Flying Warrant: A success or failure?

[helolumpy]

My understanding was that HSC-84 and 85 were using FTS folks to make that happen. An instructor here got picked up for it.

HSC-84 has had some AC folks assigned there due to numbers and quals. They were filling the holes that were being created by the SELRES hitting the I-Tempo walls. Rather than making a whole bunch of FTS to fill the gap, Big Navy decided to roll in some AC folks (in lieu of disassociated or OP-T DH) to make up the shortfall.

HSC-85 is dropping the San Clemente/Bambi Bucket mission and going to the same ROC/POE as 84.

Having a squadron on each coast dedicated towards the NSW support mission.... why didn't the Navy think of that before????
Oh wait they did and they decomm'd one of those squadrons!!

 

[bert]

You can't directly compare 84/85 and TF 160. The funding/manning/commitment of senior leadership is different by orders of magnitude.

The Navy's WO program might have been able to achieve it's goals if Big Navy had made a large enough commitment to it, but the force shaping picture has already change so the somewhat half-assed effort underway isn't going to affect anything.

 

[helolumpy]

You can't directly compare 84/85 and TF 160. The funding/manning/commitment of senior leadership is different by orders of magnitude.

If the Navy is serious about providing NSW dedicated aviation capability then they will need pilots with lots of hours doing that mission. The CWO program offers the ability to have pilots attain those hours. That was my point.

 

[H60Gunner]

HSC-85 is dropping the San Clemente/Bambi Bucket mission and going to the same ROC/POE as 84. Having a squadron on each coast dedicated towards the NSW support mission.... why didn't the Navy think of that before???? Oh wait they did and they decomm'd one of those squadrons!!

Why not have all HSC (or what ever is HS now) squadrons train to that mission? And not depend on two reserve squadrons? Seemed to be going that way when I left the community.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The Navy's never been big on the FWO program, that much was obvious. I'm not exactly sure why that's so, but it's easy to know the difference in smell and plumage between a program that has money and patronage and one that doesn't. FWO does not.

My theory is it's lingering bad memories of the Flying LDO program. Admiral Starling sold the FWO program on the screening argument - that it would reduce competition for DH-XO-CO in helo VP, VQ - which is why the Warrants can only go there. But Big Navy is obviously not sold on the idea, which is why it's still a 'test' program...easier to shut it down, should they so decide.

I was at NASC when the first ones came rolling through, and our collective judgment was that they performed about on par with any of the O-1E's with the same amount of prior time. Which is to say, generally not so good. When you've been in the Fleet for 8-10 years, you're used to little academic work, more exercising leadership and less 'shut up and color', you've got family responsibilities, etc etc. They tended to treat the Program as just another Navy school, not the 'balls-deep in the books, study/fly/eat/sleep/repeat and you'll see the family in two years' attitude you need.

This is not universal; there were quite a few FWO's who diligently worked their assess off and I'm sure are doing great out in gray airplanes now. And I agree that they're taking so few FWO's in that it's impossible to get a scientific sampling. But my own thought is that they need to shift their aim and take in younger petty officers, not the first classes they're going for now. If the Army can do this with 18-year-olds straight out of Boot, then I don't see why you can't take a kid with a crow, warfare pin, kickass evals and ASTB scores, and make a pilot of him. I'd much rather try and work with a 20-year-old with no family baggage and who isn't used to running a shop.

Incidentally, the Associate's requirement is silly, and it's putting off a lot of otherwise good candidates. Unless we want to pretend that getting an AA ten years ago somehow academically prepares you for the rigors of the Program.

 

[wlawr005]

Why not have all HSC (or what ever is HS now) squadrons train to that mission? And not depend on two reserve squadrons? Seemed to be going that way when I left the community.

They tried/are trying, but it's tough to be proficient in the 700 syllabi it requires to fly around at night these days and still maintain the currency requirements you need to go VERTREP for 7 months on USNS NON-TACTICAL.

Basically, we have ended up learning to play 160th at the expense of teaching JO's how to land on the boat, a mission that we actually do on a daily basis.

 

[ChunksJR]

...still maintain the currency requirements you need to go VERTREP for 7 months on USNS NON-TACTICAL.

YES! This is all we ever need to do. Screw the 700 syllabus.

