NEWS Air Force leadership talks frankly about pilot retention

[LFCFan]

I can't really disagree with anything you've said here, at the LT level, even as a slimy RL guy.

Maybe the best way to re-state my above post would be to note that we all "peak" at different points in our career. The most tactical aviators -- I won't name any specific community as someone will clearly get butthurt -- will probably hit their most tactical tour as a patch-wearing LT TRAINO or maybe DH. In the CRUDES world, you gain more and more responsibility as you rise through the ranks. LT TAOs can squeeze off missiles/torps/trons to defend the force...maybe do a little OCA and deliberate attack, depending on your definition...

An on-track VFA dude will be qualified to lead a division (4 jets) by the end of his first sea tour, and will qualify to lead a larger strike package while a DH. And then (someone correct me if I'm wrong) re-qual as a new XO, albeit only having to do one strike vice a few. So I'd say that while a training O might be the expert on the latest tactics, someone with an oak leaf on is probably the one leading the big strike into the People's Republic of wherever. But on day+1, plenty of LTs will be leading the strikes, OCA packages, etc.

The CDR CO obviously gains much, much more responsibility to act offensively in a multi-domain fight (hint: your quote above betrays a misunderstanding of TLAM employment)...and to over-rule the TAO if he or she is in CIC.

I think you've kind of proven of the points that the aviators are trying to make here - there is no CDR CO out there to overrule the LT pilot like a CO overruling a TAO. I'm also not seeing how someone leading a strike package (which is a multi domain fight: air-to-air, air-to-surface, to include dealing with SAMs, as well as trons) or even a large DCA mission against a near-peer has less responsibility. I don't disagree that a CRUDES skipper has more responsibility and tactical knowledge than a SWO JO, the point though is that aviators have way more responsibility than their SWO peers as JOs. I also had a good chat with a colleague of mine who is a post-DH SWO who has worked the TLAM piece on many tours about what the shooter is doing during TLAM employment...he thinks I get it, and agreed that a pointy nose guy has more responsibility in getting a bomb on target than a SWO skipper has for getting a TLAM on target.

The biggest thing for me is that SWOs are able to jump from DDG to rivron to amphib and back again...I think if being super tactical was as important to you guys as it was to aviators, this just wouldn't be the case.** The air force used to work a little more like the modern SWO community back in the 50s and early 60s, albeit not to the same extent...then Vietnam happened.

**I think it would be pretty hilarious if duffleblog wrote an article where the heads of SWO and aviation training accidentally get their orders swapped so that the training pipelines also get swapped. New SWOs spend two years on orange ships (finally, someone finds a use for the LCS!) learning their job, mids select their grey aircraft right out before commissioning just because they want to live in a certain location, disaster ensues, etc etc.

 

[Pags]

An on-track VFA dude will be qualified to lead a division (4 jets) by the end of his first sea tour, and will qualify to lead a larger strike package while a DH. And then (someone correct me if I'm wrong) re-qual as a new XO, albeit only having to do one strike vice a few. So I'd say that while a training O might be the expert on the latest tactics, someone with an oak leaf on is probably the one leading the big strike into the People's Republic of wherever. But on day+1, plenty of LTs will be leading the strikes, OCA packages, etc.



I think you've kind of proven of the points that the aviators are trying to make here - there is no CDR CO out there to overrule the LT pilot like a CO overruling a TAO. I'm also not seeing how someone leading a strike package (which is a multi domain fight: air-to-air, air-to-surface, to include dealing with SAMs, as well as trons) or even a large DCA mission against a near-peer has less responsibility. I don't disagree that a CRUDES skipper has more responsibility and tactical knowledge than a SWO JO, the point though is that aviators have way more responsibility than their SWO peers as JOs. I also had a good chat with a colleague of mine who is a post-DH SWO who has worked the TLAM piece on many tours about what the shooter is doing during TLAM employment...he thinks I get it, and agreed that a pointy nose guy has more responsibility in getting a bomb on target than a SWO skipper has for getting a TLAM on target.

The biggest thing for me is that SWOs are able to jump from DDG to rivron to amphib and back again...I think if being super tactical was as important to you guys as it was to aviators, this just wouldn't be the case.** The air force used to work a little more like the modern SWO community back in the 50s and early 60s, albeit not to the same extent...then Vietnam happened.

**I think it would be pretty hilarious if duffleblog wrote an article where the heads of SWO and aviation training accidentally get their orders swapped so that the training pipelines also get swapped. New SWOs spend two years on orange ships (finally, someone finds a use for the LCS!) learning their job, mids select their grey aircraft right out before commissioning just because they want to live in a certain location, disaster ensues, etc etc.

Gator and CRUDES are pretty well stovepiped on the SWO side.

