Disassociated tour for aviators on aircraft carriers/gators

[Max the Mad Russian]

Another question.

In the past 20+ years, three NFO-crowded communities in tailhook aviation of USN were eliminated - A-6, S-3 and F-14. The only substitution is F/A-18F, while some Tomcat squadrons were transferred to single-placed E-Super. Again, the phasing EA-6B out is leaving two guys from each crew unemployed. What were (and are) the next occupations for the rest NFOs, aside of going to MPRA? Were there some NFOs who went to pilot training or changed community to other URL or RL officer careers?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Another question.

In the past 20+ years, three NFO-crowded communities in tailhook aviation of USN were eliminated - A-6, S-3 and F-14. The only substitution is F/A-18F, while some Tomcat squadrons were transferred to single-placed E-Super. Again, the phasing EA-6B out is leaving two guys from each crew unemployed. What were (and are) the next occupations for the rest NFOs, aside of going to MPRA? Were there some NFOs who went to pilot training or changed community to other URL or RL officer careers?

Ask a real NFO. But, I assume to the EA-18G, E-2C/D, and (non-tailhook) P-3/8.

From time to time, the U.S. swaps out mission platforms to increase capability and/or save costs, but the mission doesn't go away. Those airframes were just replaced or consolidated into other airframes. It's JCIDS. Meanwhile, the DoD/Navy uses human capital mechanisms (e.g. accession quotas, promotion rates, retention bonuses, lat transfers, enlistment incentives, etc.) to right-size the manpower to meet the mission by manning the mission platforms.

It's supposed to work well and win wars on a macro scale. On a micro scale, sure, some individuals may hit career obstacles and some career fields can feel the squeeze. "Needs of the Navy." I know an F-15C driver who experienced something similar and lost his flying billet when the air-to-air mission need supposedly diminished.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

but the mission doesn't go away.

Yes, you are right, I gladly concur in general. But the devil is in the details - while battle-proven tandems of NA/NFO on A-6A and -E were ironing the Vietnam jungle out, there was a good reason for NFOs to be sure in their future and there was virtually no way to replace them with any other asset. For now, this is not the case - practically, the Intruder B/N's job is replaced by JDAM/JSOW systems. Generally the same occured to Tomcat RIOs. And a crews trained as FAC(A) are not the replacement for the old NFO's roles, as in USAF the same job is performing by the pilots of single-placed aircraft. For short, there were the jobs that could not be done by NAs solely in the past, but now the amount of those jobs is significantly lesser. It resembles the old NAP corps' fate. In the pre-war USN, there were some enlisted pilots, called Naval Air Pilots (NAPs), from Sea1c to CPO, who served in torpedo-bomber squadrons, flying Douglas TBD Devastators. In routine torpedo-armed sorties they piloted the bombers along with USN and USNR (A-V/N, A-V/S etc) officers, but if it came to level-bombing sorties, during which then-most-intricate piece of equipment - a bombsight Norden - had to be used with some skills, the NAPs had been usually switching to the middle seats and performed the role of bombardiers, while the pilots in those sorties were all officers. During the WWII, all survived NAPs were commissioned in USNR and on the next generation of torpedo-bombers, Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger, there was no need of that bombardier role since the Nordens were removed from the planes - the main bombing method for them was shifted to so-called Masthead Level Bombing, where the targeting was the pilot's job. Again, when the radar-targeting and improved navigation needs arose with VAH nuclear profile (1947-55), the bombardiers appeared again, and again as enlisted men (at the beginning, up to 1960). That were the roots of NFO development - when and if the Navy pilot cannot cope with the job by himself, a more or less definite job for NFO appears, when and if pilots CAN cope by themselves, it's diminishing. Don't tell this to youngsters who're in USN NFO pipeline currently, just not to make them afraid ;-)

I know an F-15C driver who experienced something similar when the air-to-air mission need supposedly diminished.

Amazingly. The MiGs quantity all around the world was growing constantly since 1961, just their pilots were not in general the Russians anymore. And no job for F-15C, the only battle-proven fighter with no losses in combats? ;-)

 

[Hair Warrior]

Amazingly. The MiGs quantity all around the world was growing constantly since 1961, just their pilots were not in general the Russians anymore. And no job for F-15C, the only battle-proven fighter with no losses in combats? ;-)

Well, it's a bit more complicated for my pilot friend. The USAF hand-picked him from his squadron to go get a master's degree at a non-DoD school. Two years later, when he finished the degree, he had less flying hours than his O4 peers, and thus wasn't as competitive for a command flying slot. He re-qualified in another specialty code (AFSC, like Navy's designators) and was an operator on foot in Iraq. But he tells me if he'd been a pilot of a different, more in-demand platform than the F-15C, he probably would have been able to keep flying.

Macro view: USAF still needs plenty of air-to-air
Micro view: My friend just does a different AF job

I realize this doesn't answer your Navy NFO question...

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Another question.

