Marine Pilot VS Navy Pilot

[Austin-Powers]

USN.

Why Navy over Air Force, what was their reasoning?

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Why Navy over Air Force, what was their reasoning?

It was a casual conversation, didn't get that deep into it.

 

[BarrettRC8]

For an outside perspective, with some exposure (obviously not direct) to USAF, USN, and USMC aviation communities, from an outside hiring perspective I would weight USN/USMC heavier due to culture and the fact that these branches typically require officers to do their job, and other jobs, and be able to effectively balance the two (or more) aspects.

It’s more meaningful to me, and I can’t weigh in on whether it contributes to a better fighting force obviously, that folks are given more and varied responsibilities earlier and more often. It’s my sense that this produces leaders that are able to adapt, multitask, and execute with whatever resources they have, and I think that’s a pretty meaningful trait when you’re talking about hiring a military aviation background into a role that doesn’t involve either of those aspects.

It's more meaningful to you because you're not an aviator, as your username states. Most of us who are, want to be great at our primary duty, which is to employ our aircraft. Those other tasks take away from that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is a pilot and values their experience and additional duties as a scheduling officer, admin officer, or otherwise and feels it makes the force "better."

Go ANG first, AF second, and Navy third. If you want to be TacAir and actually fly routinely, I'd strongly caution against the USMC.

 

[Pags]

For an outside perspective, with some exposure (obviously not direct) to USAF, USN, and USMC aviation communities, from an outside hiring perspective I would weight USN/USMC heavier due to culture and the fact that these branches typically require officers to do their job, and other jobs, and be able to effectively balance the two (or more) aspects.

It’s more meaningful to me, and I can’t weigh in on whether it contributes to a better fighting force obviously, that folks are given more and varied responsibilities earlier and more often. It’s my sense that this produces leaders that are able to adapt, multitask, and execute with whatever resources they have, and I think that’s a pretty meaningful trait when you’re talking about hiring a military aviation background into a role that doesn’t involve either of those aspects.

Just depends on what you want to get from your service. If a young person came and said, "i want to fly grey airplanes for Uncle Sam," I'd recommend they look at the USAF to maximize their flying opportunities. If someone came and said, "I want a varied career that will allow me to fly when younger and then grow in to staff/leadership roles and let me do all sorts of other things that aren't related to my primary job," I'd say they should look at USN/USMC. Especailly if they want to do these sort of things while surrounded by thousands of miles of water from a floating facilty that's a lot like a prison with the added risk of drowning.

 

[Pags]

It is funny that just last weekend I talked to 2 prior USAF pilots (I think 1 retired and the other left at 10 years?), both said they would encourage their kids to go either USCG or USN. I guess it is all perspective really, the grass is always green thing.

of course if they grass is always greener on the other side, then water your own grass right?

I'd be curious to hear their reasoning (which you said you don't have). If my kids or any other young kid wanted to FLY for a career they should go USAF. USAF has far more opportunities for their pilots to FLY for their entire career (or at least up through O-5). I have AF co-workers who are senior O-4/5s who want to stay in staff land but who the USAF is asking/requiring them to go back to flying. Most senior O-4/5s in the USN are offered jobs like "CVN Safety Officer" or some other non-flying gig on a boat with words like, "what part of sea-shore rotation don't you understand?" from the detailer. I don't know of too many non-command USN O-5s who are being forced into flying orders with little or no responsibility. So, if someone's goal is to FLY for a career, USAF seems to offer the highest chance of making that a reality.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I'd be curious to hear their reasoning (which you said you don't have). If my kids or any other young kid wanted to FLY for a career they should go USAF. USAF has far more opportunities for their pilots to FLY for their entire career (or at least up through O-5). I have AF co-workers who are senior O-4/5s who want to stay in staff land but who the USAF is asking/requiring them to go back to flying. Most senior O-4/5s in the USN are offered jobs like "CVN Safety Officer" or some other non-flying gig on a boat with words like, "what part of sea-shore rotation don't you understand?" from the detailer. I don't know of too many non-command USN O-5s who are being forced into flying orders with little or no responsibility. So, if someone's goal is to FLY for a career, USAF seems to offer the highest chance of making that a reality.

We were just telling stories and such, talked about our kids and if they were to join if we would direct them to one or the other, then stories about going overseas, etc.....

Those aren't the only 2, I know a few others who's kids went in to the USAF in various positions as officers who's kids are not happy with how they are treated, but then again a person's view of "treatment" is very subjective, everyone has a different tolerance level and mine is high given I was briefed on what to expect in the USN by my old school Navy CWO4 uncle.

 

[HuggyU2]

When I was looking for a commission and pilot slot, I would have gladly gone to the USAF or Navy/Marines. As it turns out, the USAF was the one I walked down the aisle with. And I'm glad I did.

