My apologies to my colleague from the other side of the Ready Room. Pursuant to our bantering and mangina-irritating antics upsetting some of our members, and having been retired since 2008, I did some digging via phone calls and of course the internet regarding training and INTJ's comments regarding same were spot on.

The * after the title is there for a reason and figuring this might be of interest to some of you aviation types, here goes.

Naval Aviation since it's inception was and remained so up until the late 90s, a self-contained organization with proven results throughout it's history. Steeped in tradition, Naval Aviators (NAs) aside from the huge discriminant of landing on 150' of moving runway, were always inculcated with the notion of "independent steaming". Once you go over the horizon, you're on your own. We trained that way for many years, but with the coming of the jet age and increasing mishap rates, NATOPS (Naval Aviation Training Procedures Stadardization) was born- NATOPS 3710. That, along with the intense and continued training required to land on carriers (two weeks and you turn into a "pumkin" requiring re-certification) along with of course tactics etc, our plates were full. We also had (again up to the mid 90s) a medieval-like approach to training resulting in an almost 90% attrition rate measured from the time you walked into a recruiting office or Commissioned via the Academy or ROTC, to "wings". Before you even smelled an airplane, you were subjected to a hail of pressure-by-design living hell of academics, physical training and I daresay HAZING by USMC Drill Instructors (in my class we started with 48, commissioned 16 and of those four were "winged" and three of us made it to the "Fleet" to give you an idea. After the Tailhook "Inquisition", and the full court press to exterminate us dinosaurs and Feminize not only us but all the services (thank you clinton, and the democrats), things began to change.

The first female three star in charge of ALL Navy training (with ZERO operational of combat experience) first order of business was to say "the only "filter" we need in Naval Aviation is the recruiting office" After that, we need to make it a program focused solely on training much like the Air Force does it. Her words, not mine and myself and a lot of other old farts fought tooth and nail against it, why, because we, the AF and Army have three entirely different philosophies and approach to operations and training. A Naval Officer is expected to be an officer first and an Aviator second, that is why upon checking into your first squadron, you are assigned a Branch (ordnance, electronics, Power plants, Admin, etc)under the watchful eye of a Senior Enlisted (E-7 or higher) to teach you the essentials of not only the Branch you are heading, but leadership as well. In contrast, young AF pilots all they did was two things; fly and professional military education until attaining the rank of 0-4, which BTW, you MUST have a Master's degree. Contrast that with the Navy, where the key to promotion was to be AWAY from staffs and schools, so much so, all the "bottom feeders" were sent to Post-Graduate education, Recruiting, staff duty (except Flag LTs) and the "Players" were sent as instructors to Type Wings (your platform community) or the Training Command. In peace or war, the key to sucess in the Navy was to stay operational and avoid "schools" at all costs. That is no longer the case BTW.Still, there was still plenty of time to fly, for example during my first tour (three years) I logged close to 2K hours and over 250 "traps". Not so today. Back to Training.

With the advent of females and the previously mentioned female admiral, those front-end filters started to go away. Gone was the obstacle course, cross-country (most in sand), Rifle runs, and of course HAZING and of course the attrition rate dropped substantial-until about Flight #15 in Primary and even beyond that, instructors were severely restrained from being "overly assertive" in the cockpit. Guess what happened? Attrition rates soared. Then came the notion of this joint training nonsense that yours truly and a whole bunch of us fought tooth and nail, and this is where INTJ's comments come in. The Navy's way of training was significantly different than the AFs (and believe me, as I alluded to before, I lasted ONE flight when I was invited by the AF to be an instructor in Pensacola flying T-1s) and Navy students trained in Navy WAYS in Primary were going to pay the price in an AF training environment. INTJ is correct.

Operationally, we can only look back at history and going back to WWII through today there were differences in the two services. As INTJ points out, USN assets were under overall command of the AF during Desert Storm, but that was only after the six to eight months of preparations by the AF. The Navy in contrast, was flying missions within 48 hours of the Kuwaiti invasion. Total number of sorties were in proportion to the ratio of assets in theater, and like Todd pointed out, during the first hours of the war, the Navy's role in combat sorties surpassed the AFs. Yes we lost an F/A-18 from Air Wing 17 (Saratoga) and some of you I'm sure remember the name of Michael Spiker. There are theories as how he got bagged, but I believe a MiG-25 Foxbat slipped in and bagged him on egress. The Lybian operation in 86 was a Navy run affair, with the AF coming in ALL the way from England and after an eshaustive haul involving several in flight refuelings, those F-111 crews went into combat and like SPiker, one of them got "bagged" on egress.

