The Warrants have arrived

[hscs]

^^ exactly -- the BA will not change. If successful, the Navy will just take less O-1 SNA/SNFOs. With less O-3/O-4 selects competing for the same number of DH slots -- there won't be a bloodbath, like this year.

I agree that flight time isn't great. Blame Navrip -- blame ourselves. We don't always use all of the flight time we get to its maximum training potential.

 

[FLYTPAY]

If you were smart......

I am the guy on here the people have been talking about. Yes, I am over age 27, I am 31 to be exact. They allowed four year waivers for NFOs and 2 year for pilots. I am currently at VT-4 Primary training. I only have an Associates but have had a lot of other things that helped me get selected. If you have questions, do not hesitate to message me or ask here.

Finish your Bachelor's ASAP. It's free!

 

[SnipeDude]

As an inexperienced former MM it would seem to me that the Navy's money concerns would be better served by replacing the non-flying jobs with LDOs and CWOs.

Take disassociated tours for example: It would seem to me that a tour as a shooter for a P-3 NFO is pretty useless and disheartening except to gain some 'breadth' and 'real' sea time (and of course for the DH board as the system is now) but doesn't make him/her a better TACCO, etc. A smart and hard-charging AB1, on the other hand, would probably kill for the chance to fill such a tour. Additionally, I believe having these mustang programs pay for themselves through their effects on retention.

Then squadron tours could be lengthened to compensate for the elimination of the disassociated sea tour, e.g. 4 yrs JO, 3 yrs DH, providing for more spread of ground/collateral jobs and time to breakout or a smaller overall number of flyers.

Well, thats what I would try having no real f***ing clue what I'm talking about.

FYI, the age requirements for STA-21 and I believe most other commissioning sources are 27 waiverable on a month-to-month basis for prior enlisted service up to 29 for pilot and 31 for NFO.

 

[robav8r]

As an inexperienced former MM it would seem to me that the Navy's money concerns would be better served by replacing the non-flying jobs with LDOs and CWOs.

Take disassociated tours for example: It would seem to me that a tour as a shooter for a P-3 NFO is pretty useless and disheartening except to gain some 'breadth' and 'real' sea time (and of course for the DH board as the system is now) but doesn't make him/her a better TACCO, etc. A smart and hard-charging AB1, on the other hand, would probably kill for the chance to fill such a tour. Additionally, I believe having these mustang programs pay for themselves through their effects on retention.

Then squadron tours could be lengthened to compensate for the elimination of the disassociated sea tour, e.g. 4 yrs JO, 3 yrs DH, providing for more spread of ground/collateral jobs and time to breakout or a smaller overall number of flyers.

Well, thats what I would try having no real f***ing clue what I'm talking about.

FYI, the age requirements for STA-21 and I believe most other commissioning sources are 27 waiverable on a month-to-month basis for prior enlisted service up to 29 for pilot and 31 for NFO.

In the Strike/Fighter community, LDO/CWO's DO fill the majority, if not all of the non-flying jobs. ABE/H's can aspire to become LDO'CWO's and eventually have the opportunity to become the Handler on a CVN.

You are correct about P-3 NFO's filling CVN billets. In the current environment, it makes us (P-3 aviators) more competitive not only for the DH board, but for the command screen as well. In a perfect world, I would love to see P-3 aviators fill those disassociated billets that relate more to our mission skill sets - like those that are more applicable to ASW and C4ISR. Having said that, I realize that injecting "common sense" into the way the Navy does business is fruitless !!!

 

[Brett327]

As an inexperienced former MM it would seem to me that the Navy's money concerns would be better served by replacing the non-flying jobs with LDOs and CWOs.

Take disassociated tours for example: It would seem to me that a tour as a shooter for a P-3 NFO is pretty useless and disheartening except to gain some 'breadth' and 'real' sea time (and of course for the DH board as the system is now) but doesn't make him/her a better TACCO, etc. A smart and hard-charging AB1, on the other hand, would probably kill for the chance to fill such a tour. Additionally, I believe having these mustang programs pay for themselves through their effects on retention.

Then squadron tours could be lengthened to compensate for the elimination of the disassociated sea tour, e.g. 4 yrs JO, 3 yrs DH, providing for more spread of ground/collateral jobs and time to breakout or a smaller overall number of flyers.

Well, thats what I would try having no real f***ing clue what I'm talking about.

FYI, the age requirements for STA-21 and I believe most other commissioning sources are 27 waiverable on a month-to-month basis for prior enlisted service up to 29 for pilot and 31 for NFO.

The point of an "experience broadening" disassociated tour isn't to make one a better TACCO/ECMO/WSO, but to make one a better CO, CAG, CCSG, where a big picture perspective matters. Secondly, longer tours are not a good idea. The jist for upwardly mobile officers is to get your ticket punched and move on. If we had four year first tours, people (and their FITREPS) would be peaking after 2.5-3 years and then there would be a bunch of people bottled up at the top waiting to leave. Also, people start to burn out around 2.5-3 years and need a change of venue at that point.

