SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[squorch2]

The question could similarly be boiled down to this:

Does the military need the best and brightest in its ranks, or do could we do with something less?

 

[Hotdogs]

Also related is the nice fact that our leaders have just as much if not more experience than the folks they are leading. One thing you always hear from the Army aviators is about how a Battalion Commander (rough equivalent of a squadron command in the Navy) usually has much less experience than many of the CWO
he or she is leading. That is a big credibility issue and I think has contributed to many of the long-term issues in Army aviation where the most senior leaders are not the leading experts in their platforms. .

You could say that exact same thing for boot 2ndLt leading those first platoons into combat. Seems to work out okay.

 

[Flash]

You could say that exact same thing for boot 2ndLt leading those first platoons into combat. Seems to work out okay.

Platoons aren't independently deployable units, squadrons/battalions are.

 

[Recovering LSO]

The question could similarly be boiled down to this:

Does the military need the best and brightest in its ranks, or do could we do with something less?

That's one helluva presumptuous statement... It a) presumes the folks who stay in and continue to move forward and up are neither good nor bright, and b) that every one of the folks who are leaving was God's gift to the uniformed services.

Sweeping generalizations are unacceptable when used as "slurs" aimed toward millennials, but in this case it's fine?

 

[Spekkio]

That's one helluva presumptuous statement... It a) assumes the folks who stay in and continue to move forward and up are neither good nor bright and b) that everyone of the folks who are leaving was God's gift to the uniform services. Sweeping generalizations are unacceptable when used as "slurs" aimed toward millennials, but in this case it's fine?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military is kicking out people who are 'God's Gift' to anything or that people who promote are not bright, but rather that there are capable, competent, and trained people who have to be replaced by completely new bodies because that is the way we do business. The fact of the matter is that the military's 'up and out' system is kicking out a fair amount of people with operational experience in wars fought over the last decade or so. Is that the kind of 'professional' organization we want - one that discards people with valuable experience just to make room for the next 'boot?'

You see this even happen on a boat level - you get back from deployment, a large portion of the crew rotates, and suddenly the ship is back at square one and can't figure out simple tasks without inordinate hours of training to get everyone proficient. Is that really the best way to maximize our warfare effectiveness?

People seem to forget that during the onset of WWII, we got were getting our butt's kicked by the Japs and we spent a year or so piddling around in North Africa so that everyone could get up to speed. After many 'lessons learned' we finally adapted and overcame. We haven't fought a near-peer enemy since then...so how many lives are going to be lost the next time when we still have the same issues of sending people whose only operational experience comes from canned exercises and whose only DC experience comes from coordinated drills into battle, all because we have to have a revolving door personnel model?

 

[Pags]

The question could similarly be boiled down to this:

Does the military need the best and brightest in its ranks, or do could we do with something less?

"The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots."

I'll echo what RLSO said; there's nothing to say that the Navy isn't retaining the brightest. We have plenty of people who are leaving who are self describing themselves as the best and brightest but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

And I'd also say that the Navy doesn't NEED the best and brightest. Yes, I served with lots of guys who were incredibly smart, capable, and hard working. And I also served with guys who weren't as smart but just as hard working and capable. The system will work just fine with people with average intelligence. At some point I'd hope for the sake of mankind that the best and brightest are off solving bigger problems than the intricacies of the daily flight schedule.

 

[Pags]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military is kicking out people who are 'God's Gift' to anything or that people who promote are not bright, but rather that there are capable, competent, and trained people who have to be replaced by completely new bodies because that is the way we do business. The fact of the matter is that the military's 'up and out' system is kicking out a fair amount of people with operational experience in wars fought over the last decade or so. Is that the kind of 'professional' organization we want - one that discards people with valuable experience just to make room for the next 'boot?'

You see this even happen on a boat level - you get back from deployment, a large portion of the crew rotates, and suddenly the ship is back at square one and can't figure out simple tasks without inordinate hours of training to get everyone proficient. Is that really the best way to maximize our warfare effectiveness?

