Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mephisto!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval Aviators and Surface Warfare Officers
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.032016.22957@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 17 Jul 90 03:20:16 GMT
References: <1990Jul8.053350.7681@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul10.024753.9969@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul16.030845.5404@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 55
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <1990Jul16.030845.5404@cbnews.att.com>, schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
> From: schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
> 
> In article <1990Jul10.024753.9969@cbnews.att.com> mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> |
> |Ask a pilot about planes, not ships.  They know the former quite well but
> |haven't a clue about the latter.
> |
> |Mike
> 
> This is an overgeneralization.  There are many aviators with ship's company
> experience.  A sizable number of the carrier ship's company officers are
> aviators.  I've known several officers with both aviation and surface warfare
> qualifications.  I would not necessarily expect a carrier aviator to be
> extremely familiar with destroyer operations (but this, too, would not be
> unheard of as aviators have served on destroyer squadron staffs), but I would
> not categorize any officer community as not having a clue about the work done
> by another officer community.
> 
> Jeff Schweiger
> 
Perhaps it is an overgeneralization.  Let us then say that the vast majority
(way more than 90%) of pilots and NFOs that I have known or served with fall
precisely into that category.  I never said that they are not good pilots or
aviators.  They are very good, the Navy's pilots are the best in the world,
(boy that should light up the net!).  And as a surface officer, I would not
attempt to plan an operation that required aircraft without utilizing their
expertise.  But plain and simple, the aviators don't know &^%$ about ships,
surface operations, nor do they care to learn!  I have stood to many a watch in
TFCC on the carrier, as part of a battle group commander's staff, to come to
any other conclusion.  During the FLEETEXs I have been involved with, the
carrier typically does something stupid like drive over top of a sub datum IN
ORDER TO LAUNCH A/C.  This usually happens because some aviator, the CO, XO,
NAVO, OPS, CAG, etc. decided that was the way to go.  Would not listen to
any surface or sub type trying to explain the foolishness in their decision. 
Its not that they are not capable of making a better decision, its just that
they have NO EXPERIENCE WITH SHIPS, THEIR VULNERABILITIES, (how many a/c have
ever been shot down by subs?), OR THEIR CAPABILITIES.  When put into a position
to make a decision concerning a/c, no problem.  But when ships or submarines 
enter the equation, they are hopeless, AS I WOULD BE TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION 
ABOUT F-14 PALCEMENT, ETC.  The whole point of my original posting was that 
aviator types are not the guys to answer questions about ships.  Thats exactly 
why I don't try to answer questions about planes.

As a sidebar to the above, anyone else out there besides me feel that the CO of
a carrier should be surface type?  

And to think that now the LAMPS guys want in the hunt.  The helo guys think
they should be considered for CO of a destroyer, because it has 1 a/c embarked. 
What a joke!

Mike