Navy vs Air Force

[FLYTPAY]

Is a 0/0 landing as scary as a night carrier landing? Probably not, but I don't know; I've only been in the cockpit for the former not the latter, but to act like you wouldn't have white knuckles in the process shows you don't understand the situation

How about a Paddles ontact approach where you are being talked down into the wires, can't see the flight deck...err..ball, he can barely see your jet coming through the nothingness in close yet he still knows where you are and what your plane is doing..........Midrats anyone?....not in the Air Force.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

How about a Paddles ontact approach where you are being talked down into the wires, can't see the flight deck...err..ball, he can barely see your jet coming through the nothingness in close yet he still knows where you are and what your plane is doing..........Midrats anyone?....not in the Air Force.

I think the most scared I've ever been was orbiting over a stan and realizing the Bangladeshi cooks in the flight kitchen gave me a mystery meat/curry sandwich.

Kidding, of course. But it's nice to know there are folks out there who do a job most of the population couldn't.... Or wouldn't. Now if only you guys would stop asking my baby tanker buddies to lock their boom.... :icon_tong

Here's to you guys! :icon_zbee

 

[brownshoe]

Midrats anyone?

Been there! Left over lunch, dinner, and what’s for breakfast the next day. Good stuff! (And I'm not kidding.)

Steve

 

[S.O.B.]

What's the career track in the AF like. Do they even have to deal with a dissociated or IAs? That's something I would think about. In the NAV your likely to only do two cruises if you only complete your initial obligation.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

What's the career track in the AF like. Do they even have to deal with a dissociated or IAs? That's something I would think about. In the NAV your likely to only do two cruises if you only complete your initial obligation.

I'll leave the meat and potatoes answer to the Os, but the short answer is yes. Even the enlisted aviators do dissociated tours now

 

[HackerF15E]

Also, Hacker, aren't you and AF pilot? I make a huge post digging on your service and the only nitpick is my comment about promoting? I'd love to hear what you have to say about all this--don't hold back because this is a Navy forum. You have a perspective we (or at least I) haven't heard much from in this thread.

I've stated my opinion about the Navy vs AF debate in the past -- both services are a great place to fly airplanes and provide combat airpower, and they both do what they do incredibly well. Everything else in the debate, to me, is the same as debating over "Chevy vs Ford", "Coke vs Pepsi", or "Nikon vs Canon" -- it's all just personal opinion. USAF guys think that we do it the best, Navy guys think that they do it the best. The OP all ready seemed to have his heart set on flying off a boat, so I don't see how any perspective I could add would change his mind. I don't really feel the need on a Navy board to come to the rescue of my service whenever someone takes a shot at it. I accept that's going to happen, and I know that most of the time it's going to be as a result of ignorance or service bias on the part of the poster. I'd be a busy man if all I did was respond to posts like that.

To be honest, I wasn't sure about the right way to respond to your points, though. You've obviously had your opinions based on your tour at Randolph, so there's not a whole lot I can say to that -- that is certainly a lot more experience with my service than I have had with yours. Overall I understand the source of your opinion about officership and leadership in the AF, and to be honest I don't disagree with that part of it. I don't agree with your conclusions, though.

So, lemme explain a little more.

Yes, there is a voracious problem with the way leadership works in the flying community in the USAF. The source of the problem is that nobody is ever really empowered to make the BIG decisions, just as you have noted. From the Squadron Commander level on up through the Wing Commanders, everyone feels the need to check out their decisions with the next higher level of leadership before they do anything, lest they get their asses nailed to the wall over something that next leadership level didn't like. It's essentially leadership by CYA -- making decisions based on if that decision will get you in trouble or not, rather than if the decision is best for your organization or for accomplishing the task at hand.

This is all informal, of course, because every USAF leader will spout off the same drivel about empowerment and pushing decisionmaking to the lowest level and all that...but not actually practice that. Everybody will tell you they're making decisions based on mission accomplishment, versus just trying to not get fired from their command job.

But, when you make the leap to statements like "your job won't be that hard", or "you won't have any real authority", I think your logic train has jumped the tracks. I'm an O-4, too, and have had my share of projects I've worked on where I've been given an immense amount of responsibility and authority. Certainly my leadership has wanted me to tell them what's going on along the way, and has offered rudder corrections when they want to see things differently, but I've never personally in any of those situations anything related to any of the statements you made about officership and leadership in the AF.