People seem to forget that during the onset of WWII, we got were getting our butt's kicked by the Japs and we spent a year or so piddling around in North Africa so that everyone could get up to speed. After many 'lessons learned' we finally adapted and overcame. We haven't fought a near-peer enemy since then...so how many lives are going to be lost the next time when we still have the same issues of sending people whose only operational experience comes from canned exercises and whose only DC experience comes from coordinated drills into battle, all because we have to have a revolving door personnel model?

What you're forgetting is that when people who rotate out YOU may be losing that experience but The Navy keeps that experience and puts it to use at the next step. The experienced sailors aren't directly replaced by boots but instead by Sailors who have been trained by the departing experts.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard "this shop/V/squadron will be screwed when X leaves," I'd have a lot of dollars. But at no point have I ever seen it where a unit ceases to function because one guy left.

All this is probably a feature designed in to a system that needs to function if people are expected to die in combat. The experience needed to perform the mission is not inherent in one individual but is instead distiller across a unit.

The other bug/feature of the system is that while it may stink that good people have to go it's nice that the impact of bad guys is minimized.

As to the WWII analogy one of the Navy's great successes is that they did NOT keep individuals on the front line like the Japanese did. Pilots flew for awhile and then returned to shore and flew as IPs or manned stateside staffs to ensure that their combat experience was put to use to continue to man, train, and equip the fleet. The Navy's greatest ace spent the early years of the war on his disassociated tour onboard the original USS Wasp. After commanding a DESRON with unparalleled combat success Arleigh Burke was sent to a staff where he used his prior experience to help guide TFs.

 

[robav8r]

"Mission first people, always."

So many folks seem to lose sight of this.

 

[nittany03]

Worth also making sure that when someone says "this job isn't for everybody" that they're not actually telling you the truth - and speaking directly to you. Your level of cynicism is no doubt borne from your particular situation. This might sound like heresy to some, but have you ever stopped to ask if the Navy - amid its many flaws - doesn't get it right more often than it gets it wrong, and enough to execute its mission? Yeah, yeah - rah rah innovation, down with the status quo, harumphh!

I get that I'm an outlier. Yes, the "sorry, you didn't make it" speech is needed from time to time. I get that. I've gotten it, you know it, and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night. That comment wasn't intended to be a shot at everyone still on "the path." It was an admittedly more sarcastic and cynical version of what Pags has also noted. What can I say? I was in a bad mood and got snappy. My bust. I'll go haze myself.

My point was that both sides have their biases. The people left out are pissed, and the people who made it don't have personal experience with not making it, so in their gut things are fine. It's human nature. Everyone is "someone else" to someone else, and we're all the most important part of the Navy to ourselves. From some subset of the successful people (again, not naming names or aiming it at anyone here), that bias shows in a reflexive ad hominem dismissal of any ideas that aren't coming from the due course crowd. Especially those alleged "millenials" who won't just shut up and color.

But something needs to give, because a lot of the people who were in the API crowd with me aren't marching along anymore; they got cut off at the knees recently with far better records and quals than I, and no explanation. It ain't just me. Me I could deal with. Without naming names, it's me AND the stuff I've seen happen to other people along the way that makes me cynical. And specifically, it's not the "what," it's the "why" behind the "what" that torques me off. The older I get, the less tolerance I have for a bunch of smart people being forced to act stupid, or at least counterproductively, to follow the rules.

You know what my answer is, but then again I'm apparently just another guy who kissed ass and gamed the system (which of course since you know me, you know is pretty far from the truth - but you believe what you need to).

I never intended to imply that in the first place.

If you're interested in a discussion about how we could address many of the issues SECNAV, CNP, and others are discussing without turning the proverbial world upside down, let me know - we can talk about adjusting the periodicity of FITREPs.

It's at least a start. IMO, we also need to consider why it's necessary to rank amongst people in the same unit anyhow. Got a bunch of aces? CO should be able to say so. A bunch of schmucks? That too. I think the stack ranking part of the FITREP is corrosive and needs to go away. I think the Marines have a decent handle on a better solution.

In other words, the ship's not sinking until the main weather deck's awash?

