Why are you Leaving?

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

Why did I leave AD?

I always say it was a million paper cuts... but the highlights include (1) all the skippers in the Airwing getting micromanaged - they were at best glorified DHs (2) deployments upping from 6-10 months, plus the fun of surge time (3) Naval Aviation not valuing or growing tactical prowess, just tactical retards who punch the tickets and can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

I left for many reasons as well, but the one that concerned me the most and I think could do long-term damage to the community is the lack respect for tactical prowess at the higher levels of command. I'm all for developing leaders, but when that takes priority over tactical excellence, we've lost our edge.

 

[wink]

I left for many reasons as well, but the one that concerned me the most and I think could do long-term damage to the community is the lack respect for tactical prowess at the higher levels of command. I'm all for developing leaders, but when that takes priority over tactical excellence, we've lost our edge.

How high in leadership are you talking? Ship and Squadron COs, sure. CAG, sure.

 

[RHINOWSO]

How high in leadership are you talking? Ship and Squadron COs, sure. CAG, sure.

Tactical excellence gets you nothing past your JO tour, period. DHs (sometimes) value it in JOs, but above that it isn't fostered or desired, so its only on the individual to remain relevant. Most just want to climb the ladder and become tactical retards.

We've all see the Airwing Strike Leads DHs who can't brief, lead, or fight yet "walk on water" in all other respects and the CAGs trying to be -1 when they should be happy to hang on as -last a week into the war instead of trying to be what they aren't on the first night.

Then big decisions made by out of touch O-7/8/9/10s who don't even remember the word tactical excellence and you couldn't explain it to them if you tried, because there last experience was flying A-7s and KA-3s back in the 80s off Libya or something like that. We don't roll like that anymore. But if you promise them a 6-figure job consulting when they retire, along with a gucci powerpoint how system XYZ will 'revolutionize' warfare but in reality just suck the money and life out of the Navy, they are all in for it.

Then there is giving CAG to non-tactical types. I'm sorry, but if you were VAW, VS, HS, and probably even VAQ, you are going to have a hard time being a solid, lethal CAG. And that kind of thing, non-tactical background CAGs make pushing paper even more important, because they don't know anything else.

JMO, YMMV.

 

[picklesuit]

Tactical excellence gets you nothing past your JO tour, period. DHs (sometimes) value it in JOs, but above that it isn't fostered or desired, so its only on the individual to remain relevant. Most just want to climb the ladder and become tactical retards.

We've all see the Airwing Strike Leads DHs who can't brief, lead, or fight yet "walk on water" in all other respects and the CAGs trying to be -1 when they should be happy to hang on as -last a week into the war instead of trying to be what they aren't on the first night.

Then big decisions made by out of touch O-7/8/9/10s who don't even remember the word tactical excellence and you couldn't explain it to them if you tried, because there last experience was flying A-7s and KA-3s back in the 80s off Libya or something like that. We don't roll like that anymore. But if you promise them a 6-figure job consulting when they retire, along with a gucci powerpoint how system XYZ will 'revolutionize' warfare but in reality just suck the money and life out of the Navy, they are all in for it.

Then there is giving CAG to non-tactical types. I'm sorry, but if you were VAW, VS, HS, and probably even VAQ, you are going to have a hard time being a solid, lethal CAG. And that kind of thing, non-tactical background CAGs make pushing paper even more important, because they don't know anything else.

JMO, YMMV.

What, exactly, do you think the job of the CAG entails?
Are they there to plan, brief, fly, and execute a strike? Or to provide their subordinate commands with the ability to do just that?
I think you are getting too buried in the tactics to appreciate the operational level of fighting. VS, VAW, VFA, HSL, heck, even VP and VUP, all have their respective tactics to be experts at executing. Just because their platform doesn't involve "warheads on foreheads" (actually an erroneous assumption) doesn't mean they can't lead and fight their weapon, whether that weapon is an aircraft, a squadron, a wing of squadrons, or even a pen.

Your best TopGun, patch wearing, ACM, missile slinging god isn't worth a bit if they have neither parts, planes, maintainers, nor the support structure/organization to get them off the deck.

I think your view is a bit myopic Sir.
Pickle

Edit: I'm not arguing for CAG to be VP, just to make that clear...

 

[insanebikerboy]

Then there is giving CAG to non-tactical types. I'm sorry, but if you were VAW, VS, HS, and probably even VAQ, you are going to have a hard time being a solid, lethal CAG. And that kind of thing, non-tactical background CAGs make pushing paper even more important, because they don't know anything else.

