Is the training for a ea growler pilot the same as a hornet pilot's?

[pilot_man]

Admittedly, I have no skin in this game anymore, and I'm G-ignorant. I'm a TACRONite now, unless and until I might somehow miraculously get picked to transition. But I still give a shit, and this still scares me. I was under the impression that as more VAQ types rolled into the syllabus, that this mindset would start to go away. Please tell me that there is still institutional pushback at this crap, because I really wonder sometimes whether VFA land is still going to do their damnedest to assimilate the G's, mission effectiveness and aircrew lives be damned. I'm getting mixed signals from my spies inside the wire.

Are you saying VFA wants the G in our A/A chili? From what I've seen that is the farthest thing from the truth.

 

[nittany03]

Are you saying VFA wants the G in our A/A chili? From what I've seen that is the farthest thing from the truth.

I'm just asking for clarification about some rumors and offhand comments that fly around here and there, seeing as I'm not in G land to know what is and isn't true.

 

[Brett327]

To clarify, at the outset of the G, there were those advocating (among other things) that it be absorbed by the VFA community, IE plusing up a VFA squadron with G airframes and making AEA another mission area of VFA. Lots of reasons not to do that. In that same vein, the good idea fairy rears its head from time to time on this issue, so I suspect that is what Nit is referring to. That said, there remains an enormous amount of cross-community education that still needs to be done (and constantly reemphasized) so that everyone understands the other guy's capes and lims.

 

[Recovering LSO]

words

What?

Because dude's flew Prowlers you're suggesting they should ignore the fact the new aircraft is wildly different, with different strengths and weakness; and keep themselves rooted in operating doctrine dating back to the late 1960s? Look man, I was pretty skeptical myself a few years ago. And then I did the tx and spent the better part of a tour studying, learning, planning, briefing, and flying with the new toy. I hope you do get a chance to go through a full syllabus and spend time learning the new jet. You just might find that your assumptions are largely inaccurate and many of your grievances simplistic. You might be surprised to know that every dude that instructed me or that I subsequently flew with understands, embraces, and accepts that their job is to provide EA (in some fashion or another). That does not mean that you can blissfully ignore the other capabilities...

institutional pushback at this crap

If by crap you mean training to and maintaining the most basic level of competence (i.e., safety) in every mission set the aircraft is capable of performing. And... gasp... There are very defensive situations (the ones I suppose you don't feel are crap?) where knowing this stuff helps you make better decisions WRT EA employment.... Underlined for emphasis. SIPR AW would be useful here, but you're a smart enough guy to figure it out.

mission effectiveness and aircrew lives be damned

Laying it on pretty thick there.

I was under the impression that as more VAQ types rolled into the syllabus, that this mindset would start to go away

It's cool to be old school, until your old school closes and there's nowhere left for you. That's not directed at you personally, but more at the idea you're espousing here. I think what you're reaching for is good, to an extent. You want guys who are all in EA to be there to help the CAT I's learn and absorb the nuances of the trade. What you don't need are a bunch of curmudgeons dragging their heels against the wave of tactical development and greater airwing integration/interoperability that will only serve to enhance the communities ability to deliver EA.

I'm getting mixed signals from my spies inside the wire.

Your spies might not being giving you the best info.

I'm just asking for clarification about some rumors and offhand comments that fly around here and there, seeing as I'm not in G land to know what is and isn't true.

Come out with 'em. They can't be addressed if you keep them wrapped up in "stuff I've heard..."

 

[cfam]

What?

Because dude's flew Prowlers you're suggesting they should ignore the fact the new aircraft is wildly different, with different strengths and weakness; and keep themselves rooted in operating doctrine dating back to the late 1960s? Look man, I was pretty skeptical myself a few years ago. And then I did the tx and spent the better part of a tour studying, learning, planning, briefing, and flying with the new toy. I hope you do get a chance to go through a full syllabus and spend time learning the new jet. You just might find that your assumptions are largely inaccurate and many of your grievances simplistic. You might be surprised to know that every dude that instructed me or that I subsequently flew with understands, embraces, and accepts that their job is to provide EA (in some fashion or another). That does not mean that you can blissfully ignore the other capabilities...

If by crap you mean training to and maintaining the most basic level of competence (i.e., safety) in every mission set the aircraft is capable of performing. And... gasp... There are very defensive situations (the ones I suppose you don't feel are crap?) where knowing this stuff helps you make better decisions WRT EA employment.... Underlined for emphasis. SIPR AW would be useful here, but you're a smart enough guy to figure it out.
Laying it on pretty thick there.

It's cool to be old school, until your old school closes and there's nowhere left for you. That's not directed at you personally, but more at the idea you're espousing here. I think what you're reaching for is good, to an extent. You want guys who are all in EA to be there to help the CAT I's learn and absorb the nuances of the trade. What you don't need are a bunch of curmudgeons dragging their heels against the wave of tactical development and greater airing integration/interoperability that will only serve to enhance the communities ability to deliver EA.
Your spies might not being giving you the best info.
Come out with 'em. They can't be addressed if you keep them wrapped up in "stuff I've heard..."

^^The man speaks truth. @nittany03, I had the same questions when I first started the transition. Believe it when I say there's no degradation in the primary mission by having us all be familiar with the A/A arena as well. Will we ever be experts? No, and we don't need to be, but knowing how it works is definitely helpful. I just got back from my first AF LFE in the G, and it drove that point home.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Ugh... I suck.

dude's

dudes.

communities

community's

 

[nittany03]

RLSO, I realize that you're not just responding to my comments, but to a level of old Prowler guy snark that is still running around out there. That said, as far as your first paragraph goes, from your keyboard to God's monitor. Copy all on what you and cfam posted; you guys know better than me whether all is well in G land. I'm not in a position to know jack about G employment except for the rumor mill and what I hear informally. It's just that reading Brett's observation, combined with some recent conversations, made me think that there's some people out there, not even VAQ people necessarily, who see G and think E/F replacement. Details available in PM. Please don't think that I'm trying to be a disgruntled B guy dogging on the whole G community because it's different.