-
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
Carrier Leadership
- Thread starter Charles Edward
- Start date
Yes
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
There're definitely two different traditions for carrier leadership in the world:
1. An American one, where CO/XO and most others top positions on carriers occupied by aviators or NFOs. AFAIK, senior SWO on USN carrier is CHENG, who can be nuke LDO though. Some USN flag rank SWO, ADM James Stavridis for example, had advocated once the carrier XO billet for SWO, explaining that there isn't proper leadership on a carrier for young SWOs who are on their first or second sea tour, as 1310/1320 people can adequatelly lead only the same aviators/NFOs, and a career of young SWO can be completely broken during his/her carrier tour. But it fell on deaf ears, as far as I know.
This way is the one the Chinese PLAN follows only, supposedly. They too are preparing the PLAN aviators for the carrier command. For some reason, this tradition can be seen as the way to lead the navy with solid carrier force.
2. The British one, where roughly one quarter of carrier COs were aviators and XO is always surface guy. The most nowadays carrier fleets follow this way - France, Russia, Brasil, India, Italy, Spain etc. The top adviser for aviation matters aboard, given the often situation when both CO and XO are surface warfare officers (or even former submariners), is so-called "Wing", a Commander (Air), the leader for all aviation activity of a carrier as Aviation Dept Head. He is aviator, inevitably, and all aviation people in ship's company (lead by LtCrd (Air) or "Little F"), as well as all embarked squadrons' personnell (there is no XO position in Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm squadron - Senior Pilot and Senior Observer are sharing this responsibility) reports to him. In a sense, he is old USN CAG incarnation, when (prior 1983) CAG did report to carrier CO. "Wing" can be Royal Marine officer, a flyer too.
The main problem here is that carrier is regarded as surface warship where the embarked aviation is just a kind of ship's weapon. So it's often easier for CO to say that "this is impossible, so it's over, dismissed" than to try to take the aviation boots on and do what the situation may demand beyond the rules. This way is, evidently, unacceptable for any big carrier forces (i.e. more than one or two carriers within national navy).
The core philosophical difference is that USN carrier fleet is a part of specifical Naval Air Force, the one that has all that any air force has plus something more. This American Naval Air Force is unique but in essence this is a kind of air force with all leadership positions truely related to aviation world, no matter which kind of uniform or ranks is in use.
1. An American one, where CO/XO and most others top positions on carriers occupied by aviators or NFOs. AFAIK, senior SWO on USN carrier is CHENG, who can be nuke LDO though. Some USN flag rank SWO, ADM James Stavridis for example, had advocated once the carrier XO billet for SWO, explaining that there isn't proper leadership on a carrier for young SWOs who are on their first or second sea tour, as 1310/1320 people can adequatelly lead only the same aviators/NFOs, and a career of young SWO can be completely broken during his/her carrier tour. But it fell on deaf ears, as far as I know.
This way is the one the Chinese PLAN follows only, supposedly. They too are preparing the PLAN aviators for the carrier command. For some reason, this tradition can be seen as the way to lead the navy with solid carrier force.
2. The British one, where roughly one quarter of carrier COs were aviators and XO is always surface guy. The most nowadays carrier fleets follow this way - France, Russia, Brasil, India, Italy, Spain etc. The top adviser for aviation matters aboard, given the often situation when both CO and XO are surface warfare officers (or even former submariners), is so-called "Wing", a Commander (Air), the leader for all aviation activity of a carrier as Aviation Dept Head. He is aviator, inevitably, and all aviation people in ship's company (lead by LtCrd (Air) or "Little F"), as well as all embarked squadrons' personnell (there is no XO position in Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm squadron - Senior Pilot and Senior Observer are sharing this responsibility) reports to him. In a sense, he is old USN CAG incarnation, when (prior 1983) CAG did report to carrier CO. "Wing" can be Royal Marine officer, a flyer too.
The main problem here is that carrier is regarded as surface warship where the embarked aviation is just a kind of ship's weapon. So it's often easier for CO to say that "this is impossible, so it's over, dismissed" than to try to take the aviation boots on and do what the situation may demand beyond the rules. This way is, evidently, unacceptable for any big carrier forces (i.e. more than one or two carriers within national navy).
The core philosophical difference is that USN carrier fleet is a part of specifical Naval Air Force, the one that has all that any air force has plus something more. This American Naval Air Force is unique but in essence this is a kind of air force with all leadership positions truely related to aviation world, no matter which kind of uniform or ranks is in use.
Last edited:
Title 10 U.S. Code § 5942 - Aviation commands: eligibility
(a) (1) To be eligible to command an aircraft carrier or an aircraft tender, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy who is designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer and who is otherwise qualified.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to command of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that has been inactivated for the purpose of permanent decommissioning and disposal.
(b) To be eligible to command a naval aviation school, a naval air station, or a naval aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
c) To be eligible to command a Marine Corps aviation school, a Marine Corps air station, or a Marine Corps aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer of the Marine Corps designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
(a) (1) To be eligible to command an aircraft carrier or an aircraft tender, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy who is designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer and who is otherwise qualified.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to command of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that has been inactivated for the purpose of permanent decommissioning and disposal.
(b) To be eligible to command a naval aviation school, a naval air station, or a naval aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
c) To be eligible to command a Marine Corps aviation school, a Marine Corps air station, or a Marine Corps aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer of the Marine Corps designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
I've wondered occasionally if that's the rationale for keeping big-decks like LHAs designated as "amphibs" - in anyone else's Navy they'd be called aircraft carriers.
Utilization. In most other navies they use them as carriers, we almost always use them as part of the amphib force.
danpass
Well-Known Member
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5062 (B)
(b) The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers. For purposes of this subsection, an operational aircraft carrier includes an aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair.
Calling the LHA/D ships 'aircraft carriers', without first defining the term aircraft carrier beyond the vague definition in the statute, would be a problem.
"11 Admiral? With these 9 LH ships the carrier force comes to 18. Mr. Chairman it is clear that 10 U.S. Code § 5062 (B) is met and I see no need to fund another CVN."
I would love to rewrite (B) to this:
"The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers. For purposes of this subsection, an operational aircraft carrier shall be defined as a naval platform underway capable of launching fully loaded manned fixed wing aircraft at rates of 250 sorties and above per 24-hour day and includes an aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair."
As the F35-B model begins serving on more and more gator flattops the politicians, steeped in legalese, will begin eyeing section B of the statute more critically.
I suppose, but it's not like Congress has been trying to scrap carriers over the Navy's objections. If anything, it's the other way 'round. Congress put that language in the US Code to ensure the Navy wouldn't decomm boats without their permission. The Navy has been the one asking for the waivers to go below statutory active boats, most recently to decomm Kennedy and Enterprise and stretch out the Ford buy. If they called the LHAs something else - CVH or whatever - it'd actually give the Navy more programmatic flexibility.
That's because they're multi-mission ships. The flight deck is only part of their capability. With the exception of LHA-6&7, all the LHDs have well decks.
For the LHA/LHD skipper issue I know (can't remember the citation, but it was something from PERS) saying those aviators selected for that type of command had to have received an OOD letter at some point in their careers. For VP types, that basically means ANAV and OPS ADMIN guys.
Putting "hard numbers" in Title 10 is an exercise in political kabuki.
Not sure I buy that. And I do not believe it is written in the precepts (I can't seem to access right now to double check).
Don't think the board would pass a #1 EP up and give the job to the #1 MP just because the EP didn't have an OOD letter.
Also a fair number of helo guys who are in that CO pipeline have CDO U/W vice OOD, so that would disprove the detailer's statement.