Carrier deployments

[Catmando]

The first two F-14 Tomcat squadron bubbas can tell you chapter and verse how this shitty this can be. Nine…count 'em..NINE LCDR's per squadron….some of whom were the Coffee Mess Officers. One of them was my "opposite number" when I was a LTJG CMO in VF-111 and he asked me to pick up their wooden aircraft models in Cubi Point...

...

Oh, so very true and very sad!

These early 1st F-14 squadrons were seeded and way overloaded with pack+ number one super-star senior performers from their previous commands. Huge mistake! Suddenly all were fighting for promotion to 0-5 and command screening, etc. against each other. [The squadrons even invented a new, extra "department head billet" to soothe the infighting.] The "setting up" to back-stab a fellow squadron mate to get a better FITREP than him made the squadrons dysfunctional in their first iteration. It was really ugly and toxic.

There were only two JOs in my squadron at the time.

Fortunately they - the battling LCDRs - all rotated after the first cruise, and mostly disappeared. Nevertheless one of the only two JG nuggets among multiple LCDRs in my squadron rose to command, multiple stars and more even today...."Streak"

 

[Gatordev]

This debate started as should helo squadrons have a Super JO in the squadron or a position on the CAG staff ( we are not getting both)
The decision was that it was better to get our pilots experience on a staff learning something new vice being in a squadron again.
On the flying side a CAG staffer will fly a bit less than a regular member of the squadron. So by having someone who has a good level of experience in the aircraft being available to fly, he's not getting the same number of hours as a LT in the squadron. That means there is MORE flight time available for those LTs in the squadron to build their experience levels. Learning your mission requires time in the cockpit, so by getting those first tour HACs as much time as possible, you're making them better before they got to the RAG, NSAWC, WWS or CNATRA to train the future.

I know we kind of hashed this out earlier, but... What you describe is not how it's actually happening. There are both SJOs at the squadron level (someone has to be the HAC since there aren't any non-SJO HACs yet as the platform stands up) and at the CAG level. As I mentioned before, the SJOs aren't taking time away from the first tour guys. Quite the opposite, they're allowing the first tour guys to get flight time since they can't sign for the aircraft yet.

For the squadrons that aren't standing up and already have a limited number of legacy HACs as they transition, there are fewer SJOs, but you still need to have effective combat crews and the nuggets, coupled with the limited number of qual'ed HACs in the new platform, aren't going to make that up by themselves.

 

[Spekkio]

We're presently riding all our platforms hard and putting them away wet. This will only lead to less maintenance availabilities for our ships.
The 6 month deployment every 24 months worked well for 40 years, if it ain't broke, then lets try to find a stupid way to make it less effective!

Yea but now INSURV is every 2 yrs to mitigate that risk.

More frequent inspections will certainly lead to a better QOL. You can sell it to your guys that TYCOM cares about their safety so it will be better.

 

[Gatordev]

Words rated "Dumb."

So tell me, GroundPounder, what you find dumb. I'm curious what knowledge you have as it compares to mine...someone who sits right in the middle of a CVW squadron space with this exact thing going on.

 

[jollygreen07]

So tell me, GroundPounder, what you find dumb. I'm curious what knowledge you have as it compares to mine...someone who sits right in the middle of a CVW squadron space with this exact thing going on.

I get the feeling that the "dumb" rating being on the extreme right side of the page next to the scroll bar leads to "fat fingering" on occasion. I may be wrong in this case, but I can't see how...

 

[Renegade One]

My parents don't read this board and I thought this was a website for WARFIGHTERS and Navy warfighters at that.

I agree with you…it pretty much is. Is there something else you really wanted to say? Also interested in the part about your parents.

I LIKE GOING TO SEA. I LIKE BEING ON THE BOAT. I LIKE FLYING TOP OF THE LINE FIGHTERS OFF THE FRONT END OF SOVEREIGN US STEEL.

Again, I agree. What EXACTLY do you think "Leadership" should say to you, and why is whatever they're saying to you now "a crock of shit"?

 

[GroundPounder]

So tell me, GroundPounder, what you find dumb. I'm curious what knowledge you have as it compares to mine...someone who sits right in the middle of a CVW squadron space with this exact thing going on.

I must have hit it while scrolling, I don't have the information set to have an opinion on this topic.

 

[Catmando]

...
MIDWAY (CVW-5) - 21 Apr. '72 to 21Feb. '73 = 10 mos. (extended by Linebacker II)

Actually that cruise was more like 11 months! I think the dates you mention were line period dates.

IIRC, we left NAS Alameda on April 10 or 11, 1972 after that very short turnaround.
And my logbook says our fly-off to NKX at the end of cruise was on March 2, 1973.

[Trivia: I remember on the fly-off looking down and being amazed at Mira Mesa. It didn't exist when we left on cruise. Also I got lost driving the next day, ending up on some strange new freeway - I-805 - which also did not exist when we left. It was indeed a loooong cruise.]​

 

[BackOrdered]

I was curious about anyone's thoughts regarding the new deployment plans the Navy has for the carrier strike groups and air wings (1 workup period, 7 month deployment, 7 months at home, another 7 month deployment).

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ore-frequently.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=2

On the one hand, you only do one workup period (for 2 deployments) and the deployments are supposedly going to be more predictable (no more surges). On the other hand, you deploy more often.

Thoughts?

When I think predictable, I think SSBNs. They are about the most predictable of any platform. There is a simple reason for that, and I would hold out on believing a surface deployment schedule will be predictable for that reason during times of budget crunching.

 

[Renegade One]

The 6 month deployment every 24 months worked well for 40 years...

Put down the crack pipe. I NEVER saw that…and I was well and truly "in" for 30 of those 40 years...

 

[helolumpy]

Put down the crack pipe. I NEVER saw that…and I was well and truly "in" for 30 of those 40 years...

Then how did the carrier schedule work post-Vietnam Nam and pree-9/11??

 

[Gatordev]

I must have hit it while scrolling, I don't have the information set to have an opinion on this topic.

That's what I figured. It's been happening more recently, so that's why I figured I'd ask. Perhaps not the best tone in my post.

 

[Renegade One]

Then how did the carrier schedule work post-Vietnam Nam and pree-9/11??

Plexiglass and grease pencils? I dunno…never heard or felt there was a particular methodology to it. There probably was…but it was well above my pay grade and not the sort of thing I cared about. Certainly not "6 out" and "18 home". Cruises were about 6-8 months, and about 10-12 months turnaround. It was never the same for me twice, that's all the fidelity I can put to it.

 

[pilot_man]

I agree with you…it pretty much is. Is there something else you really wanted to say? Also interested in the part about your parents.



Again, I agree. What EXACTLY do you think "Leadership" should say to you, and why is whatever they're saying to you now "a crock of shit"?

You want to talk about people skills? Your unsolicited concern for my language is not desired nor appreciated.
And how exactly do my parents interest you R1?

Here is EXACTLY what I want leadership to say: "Times are tough and money is tight. In order to meet these fiscal restraints we are going to need to squeeze everything we can out of our training and deploy more regularly for a longer period of time. I know our people are strong and can support these further burdens on our equipment and most importantly themselves and their families."

Something like that would have worked. Not "this is going to be better for you because it will be more predictable." We have a current plan for deployments and we all see how predictable that is.

 

[e6bflyer]

I get the feeling that the "dumb" rating being on the extreme right side of the page next to the scroll bar leads to "fat fingering" on occasion. I may be wrong in this case, but I can't see how...

Yeah I got "dumbed" in another thread over a benign post. I assume it was the same reason.