I’m trusting our AI overlords to figure it out.
-
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
Naval Aviations "One" Problem...
- Thread starter Empire16
- Start date
Best sushi too!
Possibly. This is probably a topic for another thread but the OSI model works well enough and there are physical limitations due to how transistors and circuits operate. Most of our limitations on the DoD side are due to processes and culture. As I alluded to earlier, we are severely behind the times with the way our network(s) is designed and the way we manage risk. We could automate a LOT of what we do but that requires getting people with the knowledge on how to do that automated testing, alerting, and correction into the government workforce and then spending the money to not only upgrade everything (Billions of dollars upfront) but also to continue to manage and sustain it properly (Billions of dollars over many years). We're are very terrible at the latter due to the way Congress and DoD manages the budget and the very political nature of spending government money. FYSA, Facebook, Google, Oracle, and other companies like them don't have these same problems.
Yeah, I understand. It's a difficult subject and DISA and the Navy make things opaque on purpose.
The AF Cyber community is starting to get it. NIPR O365 productivity tools (Outlook, Teams, etc) are available as web apps and you need nothing more than your device of choice with DoD Root Certificates, and a CAC reader. I am issued your typical gov-owned laptop that is locked down. But I do 99% of by UNCLAS work on my Mac or a Chromebook - both work great for everything from spreadsheets to writing, attending Teams Meetings, teaching Instrument Ground School to AF units as part of my side-duties, etc. Plus working off a non-gov device means I can use modern bluetooth stuff for audio. I still break out my govlaptop for things like accessing the OPM benefits/retirement site (GRB) and accessing the admin tools to do Cyber Liaison duties (manage account lockouts for my Reservists as an example). But the lesson here is you can have a consumer flavored experience AND maintain security.
Waiting for the E-CAC that we can keep on our phones as well as a DOD certified Bring-Your-Own solution for personal phones. That is in the pipeline for AF.
Even some operational apps - PEX for instance - for tracking flying currency and mission quals, required reading, syllabus sign-offs - used by everyone from pointy-nose fighters to helos, can be accessed on a personally owned smartphone with a 2nd factor security (Google Authenticator app).
Last edited:
Yeah, the AF is definitely leading the services on how to implement user-friendly, modern enterprise services. We've been trying to follow their lead but culture and organizational inertia gets in the way. For those unaware, the Flank Speed M365 environment that the Navy uses is on a completely separate domain and network than the rest of the DoD M365 services. Because of this, we lose out on a lot of integration and usability features that the other services have.
Again, we're trying to improve but it's very slow and we our own worst enemy. I too am looking forward to BYOD mobile features, CAC authentication on mobile, and having full integration of M365 products. There are even some very cool things in the works for classified networks. We'll get there eventually but it will take a while. I'm happy that I at least get to be a part of it as an EDO.
…both you and I know that Marine aviation constantly over-inflates the values of quals and undervalues resumes or experience when it comes to assignments. I’ll caveat these next couple of paragraphs that I don’t envy the monitors job at all, and it is a very difficult position to execute well. It’s not personal - They get put in some tough spots.
-HMX doesn’t need to be staffed with 95% WTIs to fly what is essentially Day VFR patterns to the south lawn. No matter how much those guys ramble on about “national missions.”
-Would you rather have a quality division lead with a graduate level STEM degree background at VMX or a NSI/WTI?
-How come WTIs don’t do Air Officer or Staff tours proportional the rest of the population? (Its embarrassingly apparent +0-5)
-Would you rather have a guy who has graduate degree in program management and DAO certifications at the class desk or some rando with no acquisitions experience?
-Do our PEPs all need to be WTIs? If so, why?
-How come we will send any mouth-breather to MATSG who gets selectively scheduled as a HAC, but sending talented sticks to production is frowned upon?
There are plenty more examples. A lot of the decisions made by Manpower are bullshit and not codified anywhere. They’ll always harp on the regulations they use, but when it comes to managing needs vs desires, The Marine Corps is an intellectually lazy organization when it comes to staffing. In the civilian world, you interview and have a panel for selection on jobs that require certain skill sets. In the Marines, the monitor can make stuff up that fits their requirements and have no sanity check. We don’t use our talent appropriately. It’s probably better than the Navy’s system and more “free play” but the grass isn’t always greener.
Obviously some monitors are better than others, and I’ve been fairly lucky. I only had to pull the networking card once or twice.
If the T&R for a TMS requires WTIs to evaluate certain T&R codes and give quals, and if a AirO does not have a need for a WTI in a TMS, then it would make sense from a practical perspective to not send WTIs to be an AirO if you need WTIs to be in the fleet giving codes. Same thing for the MATSG comment - why send a WTI that can give advanced fleet codes to the VTs when its not required and there is a demand for the WTI qual elsewhere.