This isn't just internet wanking - a lot of senior leadership is starting to say the same thing. We spend a fuck-ton of money on technical training yet dump most of it away by insisting on making everyone stay on a path to Admiral, and if they don't, then they're out of the Navy or at least out of the cockpit.

words

reply to big long post

more words

So here's the $24 million question. Knowing that the Army system is allegedly too warrant-heavy, is it possible to tweak it so as to keep a better influx of people going up the "golden path" while still keeping a smaller cadre of old hands around who have been flying forever? Thus potentially ameliorating the credibility issue by keeping more commissioned types and less warrants/LCDRs around, with the understanding that this is going to cause attrition in the commissioned ranks of some degree, if less than what we have now?

I really agree with Fester that our system wastes a crapton of money retraining new people. And my larger issue is that, yes, in the grand scheme of things, we can't and shouldn't consider anyone irreplaceable. Because when the DF-21 or Sizzler hits, it's next guy up, fight her till she sinks, and don't give up the ship. But that's the enemy's job. Not ours.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I get that I'm an outlier. Yes, the "sorry, you didn't make it" speech is needed from time to time. I get that. I've gotten it, you know it, and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night. That comment wasn't intended to be a shot at everyone still on "the path." It was an admittedly more sarcastic and cynical version of what Pags has also noted. What can I say? I was in a bad mood and got snappy. My bust. I'll go haze myself.

So here's the $24 million question. Knowing that the Army system is allegedly too warrant-heavy, is it possible to tweak it so as to keep a better influx of people going up the "golden path" while still keeping a smaller cadre of old hands around who have been flying forever? Thus potentially ameliorating the credibility issue by keeping more commissioned types and less warrants/LCDRs around, with the understanding that this is going to cause attrition in the commissioned ranks of some degree, if less than what we have now?

I really agree with Fester that our system wastes a crapton of money retraining new people. And my larger issue is that, yes, in the grand scheme of things, we can't and shouldn't consider anyone irreplaceable. Because when the DF-21 or Sizzler hits, it's next guy up, fight her till she sinks, and don't give up the ship. But that's the enemy's job. Not ours.

The answer to this is to use the reserves - in the form of a Squadron Augment Unit - as your long term experience base. It works fantastic in the Training Command. Reservists do not count towards active duty manning so it does not clog up the pipeline with a large number of flying only O-3's / O-4's that others are suggesting. (Quite a few of the reservists were in the squadron 10+ years.) Reserves also allow you to increase / decrease manning as required. Reserve personnel costs are also less as we do not draw retirement / medical until age 60. Finally, reservists come with both the experience base of having been there / done that as a company grade officer while also having a broader perspective of aviation that military only bubbas do not.

 

[Brett327]

...we also need to consider why it's necessary to rank amongst people in the same unit anyhow.

We've just descended into the realm of the absurd.

 

[nittany03]

We've just descended into the realm of the absurd.

Marines, please correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't the USMC FITREP process structured so as to have the reporting senior rank a Marine relative to all Marines of that rank that the reporting senior has ever commanded, rather than adding a forced distribution of only the one summary group? How is that absurd? I'm not saying don't rank people. I'm saying that seems to be an easier way to delineate who the people are who deserve to be promoted. Great that we break out who the #1 is of these particular seven LTs. That guy/girl could be bucking for CNO or just very good. Yes, the discance from the RS's cumulative tells you this, but if so, why the extra step?

Granted, though I'd like to get to assist with a board at Millington at some point in the future, I haven't actually seen the sausage get made firsthand. But it seems to me that the Navy method forces a game of "well, that EP has a higher cumulative average than this other EP, but that EP has a bigger summary group and some cool writeups." Would a piece of paper saying "I judge this officer to be in the 87th percentile of all the LTs I have commanded" not be more straightforward?

 

[HAL Pilot]

That's one helluva presumptuous statement... It a) presumes the folks who stay in and continue to move forward and up are neither good nor bright, and b) that every one of the folks who are leaving was God's gift to the uniformed services.

Sweeping generalizations are unacceptable when used as "slurs" aimed toward millennials, but in this case it's fine?

From the guy who's sweeping generalizations/maligning comments about passed over officers was the final straw that led to longtime AW members leaving and our startup of the other site.

