First Shore Tour to NPS

[Spekkio]

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.

People routinely do thesis and dissertations at a classified level here, so yes this discussion can and does occur. The biggest disconnect I've noticed is that senior leadership in the Navy does a poor job of utilizing the students here to work solveable problems, so the only things that come our way tend to be a combination of low priority or so ambiguous that solving world hunger would be easier. Your attitude toward graduate education seems to reflect that trend. This is in contrast to the Marine Corps which is in constant contact with the students here and provides a lot of engagement on current issues they'd like them to work.

 

[Recovering LSO]

@Spekkio Thought you might find these thoughts from a former submariner interesting:

"Most of the day to day problems facing the Navy are solved at the unit level, not at graduate schools or by high-level staffs....[quoting Major Lewis Higenbotham, US Army, the author continues]...'the best people must go to troop duty.' Those officers who aspire to command should be encouraged and assited at every prepartory step of their careers. They should be nurtured within the limits of the career assignments, while at the same time carefully culled to elminate all but the finest performers. This means repeated tours at sea in similiar ship types with shore duty in billets direclty relating to their warfare specialites...." Rear Admiral (ret) William J. Hollond.

 

[Spekkio]

You insinuate conflict of opinion where there is none: The problem I delineated in my anecdote was solved at the unit level, but only because the DH in question was given the tools to do so by his shore duty billet that 'directly related to warfare specialties' - a graduate education in OR at NPS. Not every graduate program is created equal and some do a better job at enhancing an officer's skillsets than others, and even then it's up to the individual to make the most of his opportunities.

 

[wlawr005]

Maybe instead of going off to school to get some fancy degree, people should be 'nurtured' into acquiring a little common sense and technical know-how. Sometimes the big brains tend to turn simple matters into horrific nightmares.

Instead of believing that some Rhodes Scholar is going to change the way we do business...let's teach everybody how to apply a little common sense to everyday problems without needing a damn thesis or PowerPoint.

I'd much rather have a MO that knew something about how the fucking MRC deck works than than a MO who can quote Aristotle.

 

[robav8r]

Relevancy of advanced education aside, I think we would ALL be better served (regardless of service or platform) if we gave our warfighters the sea/flight time, NCEA, working systems & platforms (with suitable spare parts & back-ups) and the ability to stay PROFICIENT at their craft. Give a JO/DH/CO that, and you will have an effective fighting force. In the mean time, you're right, advanced degrees and a hyper-focus on diversity and creative thinking skills will surely save the day . . . . .

 

[Recovering LSO]

I'd much rather have a MO that knew something about how the fucking MRC deck works than than a MO who has read Aristotle.

Can we have both?

 

[wlawr005]

You would think so. Sadly, it seldom works that way.

 

[picklesuit]

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.

Brett,
I would argue that a fresh perspective is exactly what NATOPS, Tactics, and Aviation need.
We constantly hear that "NATOPS is written in blood" yet one of the first statements in our little blue bible is that "No manual can be a substitute for sound judgement."
Rear Admiral Eastburg wrote in his 2007 letter of promulgation for my personal P-3 NATOPS: "In order to remain effective, NATOPS must be dynamic and stimulate rather than suppress individual thinking. Since aviation is a continuing, progressive profession, it is both desirable and necessary that new ideas and new techniques be expeditiously evaluated and incorporated if proven to be sound."

His words, not mine.

The FRONT OF THE NATOPS calls for diversity in thought and a fresh perspective.

Tactics? You want a stale, lockstep approach to tactics?! What will happen when the enemy figures out your tactics (they always do) and adapts to them? It might just be that guy with the "esoteric graduate degree" who can think outside of the box and develop your next TTP.

Aviation was built on the backs of "outside thinkers" who challenged the status quo and did more than just recite and regurgitate NATOPS or the Tacman...

Honestly Sir, your disregard for anyone who had the audacity to leave the plane and broaden their horizons is a little saddening. It is exactly this kind of mind-numbing, soul-crushing adherence to a single mindset of "it is this way, and no other way works" that is killing Naval Aviation...

I think any wardroom would be made better with a diverse background in education, professional experience, and thought process.

Pickle

 

[Recovering LSO]

Sure, I'll take a DH with sound judgment. How do you build judgement vis a vis flying aircraft? By flying aircraft, making mistakes, learning, watching others... The DH with a firm grasp of Six Sigma and DOTMLPF is great, but I'll take the very kind of judgment you're talking about - from the guy who you think is mind numbing, soul crushing, and killing Naval Aviation.

 

[Brett327]

Brett,
I would argue that a fresh perspective is exactly what NATOPS, Tactics, and Aviation need.

You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that a guy that spends 2 years at NPS studying financial management isn't the best person to do that. Just because someone spends time out of the cockpit in a non-traditional tour doesn't mean they're going to have a monopoly on great out of the box ideas.

Honestly Sir, your disregard for anyone who had the audacity to leave the plane and broaden their horizons is a little saddening.

Go back a reread my posts in this thread. I've said nothing of the sort.

BT

It just occurred to me that we were all arguing just a few months ago about why the Navy won't let us stay in the cockpit more and why they make us take "consciousness-expanding" staff tours and attend in residence JPME. We are, collectively, a group of people who doesn't know what the fuck they want.

