1. Go read the article on the USNI/Proceedings website and get your answers from a card-carrying SWO who is trying to raise consciousness on these issues.
2. Reducing crew size and adding automation DOES NOT excuse anyone from learning and practicing basic seamanship nor does it equate to UAV/UAS development. The latter is analagous to Unmanned Surface Vessels and in all cases, despite there not being a human in the platform, there is a human practicing basic airmanship and seamanship from afar...and notably in the case of the Air Force and their Predators, not always doing it that well as losses to human error are significantly higher than in manned platfroms, but that's another story. The point I think you're trying to make equates to advent of the Head's Up Display and first computers/nav systems in aircraft in the mid to late 60s giving rise to the term "HUD cripples". The early Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) were an awesome navigation aid, but DID NOT substitute for basic airmanship and situational awareness. More than one aircraft has been lost to aviators relying solely on their black boxes and not using their heads. So, if you haven't figured out the my answer to your question, it's never to both questions.
The Navy is not Utopia and often times, it's the CO who sets and fosters the culture so you think the CO is going to change because a group of Ensigns deosn't like how they're being treated? I daresay that would make things worse. It's not like every ship is a repeat of The Caine Mutiny, but thinking "Surely there is a way for these issues to be discussed"....right!
Of course, not to say there haven't been similar poor command climates in aviation because no community or business is immune from the rule of a tyrant. I was in a squadron like that during my first cruise and every one of the pilots threw their letters or went to the reserves whereas retention under his successor totally reversed the trend. It was a sigh of relief when his car wasn't in his spot and he'd put JOs in HAC because that's what his JO skipper did. Irony was (this answers another question posed), he made flag because often times, a tyrant only appears that way from below whereas superiors see a driven, focused commander who gets results. His relief only made O-6 but did command a carrier and rehabilitated a wounded, broken morale situation.
That is true in most aviation communities especially TACAIR because in the cockpit, callsigns are used and often times rank isn't even in the equation although quals (like Division lead) or Mission Commander/Strike Lead are used during a mission/sortie. To me, that is a great equalizer especially in high tempo combat ops. You might be the lead for a package tomorrow and the aviator supporting you is leading the next day so ass clownery and tyrannical behavior gets weaned out if it erupts. I actually liked it better in the day before rank was worn on flightsuits. Much of what occurs in the air translates into the Ready Room. In all my squadrons, the Skipper and XO were addressed that way, but 0-4 and below were addressed by callsign. This is carried even further in NSW/SPECOPS realm where rank is rarely seen and sometimes irrelevant. Expertise and rep mean a lot more and everyone from officer to enlisted is on a first name/nickname basis. Aviators serving in NSW units are quite at home with this culture as a result. Not so easy for the smattering of SWOs.
Have to ask them.
That is what this thread is for (so you don't get flamed).
