-
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
NFOs out of the Marines after 2015?
- Thread starter NapalmRat
- Start date
Brett in another post said that NFOs in the Marine community are being phased out after 2015. Is there any truth to this and what would happen to us who are currently in training for the Marine NFO community?
Phone watch as my main MOS?
That's not what I said. I said that there is a good chance that it will happen and that came from the Marine 2 star who briefed us at Tailhook - hardly wild speculation. With what the Marines have purchased/planned to purchase in terms of aircraft, it's inevitable.
Brett
I think theres a few guys at Bell that have been saying the same thing for years about the Zulu.
Not disputing your guy or anything as none of us here have access to that special crystal ball that the appropriations board uses to determine what aircraft we will need in the next 20 years. Just Ill believe it when I see it in writting.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Saying what? That the Zulu is an NFO free platform? I don't see how they can be saying the same thing for years, seeing as how there are no NFO's in helicopters...
My only question (and mainly since I don't keep up on jets all that much) is, what is the USMC going to replace the EA-6B platform with, or are they just going to phase it out?
Why do they really need it?
I think Lewie is right. My limited experience with the Corps was that the EA-6B in the Marine Corps was always a redheaded stepchild.
I agree, I'll believe it when I see it, I posted that drunk anyways. Caveat this with not having flown the Prowler, nor wanting to fly the Prowler, BUT, it is WIDELY known that the Prowlers are National Assets, not a Marine asset, they do stuff that gets tasked from very high places, typically nothing Marine. That's why you'll see them support Red Flag and other ops since the F-111 went away for the Air Force. Why do we need it? Man, from talking to drunk Prowler drivers and reading books, it amazing the shiat they can do, nough said. Moving CLEAR OUT to Widbey, then driving CLEAR OUT to Cherry Point has no desire for me.
No it has nothing to do with NFO's more the "We're gonna get ______ its only a matter of time." Look at how many years the Marine Corps spent telling people "We will have the Osprey ready to go by _____" and it came within a hairs breath of being canned. Same thing with the Zulu, same thing with the possibility of getting Rhinos for the Corps, Ill believe it when I see it.
F- for you too on reading comprehension. Man, a lot of folks sure have a hard time understanding written English. Our teachers should be proud.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Negative. it is widely ASSUMED that Prowlers are a national asset. That is false. The Prowler is a MAGTF asset. Period. The reason they support Reg Flag and other ops, is because they are a high demand low density platform, and whatever Prowlers are avaiable (regardless of service), will support if they can. If a MAGTF requires the use of them, they will get them. Outside of the MAGTF needs, then other services may utilize their services. As for tasking - they get their tasking from the Marine Corps. If they're supporting a different service, then they will get their tasking from them. However, the USMC has tasked them to support that service. They ARE NOT a national asset. That's an entirely different class of (very spooky stuff) aircraft. I'm not going to get into what exactly a national asset is/does because I'm fuzzy as to what I know that is classified, but trust me on this one.
OK, that makes a little more sense. The first statement you made confused me. Timelines are always suspect when fielding new aircraft, however the idea that NFO's will go the way of the dinosaur in the USMC is still going to happen, it's just a question of when...
Good point Phrog. Unfortunately, what to do with NFO's has been an issue since the 70's. In the 70's and early 80's, the S-3 was a two pilot airplane, and then it became a single pilot airplane to open up a slot for NFO's (contrary to some accounts that it was driven by a pilot shortage, the pool time from API to Whiting in late 1978 through early 1980 was about a year, and there were plenty of pilots around). As the 80's were ending, and everyone knew the A6 and F-14 only had so many years left, and with the F'ing/A-18 replacing them, there was a strong move afoot to put NFO's in all helicopters, and I think it may even have been tried once. There was also a thought of putting an NFO in the two back seats of the S-3. As the S-3 departs the scene, and with the A-6 and F-14 only museum memories now, and the EA-6B ultimately going from four seats to a two seat Growler, the NFO issue is getting even tougher, especially in the Corps.
I disagree with your basic premise that these moves were to "save" the NFO community.
NFOs took over the right seat of the S-3 for two reasons. The first and driving reason - to save money. It cost a lot less to train a NFO and there are continued money saving because a NFO does not need X number of landings, approaches, traps etc. to keep qualified like a pilot does. Anything he does need is done concurrent with the pilot instead of taking additional flight time. This was huge dollars saved. The second reason is that the systems in the front right seat were more in line with what an NFO does then what a pilot does. It made more sense to have a NFO that does basic pilot not flying duties (as in you A-6) than to have a pilot do NFO duties.
Placing NFOs in the H-60 was looked at for similar reasons. It was rejected because it was determined that the second pilot in a helo was needed for safety. The onstation flying was determined to be more "manual" and "fatiguing" then that of the S-3 and therefore required a copilot able to periodically relieve the pilot.
Around the 1993 time frame (give or take a year), there was a serious consideration to putting a third NFO on P-3 crews and taking away the third pilot. Again, this was a money saving consideration. This was going to be a post-TACCO qualification. It was felt that the NFO could handle the pilot not flying duties from the right seat while enhancing cockpit tactical awareness (A TACCO qualified NFO in the cockpit with a 2P or 3P when the PPC was not). Again this would save big bucks as pilot training flights would be cut by one third. Probably more importantly, it would also save aircraft life. It was ultimately rejected officially because it was determined that the RAG would have to turn our NATOPS qualified first tour pilots making the RAG too long. The unofficial and probably deciding reason was that three of the four wing commanders and all three operational P-3 Admirals (CFT-72, CPWL, CPWP) at the time were pilots. They fought the study/idea from its conception. Their opposition was plainly (and admittedly by the two I personally spoke too) to protect pilot numbers.