• 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

USAF Enlisted Pilots, The Right Stuff, Stolen Bikes, AIC, and SWO pipe dreams.

sevenhelmet said:
What we haven't been doing is husbanding our resources, in terms of keeping corporate knowledge in the cockpit. I'd personally love to see a track-based approach that allowed people a choice to stay in the cockpit post-DH, instead of the "thou shalt go to a staff and then either command or a non-command, non-flying sea tour" mindset. This has been brought up plenty, so I won't belabor the point, but we effectively throw away a lot of resumes that include some very expensive and arguably irreplaceable knowledge.

Do you also need that knowledge on a staff? Arguably yes, but also arguably not in the numbers we currently send to various staffs. I think there is some trade space there for keeping guys in the cockpit and in the community past DH and outside of a command tour.
Click to expand...
Great post. In a sense, we already have this, albeit in a limited capacity, with FTS and other flavors of the reserve component. The VAQ RAG has always had a cadre of instructors that have remained in the cockpit their whole careers. I presume other communities have similar arrangements. Similarly, the reserve VAQ squadron has a bunch of full time guys who, more or less, stay in that squadron in perpetuity, deploy occasionally, etc. So, there is on outlet for such things under the current construct.
 
I find this whole CO needs to be the expert of the experts line of thinking funny. Why? What's wrong with having a W-5 that has WAY more experience in the aircraft than the CO? Does that hurt or help the mission? I would argue that it helps the mission, and the squadron way more than having the current system that we have now. Imagine, in any other system where currency is a thing, doing what the Navy did.

Okay you just finished AAA baseball, hey man, we're going to send you to the stand to toss peanuts for a year in a half. I'd really like to you to get to know the business side of the baseball team and then come back in two years. We'll hand you the ball on opening day and see how well you do against the hitters who have been here the past two years. . . Plain and simple, our system is fucked.

Every single pilot could be replaced with a warrant and we would be better, tactically, for it. Figuring out the leadership role would be something you would have to figure out. It doesn't require a college degree to do what we do in the cockpit, anyone who thinks it does is blowing smoke up their own ass, and that of their buddies as they wax poetically about how awesome they are.

People argue that women in the infantry would degrade combat effectiveness because of their overall abilities being less than that of men overall. Yet we continually reduce our effectiveness in the mission with our current policies. The next argument is that it will require change . . . then change it. Tradition is generally a word that's tossed out when there is no other reason to justify what we're doing. I'm not advocating getting rid of every commissioned officer within aviation. I am however, advocating that the WO program is plenty feasible if PERS hadn't gone and screwed it away the first time by not providing a career path for the WOs.
 
Last edited:
sevenhelmet said:
What we haven't been doing is husbanding our resources, in terms of keeping corporate knowledge in the cockpit. I'd personally love to see a track-based approach that allowed people a choice to stay in the cockpit post-DH, instead of the "thou shalt go to a staff and then either command or a non-command, non-flying sea tour" mindset. This has been brought up plenty, so I won't belabor the point, but we effectively throw away a lot of resumes that include some very expensive and arguably irreplaceable knowledge.

Do you also need that knowledge on a staff? Arguably yes, but also arguably not in the numbers we currently send to various staffs. I think there is some trade space there for keeping guys in the cockpit and in the community past DH and outside of a command tour.
Click to expand...
I think one of the things that gets lost in this discussion is what level of expertise we need, forward deployed, based on a current assessment of the threats we face. NPC has a manning plan and promotion system based largely, on a peace time construct. Look at the amazing things our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines did in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and GI. When we focus on the threat, and how to combat it, we do very well and natural selection takes care of promotion, careers and “gosh, how do we man our staffs.” There is a strategic inflection point that is occuring now within DoD. Hopefully NPC will be able to catch up . . .
 
fc2spyguy said:
I find this whole CO needs to be the expert of the experts line of thinking funny. Why? What's wrong with having a W-5 that has WAY more experience in the aircraft than the CO?...Plain and simple, our system is fucked....It doesn't require a college degree to do what we do in the cockpit...Figuring out the leadership role would be something you would have to figure out....
Click to expand...

You kind of want the folks leading an air campaign to be experts at it, you can't get that expertise if you don't have first-hand experience for years. WO's work for the Army but as Gatordev and I already pointed out they operate their aircraft in a completely different way and have a different mindset than anyone else, much more focused but far less 'balanced' as officers overall than aviators in other services. Issues that regular Army officer aviators encounter now would be exacerbated when coupled with the type of flying we usually do in the Navy. It's a completely different kind of flying altogether.