The Navy has ALWAYS considered the Close Air Support (CAS) mission as their bread and butter, whereas the AF has and still eschews it. I was there in the Pentagon when the AF Chief Of Staff (McPeack) wanted to cede that mission to the Army along with the A-10. Still the Navy's record in the air-to-air scenario has not been bad. Kill ratios, number of Aces (five kills or more) all one has to look at the record and it's pretty clear but that has nothing to do with being "better". In my view our training and greater emphasis on initiative was the difference. Once again history is our sounding board. Navy fliers were given a lot more latitude and freedom of action than their AF counter parts were. I saw this in spades during Lybia (El Dorado Canyon) Desert Storm & Fox, Bosnia and Afghanistan. But I will say the Navy has all but gone away from that doctrine and today, save for "flying around the boat", we've become as rigid as the AF, at least that is what some of my friends who retired after me related to me. There are PLENTY of "brass balls" to go around in all the services, and I am honored to say I had the pleasure to interact with the likes of Bud Day, Robin Olds, and many others in my life. I could go on, and frankly I doubt few if anyone will read this, but it would be interesting to have comments from all of you who've flown. And speaking of brass balls, let us not forget the rotorheads in the Army, one needs only to look at Vietnam to see where the REALLY big balls were. One more thing to illustrate to some of you my points. If you've ever seen the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels perform, the former's demonstrations center much more on tight formations and they are indeed a sight to see, but the BLues' approach emphasizes and indeed builds their show much more around the "Opposing solos" and a bit more reminiscing of the "daredevil" approach. That's how I see it anyway....

Awesome Jorge, thanks, very instructive.

Jorge,

Good post. I was in from 1983-2007, and during that time the USAF could never figure out how much flying it wanted it's JOs to do. Upon arrival in your squadron you were immediately given an additional duty, and after about four years the peformance of your staff duties was what determined your promotions. They kept going going back and forth on whether you needed a masters for 0-4 and if you should have a non-flying staff job before 0-4. PME was always a huge deal though.

The irritating thing about USAF flying was all the regulations they made you know. Regulations that often conflicted. It wound up putting you in a place of deciding which regulations you were going to have to break to get the job done. Everyone was okay with violating the regs as long as you had a good reason and knew all the rules. When I was an evaluator pilot, for table top emergency procedures discussions I would always create scenarios where the safest and smartest action violated some regulation. We were so envious of the Navy's approach to regulations.....just aircraft manual and the FAR/AIM.

Now there was a lot of good guidance in all those USAF regulations, but it should have all gone into a technique/best practices manual. The USAF did do a regulation reduction, which didn't reduce anything but did break things up so we had more regulation names to learn.

I think the reason USAF training became so formalized and prescribed was in how the USAF responded to Vietnam. Where the Navy responded (correctly) by starting to teach dogfighting again and putting guns back on the jets--as did the USAF, the Air Force also created these very realistic and complicated combat training scenarios like Red Flag. They found that if a pilot could get through the first ten missions, he'd usually last the rest of his combat tour. With the USAF being focused so heavily on an complex air campaign, the rules quickly followed.

These complex exercises work. In combat, the USAF now quickly establishes air dominance. Granted, we haven't faced a top notch adversary in a while, but even the Russians and Chinese wouldn't fare any better against us. We'd have to go to war with a ramped up Britain or Europe to meet our equals.

I think the best illustration of how the USAF does things can be found in this story I heard a while ago. All the services used to send personnel to a joint Aerial Port training school. The USAF would send loadmasters from C-130s and other cargo planes as well as other transportation personnel. The other services did the same. At some time during one of these classes a C-130 loadmaster did something the Army Sargeant Major Instructor didn't like so he told the loadmaster to "drop and give me 20." To which the loadmaster replied "I'm not here for that" and refused to do the push-ups.

