USAF Enlisted Pilots, The Right Stuff, Stolen Bikes, AIC, and SWO pipe dreams.

[RedFive]

There's an inherent problem with this entire discussion. In fact, with many discussions on AW. I hear lots of great ideas (and, to be honest, some shitty retarded ones, but that's par for the course), but rarely do we see traction in real life. Just once...one time...I want to walk into work and I want someone to run up to me and say "Dude! Holy Shit...have you seen the naval message that just came out this morning???" And I'll shrug it off as just another bullshit message...but then I'll read it and discover someone in the Navy has some balls and has actually unfucked some seriously broken shit. It'll be like Field of Dreams when James Earl Jones tells Kevin Costner "People Will Come" and everything in the world will be right again -- just replace the word "baseball" with the word "flying." That's what I want for Christmas. It's not the money. It's not even the stupid collaterals. Release a naval message saying pilots can be fucking pilots and stop worrying about this golden path bullshit.

Unless you can do that and make some real efforts to change a la USAF, we're all fucked because my peer group is dropping letters en masse. We're so fucked, fucked people look at us and say "Man, I'm glad I'm not that fucked!" Problem is PERS doesn't know it or won't admit it. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Write. USNI blog, Proceedings, find someone with a personal blog (CDR Salamander), publish your own writing using Medium. You'd be surprised how many people in positions of "power" read those things...

 

[RedFive]

Write. USNI blog, Proceedings, find someone with a personal blog (CDR Salamander), publish your own writing using Medium. You'd be surprised how many people in positions of "power" read those things...

Fair point to consider, perhaps I will...but...I'll need someone to edit out all the curse words.

 

[Flash]

...Unless you can do that and make some real efforts to change a la USAF, we're all fucked because my peer group is dropping letters en masse. We're so fucked, fucked people look at us and say "Man, I'm glad I'm not that fucked!" Problem is PERS doesn't know it or won't admit it. I'm not sure which is worse.

I wouldn't be looking to the USAF as a service that is trying some real efforts to change, more like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Brett327]

Problem is PERS doesn't know it or won't admit it.

Or they don't really have the authorities to do anything about it. I think that's an important difference. They also worry about spooking the herd, which I know sounds ridiculous to those of us who are already spooked, but that's their way of putting their finger in the dike until they figure something out. I think most of you would agree that we're not in this situation because of policies issued by PERS 43, but they get to deal with the mess generated by everything we've talked about in this thread.

VADM Burke will be taking questions in Whidbey tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what he has to say.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

I wouldn't be looking to the USAF as a service that is trying some real efforts to change, more like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Maybe, maybe not. They at least acknowledge there’s a problem.

 

[zippy]

You guys are ignoring what I’m saying—- we need to reduce our operational commitments. Less WESTPAC, no more 1.0 in the gulf, complete withdraw from AFG. The problem is that we have become used to being at war 24/7/365. This is unrealistic and unsustainable. The manning and equipment issues below this ground truth. We have too much war and not enough shit.

Start with that, then we can implement the types of solutions I was talking about.

Adjusting US foreign policy goals, to address Retention issues amongst the services is kind of like letting the tail wag the dog and a slippery slope. At what point do we just say fuckit and dispand the military because deployments are too detrimental to QOL of service members all together?

Part of the issues revolve around trying to constantly do things on the cheap manning wise. “Shrinking to Manning” likely isn’t going to solve the issue either. You’d likely see relief of QOL pressures by actually increasing military end strength to meet manning needs at 100% than you do running commands at 50-70% requirements with the same workload. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s the political will on the part of congress to part with those sweet defense aquisitions spending dollars for their districts in return for an expansion of personnel (jobs program) and the American public won’t support increased defense spending on personnel just for the sake of it.

 

[Griz882]

For ~80 years the completion of a college degree has been used by the Navy, in addition to the Navy and Marines, as a screening tool to determine who can meet the initial qualifications to be a student aviator. There have be times when that requirement has been relaxed, as in the case of NavCad's, MarCad's and STA-21 candidates, but that requirement has served the services very well.

Not quite....my father started his NA training in 1942 with eight months of college - and he was ordinary. On December 7th, 1941, the active duty Navy had 138 fighter pilots of which all but 17 were officers and over 60% lieutenants or above. By 1945 70% of all NAs were ensigns or lieutenants junior grade, and most of these were men with only only two years of college. My father didn't finish his college degree until 1947 but somehow managed to survive all of his combat missions in the Pacific. NavCad (a different program than the "V" system my dad came under) continued at full throttle until 1968 giving the Navy thousands of "under-educated" commissioned aviators. There were even a few NavCads at AOCS in 1986. By 1981, when the last enlisted pilot retired, more than 5,000 enlisted men of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard served under the NAP.

It strikes me that those times when that pesky college "requirement has been relaxed" are the very times the Navy needs aviators the most. The question for today's leaders is simple..."Do they need aviators or college graduates?" You make a good argument for the post-secondary track and others make an equally good argument for the other way. Other questions might be platform based, mission based, or even re-considering what a career in the navy should really look like.