Brett

 

[SnipeDude]

The point of an "experience broadening" disassociated tour isn't to make one a better TACCO/ECMO/WSO, but to make one a better CO, CAG, CCSG, where a big picture perspective matters. Secondly, longer tours are not a good idea. The jist for upwardly mobile officers is to get your ticket punched and move on. If we had four year first tours, people (and their FITREPS) would be peaking after 2.5-3 years and then there would be a bunch of people bottled up at the top waiting to leave. Also, people start to burn out around 2.5-3 years and need a change of venue at that point.

Brett

Thanks for your insight Rob and Brett but it still seems smarter to me to have the younger officers focus on flying and tactics and let those who have already screened for CO/CAG/CSG broaden their strategic experience. As others have already said maybe the bottleneck problem is trying to groom everyone for command from the start...

 

[Brett327]

Thanks for your insight Rob and Brett but it still seems smarter to me to have the younger officers focus on flying and tactics and let those who have already screened for CO/CAG/CSG broaden their strategic experience. As others have already said maybe the bottleneck problem is trying to groom everyone for command from the start...

That's just it, by the time you're on your 3rd tour, you're not a "younger" officer anymore and it's time to prep for the next level. The senior first tour LTs are usually going to be most proficient and knowledgeable aviators in the fleet. While it's true that the O-4s and above do have the benefit of experience which can even things out, they usually don't have the time to devote to studying tactics, etc, as their responsibilities have shifted towards an increased managerial workload.

Brett

 

[robav8r]

Secondly, longer tours are not a good idea. The jist for upwardly mobile officers is to get your ticket punched and move on.Brett

Brett - in the current "reality-based" world, I agree. But ideally, longer tours (than they are now) are better. In the P-3, junior NFO's (NAV/COMM's) are rushed through the PQS "fire hose" in order to become a TACCO as soon as possible. Some of the BEST TACCO's i've met were the ones who were a qualified NAV/COMM for at least a year or more. They were more experienced and just "better" overall. The move from a 42 to 36 month, JO tour, makes this extremely difficult at best. Your comment about "studying" and "proficiency" is right on though. How many O4's have we all flown with that were more interested in the upcoming JO job change, or COC 5050 than actually staying "current" in NATOPS, TACMAN, SPINS, etc.

Perhaps having a cadre of "flying WO's" who do nothing but "stay current and proficient" will be a good thing (long-term). Everyone knows that the shit-hot, senior LT is identified early on and sent to "career enhancing" jobs like Flag Loop or Detailer or "whateverthehellthe communitythinksisimportantatthetime" job to make him or her more "competitve" for DH/Command/FLAG.

 

[bert]

Brett and hscs have it right on this one. Also, if you are even scheduled for the pipeline at this point, then there simply are not going to be enough WO's to affect your career, unless you are a passed over O-4/O-5 looking for a C-12 job down the line. In that case, you are looking 15+ years in the future and many more things will change between now and then.

 

[bunk22]

Come on, the line between an excellent pilot and an average one is very thin in a crew aircraft.
We even went through a period where the squadron (co and DH's) wanted more well rounded people to fill those IP slots...so if you were an average,slightly above average pilot but kicked ass in your ground job you could get an IP slot...as opposed to being a shit hot pilot and average at your ground job.

That was for a very small window of time, and is obviously the exception to the rule, but still....

We even had 2ps be the pilot training officer at one point...But NATOPS was always reserved for one of your top 3 guys.

I guess what I am saying is that sometimes those advanced quals are less based on how good you are, and more based on how good the command thinks you will be down the road.

This is so very true, at least from what I saw in the COD community. Being the best pilot really meant nothing as far as FITREPs go. Hell, that extends all the way to the front office now. With all the joint tours or requirements, we are getting skippers with less experience in the cockpit. A recent skipper was just bad in the cockpit. Someone mentioned something about some people aren't meant to be CO holds true as well. It seems many a CO that I've come across as late weren't meant to be CO but did what they had to do to get there. Take the hard tours, do the joint, etc. Didn't make them good leaders, just good enough on paper to get the selection. Cockpit skills meant nothing. So just coming in to fly, not having to worry about the rest of the BS I think is great.

 

[Mango]

I can tell you that the Warrant Officer program is the best thing going for Army aviation. The RLOs (real live officers, an affectionate name for the JOs) are absolutely flooded with paperwork, the likes of which dwarf what I recall from the squadron. As a CW2, I am relatively immune from the PowerPoint drudgery that the JOs deal with on a daily basis.

My observation on the WO program: cheap labor.

 

[Brett327]

I can tell you that the Warrant Officer program is the best thing going for Army aviation. The RLOs (real live officers, an affectionate name for the JOs) are absolutely flooded with paperwork, the likes of which dwarf what I recall from the squadron. As a CW2, I am relatively immune from the PowerPoint drudgery that the JOs deal with on a daily basis.

My observation on the WO program: cheap labor.

People need to stop drawing parallels between the Army and Navy programs, as they have very little in common.

Brett

 

[hscs]

Bunk -- Skippers will only get one joint tour before they start their CO/XO tour. They might spend a year of that at school getting JPME 1 and/or 2 and then a minimum of 24 months in a joint coded billet. If they flew during their third tour (super JO/ CAG staff), that leaves only one tour that they didn't fly.

 

[1rotorhead]

That's if the CO actually went joint after his DH tour. From what I've seen, at least half don't go joint before, they do it after.

 

[plc67]

Mango right. I enjoyed my stint as an Army National Guard Warrant. I got the impression the