Disassociated tour for aviators on aircraft carriers/gators

[Max the Mad Russian]

CVNs are always a shit show to sail with

It may sound terrible for USN officers, but from the standpoint of a Soviet "tattletale" COs, this is true. Usually a destroyer or a frigate, conducting direct tracking of CVG just to be able to spit the targeting data for a crowd of a Backfires via radio links and die then. When it came to maneuvering in vicinity of a carrier herself, this was terrible job. One such CO told me that he has the opinion that CVN bridge watch was not enough familiar with their ship as to inertia, half-turn radius, pivot point, machine acceleration and so on. Sometimes that tattletale COs became so frustrated that they were simulating the ramming attack on a carrier just to give the sobering cold shower to her bridge watch. So it was always better to have a "knox" or a "perry" from the CVG's escort to play "Aikido duel" with, holding the plain sight of a carrier. The frigates were weaving the waves, fooling each other with a false horn signals, making pictures, middlefingering and so on as if it is a sport game. To play the same with a carrier was like Aikido against Sumo fighter.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

No clue as to how driving an LHD differs from a CRUDES other than that one is obviously big, fat, and slow and the other isn't and one knows how to get the winds in limits for flight ops* and the other prefers to use the "wind hunting circle" technique like a ship of fools.

I wrote somewhere here that I wonder which maneuver similar to positioning the incoming sea skimmer abeam asap to place it under fire of all CIWS/RAMs sets, which is routine in CRUDES practice, is common in CVN/LHD practice with the same very limited timeframe to react?

 

[azguy]

I wrote somewhere here that I wonder which maneuver similar to positioning the incoming sea skimmer abeam asap to place it under fire of all CIWS/RAMs sets, which is routine in CRUDES practice, is common in CVN/LHD practice with the same very limited timeframe to react?

Do you really expect anyone here to discuss this?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Do you really expect anyone here to discuss this?

Not really. Moreover, it's not me who deserves such a discussion. It's your business completely. Maybe it could help you. Russian Navy is gone except for the nuke submarine service and some corvettes which, as it turns out, can play the semi-strategic role with their new cruise missiles (not really new indeed, as 3M14 "Caliber" hitting ISIS targets now is a non-nuclear surface-launched version of old submarine-launched 3M10 "Granat", called "Soviet TLAM", which, in turn, is navalized Air Force RK-55, developed in the early 1980s). Honestly, we Russians need new Army tank and new Air Force CAS aircraft now much more than even new submarines. Though our new SSNs and SSBNs are under construction hurriedly, it is not least a means to charm the Indian and possibly some Latin America governments to create the international market of SSNs, to what the first step (the first SSN ever built for foreign customer in world history, INS Chakra, was sold to India resently) was made by us. I'm far from the statement whether it is good or bad, it is just business. So we will never compete with USN for the blue waters, it's in past. But somebody will or at least could do that, definitely somebody with soft Oriental coarse features.
So don't answer me - answer to yourself. Evidently, there isn't a common opinion that CVN/LHDs of USN are driving impeccably in all possible circumstances and I personally is still convinced that it is the outcome of solid walls between communities in USN. Maybe it's wrong, but in any case this is a reason to think again.
Look at Englishmen. First you're driving the ship as a junior. Then you're learning to fly and flying, then get a squadron as CO. And then... go to the frigate's or even minesweeper's bridge to command it for a year or two. Then a shore tour, then aviation tour again, as Cdr (Air), a sort of carrier/LHD acting XO for aviation (freaking English approach: on a carrier could be up to 11 "XO"s - each for every kind of activity, Cdr (Air) for aviation, Cdr (E) for general engineering, Cdr (L) for electricity, Cdr (R) for repair and so on, but only one pure "Cdr" without any brackets - an XO, always surface warfare guy), then may be carrier CO or Royal Naval Air Station Commodore. If you drove a frigate once, you need no "deep draft" tenure and you as a carrier CO can speak to your escort COs in the same language...

 

[HAL Pilot]

Whether it means that on a CVN there would be both an aviators OOD and SWO ones? Bet there is some kind of rivalry between communities for the best OOD label, if so. And of course carrier SWOs claim they are the best OODs no matter what;-)

We had both aviators and SWOs standing all bridge watches including OOD.

 

[Gatordev]

Not really. Moreover, it's not me who deserves such a discussion.

And the discussion shouldn't be here. There's plenty of forums within our realm to discuss such things.

So don't answer me - answer to yourself.

This is an aviation-centric forum. The majority can't ( and shouldn't) answer here. The rest just need to make sure we have a deck to land on and the auto-dog is working...if they're still fiscally viable.

It's your business completely. Maybe it could help you.

Indeed. But be warned, you're treading on thin ice. You've been probing the last two weeks and if it continues...well, it probably won't. A healthy discussion of differences between the worlds is good and enlightening. Continuing to ask specifics on strategies and tactics is not. So please stop.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

We had both aviators and SWOs standing all bridge watches including OOD.

back in the early 90's the SWO nuke pipeline was that the SWO nukes would go right to a CVN stand nuke and bridge watches, now they don't stand watches on the bridge on CVN's, non nuke SWO's are a different story.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

Go on SailorBob... there's tons of "happy" SWOs who I'm sure would appreciate a discussion on tactics.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

healthy discussion of differences between the worlds is good and enlightening. Continuing to ask specifics on strategies and tactics is not. So please stop.

