• 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

NEWS Navy to end ending all enlisted ratings!

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
Naval aviator does it change the meaning of the work or the merit badge on your chest?

and what if they said that the warfare devices were no longer going to be worn? All surface sailors need to qualify ESWS, the person flying the plane has to be a qualified Naval Aviator, so why have the devices on our uniform? What if tomorrow they said take them all off?

I earned what I wore on my sleeve, you earned what you wear on your chest, and it is part of tradition, everyone identifies a sailor by the rating badge and our covers, if I see an old timer out in town and he has the little gold wings on his lapel I know he was a Naval Aviator.

Don't take away what we have earned and identify with.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This thought occurred to me this morning. There are probably 100 good reasons to make these changes to our personnel system. PERS should have front loaded leadership at all levels with 10 of them to use as discussion points with those who the change affects. The more I think about this, the more I'm frustrated with the clumsiness of this roll out.

It's fucking embarrassing.
 

707guy

"You can't make this shit up..."
I'm not joking when I say there was a LS Chief in my squadron converted from SK, who, in his/her junior days was under the impression that every pen, pad, pencil, etc. belonged to "SK1 Illcraft" and could not get over how much stuff belonged to him.

That is one of the f'ing most funny things I have ever f'ing read... Did he ever find the "bucket of steam?"
 
Last edited:

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
This change is bullshit, plain and simple. It's change for changes sake. If there are good reasons for this, I've yet to hear them.

The rollout was horrendous, "surprise!", which only hurts any potentially beneficial aspects.

It removes individual identity from the sailor, and it removes a sense of belonging that a lot of guys get from being a particular rate. AOs, BMs, AWs, etc, ever see how much pride these guys have in their specific rate? At one point in my career I was a machinsts mate, and I took pride in that fact and wore my rating badge proudly. Once I finished A-school, I wasn't PO3 Insanebikerboy, I was MM3 Insanebikerboy. That was a huge deal to all of us that earned that rating badge.

NOS is just NEC in another flavor.

It does absolutely nothing for the sailor post Navy, that's a horrible selling point, and that's the biggest one I've hear so far.

AMOs already try and get personnel based off of NEC. Now they'll just do it based on NOS.

All the Navy needed to do was let guys cross train, similar to a full systems CDQAR, and let them get an NEC out of it.

Tradition is being thrown out the door. I'm all for evolving if it's done for a reason. However, tradition does actually mean something. Ratings going away solves no problem that existed that couldn't have been changed by revamping the NEC/detailing process.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Tradition is being thrown out the door. I'm all for evolving if it's done for a reason. However, tradition does actually mean something. Ratings going away solves no problem that existed that couldn't have been changed by revamping the NEC/detailing process.

It seems like this is what has most people scratching their heads. The intent of this could still have been met with some low-level policy changes and still made the Navy better. But the actual plan that was instituted is causing more of a distraction than an actual benefit.
 

fc2spyguy

loving my warm and comfy 214 blanket
pilot
Contributor
I find this pretty freaking stupid in my opinion. There are several reasons I'm not a fan of it.

1. I hated the rank of "Petty Officer." I don't know why, maybe I was being, wait for it, petty. Something about the rank just irked me. However, I had a significant amount of pride in being an FC1.

2. This whole cross training thing. It simply doesn't work for a lot of the technical rates. I had a year and a half of "A" and "C" schools. Running an entire RADAR system that had several spaces of electronic equipment, cooling equipment, and operating said RADAR required a significant amount of time. Time is money, is the Navy going to start just cross training anyone? Who do you choose to cross train, do you take the person who is a rockstar at their job and cross train them, or do you take SK1 Illcraft and train them?

3. It's definitely a tradition thing for me, and a sense of belonging. I found it funny that they mentioned the whole ESWS system and wings and such. I'm sorry, but those programs don't do crap to make someone much more beneficial, with the exception of the fire fighting training associated with ESWS and I'm sure the dolphins as well. The EAWS doesn't make someone a better Sailor, it means they were able to memorize some shit for long enough of a time to pass a test and a board. People run around and get signatures like it's a treasure hunt, and I feel like most of the info is out in the form of significant gouge sources.

These are a couple, and like I said, the first one may be insignificant, but it always just irked me.
 

LFCFan

*Insert nerd wings here*
I find this pretty freaking stupid in my opinion. There are several reasons I'm not a fan of it.

1. I hated the rank of "Petty Officer." I don't know why, maybe I was being, wait for it, petty. Something about the rank just irked me. However, I had a significant amount of pride in being an FC1.

The word "petty" has such a bad connotation now compared to back in the age of sail. Also, it means that sailors from E-4 to E-6 all have the same title, when one sailor is kid who just put on crows, and the other is about to put on anchors. I'm sure some slang will evolve so that the saltier PO1s have a way to stand out.

2. This whole cross training thing. It simply doesn't work for a lot of the technical rates. I had a year and a half of "A" and "C" schools. Running an entire RADAR system that had several spaces of electronic equipment, cooling equipment, and operating said RADAR required a significant amount of time. Time is money, is the Navy going to start just cross training anyone? Who do you choose to cross train, do you take the person who is a rockstar at their job and cross train them, or do you take SK1 Illcraft and train them?

