SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[usnavymle]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here debating mil-mil BAH are, in fact, mil-mil?

I am, and can honestly say that co-lo shouldn't even be considered a factor. When my wife and I negotiated orders two years ago, her detailer told her there wasn't anything he could do; we had approved 1306's, but he couldn't "just invent a billet". She was then sent halfway across the world.
Now that I've been given the green light for OCS, she'll be forced to choose between career progression or co-lo. We're fine with that, but I'm sure the pay hit she'll take from not advancing will be pretty substantial in the long run. There's your pay sacrifice for spouse co-location.

 

[vxc961]

I'm generally not a fan of adopting the "corporate USA does this, so MIL should..." mentality, but we're not living in 1915 anymore. As a reservist who tries to keep work happy, Navy happy, wife happy, kids happy, and finally self happy, I agree with usnavymle that such things are appreciated, but that he's (or the family isn't) certainly not *over* compensated for a mil-mil marriage.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Essays like this really don't do much to help engender support for many of the SECNAV's ideas.

I appreciate her willingness to write, and her willingness to share her ideas and concerns - but sometimes you have to step back and realize that it's not all about you and your individual wishes and desires. More thoughts on this, but I'll happily wait for @squorch2 and others to remind me how backward my way of thinking is.

 

[Spekkio]

1) I am surpised that a woman married to a sub officer would use that community as a reference to better work/life balance.

2) The chest beating about the Navy fighting wars in the comments is a little absurd. We haven't conducted full scale naval warfare since WWII; if that's our only function in life then the majority of ships in the Navy should have been torn down or put into long-term storage decades ago. Our mission in modern times is more rooted in global security, deterrence, and support for ground forces.

3) Sort-of-tangentially related: We claim to be a professional volunteer military, but we still employ a manning model that treats junior enlisted personel like draftees and breeds a high level of attrition in junior enlisted/officer ranks by design. The two are not compatible with each other in the long-term. Moreover, as military platforms get more complicated and training pipelines get longer, it will be increasingly expensive to say 'hey, we're here to fight a WAR. You don't like it? GTFO...' to mechanics, technicians, and officers that the Navy spent years training.

 

[Recovering LSO]

By sharing the link here and offering some level of criticism, I am in NO WAY endorsing the dinosaurs in the comments section of that piece. They embarrassed themselves and really took a chink out of whatever polished veneer USNI may have believed it had.


@Flash which handle did she use to post in the comments section?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Neither do I by the LT didn't have to sink to their level in responding, I am a little surprised she was so unprofessional on such a public forum.

Right, but which one are you talking about? Paris? That's a dude, I know him - and your point remains valid. He can get pretty worked up behind a keyboard....

 

[Flash]

@Flash which handle did she use to post in the comments section?

She doesn't, a reading comprehension failure on my part. My apologies to her!

Right, but which one are you talking about? Paris? That's a dude, I know him - and your point remains valid. He can get pretty worked up behind a keyboard....

And yes, the good LT Paris certainly does get worked up if that is what you call it.

 

[jtmedli]

3) Sort-of-tangentially related: We claim to be a professional volunteer military, but we still employ a manning model that treats junior enlisted personel like draftees and breeds a high level of attrition in junior enlisted/officer ranks by design. The two are not compatible with each other in the long-term. Moreover, as military platforms get more complicated and training pipelines get longer, it will be increasingly expensive to say 'hey, we're here to fight a WAR. You don't like it? GTFO...' to mechanics, technicians, and officers that the Navy spent years training.

Point 3 is something I agree with a lot. One of the biggest money holes in our system is the fact that we're essentially throwing away trained aviators, mechs, ship-drivers, etc... because we live in an 'up or out' system. There are plenty of good JOs and Enlisted that we are losing to a broken promotion and retention system.

 

[Spekkio]

Point 3 is something I agree with a lot. One of the biggest money holes in our system is the fact that we're essentially throwing away trained aviators, mechs, ship-drivers, etc... because we live in an 'up or out' system. There are plenty of good JOs and Enlisted that we are losing to a broken promotion and retention system.

Yea, and I was also speaking on the massive red herring some use when a sailor/officer makes any complaint about QOL. When someone in a leadership position tells AM2/MM2/ET2/etc, who spends his days working with a greasegun and not a firearm, to stfu about extended deployments followed by 14 hour days and weekend duty inport because we're WARFIGHTERS and better QOL will somehow give some imaginary enemy an advantage, he comes across as completely out of touch.

 

[nittany03]

Point 3 is something I agree with a lot. One of the biggest money holes in our system is the fact that we're essentially throwing away trained aviators, mechs, ship-drivers, etc... because we live in an 'up or out' system. There are plenty of good JOs and Enlisted that we are losing to a broken promotion and retention system.

Stack ranking has by and large been shitcanned by the private sector. Why? First, because the line of people eager to fellate Jack Welch has shrunk. Second, because it tanks morale, makes people start politicking and backstabbing to get ahead, and thus forces good people to the exits. There's no service obligation out there. If you're a competent person working for Company A in a shitty culture, and get a decent offer at Company B who treats you better? See ya! Now A's crappy HR policies make them trade a known quantity (you) for the expense of re-hiring someone (which is usually an HR-induced goat-screw for all involved, but that's another rant), the wait for that person to learn the ropes, and the real gamble that they won't blow the hire, and get stuck with someone who sucks.