The Army Sergeant was irritated by this and later that day complained to a fellow instructor, and old USMC Gunny Sergeant, about how these USAF types lacked discipline and military bearing. The Gunny smiled and said yeah, they do things their own way, but when things go to hell in combat, the USAF types will figure out how to get you what you need to save your ass even if it means making it as they go.

My guess is the Gunny was saved by USAF C-130 resupply or evac while in a hot spot in Vietnam. A when I was a young Lieutennat I heard many stories from old Herk drivers about Vietnam where they did stuff way outside of normal operations. One guy told me how his crew figured out how to do zero-zero landings at a hot LZ using that old POS APN 59 radar via airborne radar approach. They were bringing in supplies to a Marine unit under siege.

So I think the differences in training approach reflect different end goals. The USAF fields a large and complex operation. During Vietnam the USAF shot down about 140 enemy aircraft while the USN got about 65. The USAF also had one more Vietnam ace than the Navy. However, the USAF losses were staggering compared to the Navy, which reflects how the Navy more quickly started dogfight training and how the USAF flew a lot more sorties and flew a lot of aircraft that couldn't shoot back. However, late in the war both services had it sorted out. Robin Olds Operation Bolo is a great example, where USAF F-4s baited Mig 21s to come up and fight and they took out a lot of Migs.

I wonder what the next war will look like?

This is great thanks gents.

INTJ you mentioned the US would need to meet UK or Europe to meet equals. I am curious, one reads that Israeli pilots are among the best. How does IDF training and process differ from USAF and USN? Same question for UK, France, Germany.

Thanks,

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

I wonder what the next war will look like?

Not like the last one is my expectation. I have zero expertise in anything aviation but this thread is interesting.

I have a question - the navy is building 11 billion dollar aircraft carriers. The air force is not signaling much beyond 5th gen fighters. Boeing future business plan don't incorporate a new fighter going forward.

The services have different strategic directions and the defense industry is signaling a game changing environment. Who is right ?

Mike

Look what the Marines have to piece together.
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/...ornets-from-boneyard

Great post..... How low we have sunk.

Jorge, we have to return to the the times you know, of when men were men. To do that you have to train them as men, not generic vanilla widgets.

I'm not a pilot but those helicopter pilots got me there and back and in between saved my bacon. I know what it looks like to see a gun run on a ridge. Training and standards apply in the air and on the ground. We suck in both with this anti-American president.

God Bless the USA

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
This is great thanks gents.

INTJ you mentioned the US would need to meet UK or Europe to meet equals. I am curious, one reads that Israeli pilots are among the best. How does IDF training and process differ from USAF and USN? Same question for UK, France, Germany.

Thanks,

I am not sure how IDF conducts their training. I know they are highly motivated because of the imminent threat they face. While one-on-one a particular Israeli may be a better pilot than a particular American pilot, Americans would most likely win a full on campaign. I can say the same about the rest of the countries, even China and Russia. There are always individuals who are exceptional pilots, but it is the coordinated air campaign that will win the air war.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

I wonder what the next war will look like?

Not like the last one is my expectation. I have zero expertise in anything aviation but this thread is interesting.

I have a question - the navy is building 11 billion dollar aircraft carriers. The air force is not signaling much beyond 5th gen fighters. Boeing future business plan don't incorporate a new fighter going forward.

The services have different strategic directions and the defense industry is signaling a game changing environment. Who is right ?

Mike

The last seven and a half years has been very difficult for the military. The services have slightly different strategic directions because that's how we set them up. That is how it should be.

If I were in charge, the Navy would get a Gen V air superiority fighter like the F-22. I think they were working that direction when funding was yanked. I think the USN should have the same air superiority capability as the USAF. Right now they are making do with F-18s. While the F-18--both regular and super versions--is a great jet; it isn't a Gen V aircraft and it does not have the air-to-air capability of the Raptor. That makes no sense to me. We often use a carrier to start combat operation immediately, and a few Gen V air-superiority fighters would make things go much better if we ever again face a sophisticated air defense.

I would also build more carriers......

For the USAF, I would probably triple the number of Raptors in service. I would develop a new stealth bomber--more like a big F-22 than a B-2, and either can the F-35 or redesign it so it performs like an F-16 but with stealth features. I would build a bunch more C-130Js (for all missions from trash hauling to spec ops) and more C-17s--maybe even some stretched versions to replace the C-5. I would build a cargo jet that is basically 1/2 a C-17, able to fly at jet speeds, is air refuelable, can carry 9-10 pallets, and burns around 8000-9000 pounds per hour in cruise. I would plus up tankers as well.

