For the record, I'm not the least bit excited about changing FITREPS. I don't think it'll change a thing.
My remark about SWOs was mostly in reference to Spekkios close minded idea that high percentages = everything is great around here.
-
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
It's finally happening . . . Big Navy is canning the stack rank FITREP/Eval
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
For the record, I'm not the least bit excited about changing FITREPS. I don't think it'll change a thing.
My remark about SWOs was mostly in reference to Spekkios close minded idea that high percentages = everything is great around here.
Dude. What part of this do you not understand? It's not about promotion percentages or bonus money. It's about aviators being saddled with extraneous bullshit that has nothing to do with the wings on their chests. Given, some of that BS comes with being an officer in the Navy and I 100% get that but being tactically proficient in gray aircraft requires thousands of hours of experience, training, and proficiency flights to keep the pointy end sharp. When pilots are spending 10 years (and that's assuming they're due course and do everything right ) of their 20 NOT in the cockpit doing SWO jobs and whatnot, the BS level is higher than it should be. The other problem is that taking a JG out of the FRS and turning him into a fully capable, qualified combat aviator capable of fighting the aircraft AND handling the administrative minutia of his ground job takes a about 2 out of his 3 years in the squadron. We're not magical warfighters straight out of flight school. That's not how it works. In the helo community it takes more like 2.5. So, given that info, you're looking at 1 year of being a combat effective pilot (I.e. turning DRRS-N boxes green and being good enough at it to matter) out of their JO tour + 2 years of DH (assuming they come into three squadron qualified and ready to go which not all of them are) = 3 years out of a 20 year career as an aviator where youre actually in the fleet fighting the good fight as an 'experienced' aviator.
That being said, changing a FITREP format isn't going to fix that and that's the part of the story that your O4/5 board percentages aren't telling you. The new FITREP will, if anything, result in some good dudes probably getting fucked over until the COs learn how to play the 'new game' and then it'll be back to business as usual around here.
I'm curious about this. What "SWO jobs" are you guys filling? I have zero carrier/big deck experience, so honest question.
I don't consider Shooter a SWO job. Or any of the CSG or LNO type billets.
NAV/ANAV, OK, I get that, but there really aren't that many of those jobs in the entire Navy when you consider how many ships actually have aviators in those.
Yeah, we're on the same page.
This is likely going to be a clusterfuck that takes several years to work out.
One could make a pretty solid argument that most of the "SWO" jobs that aviators fill on the CV are filled because it's a CNAF owned ship and a ship whose whole existence is to support naval aviation. From the NAE perspective I can see a huge value both tactically and operationally in having a ship dedicated to aviation crewed by aviators who "get it."
I see your point, but at the same time, I could also see the aviators who get it serving on staff or in some other capacity as an LNO, or SME for the issues that require the knowledge and experience of the aviators. The reality is, TAO is valuable to a SWO. It means nothing to an aviator and is almost a sign of someone on their way to a FOS. You can't tell me that I could possibly understand in depth the systems and procedures required of a TAO in a 2 year tour, perhaps much of it in the yards when I didn't even get sent to the school. If the job is so vitally important, why did my PQSes get gun-decked by people who couldn't even explain to me the signoffs but we're qualified to sign it off? TAO should be a long-term qual that is given to dedicated experts. And I say that as a person with a TAO letter and experience as a TAO underway...
That's a function of poor training and leadership, not an indictment of the system that put you in that billet.
There are some good reasons for not putting aviators at the TAO position. You have yet to articulate one.
Well I think the system is what created the timeline, training pipeline and timing issues that led to the adulterated qualification process that has led to watered-down corporate knowledge.
You're going to have to be much more specific.
I mean, let's be clear, for anyone from the outside looking in, and even those of us with experience - it seems pretty crazy that an entire staff of TAO's who are there to "fight the Strike Group" are made of entirely aviators - when there is an entire type of officer designator called Surface Warfare Officers. I don't recall seeing a single SWO as a TAO on the CVNs in which I served, but I may be wrong. How that became an aviator job is something that has always made me curious.
So you are saying you knowingly took a designation in a job you weren't comfortable doing as a result of a lack of quality training and experience? Or are you saying there is a lot of fluff in your PQS and you glossed over unimportant shit?
One impugns your character, and that of those responsible for your training; the other is business as usual when dealing with a bloated PQS that never gets smaller...
Which is it?
CVN TAO is useless to a SWO.
Well, "useless" may be a strong word, but it is not regarded as highly as AEGIS TAO.
FTAO/BWC or TAO?
The TAO of a CVN does not fight the Strike Group.
Being S, X, Z, or B (ie part of DESRON or CSG staff) is useful for a SWO.
Touche. But, they fight the ship, do they not? It seems silly that it's manned by people who are not Surface Warfare Professionals.
Ok, I'll bite here. First my past experiences. I was an AEGIS FC prior to my current job. Spent plenty of time on a cruiser and have a very good working knowledge of all naval fire control systems up until circa 2005. What I don't know beyond that isn't relevant to this post. Note, I'm referring to the surface and air picture here, anything below my waterline was delt with guys who had thick glasses that hid behind a curtain.
With that in mind, no, a CVN does not fight the ship. ERMEGERG!! You say. We have weapons systems, we most protect the ship!
If any weapon system is employed on the CVN, the layers in front of it that have failed are emense. At this point what ever ram or captain it won't shoot you've got left likely won't keep your DCA napping.
That is what an hvt is. Who failed when Kennedy got shot? It wasn't the guys by the limo, same with Reagan.
The real professionals are manning the layers outside the CVN. Think of your CVN tao as your friendly marine base gate guard.
Thanks for clearing the picture up for me. Still doesn't clear up in my mind why it's not a SWO job. I actually kind of agree with and to a minor extent, understand why the disassociated sea tour is in our career structure; but to another degree, do feel like some of it is mopping up SWO attrition as has been mentioned in this thread.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The part I chimed in was about 'rack and stack' FITREPS and 'timing' being the only deciding factor for O-4, and a service that supposedly only keeps 10% of its officers past a JO tour.
I have no skin in the game when it comes to what part of the aviation career path you are dissatisfied with. As you aptly put it, that's 'out of my swim lane.' All I'm saying is from the outside, the majority of your arguments revolve around "I have gold wings, therefore I should more time flying." I don't think that the Navy's measure of ROI for an Officer's training is time spent deployed at the tactical level like yours is. If you want to say that aviators should be CWOs or LDOs, the only comment I have is that WWII showed that there are significant challenges when you had SWOs commanding carriers and carrier task forces. Any argument to move aviators into a more cockpit-centric career path is going to have to answer how you're going to do better for the Navy than placing an aviator in these 'boring' non-flying positions, among a whole slew of other cost-benefit analysis questions that we really don't have the data to even answer.
FWIW, our community has the same kind of grumblings - why don't we split engineering and tactics like the Brits? Why don't we use shore duty crews to go to shipyard boats to keep at-sea crews proficient? You want to talk career death, being detailed to a shipyard boat will do that for you. The list goes on... but ultimately someone with all the data has looked at the picture and decided this is the best we can do. Without that information, it's all just speculation and self-serving wishes.
And none of all this has anything to do with what started this discussion, which was your original claim about luck and timing being the deciding factor in a system that promotes a significant majority of its officers to O-4.