It wouldn't make sense for fleet units ability to produce flight leads to be limited due to lack of WTIs because we sent WTIs to the VTs to teach people how to land an airplane.
Stereotyping the STEM degree/WTI hypothetical persons - if what is being done is developmental testing the STEM degree person is probably better suited. If it's TAC D&E then the WTI is probably better suited. I guess it depends what you're doing. DAU / DAWIA stuff seems like a waste of time so who cares about that.
For PEPs, if the purpose is to improve relations then probably best to send what the other country wants.
I'm not disagreeing manpower could be better.. a lot better.., but there may be some valid reasons why things are done.
Last edited:
If the military had professional administrators filling administrative roles so that its pilots could do nothing but mission plan, fly, and debrief to be tactical savages - and let people not have to move every 2-3 years - it would go a long way towards fixing things.
Leadership is right when they say our manpower issue is a production problem, but not the way they think. The problem is our system has a massive production overhead. Imagine if we kept people for multi decade careers who become tactical gods and had minimal basic training/production requirements. Instead we spends tens of millions in training and experience for people only to see them walk, then build their replacement up and they walk, and repeat ad infinitum until China kicks our ass and forces us to stop being stupid.
It's almost like a lot of the countries with smaller militaries, who can't afford to be stupid like we can, and let their pilots do nothing but fly and top out at O-3/4 have things figured out.
None of the examples I gave required WTIs to give codes in their TMS. As far as AirO and Staff tours, it’s not about punching codes in a T&R. It’s about the experience you get at the tactical and operational levels with the joint force in the FMF. Not sitting in perpetuity at a training command or nuanced TMS specific gig. Marine aviation entire premise has been integrating with our ground and naval counterparts, yet a significant majority of our aviators have never spent time on a staff working with our counterparts in the FMF.
As far as MATSG - We tend to send fleet burnouts, short timers, and questionable talent to MATSG. You should be able to logically see the impact that has long term. Good gals/guys? Sure, but maybe not the right instructor.
I also have a rub against pilots who do the bare minimum to not get FFPB and get a “good deal” vice the 6 year fleet tour and 3 pump guy/gal who needs to take a break but still has a passion to instruct (Not to mentioned we’re getting paid the same). Bottom line: A better quality spread amongst all our staffing goals wouldn’t hurt and add value to the fleet.
Random8145
Registered User
So genuinely curious about this, but would that be smart though? A problem I could see is the people who do the fighting having no idea how the bureaucracy and planning (like high-level war planning) process works while the people in the bureaucracy have no idea what it is like for the people out in the field actually fighting the war. Isn't it better to have people who have field/combat experience also having to spend periods working in the bureaucracy so that the military is overall well-rounded? So that the plans are not made by people with no field experience and the people in the field are not ignorant of planning?
Typically your admin types aren’t involved in tactical or strategic planning beyond manpower calculations and facility needs (all important). While having a field experienced officer in some shops is absolutely critical, placing a tactical pilot in an administrative/personnel shop is kind of a waste (down at squadron level). The armed forces have cut, over time, a tremendous amount of administrative “overhead” out of the uniform system and placed the burden on “line” or “field grade” officers. I’m an old guy so squadron organization may have changed, but in a perfect world your fliers should be working in the Air Operations and Safety shops (and their associated offices) while Maintenance and Administration is the domain of experts who aren’t trained to fly. Of course we don’t live in a perfect world…so finish that official correspondence, get those personnel records finished, and compile those new directives!
While the overall idea of following the British model of managing longevity of experience has merit, I do think it's wise to still keep aviators in Mx leadership positions. Otherwise Mx can tend to live and die by metrics (up aircraft), which often means the best strategic decisions aren't always made. Having an aviator in a position to provide a sanity check against whatever stop-gap measure Mx may have come up with is extremely valuable.
I live in a world now where there is none of that and it can best be summed up as "terrible."
I can’t argue with that.
Honest question: why do you think the Air Force has similar retention issues among pilots when their service is much closer to this standard (with respect to ground jobs and flying related responsibilities over a career span) than Navy/Marine Corps?
I can tell you anecdotally - the administrative burden on AF rated personnel (pilots, CSO, Nav, etc) is still pretty high - as is the deployment optempo - added to this the Big AF infatuation with hitting JPME blocks and postgraduate education (Masters) to just stay in. Its easy for a 12 year O-4 to do the calculus, see what their peers are enjoying outside of AD and push the button. Plenty of reserve and Guard opportunities to get to 20 if desired.