My goal in all this is to have the US Military back to being utterly overwhelming for China, Russia, and any other adversary. The best deterrence is for us to maintain an overwhelming military presence.

I would also plus up our counter-terrorism capability and continue to develop our drone capability.

quote:

Originally posted by xgrunt:
Look what the Marines have to piece together.
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/...ornets-from-boneyard

Great post..... How low we have sunk.

Jorge, we have to return to the the times you know, of when men were men. To do that you have to train them as men, not generic vanilla widgets.

I'm not a pilot but those helicopter pilots got me there and back and in between saved my bacon. I know what it looks like to see a gun run on a ridge. Training and standards apply in the air and on the ground. We suck in both with this anti-American president.

God Bless the USA

You know, the Marine's MAGTAF doctrine provides a complete go to war package on very short notice. We never let them operate that way anymore as their air assets get OPCON to the USAF in major conflicts and I think their ground forces are tasked by the Army ground forces commander.

A MAGTAF, Marine Air-Ground Task Force, is designed to go quickly deploy an entire war-fighting package. They can handle smaller conflicts by themselves and they can carry the war until the USAF and Army arrive in force.

Frankly, I don't know what the next one will look like, but all I can tell you it ain't the same Naval Aviation. During all my deployments, we averaged at least 40-50 hrs/month and even for us "double cycle" guys, easily two hundred traps. Nowadays Aviators are lucky to get twenty five and when shore based, barely enough to keep currency. That, coupled with the emasculation and feminization of ALL the services, it's a whole new world. Lastly, the Navy screwed up VERY BADLY with aircraft procurement. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s we should have built the F-14D and Tomcat 2000 and the A-6F. Instead, we put all our eggs in the A-12 basket and that was a fiasco, leaving us with the F/A-18 (only plane in Naval Aviation history to have failed Operational Evaluation, it had and has no legs), then we "stretched" it as the two seat Hornet F which all it is is a Tomcat with less capabilities, without the A-6 we have no medium attack OR truly all-weather strike platforms, and last but not least mission and recovery tanking, now done by Hornets is a failure. All one needs to do is look at Carrier operational cycles. When I was flying, cycles were 1+45 hours (2.2-2.5 in real time). With Hornets, the only way to accomplish this was with "triple bubbles" (three drop tanks) slung, but then they could not train effectively. We lowered the cycles to 1+30s with the S-3s taking up the recovery tanking and some mission tanking as well. With the retirement of the S-3 in 08, Hornets became the new tankers (which causes a problem for them) and now cycles are barely 1+15, which is ostensibly a "flex deck" (launch and come back when you are low on gas), thereby putting even more stress of the flight deck crews who are already overworked. Incidentally, a carrier's striking limitations revolve around flight deck personnel and history and research shows we can probably go48 hours before those kids start dropping from exhaustion and getting careless in an extremely dangerous flight deck environment. Now all we have left is that HUGE POS F-35, overweight, overbudget and it can't fight.

As far as the Israelis go, in my view, there are none better. Their selection process (for tactical aviation) is SO stringent, only a tiny fraction make it, and of course NO FEMALES, which BTW, completely destroyed the warrior ethic. J

I always wondered if the Super Hornet was REALLY up to the fleet defense role.....

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:
I always wondered if the Super Hornet was REALLY up to the fleet defense role.....

Sure, if you want to witness the "Outer Air Battle" from the bridge....

Well, that will keep the commanders close to the action........

The Navy needs a Gen V air auperiority fighter, not the F-35.

I guess this is in reply to jorges comments on having the honor of knowing and flying with aviators with brass balls and those of us that won our wings by qualification and hard work not by agenda or affirmative action. it has been 65 years now and I still have an interest in the well being of military aviation. I don't think I would have been so proud if I thought my selection was not on merit but on agenda or minority quota. not to say many are qualified but their accomplishments are tainted by the selection of the best of a poor lot. I could rave on but enough said my crew is long gone and the old B29 and bird dog are also long gone. Time takes it toll and aviation isn't immune.
with respect to those that where honored to have flown the warbirds and crews