Please tell me there's a matching O2 mask that goes with this…here's a good looking ass helmet for you.
Wait a second…it would have to be without a hose…so maybe a visor?
-
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
Aviator progression in the Navy
- Thread starter Warner
- Start date
Wait a second…it would have to be without a hose…so maybe a visor?
NavyDad82
Member
This is a great thread and conversation.
"We are going to go through it again with staffs being directed to take a reduction in manning (but no reduction in work load, if anything they are going to get more tasking) but those billets still need to be filled for the Navy to function."
The key is to have leaders in naval aviation who will speak truth to power! Reducing the work load with decreased manpower is essential. The impact of the inability to speak truth to power is 8,9, 10 month deployments, low retention, service life extensions, etc. The Navy is famous for doing stuff because "it has always been that way"
Community groupthink has always been a problem in the Navy.
"We are going to go through it again with staffs being directed to take a reduction in manning (but no reduction in work load, if anything they are going to get more tasking) but those billets still need to be filled for the Navy to function."
The key is to have leaders in naval aviation who will speak truth to power! Reducing the work load with decreased manpower is essential. The impact of the inability to speak truth to power is 8,9, 10 month deployments, low retention, service life extensions, etc. The Navy is famous for doing stuff because "it has always been that way"
Community groupthink has always been a problem in the Navy.
Looks like an opportune time for thread revival.
The problem isn't so much that the NAE leadership or the service chiefs are unable to "speak truth to power" in communicating what our military is able to do under current resourcing. The bigger issue is the demand by the COCOMs. Services generate readiness and COCOMs consume it. BL: it's a much more complex problem than speaking truth to power. The Air Boss and the CNO are well aware of the challenges we face, but all sides of the equation are getting pulled in multiple directions. It's a suboptimal situation to be sure, but we can't magically dig out from under the past 14 years of high OPTEMPO in a year or two. We also can't magically make Congress authorize and appropriate the resourcing levels that we've been used to. Welcome to the real world.
The problem isn't so much that the NAE leadership or the service chiefs are unable to "speak truth to power" in communicating what our military is able to do under current resourcing. The bigger issue is the demand by the COCOMs. Services generate readiness and COCOMs consume it. BL: it's a much more complex problem than speaking truth to power. The Air Boss and the CNO are well aware of the challenges we face, but all sides of the equation are getting pulled in multiple directions. It's a suboptimal situation to be sure, but we can't magically dig out from under the past 14 years of high OPTEMPO in a year or two. We also can't magically make Congress authorize and appropriate the resourcing levels that we've been used to. Welcome to the real world.
Someone better do something to change the status quo soon, otherwise getting IKE'd in the yards (ie being a year late coming out) will become a more common occurrence as Front Office leadership continues to ignore maintenance needs of their commands beyond what is required to prevent impedement to their promotions.
At what "front office" level are you speaking of here? The squadron CO?
The only thing about the services generating readiness is that the readiness we're generating is paper readiness, not actual readiness. My identity here is too well known for me to go on a specific rant, but all I'll say is that things I've seen/been ordered to execute in my current job have been, to put it mildly, not the most ethical in this regard.
Ship Command Triads...
From my perspective, there just isn't any secret room to hide stuff. With OOMA, IMDS, cockit charts and the like being emptied into larger data bases, it's all transparent. The TMS owns the airplanes, and not the squadron. There are many levels/layers in order to order/exedite parts for airplanes. CAGMOs/WingMOs are directly in the squadron's business. I don't think it's a bad thing. I'd rather the boss have a full disclosure of what's going on and what the plan is.
If we are yellow, we are yellow. If we are red, we are red. We certainly need to justify the colors with comments, but by the time the readiness reports and slides go up to brief, the bosses (CAG/CDRE) already know - they have to answer directly to the TMS leads (CNAL/CNAP). If readiness isn't where it needs to be, then the squadron leadership needs to have a get well plan.
I understand that folks here have various experiencess in their commands/communities. I'm speaking from my lens.
If we are yellow, we are yellow. If we are red, we are red. We certainly need to justify the colors with comments, but by the time the readiness reports and slides go up to brief, the bosses (CAG/CDRE) already know - they have to answer directly to the TMS leads (CNAL/CNAP). If readiness isn't where it needs to be, then the squadron leadership needs to have a get well plan.
I understand that folks here have various experiencess in their commands/communities. I'm speaking from my lens.
Roger all
My comment was mostly in response to Brett's RE optemo.
As much as we often feel we have maintenance challenged on the aviation side of the house, ship maintence often becomes a tertiary priority to ship command leadership, where only about 4 hours of every work day (crammed in between muster, morning quarters, meetings, standing watch, giving tours, command spot checks, drills GMT, afternoon quarters) are devoted to preventative maintenance on ships systems until an inspection where the Front office can be fired for failing is on the horizon.
Unlike Aviation squadrons where maintence on aircraft is being performed by day, night and mid check personnel, working hours on ships are as close to bankers hours as you're going to get on sea duty. Yes duty sections on ships get stuck on board for 24 hours but don't do anything other than Stand watch and muster for drills and casualties.
This pattern of maintence neglect continues until there is a major inspection coming up and the ships crew spends weeks onboard focusing on Maintence issues to get the ship to barely acceptable passing level, or yard periods where it is discovered that the completion previously deferred Maintence items is going to take months longer than expected to complete and the entire fleet maintenance schedule is going to have to slide to the right and deployment cycles altered to cover the gaps created by the lack of availability of the ship involved. Meanwhile the Command triads and department leadership responsible deferring the Maintence in the first place PCS'd months beforehand leaving there relief to bear the consequence of failing maintenance practices.
That's a very interesting perspective and I wonder if the NAVSEA/NAVAIR potentially conflicting paradigms on maintenance have to do with this red ass scenario. Also wondering if the constant threat or realized reduction in O&M money hands triads a loser hand of cards and pressses them into a corner of making risk/priotization decisions at the wrong level. I'm hoping that career considerations don't play into this equation, but I can see your point very well.
Can't speak to the ship side, but in aviation it's hard to gundeck the P and E pillars, but the T pillar on the other hand....
I would never wish this on my worst enemy, but if you ever get orders to USFF, seeing the sausage being made is very eye opening. Ship-board maintenance drives everything for the surface navy -- and us. it is all about optimizing bad options. As my old boss used to say, owning boats and owing lakefront property costs a lot of money and time post-purchase...and the Navy has both in spades.
Am I the only one who cringes a bit when I hear this? CMC's are valuable members of most commands I have been in but to lend credence to the fact they have similar responsibility to the CO of a unit smacks of ignorance to reality. I certainly hope we aren't going the way of the Army and their CSM's.
You'd better report to the goat locker for your deck-plate reeducation...