E-2/C-2 Life?

[bunk22]

38-40 people to maintain 2 aircraft. That is incredibly wasteful.

I don't think so, not on COD's. Besides, not all of those folks are pure maint. Like said, 6-8 aircrewman (back-up maint), 2 AZ's, 1 YN, a few non-designators, etc. Depending on the CAG, we have to have a catch crew, so we keep 8-10 maintainers on the boat, the rest on shore. So 38-40 is actually a bit small IMO. Especially when CAG wants to split our det and our maint department. I think 50 maint types would be better. Plus, the COD is a Grumman product

Then I get 6 pilots, including the OIC and if only 3 are AC's, it becomes tough when CAG requires a CVDO, further splitting the det. Just about anything is possible, just not always the correct route to take.

 

[kmac]

Agree with my old OIC on this one. These aircraft require a lot of maintenance man hours, usually requiring a day check and night check. So split maybe a third off from the shore team to perform night time maintenance and you end up with aircraft that are literally being fully fixed the morning of the mission. Day check shows up, launches the birds, then has to sit and wait while we do our thing. Once again we get back from a mission and we have anywhere for 2-4 gripes... not including the ones that the ground pounders find on inspection.

A short note about aircrewmen. With the new conversion to AW in April, it will be interesting to see how our maintenance-centric aircrewmen will compare to those of other platforms (such as VP/VQ/VR/VAW??/or UAS??). Now these guys will be getting aircrewman training before maintenance training, even though maintenance is what they do when they're not flying. Hmmm....

 

[Pags]

You have 25 maintainers on a ship? Good lord, no wonder the community has no money. Isn't the ROC/POE for like 14 or 15? We'd usually have around 15 or 16 if you include the chief.

We've got around 30 maintainers for a 3 plane det that flies a bird into phase at least once a month. our guys work some ridiculous hours to keep us flying at the rate we do.

 

[bunk22]

Agree with my old OIC on this one. These aircraft require a lot of maintenance man hours, usually requiring a day check and night check. So split maybe a third off from the shore team to perform night time maintenance and you end up with aircraft that are literally being fully fixed the morning of the mission. Day check shows up, launches the birds, then has to sit and wait while we do our thing. Once again we get back from a mission and we have anywhere for 2-4 gripes... not including the ones that the ground pounders find on inspection.

A short note about aircrewmen. With the new conversion to AW in April, it will be interesting to see how our maintenance-centric aircrewmen will compare to those of other platforms (such as VP/VQ/VR/VAW??/or UAS??). Now these guys will be getting aircrewman training before maintenance training, even though maintenance is what they do when they're not flying. Hmmm....

We agree on something So now you kiss my ass while before it was pain in the ass I'm joking of course. I hear things are going to get quite busy for you guys at 30. I'm glad I'm not there but here, doing nothing as usual.

 

[Gatordev]

We've got around 30 maintainers for a 3 plane det that flies a bird into phase at least once a month. our guys work some ridiculous hours to keep us flying at the rate we do.

Yeah, but you have such novelties like an actual "maintenance officer." I mean, an extra body that doesn't directly contribute to flying or turning a wrench? Unheard of.

 

[codtanker]

Directly contribute? I'm not sure I would agree with that. Yea, maybe they don't physically turn a wrench, but I would much rather have him fighting the wars with GAG maintenance then the OIC who is either flying or fighting with Flag or CAG staff about operational issues.

 

[Gatordev]

Directly contribute? I'm not sure I would agree with that. Yea, maybe they don't physically turn a wrench, but I would much rather have him fighting the wars with GAG maintenance then the OIC who is either flying or fighting with Flag or CAG staff about operational issues.

That's exactly my point. I was being sarcastic. While it takes an extra paycheck and extra rack on the ship, the cost benefit of having someone who's whole job is maintenance being a Det MO seems to be pretty high, and let the aviators do their thing. I got a lot out of being a Det MO, and I value the experience, but there were times when it would have been beneficial to have someone (presumably) w/ more of a clue than me.

 

[bunk22]

Directly contribute? I'm not sure I would agree with that. Yea, maybe they don't physically turn a wrench, but I would much rather have him fighting the wars with GAG maintenance then the OIC who is either flying or fighting with Flag or CAG staff about operational issues.

Of course you have to actually have a MO thats worth a damn. For my two OIC deployments, my first MO was a complete waste while the second was excellent.

 

[Pags]

That's exactly my point. I was being sarcastic. While it takes an extra paycheck and extra rack on the ship, the cost benefit of having someone who's whole job is maintenance being a Det MO seems to be pretty high, and let the aviators do their thing. I got a lot out of being a Det MO, and I value the experience, but there were times when it would have been beneficial to have someone (presumably) w/ more of a clue than me.

it is nice to have someone to only worry about trackin down parts, cutting drug deals, and ensuring up aircraft, etc while our pilots concentrate on other ground jobs. it'd be tough to fly 50-60hrs a month and do all the mx work for this det. plus, our berthing situation isn't as constrained as yours was.

 

[codtanker]

Sarcasm missed gatordev.

Bunk, I'm sure with your great ability to lead; the lack of having a competent MO was overshadowed by your brilliance.

 

[bunk22]

Sarcasm missed gatordev.

Bunk, I'm sure with your great ability to lead; the lack of having a competent MO was overshadowed by your brilliance.

Kent, bud, you obviously know me very well

 

[jugg34naut]

Is there any sign for a replacement in the future for the old airframes? New model or new aircraft?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navy-should-bring-the-40-year-old-s-3-viking-back-f-1561134099

 

[jugg34naut]

Is there any sign for a replacement in the future for the old airframes? New model or new aircraft?

Then this

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/13/navy-selects-bell-boeing-osprey-next-carrier-delivery-aircraft

 

[nittany03]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman! The guy who started this thread selected jets almost 10 years ago.

 

[jugg34naut]

Agreed. There is never a shortage of dumb SNAs looking for more stuff to day dream about.