I don't know what types of jobs you had in your time at Randolph, but I'm guessing that you were a SUNT instructor. I can tell you that AETC is THE WORST when it comes to this type of crap. If I had to pick the one spot in the entire AF that displays the "check six" leadership ethic, I'd plunk you right down at RND, where every level of leadership is RIGHT THERE ON BASE -- the NAF, the MAJCOM, etc, are all in a position where they can literally watch you flying outside their window. The 4-star can call down to the ops desk and critique how your formation looked flying up initial -- and probably does enough that you adopt a "the 4-star is watching you" ethic in every single thing you do. So, I have to say that your experience here is more extreme than most other places in Big Blue.

You ran into an O-4 who couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. Okay, fine, there are bad apples in any organization -- maybe several bad apples. I have met some complete loser Naval aviators, too, some of whom I am surprised they let drive a car much less a fighter. The difference is, I have also flown with some Navy pilots who are complete professionals, so I don't let the bad apples paint a bad picture of the entire organizaton. There are certainly USAF leaders who I think are a complete waste of space, but there are others for whom I'd do nearly anything. I have seen about the same number of bad apple Navy officers as I have USAF officers...leading me ultimately back to the statement at the beginning of this post.

I think that part of the problem in the USAF is in the way we raise pilots and Navs -- they are only responsible for themselves for the majority of the beginning of their career, then when they hit the O-5 level they are suddenly in charge of large organizations with lots of people and toys.

I was originally a Maintenance Officer before I started flying, and on my first day as a maintainer I was in charge of 200 enlisted guys. Hell, in my first week in the squadron, I had to issue punishment to an NCO. I felt like I gained a lot of important leadership experience in that job. When I got to the flying community, it was blatantly obvious that my peers lacked that same experience because the training pipeline ONLY had these guys around peer officers. Think about it -- in ROTC, the Academy, or OTS, they're all around peers. Same thing when they get to pilot training -- all officer peers. When they get to their training squadrons -- all other peer officers. When they're in an operational flying squadron, they're mostly around other peer officers. The result is that guys are senior O-3s before they're ever actually responsible to lead another person.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is, you're correct that there is a cultural leadership problem in the flying AF that leads to "leadership by CYA". Your conclusions about what that means to be an AF officer though, I just think are completely off base.

 

[HackerF15E]

What's the career track in the AF like. Do they even have to deal with a dissociated or IAs? That's something I would think about. In the NAV your likely to only do two cruises if you only complete your initial obligation.

Can you translate "dissociated" and "IA" into non-Navy speak? I think you're talking about remote assignments and augmenting ground forces in the GWOT, but I'm not certain.

 

[P3 F0]

FTR, my joint time was not only at Randoph, but at CENTCOM Tampa for a few months as an O-3, and in DC (flying billet) for 3 years as an O-4. But thanks for shedding light on it from your point of view. I understand what you mean about not correcting every post that talks about the AF This is why I don't go to any AF sites--I'm sure there's plenty of Navy bashing going on.

By "hard," I'm talking generally speaking. Certainly in my current job, I'm working less than I ever have. But when I look at (trying to be objective as I can, which yes, is tough) the average Navy JO's job in the squadron, which involves a ground job of leading many enlisted, running a division (or possibly an entire department), dealing with collateral duties, and studying in order to qualify and maintain currency, that's a pretty demanding job. Even the Surface Warfare bubbas have it rough--from what I've seen, they usually get an hour or two of sleep here and there on the boat. I'm not entirely sure what the AF JO's do in the squadron, but the impression I've gotten from speaking with all of the O-4 aviators, it seems much less demanding--No real ground job, no people to lead.

"Disassociated" is when an aviator does a tour out of his community (i.e., helo, P-3, 18's, etc). P-3 guys will often do a disassociated tour as TAO or shooter on the carrier after their initial squadron. That's just one of many examples all aviators go through. IA is, I suppose, like your remote. We are basically pulled out of hide from the parent command (although I think the Navy is intending to change that process and make the TDY enroute to a new command) and sent to a hard-fill billet for 4-6 months, usually the sandbox but there are a ffew that are in odd places around the US, Europe, etc.

 

[HackerF15E]

I'm not entirely sure what the AF JO's do in the squadron, but the impression I've gotten from speaking with all of the O-4 aviators, it seems much less demanding--No real ground job, no people to lead.

I can't speak outside my personal experience in fighter squadrons and a training squadron, but this is definitely not the case. O-1s through O-3s actually have quite a bit of "desk job" work to do. They are the minions and chiefs for all of the individual shops in the squadron:

- Weapons and Tactics
- Scheduling
- Training
- Standardization and Evaluation
- Plans and Programs
...plus a dozen other oddball jobs that aren't big enough to have their own "staff", per se.

O-3s also serve as Flight Commanders, who are the mid-level managers for all the CGOs (that's what we call "JO"s in the USAF -- Company Grade Officers). Naturally it gets worse when you pin on O-4 and have to serve at staff-level positions for the leadership -- executive officers and the like.

