The million dollar question

[Screamtruth]

All right, this will stir it up.

I am sure this has been a topic of countless debates, but, for me it is a question that I have always had regarding the real differences between AF and Naval Aviation, besides the bullcrap like housing or training funds and other stuff. I am referring to the differences in the skills and tactics of the pilot.

:skull_125

Remember Gents, I did not mean this to debate on who's better, but the differences in.........

I only stated that I think the Naval Aviators have the edge.......
but obviously I am biased (USMC) and I am not an aviator....
just a grunt with a radio who wished he was. My dad flies with a few guys who are AF and he obviously thinks highly of their skills as pilots. He is biased too (USMC), but he is a grunt/aviator, albeit commercial.

 

[riley]

Makana,

I'm not in the A-Pool and I've been around enough pilots from all the services (except the army) to know that the Marine Corps has a lot of collateral duties, the Air Force does not. From what I've seen of the Navy, they also have a lot of collateral duties. Look at TBS - if my friends are just interested in flying and don't want to hump a pack for six months in the beautiful woods of Quantico or do other collotareal duties, I tell them the Marine Corps is probably not for them. That's pretty good advice.

 

[wink]

Honestly, I think some other areas of our training suffer because of all the work we have to put into getting ready/becoming proficient for the boat. Unfortunately, there's only so many flight hours. So instead of getting in an extra ACM hop, we gotta do an FCLP period instead, just for an example.

I don't buy that. You get extra time to hit the boat. Navy pilot training, from first FAM to wings is longer then AF UPT. Don't know about the new T-45 TS approach, but you used to get lots more tactical flights prior to winging then the AF guys. Navy guys are far more tactical on the day of their winging then AF guys. From that day on there are many variables that will make Naval Aviators different from AF pilots , some good, some bad. I still give the edge to the Naval Aviation.

 

[Ex Rigger]

I understand what your saying Riley, but to make a counter point. Being a Naval Aviator in the USMC has nothing to do with humping a pack for six months. So making a decision as to what service you would like to be an Aviator in based on the fact that you'll hump for six months is kinda silly. You really need to look at the culture of the service, platform choices, mission areas, leadership opportunities, and then make a decision. The training to me is just a means to an end......wings. If your interested in being an Aviator in the Marines, you don't have to be interested in humping a pack, you just have to do it....and realize your going to serve around alot of grunt types at times in your career.

 

[riley]

I understand your point and agree - I just didn't have a better way of saying it in a short amount of time. I meant that being a Marine Aviatior you can expect a lot of collateral duties in your squadron and a lot of time in a B billet away from flying - unless you get an instructor position. If a friend of mine is interested in flying and flying only (maybe to get into the airlines) I try to tell them to look at all the services. Each is different. I wanted to be a Marine for the fact that we have other opportunities.

 

[Ex Rigger]

And as to the original topic. I am merely an SNA at this point but having fleet experience I have seen the way the Air Force operates and their squadrons and units. The Navy does things completely different....as Wink said both good and bad. However, the bad are what I think makes the Navy and it's aviators and even maintainers so well prepared for whatever the country expects of them. The Navy deals with so much unpredictability, unavailability of parts, long hours, long deployments, that make wartime operations more commonplace. Now it should be said that sometimes morale suffers, but from a fighting unit standpoint, not an Aviator standpoint (again I'm just an SNA) the Navy is and always has been prepared and stands ready to adapt to any potential conflict on a moments notice. This is in stark contrast with the AF who is very used to never having much problems with parts, short hours, long runways, and overall better quality of life which make for a pampered fighting unit.

Cliff Notes - Naval Aviation is used to adapting and overcoming......The AF (generally) is not

 

[Blutonski816]

^ I have rarely seen the term "adapt" and "Air Force" in the same context... lol...

I have to agree with most of what's been said. when it comes to people to fill the cockpits, the AF just wants a good pilot. I think someone mentioned here how AF guys usually narrow down their job right down to the platform. Navy/MC looks for officers to lead the fighting unit, the aircraft they fly are merely the primary tool in carrying out the unit's main task.

