Even if we cut our current air forces in half they would still be huge when compared to everyone else, I don't think folks realize just how small some of our allies' air forces really are.
-
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
USAF Enlisted Pilots, The Right Stuff, Stolen Bikes, AIC, and SWO pipe dreams.
- Thread starter Farva01
- Start date
Even if we cut our current air forces in half they would still be huge when compared to everyone else, I don't think folks realize just how small some of our allies' air forces really are.
I was surprised by this when NATO went into Libya in 2011. It was amazing (and a bit concerning) how quickly our NATO allies were "tapped out".
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
No I do realize... I’m not advocating an isolationist drawdown. But if op necessity allowed us to reduce numbers of CVWs, split their birds up between the rest, retired a CVN or two, decreased our manning requirements... it could fix a lot of what many JOs profess ails us.
Nah...here I can claim "contemporary experience" and we like the "an."
If we do that, stand by for yearlong cruises again.
I think the stuff you propose would be of little benefit and only be a Band-Aid to the serious issues facing our force.
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
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.
You may like it (and feel free to use it), but "a" is also correct, so I'm using that.
I am completely in agreement that what we need is a sustainable strategy for this forever war we find ourselves fighting. This perpetual game of whack-a-mole is wearing out the hammer. However, my statement was made with the realization that it's unlikely the powers-that-be will reduce our operational commitments to that degree anytime soon. To be fair, they have come off the 100% presence requirement in the NAG, but now we have increased presence in the Western Pacific, so it's pretty much a wash (or even a slight increase) in terms of overall operational commitment.
My fear is that it will take a unit being literally unable to accomplish their tasking for the head sheds to realize the scope and severity of the hollow force that has been created by this. Not sure what form that mission shortfall will take, but I can only hope it's not one that leaves our troops hanging.
Last edited:
They are linked you fucktwit. 1. We don't need to do it. 2. Just because a couple of Aussies do it doesn't mean we have to. They have a different education system and like 1 Super Hornet squadron. There is no reason to dilute our talent pool. See point 1, bro.
That is not something the Navy can't impact, that is for our political leaders. I'd prefer the Navy start fixing what it can, and there is plenty it can do in spite of our continued commitments.
Goodfou
Well-Known Member
Post Radical initially responded to:
So you are saying that a warrant can't be successful as a strike lead? After all, Army warrants do nothing but fly from point A to point B in Apaches because they don't have a college degree...Or is it their lack of intelligence and/or dedicated work ethic because there is no way to tell if a warrant has either without a degree?
Reread your own poorly written post and understand why the comment about the Aussies was brought up in the first place. I bet you won't. You'll just vomit out a very intelligent comeback of profanities to all who dare disagree with your opinion....reminds me of the quintessential liberal.
Cheers.
So you are saying that a warrant can't be successful as a strike lead? After all, Army warrants do nothing but fly from point A to point B in Apaches because they don't have a college degree...Or is it their lack of intelligence and/or dedicated work ethic because there is no way to tell if a warrant has either without a degree?
Reread your own poorly written post and understand why the comment about the Aussies was brought up in the first place. I bet you won't. You'll just vomit out a very intelligent comeback of profanities to all who dare disagree with your opinion....reminds me of the quintessential liberal.
Cheers.
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. To me, introducing Warrant Officers into those services with the exception of UAV's and other similar roles is a solution in search of a problem. There are plenty of tweaks and adjustments that could be made to the existing system before taking the step of introducing FWO's again.
As for the Army and how they fly, they simply don't play the same game as the rest of the services when it comes to aviation. It isn't the difference between minor league and big league ball but different sports leagues altogether. The Army utilizes its aviation more like just another vehicle to support ground movement, like a tank or IFV, instead of its own separate warfare discipline to be used separately. There is good reason AOC leadership is full of O-6's from the USAF, Navy, Marines and allied air forces but none from the Army. It isn't because Army aviators are a bunch of rubes, it's because Army aviation fights a different fight, one with a view from 500 feet instead of 20,000 feet. Just a fact of life, nothing more and nothing less.
Last edited:
The Marine Corps already is, and has been for years, at the point you describe.
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.