Why are you Leaving?

[CommodoreMid]

"Z" owns the HSM guys in pretty much any tactical mission they do, but he wouldn't tell them how to lay brickwork or what altitude to fly at for SSC.

Late to the party on recent posts, but I've had SWOs tell me in VP land exactly this shit. Would you kindly choke your brethren who task a P-8/P-3 to laying a 1x6 barrier and then get pissed off when the VP guys tell them, um no?

BT

Sounds like the HSM guys are where we in the VP community want to be in 5ish years with regards to tactical proficiency spanning the entire fleet. Hopefully it materializes on our end, but definitely a huge cultural shift.

 

[RadicalDude]

Let's put it this way: I never played linebacker; a WSO can objectively judge how good a pilot is just as well as I can judge how good Brian Urlacher is.

Good, we agree. And your point is....?

I still fail to see how who "manipulates the controls" adds any insight into this discussion beyond designator-baiting.

 

[samguitar]

I don't think that's adding to what's largely been a productive discussion.

I agree. The small part of the discussion that was not productive was the free-flowing criticism of other people's roles. I simply pointed that out.

 

[robav8r]

Sounds like the HSM guys are where we in the VP community want to be in 5ish years with regards to tactical proficiency spanning the entire fleet. Hopefully it materializes on our end, but definitely a huge cultural shift.

Uhh, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say MPRA has the whole "tactical proficiency spanning the entire fleet" thing down pretty well. No ?

 

[RHINOWSO]

Sorry for the thread drift, although this thread in general seems to be bouncing in about 3 directions. That reply was in line with this.

There seems to be way to much emotion in this discussion. Yes it sucks to hear that your background might not be the best fit for a job but that is just how it is. When you consider how a CVW is composed it makes sense that the CVW Commander should come from someone who knows how to execute a strike and not from being a part of the supporting cast.

And on other fronts...

You sure do spend a lot of time talking about who does or does not possess the requisite hands-on experience to be in front. Do you actually manipulate the controls in the aircraft?

Considering its common practice for Pilots and WSO's to evaluate and grade each other, yes I have a pretty good idea on what makes a good and not so good pilot, just as the pilots I flew with knew what made a WSOs good / bad, and evaluated them as well - maybe it's a community specific thing?

But I guess a RW pilot couldn't evaluate how good his aircrew were, since he never did that, right? It would take hands on experience to know that... right? Right? (sarcasm)

With that I'll move back on topic, what was it again???

 

[MIDNJAC]

As a guy with a single seat background, I would side with the WSO community here and say that they are every bit as tactically integrated into the "fight" as anyone with single anchors.......they might not rest their hands on a stick and throttles, but we speak the same language and live in the exact same world aside from that. I'd also say that I know some fantastic WSO's, guys who make the whole flight better, even if they aren't in my jet. If I can recognize that about them, I'm sure that they can look at me and say "he's pretty average"

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Also, I think this point gets glossed over way too much, THE POINT OF A CVN IS TO PUT FIGHTERS AND STRIKERS INTO HARMS WAY. Everything else is there for support.

That's a pretty simplistic and very narrow view of an aircraft carrier. There's a bit more to it than that.

 

[samguitar]

Also, I think this point gets glossed over way too much, THE POINT OF A CVN IS TO PUT FIGHTERS AND STRIKERS INTO HARMS WAY. Everything else is there for support.

That's a pretty simplistic and very narrow view of an aircraft carrier. There's a bit more to it than that.

The recent wars have confronted us with a narrow slice of the spectrum of naval conflict. The Navy's primary combat role is not overland strike, although we can fill a niche role as a quick reaction force or when land basing or flight routes are an issue, as they often are. In the first Gulf War, the AF did like 90% of the strike missions. Yes, the overland strike mission is important, but...

What no one else can do is control the oceans and conduct war at sea. It's only been 70 years since that happened last, which is not long in the balance of history. And in that short time, we have tended to lose sight of other scenarios for which we must always be ready. That's the hard part (and this is where I bring it back to the whole discussion of helo guys training for cool combat missions but never getting to do them): being ready for types of combat that aren't actually happening at the moment. That's our whole job during peace!