As I get older I agree more and more with this point. I'm a helo guy and in my unit I've had some very unique deployments and experiences, but I now realize that even the most savvy of HS/HSC guys don't belong in the CAG role. That also extends to VAW.

I'd argue that VAQ would still fit the bill.

The other side of the coin though, is when CAGs or powers-that-be don't fully understand the capabilites of all of their platforms. I've seen senior O-5/O-6 types that either don't know or just don't care what non-F/A-18 platforms bring in an offensive role. I won't argue that a 60 should lead an alpha strike, but they do have things they can do very well. From the HS/HSC side, that's been a big reason I've seen some guys get out.

 

[insanebikerboy]

What, exactly, do you think the job of the CAG entails?
Are they there to plan, brief, fly, and execute a strike? Or to provide their subordinate commands with the ability to do just that?
I think you are getting too buried in the tactics to appreciate the operational level of fighting. VS, VAW, VFA, HSL, heck, even VP and VUP, all have their respective tactics to be experts at executing. Just because their platform doesn't involve "warheads on foreheads" (actually an erroneous assumption) doesn't mean they can't lead and fight their weapon, whether that weapon is an aircraft, a squadron, a wing of squadrons, or even a pen.

Your best TopGun, patch wearing, ACM, missile slinging god isn't worth a bit if they have neither parts, planes, maintainers, nor the support structure/organization to get them off the deck.

I think your view is a bit myopic.
Pickle

Pickle, do you know how to lead an overland strike? CAG is there to be the lead on strikes, but your argument kind of proves his point, there's way too much focus on the non-tactical side of the house. What you listed is most definitely important but fighting your airwing is even more so. Having a guy who has never been in that role probably isn't the best suited to do it.

Could they be a CAG? Sure, but why would you give a CAG slot to a guy who was a VAW dude or a helo bubba when you've got plenty of dudes with the experience that would be much better suited for the role?

 

[picklesuit]

I'm a bit out of my element (shocker) but my understanding was CAG was the equivalent to Commodore for the Carrier Air Wing. Maybe I was getting his role confused with another position.
Pickle

 

[robav8r]

Naval Aviation not valuing or growing tactical prowess . . . .

One thing I hear more about these days (and tactical prowess relevancy to career progression aside), is that our weapon systems have become so complex that the cookie-cutter "golden path" is not taking into account the proficiency required to stay "good" in the A/C. P-8A, RHINO/GROWLER platforms come to mind. Curious what the thoughts from the group are . . . .

 

[RHINOWSO]

What, exactly, do you think the job of the CAG entails?
Are they there to plan, brief, fly, and execute a strike? Or to provide their subordinate commands with the ability to do just that?
I think you are getting too buried in the tactics to appreciate the operational level of fighting. VS, VAW, VFA, HSL, heck, even VP and VUP, all have their respective tactics to be experts at executing. Just because their platform doesn't involve "warheads on foreheads" (actually an erroneous assumption) doesn't mean they can't lead and fight their weapon, whether that weapon is an aircraft, a squadron, a wing of squadrons, or even a pen.

Your best TopGun, patch wearing, ACM, missile slinging god isn't worth a bit if they have neither parts, planes, maintainers, nor the support structure/organization to get them off the deck.

I think your view is a bit myopic Sir.
Pickle

Edit: I'm not arguing for CAG to be VP, just to make that clear...

The difficultly I've seen firsthand is having to explain / prove EVERYTHING to micromanaging non-tactical CAGs, to the point of being forced into unsound tactics. Then, since they aren't tactical, they HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, so they live in the CO's asses (which to be fair, tactical CAGs do as well, usually to a lesser degree) with what I'll term as "TSP reports". Then add in the airing trying to teach the VAW pilot how to BFM in an FA18 or the VS NFO to not be completely worthless in the back of a Rhino, things that end up being completely worthless.

I agree that if a CAG had the intestinal fortitude to do just what you say "provide their subordinate commands with the ability to do just that?", instead of micromanaging the squadron COs like new DHs, it could work with non-tactical types. Could being the operative word but it often doesn't, because of course the CAG gets ranked against the CVN Skipper, so he's on a mission to prove to the Battlegroup commander that he's worthy.

I'm sorry, I've just sat through too many VS / VAW 'strike' briefs to know that it's hopeless - and I've seen non-tactical CAGs firsthand.

At least you respect a semi-tactical CAG, he/she can probably fight a bit, so when he lives in your ass 24/7 for TSP reports you can deal with it.

