First Shore Tour to NPS

[Flash]

I'm not sure what benefit variety of background really brings to a squadron, where there isn't a lot of opportunity to exercise creativity. We're there, more or less, to operate a platform IAW a set of established procedures. It's not as though people are formulating policy or engaged in grand strategery. I think you may be overstating the value that NPS/Olmstead or even JPME would bring to an operational squadron. Personally (all else being equal), I would much rather have DHs who had maximized their time in the cockpit.

I think a fresh perspective from someone who has done something other than the very small standard set of tours, especially from someone who is apparently competent enough to get selected for a pretty competitive program, would definitely be of benefit to a squadron. Why do I think that? Personal experience from my first tour with EP-3's, where we had folks with a very wide variety of experiences in and out of the cockpit that helped us not only operationally but also with the professional development of the wardroom.

 

[Brett327]

I think a fresh perspective from someone who has done something other than the very small standard set of tours, especially from someone who is apparently competent enough to get selected for a pretty competitive program, would definitely be of benefit to a squadron. Why do I think that? Personal experience from my first tour with EP-3's, where we had folks with a very wide variety of experiences in and out of the cockpit that helped us not only operationally but also with the professional development of the wardroom.

I would ask... fresh perspective - to what end? Fresh perspective on NATOPS? Tactics? Being a professional aviator? No thanks. I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think a DH with an esoteric graduate degree brings that much to the fight. Now, in a staff scenario, where diversity of thought is essential, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

 

[Flash]

I would ask... fresh perspective - to what end? Fresh perspective on NATOPS? Tactics? Being a professional aviator? No thanks. I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think a DH with an esoteric graduate degree brings that much to the fight. Now, in a staff scenario, where diversity of thought is essential, I'm 100% in agreement with you.

A bigger perspective on ops was one, where we fit in the bigger picture was very helpful in how we fit into things like the fight on the ground or over land with fokks who had worked with other services or specialties. I Am not talking specifically about fellowship programs but joint tours or other things outside the mainstream, or only stream apparently.

And to be brutally frank the best Prowler DH's I had usually had less flight time than the ones who weren't as good, more flight time didn't always correlate to better tacticians or experts. But we wouldn't know that nowadays since the path there is so narrow.

It lends to a larger concern I have, where ducks only pick ducks as someone mentioned earlier and you don't get the same 'diversity' (the internal and not the external kind) as those folks move beyond their DH and CO tours. Folks who don't fit the norm and try to do bigger and better things earlier in their career when they can and before the path to the stars becomes even more narrow. Then we wouldn't have had innovative folks like Lt Gen McMaster who even as a relatively junior commander in Iraq made an outsized impact by doing things differently and getting to right when so many other got it wrong. I think it is telling that probably the most notables strategic thinker to come out of the Navy recently was a SWO who got his PhD as a senior LT.

We can't just think about what is good your squadron but what is good for the Navy and military as a whole. Developing bright folks is part of that.

 

[Brett327]

We can't just think about what is good your squadron but what is good for the Navy and military as a whole. Developing bright folks is part of that.

It's not that I don't value the kinds of things you're talking about, but I value them less than experience in the jet. My argument is that those things are of greater impact to the Navy in a post DH or post command tour, not in a tactical unit. Squadrons aren't supposed to be incubators for great strategists, and a CO who places too much emphasis on that probably isn't as focused on the squadron's mission accomplishment as he ought to be. Secondly, I would argue that, on average, people will get more out of those kinds of graduate educational programs the more senior and experienced they are.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I think that's a huge problem. The senior guys, especially the DHs, have a responsibility to train the younger guys in tactics as well as officership. A single training officer can only do so much and additionally having multiple instructors brings variety of techniques in the aircraft that the nugget can learn from.

The best learning I had when I was a new guy was from a DH that had been in the cockpit of a gray aircraft the entire time, and he wasn't a SWTI. He just knew the nuances and bits of the aircraft that even the best of SWTIs weren't able to teach.