 

[bobbybrock]

As an former active Army CWO I have an little insight on the Army side. My data is a little dated since I went through the program in the early ninties. In the days before the switch over ,Warrants went through flight training as W.O.C.'s. The syllabus was very structured and you bascially knew when to and what to study. The day was, and I believe still is divided into academics and flight line. I hate to use the the words "spoon feed" but that is how things basically worked. Pretty much 80 of the course was rote memorization.
In 92-93 Warrant started to go through as WO1's rather than W.O.C.'s but the syllabus remaind the same. The only difference was that Warrants could go home and study rather than worry about rolling their socks and underware to a perfect six inches.
This was a big culture change for the program. Our attrition rate was about the standard D.O.D 15% at the time. That included both CWO's and RLO's( Real Live Officers).
I remember flying into Florala a few years ago and talking to one of the HT IP's and asking him about how they did business. It sounded like the Navy program was more "big rules" when it came to academics.
The Army also used WOCS to weed out the weak links. Most of the turds never made it to the flight line. The Army also has a trend to take prospective pilots from certain communities. Chances are the next time you fly in an Army aircraft one of the pilots is going to have a Ranger or SF Tab. Aviation also sends a lot of its crewmembers as well.
My two cents.

 

[robav8r]

My theory is it's lingering bad memories of the Flying LDO program. Admiral Starling sold the FWO program on the screening argument - that it would reduce competition for DH-XO-CO in helo VP, VQ - which is why the Warrants can only go there. But Big Navy is obviously not sold on the idea, which is why it's still a 'test' program...easier to shut it down, should they so decide.

I was in the first Flying LDO to NFO class (all pre-screened for VP). The first group that was picked had some impressive credentials (them, not me . I think I'm the only one still on active duty from that first group, mainly (I think) because I was able to convert to 1320. That first group all did extremely well, qualifying up to Instructor TACCO/Mission COmmander and teaching at VP-30. Because of the communities unwillingness to let them serve as Departmnet Heads, they were forced to either go back to their original duties as an LDO, retire or find some other job within the Navy to do. After all that hard work and achievement, none of those options seemed palatable and most now have retired. What made the program work? A good screening process of LDO's who had stellar performance records. What made it fail? LDO's not taking API/VT-4/10 seriously, lack of leadership opportunity commensurate with rank, not enough applicants. I remember one of the reasons for the program was to inject some ASW "experience" back into VP squadrons with the demise of said experience following the cold war. Personally, I enjoyed it and have managed to scrape together a decent career so far. I know of one other LDO who converted to 1320 and is in his DH tour in Jax.

As for the Flying CWO program - I am not overly impressed with the individual that came to my squadron while I was a DH. He was a little anti-social, had multiple problems upgrading and, perhaps the worst in my opinion, will not go back to a production job following his sea tour because he'll be retirement eligible - as a CWO3 I might add !!! Taking E-5/6's and "giving" them the rank of CWO2 does a tremendous disservice to our CPO's that had to earn that rank. CWO1 maybe, but not CWO2. I know there are success stories out there just like in the LDO to NFO program, but if they're truly benefitting the communities to which they're assigned, I don't know.

Keeping the academic & flight performance standards high, treating officers like warfighters and doing away with the almost ridiculous level of diversity/political correctness/cost saving measures will, in my opinion, ensure we continue to keep Naval Aviation the best for our future !!!

 

[Uncle Fester]

As for the Flying CWO program - I am not overly impressed with the individual that came to my squadron while I was a DH....he'll be retirement eligible - as a CWO3 I might add !!! Taking E-5/6's and "giving" them the rank of CWO2 does a tremendous disservice to our CPO's that had to earn that rank. CWO1 maybe, but not CWO2.

Well said, and that right that there summarizes the problems we're seeing with CWO as it exists.
1) Not taking in enough candidates to really judge whether your 'test program' is a good idea. "We got CWO Bob in HSC-X, and he was an asshole" is valid enough as far as CWO Bob is concerned, but does that mean the FWO program is working or not?
2) Candidates are too old. Keeping a guy in the cockpit for a career is a great idea, but if he's coming in with 10 years, he'll be ready to retire after his first shore tour. This in addition to the aforementioned attitude/distractions issue during flight school. Why not find hard-charging 20-year-old AW3s instead?
3) Difference between FWO's and 'real' warrants. Making them instant CWO2's is the only complaint I've heard from the salty-dog Warrants out there. Why not revive WO1 (or even WOC) and keep the FWO's there until they've winged?

 

[robav8r]

2) Candidates are too old. Keeping a guy in the cockpit for a career is a great idea, but if he's coming in with 10 years, he'll be ready to retire after his first shore tour. This in addition to the aforementioned attitude/distractions issue during flight school. Why not find hard-charging 20-year-old AW3s instead?

I disagree - a little. I went through flight school and was winged literally months away from my 20th year of service. Others in my group did as well. Quality is quality, and you can do certain things like mandate two sea tours, obligated service, etc to mitigate the risk of losing the "talent" afforded from a Flying Warrant. I REALLY like targeting certain rates and career paths to ensure success through the training track. But, inevitably, PC and diversity will win over creating/selecting the right product for the Fleet. Just my .02c from an "Old Guy."