Add on the same (and often higher) level of bullshit from a non-tactical type CAG with having to deal with their Kindergarten grade questions on how the actual airwing projects power with the ability to break people things, and you laugh at him while cursing him.

 

[RHINOWSO]

I'd argue that VAQ would still fit the bill.

With the transition to the EA-18G, I'd probably agree with you. But VAW, HSL, VP/VQ - no F-ing way.

It's a lot different than what you read about in your NWC classes doing JPME...

 

[RHINOWSO]

I'm a bit out of my element (shocker) but my understanding was CAG was the equivalent to Commodore for the Carrier Air Wing. Maybe I was getting his role confused with another position.
Pickle

Yes, to a degree but he's more than a Commodore (who is just the admin backend of a community), he's the LEADER of the airwing - how can you say "go get em" on the first night into Korea / Iran / whatever godforsaken shithole of the month is on our list, when you either (1) can't go or (2) are such a liability that we (the pipe hitters) do everything we can to convince you not to go wave 1 or put you in the place of minimal damage (of course are surrounded by others who have to babysit you - as opposed to doing what they should be doing - killing people and breaking their shit.)

When the rubber meets the road, it isn't about your TSP reports, fitreps, or any of that bullshit. It's about banging off the pointy end at 0030, lights out RNDZ and tanking, fighting your way into the target, opposed by everything in the book, shooting people down, dropping bombs on your targets, then doing the reverse to get back to the ship to grab a wire (again, in the dark, at night). The kind of shit that makes grown men scared, yet they do it anyway, even though they try to squeeze the black out of the stick grip / hand controllers.

Performing in that kind of environment (in all it's various iterations and thread levels) is what matters. Sure, we haven't don't the full meal deal in awhile, but when we do, people who don't have their shit wired tight aren't going to coming back, and hopefully people who should have don't get taken out because of it.

Look at WW2, when divisions launched and half of them didn't come back. When the CO was a LT because the CO and XO were dead.

Thats what I'm talking about.

 

[picklesuit]

The difficultly I've seen firsthand is having to explain / prove EVERYTHING to micromanaging non-tactical CAGs, to the point of being forced into unsound tactics. Then, since they aren't tactical, they HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, so they live in the CO's asses (which to be fair, tactical CAGs do as well, usually to a lesser degree) with what I'll term as "TSP reports". Then add in the airing trying to teach the VAW pilot how to BFM in an FA18 or the VS NFO to not be completely worthless in the back of a Rhino, things that end up being completely worthless.

I agree that if a CAG had the intestinal fortitude to do just what you say "provide their subordinate commands with the ability to do just that?", instead of micromanaging the squadron COs like new DHs, it could work with non-tactical types. Could being the operative word but it often doesn't, because of course the CAG gets ranked against the CVN Skipper, so he's on a mission to prove to the Battlegroup commander that he's worthy.

I'm sorry, I've just sat through too many VS / VAW 'strike' briefs to know that it's hopeless - and I've seen non-tactical CAGs firsthand.

At least you respect a semi-tactical CAG, he/she can probably fight a bit, so when he lives in your ass 24/7 for TSP reports you can deal with it.

Add on the same (and often higher) level of bullshit from a non-tactical type CAG with having to deal with their Kindergarten grade questions on how the actual airwing projects power with the ability to break people things, and you laugh at him while cursing him.

I see your point. Again, no first hand experience, sounds like a hard spot to be in.
Thanks for the response...
Pickle

 

[Flash]

...a non-tactical type CAG with having to deal with their Kindergarten grade questions on how the actual airwing projects power with the ability to break people things, and you laugh at him while cursing him.

How often do we have 'non-tactical' CAG's? From what I have seen not too often, maybe you had more than your normal share of them.

But VAW, HSL, VP/VQ - no F-ing way...

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested HSL or especially VP/VQ types as CAG so a moot point. I have heard the idea of HS/HSC guys becoming one but from what I am aware none have happened yet.

I think your view has some validity but it is a bit narrow, there are more factors at a CAG level for them to consider than you may realize.

 

[RHINOWSO]

I think your view has some validity but it is a bit narrow, there are more factors at a CAG level for them to consider than you may realize.

Could you enlighten me then?

 

[Flash]

Could you enlighten me then?

I don't know what you don't know, just from own experience as I have moved up and into some staff or other billets that have a larger command and control perspective many things I thought made no sense or were dumb to me as a JO made more sense as I moved on.