It happens.
-
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
“Information Warfare Is a Second-Class Commissioning Community”
- Thread starter Hair Warrior
- Start date
RandomGoat1248
Well-Known Member
Some of the folks in BUD/S do it so they can get into the EOD or AIRR pipeline which is what they really wanted to do in the first place. They know when to drop from BUD/S to get the best opportunities.
BT
Back to the original thread at hand... I'm really tired of IWC people whining about not being treated as real "war fighters."
If I am reading the long-winded LT correctly, it sounds like she was fundamentally unhappy that her chosen community didn’t draw the same headcount as other USNA grads’ naval communities.
Almost like what she wants is the fanfare, attention, and fellowship-in-large-numbers feeling. Sea images below:
Sea what I did there?
CWO_change
Well-Known Member
If I am reading the long-winded LT correctly, it sounds like she was fundamentally unhappy that her chosen community didn’t draw the same headcount as other USNA grads’ naval communities.
Almost like what she wants is the fanfare, attention, and fellowship-in-large-numbers feeling. Sea images below:
View attachment 22397
Sea what I did there?
Agreed. To that point, LT's account is extremely selfish and self-centered, making it seem that Naval Academy/ROTC Intel Officers would be/are somehow superior to OCS graduates. That's where she lost me. An entertaining read all the same ?
D
Deleted member 67144 scul
Guest
I sea what you did there.
Those smiles probably vanished from their faces the second they hopped aboard their first ships.
Ok is USNA SWO tending female (which is fine, CMEO) or is Google being paid to push those to the top of of the search results to promote female recruiting?
My guess is neither. Could be photographers selectively choosing when to click the camera button, and/or editors selectively choosing which photos to publish on websites.
Hey, if making them URL means fewer aviators will have to stand Boat Officer watches, I'm all for it.
Switchstone
Active Member
In the CNO's last visit to Hawaii, he said that was still the intent. But he also said he was shooting for the switch to URL to happen by the end of the year, so I grow considerably less hopeful with each passing day.
Oh jeez, I didn't realize that it had gotten traction that high up. Making themselves URL's won't 'fix' or help anything, it will just make some of them more insufferable than they already are and point the community as a whole in the wrong direction. Why can't they be content with just doing their damn jobs and be proud of that?
I don’t know anyone in the IWC (active or reserve) who is pushing for IWC to become URL.
That said, I think some wouldn’t mind it. If HSC wanted to wholly or partially give up Fire Scout, IWC would jump all over it, if nothing else than the funding equation: more mission = more $ and people
There are plenty advocating of it, all you have to do is hang out with a few and crack the pages of Proceedings. There are also many that don't think it is a good idea, but they usually aren't as loud as those who advocate of it.
That ain't their wheelhouse and they wouldn't know what to do with it in the first place. I've had more than enough experience with cryppies to know that they often have their own set of priorities that doesn't always jive with what they often should be doing, supporting warfighters. To give them more authority and autonomy to decide on they should be doing might get them their own priorities satisfied but at a cost to others. Basically becoming a self-licking ice cream cone that brags about how they are URL's with 'a seat at the table', likely with their own 'warfare' pin to go along with the absurdity.
I’m not following. You want to take the mission to get more $ and people, not to do the mission? If your goal is just gaining the $ and people, is it to reallocate to a different mission, or is it to just ‘have more $ and people’?
I’m not advocating the idea. I’m just observing that’s how the Pentagon works.
It’s all of the above, mission AND money and people.
Example: Every time the USAF threatens to retire the A-10, the Army says “Great, now chop all those pilots and maintainers over to us, and we’ll take over that mission.” USAF then balks and keeps the status quo because they don’t want to lose the mission, money, or people. But they’ve tried to divest that platform more than once.
With regard to Fire Scout, I know of at least one 1830 who is getting the qual for it, and from what I observe on this forum, HSC pilots would rather spend their time driving a -60 than an MQ- anything. I’m not saying we don’t need 1310s to fly the Fire Scout. That’s a NAVAIR decision. But if Big Navy decides to put more non-1310s behind the controls of Fire Scouts I don’t think there will be a lot of tears from the HSC community (right? wrong?). Naturally, that means more school quotas for MQ-8 training would start going to non-1310s. And more billets afloat w/ Fire Scouts would become open to non-1310s with the right qual.
Last edited: