples…he was spot on as he went jets (and on to F-14’s) and I went helicopters. Even then, I knew lots of engineers in the HT and even a few history types in jets.

Some history: The Navy used to have a two path career model for officers back before the turn of the 20th Century. It was critical for being able to operate steam ships effectively. This had the same genesis of the two or three path career model in other navies. But, shortly after advent of the 20th Century, there was a near revolt of the Engineering officers as they were often passed over for promotion and had limited career mobility as senior officers due to the fact that they were not eligible for command at sea. This led the Roosevelt Administration (Theodore not Franklin) to merge the career paths and make shipboard commissioned officers generalists.

Most other navies solved this problem by making the Chief Engineer the same rank as the Commanding Officer much in the same way that the Reactor Officer on carriers is the same rank as the Captain and Air Boss.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Most other navies solved this problem by making the Chief Engineer the same rank as the Commanding Officer much in the same way that the Reactor Officer on carriers is the same rank as the Captain and Air Boss.

Almost all the RO's arrive as a CDR and then pick up CAPT near the end of their tour.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Almost all the RO's arrive as a CDR and then pick up CAPT near the end of their tour.

As it's been explained to me, they still have a significant amount of authority seeing as how they are post-command senior O5s or junior O6s.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

As it's been explained to me, they still have a significant amount of authority seeing as how they are post-command senior O5s or junior O6s.

oh, that is true. If the RO says the ship isn't getting underway then the ship is not getting underway, of course most of the time the RO is following the rules NR has put out.

 

[Swanee]

Both the College Program (non-scholarship frosh/sophs) and Advance Standing (non-scholarship junis/seniors but getting a stipend and commission) exist where I occasionally teach as an adjunct. I don’t know what the process is, but they exist.


Oh….and Agriculture is a Tier 2 degree but History is Tier 3! Just how many farmers does the Navy need?

Duh- haven't you read or watched The Martian? Dude was a space farmer!

2. Because engineering skills and knowledge are important to operating technical systems like ships, submarines, and airplanes.

I can't speak to the others, but for airplanes that's very debatable. Engineers are needed to design, build, and test, but not really to fly. The Navy and USAF seem to have a hardon for engineering degrees, the Marine Corps seems to do fine getting by with folks who have okay GPAs in whatever they studied, have a passing score on the ATSB, and are physically fit. It's not my theater degree that may have hindered me in manned, and has allowed me to excel in unmanned, aviation.

To me it seems that ducks follow ducks, and ducks pick ducks.

 

[Uncle Fester]

To me it seems that ducks follow ducks, and ducks pick ducks.

A lot of valid points in the other posts re: pros and cons of tech-heavy education. Personally I feel that the more senior you become the more important it is to have a diverse education, particularly as you become a senior decision-maker. I once had a conversation with an O-6 CO type who just really couldn't grasp why the Iranians weren't on the same side as al-Qaeda.

That said, the above is the real reason the Navy has a hardon for engineering backgrounds - folks with engineering backgrounds are the ones picking the next generation. "I'm an awesome officer, I'm an engineer, therefore engineers make awesome officers."

 

[wallythenycat]

Taken as a whole this is a reasonable question. The navy has struggled for years with the tension between technical and tactical prowess in an officer and, in my humble opinion, has gotten a great deal of OK. In the old days it was sail vs ship fitter, then mariner vs steam engineer, and so on. Even naval aviation got into the mess when it (rightfully) determined that only aviators could command an aircraft carrier thus taking a certain kind of professional out of their profession to make them a different kind of professional. Only a few years ago the House version of the NDAA proposed directing the Navy to “establish two career paths for surface warfare officers. . . . one career path in ship engineering systems and another in ship operations and combat systems.” That didn’t happen…but was it a good idea?

The British use a primary warfare officer model with an engineer model. In short, you are either a warfighter or a fixer. Both have critical responsibilities, but only one can command. In the end, I be,I’ve that your civilian education (including engineering) means very little in the course of your career because the service is going to train you to their standard. Now, if you want to pick a specific career path like Test Pilot or AMDO then an engineering degree is really, really matter. Same for nukes, of course. Some might argue that studying engineering makes learning other career skills easier and that may be right - but I have my doubts.

Still, when I was in primary, a buddy of mine used to joke that “Mechanical Engineering to Mach 1 and History to helicopters.” In our specific examples…he was spot on as he went jets (and on to F-14’s) and I went helicopters. Even then, I knew lots of engineers in the HT and even a few history types in jets.