Jack Welch introduced stack ranking at GE, and got results for a while because it shitcanned the no-loads in the company. But a couple years later, you've cut the fat, and it's now just demoralizing and dehumanizing to the professionals that remain. I know because my dad put up with it for 10 years before retiring, and saw some good engineers get canned for being forced to get GE's equivalent of a "P" FITREP. The practice has often been blamed for Microsoft's "lost decade" under Steve Ballmer. Some nerd humor; note the depiction of what was going on in Redmond at the time:

But by all means; let's manage a 21st century military using 19th century HR practices. Just remember, when someone says "this job isn't for everybody," double-check that they're not actually saying "I kissed more ass and gamed the system better than that other schmuck, so I'm better than they are."

 

[dodge]

My quick rant against Up our Out:

I've sat through many safety briefings where the briefer emphasizes the loss of XX number of pilots due to mishaps and it's subsequent effect on readiness and ability to wage war, etc. Meanwhile, the annual number lost to poor timing, bad briefing, limited opportunity usually eclipses that which we lose to accidents and mishaps. 64 EP/EP aviators last year probably agree. What's in store this year?

Aside from the EP/EP tour argument out there, we're still spending X number of dollars to 'make' a pilot, then toss a certain number each year 'because we have to'...

I don't, in any way, mean to marginalize the effect of losing a fellow service member due to mishaps. It's a tragedy, period. However, we spend millions to make a pilot and then toss them because of timing and fitreps. What's the greater threat to 'readiness'...bureaucratic mismanagement or unsafe practice? What's the pulse of the your flying wardroom currently: I'm afraid to fly, or I'm afraid I'll won't promote due to when I showed up in my squadron?

Furthermore, do our civilian counterparts effectively manage their limited resources by tossing engineers and similar due to an artificial limit. In DOD's case, admittedly, our artificial limit is required by law. But if being ready to fight and win our nations wars is our mission then surely there must be a better system to make us the most effective tool to do so.

 

[Spekkio]

Furthermore, do our civilian counterparts effectively manage their limited resources by tossing engineers and similar due to an artificial limit. In DOD's case, admittedly, our artificial limit is required by law. But if being ready to fight and win our nations wars is our mission then surely there must be a better system to make us the most effective tool to do so.

The question is: if we let everyone stay in, then over time the various training facilities that exist will be down-sized or phased out completely. If a war breaks out that has significant attrition, how does the U.S. train its replacements fast enough?

 

[dodge]

The question is: if we let everyone stay in, then over time the various training facilities that exist will be down-sized or phased out completely. If a war breaks out that has significant attrition, how does the U.S. train its replacements fast enough?

That's a fair concern. My focus is the waste of manpower as currently observed. I don't have any data on how we currently stand with respect to surge training capability or max throughput. The attrition vs. time to train issue is a fair concern, but I don't think our current up/out system is a result of a desire to maintain that scalability. The solution would probably be to throw vast amounts of money at the problem until it's fixed or goes away.

However, I'm not advocating letting everyone stay in. Send non-performers packing. A challenging task requiring commanders and raters to be honest with their evaluation. If you don't make aircraft commander or insert_community_qual _here, or get a DUI or similar, send people out the door sooner. Even SEALS have a probationary period I believe.

With a fixed number of 'seats', I agree that retaining more guys on the back end reduces the number of SNA/SFNOs needed up front, and we'd be able to cut back on some facilities and reduce the overall number of pilots trained each year as a result. A benefit however would be the average experience across naval aviation would see an increase, and you'd have guys with more hours rotating back to assignments to train/mentor new aviators. Rinse, wash, repeat. If we do have to fight that future war, it'll be done with guys with significantly more experience. And, a guy approaching that 8-10 year mark can be more accurate with his intentions as it relates to staying navy which could presumably make managing the demand signal easier.

Ultimately, I think this would need to be coupled with a career path that allows for experienced flyers that won't be future CO's rotate between aviation assignments. It seems like the current path/model has you do two flying tours and then screen/not screen for DH. The non-screeners likely won't fly again and are a wasted resource IMO. While it's great the DH board has all that quality to choose from, shouldn't there be a flying billet of some kind for non-DH's that would be value added for the naval aviation and not a waste of an experienced pilot?

 

[nittany03]

words

I've been saying basically that for years. The issue, IMO, needs to be that people need to meet a standard other than sustained superior timing. I get it that if you don't make community quals in an agreed-upon timeframe, you're done. We do need to avoid falling into the trap of the Army, as it's been explained to me. There the warrants get all the hours, and thus the officers take a hit to their credibility AND are in charge of the warrants. But one would think that you could engineer "the system" to have an acceptable level of new blood and still not waste so much training time.

Heck, the best tactics instructor I ever worked with flat-out told me he was in his dream job, and would have loved to have taught mission commander candidates to retirement. I'm sure he's going to be a great DH and CO, but damn did the Navy waste a good teacher there.

 

[Brett327]

@ Dodge: What you're proposing would completely upend how a squadron is manned - fewer JOs, more top heavy, unscreened O4s and O5s in the mix. Sounds like what some reserve squadrons are like.