I can’t help myself; you clearly have issues. You just called out two of your three skippers as weak pilots in a public forum? How difficult do you think it is to figure out who you are? You’re an HSL guy who has picked up a transition to E2/C2. I’m just guessing, but I bet that doesn’t happen that often. Now that's some of the weakest SA I've ever seen.
-
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
I can’t help myself; you clearly have issues. You just called out two of your three skippers as weak pilots in a public forum? How difficult do you think it is to figure out who you are? You’re an HSL guy who has picked up a transition to E2/C2. I’m just guessing, but I bet that doesn’t happen that often. Now that's some of the weakest SA I've ever seen.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I was talking more along the lines of currency. They never fly. They are almost always on waivers for not making annual mins.
And it's a community mentality.
I call things as I see them. If more of the people in Naval Aviation would call things as they see them vice trying to punch another ticket to climb the promotion ladder, the service and the country would be better for it.
I will still stand by my call that HSL picks leaders more on admin & ticket punching ablilty than tactical prowess..
Both are needed, (admin & tactical) but I think tactical should take priority, as long as you can do the admin stuff, as it is a neccescary evil.
And it's a community mentality.
I call things as I see them. If more of the people in Naval Aviation would call things as they see them vice trying to punch another ticket to climb the promotion ladder, the service and the country would be better for it.
I will still stand by my call that HSL picks leaders more on admin & ticket punching ablilty than tactical prowess..
Both are needed, (admin & tactical) but I think tactical should take priority, as long as you can do the admin stuff, as it is a neccescary evil.
Concur. I can’t wait for the deluge of perceived injustices against MB in his new community. “they (INSERT INJUSTICE HERE) me because I was a helo guy.” Remember this post, this will happen, mark my words.
Firehawk
New Member
I've heard recently of HSC gun hops being performed with no ammo and the ever-effective "bang" sound effect being muttered by the crewmen. No one at HSC is going to take that mission seriously until there's light at the end of the tunnel that they might ACTUALLY employ the tactics. Seems almost a distraction for most. Wonder if things will change when the HS bubbas start the transition. HS digs the tactical side of the house.
However...
HSC has already become victim of the Navy's favorite call line..."multi-mission capability". HS has proven that a squadron can have too many missions areas to be strongly proficient at any of them. That's no fault of their own...just too many requirements to support. Now toss in VERTREP (and the threat of performing some sort of "minesweeping" role) just to spread things thin a bit more. Some rotary mission areas (read: SPECWAR/CSAR) should be kept in units that can train for that area exclusively....and have the potential of using those skill sets on a regular basis. Would be nice to see the Navy steer a few of the active component HSC squadrons towards that mission area exclusively....stay off the boat, and get into the dirt everyday.
As far as manning goes, don't even get an FTS guy started about being short-handed...
I have a couple of questions about this. HCS is becoming HSC? Can someone explain whats going on with that to me?
I know a 60 driver in the Redwolves (he's actually one of the bigger supporters of me going Navy, and a really good guy, I'm sure a few of you guys in the community may know him) and have talked to him a few time about the subject but I find it odd that it is only 2 reserve squadrons and really no active duty squadrons train for SPECWAR/CSAR pretty much as their primary mission. I would think that you would want to have a couple of active duty squadrons as well. I understand not sending an entire squadron as you don't need that many airplanes and crews, so you send out what you need when you need it, but It seems odd to me that rather than pump out an AD squadron or two they are sending first tour AD guys to reserve squadrons to replace those guys in the reserves that can't legally be deployed. Anyone have any info on that?
I know that in the AF all the Helo squadrons for the most part are under Spec Ops Command. Now the Guard/Reserve Squadrons sit on alert at home to help supplement the Coasties when they are not deployed but they are pretty much always training for the specwar/csar mission, and they really don't have a big specwar assault force, they have PJs, CACs and weather guys. It would make sense to me if there were a 60 squadron based at Little Creek, and they did stuff primarily with the SEALs.
sorry for highjacking the thread, interesting article though.
The change from HCS to HSC is really just a change in Type-Wing alignments. In the past, the various reserve helo squadrons were under one wing -- now they have been moved over to the active component wings that mirror their capability.
The active component squadrons also have the overland missions in their bag of tricks. However, there are a couple of issues -- #1) HS squadrons, (who have the gear and more focussed training than HSC active component) are tied to the airwing and the boat. They go where the boat goes. Putting them ashore is never more than a temporary gig. #2) The HSC squadrons do not have the requisite equipment installed and have only just begun training to work toward moving ashore. Eventually, I would expect that the active component HSC squadrons would fill overland sourcing -- however, that will require far more time training, NCEA, and a better FRS syllabus.