 

[nittany03]

FWIW, I've seen guys who struggled with a particular skill end up being far better teachers than guys who took to it from the beginning. The latter often has trouble seeing how someone could struggle with something they find easy, so it's harder for them to relate the material and stay patient with a student.

That's precisely what I meant to get at. Sometimes the truly talented have definitions of "easy" and "average" that aren't necessarily realistic. Also, by the time you hit the fleet, you tend to find a bunch of people who self-selected into a job and then earned it by going through a grinder. This tends to make some subset of those people conflate the personal and the professional, i.e. "well, I got it. You just must not care enough, so maybe you're a no-load."

The greatest line of BS I've heard as it relates to teaching people in Navy Air is "there's two kinds of people. Those who can hack it and those who can't." Bullshit. There are three kinds of people. First, those who can figure it out easily. They tend to get it quickly, and thus be disproportionately represented in those who get winged, get quals and EPs, make O-4, get DH, O-5, command, etc. Second, those who've hit their limit. While they need to be eased out, there's a way to do so without treating them like shit. Unless, of course, they bring it on themselves. The third group is the one who can crack the nut, but needs some help along the way. You can be the most talented officer or aviator in the Fleet. But to me, it matters just as much how many of Group 3 you can bring along for the ride, and not conflate with Group 2. Because the whole organization will be better for it.

As much as we like to bust on them, I think our brethren in powder blue did well distilling the traits a good instructor needs into three words: Humble, Approachable, and Credible. Note that skill in the jet, while crucial, involves only one of those words.

 

[Recovering LSO]

That's precisely what I meant to get at. Sometimes the truly talented have definitions of "easy" and "average" that aren't necessarily realistic. Also, by the time you hit the fleet, you tend to find a bunch of people who self-selected into a job and then earned it by going through a grinder. This tends to make some subset of those people conflate the personal and the professional, i.e. "well, I got it. You just must not care enough, so maybe you're a no-load."

The greatest line of BS I've heard as it relates to teaching people in Navy Air is "there's two kinds of people. Those who can hack it and those who can't." Bullshit. There are three kinds of people. First, those who can figure it out easily. They tend to get it quickly, and thus be disproportionately represented in those who get winged, get quals and EPs, make O-4, get DH, O-5, command, etc. Second, those who've hit their limit. While they need to be eased out, there's a way to do so without treating them like shit. Unless, of course, they bring it on themselves. The third group is the one who can crack the nut, but needs some help along the way. You can be the most talented officer or aviator in the Fleet. But to me, it matters just as much how many of Group 3 you can bring along for the ride, and not conflate with Group 2. Because the whole organization will be better for it.

As much as we like to bust on them, I think our brethren in powder blue did well distilling the traits a good instructor needs into three words: Humble, Approachable, and Credible. Note that skill in the jet, while crucial, involves only one of those words.

conflating personal experiences and overall trends can be a problem too....

Air Force. Leadership. Retention. Where were we?

 

[BigRed389]

I think you've kind of proven of the points that the aviators are trying to make here - there is no CDR CO out there to overrule the LT pilot like a CO overruling a TAO. I'm also not seeing how someone leading a strike package (which is a multi domain fight: air-to-air, air-to-surface, to include dealing with SAMs, as well as trons) or even a large DCA mission against a near-peer has less responsibility. I don't disagree that a CRUDES skipper has more responsibility and tactical knowledge than a SWO JO, the point though is that aviators have way more responsibility than their SWO peers as JOs. I also had a good chat with a colleague of mine who is a post-DH SWO who has worked the TLAM piece on many tours about what the shooter is doing during TLAM employment...he thinks I get it, and agreed that a pointy nose guy has more responsibility in getting a bomb on target than a SWO skipper has for getting a TLAM on target.

The issue is you're exclusively focused on the TLAM side. And that is one of the least dynamic or difficult things a TAO is expected to deal with. It's a side show.

And I imagine aviators firing standoff weapons that function similarly don't find that terribly exciting either.

 

[Python]

The issue is you're exclusively focused on the TLAM side. And that is one of the least dynamic or difficult things a TAO is expected to deal with. It's a side show.

And I imagine aviators firing standoff weapons that function similarly don't find that terribly exciting either.

JSOW and SLAM-ER are not exciting. I think his post was about aviators firing off nonstandoff weapons.

 

[BigRed389]

JSOW and SLAM-ER are not exciting. I think his post was about aviators firing off nonstandoff weapons.

Agreed, but my point is that he's basically focused on the process of firing the SWO equivalent of JSOW.

If that's all you know about SWO warfighting, then yeah, it's going to look really boring.

 

[Swanee]

FWIW, I've seen guys who struggled with a particular skill end up being far better teachers than guys who took to it from the beginning. The latter often has trouble seeing how someone could struggle with something they find easy, so it's harder for them to relate the material and stay patient with a student.

