• 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

Elite Fighter Squadrons?

xmid said:
Dude, they're adversaries. They want guys that have gone to a school to be adversaries. I don't see what you're still not getting. Top Gun is a school. They have a class that teaches you to pretend to be a bad guy. They don't give out trophies for the best pilot and the list of the alternates isn't in the ladies room. Luck, timing, and ability are what get you sent there. If VFC-12 were to have a different mission they probably would have fewer TG adversary grads.
Click to expand...
What percent get adversary? Does having a masters help? Should I buy the F-5 package in Flight Simulator X?
 
xmid said:
Dude, they're adversaries. They want guys that have gone to a school to be adversaries. I don't see what you're still not getting. Top Gun is a school. They have a class that teaches you to pretend to be a bad guy. They don't give out trophies for the best pilot and the list of the alternates isn't in the ladies room. Luck, timing, and ability are what get you sent there. If VFC-12 were to have a different mission they probably would have fewer TG adversary grads.
Click to expand...
I guess I just assumed that they meant the fighter course, because if they're an adversary squadron, wouldn't it be a requirement for all of them to have adversary training? It actually strikes me as odd that they said that only most of them got it, in that case. I'm guessing it's lack of funding.
 
First of all, just because you get selected to go to TOPGUN doesn't necessarily mean you are the "best of the best". I may get eviscerated saying this, but I've known a lot of great sticks that never went to NFWS that were far better pilots and officers than their counterparts that got selected to attend. Their timing just wasn't great. As far as VFC-12 or VFC-13 were concerned, we tried to send as many of our pilots to the adversary course as we could because it helped our credibility. When I was there, we were fighting many regular Navy types who considered us nothing more than a flying club, i.e. just a bunch of reservists who only flew on weekends for fun. Having that adversary patch on your sleeve gave you a little more respect/status in the debrief. I mentioned earlier we had about 90% of our SELRES who attended the adversary course. Let me modify that to having attended either the adversary course or the regular course when they were in their fleet squadron. Some even did both.

How did VFC-12 get that name/designation? They were originally VC-12 and performed the normal VC type mission - towing banners, providing AIC support, etc. They gradually became more involved in the adversary side of things and somewhere around '87-'88, the push was on to get them re-designated as a full-fledged fighter squadron. At that time, VF-43 was a regular Navy adversary squadron at Oceana, and VF-45 was doing the same thing in Key West. Someone made the proposal to change the name to reflect the increase in the mission as an adversary squadron and with the help of a few regular Navy supporters, low and behold they became VFC-12, Fighter Squadron Composite TWELVE. Why it wasn't Fighter Composite Squadron, I don't know. The same thing happened with VC-13 becoming VFC-13. I was the A-4 NATOPS Evaluator for COMNAVAIRESFOR at the time, attached to COMFLELOGSUPPWING at NAS Dallas, who, at that time, had operational control over 12 and 13 because they were considered reserve support squadrons. And now you know the rest of the story.
 
ChiccinTendies said:
What's so wrong with Russian naval aviators being technically part of the air force, anyway?
Click to expand...

In 1947 the newborn USAF had claimed that any new war US of A might face can and should be won by USAF and nothing more. It brought to life some objections and even revolts and eventually USAF took its real place in DoD strusture. Imagine that would have not took place and USAF became the sole possessor of all US air power. If you make this image bright and clear you'll see the Russian perspective where all this more or less came true.
 
Gatordev said:
That statement completely contradicts itself.
Click to expand...

Then USMC is fooling itself by firstly giving all its officers Platoon Leader course, then picking some of them up to fly and then again putting some of those in trench or inside Abrams as FACs. But from what I know about USMC overall effectiveness, it doesn't resemble the ship of fools. BTW, Brits apparently still stick with the rule that the newly commissioned O-1 in Royal Navy or Royal Marines has to spend a year or so with surface ships or infantry platoon, respectively, before starting to learn to fly. AFAIK before WWII USN had shared similar practice: all those USNA regulars who flown aircraft at Midway had their two Ensign years on battleships and destroyers.
 
Max the Mad Russian said:
Then USMC is fooling itself by firstly giving all its officers Platoon Leader course, then picking some of them up to fly and then again putting some of those in trench or inside Abrams as FACs.
Click to expand...

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Keep in mind, the USMC also has enlisted FACs. But I honestly don't know if that proves or counters whatever argument you're trying to make about a Shoe admiral.
 
Well, whatever stupid it may sound, but I'm just trying to find out the way Navy answers the question of topicstarter, 'cause it surely does. Being far from insisting that I do know more than you, I simultaneously think that being stubborn in neglect is the wrong way to treat the newcomer whatever naive his question may be.
As for ADM Stavridis, in his NWC Review article "Heart of an officer" he stated that at least Annapolis as a commission way should include the whole pipeline for "Joint Naval profession" quite separated from warfare ones, and this pipeline's alumni could serve better the JTAC duty, among the other ones. Stavridis may or may not be right on that but he had joint flag job of biggest level and being JO had a Shoe tour in the steam guts of a carrier, CV-59, so he probably qualified for such opinions.
 
Max the Mad Russian said:
Well, whatever stupid it may sound, but I'm just trying to find out the way Navy answers the question of topicstarter, 'cause it surely does. Being far from insisting that I do know more than you, I simultaneously think that being stubborn in neglect is the wrong way to treat the newcomer whatever naive his question may be.
As for ADM Stavridis, in his NWC Review article "Heart of an officer" he stated that at least Annapolis as a commission way should include the whole pipeline for "Joint Naval profession" quite separated from warfare ones, and this pipeline's alumni could serve better the JTAC duty, among the other ones. Stavridis may or may not be right on that but he had joint flag job of biggest level and being JO had a Shoe tour in the steam guts of a carrier, CV-59, so he probably qualified for such opinions.
Click to expand...
25953
 
@Max the Mad Russian

Russian and Chinese naval aviators should first send their new pilots-in-training to infantry school, supply corps school, chaplain school, and postal worker school before giving them ANY time in the cockpit. That is the best way to ensure they are well-rounded and competent in combat.

Another best practice is to take your mid-career RFN and PLAN commissioned officers and send them into a different unit for 2 years as a top secret enlisted soldier/sailor. This is a common practice in elite NATO military units called "undercover boss" and is very effective at promoting morale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top