O4 List

[KBayDog]

So when it comes to scale the US Navy is dealing with a much larger group of folks that we have to manage, having career O-3/4 aviators would be a much harder animal for the US Navy to wrestle with from a personnel perspective than our 'cousins'. So while a good idea I just see it being very hard to manage from a personnel perspective, something a lot of folks don't seem to realize when they argue for it.

It can be done. Again, look at Army aviation. It would just require tweaking our manpower systems...something unlikely to happen, thanks, once again, to Newton. (Seems to be a common theme, huh?)

Besides, how much harder could it be to 'manage' a force of JOs who remain relatively stable within their fields than it is now...where you have to deal with thousands of officers moving every year? In addition to playing the annual shell game and the enormous expense of dealing with orders/PPO/TMO, detailers/monitors/XOs/individuals spend countless hours trying to ensure that everyone is 'tracking' with the standard career paths dictated by our current promotion systems...all the while making sure that the less-than-career-enhancing billets are filled, too. I don't envy those at our respective Death Stars.

Sorry, I fail to see how a more stable force with fewer moving pieces would be harder to manage than what we have now. As others have pointed out, the current model won't change because, yes, it would be a massive undertaking...one that would have to be administered by the products of the current system. I'm realistic - I know it ain't gonna happen unless directed by outside forces (such as the ones who control the purse strings), and developed/implemented by a stable group of personnel who will see it through.

But I can dream, can't I?

 

[Flash]

It can be done. Again, look at Army aviation.......Sorry, I fail to see how a more stable force with fewer moving pieces would be harder to manage than what we have now.......

But I can dream, can't I?

I don't think the Army is the place we should be looking for a model of how to do things personnel-wise. Army aviation is much more limited in scope than Navy, Air Force and even Marine aviation. Their one main role is to support the troops on the ground (Yes, I know, the Marines do too but in reality often play a bigger role). And they have a two-tier system where the COs are not the foremost experts in their aircraft and how to employ them. That may work for the relatively limited role that Army aviation plays in the overall scheme of things but Navy, Marine and Air Force aviation play a much bigger role with operations that are often much more complex and with a larger role in overall combat operations. For those kinds of operations the folks leading the units and the operations need to have at least as much if not more experience than the people they are leading. That is not to say that Army aviators aren't very skilled and are damn good at what they do, it is just an entirely different kind of flying with a different purpose and their use of Warrant Officers works within that particular system.

And I don't buy that the proposed system with career pilots and NFOs would be more stable or easier to manage because you would end up with a 'two-tier' system of aviators, with all the attendant difficulties of having to manage two similar but distinctly different career paths for guys doing the same thing. I could also see friction resulting from a group of guys/gals only one rank below a CO but with more considerable experience than them in the same squadron. It happens now in a few cases but it would become the norm if this system came into being.

I am not saying the idea has some merit but I think we are too big for it to work on the scale it happens in allied air forces. Either I can agree way it is just a dream likely to be unfulfilled.

 

[KBayDog]

For those kinds of operations the folks leading the units and the operations need to have at least as much if not more experience than the people they are leading. That is not to say that Army aviators aren't very skilled and are damn good at what they do, it is just an entirely different kind of flying with a different purpose and their use of Warrant Officers works within that particular system.

-"I flew single-engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether."
-"IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF FLYING."

Sorry...I couldn't let that opportunity pass.

In any event, I don't agree with the premise that leaders need to have as much or more experience than the people they are leading. If that was the case, we'd have SNCOs as infantry platoon commanders...not 22-year old butterbars. I had a squadron CO that was not a WTI (pretty rare in the Corps), but he was in command of several WTIs with more combat experience than him. He had a very successful command, and is now an O-6.

Leaders need the knowledge and judgment to put the right people in the right place at the right time to accomplish the mission. This knowledge isn't an intimate understanding of everything - it's knowledge of his people and his mission, and their impact on the big picture. From this, he'll decide how to best employ his unit within its capabilities and limitations. The CO isn't expected to know everything. If he was, there'd be no reason for him to have a staff that analyzes the details and presents him with options to accomplish the mission.

And I don't buy that the proposed system with career pilots and NFOs would be more stable or easier to manage because you would end up with a 'two-tier' system of aviators, with all the attendant difficulties of having to manage two similar but distinctly different career paths for guys doing the same thing.

I think it would be significantly easier to manage. If LT X wants to go on and become Fleet Admiral, he can still go down that path. His career path, jobs, schools, etc. would be similar to what they are now (or what "they" deem to be the best command route at the time). He wouldn't have to face the horror of non-career-enhancing billets. LT Y, who has no aspirations of becoming a Field Marshall, can stay an O-3/4 and keep flying. He can be the guy who bounces between fleet, TRACOM, station, etc. flying jobs. Again, the Death Star would have to re-think how it operates in order for us to go to something other than a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter career path for officers.