The worst DH to fly with was a guy who was a non armed helo JO, non flying shore and disassociated. He was a great guy but his stick skills were mediocre at best.

And that's why some semblance of diversity is beneficial as far as DH tours goes. Like it or not, big Naval Aviation has decided that doing a flying tour as a JO tour is what's valuable, but how that gets implemented is irregular. We've all seen that RAG guys get highest percentage of selection year after year. I can't speak to other communities, but as far as VP goes, VP-30 is not the center of tactics for my community. Not necessarily a knock on them, just fact. Conversely, I'm doing the ARP thing at the WTU and my job is to be immersed in tactics and updating AOR training issues, etc. Especially with P-8 and it's constantly changing systems knowledge (as far as the community discovering new things about the plane) people in my shoes are constantly swimming upstream to keep abreast of what's new and how it impacts the operator. We don't live it day to day like our VP-30 counterparts, but I bet they couldn't tell you the latest and greatest on how to employ certain TTPs in different AORs and how to apply that to squadron training like I could. Moral of the story- it takes all kinds to make a squadron go round and if you favor one type of people who did one type of shore duty over the other, it's not good.

 

[Spekkio]

It's not that I don't value the kinds of things you're talking about, but I value them less than experience in the jet. My argument is that those things are of greater impact to the Navy in a post DH or post command tour, not in a tactical unit. Squadrons aren't supposed to be incubators for great strategists, and a CO who places too much emphasis on that probably isn't as focused on the squadron's mission accomplishment as he ought to be. Secondly, I would argue that, on average, people will get more out of those kinds of graduate educational programs the more senior and experienced they are.

A couple of things:

1) Don't underestimate the ability for a leader to communicate the 'big picture' to his subordinates. It makes the suck a tad more bearable if you have a good explanation for why things are done a certain way and can get the buy-in of subordinates. Not a 'must have' in an environment where legally people have to do what you tell them, but it certainly helps get the most out of them.

2) I would agree that JPME is more valuable when taken closer to when you'll have to use it, but JOs are significantly more likely to be retained if they have or can earn a master's degree.

 

[Brett327]

A couple of things:

1) Don't underestimate the ability for a leader to communicate the 'big picture' to his subordinates.

But that doesn't require a degree from NPS, which is essentially the point I've been making.

 

[Spekkio]

Where else is an officer going to come in contact with officers from other communities and services in an analytical setting?

If I had done an instructor tour I'd know fuckall about helo, P-3, and P-8 ASW tactics and capabilities. If we're doing something then a conpetent enemy is probably doing it too. That makes me a better submariner, and a CO who has been a career boomer guy might not be up to speed on that stuff.

And the door swings both ways in this regard.

 

[Brett327]

I'm not following. My sense is that most people at NPS aren't having in depth discussions on tactics, and they certainly aren't if they're on an Olmsted scholarship.

 

[insanebikerboy]

And that's why some semblance of diversity is beneficial as far as DH tours goes. Like it or not, big Naval Aviation has decided that doing a flying tour as a JO tour is what's valuable, but how that gets implemented is irregular. We've all seen that RAG guys get highest percentage of selection year after year. I can't speak to other communities, but as far as VP goes, VP-30 is not the center of tactics for my community. Not necessarily a knock on them, just fact. Conversely, I'm doing the ARP thing at the WTU and my job is to be immersed in tactics and updating AOR training issues, etc. Especially with P-8 and it's constantly changing systems knowledge (as far as the community discovering new things about the plane) people in my shoes are constantly swimming upstream to keep abreast of what's new and how it impacts the operator. We don't live it day to day like our VP-30 counterparts, but I bet they couldn't tell you the latest and greatest on how to employ certain TTPs in different AORs and how to apply that to squadron training like I could. Moral of the story- it takes all kinds to make a squadron go round and if you favor one type of people who did one type of shore duty over the other, it's not good.