As for why 1st tour guys showed up -- that was a way to kill two birds with one stone. The year groups that these 1st tour guys came from were extremely overmanned in the helo aviation side of the house -- so bad that these guys might never have deployed. By sending them to HCS, the helo world was able to take the pressure off of HCS to fill seats and allow more opportunities for the younger types. This was a one time deal and will not be happening again. Third tour types will be filling those billets.
Finally, the RQS squadrons (-60G guys) are not in AFSOC.
The active component squadrons also have the overland missions in their bag of tricks. However, there are a couple of issues -- #1) HS squadrons, (who have the gear and more focussed training than HSC active component) are tied to the airwing and the boat. They go where the boat goes. Putting them ashore is never more than a temporary gig. #2) The HSC squadrons do not have the requisite equipment installed and have only just begun training to work toward moving ashore. Eventually, I would expect that the active component HSC squadrons would fill overland sourcing -- however, that will require far more time training, NCEA, and a better FRS syllabus.
As for why 1st tour guys showed up -- that was a way to kill two birds with one stone. The year groups that these 1st tour guys came from were extremely overmanned in the helo aviation side of the house -- so bad that these guys might never have deployed. By sending them to HCS, the helo world was able to take the pressure off of HCS to fill seats and allow more opportunities for the younger types. This was a one time deal and will not be happening again. Third tour types will be filling those billets.
Finally, the RQS squadrons (-60G guys) are not in AFSOC.
The move back to ACC was the 5th re-org in 20 years, so I am not shocked that folks still get it wrong. Minor threadjack: if folks are interested in what is happening for USAF CSAR this is a decent summary:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/gao-re-csarx-recompete-the-contract/index.php
Firehawk
New Member
Only one squadron now.
The primary SPECWAR/CSAR mission has been in the Reserves since 1976 (HA(L)-4, HA(L)-5 and HC-9). I'm on the fence about making it an AC mission. It would make manning a bit easier, but fleet squadrons often have numerous other requirements (boat dets, fleet support, ect) that would pull the focus away from a dedicated style mission. Not to mention, the Navy has to decide at some point if "dedicated" rotary SOF is even something they want to fund. Like I said, there's a major push to make assets "multi-mission capable". I got the impression at NHA that the pure dirt flying isn't something that the Navy is interested in. Funds these days are limited (basically what this thread was about in the first place...sorry for the threadjack).
What makes the "Reserves" so appealing for the mission is that they can draw from the seasoned AC talent pool; guys that gained several tours of experience in the fleet, and decide to go FTS/Reserve. I know the screening board at HCS was fairly stringent, and the pilots attached to the units averaged over 1500 hours stick time, no matter the platform they came from (HS, HSL, HC, HSC, and even Army/Air Force crossovers). Basic aviating skills were honed, and the SWTIs could start teaching more advanced skills right off the bat. Just my opinion, but dedicated SOF missions should be performed by pilots and crews that are proficient in the area. That proficiency only comes from constant training, preparation and experience. Other SOF rotary assets in the DOD are made up much the same way; you have to do X-number of hours behind the sticks before you can apply for the SOF units. And that's still no guarentee they are going to take someone.
The Reserves are not subject to the same fleet support requirements that the AC is. They can be called at a moments' notice, and be put on the road. Unless called up, they are usually right at home or on a 2-week training det. Fleet Commanders can't just pull an HSC squadron off the boat and send them in country for a year.
There's definitely negatives, though. Once the clock runs out on Reserve mobilization, the manning problems start. The "two year mobilization in a five year period" rule ties up the unit's ability to man dets and get the mission done. AC squadrons could be on the road without those restrictions.
Doesn't really matter, though. All Reserve helo squadrons are attached to AC Wings and are manned by numerous AC augmentees; the line has been blurred so much that they might as well be AC squadrons. Pure Reserve rotary aviation is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Not to stir the pot, but a few first-tour guys (and even a few more senior guys) I know of were basically told to go IA, vice volunteering. Even though you may think CSAR/SOF flying is glamorous, some are told that going IA to a Reserve unit is a career-killer. Maybe that mindset is changing, but I'm not sure. Been away from the rotary side for 6 months now.
That's why I said if the Navy decided they really wanted to create effective dedicated AC CSAR/SOF squadrons, they can't be attached to a CAG or mired with any other fleet requirements. Would take a pretty bold shift in policy to see that happen.
However, a 4-star SEAL taking over SOCOM was a very interesting development....
This would be more of a discussion for another thread, but you have to keep in mind that 13xx - more so than the other designators - tends to punish folks who do anything "different" with their career path. It has nothing to do with what or where the mission is, but everything to do with the fact that you stepped (or were pushed) off the beaten path. That is why so many aviation communities initially responded to the push for IA's by sending their "broken toys" rather than their "players".