 

[picklesuit]

My point is there are multiple routes to success, and a single track via the FRS from the JO tour, to the boat, back to DH shouldn't be the only way to develop leaders/warriors.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need more flight time, and that tactical acumen is built by flying and studying. But there is more to leading (Officer before Aviator) than just flying. Or tactics.

If the number of flight hours in your logbook is the sole discriminator in "talent" then we should keep our Officers in the plane their entire career and value that talent.

However, I think there is more to leadership, and fighting the war, than just flying.

My whole point is that there should be no "golden path" and we should value talent, regardless of where their timing/track landed them.
Pickle

 

[Brett327]

...a single track via the FRS from the JO tour, to the boat, back to DH shouldn't be the only way to develop leaders/warriors.

And it isn't (yours truly as exhibit A), so let's not get too bent out of shape. This discussion started as a hypothetical. If given a choice, I would choose X over Y... but we don't get to choose who comes to our squadron, so at the end of the day, you get what you get and you move forward.

My whole point is that there should be no "golden path"

Opinions vary on that, but since there is a golden path (and pretty much always has been), we all have to play by the rules as they are, not as we wish them to be.

 

[BigRed389]

You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that a guy that spends 2 years at NPS studying financial management isn't the best person to do that. Just because someone spends time out of the cockpit in a non-traditional tour doesn't mean they're going to have a monopoly on great out of the box ideas.

Go back a reread my posts in this thread. I've said nothing of the sort.

BT

It just occurred to me that we were all arguing just a few months ago about why the Navy won't let us stay in the cockpit more and why they make us take "consciousness-expanding" staff tours and attend in residence JPME. We are, collectively, a group of people who doesn't know what the fuck they want.

But ultimately, your tactically proficient whiz kid stops being a JO/DH, and has to go to shore duty. Some shore duty billets have little connection with the operational communities, but of course there are plenty of staff billets or warfare center billets that do.
Assuming your tactical genius is also generally a pretty intelligent person, why not pump them into grad ed billets with linked payback tours that directly benefit the service?

If you stay in long enough, you probably have to step out of the box of simply being a "user" of products made by 50 pound brains...whether those are TTPs, programs, or whatever, and you have to start interfacing with the smart guys to provide them with direction on where to go next. And it is probably a good idea to ensure people headed to those jobs (which quite frankly have greater ramifications for the service/community as a whole) are properly prepared to do the heavy lifting required for those jobs, and figure out how to match and prep talent/skill to those billets.

 

[Brett327]

But ultimately, your tactically proficient whiz kid stops being a JO/DH, and has to go to shore duty. Some shore duty billets have little connection with the operational communities, but of course there are plenty of staff billets or warfare center billets that do.
Assuming your tactical genius is also generally a pretty intelligent person, why not pump them into grad ed billets with linked payback tours that directly benefit the service?

If you stay in long enough, you probably have to step out of the box of simply being a "user" of products made by 50 pound brains...whether those are TTPs, programs, or whatever, and you have to start interfacing with the smart guys to provide them with direction on where to go next. And it is probably a good idea to ensure people headed to those jobs (which quite frankly have greater ramifications for the service/community as a whole) are properly prepared to do the heavy lifting required for those jobs, and figure out how to match and prep talent/skill to those billets.

In this service, we usually do that post DH/post CO, which is another point I made several posts ago. IMO, that is the appropriate time in one's career path to be exposed to those experiences and opportunities.

 

[insanebikerboy]

We are debating two different time points in a career I think.

First, my opinion is that stick time outweighs getting a grad degree early on in a career. As a whole, my take is that big Navy and aviation should take a different opinion on grad school post-DH. However, grad school pre-DH really doesn't make a helluva lot of impact on the day to day ops of a squadron. Sure, you may have a guy who writes some amazing white-paper during his disassociated, but he's not going to change the way that Prowlers or Growlers or Hummers or Helos go about their business, day-to-day.

I'll pull some history, the Thach weave didn't come from a guy who was in grad school studying, but from a guy who was out flying.

A guy who has an extra thousand hours in the cockpit just flies different. I feel like an old guy now because as I see guys who roll in to the reserves with 2500 hours just simply fly an aircraft better than a guy who rolls in with 1500. Those guys typically are senior O-3 or junior O-4s, so at the DH level.

I also think that post-DH, the Navy needs to make the opportunity available for those to get a grad degree. They are already doing it to an effect by requiring post-DH guys who don't have JPME to go to a war college. They get a masters and JPME I. If they then screen for command then they can take that knowledge back to their new squadron and influence their wardroom. If they don't screen then they will most likely end up in a staff where they can fully utilize their degree.

I definitely think that Olmstead and NPS, etc, are worthwhile. What I wish is that the Navy wouldn't punish those in way of promotion if they go get a degree or go Olmstead during their first shore tour. Once past the mid-level O-4 level, the Olmstead guy or the guy with advanced degrees definitely is an advantage.

In the end, ff I had my druthers, I'd want my copilot or the guy in dash-2 to be a guy who flew for all of their tours over a guy who did a first tour JO and then some off the beaten path non-flying shore tour.