What do you think the factors are for these results?
-
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
USS Fitzgerald collision in C7F
- Thread starter Ken_gone_flying
- Start date
Shit culture, poor training in house, the elimination of the full SWOS course for JOs in the early 2000s...
As most folks who’ve had the privilege to interact with the SWObots can probably attest to, 16% of the sample pool passing with no issues is a remarkably high number considering way the deck is stacked against junior SWO officers...
This would be akin to 84% of fleet tour JOs having CQ/UQ NATOPS checks.
There are bad apples in NA that make it through on charm and luck alone, but not 84% that are regularly unsafe/unable in their primary occupation. SWOs, especially ones wearing eagles and stars, need to get it together and stop being stubborn dickbags when it comes to changing their community's shit culture.
You can say officer-first until you're blue in the face, but if that means not sleeping enough to be dangerous underway and having so many collaterals that you aren't good at the one thing you are supposed to do, you probably aren't really doing anything useful as an URL Officer.
There are bad apples in NA that make it through on charm and luck alone, but not 84% that are regularly unsafe/unable in their primary occupation. SWOs, especially ones wearing eagles and stars, need to get it together and stop being stubborn dickbags when it comes to changing their community's shit culture.
You can say officer-first until you're blue in the face, but if that means not sleeping enough to be dangerous underway and having so many collaterals that you aren't good at the one thing you are supposed to do, you probably aren't really doing anything useful as an URL Officer.
“While the OOD competency checks were a snapshot in time, we must be realistic in confronting the systemic shortfalls that they revealed in core proficiencies across the junior qualified members of the force,”
The bolded part is what stood out to me. Navy leadership is trying to downplay the results.
Don't worry guys, punishing the OOD will motivate the other OODs across the fleet to try harder.
The bolded part is what stood out to me. Navy leadership is trying to downplay the results.
Don't worry guys, punishing the OOD will motivate the other OODs across the fleet to try harder.
A snapshot of a time they knew were coming in advance...
I used to hate dealing with SWOs and ponder how a collective group of people could be so fucked up and terrible at their jobs that they regularly turned to aviatiors for recommendations and assistance completing relatively simple tasks. As time goes on I realized how much they were setup to fail individually and as a community.
You have an entire generation of officers (O-1 through O-5) who aren’t safe nor competent seamen due to lack of training and Navy leadership that’s more concerned about covering their asses for taking bribes and gifts from some fat dude in Asia and the yearly uniform changes...
SWOS on CD followed by a couple weeks of classroom training for OODs, a DH course full of classroom minutiae followed by some sims for TAOs... the burnden of training is put on individual ships that are in such poor material condition they’d need every crew memeber working 27hrs a day to tackle the mx issues and barely put to sea.
It’d be like sending folks from API direct to a fleet squadron to learn how to fly after doing a month of CBTs... and the squadron has one aircraft that’s HONA limited to 86hrs a month yet is expected to train and maintain readiness for 12 full crews.
The SWO community has a long road ahead, that’s for sure.
Shoes: “We should do things more like aviators.”
Aviators: “Well, we-“
Shoes: “Shut it! We’re the real sailors! It’s the malcontent quitters who make us look bad!”
Aviators: “Well, we-“
Shoes: “Shut it! We’re the real sailors! It’s the malcontent quitters who make us look bad!”
I am curious though. From what I've read a lot of the people who are unfit for other communities at USNA and ROTC are made SWO's. Is it possible that they have no effect on the current climate?
Some people DO chose SWO for their own reasons. And even those that are at the bottom of their class that may have gotten SWO thrust ubon them are not predetermined poor SWOs based only on USNA or ROTC class standing. History is full of officers who were at the bottom of their class that become competent, even legendary SWOs AND aviators. Like said above, it is largely a problem of professional training, not undergrad schooling.
+1 to wink's comments. What does kill morale is watching those who are shitbag SWOs pass through unchecked, while competent Divos are rewarded with more tasks. That can be a problem in any community (or job), though.
Regarding Mids who want to be SWOs--One easy change would be increasing the number of SWO slots at King's Point and every state merchant marine academy. On USS FIRSTSHIP, our top JO shiphandler was a USMMA grad and spoke about his class fighting for the limited number of SWO slots. It doesn't replace our training deficits, but opening the door to all of that unused talent certainly seems wise.
So . . . . . much . . . . . . . truth . . . . . . . here. It puzzles me why some of the best and brightest in our service can't find a way to come to FULL, FUCKING, STOP, and fix this shit. What truly scares the shit out of me is what an at-sea naval engagement with the PRC will look like.
For our sake let's hope that they or whoever the next adversary's military turns out to be is kinda like how the commies were- dicked up even worse than us.
Aviation and NSW are unique - as officer we are expected to master our craft in addition to being leaders and managers. The "SWO gap" has been articulated very well by others who get it. I'm all for adopting the Royal Navy model - master seamen, tacticians, engineers being the goal for your development. Recognizing you may not be able to produce quality without specialization in one of the three.
Commies, or Arabs, etc. I know I've hinted at it here before, but even the Russians, flying their top of the line gen 4 fighters in Syria, presumably with their most highly trained aviators were still shockingly, comically awful in how they operated. Zero SA and being driven around like yellow gear by their GCI controllers. Goes to show that you can have a bunch of cool new hardware, but if you don't know how to employ it effectively, or train sufficiently to do so, then you're not likely to win in battle.
This. @Brett327 nailed it. All the open source intel I have read tells me that our tier 1 nation state adversaries are very command and control oriented - and lack critical thinking skills at the mid and junior leader levels. It's not in their DNA. And despite the showy social media demonstrations, these adversaries lack the economic power to invest in a military capability that will challenge us at a strategic level. The question is can we afford to keep this edge given the competing demands of social entitlements. The F-35 and CH-53K are each $100M assets. New SSBN's, etc.
Don't assume that all of our adversaries are as incompetent as the Iraqis and Syrians, or that the Russians suck overall because they don't like to play by the normal rules of the road. Our successes and the reasons are not secret and while autocratic countries/societies are a lot less apt to have the same successes for the same reasons they can still adapt some of our methods in their own way and still have considerable success. Finally, an investment in technology mitigates some of the personnel shortages our adversaries have in training and initiative.