Disassociated tour for aviators on aircraft carriers/gators

[Max the Mad Russian]

How'd that workout @Max the Mad Russian? You get your questions answered over at Sailor Bob?

Hell, no. Honestly, there was only one question - how much is the bottle of Jack Daniel's in USA? I got a picture of Sean Connery (a Scot, but JD is not Scotch nor Irish, btw;-)) as Capt. Ramius from "Red October" and then was, evidently, banned. Perhaps the cost of the whiskey in USA is classified info. God bless America.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Easier to leave stuff like that on than to take it off. Landing gear are a pretty integral part of an aircraft so modifying them can be expensive, if it isn't hurting anything it is cheaper and easier to just leave the stuff on.

Well, thanks, but it hurts, at least sometimes. I have read that this toe bar if not properly folded when the nose gear goes up, can damage the gear's well and it could be jammed in up position.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Hi people,

This is the tail of Israeli Air Force E-2C, a snap from IAF museum near Be'er Shiva. Everyone can clearly see the tail bumper. Is it compulsory to use it during the carrier landing? Couldn't it induce a hook bouncing?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Oh well ladies and gentlemen,

Since now, will try to ask short questions.
First one - the squadron's "Gunner", as I've been told, is mostly CWO3-4, sometimes LDO. What badge does s/he wear? I think, it couldn't be NA's wings of gold, nor NFO's two-anchored insignia, and his/her old enlisted aviation warfare badge is not proper to wear for officer, isn't it?

 

[robav8r]

Oh well ladies and gentlemen,

Since now, will try to ask short questions.
First one - the squadron's "Gunner", as I've been told, is mostly CWO3-4, sometimes LDO. What badge does s/he wear? I think, it couldn't be NA's wings of gold, nor NFO's two-anchored insignia, and his/her old enlisted aviation warfare badge is not proper to wear for officer, isn't it?

Yes, LDO's & Warrants will wear their Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist (EAWS) insignia as an officer. There is also a (relatively) new, Aviation Maintenance Duty Officer (AMDO) designation as well they can wear.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok thanks a lot. I've been told that a Tomcat squadron Gunner, an CWO, had decided what weapons should be carried to mission and what of them are to be jettisoned before landing if there was shortage of targets. It seems to be quite important operational decision and thus experienced CWO looks like an expert and has considerble authority in this aviation world while he is not NA/NFO. That is, I thought there could be a special training for him/her and special badge, either.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Maybe VFA/strike fighter only, but I've never met a CWO gunner on the squadron/aviation side of the house. Not saying that there aren't any but that wasn't my experience. All were prior enlisted, and/or "mustangs" depending on your personal definition of that term (of which there seem to be many) however. To be clear, a gunner has absolutely no say in what weapons are carried in country, nor what pilots do with them, in combat, an emergency, or otherwise. The airwing load plans and SCL tell the squadron gunners exactly what to load, and they make sure that happens. I've had nothing but professional awesome gunners, but that CWO was embellishing quite a bit on his/her job.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Well, thanks. Maybe I misunderstood my friend about CWO Gunner. It is hard enough for me to judge firmly in this question as the Russian military has nothing similar to CWO corps, whatever branch one may take to consideration. And when we here spell something in "mustang" meaning, it seems to be the former conscript who took all five years of naval college (age limit to enter is 23) after his enlisted obligation. We call him "V/S", short from "Prior Service" in Russian. There are officers without degree here, a kind of direct commissioning, but a figure I have met is they are about 0.3% of all officers corps and their top possible rank is LtCdr/Maj. All the others boast a degree given in naval colleges, mostly Electrical Engineering or Maritime Engineering majors. So CWO and even CPO personnell of USN have here nothing to compare with.
What about strike fighter squadron, we have just one unit - 279th Carrier Air Regiment, whose two squadrons are equipped with Su-33s (interceptors), MiG-29Ks (strike fighters) and Su-25UTG (trainers), and AFAIK most of its pilots are of rank LtCol and have so-called "Master Military Pilot" qual, so it is quite an elite unit. All important decisions - load in mission among them - are those of Colonels - a sqdn COs or Regimental CO and XO.

 

[CommodoreMid]

All my Gunners have been warrants in MPRA, but like VFA, they have no say as to buoy, flare, smoke, or SUS loadout, or weapons if we were actually carrying. Only guidance we've gotten as far as expending was when the buoys were about to expire and we needed to get rid of them one way or another, and then he asked us for the love of Jeebus to spit them instead of bringing them home.

 

[Brett327]

I just went over the Gunner detailing process with my own Gunner. LDOs and CWOs are interchangeable at the squadron level and will each be detailed in their first or second tours accordingly.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok, thanks a lot. Evidently I've slightly overestimated the Gunner's role in the squadron. Thanks again.
Another question that has nothing to do with Russian military practice – an interservice exchange. While it is common for Russian naval aviation to hire the Air Force personnel and vice versa, it is just the sequence of the fact that Russian naval aviation as a whole is nothing more than Air Force representative office within the Navy. But it is impossible to imagine the Russian Army officer in exchange tour with the Navy, and vice versa again. If you’re leaving your branch, it’s generally for good – you cannot get back to your service, with the exception of noted above. But I have heard that USAF pilots flying “Hornets” from the USN carriers’ decks are quite a routine, even on deployments. Is that hard thing to prepare the USAF pilot, unfamiliar with the ships in general and deck landing in particular, to do all that? Not even about landing yet, the takeoff too. Everyone can see the French Navy Super Etendard crash (