 

[Spekkio]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard "this shop/V/squadron will be screwed when X leaves," I'd have a lot of dollars. But at no point have I ever seen it where a unit ceases to function because one guy left.

I'm not just talking about one guy. I'm talking about manning being aligned with a deployment cycle in such a way that you get something like 50-60% crew turnover in a short span. The vast majority of those guys are going to be an influx of unqualified sailors, and the rest are guys who have just spent 2 years-ish on shore duty and may be coming from another platform. Suddenly the CO takes the boat to sea and the crew can't figure out how to route a hose in a fire drill in under 5 minutes (the standard is two), not to mention the pressures it puts on the watchbill when you have several guys standing port and starboard - which of course leads to the qualification standards being lowered so that the watchbill can get manned again.

It's not something that can't be rectified with some (or lots) of extra training - after all the aforementioned quote about the Navy's masterful design - but it does leave me scratching my head asking if this really is the best way to supposedly maximize warfighting effectiveness.

And it's not just the crew: the Navy spends a lot of time molding officers for command at sea, and then our window for that is a whole 24 months nominal. No ability for COs who like or are good at being boat COs to repeat the job; it's onto staff tours on the golden path to commodore or get out.

As to the WWII analogy one of the Navy's great successes is that they did NOT keep individuals on the front line like the Japanese did. Pilots flew for awhile and then returned to shore and flew as IPs or manned stateside staffs to ensure that their combat experience was put to use to continue to man, train, and equip the fleet. The Navy's greatest ace spent the early years of the war on his disassociated tour onboard the original USS Wasp. After commanding a DESRON with unparalleled combat success Arleigh Burke was sent to a staff where he used his prior experience to help guide TFs.

You misunderstand me, then. I'm not talking about guys rotating to instructor duty, I'm talking about guys being shown the door. In the Army and USMC, guys who are being told "thanks for serving 3 tours in Afghanistan or Iraq, but we're going to separate you now." Or, in the case of Naval aviation, 'thanks for ~11 years of service that led to EP fitreps, but we're only going to promote half of eligible 1310s so have a good life.'

Ok so those guys weren't good enough to make a promotion cut, but that means that they're no good to keep doing the job they are in? We need to instead replace him with another guy that needs to be trained to that point?

It's hard to have a guy rotating back to the school house when he doesn't have the option to unless he selects E-6 or O-4.

Would a piece of paper saying "I judge this officer to be in the 87th percentile of all the LTs I have commanded" not be more straightforward?

Theoretically, yes. But to use an example: I had two COs, each of which got to witness and evaluate maybe 18-20 officers in their tenure. Maybe this works better in bigger units, but in smaller ones it could lead to issues.

 

[nittany03]

Theoretically, yes. But to use an example: I had two COs, each of which got to witness and evaluate maybe 18-20 officers in their tenure. Maybe this works better in bigger units, but in smaller ones it could lead to issues.

This happens everywhere already. A new Navy RS still needs to establish a cumulative average so as to be able to break out the really, really good EP players from the just good ones. Better to start at a 3.5 and have room to reward the rare superstar than start at 4.2 and jam yourself by being Santa Claus. Boards, at least as I've been briefed, will look at the RS's cumulative average for just that reason. What I'm asking is why, then, if that is available as a discriminator, do we insist on also ranking people amongst their immediate peers? What value is added? Their demonstrated ability and potential (or lack thereof) is already captured in the GPA. The Marines go one further and use a pyramid like so:



Granted, theirs is done by a second reviewer, which is a separate discussion. But either way, it seems to me to eliminate the "who got the EP" question? Who gives a shit? The CO ranked all of you according to everyone he's ever seen, and chances are you might not be the tippy-top, and that's fine. Have two DHs who are future COs? Rank them #1 and #2 ever that you've seen. Done. No writeup shenanigans necessary to parse the forced MP game. Guy's a shitbird? There's still ample room to take out the trash. No need to rank amongst a small subset of the LTs in the fleet if more than one is an EP player, or if none are. And if the CO fires a DH or has a shitty JOPA, there's no chance that he/she might feel obligated to slot the other one into the EP slot "because there's no one else." Rank 'em at the bottom of the big pack where they belong.