FlyingPorkChop said:
Here is my perspective on SWOs, for what it's worth:
1) Don't forget to mention the SWO Bonus, which is a LARGE cash incentive at, I believe, the O3 level, to remain in the program. This has both good and bad implications. The bad is, of course, that the program has such difficulty retaining those who have fulfilled their committment that it has to give a HUGE cash reward for them to stay. The good is the cash itself.
The "SWO Bonus," or also called Surface Warfare Officer Continuation Pay (SWOCP) is a cash incentive to stay through our department head tours. We have two DH tours, each lasting approx 18 months. This does not include Department Head School which lasts 6 months or any follow on training (i.e. AEGIS pipeline). Let us not "forget" that aviators also have such a program to keep personnel through their DH tours and beyond. This is called Aviation Career Continuation Pay (ACCP). These incentive pays for both communities were established in FY00 and each has had positive results in their corresponding communities. Aviators also get Aviation Career Incentive Pay.
FlyingPorkChop said:
2) As a guy who came to the Navy relatively late in the game, I have considerable civilian experience in hiring. When I see that (or saw that I should say) an applicant was a SWO, I assumed two things. One, that the applicant had, most likely, strong leadership skills. And two, that the applicant had developed few other skills useful in that civilian job. From experience, our best Navy hires were all SC, INTEL, Cryppies, Aviators and Nukes, in a rough approximation of preponderance.
I would agree with you on your first statement regarding your assumptions when hiring prior SWO's. I don't follow you on your second. Exactly what other useful skills are there that the new hires from the SC, Intel, Crypto, Aviators, and Nukes all have, that for whatever reason never seemed to be picked up by the SWO's? Was this simply and assumption on your part, or something observable?
FlyingPorkChop said:
3) If you are going SWO, you should do so with the intention of winning command at sea. This is a decreasingly likely outcome in a shrinking Navy. The Nav just announced a bunch of different career paths for SWOs to achieve command -- for instance, running security teams -- but these are very clearly second best destinations.
To be perfectly blunt, this last one pissed me off pretty good. Command at sea is not won. It is not a prize handed out after playing a game of checkers. Maybe I'm just *****ing about semantics, but in the Navy, and on a forum where advice is being given out, words are important. Here is the gist of the alternative career paths. The purpose of these alternatives is not to have better opportunity for command, and certainly not command at sea. More opportunities for command (not at sea) happen to be a benefit, not the goal or purpose. The alternative career paths are:
1) Antiterrorism/Force Protection
2) Anti-submarine warfare
3) Missile Defense
4) Mine Warfare
5) Shore installation management
6) Strategic Sealift
Switching to one of these career paths is not automatic. An application must be submitted and a board held. Applications may be submitted anytime after your first DH tour (note: you still have to complete 2 DH tours). If selected for one of these programs (you choose which ones you want consideration for....ie. if you don't put down Missile Defense, the board won't condider you for that pipeline) you will no longer be in the mix for XO Afloat or Command at Sea (hence the alternative career path). For many, many SWO's (close to 50%), command at sea is not a goal for them. So this program provides for them further leadership opportunities in a specific field of interest along with promotion potential and command opportunites. But first and foremost, it provides the navy with experts in these fields....fields that are tradionally filled by some random SWO with little to no training.
I'm not sure where you derive your "very clearly second best destinations" bias, but I can bet it's not based on your experience of the program.
For anyone interested in more details, you can read the NAVADMIN
http://www.persnet.navy.mil/navadmin/nav04/nav04220.txt
FlyingPorkChop said:
4) I have never seen SWOs being looked down or teased because of their designator (in other than a jocular manner). The Navy is and always has been about the sea. These guys drive our ships. What else is there to say about that?
Are you kidding me? I've seen it go both ways.