You missed my point, and I think we are comparing apples to oranges. You are a two anchor type that runs a lot of sensors and I would hazard to guess that you can get a lot of training done that doesn't involve actually flying in the aircraft, aka, a sim.

In helo land, and I don't care what anyone says, being a good stick will only make adapting to changing tactics better and easier. Being a good stick isn't a substitute for actually studying tactics, but there's a reason that the west coast helo commodore is mandating that the west coast weapons school guys get more flight hours. Reason being? They've been spending all their time studying tactics and have balled up a a few helos when they go fly (or have come pretty dang close).

 

[insanebikerboy]

I'm not following. My sense is that most people at NPS aren't having in depth discussions on tactics, and they certainly aren't if they're on an Olmsted scholarship.

I'll use myself as an anecodotal example of what point I think you're making.

I went to NPS directly following my time at the Academy. I got my masters and it was a great educational experience but in the 9.5 years since I haven't had a need to optimize delivery schedules or minimize the cost of production processes for the Navy, etc, etc. What I have had to do during those years is learn how to be a good pilot and tactician.

Fast forward two years when I will probably go to a staff (shudder), I'm pretty sure I'll use my degree is some form. Until then, it just adds to various bull shitting sessions in the wardroom.

What I can honestly say I wish I had previously was JPME. I've learned more about command relationships and joint operations than any of my DHs ever taught me. That would have actually be pretty useful as I've deployed, especially over the past few years when I've deployed mainly to places that's just Army and some Marines. Now that I'm in a DH billet that's what I've tried to get across to guys junior to me, not how to make sure to unfuck some process flow.

 

[Flash]

It's not that I don't value the kinds of things you're talking about, but I value them less than experience in the jet. My argument is that those things are of greater impact to the Navy in a post DH or post command tour, not in a tactical unit. Squadrons aren't supposed to be incubators for great strategists, and a CO who places too much emphasis on that probably isn't as focused on the squadron's mission accomplishment as he ought to be. Secondly, I would argue that, on average, people will get more out of those kinds of graduate educational programs the more senior and experienced they are.

But that doesn't require a degree from NPS, which is essentially the point I've been making.

Part of the problem is that the first shore tour is one of the few places you can shoehorn something outside the norm, later in your career those opportunities present themselves less and less if you stay on the command track. And I am not just talking about fellowships or grad school but joint tours or something else outside just going to the RAG. Exposure to things outside the norm brings in a fresh perspective, even on tactics, but also abou tthe larger military and where your community fits in.

My concern remains the same, if we dip only into the same well for folks we could end up stifling some intellectual innovation even at the more junior levels. The Army's path to command has been much the same and it ended up with a lot of unit leaders trying the same thing expecting different results over and over again, until a few folks who had followed a different path came in and shook things up. I saw it myself in VQ, where the VP-30 'mafia' belittled anything outside what they thought was best for the community and steamrolled anyone who thought otherwise.

Naval Aviation thrived for decades filled with leaders who often took the path less traveled, I think a more narrow path to command will stifle some of the bigger and broader thinking that we have historically been known for.

 

[Brett327]

Well, we're going to have to chalk this up to a philosophical difference. I'm just not convinced that someone requires an off track experience during their first shore tour in order to be a strategic thinker down the road.

Next caller...

 

[ea6bflyr]

Well, we're going to have to chalk this up to a philosophical difference. I'm just not convinced that someone requires an off track experience during their first shore tour in order to be a strategic thinker down the road.

Next caller...

Agreed.
Ducks pick ducks.

Flash, you've made Pags point.

 

[Spekkio]

I'll use myself as an anecodotal example of what point I think you're making.

I would venture to say that pre-JO is probably too soon to get something out of military graduate education, simply because you lacked a baseline level of knowledge in tactics and 'doing business.' But I can counter your anecdote with one of my own: One of our DHs did a spreadsheet optimization of SSN positioning in a CSG. Used that knowledge in his tour not only for tactically positioning the ship but also to automate generating the mission report and save hundreds of wardroom man-hours.