 

[2c_stars_at_noo]

What it sounds like to me is:
A) If all you want to do is fly high and fast...go Air Force.
B) If you are also interested in becoming a well rounded leader who is flexable and also get to fly high and fast..go Naval Aviation.

 

[illinijoe05]

B) If you are also interested in becoming a well rounded leader who is flexable and also get to fly high and fast..go Naval Aviation.

It should read:If you are also interested in becoming a well rounded leader who is flexable and also get to fly HELOS or P-3..go Naval Aviation

 

[Brett327]

I don't buy that. You get extra time to hit the boat. Navy pilot training, from first FAM to wings is longer then AF UPT. Don't know about the new T-45 TS approach, but you used to get lots more tactical flights prior to winging then the AF guys. Navy guys are far more tactical on the day of their winging then AF guys. From that day on there are many variables that will make Naval Aviators different from AF pilots , some good, some bad. I still give the edge to the Naval Aviation.

Yeah, I'll second that. You're gonna learn real tactics in the fleet, so all the events in the TRACOM are doing for you is giving you an introduction - it's not expected to build proficiency. In the fleet, all your various training requirements are set and incorporated into your T/M/S' T&R matrix and it's not like you sacrifice in one area to maintain your boat quals. You have to meet a certain level of proficiency in all the requirements to be in an M1 deployable status. When you're deployed or on workups, you're gonna be doing the boat stuff every day, and when you're at home, there's no need.

Brett

 

[Punk]

I don't buy that. You get extra time to hit the boat. Navy pilot training, from first FAM to wings is longer then AF UPT. Don't know about the new T-45 TS approach, but you used to get lots more tactical flights prior to winging then the AF guys. Navy guys are far more tactical on the day of their winging then AF guys. From that day on there are many variables that will make Naval Aviators different from AF pilots , some good, some bad. I still give the edge to the Naval Aviation.

Well, considering the AF does their strike pipeline completely different than the Navy, I would have to agree. The AF strike pilots get their wings after what we would consider Phase I in T-45 TS. They then start their tactics phase (Phase II) for us. We then get our wings. Our AF counterparts have already had their wings for a few months. So that is the main reason why our training program is significantly longer, not so much the boat, they get winged at a different time. Us going to the boat only adds about a month to the overall program (add in mid-stage FCLP's and CQ workups).

Besides back to the whole, "jack of all trades, master of none" still holds true. I give us an edge in certain areas over our AF counterparts. However, there is something to say in training and becoming experts in one certain area. One quick example would be an A-10 driver over a Hornet driver. Who would you rather be giving you CAS if you were on the ground? The guy who trains for CAS maybe a month or two out of the year or the guy who trains all the time for CAS?

But they need F-15's for CAP. Us on the other hand can do it all.

 

[wink]

But they need F-15's for CAP. Us on the other hand can do it all.

And look a hell of a lot better when doing it!!

 

[skidkid]

One quick example would be an A-10 driver over a Hornet driver. Who would you rather be giving you CAS if you were on the ground? The guy who trains for CAS maybe a month or two out of the year or the guy who trains all the time for CAS?

9 times out of 10 the Hornet, if it is a Marine Hornet 10 times out of 10.
A-10s are cool but I have seen some screwed up stuff done by their pilots, friendly fire incidents aside even.

 

[Punk]

9 times out of 10 the Hornet, if it is a Marine Hornet 10 times out of 10.
A-10s are cool but I have seen some screwed up stuff done by their pilots, friendly fire incidents aside even.

I was just using an A-10 as an example. My point being I would rather take the guy who's sole purpose in life is CAS over someone who only visits it a few times a year.

 

[skidkid]

I know that was your point, but it doesnt matter if that is all they train to if they still arent the ones you would call first, why not get more bang for the buck and call the multi-role A/C.

Even we dont train exclusively for CAS but I would challenge you to find any community more focused on CAS or more proficient.

I know where you are going with this but CAS is a bad example. Strategic bombing, tanker or transport support would support your arguments better.