Thanks. And, you brought up another interesting point: why wouldn't a career shipdriver command a carrier and carrier aviators keep on flying?

 

[Griz882]

Thanks. And, you brought up another interesting point: why wouldn't a career shipdriver command a carrier and carrier aviators keep on flying?

That’s the Navy way! I’m half kidding. The idea is that a carrier commander needs to understand aviation and how combat aviation assets are used. Indeed, a modern carrier commander has a “boat load” (see what I did there?) of helpful SWOs to help out.

 

[wallythenycat]

That’s the Navy way! I’m half kidding. The idea is that a carrier commander needs to understand aviation and how combat aviation assets are used. Indeed, a modern carrier commander has a “boat load” (see what I did there?) of helpful SWOs to help out.

LOL! "Boat Load"

 

[wallythenycat]

Duh- haven't you read or watched The Martian? Dude was a space farmer!



I can't speak to the others, but for airplanes that's very debatable. Engineers are needed to design, build, and test, but not really to fly. The Navy and USAF seem to have a hardon for engineering degrees, the Marine Corps seems to do fine getting by with folks who have okay GPAs in whatever they studied, have a passing score on the ATSB, and are physically fit. It's not my theater degree that may have hindered me in manned, and has allowed me to excel in unmanned, aviation.

To me it seems that ducks follow ducks, and ducks pick ducks.

Duh- haven't you read or watched The Martian? Dude was a space farmer!



I can't speak to the others, but for airplanes that's very debatable. Engineers are needed to design, build, and test, but not really to fly. The Navy and USAF seem to have a hardon for engineering degrees, the Marine Corps seems to do fine getting by with folks who have okay GPAs in whatever they studied, have a passing score on the ATSB, and are physically fit. It's not my theater degree that may have hindered me in manned, and has allowed me to excel in unmanned, aviation.

To me it seems that ducks follow ducks, and ducks pick ducks.

I met an airline pilot who was a former navy pilot and an English major. He told me that he didn't know what calculus was and didn't want to know what calculus was.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Thanks. And, you brought up another interesting point: why wouldn't a career shipdriver command a carrier and carrier aviators keep on flying?

Congress wrote it into law back in the 1920s when carriers were first really starting to get going. The "prewar Navy was run by battleship sailors who were suspicious of carriers" thing is a cultural myth within the Navy. Getting into Naval aviation and carrier command was very much seen as a way for 'hot runners' to get a leg up on their competition. Congress wanted to ensure that carriers were run by qualified aviation officers, not just ambitious Blackshoes.

You could do it other ways. Large deck 'phibs, which would be considered carriers in almost anyone else's Navy, alternate between aviator CO and SWO XOs, and vice versa. But as for the CVNs, it's still law that they're commanded by pilots and NFOs, and it's so welded in place now it's unlikely to change.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I met an airline pilot who was a former navy pilot and an English major. He told me that he didn't know what calculus was and didn't want to know what calculus was.

He was probably pulling your leg a bit. I've met a lot of really sharp dudes in my career who liked to play the "I'm just a dummy from State U" act. But yes, there are quite a few pilots out there in the Navy and Marines who did not pursue STEM educations.

You don't really need to know much in the way of math or engineering to be a pilot, by the way. Most of what you actually use in the Fleet doesn't go beyond arithmetic and rule-of-thumb. "You can measure with a micrometer, but the pilot's going to cut with an axe," as one of my nav instructors at VT-10 was fond of saying.

Somewhat different story if you want to pursue something like being a test pilot, but even then you don't have to have been a STEM major to get selected for TPS, just have enough STEM coursework in your background to show the selection board you can hack the program.

 

[wink]

I met an airline pilot who was a former navy pilot and an English major. He told me that he didn't know what calculus was and didn't want to know what calculus was.

There are plenty of history and recreation majors flying in the Navy, but it is worth noting not all English, history and poli-sci majors are equal. USNA's first two years are basically an engineering core requiring two years of Calculus and Physics. They award a Bachelors of Science in English. I have known at least 3 submariners that were non-engineers. One an English major. But, they all were from USNA.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

There are plenty of history and recreation majors flying in the Navy, but it is worth noting not all English, history and poli-sci majors are equal. USNA's first two years are basically an engineering core requiring two years of Calculus and Physics. They award a Bachelors of Science in English. I have known at least 3 submariners that were non-engineers. One an English major. But, they all were from USNA.

I know a nuke officer who has a degree in Nutrition Science (may have the name off a bit), she was NROTC so needed to take the calc and physics series.