 

[Pags]

They tried/are trying, but it's tough to be proficient in the 700 syllabi it requires to fly around at night these days and still maintain the currency requirements you need to go VERTREP for 7 months on USNS NON-TACTICAL.

Basically, we have ended up learning to play 160th at the expense of teaching JO's how to land on the boat, a mission that we actually do on a daily basis.

The new SWTP is more "a la carte" than the old one. Now you can get qualled in areas that a det needs and not get qualled in other areas that you're not going to do. It breaks down into areas like SOF, Personnel Recovery, etc.

YES! This is all we ever need to do. Screw the 700 syllabus.

You're headed back into a completely different world than the HSC you left. On that note, is the slate out for you yet?

 

[Flash]

......The Army also used WOCS to weed out the weak links. Most of the turds never made it to the flight line. The Army also has a trend to take prospective pilots from certain communities. Chances are the next time you fly in an Army aircraft one of the pilots is going to have a Ranger or SF Tab. Aviation also sends a lot of its crewmembers as well.
My two cents.

I think this may be a key difference. I went through flight school with some of the first STA-21s who only had to go to OCS before commissioning and not college, college was to be done on their shore tour. While some still had a little bit of a 'holier than though' attitude almost all had largely made the 'adjustment' to being an O by the time they got to API. Most did fine flight school, all but one in my class went VP or VQ by choice interestingly enough, and went on to do well in the fleet. The ECPs who I went through school with were a bit better 'adjusted' to being an O after 3 years of school but there wasn't that much of a difference between the two groups, and both had an average age of about 30 (not too much of a factor, quality people are quality people). So with my small pool of experience with both groups I think that OCS might be a good 'leveler' for the CWOs (and CWO1 too) and a bit more of 'recage' of their attitude if the Navy doesn't want to send them through college too.

 

[helolumpy]

They tried/are trying, but it's tough to be proficient in the 700 syllabi it requires to fly around at night these days and still maintain the currency requirements you need to go VERTREP for 7 months on USNS NON-TACTICAL.

Basically, we have ended up learning to play 160th at the expense of teaching JO's how to land on the boat, a mission that we actually do on a daily basis.

It's much bigger than just the training. Carrier Strike Groups have reluctantly allowed helos to be stationed ashore for prolonged periods.
If you are going to do NSW aviation correctly, then the unit needs to train and deploy with the SEALs, not just be available at Al Udied for 3 weeks.
HS has fought for many years to maintain CSAR/NSW shore dets in various theaters and have always received a lot of pushback. Once ashore, then the JFACC has as much control over you as the CSG/CVW does; the Navy does not like delegating control of its assets to other folks.
When the carrier depart the CVOA for port calls or to go to another AOR, then they will want to pull the dets back and take the helos with them. Once again, no continuity of support for the land based requirements of the SEALs.

Back in the 90's when there was a SEAL platoon on the carrier, then the HS squadron could train and deploy with them; that is no longer possible.

If the Navy is going to do it correctly, the need to dedicate a squadron(s) to the mission. Think of the air ambulance. HS-15 did that mission for 3 (I think) years. They were not tied to a carrier, so they were able to dedicate to that mission.

To provide dedicated support to NSW the helo squadrons need to be land based WITH the SEALS, not just in the same theater.

Once you go over the hurdle of dedicating them to the mission and land-basing them, the training is an easy thing to overcome.

 

[wlawr005]

It's much bigger than just the training. Carrier Strike Groups have reluctantly allowed helos to be stationed ashore for prolonged periods.
If you are going to do NSW aviation correctly, then the unit needs to train and deploy with the SEALs, not just be available at Al Udied for 3 weeks.
HS has fought for many years to maintain CSAR/NSW shore dets in various theaters and have always received a lot of pushback. Once ashore, then the JFACC has as much control over you as the CSG/CVW does; the Navy does not like delegating control of its assets to other folks.
When the carrier depart the CVOA for port calls or to go to another AOR, then they will want to pull the dets back and take the helos with them. Once again, no continuity of support for the land based requirements of the SEALs.

Back in the 90's when there was a SEAL platoon on the carrier, then the HS squadron could train and deploy with them; that is no longer possible.

If the Navy is going to do it correctly, the need to dedicate a squadron(s) to the mission. Think of the air ambulance. HS-15 did that mission for 3 (I think) years. They were not tied to a carrier, so they were able to dedicate to that mission.

To provide dedicated support to NSW the helo squadrons need to be land based WITH the SEALS, not just in the same theater.

Once you go over the hurdle of dedicating them to the mission and land-basing them, the training is an easy thing to overcome.

Agreed...

The HSC(exp) guys were trying to initiate that sort of work-up scenario with the local NSW teams, but they still had to maintain dets able to deploy on USNS ships and the ESG. Hard to justify all the work that goes into preparing for a HARP when 4 of your 5 DETS are VERTREP/SAR support.