I could also see friction resulting from a group of guys/gals only one rank below a CO but with more considerable experience than them in the same squadron. It happens now in a few cases but it would become the norm if this system came into being.

Aren't we already headed down that path? With all of the non-aviation jobs and schools required to become CO (admittedly, probably on our side moreso than yours), aren't we already setting ourselves up for squadrons where the COs have less hours/aviation experience than their senior O-3/4s who went on non-command career paths? (Phrogdriver knows more than a little about this.) Either way, I don't see that sort of friction developing, as the choice will be there to go on two different career paths within the same community.

Additionally, this is where that "professionalism" thing comes into play. We have all served in jobs where we knew more about what we did than the Shrub Club or Head Shed. What did we do in those situations? We provided the best advice we could, gave the CO options, and carried out his orders. Simple as that. Also, I think we can agree that the good leaders solicit advice/information from the experts (that "staff" thing again) on the best way to employ forces. In this case, the experts would be O-3/4 aviators who have stayed in the cockpit and are current in the weapons and tactics that might have fallen off the CO's radar as he went to NPS, prior to serving as an action officer on Joint Easter Island Command's J-42, before assuming command.

I am not saying the idea has some merit but I think we are too big for it to work on the scale it happens in allied air forces.

Either I can agree way it is just a dream likely to be unfulfilled.

Agree.

 

[Jim123]

-"I flew single-engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether."
-"IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF FLYING."

Sorry...I couldn't let that opportunity pass.

No apology required; I believe there is a strong naval aviation connection with the character Ted Striker and that makes the quote totally on topic.

 

[Flash]

-"I flew single-engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether."
-"IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF FLYING."

Sorry...I couldn't let that opportunity pass.

Eh, you got me.

In any event, I don't agree with the premise that leaders need to have as much or more experience than the people they are leading. If that was the case, we'd have SNCOs as infantry platoon commanders...not 22-year old butterbars. I had a squadron CO that was not a WTI (pretty rare in the Corps), but he was in command of several WTIs with more combat experience than him. He had a very successful command, and is now an O-6.......With all of the non-aviation jobs and schools required to become CO (admittedly, probably on our side moreso than yours), aren't we already setting ourselves up for squadrons where the COs have less hours/aviation experience than their senior O-3/4s who went on non-command career paths?

An infantry platoon is not = to an aviation squadron and a very poor comparison. I think your example of the CO not being a a rare non-WTI is more pertinent, proving my assertion that COs who are not 'experts' are more the exception than the rule in Navy and Marine aviation. While there are definitely exceptions Navy, Air Force and Marine aviation COs generally have as much or more experience than their subordinates. That isn't the case with Army aviation where I knew several BN COs who wore Senior Aviator wings instead of Master Aviator wings. There is often a far more significant gap in experience and flight time between senior Army CWs and their COs, on a scale that we don't see in the Navy or Marines nor will we unless we go to the 'professional pilot' model even with all the non-aviation requirements we have for COs nowadays. That experience is needed when leading a large-force strike across the beach or even higher up the chain, leading an aerial campaign.

I think it would be significantly easier to manage. If LT X wants to go on and become Fleet Admiral, he can still go down that path. His career path, jobs, schools, etc. would be similar to what they are now (or what "they" deem to be the best command route at the time). He wouldn't have to face the horror of non-career-enhancing billets. LT Y, who has no aspirations of becoming a Field Marshall, can stay an O-3/4 and keep flying. He can be the guy who bounces between fleet, TRACOM, station, etc. flying jobs. Again, the Death Star would have to re-think how it operates in order for us to go to something other than a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter career path for officers.

Managing two different career paths for the same type of officers means at least double the work for the personnel folks. And in the end you could also take away some of the flying billets for those still on the career path, making the gap that much worse when it comes to experience. Having peripherally dealt with personnel several points in my career I learned enough to know that 'bright ideas' about personnel often have significant and unintended consequences beyond those intended. It ain't as easy at it looks.

 

[Brett327]

One has to ask themselves, when talking of new ideas: I get where the benefit would lie for people interested in a non-command career path, but what's in it for big Navy? Other than a marginal QOL/job satisfaction increase for a tiny percentage of its officer corps, how would something like this help the Navy accomplish its mission? I would also offer that there's already a path to something like this for guys who just want to fly - it's the SAU. I can see the Navy's answer to this kind of proposal: "Wanna stay in the cockpit, and stay out of the operational part of NAVAIR? Go reserves and join the SAU."

 

[KBayDog]

An infantry platoon is not = to an aviation squadron and a very poor comparison.

You really can't draw a parallel between infantry and aviation as far as someone having to rely on the expertise and advice of his experienced subordinates prior to making life-or-death decisions?