[And please note, I use those terms loosely to signify that those are merely community perceptions, and I am not implying that those were valid judgements on those that were sent.]
@ Bert:
You have to love the AF mentality on Helo Aviation: Everyone needs it but no one wants it.
I am surprised that I didn't catch my slip up with RSQ wings being transfered over the ACC. I've been trying to stay on top of BRAC as I'm pledging a couple of Air Guard units. (I know I know, but I think I'd like to fly the A-10, or do RSQ for the Guard just as much as flying for the Navy).
ACC gaining control just means less money for these guys. ACC cares about the Big Bad 1st Fighter Wing and their F-22s. They grudgingly gave the money for the A-10c program, (though they still refuse to fund the re-engining program) and I can only see them starving the RSQ squadrons. It could be a bad time for helo guys in the AF (if there ever is a really good time?).
@ firehawk and hcsc: Thanks for the responses!
It sounds to me that the Navy has a HUGE ability with their platforms but doesn't want to commit anyone to any one thing. A jack of all trades and a master of none sounds great but if my life is depending on one mission, I would rather have the guy flying to specialize in that one mission. (ie, if a sub is attacking my boat, I really don't care how well that helo guy can insert seals, I want that torpedo to sink that sub)
Even the AF viper units specialize into one category or another, be it CAS or intercepting cruise missiles for homeland defense or air to air point defense...
Maybe a new wind of restructuring is coming with the Seal Admiral.
I'm not knocking on the Navy, if they decide to send me to pilot training before a Guard unit, I'm going. I'm just researching more as to what I'd be getting into.
You have to love the AF mentality on Helo Aviation: Everyone needs it but no one wants it.
I am surprised that I didn't catch my slip up with RSQ wings being transfered over the ACC. I've been trying to stay on top of BRAC as I'm pledging a couple of Air Guard units. (I know I know, but I think I'd like to fly the A-10, or do RSQ for the Guard just as much as flying for the Navy).
ACC gaining control just means less money for these guys. ACC cares about the Big Bad 1st Fighter Wing and their F-22s. They grudgingly gave the money for the A-10c program, (though they still refuse to fund the re-engining program) and I can only see them starving the RSQ squadrons. It could be a bad time for helo guys in the AF (if there ever is a really good time?).
@ firehawk and hcsc: Thanks for the responses!
It sounds to me that the Navy has a HUGE ability with their platforms but doesn't want to commit anyone to any one thing. A jack of all trades and a master of none sounds great but if my life is depending on one mission, I would rather have the guy flying to specialize in that one mission. (ie, if a sub is attacking my boat, I really don't care how well that helo guy can insert seals, I want that torpedo to sink that sub)
Even the AF viper units specialize into one category or another, be it CAS or intercepting cruise missiles for homeland defense or air to air point defense...
Maybe a new wind of restructuring is coming with the Seal Admiral.
I'm not knocking on the Navy, if they decide to send me to pilot training before a Guard unit, I'm going. I'm just researching more as to what I'd be getting into.
Strictly personal opinion here, but I've had a fair amount of interaction with USAF (on the acq side relating to CSAR-X) and I don't see life getting any better for AF helo types. If you love the mission and that is your top priority then that is a great way to get into it, but the lifestyle and non-flying aspects aren't going to improve, and the new helicopter program is going to be a mess regardless of which way the new award goes.
That also depends on the particular IA. Honestly, if the position is one that just requires some admin/warm body (as many do), no reason to send your community's water-walkers if they can be best employed in other areas like the RAG. Conversely, the IA command that stood up to meet the EW requirement (JCCS-1) would (and does) benefit from our best experts. That said, the IA card is now playing as a positive in the selection board process per the Board Precepts for the O-4 and ACSB.
Brett
I am not arguing the point that some just need a warm body, just pointing out the initial response to the requests. Since the ACSB is not a statuatory board, I would be curious to see how much the precept really affected the decisions of the folks on the board who came in knowing who their community players were and what path they should have followed (not trying to be a cynic, just a realist). I think your community is in a unique position as far as sending their best, and I haven't seen the helo guys buy into that.
From my board experience (within the limits of what I am allowed to discuss, of course), a strong concurrent FITREP from a 3 or 4 star played well as you would expect, from a one or two star earned a mention, and other than that they were treated almost as non-observed time ("hey, he went and did his time and didn't screw up"). I think there will be a lag time between the increased emphasis on IA's and the stronger community guys getting assigned to them, appearing before boards, and getting due credit for them.
(And no, I am not trying to argue that that is fair. If we ship some poor guy to the sandbox - whether he is out in danger or doing ppt's in the air conditioning - I do think it ought to count for something).
EDIT - I have not been involved with a board this year, so take the second paragraph as last year's news.