• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Why are you Leaving?

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
Mind you I say this as someone who long ago lost interest in most of the practiced tactics...



...but this seems to be something you're seeing within HSC land. HSL and then HSM has continued to embrace and push it's tactical capabilities (granted, sometimes to an annoying level). This isn't meant as a dig on HSC land, just something I've been observing for the last 14+ years. My point is that I wouldn't say "the helo community as a whole," as that's just not what I've been seeing on both coasts and through multiple tours.

Now, actually executing many of the missions practiced? Yeah, I'm with you. Something I've complained about for a very long time.

Eh, I would say it's an HSM/HSL issue also from what I've seen. We push tactical capability in my squadron pretty heavily (not necessarily uniformly across the community though).

I think the latter is something that CANNOT be overstated. Not actually executing the missions = tactical retards who think they know everything when they really don't have the first clue because they've never done it. So you're telling me a JO who did nothing actual but vertrep and plane guard during their first tour and then get orders to NSAWC and get their SWTI patch is now an ASUW, SOF, CSAR badass/SME? I'm gonna go ahead and have my doubts.
 

Flying Low

Yea sure or Yes Sir?
pilot
Contributor
E. So you're telling me a JO who did nothing actual but vertrep and plane guard during their first tour and then get orders to NSAWC and get their SWTI patch is now an ASUW, SOF, CSAR badass/SME? I'm gonna go ahead and have my doubts.

Anyone with the SWTI patch thinks they are badass. The larping is pretty severe with those guys. They get a few months of training and are now the SME on all things tactical. I have sat in HARP ground school and listen to these guys talk about ship transits and how the ship defends itself. I was big deck OOD, etc qualled and these SME's were way off and I told them so. I mean basic stuff, How the bridge is communicating with the guns mounts, # of people on the gun mount, etc. All the weapons school does is read me powerpoints and then grade me on check rides. They do some flights on an as needed basis for each squadron but you can go through the whole syllabus and never fly with a SWTI except for a checkride.

But as a community we act like they are the badass and now on the golden path. We also send mixed signals to the community. Weapons school is an OP-T CO billet but the JO's are on the path. No DH's at the weapons school which is also a problem IMO. Another issue is they are completely unrealistic. I'm pretty sure we are not sending 2 helos from an HSC squadron to put BOT overland or attack tanks. There are just to many other/better platforms for that. Why mandate that I can't have my scenario no more than 48 hours prior. Yes I understand that you might get tasked for a mission on short notice but to be real the whole squadron would be involved in the planning as well as some intel types. Not one JO working all of the planning because the scenario came in at 1700 on tuesday for the 1700 brief on Thursday. Other JO's help out but there is still a flight schedule and other LVL 3 flights going on. Don't even get me started on why I need another LVL 3 qual as a DH when I will no longer deploy unless I screen for command.

90% of the flights I did prior to deploying were tactics. 90% of flights during the deployment were PMC. This was just my experience. I would actually like to know what other HSC types would say their % of tactics flights are prior and during deployments.
 

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
90% of the flights I did prior to deploying were tactics. 90% of flights during the deployment were PMC. This was just my experience. I would actually like to know what other HSC types would say their % of tactics flights are prior and during deployments.

Your post is dead on. 95% of our flights around the boat were plane guard or log runs even though we logged them as SSC/SCAR (which wasn't completely bogus but pretty much consisted of us going "yep...that group 3 is still group 3 and it's still going like 5knots towards 'who the fuck cares'-ville". We did do a fair share of roping and rappelling the EOD guys and Army guys (almost weekly occurrence) but it was mostly on a 'hurry up and get it done between cycles' mindset.
 

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
There's a part that you aren't mentioning, and it's that the SOF units may not trust the helo assets in real world missions. They'll train all day long back on the beach but there's a rapport that just isn't there with the run of the mill CVN squadron that can make SOF guys hesitant when bullets start flying.

It's the ultimate catch-22 because it's difficult to get that experience because CAG/etc doesn't know or doesn't trust the helos to do the stuff to get the experience and without the experience it's tough to get the trust of the SOF units.

Well they better get used to using the 'run of the mill CVN squadron' or whatever because 84 and 85 are supposed to be going away pretty soon.

Yeah that catch-22 is EXTREMELY aggravating. How am I supposed to build a rapport with a SOF unit or the grunts (which is, let's face it, where helos really should be working) if Dad won't ever let me fly them around.
 

RHINOWSO

"Yeah, we are going to need to see that one again"
None
Yeah, I got the organizational relationships. From some of the anecdotes it just seemed that The CAGs in the stories were far more involved in the execution of the airplan with things like how to recover, when to tank, etc than I would imagine based on my experiences as a Mini on an LHD. But maybe it's just an apples to oranges thing.
Night, bad Case III CAG / DCAG always seemed to be in CATCC to assist with decision making - Case I/ II not so much.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Eh, I would say it's an HSM/HSL issue also from what I've seen. We push tactical capability in my squadron pretty heavily (not necessarily uniformly across the community though).

I would caution equating JO enthusiasm (or lack thereof) about tactics with community interest. And trust me, even as an O-4/DH, I was right there with you rolling my eyes. But based on discussions here and talking with folks over on the HSC side, I'd argue the HSM community has embraced tactics for some time. The individuals may just not be happy about it.

I think the latter is something that CANNOT be overstated. Not actually executing the missions = tactical retards who think they know everything when they really don't have the first clue because they've never done it. So you're telling me a JO who did nothing actual but vertrep and plane guard during their first tour and then get orders to NSAWC and get their SWTI patch is now an ASUW, SOF, CSAR badass/SME? I'm gonna go ahead and have my doubts.

