CWC = Composite Warfare Commander. What I meant is they'll never be CAG or DESRON, which lead to being a CCSG.
-
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
AVO Warrant Officer (Aerial Vehicle Operator) MQ-25
- Thread starter johnboyA6E
- Start date
If you're a straight logistics/support community, no.
If you're responsible for any part of the kill chain, let alone every step except engage...yes, it's a bad thing.
My point was towards the MQ-4 and MQ-8 communities. If MQ-25 only tanks in CVN airspace, then I'd say they probably don't experience enough tip o' da spear stuff to progress towards warfare commandership, but if/when they get an ISR sensor - game on. It's already being discussed for CMV-22.
Also, for everyone happy with the WO program, do you think the COD community would've been fine with WO pilots? What about VERTREP HC bubba's?
I don't think it will always be that way. I think an archaic system has to move forward or it will fail. The fact is that the fighter mafia did their job once recently, and they kinda fucked it up in the process, and yet they get a fucking medal and a ticket to flag officer, is nothing more than saluting a guy who tilts at windmills.
Meanwhile- the ISR and persistent strike mafia does more for a combatant commander in a day than the fighter community did in a decade, and they're not as important?
I'm sorry, but the President doesn't watch your feed realtime, as we're striking the head of the snake. And how many VFA guys are running CAP for a Reaper? Was it a VFA guy who killed Soleimani? Or did they just escort the team to ensure they could do their job?
But sure. Those guys aren't nearly as important as the manned world.
Warfare is changing and the Navy has made a decision to not invest in a critical component of the future- unlike every other service.
But this is also the service that turned the UCAV into a goddamn tanker...
The chip on your shoulder is showing. I hate to have to stoop to this level, but when the F-18 FRS attrite is throwing shade at the TG patch for his technique in downing an enemy aircraft, I'm going to roll my eyes and dismiss everything you have to say on this topic.
From everything I've read and heard that pilot did a pretty good job, not the most challenging shoot down but he didn't fuck it up by any means.
UAV's have done a pretty good job the last few years at war for us, but it has been a very permissive operating environment in all but a few cases. If we do go up against a peer or near-peer adversary I think that many folks, UAV types included, will be in for a very rude shock. The world has been watching us watch the bad guys and schwack them with regularity for 2 decades now, if anyone thinks that plenty of those folks haven't come up with a myriad of ways to prevent the same from happening to them they are deluded.
True enough. So when the Navy is looking at the first low observable, highest performance UAV in the world, that addresses survivability, they punt. I get the whole walk before you run aspect of fielding a tanker. But where is the visible commitment, the money and people, to run with the MQ-25, or it's near term progeny, as a war fighter? The CWO program does not suit the obvious future of UAVs in the Navy. When you have a MQ-25 follow up with teeth CWO AVOs with vital experience will be sidelined, or more likely, just converted to URL.
I’ll stand by, and accept, the shit storm, but sure...why not? You mentioned the “tip-of-the-spear” stuff and I readily agree that the army views aviation much differently than the navy and AF. The army sees aviation in a supporting/tactical role where the others see aviation in a more strategic sense. So, why shouldn’t the navy recognize that the vast majority of “haulers” are in a supporting role and save a few dollars over the life of a career...especially with the transition to plopters and the way people are talking about the “future” of HSC? Wouldn’t it be wiser to take a serious look at how long people actually stay in the communities and get more flight hours out of a short career than fewer out of a longer career that might miss the golden path?
Go on........
I can't speak to the Army WO's ground side, but from talking/working with a lot of former Army WOs, I don't get the impression that they are placed in the same kind of positions that Navy URLs are. I'd be interested to hear @RobLyman 's take.
HSC and VRC (and HSM and VP, two other communities who received WOs before) operate in an independent state. I heard several times from people that operating as a detachment OIC is "command at sea" in the non-PERS board sense. A little dramatic? Probably, but the OIC and the Det MO both operate independent of a mothership. The Det OpsO has numerous responsibilities that mirror a squadron OpsO with reduced supervision. Is a WO the person to do that? Can a WO legally do that? The answer is probably yes to both, but not without some significant experience that a AW2 doesn't have.
From what I've gathered, Army WOs (at the operational level) excel at executing policy and procedure, but that strikes me as something different than what DIVOs on a detachment level do. But maybe I'm wrong.
Army WOs are expected to take on leadership roles and often do. That said, I would never advocate for an “all” WO community. Commissioned officers would have to assume several “command” roles but they would be the ones slipping in and out of flying tours while the WOs would make up a significant portion of the seats.
You are not wrong and I am just spit-balling.