That said, I'm sure that had I gone Dept of the Navy, I'd tell you the exact same thing: I'd have been a died-in-the-wool Naval guy, and supremely proud to call myself a Naval Aviator.

I know a lot of Navy/Marine types. In fact, I'd say most of my friends are gold wingers. However, I never served outside of the USAF.

So when you get a perspective from others about how you won't get "responsibility" in the USAF, consider that they may not have served in the USAF and might lack some knowledge about the USAF... in the same way that I don't understand all aspects of the Naval Services.

I know people that had careers that they didn't care for in the USAF. I'm sure there are plenty of similar stories in the Navy and USMC. Ultimately, each of us have different goals and desires. And then there is timing.

It behooves you to do some soul searching as to what you really want to be professionally satisfied. That said, you don't know what you don't know. And at that point, you will have to roll the bones. Navy... AF... Marines... all great in their own way.

If you decide to do this, you'll "marry" one of the Services. You need to look past the honeymoon night and see if she is wife you can spend many years loving.

 

[Brett327]

It's more meaningful to you because you're not an aviator, as your username states. Most of us who are, want to be great at our primary duty, which is to employ our aircraft. Those other tasks take away from that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is a pilot and values their experience and additional duties as a scheduling officer, admin officer, or otherwise and feels it makes the force "better."

Go ANG first, AF second, and Navy third. If you want to be TacAir and actually fly routinely, I'd strongly caution against the USMC.

If someone told me that I could have traded being a Divo during my first tour for an extra 200 flight hours, I would have turned them down in a heartbeat. That experience was invaluable to my professional development.

 

[Rockriver]

During my navy time, I knew lots of guys that flew lots of things. Later on in my civilian career, I worked with lots of former military aviators who again flew lots of things from every branch of the services. As pilots, they could and would bitch about anything and everything at the drop of a hat. But, to a man, they all enjoyed whatever aircraft they ended up flying, defended their branch or their community with a vengeance, and looked back on their military service as a high point of their lives.

I even knew guys who flew A-7s and liked them! Friggin' A-7s! Better to have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in A-7s!

Seriously, keep asking your questions, make a decision, and feel honored if you are selected to fly any of Uncle Sam's toys. You will enjoy whatever you end up flying, if you are so lucky as to end up in a cockpit.

As for me, I chose the Navy because I wanted to fly jets from aircraft carriers, period. But I'm sure that had I been selected for helos, I would have made lots of jokes about the inability of other pilots to hover and their sexual persuasion. Had I gone props, I would have waived my per diem checks proudly. Had I gone Air Force, I would have had a great collection of ascots and would have asked pilots from other branches what kind of beer they kept on tap in their ready rooms. Had I been a Marine, I would have asked everyone else why didn't they join a real military outfit. Had I gone Army or Coast Guard...nevermind.

 

[Austin-Powers]

I'm just jealous you got to experience the flight of an F-4 Phantom...One of my favorite jets. Also why was the Corsair II bad?

 

[A Day In The Life]

If someone told me that I could have traded being a Divo during my first tour for an extra 200 flight hours, I would have turned them down in a heartbeat. That experience was invaluable to my professional development.

If that's 200 hours doing OCAs, DCAs, SES, CAS, etc. I would make that trade in a heartbeat.

I would rather be that much more lethal at my real job (employing my aircraft tactically) than whatever I learned from being a DivO.

 

[Rockriver]

Also why was the Corsair II bad?

My sarcasm was obviously lost. Nothing wrong with the A-7 at all. Great platform and mission, and one pilot did it all. A few decades ago, before most carrier jet pilots all flew the F-18, there was this good natured rivalry between "fighter" pilots (F-4, F-8, F-14) and "attack" pilots (A-4, A-6, A-7) and everybody else.

 

[Austin-Powers]

My sarcasm was obviously lost. Nothing wrong with the A-7 at all. Great platform and mission, and one pilot did it all. A few decades ago, before most carrier jet pilots all flew the F-18, there was this good natured rivalry between "fighter" pilots (F-4, F-8, F-14) and "attack" pilots (A-4, A-6, A-7) and everybody else.

Yeah sorry late night. I wish A4sForever would see this

 

[Python]

If someone told me that I could have traded being a Divo during my first tour for an extra 200 flight hours, I would have turned them down in a heartbeat. That experience was invaluable to my professional development.

And I disagree 100%. To each their own I guess. I completely agree with @A Day In The Life . I signed on the dotted line to fly.

 

[HSMPBR]

If someone told me that I could have traded being a Divo during my first tour for an extra 200 flight hours, I would have turned them down in a heartbeat. That experience was invaluable to my professional development.

Could you quantify a similar trade-off for DH tour?