Interesting/disappointing that you think that ~40 young men, with anywhere from a few months to well over a decade of combat experience, putting their lives in the hands of a leader whose experience usually consists of six months of TBS and two months at IOC, is somehow a "very poor comparison." I'd submit that the stakes are much, much greater for those men than they are for us. After all, we've got no shortage of controls in place to help keep us alive.

That experience is needed when leading a large-force strike across the beach or even higher up the chain, leading an aerial campaign.

The Army has historically fought their aviation arm as a maneuver element - at least, much more so than we in the Naval services have over the past 40+ years, and their model works just fine. Will a Naval "large-force strike across the beach" ever happen again? Perhaps it will. I guarantee you, though, that while CAG may be at the pointy end of such a mission, his JO SMEs were the ones who planned the strike. I know there are some differences in how the Blue and Green teams fight, but at least in the MEU model, the Captain WTIs from each T/M/S are the ones who plan, brief, and execute the 30+ aircraft combined-arms "large-force strike across the beach"-type missions. The CO and det OICs might very well fly in the missions (sometimes they don't), but the normally the designated mission commanders are the O-3 SMEs who are knee-deep in the planning.

Anyway, I see that this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll respectfully bow out now. That said, my opinions still stand...and I won't hold my breath hoping that our manpower systems will ever be revisited to reflect the reality that with ever-shrinking budgets, increasingly complex (and more expensive) aircraft, and career paths that take us out of the cockpit more than ever before, there is a real need for aviators that stay in the cockpit, become experts in our complex systems, and provide the guidance that our commanders deserve.

 

[Brett327]

I know there are some differences in how the Blue and Green teams fight, but at least in the MEU model, the Captain WTIs from each T/M/S are the ones who plan, brief, and execute the 30+ aircraft combined-arms "large-force strike across the beach"-type missions. The CO and det OICs might very well fly in the missions (sometimes they don't), but the normally the designated mission commanders are the O-3 SMEs who are knee-deep in the planning.

My experience that the guys leading the strikes at Airwing Fallon are usually the DHs and sometimes CO/XO. These are the guys with the strike lead quals (or they're upgrading at NFL). Regardless of whether CAG/DCAG are going to "lead" any large force event over the beach, I don't think you'll see many JOs put in charge of organizing the planning effort - they'll do the grunt work, but the guy who is ultimately responsible to CAG is more than likely going to be O4 and above. YMMV.

 

[MasterBates]

The big Navy benefit would be
1-More experienced on average crews. There is a difference between "I'm a Level 3" and "I'm a level 3 that has actually done the stuff in the syllabus more than once"
2-New guys trained by guys who have more experience, not guys who just got the magic Level II/III/IV stamp last week.
3-Cost reduction in training track. It's cheaper to send a "Career Pilot" to a CAT-III syllabus going back to a fleet aircraft if they have been in a TRACOM shore tour. It's FAR cheaper to retain a LT/LCDR over 12 for 3 more years than to train a ENS/JG/LT to fly, go to the RAG as a CAT-1 and then only get one fleet tour out of them for the money.
4-You'd need new "fresh blood", so it's not like CNATRA is going to go away. But being able to cut 10% of the flight hours away from the VT/HTs would save the limited training assets we have, in addition to the fuel, maintenance, etc.

Like many ideas, this is mostly fighting institutional inertia. If we are downsizing, we need to be smarter with what we do with our limited training assets so we have the money on the operational side. I don't think we are getting a great recapitalization of the CNATRA fleet anytime soon. The 57s are old as fuck, and the 6s are there because the 34 is older than fuck, and we got glommed into the Air Force with that one.

I don't see new 45s being bought in large quantities anytime soon, nor a replacement for the 45 on the horizon. The T-44s are getting up there. The TC-12s are going away (if not gone already).

My proposal:
All new guys go through flight school as normal.
They do their first fleet tour. Formal counseling on command vs career track. And I don't mean "Read this powerpoint and ask me any questions". Financial, promotion, timing and all other "known" implications. No decision made. Nor asked, as not to taint FITREPs.
Go to first shore tour. At near the end of the tour, guys choose "Professional Pilot" or "Command" track. Formal designator change. Not just a "I'd like to go this way". Nobody is forced to one or the other, but at this point, you should know enough to make a decision.
After the split:
Command to Dissasoch, DH, and so forth.

Pilot Track:
Normal up to YG + 8-9
10-11 RAG and back to fleet as a Super JO. Have them in a different FITREP 'Stack' like LDOs
Screen for LCDR/Etc as norm, but with different "Expectations" for this designator, like it is with LDOs
12-14 Back to RAG/TRACOM as a LCDR/OP-T DH
15-18 Back to Fleet squadron as a community appropriate 'pseudo DH'. These guys would be good for the non ticket punching DHs, QAO, etc.
18-20 TRACOM/Station SAR OIC/Similar. Possibly screen for CDR before this tour, as a "LDO"
20+ hang out as a CDR until reaching max TIG if they don't want to leave. I don't forsee this designator making Captain.
Possible TRACOM command, like how SELRES is worked into the rotation in VTs. Again, not a "needed' thing, but if they need COs, it's not like they don't have TRACOM experience at this point.