) due to the pilot’s error – there have been noted that this was German Luftwaffe exchange guy (experienced in much heavier "Tornado") who jerked the stick to his balls as if it was conventional takeoff from the land airstrip, and as a result the airplane has stalled and crashed. I know that the special procedure in USN tailhook community exists with the cockpit’s “towel rack” which “Hornet” pilot should grab after saluting to the Shooter just not to touch the stick that can turn the takeoff in that similar disaster. Look, if the USAF exchange pilot is career F-16 driver with its side-stick, it’s probably ok – s/he apparently hasn’t the instinctive hand move to grab the stick between the knees. But if this is A-10 or F-15 guy or gal, or even RAAF or Canadian pilot who routinely flown the same bird (F/A-18) from the land, is there some intermediate training to fight those instinctive impulses from inside, common for non-tailhook fighter pilots?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Gents,

Is the AAW coordinator a routine bridge or CIC watch on surface combattants like DDGs and should the officer who's standing this watch went through some aviation training? There is nothing similar in Russian Navy as our analogue for such job is not operational and rather administrative - the ship's Gunnery-Missile Dept Head (Dept-2 in our parlance), a LtCdr on destroyer and Cdr on cruiser or carrier, should reign this realm with his subordinate people. This officer can be either cruise missiles or anti-air missiles specialist, and I found that it is difficult to possess the proper SA for the former, especially if he is in charge of the fighter direction role along with the targeting of ship's own AA missiles. One of the most experienced fellows told me that it shouldn't be a job of surface warfare officer to be a FDO, thus it's better to have a career fighter pilot aboard just to fill this role. But it seems that in USN SWO community the officer standing this watch, say on DDG, can cope with all escorted CVN airwing's airplanes in the air and it seems to be extremely demanding job for non-aviator, isn't it?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Oh, indeed, USS Donald Cook is a magnet that drews old Russian Su-24s wherever she sails;-)
Fencer is an old plane, a reply to USAF F-111A. The only advantage over nowadays USN/USAF strike fighters is supposedly the range and nothing more: when Su-24 was in the blueprints, the aerial refueling in USSR was a thing from the stepchild's toybox, so the fuel amount inside was one of the main features of that design. But now it is just an old bird with no stealth capabilities, so why worry?

 

[BigRed389]

Gents,

Is the AAW coordinator a routine bridge or CIC watch on surface combattants like DDGs and should the officer who's standing this watch went through some aviation training? There is nothing similar in Russian Navy as our analogue for such job is not operational and rather administrative - the ship's Gunnery-Missile Dept Head (Dept-2 in our parlance), a LtCdr on destroyer and Cdr on cruiser or carrier, should reign this realm with his subordinate people. This officer can be either cruise missiles or anti-air missiles specialist, and I found that it is difficult to possess the proper SA for the former, especially if he is in charge of the fighter direction role along with the targeting of ship's own AA missiles. One of the most experienced fellows told me that it shouldn't be a job of surface warfare officer to be a FDO, thus it's better to have a career fighter pilot aboard just to fill this role. But it seems that in USN SWO community the officer standing this watch, say on DDG, can cope with all escorted CVN airwing's airplanes in the air and it seems to be extremely demanding job for non-aviator, isn't it?

In the most basic, general sense:

We have lots of guys running "AAW." There are "routine watches" associated with it.
TAOs are not all AAW specialists in an admin role, but will all get AAW specific training in order to become a TAO.
Their subordinates (operationally, when they are performing as TAOs) will receive AAW specific training as well.

They are not going to be pilots, but there are specialists trained in fighter direction.

And even though it would probably be a "good" idea in some sense, I doubt you could convince the aviation community to give up Hawkeye NFOs or VFA guys up to the surface Navy just to fill that role.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

And even though it would probably be a "good" idea in some sense, I doubt you could convince the aviation community to give up Hawkeye NFOs or VFA guys up to the surface Navy just to fill that role.

OK, thank you. The main idea to have a fighter jock or NFO "man with a ruler"* in a FDO armchair of DDG is stemming - there was an example in our training - from 1942 Kriegsmarine's "Cerberus" Op, where the experienced Luftwaffe pilots occupied the FDO's stations on battlecruisers and successfully defeated all the British air raids. Maybe this is well outdated example, but it seems that the career pilot by the console of FDO battlestation will be able to communicate not only to his naval troops in the air, but to Air Force pilots, who may have absolutely different procedures, as well.
Soviet Navy historically was somehow closer to Royal Navy's as well as French Navy's practice, and the national Air Force officers were quite usual habitants of RN and FN aircraft carriers and even major surface combattants, for the similar liaison purposes.

* Every military officer, no matter which service or country, is a combination of three: "man on his feet" (an infantriman, ranger, SEAL etc), "man in a saddle" (cavalryman, pilot, tanker etc - the one who drives and rides something mightier than himself) and "man with a ruler" (engineer, artillery, nuke, wherever the measuring, targeting or control equipment is his main tool). A good military officer is in a center of this triangle, a problematic one holds one of these angles. Just to be understand correctly.