Don't bet on that -- I have seen helo DHs over there -- do an OIC stint, do an IA, come back and hope to do OPSO/MO....
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
President Obama's Military
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
Don't bet on that -- I have seen helo DHs over there -- do an OIC stint, do an IA, come back and hope to do OPSO/MO....
'Zactly what happened to me. Spent 6 months in Jabooty doing go-fetch for an Army LTC. Don't get me wrong, he was a great guy to work for, and while DJ sucks, at least no one's dropping mortars on your head. But there was no need for the billet, and I'd say the same for a significant chunk of the IA billets out there. There's a good mechanism for opening new billets (good as in, it's easy to do), but as far as I can tell, no way to turn off old ones which are OBE. I tried to turn off my inbound relief, told the Personnel folks that there was no sense bringing anyone else out to do nothing...no dice. Not only did they fill it, but my relief was an O-4. So someone was doing jack shiite at a higher paygrade.
GWOT Support Activity
Throw in the "wings + 8" commitment and guys coming off their 1st shore tour are hosed. Most have around a year left until their MSR and they are ripe for the GSA. Tough to commit yourself to get out after that so the follow on sea tour is all but a lock. Several here are looking for an appropriate IA so their PRDs are extended to match their MSR.
At least my community was willing to give me what I wanted on the backside if I volunteered for this particular GSA. Moved my current rotation up by 6 months but I get 3 year follow on shore duty orders to NAS Pensacola which takes me to 20 years and retirement. I get to be an associate flight IP with either VT-4 or VT-10 as well. I wanted to fly the T-6 for my last tour and this was a way to get it. I'll fly with VT-86 if they let me but that would be a hard thing to do, being a non tactical guy. I know they've had E-2 pilots as IP's before but it had to be a timing or who you know sort of thing. Regardless, flying out of P-cola for my sunset tour is what I wanted. Certainly would have rather gone to Bahrain but it is what it is I suppose.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Had dinner at my folks house a while back, and my parents had also invited a classmate of his from USNA (retired 3 star who knows the now CJCS pretty well). As we were expressing our JO-level frustration about it, he added a bit of clarity.
He said the reason they came to be/are still around is not about helping the Army out, nor was it ever. It was keeping the Navy in the forefront of the politicians minds as "team players", and proving that no matter what (protracted land war, war of the high seas, etc) the Navy is viable so they don't take it in the shorts come budget time. Contrast that with the AF who isn't playing the IA game as much as the Navy is, and how their budget is being fine-tooth combed. Never underestimate the level of politics at the senior levels.
He said the reason they came to be/are still around is not about helping the Army out, nor was it ever. It was keeping the Navy in the forefront of the politicians minds as "team players", and proving that no matter what (protracted land war, war of the high seas, etc) the Navy is viable so they don't take it in the shorts come budget time. Contrast that with the AF who isn't playing the IA game as much as the Navy is, and how their budget is being fine-tooth combed. Never underestimate the level of politics at the senior levels.
The flip side of the coin is the Navy isn't relevent in today's world, things like CBG's could be thing of the past. It's more important to have Army's full of soldiers ready and able to provide support for ground wars and occupation. I'm certainly oversimplifying it but you get the jist of it. I simply feel that in general, the Navy is looking for leaders who are followers and not true leaders. There are certainly some around but not enough to be effective.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Well, at least with parts of your post.
In the aviation world, we as a country take for granted the idea of air dominance. That's what we enjoy now every time we go to war. Why? Because the Air Force asks for ridiculous budget items. If the stealth programs of years ago had been scrutinized like their current programs are now, we may or may not have them now. Stealth technology is one of a myriad of factors that enabled us to quickly establish air dominance (as opposed to air superiority) in our current AO in Iraq. What if we had slashed the Air Force's budget? We probably still would have ended up with air dominance, but perhaps not as quickly.
However, what everyone in the political world fails to realize is that the Navy has ensured that we also have control of the high seas. I can get on a phib and know that no-one is really going to fuck with me enroute to an objective area. Why? Because of things that AREN'T publicized in the mainstream media (like Sea Dragon, etc...), because it isn't "sexy". Without the Navy being able to maintain a certain force level in all the worlds oceans/seas we may start to lose that dominance. The Navy has also started to take back the Riverine fight from the Marines, which is a good thing. I hate to say it, but the Navy needs to ensure that dominance of the seas. Jets may fly from carriers ashore - but more importantly is their ability to prosecute sea targets that may threaten the CBG/other surface assets. Control of the high seas should be paramount for the Navy, and I don't doubt that it is.
I fully, wholeheartedly, and unabashedly agree with you about the leadership in all services. Rumsfeld thought he was smarter than everyone around him. He fired Admirals/Generals that disagreed with him, or made them uncomfortable to be around him until they bent to his will. Which lead to the Army's movement towards a smaller, more mobile force. Which lead to the current mess we're in.
Someone needs to pull their head out of their ass and realize the following:
The Army is an occupying force.
The Navy controls the high seas.
The Air Force ensures air dominance.
The Marine Corps is prepared to take large amounts of casualties in order to gain a foothold for the Army and the Air Force - and then move on to the next shithole.
It's a system that's worked for hundreds of years, and there are countless shithead enemies of ours that make this system still viable. CBG's are not a thing of the past. Strategic Bombing? Maybe.
We need our senior leaders to sack up, regardless of the threat (hey fucker, you're still retiring at O-10 pay if you're fired. Eat a dick) from the senior civilian leadership. You are doing your service, the civilian leadership, and yourself a disservice by telling them what they want to hear.
/END RANT
If I read you right, you made my arguement. Don't get away from what we do. Perhaps modified but saying (big Navy) it's more important to use sailors as soldiers to justify our existence is not the right way to go about things.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I guess so. What I was mostly disagreeing with was the statement about CBG's... Who gives a shit about today's war? I'm worried about the next one.
The other problem is once you have weak leaders in one service, you'll have weak leaders in the others...
And how the fvck is sending shitbags to a community with retention problems supposed to fix the problem?
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
It's the manpower version of throwing money at the problem :icon_smil