Your assessment about not being in charge of enlisted folks much is correct, though. The Life Support Officer is the only one who is physically in charge of any enlisted folks.

"Disassociated" is when an aviator does a tour out of his community (i.e., helo, P-3, 18's, etc). P-3 guys will often do a disassociated tour as TAO or shooter on the carrier after their initial squadron. That's just one of many examples all aviators go through.

Yes, that's absolutely a requirement within the first 2 flying assignments. The USAF fighter community calls it by the outdated term "ALFA tour". That's an acronym that means:

A - AETC (meaning going back to the training command as an instructor)
L - LIFT (teaching the fighter lead-in program as an instructor)
F - FAC (used to apply back when there were OV-10 and OA-37 squadrons)
A - ALO (Air Liaison Officer -- a ground-based FAC with the Army)

The vast majority of guys will go to an ALFA tour for their next assignment after an operational flying tour. Don't know how it works for non-fighter dudes, but they have a similar requirement with a different selection of jobs to go to.

IA is, I suppose, like your remote. We are basically pulled out of hide from the parent command (although I think the Navy is intending to change that process and make the TDY enroute to a new command) and sent to a hard-fill billet for 4-6 months, usually the sandbox but there are a ffew that are in odd places around the US, Europe, etc.

Yes, a 1-year remote tour is a requirement for pretty much all career officers. For guys who only stay in their initial commitment past pilot training, they can probably maneuver their way out of having to do a remote.

Deployments count for "short tours" if they exceed 179 days. The USAF doesn't want to give away short tour credit (since that's the only way they can fill crappy jobs in remote locations) so conveniently most deployments terminate short of 179 days.

 

[HeyJoe]

I've stated my opinion about the Navy vs AF debate in the past -- both services are a great place to fly airplanes and provide combat airpower, and they both do what they do incredibly well. Everything else in the debate, to me, is the same as debating over "Chevy vs Ford", "Coke vs Pepsi", or "Nikon vs Canon" -- it's all just personal opinion. USAF guys think that we do it the best, Navy guys think that they do it the best.

+1 for that observation. I come from an Air Force heritage and have worked with them on active duty in staff and operational assignments and since transitioning to current line of work. They're different for sure, but both sides need to be open to best other has to offer in terms of expertise and TTPs especially in era of Joint/Coalition Ops. Same argument can be made for USMC and USN. I've served on active duty in both services and they're different on many levels, but doesn't mean they can't learn form each other.

Yes, there is a voracious problem with the way leadership works in the flying community in the USAF. The source of the problem is that nobody is ever really empowered to make the BIG decisions, just as you have noted. From the Squadron Commander level on up through the Wing Commanders, everyone feels the need to check out their decisions with the next higher level of leadership before they do anything, lest they get their asses nailed to the wall over something that next leadership level didn't like. It's essentially leadership by CYA -- making decisions based on if that decision will get you in trouble or not, rather than if the decision is best for your organization or for accomplishing the task at hand.

That is best characterization I have ever seen and I don't think Navy or even Marine Corps is immune from it, but don't see it as much in the latter cases. I've watched it manifest itself in early nineties in my Air Force counterparts during the ominous Return-to-fly screening that went on in force shaping purges following Desert Storm and cry for a Peace Dividend.

The 4-star can call down to the ops desk and critique how your formation looked flying up initial -- and probably does enough that you adopt a "the 4-star is watching you" ethic in every single thing you do. So, I have to say that your experience here is more extreme than most other places in Big Blue.

Saw that to a degree at Langley AFB wherein folks flying in for a meeting landed at Oceana or Norfolk because if they were heading to Langley, their Wing Commander had to inspect their aircraft prior to departure in case it would be seen by the four star on the Langley ramp. Not to say they're weren't times when Navy flag officers caused same effect (Catmando I know lived through tulmultuous days at Miramar when Admiral used a speed gun on aircraft in the break and had lines on his window to make sure altitudes were observed...also confiscated flight jackets being worn through gate. Whidbey had a reign of terror so I've heard).

I think that part of the problem in the USAF is in the way we raise pilots and Navs -- they are only responsible for themselves for the majority of the beginning of their career, then when they hit the O-5 level they are suddenly in charge of large organizations with lots of people and toys.

