• 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

Disassociated tour for aviators on aircraft carriers/gators

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
I don't think people are being hostile, it's just that your unending litany of questions on esoteric topics is a bit pedantic for most people here.

Perhaps the folks over at Sailor Bob would be more amenable to such things.

Thank you, I'll try there. My questions, of course, can be esoteric, but how do you suppose to strip them from that if we're speaking about such things as etics, relationships and interservice rivalry? If I were aviator, it'd be even more difficult to communicate as a lot more topics would be sensitive, especially in the points where the definite information needs to be revealed, which is impossible from both sides given the strongly classified rules of dissemination. Ok, it seems to me I caught the point. Thanks again.
 
Seems to me if people think it's too esoteric, they don't need to view the thread. I think it's interesting getting a different perspective on our personnel system (both official and unofficial).
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Nobody is suggesting that the thread be closed, just that it's not interesting to most people. Of course, YMMV.
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
My interest initially was simple - as USN is now the sole navy with solid aviation part (in 2012 about 43% grads of USNA went to aviation, both Navy and Marines), it is charming how the aviators - a set of skills very different from traditional naval affairs - can cope with naval matters where aviation background does mean very little, if any. My opinion today is simple as well - while modern naval affairs is mostly about force projection and other influence to shore, and while every USN ship has a crew with certain amount of SWOs aboard, no matter who is in charge of CSGs or other TFs - let me state that even Army General, if he or she is a person who can learn in-job, would be consistent in that role, directing the actions from the bridge of a flagship. When (and if) naval war will return to old questions, SWOs and submariners will be in short supplies, at least initially, and any other navy, which is sticking with more traditional approach, will feel better.
 
Hello guys,

This time a question about SEALs. There are way too many movies now in which the SEAL active or reserve personnell is showing their Tridents as some of unquestionable value either directly and much beyond the striktly military realm as well. As if the SEALs are the ultimate warriors and all others "are not ready yet". So it is interesting whether some of you ever met the SEALs officers or men who changed their Budweiser community to any other and if so, what was the main reason in each case? Suppose some SEAL NCOs are becoming officers via OCS or so, and maybe not all of them further hang on the Trident till the retirement...
My anecdotes are as follows: Ten or so years ago the Med Officer in Coronado was a prior enlisted SEAL. The Training Officer at Special Boat Team TWELVE was an enlisted HM(SEAL), got into the medical enlisted commissioning program, did the minimum time there, then moved back to SEALs. One enlisted SEAL went to OCS (again 10 years ago) for a pilot spot, but I'm not sure how it turned out. I know with the Training Off, he had convinced himself "I'm getting too old for this stuff", then missed it and went back.
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
My anecdotes are as follows: Ten or so years ago the Med Officer in Coronado was a prior enlisted SEAL. The Training Officer at Special Boat Team TWELVE was an enlisted HM(SEAL), got into the medical enlisted commissioning program, did the minimum time there, then moved back to SEALs. One enlisted SEAL went to OCS (again 10 years ago) for a pilot spot, but I'm not sure how it turned out. I know with the Training Off, he had convinced himself "I'm getting too old for this stuff", then missed it and went back.

Thanks a lot. As a matter of fact, probably, I can suggest that either the pay scale in every community fits individual estimations of the man or woman in question or the career proposals matter more, since changing the community means all new stuff from the start. In any case, the general reluctance to change the community and administrative barriers to do so both show an evidence of up to five different navies within one USN (aviation, surface, dolphins, trident, bomb) plus some RL stuff. From the standpoind of the sociology and structure theory, in my opinion, USN is corporative holding, long post-IPO. In such an organization, process means much more than result, and the field salespersons often feel bad, being in a strong and hardly bearable contradiction process vs result. In my opinion, again, the only thing that saves USN from very poor performance on a divisional level is CPO corps, as I noted before. If so, the main billet type for USN is recruiter. So beware to enlist dumb people and foreigners who hardly speak English - the material to make a CPOs from is much more important than training and subsequent education.
In Russian Navy, since the CPO corps, even presented, does mean almost nothing, the attraction, selection and retention all work on officers level. But Russian Navy has no corporate structure, it's rather a clan-type officers society. No matter who you are by trade - SWO, submariner, Marine or doctor, you support your clan leader, who is an Admiral or Marine or Naval Aviation General. Moreover, the wider the clan, given the specialties and careers of its members, the better. At the top of a pyramide even can be the Army or AF top officer who supports some naval clan, and vice versa. In this paradigm the Russian society is Oriental world, indeed, much like China or Japan.
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
My anecdotes are as follows: Ten or so years ago the Med Officer in Coronado was a prior enlisted SEAL. The Training Officer at Special Boat Team TWELVE was an enlisted HM(SEAL), got into the medical enlisted commissioning program, did the minimum time there, then moved back to SEALs. One enlisted SEAL went to OCS (again 10 years ago) for a pilot spot, but I'm not sure how it turned out. I know with the Training Off, he had convinced himself "I'm getting too old for this stuff", then missed it and went back.