So what would you say "the point of a CVN is..." if you're meeting force on force in the middle of the ocean, and everyone's sweating about cruise missiles, subs, and shark attacks? In that case, the question of who is at the tip of the spear and who is supporting might be answered differently. My point is that in order to avoid getting short-sighted and myopic about our nation's naval needs, we must approach these questions with foresight, study, patience, and vigilance.

 

[RHINOWSO]

That's a pretty simplistic and very narrow view of an aircraft carrier. There's a bit more to it than that.

Yes, we know there is more to it than that... but without the aircraft... it's a crappy surface combatant that doesn't do any of the "more to it than that" well.

And like samguitar says, we are always busy getting ready to the last war, not the next war.

 

[PhrogLoop]

but without the aircraft... it's a crappy surface combatant that doesn't do any of the "more to it than that" well.

Now I know you're trolling...or a mean drunk...or both.

 

[RHINOWSO]

Ok, you're right... I'll leave it to the attention seeking one liners to (not talk about how to) solve the Navy's problems.

 

[jtmedli]

Let the hate flow THROUGH you... You sound like a LAMPS JO 10 years ago. What's that saying...? The more things change...?

It's not hate. I love my job. I'm just saying the things that 200 other JOs in my community say every day. Kind of goes back to the whole CRM concept. Senior pilots (O4s and O5s) love to talk about how junior pilots "need to be more assertive and communicate more" but then their egos get hurt when the JO asks "why are we doing it this way?" or speaks up and offers a common sense alternative. Maybe we should change the way we do business, but that would involve the influential DHs and Front Offices to put the good of the community ahead of their careers which isn't going to happen.

That's the hard part (and this is where I bring it back to the whole discussion of helo guys training for cool combat missions but never getting to do them): being ready for types of combat that aren't actually happening at the moment. That's our whole job during peace!

Agreed. Very much so. Like I said, I believe our operational HSC squadrons should be the "major leagues" where we are ready for these things should they arise. The problem arises when you have a community that is slap FULL of people who have never done any of this stuff for real yet they will sit around and tell you all day long "how it's gonna go down when we're in the shit". I agree with the above posters that we should have tactics that are based on lessons learned from other services and, most importantly, common sense. But, like Flying Low was implying earlier, having 2000 page powerpoint briefs and outlandish weapons school check-rides that are being taught by people who have never done anything, yet think they know it all because they have a SWTI patch on, is a HUGE problem.

We need to get real and look at tactics from a realistic standpoint. It is FAR more realistic to put our pilots in an environment with limited resources (i.e. no powerpoint, no whiteboard, limited options for fuel, limited support etc...) and say, "In 3 or 4 days we've gotta put SOF team 'whoever' on a rooftop/back of a ship/whatever...get it done."

 

[wlawr005]

We need to get real and look at tactics from a realistic standpoint. It is FAR more realistic to put our pilots in an environment with limited resources (i.e. no powerpoint, no whiteboard, limited options for fuel, limited support etc...) and say, "In 3 or 4 days we've gotta put SOF team 'whoever' on a rooftop/back of a ship/whatever...get it done."

You mean like the Phrog guys used to do it before HS felt like they needed to justify their existence to the rest of the airwing by acting like jet dudes?

Amen brotha.

 

[jtmedli]

You mean like the Phrog guys used to do it before HS felt like they needed to justify their existence to the rest of the airwing by acting like jet dudes?

Amen brotha.

I wish I could triple-like this part. The leadership that I've dealt with in HSC that came from an HC background has been great. They get 'it' and they have largely been huge on the mindset of "Let the JOs do it. They're not gonna learn any other way."

 

[CommodoreMid]

Uhh, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say MPRA has the whole "tactical proficiency spanning the entire fleet" thing down pretty well. No ?

I'm talking in the sense that the entire VP fleet embraces pushing the boundaries and getting better tactically rather than accepting the status quo mediocrity. Too many VP crews think, "Well, we got the qual today so we must be good!" This article says it way better than I ever could:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-drive-for-networked-asw-excellence.html