AVO Warrant Officer (Aerial Vehicle Operator) MQ-25

[Uncle Fester]

Will the VFA/VAQ/VAW patch wearers welcome the MQ-25 CWO3 to the table, or will they continue in line with what the Marines were doing? Rank means a lot- and if you're breaking with the construct of a normal flying squadron, then you're setting up a caste system in which one guy is more important than the other.

I see your point and I don’t disagree. The first few workups and cruises are probably going to be rough, when the WOs and URL guys are all new. Show your ass at mission planning or a Fallon event once or twice and quickly it will become “the drone guys are idiots, I don’t bother asking them shit any more.” Hopefully they’ll leaven the mix with some experienced small UAS petty officers. Hell, if they’d allow it (and give me an Active retirement), I’d be happy to take the paygrade cut and go be a CWO4 or something for a few years to stand up the program...

 

[Hair Warrior]

May be worth looking at how SEAL and SWCC work together, since SWCC has no officers except Warrants (717X), and SWCC units are led by SEAL officers. Is naval aviation planning for an AVO DET to be OIC’d by a 1310/1320?

 

[Brett327]

Will the VFA/VAQ/VAW patch wearers welcome the MQ-25 CWO3 to the table, or will they continue in line with what the Marines were doing? Rank means a lot- and if you're breaking with the construct of a normal flying squadron, then you're setting up a caste system in which one guy is more important than the other.

Don't look now, but the military is pretty much a caste system already. The MQ-25 community will ultimately be viewed according to their credibility. If they can't establish that, it doesn't matter whether they're an E5, CWO or 1310 LCDR with 5000 flight hours.

 

[Swanee]

Don't look now, but the military is pretty much a caste system already. The MQ-25 community will ultimately be viewed according to their credibility. If they can't establish that, it doesn't matter whether they're an E5, CWO or 1310 LCDR with 5000 flight hours.

You and I both know that it isn't that simple. Having the pilots cap out initially at CWO 100% speaks to the capability expected out of leadership, as well as the credibility that Big Navy wants out of this community.

The Navy doesn't want a legitimate, professional, standalone, warfighting, combat capable UAS community that can think, plan, fight, and lead itself on the battlefield. They probably realize that they lag behind every other service, but are too proud to make the right decision.

 

[Brett327]

You and I both know that it isn't that simple. Having the pilots cap out initially at CWO 100% speaks to the capability expected out of leadership, as well as the credibility that Big Navy wants out of this community.

The Navy doesn't want a legitimate, professional, standalone, warfighting, combat capable UAS community that can think, plan, fight, and lead itself on the battlefield. They probably realize that they lag behind every other service, but are too proud to make the right decision.

IMO, the Navy doesn't want to throw a bunch of URL officers, in whom they've invested a significant amount of resources to train, into a start-up community whose future career path is, at present, undefined. This new CWO community will be Guiney Pigs as the community matures. Frankly, we'll be giving a bunch of enlisted dudes an opportunity to do something cool and different, but from a career POV, they're more "expendable" than a URL guy.

Let's face reality - unmanned are not going to be viewed as equals to manned platforms - probably never, but particularly not in the short term. For perspective, the Growler, which has been in the fleet for about 10 years, is just now attaining parity with the Strike Fighter community in it's various roles and capabilities in the minds of operational commanders. It has taken us that long to establish credibility and demonstrate the value of our capabilities. Unmanned will go through a similar process. You're not going to show up as the new kids on the block and insist on respect from everyone else. Not how it works.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

IMO, the Navy doesn't want to throw a bunch of URL officers, in whom they've invested a significant amount of resources to train, into a start-up community whose future career path is, at present, undefined. This new CWO community will be Guiney Pigs as the community matures. Frankly, we'll be giving a bunch of enlisted dudes an opportunity to do something cool and different, but from a career POV, they're more "expendable" than a URL guy.

Let's face reality - unmanned are not going to be viewed as equals to manned platforms - probably never, but particularly not in the short term. For perspective, the Growler, which has been in the fleet for about 10 years, is just now attaining parity with the Strike Fighter community in it's various roles and capabilities in the minds of operational commanders. It has taken us that long to establish credibility and demonstrate the value of our capabilities. Unmanned will go through a similar process. You're not going to show up as the new kids on the block and insist on respect from everyone else. Not how it works.

Do you feel this program could go the way of the flying CWO?

Any thoughts on why this couldn't be a program that enlisted could do?