I was originally a Maintenance Officer before I started flying, and on my first day as a maintainer I was in charge of 200 enlisted guys. Hell, in my first week in the squadron, I had to issue punishment to an NCO. I felt like I gained a lot of important leadership experience in that job. When I got to the flying community, it was blatantly obvious that my peers lacked that same experience because the training pipeline ONLY had these guys around peer officers. Think about it -- in ROTC, the Academy, or OTS, they're all around peers. Same thing when they get to pilot training -- all officer peers. When they get to their training squadrons -- all other peer officers. When they're in an operational flying squadron, they're mostly around other peer officers. The result is that guys are senior O-3s before they're ever actually responsible to lead another person.

Great observations and perhaps it is that way for a reason. I've seen goods and others on both sides. Navy and Marine Corps puts JOs in leadership positions very early and they have to be able to operate in the air with little or no supervision as well in case their flght lead goes down. My personal observation is the maturity in Naval Aviation cockpits accelerates ahead of Air Force in those early days.

That said, Air Force pilots have that freedom to get to know their aircraft and TTPs better (of course, they have more rules to operate by requiring them to devote considerable time learning). By 0-4/0-5, things start evening out. I found my Air Force counterparts in Pentagon very knowledgeable on their aircraft and weapon systems and great staff officers as well mainly because they operated in a corporate environment with rules, regulations and procedures for EVERYTHING.

Naval and Marine aviators were always looking to get back to a cockpit early by hook or crook whereas Air Force pilots/navs knew they had to do a good staff assignment and put in the time (like a Joint ticket). Marines in HQMC (especially APB/APW) know it is a necessary evil and keep a strong corporate/tribal knowledge on how to do staff work and operate in DC environment, but Air Force works paper like nobody else (of course, that doesn't mean they can't have that backfire as in recent front office foibles, but that's another thread).

 

[Scoob]

Yes, that's absolutely a requirement within the first 2 flying assignments. The USAF fighter community calls it by the outdated term "ALFA tour". That's an acronym that means:

A - AETC (meaning going back to the training command as an instructor)
L - LIFT (teaching the fighter lead-in program as an instructor)
F - FAC (used to apply back when there were OV-10 and OA-37 squadrons)
A - ALO (Air Liaison Officer -- a ground-based FAC with the Army)

The vast majority of guys will go to an ALFA tour for their next assignment after an operational flying tour. Don't know how it works for non-fighter dudes, but they have a similar requirement with a different selection of jobs to go to.

This equates more to a typical shore tour in the Navy - still doing piloty things, surrounded by piloty people - just not "operational". The "Dreaded Disassociated" is more about being alone and unafraid as the resident aviator assigned to a command full of non-aviation types. Really though, it means a billet in a non-aviation command (traditionally the boat, but many options are out there) doing things that require an aviation background, but don't involve any flying. "Purgatory" would be an apt term for it.

Yes, a 1-year remote tour is a requirement for pretty much all career officers. For guys who only stay in their initial commitment past pilot training, they can probably maneuver their way out of having to do a remote.

Deployments count for "short tours" if they exceed 179 days. The USAF doesn't want to give away short tour credit (since that's the only way they can fill crappy jobs in remote locations) so conveniently most deployments terminate short of 179 days.

We're talking GWOT deployments as an individual to (usually) OEF/OIF - from what I saw USAF was doing 4 mo. deployments for this.

 

[Gatordev]

Also (again not sure of exact numbers) there seem to be a lot more pilot slots per student at the Academy vice NROTC.

Not true. It's an equal share. OCS gets the sloppy seconds.

 

[phrogpilot73]

A - ALO (Air Liaison Officer -- a ground-based FAC with the Army)

You learn something new every day. I always thought the JTACs that ran around with the Army were the enlisted AF guys. I didn't know you guys sent pilots out on that one.

Truth be told, most of your posts ring true - I've met ass-bags in the Navy, USMC, Air Force, and Army. I've also met guys that were shit-hot. I have no complaints about the Air Force (when I was trying to set up a TACP shoot in Lejeune, the USMC gave me ONE section of F/A-18's each day, and the Navy gave me none. Not like you can accomplish training objectives that way. Seymour Johnson was more than happy to send two sections of F-15E's each day, and Pope sent 3 sections of A-10's each day.), but I think the culture is what determines if a guy is an ass-bag or not. I had guys in my squadron that were turd-burglars (not unsafe pilots, just retards), and I think that if they had been in a different service/culture that they could have thrived. That's just my $.02

 

[picklesuit]

Not true. It's an equal share. OCS gets the sloppy seconds.

Sloppy thirds, sir.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

You learn something new every day. I always thought the JTACs that ran around with the Army were the enlisted AF guys. I didn't know you guys sent pilots out on that one.

The JTACs (aka TACPs, ROMADs, ETACs) are enlisted. The officers, ALOs (ground FACs), also provide that service, but their main responsibility is being the air power adviser to the Army ground commanders, as well as administratively leading the JTACs.