I thought this was an interesting article. Frumby
http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/Archive/2006.12/NavalAviation.html
http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/Archive/2006.12/NavalAviation.html
-
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
The Crisis in Naval Aviation
- Thread starter Frumby
- Start date
Along those lines:
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/ndaafy08/HASCFY08NDAARelease.pdf
See page 18 for our buys, and page 31 for aviation in general.
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/ndaafy08/HASCFY08NDAARelease.pdf
See page 18 for our buys, and page 31 for aviation in general.
Hardware issues aside, how are we fixed in terms of "the spirit of attack, born in brave hearts"? I still think that THAT is our biggest advantage in combat and the real "asymmetric advantage" of our Navy and Marine Corps aviation team.
But that's just me...
All the best, Spike
But that's just me...
All the best, Spike
I just don't see the sky falling. At least not in tacair, and not for aging equipment. I do, however, have some other non-equipment concerns.
If we really want to improve our fighting forces I know several very real and inexpensive concerns that should be addressed.
1) Airspace- We are still using the same overcrowded chunks of airspace given to us in the sixties. Although intercept ranges happen at much greater distances, we are forced into these same overused MOAs with compressed set ups and very narrow azimuth.
That is not to mention that we are step children of the ATC system. Who forgot to invite the military to the RVSM meeting? A lot of that is our own doing. And we should have made the jump to civilian ILS for the hornet a long time ago.
2) Training and Bandits- Long before my time, the Navy drastically cut back on advesary squadrons. I just don't think you can replace the quality of training that we receive from them, vice the usual squadron v squadron 4v4 or in house 2v2.
3) Our overtasked aircrew- I know most vfa pilots, especially single seat, would agree that we are given way to many ground duties and that the flying and tactical proficiency usually takes a back seat. I just have the fear that someday we are going to face an opponent who has similar equipment, also receives 200+ hours a year, but has had great bandits, awesome airspace, and spends most of his working day concerned with becoming a better pilot.
If we really want to improve our fighting forces I know several very real and inexpensive concerns that should be addressed.
1) Airspace- We are still using the same overcrowded chunks of airspace given to us in the sixties. Although intercept ranges happen at much greater distances, we are forced into these same overused MOAs with compressed set ups and very narrow azimuth.
That is not to mention that we are step children of the ATC system. Who forgot to invite the military to the RVSM meeting? A lot of that is our own doing. And we should have made the jump to civilian ILS for the hornet a long time ago.
2) Training and Bandits- Long before my time, the Navy drastically cut back on advesary squadrons. I just don't think you can replace the quality of training that we receive from them, vice the usual squadron v squadron 4v4 or in house 2v2.
3) Our overtasked aircrew- I know most vfa pilots, especially single seat, would agree that we are given way to many ground duties and that the flying and tactical proficiency usually takes a back seat. I just have the fear that someday we are going to face an opponent who has similar equipment, also receives 200+ hours a year, but has had great bandits, awesome airspace, and spends most of his working day concerned with becoming a better pilot.
BlackBearHockey
go blue...
I hope I'm not speaking out of ignorance, but aren't the aircrafts mentioned scheduled to be phased out or replaced? The P-3 going to the P-8, the EA-6B to the growler, and the incoming of the JSF will provide a very potent addition to an already powerful arsenal. I know it won't be instantaneous, but wouldn't that significantly ease the strain?
Ground jobs are just a fact of life in the Navy. Sure, it would be nice to have more of an Air Force model -- where there are no pilots in maintenance or admin depts. However, USAF brings a large tail with it -- something that does not work when there are a limited number of racks on a boat.
VFA is luckier than the helo squadrons that I have been in -- the VFA squadrons that I have seen have had a fair number of LDOs/CWOs cover their Admin and Maint jobs.
VFA is luckier than the helo squadrons that I have been in -- the VFA squadrons that I have seen have had a fair number of LDOs/CWOs cover their Admin and Maint jobs.
The growler program seems to be reasonably healthy, but JSF has many issues, and the P-8 many potential issues. I wouldn't count any of those chickens quite yet.
And to add my .02 to ground jobs, I don't think they are holding us back from our flying potential. Yeah, they occupy time that jet guys could otherwise spend playing volleyball in slow motion, but time saved there wouldn't be spent in the cockpit anyways. I won't speak for all ground jobs, but if your time spent leading your sailors isn't rewarding then you are doing it wrong.
And to add my .02 to ground jobs, I don't think they are holding us back from our flying potential. Yeah, they occupy time that jet guys could otherwise spend playing volleyball in slow motion, but time saved there wouldn't be spent in the cockpit anyways. I won't speak for all ground jobs, but if your time spent leading your sailors isn't rewarding then you are doing it wrong.
UInavy said:
That's an interesting statement. I'd be interested in your elaboration. I'm not arguing your point, just interested to see your perceptions. I think there can be agruments made against your statement, depending on the helo community, but din't know enough about yours to make that statement.
Also, not sure who's point this validates, but it seems that VFx, while busy, manages to get all their stuff done (w/ or w/out the help of the LDOs). You guys have all the ground jobs helo guys do and you still are way more tactically profecient than the "average" helo squadron. Sure there's different levels (I'd guess HS would be at the top of the helo tactical totem pole) but there seems to be relatively (and people, I did say relatively) less concern for things tactical compared to all the other admin that's required.
UInavy said:
Agreed, cool toys too.
Yeah -- agreed it is always greener. Saw a NSAWC journal article about a guy that did a PEP tour with the Fighter Weapons School -- his conclusion -- not always greener.
I guess the Air Force will have to deal with these issues now -- as they are shedding many of their support component officers.
Agreed that helos squadrons seem to get overconcerned with admin BS. It's amazing the difference between a HSC FRS and my current squadron.
I guess the Air Force will have to deal with these issues now -- as they are shedding many of their support component officers.
Agreed that helos squadrons seem to get overconcerned with admin BS. It's amazing the difference between a HSC FRS and my current squadron.
It's also a matter of reality, not just perception.UInavy said:
Jimmy Carter's military. Jimmy Carter's time in office. The "malaise" in the country ... I didn't enjoy it. It was bad, not "good or bad?".
I voted ... with my feet.
I got out and never looked back ... I'll do it again if I have to .... get "out", that is.
Love the "volleyball in slow motion" comment. I do think the ground job does hold us back a lot, though. I would love to go to the vault and look at the secret tac or even just get in the tech pubs, but that's the furthest fire from the house when the old man needs this, that , and the other tomorrow. So, I review my limits and EPs, get in the chapter 2 a bit, and really don't take it to the next level too often.