I imagine it will be billet specific. Working in CVIC on the boat, there were a number of ISs standing watches or working programs that frankly should have been done by CTTs or CTRs, but only the VAQs get a CTT, who is doing VAQ stuff instead of working on SIGINT for the air wing / CSG. To me, this cross training thing could help with that in the future by allowing ISs to get a more fitting NOS when coming to a squadron (as an example). Because right now the NECs they are coded for have absolutely nothing to do with the type of intel work they do on the boat. I'm sure that a lot of career fields that have a pretty solid, standard grounding in what they do will be less affected.

3. It's definitely a tradition thing for me, and a sense of belonging. I found it funny that they mentioned the whole ESWS system and wings and such. I'm sorry, but those programs don't do crap to make someone much more beneficial, with the exception of the fire fighting training associated with ESWS and I'm sure the dolphins as well. The EAWS doesn't make someone a better Sailor, it means they were able to memorize some shit for long enough of a time to pass a test and a board. People run around and get signatures like it's a treasure hunt, and I feel like most of the info is out in the form of significant gouge sources.

These are a couple, and like I said, the first one may be insignificant, but it always just irked me.

I came to this conclusion as well, and was surprised by it. On my deployment, I saw so many folks from outside of nerd-land doing the information warfare pin that my sailors were struggling to get boarded/tested etc. One upside is that other folks get to step behind the green door to see what we do instead of just assuming we are doing nothing in value in a very air conditioned space. Is a senior chief from maintenance control who gets their pin really a "specialist" in information warfare? Definitely not. We really push sailors that they must must get their main pin (and others) as quickly as possible, but I don't totally see the benefits.

I'm probably going to get eaten alive for saying this by some of you, but I don't think it is significant enough a qualification to warrant slapping it on to your title. Or worth waking a petty officer up in the middle of their night so that they can correct a form to add a chief's warfare quals to his block on some paperwork.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Working in CVIC on the boat, there were a number of ISs standing watches or working programs that frankly should have been done by CTTs or CTRs, but only the VAQs get a CTT, who is doing VAQ stuff instead of working on SIGINT for the air wing / CSG.
Threadjack: we can't dig too much into the topic here, but there is a reason for that. Any VAQ squadron worth its salt should have a tight tie into what is going on in SIGINT land, so as to do VAQ stuff more effectively. And that's about all that can be said about that outside SIPR. Yes, I do know that there are times that that CTT has become nothing more than a glorified IS, but that's on the VAQ squadron for misusing the Sailor, and being tactically lazy.

If the air wing needs SIGINTers over and above that, then the air wing needs to be manned appropriately. </RANT>
 

RadicalDude

Social Justice Warlord
Saw this posted on another site. Interesting perspective:

"Normally I just lurk here, but since everyone is piling on and I've never seen this board have so much activity I figured I'd provide my own perspective.
I miss my rate. When I was joining up, the rates and their cool symbols and all that were a part (not a decisive part mind you, but a part) of the reason I picked the Navy. I enjoyed our history, our sense of community pride and identity. I enjoyed the good natured poking at the other rates.
I am (was) a CTR. Or, a "Real CT" as the retired CTRCM who does goundskeeping at Corry Station would tell you. A "Retard" if you ask CTNs. Along with CTIs and CTMs, we were the OG CTs back in the 40s (There was another, but that rate was killed a long time ago) so we had a proud little history of our own.
But being a CTR, I can see clearly why this systemic change is happening. Back in the day when CTRs were created, we did basically one well defined thing. But as time moved one... we began doing other things. So many other things today that when someone looking to sign up asks me what a CTR does, I really couldn't tell them. That's because we do everything. We have many separate career paths that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. In fact, our A school, to most CTRs, is laughably useless. I for instance do nothing that even touches what was taught to me.
That makes it a 4 month long waste of money in many cases. But the waste of money does not stop there. Once in the fleet, these people basically now have to go through an "A school lite" to learn how to do their actual job, because they learned zero about it in their job school. Obviously, I can't go into specifics. But there already exists a Navy school that would have prepared me directly for the job I'm doing and it would have saved the Navy much time and money to send me to that school instead of the standard CTR one. But alas, due to the way ratings are set up, this more optimal route was not possible.
This same story is repeated for many other rates as well, I imagine.
I understand the break with long held tradition is really hard to all and really disheartening to some. The more conservative among us are positing some liberal conspiracy to protect the feelings of those who sexually identify as attack helicopters. But really, look at the facts of the matter. You all know the big problems, like ones I just described earlier, that the rating system had. Did they have to get rid of ratings and give us cold numbers? No, probably not. They could have done anything.
This is not merely some silly attempt to just get "man" out of titles. The biggest proof of this is that the #1 most common title in the Navy is now Seaman. They were changing everything. Nothing was safe (well except the title Chief... maybe that was safe). There's no reason for them to have kept "seaman" unless they absolutely wanted to. They killed airman and fireman after all. All announcements and talking points as well don't go near anything gender related. That dumb idea may have been what sparked this one, but it clearly didn't have anything to do with the end result.
Community identity can and will be reestablished, even with cold hard numbers as our titles. For proof of this you need look no further than the Marines or Army. I know hardly anything about those two branches, but contained in what little I do know, is the knowledge that 11Bs and 0311s think they are the shit.
In summary, while sad and nobody likes to see long held tradition die, I think some sort of huge shakeup like this was needed and I think this will work out to the Navy's advantage in the long run. And I don't think it's some bleeding heart liberal conspiracy to take down the patriarchy.
This is just the beginning... obviously more big changes are coming down the pipeline after this. I know that cynicism runs strong among us (myself included), but give this new thing a chance. Sometimes change is good.
-The B540 formerly known as CTR."
 