This just continues to remind me where the HSL community was 10-12 years ago. And one of many reasons why I was eager to leave it...and did (kinda, sorta).
 

RHINOWSO

"Yeah, we are going to need to see that one again"
None
Well they better get used to using the 'run of the mill CVN squadron' or whatever because 84 and 85 are supposed to be going away pretty soon.

Yeah that catch-22 is EXTREMELY aggravating. How am I supposed to build a rapport with a SOF unit or the grunts (which is, let's face it, where helos really should be working) if Dad won't ever let me fly them around.
I work in proximity to SOF and see their operations in CONUS with RW entities.

I imagine its hard to compete with a cadre of seasoned warrants who have nothing but time working with SOF.

Of course that gets to the roots of how Naval Aviation operates, fosters excellence in the aircraft (or not), and develops careers vs other RW entities in the DOD.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Night, bad Case III CAG / DCAG always seemed to be in CATCC to assist with decision making - Case I/ II not so much.
I don't remember that being the case during my deployments in the early 80s. Back then Air Ops was in CATC making tough calls during night/case III. I was in CATC after an A-7 ramp strike at night with a pitching deck. Guy got one more ugly pass and then the debate was barricade or let him try the tanker and send him to the beach. It was a long haul as we were blue water. Air Ops made the final call.
 

squorch2

he will die without safety brief
pilot
Some food for thought regarding pointy-nosed CAGs: As Papa, CAG also calls the shots for Tomahawks, yet is not a SWO. :boggle:
 

samguitar

Flying a desk.
pilot
As a JO in HSL, I also thought that the community didn't care about tactics. They sincerely wanted to care, but they couldn't. Getting officers promoted is where the rubber hits the road, and trying to reform the community back into tactical relevance was not high enough on the priority list to get one promoted. So the community then tried to shift its values by exalting the SWTI/NSAWC billets above all else. But that's just another bureaucratic move which encourages a certain check in the box in order to reach the top. What good is being a SWTI at the center of tactical excellence if that center is short on true acumen? Now, why do they lack credibility? No one can help the fact that our community doesn't exactly have a red phone linked to the oval office. But you can still have a quality set of tactics based on sound theories that are practiced and refined as you BUM-DA-DA DUUUMMMMM (drum roll, please!)....are willing to truly learn, fail, and critique. But our tactics centers of excellence, our "universities" if you will, don't have that. They are grooming shops dedicated to the achievement of preset milestones with ZERO failures to look good on FITREPs. The guidance I received from higher ups on my missile shot had been, and I quote, "Don't f- this up." Just hit the target. What it ought to be is something along the lines of, "Use this precious resource as an opportunity to simulate a real-world strike so we can all learn more about what in our tactical procedures works and what doesn't. I don't care as much about whether or not you hit the target as I do about (a) a challenging scenario, (b) your most realistic best effort response to that scenario, and (c) an insightful after-action analysis." When we're willing to fail in training, share what we learned publicly, and promote the guys who can demonstrate bona fide progress which builds upon those insights, we'll be on the right track.
 

RHINOWSO

"Yeah, we are going to need to see that one again"
None
I don't remember that being the case during my deployments in the early 80s. Back then Air Ops was in CATC making tough calls during night/case III. I was in CATC after an A-7 ramp strike at night with a pitching deck. Guy got one more ugly pass and then the debate was barricade or let him try the tanker and send him to the beach. It was a long haul as we were blue water. Air Ops made the final call.
Well that's how it ran on the Airwings and deployments I've seen the past 15 years - maybe its just more evidence of the micromanaging that goes on. CATC ran things but definitely deferred to CAG / DCAG - later in deployment you might see the CAG Duty officer (aka, the sqd XO/CO of the day) calling the shots, but for a no shit emergency that you describe like major issues landing / tanking / barricade, no way CAG wasn't having ALOT of input to that evolution.
 

RHINOWSO

"Yeah, we are going to need to see that one again"
None
Maybe because s/he's the Strike Warfare Commander?
Yeah and maybe sending flying things that blow up through the air (TLAM) is kinda similar to sending other flying things through the air that blow things up instead of blow up (CVN VFA assets).

Yes, there is lots of planning involved (hence the poor sap on a disassociated sea tour running the TLAM magic), but at the end it's still putting a weapon on a target, something CAGs are supposed to be good at, or know something about...
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
Some food for thought regarding pointy-nosed CAGs: As Papa, CAG also calls the shots for Tomahawks, yet is not a SWO. :boggle:

You're thinking operational level C2, not tactical.

CAG has C2 of Tomahawk because SWOs don't know nearly as much about sending ordnance deep into "Country X" as a TACAIR guy. Doesn't mean CAG would know shit behind the curtain on the DDG doing the actual TLAM mission planning. The corollary are the examples of Whiskey (SWO Cruiser CO) and Zulu (SWO Desron Cdre). "W" owns the DCA, commits them to intercepts, etc, but you don't want that guy telling you what tactic to employ at the merge or which weapon to select. "Z" owns the HSM guys in pretty much any tactical mission they do, but he wouldn't tell them how to lay brickwork or what altitude to fly at for SSC.

To take it a step further in the context of this thread, you'll never see a career amphib SWO as CO of a cruiser or DESRON. Is that apples/oranges to the CAG discussion? I don't know.
 
Top