A college degree certainly isn't required to fly, a few members here are great examples of that, but getting a college degree is some concrete proof to the Navy that you are more likely to handle the kind of studying and work needed to succeed in flight school. I believe one of the issues with the FWO's in the Navy was that some of the selectees had a hard time adjusting to the study habits necessary for flight school.

We have the 'leadership role' down pretty good already. You could put pretty much any post-major command (CVW/MAG/Group) strike/fighter/bomber type from the USAF, Navy or Marines in charge of an AOC, but you couldn't do the same with a former Aviation Brigade CO or the most experienced Army CW5.

Finally, where do you get that 'our system is fucked'?! There is always room for improvement as we often debate here but Naval Aviation as a whole does its job pretty well.
 
Flash said:
...

We have the 'leadership role' down pretty good already. You could put pretty much any post-major command (CVW/MAG/Group) strike/fighter/bomber type from the USAF, Navy or Marines in charge of an AOC, but you couldn't do the same with a former Aviation Brigade CO or the most experienced Army CW5.

...
Click to expand...

Regarding an AOC, I don't disagree that is true, but only because the CAB commander is getting zero TACAIR experience. Likewise, you would never put a USAF or Navy officer in charge of a ground task force unless you had no other choice. It's not a leadership issue. It's an experience issue. I hope you realize the Navy isn't the only service that has the leadership role down "pretty good." Nor do they have it down across the board.
 
Brett327 said:
Great post. In a sense, we already have this, albeit in a limited capacity, with FTS and other flavors of the reserve component. The VAQ RAG has always had a cadre of instructors that have remained in the cockpit their whole careers. I presume other communities have similar arrangements. Similarly, the reserve VAQ squadron has a bunch of full time guys who, more or less, stay in that squadron in perpetuity, deploy occasionally, etc. So, there is on outlet for such things under the current construct.
Click to expand...

FTS isn't and doesn't do what you're describing. FTS as a whole suffers the same fate as the AC where the intent is to move people in and then out and up. The focus is more on Reserve Management rather than CO/CAG/etc, but the end result is the same...people coming in to do their DH tours then getting moved on, out of the cockpit (unless they make Operational CO) to do other things.

The SELRES, at least for a well-oiled operational unit, are what you're describing. But they have their own limitations, albeit it can be tempered with a solid plan from the front office and some sort of concrete operational demand signal to keep the momentum going.

It might seem like a minor quibble, but from someone on the inside looking out from what you describe, the two are very different animals.
 
RobLyman said:
Regarding an AOC, I don't disagree that is true, but only because the CAB commander is getting zero TACAIR experience. Likewise, you would never put a USAF or Navy officer in charge of a ground task force unless you had no other choice. It's not a leadership issue. It's an experience issue. I hope you realize the Navy isn't the only service that has the leadership role down "pretty good." Nor do they have it down across the board.
Click to expand...

I'm talking specifically about aviation, not on other components/specialties of the military or general leadership.
 
Gatordev said:
FTS isn't and doesn't do what you're describing. FTS as a whole suffers the same fate as the AC where the intent is to move people in and then out and up. The focus is more on Reserve Management rather than CO/CAG/etc, but the end result is the same...people coming in to do their DH tours then getting moved on, out of the cockpit (unless they make Operational CO) to do other things.

The SELRES, at least for a well-oiled operational unit, are what you're describing. But they have their own limitations, albeit it can be tempered with a solid plan from the front office and some sort of concrete operational demand signal to keep the momentum going.

It might seem like a minor quibble, but from someone on the inside looking out from what you describe, the two are very different animals.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, not up to speed on all the reserve nomenclature. SELRES.
 
Brett327 said:
Great post. In a sense, we already have this, albeit in a limited capacity, with FTS and other flavors of the reserve component. The VAQ RAG has always had a cadre of instructors that have remained in the cockpit their whole careers. I presume other communities have similar arrangements. Similarly, the reserve VAQ squadron has a bunch of full time guys who, more or less, stay in that squadron in perpetuity, deploy occasionally, etc. So, there is on outlet for such things under the current construct.
Click to expand...
But 209 is its own entity. Yes, you have to be more senior to get in the door, and they have their pick of the litter because it's a freaking good deal. But that knowledge base isn't spread out through the community. Also, they only deploy for like 2 months at a time because of being, well, reservists. I get that CNAFR pulls a lot of weight in the training realm, up to and including the FRSes and VFC. But the AC still spends a lot of money on a training treadmill where you train X people, then chuck a good portion of them. Either because of "up or out," or pressure from the airlines. I think what @sevenhelmet is talking about is an ability to keep some of the knowledge base in the fleet, not just in the RAG or in 2-month rotations overseas.
 
Yes, I know what he was saying. I provide this for perspective as one avenue where people can remain a part of a squadron more or less in perpetuity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top