 

[The Chief]

.... My proposal ....

Interesting proposal MB. Sounds like a personnel system designed by an engineer.
FWIIW department, the arguments dance around the 800 pounder in the room, that is a 20 year retirement system. Some are hard at work to change that to a 40 year, age 62, which ever comes first. The other, lighter weight gorilla is a flawed FITREP system, which the Navy has been struggling with since heck was a pup. In my day BUPERS had a not so secret "rate the rater" system whereby FITREPS were recast based on known "biases" of raters. Soup sandwich.
In my experience, as someone put forth, I was full of piss and vinegar and 17 year old, the harder the assignment, the more risk, the most challenge, I was at the front of the line to take it. No illusions, that is what I wanted to do. While atypical at 12 years and barely 29 years old I found myself as an E-9, with nowhere to go. No more promotions possible, and the days of sitting in the back of an A3 history, I began a career transition program. Retired at 18 years service, with some pretty impressive credentials. The Navy, then later other employers paid me many times over what I would be making as an E-9 for my experience and talents. Had I been looking at a 40/62 retirement, choices would have been far different. While this is a bit different it should be food for thought.

 

[smoke_screen]

With two AF siblings I can say that Air Force aviation career progression, promotion, etc, are about a million times more reasonable than ours. The options and trade-offs are simple and clear-cut. You can easily fly constantly and lose promotion potential, or stay in one place for a long time, and generally make which trade-offs you are willing to make, all without the endless curtains of BS that we deal with (i.e. incorrectly asking the detailer or your XO about a career option that changes their perception of your undying commitment to be like them and thus your performance evaluation). Aren't there some AF on here? It seems like they don't have many similar conversations.

 

[Brett327]

@ MB: You're making a lot of assumptions on this though. Firstly, we have no idea how much interest there would be in something like this. None of us could begin to even guess accurately. You're not going to be able to completely staff the RAG or TRACOM with the Career Pilot types. Second, you're making more assumptions based on your own community experience that don't necessarily translate across the board. Experience in the RAG or in the TRACOM does not translate to operational experience. Unless you're planning on keeping the Career Pilots in Operational squadrons all the time (burnout), there's no operational experience advantage.

Finally, we already have an experiment of this sort running right now in the flying CWO program, so it should offer some clues as to how such a thing would go down if it were done with larger numbers. While I have no personal experience with the flying CWO people, people who I've talked with about it are pretty lukewarm about it.

Here's an assumption I'm going to make: Vocal members of this forum notwithstanding, I suspect that there would be very little interest in this kind of thing Navy-wide. Certainly not enough to staff all the RAG and TRACOM billets. Hard to prove one way or another, and I'm sure we all have personal anecdotes to the contrary. That said, the type A nature of this business tends to attract people who want to have command some day.

 

[MasterBates]

@ Smoke_Screen, I've had similar conversations with my ANG (and regular USAF) soon to be brother in law (C-5s) . He looks at our promotion and detailing system like it's a bad joke.

For all the AF bashing we do (generally in good fun) this seems to be one thing they do better. They don't call their DHs DHs, but they have a similar career milestone, and they are not hell bent in the YG+11 like we are. He's never not been able to be honest with the old man about what he wants to do.

It seems much more transparent on their side.

 

[MasterBates]

@ Brett. The guys I've talked to that are lukeward about Flying WOs, has mostly been with how BUPERS has not been anywhere near committed to the program, and also, they get so few that it's hard to judge the program and its impact.

 

[Flash]

......Finally, we already have an experiment of this sort running right now in the flying CWO program, so it should offer some clues as to how such a thing would go down if it were done with larger numbers. While I have no personal experience with the flying CWO people, people who I've talked with about it are pretty lukewarm about it.

The Navy also experimented before with this sort of thing within the last generation with the 'flying LDO' program. We had a few former LDO aviators when I showed up in VQ and they said it was a 'bright idea' but never worked out as planned and it was ended in the early-mid 90's.

Here's an assumption I'm going to make: Vocal members of this forum notwithstanding, I suspect that there would be very little interest in this kind of thing Navy-wide. Certainly not enough to staff all the RAG and TRACOM billets......

Having a 'professional pilot' career path also reduces those RAG and TRACOM numbers for the folks on the traditional career path, starting a vicious cycle where traditional-track folks have less and less flight time, negating the advantage of more experienced 'professional pilots'.