No problem and "no excuse, sir". Sometimes I forget that some things didn't change much since I've been in, so they are still sensitive. Common desease of a retired bums;-)

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok, let's talk about the differences between the worlds. Maybe some of you have read military portion of the John T.Reed website - http://johntreed.myshopify.com/blog...matters/68725763-articles-on-military-matters
There is an article "Should you go to, or stay at, West Point?", which is "utterly relevant for the Navy" as one of USN readers said. This article, as some others, does contain the statement: "Became a helicopter pilot to "lead men" [is false] ([Army and Marine infantry] platoon leaders and company commanders lead men; pilots lead machinery". Further: "Pilots fly helicopters. A pilot may lead his copilot and door gunner, but no one else when they are airborne. Furthermore, the actions of a copilot and door gunner are largely standard operating procedure. They do not need to be led much. And if they did, the pilot would be in a poor position to lead them because flying a helicopter is a task that consumes 100% of your attention. Only if he stayed in the service for many years would a pilot be put in charge of a group of helicopters and then be a leadership position."
Of course this is the personal view of an Army non-aviator (Mr.Reed is WP-1968 graduate and Vietnam vet, a Signal Coprs officer) on the Army Air Corps helicopters of Vietnam era. But actually speaking to my former helicopter fellows from Russian Naval Aviation, I found out that in general this is true. On the other hand, from an attached file I know that USN and USMC, contrary to USAF, usually have the junior officers, while on flying billets in a squadrons, to lead the men in "divisional work". So the question is - what kind of leadership NA/NFO JO has to show to his/her sailors (and who are those sailors) while, for example, deployed with a squadron aboard of the carrier? It is understandable enough what the USN surface ship's Division is and what kind of leadership the fresh ensign on first Div tour, struggling for SWO pin, should have and show - first copy your Div Chief's skills and attitudes, then earn his respect and support, then get through the quals and you are in a right track up to Dept Head. But I am uncertain what about the "Division Officer" in a carrier-borne squadron, where you are mostly in the air or resting after that, how and, all in all, where you can lead the men in such a circumstances?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

We had both aviators and SWOs standing all bridge watches including OOD.

Without mutual jokes?;-)

back in the early 90's the SWO nuke pipeline was that the SWO nukes would go right to a CVN stand nuke and bridge watches, now they don't stand watches on the bridge on CVN's, non nuke SWO's are a different story.

And what is the reason for non-nuke SWO to be appointed to the carrier now, except of First Lieutenant and Combat Systems Officer jobs?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

there's tons of "happy" SWOs who I'm sure would appreciate a discussion on tactics.

Thanks but it definitely is not what I need. Moreover, A2/AD practice of nowaday navies is not resembling the tactics used previously. Neither I know much about Russian Navy A2/AD, nor can I adapt what I know to that as it seems that very different approach to the AAW they're demonstrating now from what that was in my days. I slightly touched the old tactical questions merely in the measure they could be useful to reveal some evidence to underline the difference in communities' ethics, no more. And of course, knowing how paranoid the militaries and securities can be as to the classified info (I've been qualified as Russian Navy Info Dominance Officer), I am definitely far from intention to violate this forum's rules and common sense as well.

 

[Hair Warrior]

There is an article "Should you go to, or stay at, West Point?", which is "utterly relevant for the Navy" as one of USN readers said.

I couldn't find this quote among John Reed's rambling stream of consciousness. Nevertheless, a graduate of any U.S. service academy can accept commission as an O1 into any branch of the Armed Forces. I interviewed an applicant to my company a week ago who graduated from USAFA and joined the 10th Mountain.

P.S. Mr. Reed seems to have a big chip on his shoulder. His views don't reflect the service academy grads I know. A lot of his advice can be summed up as Caveat emptor.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I couldn't find this quote among John Reed's rambling stream of consciousness.

In noted article there is the line: "Air Force, Navy, Marine Air, and Coast Guard grads operate equipment. Navy guys who go into the ground Marines and West Point guys deal mainly in people. That may sound more “people who like people-ish,” but one aspect of it is you cannot bullshit a machine. There seems to be plenty of bullshit in the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, but they have to get their plane or boat from point A to point B", but another article from that website, placed here - http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-r...ert-t-kiyosakis-book-rich-dad-poor-dad-part-1 - to which there is the link from West Point article, contains directly I cited.
Anyway, this is essentially the deeper question - could the leadership been taught or is it inborn feature? And, no matter what the answer is, how the junior NA/NFO can provide that to his/her troops in a Division?

Mr. Reed seems to have a big chip on his shoulder

Maybe so, but he is the first or at least one of the firsts who placed enormous weight to the questions of "wasted time" while on service for subsequent civilian career, and to the choise of spouse. When once the chief of staff of our DesDiv, a Captain, during New Year official dinner said a toast for the wifes, as "there will be neither personal "full spead ahead" with a career, nor a return to regroup if you knocked out by occasion, nor an energy to endure the naval officer's life if one failed with the relationships within the family and especially in respect of the wife", I was then much too young to take it seriously. But after a while it turned out to be the acute truth...

 

[exNavyOffRec]

And what is the reason for non-nuke SWO to be appointed to the carrier now, except of First Lieutenant and Combat Systems Officer jobs?

The ones that I dealt with were in jobs that fell under the CHENG, such as damage control.

FYI on an USN CVN the Reactor Officer is in charge of all engineering jobs that deal with the reactor, the CHENG is in charge of most other jobs that aren't associated with the reactor.