 

[azguy]

1. You don't even know what an airwing strike lead is. Do some research and then you can come at me.

2. I am saying if you take 100 people and put them into a pilot syllabus, and 50 of them have a degree, and 50 of them don't, the 50 that do will statistically do better. The same way that if you take the 50 that have a degree, and split those up into 25 that played sports (or lots of video games) growing up, and 25 that just read books, the 25 with the hand-eye coordination will do better than those that just read books. If we aren't currently hurting to find 25 guys that have a degree, and have hand-eye coordination, then why fix a problem that isn't there. The Navy doesn't currently have an accession problem. Who cares how the Aussies do it? When we can't fill our minimum quotas then we can look at reducing the requirements.

3. I did re-read my post. Please tell me where my post is poorly written.

4. Since you don't seem to get the idea: There are different levels of difficulty to Naval Aviation. There is much less task loading put on a guy flying a C-40 from Oceana to Fallon than there is on a one as part of a Large Force Strike. Maybe there are specific areas where the FWO would work, but then again, if you have enough guys who are more qualified then why even try?

5. I don't vomit profanities to all who disagree, just the Retarded Douche. I remind you of a quintessential liberal? You are high my friend. I knew they approved medical marijuana in Florida but I didn't think it was OK to smoke while in the military.

Just to be clear, when the 22 yr old, E-5, AIC tells you to 'Commit,' you do, right? (Hint: he didn't go to college).

 

[Recovering LSO]

Just to be clear, when the 22 yr old, E-5, AIC tells you to 'Commit,' you do, right? (Hint: he didn't go to college).

Sigh.... If you want to talk about your OS controllers, get a helmet, because it ain't gonna be pretty.

 

[Hotdogs]

The Navy doesn't currently have an accession problem.

Rumor on the street right now in Pcola is that statement might not be entirely true. Atleast for the Marines... Not sure if the quotas for the Navy have been effected but I can’t imagine it being far behind.

It strikes me that those times when that pesky college "requirement has been relaxed" are the very times the Navy needs aviators the most. The question for today's leaders is simple..."Do they need aviators or college graduates?" You make a good argument for the post-secondary track and others make an equally good argument for the other way. Other questions might be platform based, mission based, or even re-considering what a career in the navy should really look like.

Not a good arguement. Flying rudimentary aircraft from the 1950s and 60s compared to the advanced aircraft we fly today is a complete different skill set. Today’s pilots are similiar in the sense that we fly aircraft but we are way more systems, spectrum, and data managers than those pilots of the past. That in and of itself requires an intellectual and analytical ability that was not required as much by our predecessors. I see your point but the operating environment of 50 years ago does not directly transfer to current operations.

 

[Flash]

Not quite....my father started his NA training in 1942 with eight months of college - and he was ordinary....It strikes me that those times when that pesky college "requirement has been relaxed" are the very times the Navy needs aviators the most. The question for today's leaders is simple..."Do they need aviators or college graduates?" You make a good argument for the post-secondary track and others make an equally good argument for the other way. Other questions might be platform based, mission based, or even re-considering what a career in the navy should really look like.

I intended to start the timeline post-war, ~70 years, and since then the overwhelming number of Naval Aviators have had a college degree when they started training. Those exceptions to the rule, like NavCads and STA-21 sailors, either had some college (NavCads) or prior service (STA-21's) to base their selection on. We invest far more in our aviators today and don't have the same luxuries of an infinite number of applicants and training assets as they did back when your father went through. And as Hotdogs also points out the aircraft we fly today are far more complex and require a higher level of education than was required 80 years ago.

 

[Flash]

Maybe, maybe not. They at least acknowledge there’s a problem.

I get the sense from USAF folks that they really aren't doing any better tackling the retention problem than we are, I would defer to our USAF members about this though.

 

[sparky]

I'm not so certain a college degree is that great a differentiator - I'd agree most successful college students (graduated w/high GPA) probably have some study skills and techniques that might serve them well in API/Primary. Though a lot of bright successful high school graduates probably similarly have a solid start on study skills & techniques, too.

Sure we have more complex airplanes and systems than in the '50s ... there's a good reason we spend time with schematics and charts. The RAG is there to make system experts from art majors and everyone else. I don't disagree that as a group the college graduates with high GPAs tend to do slightly better, as they probably hit API with fresh and honed study skills, and I submit that a solid start in API helps throughout the rest of the pipeline so advantages go to the students w/good study habits and techniques.

So where it's really the enlisted vs officer 'thing', I have no doubt whatever rank/grade, a designated aviator can and will do the job. The pipeline is there to ensure that.

If retaining Naval Aviators is a problem, find a path to removing those things that kill the joys of flying for a significant number of NAs/NFOs. You don't need to slide them off to some new rank/designator/rate ... we already have FTS billets and we don't promote everyone to DH and beyond. Let your best and brightest not wanting to go DH stay in the cockpit, longer. I'd venture more than a few takers even to stay company grade and fly to 20.

Where your greatest fear is 'losing' aviators to CIVLANT, if anything your enlisted/warrant people are going to be more motivated to leave, if you're compensating them significantly less than commissioned types.

 

[nittany03]

It applies to all and is sincere (an it's "an" historian ).

No, it's not. You don't say "an house," "an hedge," or "an haberdashery." "An historian" is a pseudo-British affectation that people think makes them sound more cultured or credible, by trying to convince their reader that they naturally speak with an English RP accent or something. It's like misusing "whom;" it only impresses undergrads or other people who don't comprehend proper grammar.