 

[wink]

IMO, the Navy doesn't want to throw a bunch of URL officers, in whom they've invested a significant amount of resources to train, into a start-up community whose future career path is, at present, undefined. This new CWO community will be Guiney Pigs as the community matures. Frankly, we'll be giving a bunch of enlisted dudes an opportunity to do something cool and different, but from a career POV, they're more "expendable" than a URL guy.

Let's face reality - unmanned are not going to be viewed as equals to manned platforms - probably never, but particularly not in the short term. For perspective, the Growler, which has been in the fleet for about 10 years, is just now attaining parity with the Strike Fighter community in it's various roles and capabilities in the minds of operational commanders. It has taken us that long to establish credibility and demonstrate the value of our capabilities. Unmanned will go through a similar process. You're not going to show up as the new kids on the block and insist on respect from everyone else. Not how it works.

That is what I experienced in the early 80s in VS. The S-3 came along with the integrated air wing of the CV concept. The mission, the aircraft and lots of the crews were new to the CVW. Even in 1979 some cat 1s included S-2, C-1, and P-3. Most all leadership, by necessity was from outside the S-3 community. I saw DHs or skippers from A-7s, A-4s, Viggies, S-2s and P-3s. We were not just integrating a new plane, but a mission the CVW was ignorant and sometimes disdainful of. Credibility was hard fought, especially where there was some capability overlap. The MQ-25 and AVO community will experience the same.

 

[IKE]

That is what I experienced in the early 80s in VS. The S-3 came along with the integrated air wing of the CV concept. The mission, the aircraft and lots of the crews were new to the CVW. Even in 1979 some cat 1s included S-2, C-1, and P-3. Most all leadership, by necessity was from outside the S-3 community. I saw DHs or skippers from A-7s, A-4s, Viggies, S-2s and P-3s. We were not just integrating a new plane, but a mission the CVW was ignorant and sometimes disdainful of. Credibility was hard fought, especially where there was some capability overlap. The MQ-25 and AVO community will experience the same.

HSM has had the same experience over the last decade.

My question is aren't we dooming the UAS communities to a harder, if not impossible, fight by manning them with people lower in rank than ensigns with no career path to a CWC role?

This strikes me as an expedient decision, based on the ease of expanding the number of WOs vice URL accessions and the reduced cost.

 

[HSMPBR]

HSM has had the same experience over the last decade.

My question is aren't we dooming the UAS communities to a harder, if not impossible, fight by manning them with people lower in rank than ensigns with no career path to a CWC role?

This strikes me as an expedient decision, based on the ease of expanding the number of WOs vice URL accessions and the reduced cost.

Maybe we’re just establishing precedent to get WOs to stand SDO with the pilots.

 

[alwyn2nd]

I never saw mentioned the educational requirements for attending Navy OCS for AVOs. Since there will be street to seat AVO applicants, is the 4 year degree REQUIRED for a future Naval Warrant Officer? Is the 4 year degree required for ANY Navy Warrant Officer career field?

 

[Hair Warrior]

MyNavyHR

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I never saw mentioned the educational requirements for attending Navy OCS for AVOs. Since there will be street to seat AVO applicants, is the 4 year degree REQUIRED for a future Naval Warrant Officer? Is the 4 year degree required for ANY Navy Warrant Officer career field?

Given how the article says these will be younger than the current aviators to me it implies that they might just be looking at HS degree.

 

[Brett327]

They'll definitely need a degree in four years when PERS kills the CWO program and they either have to fleet up as a URL or revert to their previous enlisted paygrade.

 

[Griz882]

HSM has had the same experience over the last decade.

My question is aren't we dooming the UAS communities to a harder, if not impossible, fight by manning them with people lower in rank than ensigns with no career path to a CWC role?

This strikes me as an expedient decision, based on the ease of expanding the number of WOs vice URL accessions and the reduced cost.

But why wouldn’t they have a career path to a CWC role? Army warrant aviators absolutely play a role on major combat command planning staffs. This is why the CW5 rank was created. It is also why the army created a WO professional education system. Each warrant officer occupational specialty receives branch-designed technical training and education across the learning continuum to support their specified duties and responsibilities at the tactical, operational, and strategic level. The only reason they wouldn’t have a career path is if the navy denies them one,

 

[robav8r]

You and I both know that it isn't that simple. Having the pilots cap out initially at CWO 100% speaks to the capability expected out of leadership, as well as the credibility that Big Navy wants out of this community.

The Navy doesn't want a legitimate, professional, standalone, warfighting, combat capable UAS community that can think, plan, fight, and lead itself on the battlefield. They probably realize that they lag behind every other service, but are too proud to make the right decision.

The Navy wants an HR solution, not a strategic, warfighter based one.