And yet we make the latter FRS instructors, who then tell students," I figured it out myself, it isn't tough." When students have a tough time with something. Or telling a student- "This is a single seat community, if you have to have help to figure this out you don't belong here."

 

[AFUAW]

The issue is you're exclusively focused on the TLAM side. And that is one of the least dynamic or difficult things a TAO is expected to deal with. It's a side show.

It's your primary offensive weapon system--not a side show. Something I had to remind more than one DDG when I was on CSG staff.

 

[BigRed389]

It's your primary offensive weapon system--not a side show. Something I had to remind more than one DDG when I was on CSG staff.

I meant in terms of how it relates to the rest of how CIC works. It uses a very different process from the other missions covered by CIC, so experience in that field has little bearing on how other things are done.

Especially regarding the responsibility and independence of the TAO from the CO.

 

[pilot_man]

I meant in terms of how it relates to the rest of how CIC works. It uses a very different process from the other missions covered by CIC, so experience in that field has little bearing on how other things are done.

Especially regarding the responsibility and independence of the TAO from the CO.

Is that independence really going to be there in time of war? I haven't been stationed on a CRUDES but what I have seen from a CG CIC in action is the TAO reporting to the force TAO, who didn't do anything without AW's approval. And that has been for exercises and training missions. It's only going to get worse from there.

Meh, while ultimately a VFA JO is "alone and unafraid" (both statements are not without caveats, such as "I have a wingman" and "night traps are scary"), you are a slave to the AOC/CAOC/JAOC, and are being micromanaged to death by them. In a truly efficient and lethal world, that would not be the case, but Generals are going to General. There is some more autonomy under JTAC control, but at the end of the day, they are slaves to some extent as well, if we are talking offensive fires.

You know this, but for the crowd, "I have a wingman", but he is on the tanker because we are doing yo-yo ops and these guys need ordnance on the ground now so I'm just going to strafe these fools in the tree-line. And when my wingman does show up, he is a LT, just like me. That happens / happened pretty often. The AOC / CAOC / JAOC are not making the CDE / danger close / "should I drop this bomb" decisions that we have been making for a long while now. As LTs. And if you're scared of night traps don't be such a bitch. Or do a mode 1.

The majority of the fighting we've been doing has been with JTACs. That may be changing now but at the end of the day there has been a lot of wartime decision making being done by JTACs on the ground and the LT aircrew in the air.

An on-track VFA dude will be qualified to lead a division (4 jets) by the end of his first sea tour, and will qualify to lead a larger strike package while a DH. And then (someone correct me if I'm wrong) re-qual as a new XO, albeit only having to do one strike vice a few. So I'd say that while a training O might be the expert on the latest tactics, someone with an oak leaf on is probably the one leading the big strike into the People's Republic of wherever. But on day+1, plenty of LTs will be leading the strikes, OCA packages, etc.

Being a strike lead is more about being able to herd cats than it is about the tactics. (I don't think XOs have to re-do their strike lead qual but they do have to re-do their 4Is. It might be airwing dependent though based on CAG's desires.) That being said, if I was CAG, I would first look at the shoulder patches to figure out who I wanted to lead a day 1 OCA / Strike / DCA. That would start with the Skippers and then work it's way down even to the LT training officers.

 

[hscs]

Being a strike lead is more about being able to herd cats than it is about the tactics. (I don't think XOs have to re-do their strike lead qual but they do have to re-do their 4Is. It might be airwing dependent though based on CAG's desires.) That being said, if I was CAG, I would first look at the shoulder patches to figure out who I wanted to lead a day 1 OCA / Strike / DCA. That would start with the Skippers and then work it's way down even to the LT training officers.

If I were CAG, I would be leading day 1 missions. I have absolutely no idea why a patch has anything to do with it.

 

[Hotdogs]

I'm having a hard time believing that any CO is the most tactically and technically proficient aircrew in any given squadron. Something about sending the headshed downtown on day 1 seems dumb af. Different communities so maybe that has something to do with it. I figure the man probably serves the squadron better by doing "CO stuff" and fending off staff weenies at higher headquarters to let/help us do our jobs better. My perception only though.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Being a strike lead is more about being able to herd cats than it is about the tactics.

Not gonna lie, this is probably the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

 

[sevenhelmet]

And yet we make the latter FRS instructors, who then tell students," I figured it out myself, it isn't tough." When students have a tough time with something. Or telling a student- "This is a single seat community, if you have to have help to figure this out you don't belong here."

I didn't get told either of those things in the FRS. In the final balance, the instruction I got as a Cat I (and again as a Cat IV) was pretty good. Sorry that you apparently had a different experience.

ETA: I finally re-read this thread title and realized we have drifted way off topic. Good to know AW is still AW.