In the past 20+ years, three NFO-crowded communities in tailhook aviation of USN were eliminated - A-6, S-3 and F-14. The only substitution is F/A-18F, while some Tomcat squadrons were transferred to single-placed E-Super. Again, the phasing EA-6B out is leaving two guys from each crew unemployed. What were (and are) the next occupations for the rest NFOs, aside of going to MPRA? Were there some NFOs who went to pilot training or changed community to other URL or RL officer careers?

Question for the NFO guys/gals, I thought it was mentioned on this site that the EA-6B often flew with just 2 NFO's as technology became better, am I mistaken/did I read something wrong?

 

[Brett327]

I realize this doesn't answer your Navy NFO question...

...but use of the search function will.

Max, the NFO question you're asking has already been answered in excrutiating detail here in other threads on this site. Time to brush up on your search function skills, comrade.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Macro view: USAF still needs plenty of air-to-air
Micro view: My friend just does a different AF job

Thanks. Military is unfair, indeed. Being a pilot of more in-demand platform may exclude that grad school in favor of other, if any. By the way, since I have read that while USNA maintains 80/20 STEM/liberal arts in majors and USMA has 60/40, USAFA keeps 50/50, so the grad education opportunities for USAF officers, while wider in general, quite could not match the personal preferences of the officers.
We here have no such practice, as the 97% of the officers of Russian Armed Forces had their undergrad degrees in Naval, Air Force or Military (for Army and Marines) colleges and their graduation schools are inevitably military ones, an Academies in our parlance. Here the Naval Academy, as well as Air Force Academy, are the grad schools, to which an active duty officers apply at the rank of Captain/Major (Air Force) and Capt-Lt/Capt 3rd rank (Lt/LtCdr in USN analog, Navy). Two years later they graduate with no majors but with so-called "Highest Military Education" and this is necessary to be promoted further to the Colonel/Navy Capt 1rd rank (USN Captain). To hit the Flag rank they need to attend so-called General Staff Academy (no matter which service). To have the ground job at the front line (say, senior FAC), an Air Force officer should be, first, WSO/CSO (not a pilot), and second, be phisically able to pass the test for Ground Battle Training in Army Special Forces Training Center (firearms, close "knife" combat, tactical ground operations, SERE, EOD skills, some advanced foreign languages etc). Interestingly enough, while we're watching the recent movie Revenant, sipping beer and all of that, my fellow WSO who had been the Air Force FAC during civil-war-kind operation in Chechnya at 1995, said that Leo had eventually passed the Russian Army/Air Force SERE course, as it is mostly about how to survive the wild nature, since being ejected or bailed out over Siberian forests does mean to have a deal with wolves and/or bears much rather than to meet any human being there.
Anyway, no Russian pilot (namely pilot) can possess the ground job that would effectively ban him from flying if he still is phisically fit to fly.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I thought it was mentioned on this site that the EA-6B often flew with just 2 NFO's as technology became better

Max, the NFO question you're asking has already been answered in excrutiating detail here in other threads on this site

OK thanks, I'll go through the stuff and see. BTW, there are no official "comrades" in modern Russia, they'd gone with USSR.

 

[Brett327]

Then you can be my unofficial comrade. For old times sake.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Then you can be my unofficial comrade. For old times sake.

Thanks again while strange to some degree :-D


Ok, there is enough here - https://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/replacing-the-nfo.43110/
Thank you. One point I found is intriguing more then ever - if the naval shipborne drones will come to a long imbedded life, would NFOs be better choice to operate them than NAs? As far as I know, some USAF top brass considered WSOs/CSOs as being more stable as present Predators' drivers since they don't have a set of pilots-related unconscious habits to save the aircraft in danger at the price of the fouled SA and thus experienced pilots of a manned aircraft demonstrate the higher probability to fail the typical drone missions as UAV operators. Well, it was in Russian military magazine so it quite can be wrong. As non-aviator I cannot draw the line here.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

On the DDG, our CO offered to qual any of our helo pilots that could complete the full PQS. Several initially gave it a shot and none of them made it through. Granted, they were flying, but still...

And what is the value this qual can add to a common naval helo guy carrer? Maybe when and if he will be screened for CVN XO tour, it would help? Though I haven't ever heard about Rotorhead XO of CVN...

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Gents,

Who've flown from both Forrestal/KittyHawk class and elder Midways? Hope it isn't classified now since all these ships went away long time ago. Was there any difference in the landing pattern for, say, F-4 between them?

 

[exNavyOffRec]

And what is the value this qual can add to a common naval helo guy carrer? Maybe when and if he will be screened for CVN XO tour, it would help? Though I haven't ever heard about Rotorhead XO of CVN...

I have been on CVN's and had Helicopter pilots as XO and CO, the current CO of the Abraham Lincoln is a Helo guy as well

 

[squorch2]

Current XO of HST is a helo guy.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I have been on CVN's and had Helicopter pilots as XO and CO, the current CO of the Abraham Lincoln is a Helo guy as well

Current XO of HST is a helo guy.

Thanks again, Gents. These are certain appointments to hit the Flag rank, right? I.e. if you've been CVN XO, you'll be CVN CO, and every CVN CO who stood the tour properly will be RADM. Why then I've been told here that it is relatively rare event for helo guy to become an Admiral?