A friend of mine at HSC-85 just re-enlisted and the re-enlisting officer is a 60 pilot who was a former enlisted SEAL, it would be funny if it was the same guy you mentioned.
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
A friend of mine at HSC-85 just re-enlisted and the re-enlisting officer is a 60 pilot who was a former enlisted SEAL

Suggest helo pilot (especially in Firehawks) or noted SBT officer, if he is former enlisted SEAL, remains closer to SEALs than even routine SWO, let alone tailhook aviator...
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
There was a guy I went to college with who was a SEAL, go injured in a HRST mishap, recovered and returned to his team, and then after his initial commitment was up, lateral transferred to the Chaplain Corps.
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
lateral transferred to the Chaplain Corps.

Maybe he is familiar with some MEG, given such background. Interestingly enough, whether somebody of you ever met a Chaplain who is former NA/NFO? In our services there are no equivalent, just some kind of Deputy CO for political affairs, as they were called in Soviet time, who became the "XOs for personnell" now. A dedicated Naval College, placed in now-independent Ukranian capital city of Kyiv, was intended to educate and train that "politicians" for Navy, the only NavColl with 4-years pipeline (all the others were of 5-years). Though they up to 1986 received a B.S. diploma in nautical navigation, along with rough analogue of "history majors" in the narrow history of Comm Party. And at least in some cases that DCO for Communism stood an OOD. One of them, standing as surfacing OOD, grounded a diesel submarine S-363 near Swedish naval base of Karlskrona in 1981 - "Whisky on the rocks". And in general, any religion up to 1991 was suppressed by them. A bloody Party was religion in itself. After that, it's up to you completely, no one can help you look after your soul in Russian Navy.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
My interest initially was simple - as USN is now the sole navy with solid aviation part (in 2012 about 43% grads of USNA went to aviation, both Navy and Marines), it is charming how the aviators - a set of skills very different from traditional naval affairs - can cope with naval matters where aviation background does mean very little, if any. My opinion today is simple as well - while modern naval affairs is mostly about force projection and other influence to shore, and while every USN ship has a crew with certain amount of SWOs aboard, no matter who is in charge of CSGs or other TFs - let me state that even Army General, if he or she is a person who can learn in-job, would be consistent in that role, directing the actions from the bridge of a flagship. When (and if) naval war will return to old questions, SWOs and submariners will be in short supplies, at least initially, and any other navy, which is sticking with more traditional approach, will feel better.

Meh. In my experience, people who get to that level (major command and flag) have been around the block enough times to fully grasp cross community/joint capabilities, and how to employ them, at the operational level.
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Meh. In my experience, people who get to that level (major command and flag) have been around the block enough times to fully grasp cross community/joint capabilities, and how to employ them, at the operational level.

You are right. This is relevant in related approaches: power projection, interdiction, amphib assault and so on, i.e. deals USN is facing routinely. Suppose acute submarine threat to fleet supporting units - say, a set of co-ordinated attacks on T-AKEs and tankers that disrupts the supply chain in region. One of scenarios we had studied in Soviet time, trying to (supposedly) oppose the last "Northern Wedding", by the way. What then? Can aviation admiral and his staff cope with the distribution of the present scarce sources between the ships of CSG, using the logistics skills of a few SWOs in hand? Again, it is not me who deserves the answer, it is your planners...
 

Max the Mad Russian

Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Folks,Been in Israeli Air Force museum, found that tailhooked aircraft remain tailhooked even foreign in service far from the flying decks of the ships. It's ok, airfields have arresting gears too. But for what the reasons the cat bar on the nose landing gear is usually preserved? Never heard about shore catapults (aside from the test ones, Pax River and alike) in major air forces, let alohe Swiss or Finland AF, whose Hornets are still equipped with bars...
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Folks,Been in Israeli Air Force museum, found that tailhooked aircraft remain tailhooked even foreign in service far from the flying decks of the ships. It's ok, airfields have arresting gears too. But for what the reasons the cat bar on the nose landing gear is usually preserved? Never heard about shore catapults (aside from the test ones, Pax River and alike) in major air forces, let alohe Swiss or Finland AF, whose Hornets are still equipped with bars...

Easier to leave stuff like that on than to take it off. Landing gear are a pretty integral part of an aircraft so modifying them can be expensive, if it isn't hurting anything it is cheaper and easier to just leave the stuff on.
 
Top