LET73

Well-Known Member
I think there are some good points in there, but also some missed ones. If the schools and training are broken (and they are) fix the schools and training pipeline. Just because the Marines and the Army do fine with MOSs and job titles, but not rates (and they do) doesn't mean the Navy has to change to be like them. I don't think that this is some liberal conspiracy to destroy the Navy, either, but when you're taking away something that people take pride in, there's got to be some articulated reason behind it. If rates are going away because someone wanted to take "man" out of job titles, well, there's the reason. Ridiculous, but it's a reason. But that's not the reason, since we're keeping Seaman. As far as anyone can tell, there is no reason. There aren't any problems that this solution fixes that requires doing away with rates altogether - and if there are, no one's talking.

Of course the Navy will survive, and after a while most people won't really care about any of this. But I think we're losing something, too.
 

LFCFan

*Insert nerd wings here*
Threadjack: we can't dig too much into the topic here, but there is a reason for that. Any VAQ squadron worth its salt should have a tight tie into what is going on in SIGINT land, so as to do VAQ stuff more effectively. And that's about all that can be said about that outside SIPR. Yes, I do know that there are times that that CTT has become nothing more than a glorified IS, but that's on the VAQ squadron for misusing the Sailor, and being tactically lazy.

If the air wing needs SIGINTers over and above that, then the air wing needs to be manned appropriately. </RANT>

The air wing manning still has lots of 3910s (imagery IS billets) which likely goes back to the days of the SHARP pod or other pieces of ISR gear from the past. The manning needs work.

I understand what the CTT does for the VAQ squadron (even more so with the Growler), and I certainly don't want to take away your crippies! It would be great if you had more of them, actually. We had a great sailor on our cruise, he was also really really helpful with the ISs who needed to learn all the "should be a CTs job" stuff I alluded to earlier. My point was that your one CTT can't be put on the air wing watchbill due to committments to the squadron vice the rest of CVIC, and that maybe the NOS system will make this less of an issue if it opens doors to ISs to get the training they need. I was using this as an example of the limitations of the rate system, and how this new system can have a positive impact in our corner of the Navy.

Saw this posted on another site. Interesting perspective:
This is not merely some silly attempt to just get "man" out of titles. The biggest proof of this is that the #1 most common title in the Navy is now Seaman. They were changing everything. Nothing was safe (well except the title Chief... maybe that was safe). There's no reason for them to have kept "seaman" unless they absolutely wanted to. They killed airman and fireman after all.

Are we sure that they killed airman and fireman? I know the announcement said "everyone is a seaman or petty officer" but I can't help but wonder if this was a small oversight given how a lot of big navy entities tend to just default to the most surface-y black-shoe term/policies without thinking about the rest of the Navy. Airmen/seaman aren't rates per se since you can have undesignated sailors with those titles. On the other hand, they may have gutted all the other "-man" titles since you could have one "airman" NOS and one "seaman" NOS, presenting a problem in what to call someone.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Are we sure that they killed airman and fireman? I know the announcement said "everyone is a seaman or petty officer" but I can't help but wonder if this was a small oversight given how a lot of big navy entities tend to just default to the most surface-y black-shoe term/policies without thinking about the rest of the Navy. Airmen/seaman aren't rates per se since you can have undesignated sailors with those titles. On the other hand, they may have gutted all the other "-man" titles since you could have one "airman" NOS and one "seaman" NOS, presenting a problem in what to call someone.

Based off of the 19 different emails I got the other day when this was rolled it out, all of the talking points specifically mentioned that AN and FN (and HN, presumably) are gone and it's just Seaman. I guess since we can write PO2, we can still write SN, but I don't remember that specifically being addressed.
 

LET73

Well-Known Member
From the message:
There will no longer be a distinction between "Airman, Fireman, and Seaman." They will all be "Seamen."
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I'm probably going to get eaten alive for saying this by some of you, but I don't think it is significant enough a qualification to warrant slapping it on to your title. Or worth waking a petty officer up in the middle of their night so that they can correct a form to add a chief's warfare quals to his block on some paperwork.
Having earned both SW and AW, I completely agree, especially if the AW is provided by a shipboard AIMD dept.
 
Top