Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Naval Aviators and Surface Warfare Officers Message-ID: <1990Jul23.202253.6129@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Jul 90 20:22:53 GMT References: <1990Jul8.053350.7681@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul10.024753.9969@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul16.030845.5404@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul17.032016.22957@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul18.040751.14044@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 94 Approved: military@att.att.com From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu : Fastforward. Today we still have the same requirement. Things are : very different. Aviaiton is a separate warfare specialty. Unles you : aspire to command of a carrier, then a fledging aviator will probably : never have a ship's company billet. The carriers almost always deploy : with a battle group staff on board, so the carrier captain is usually : not the OTC. Yes many aviators are surface warfar qualified. They ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Incorrect, they are NOT surface warfare qualified. They do have a Fleet OOD letter and their EOOW (Engineering Officer of the Watch) qualification. That is what is required of a carrier CO. To imply that this makes an aviator surface warfare qualified is slightly in error. : pick up this qualification along the way by serving in various ship's : company billets. For a surface warfare officer (SWO) to get this : qualification, he/she must go through 4 months of schooling, and then : live and breath ship operations for 18-36 months. Even then he is not : considerably skilled at ship operations, he does know his way around a : ship, can do useful work, and probably won't get anybody hurt. It is Certainly if the officer spent little time in an Operations billet, this is true. One could amost acuse you of committing the same type of gross overgeneralization as I. : the next round of experience that truly prepares the SWO for command : at sea. She/he goes back to a year or more of advanced surface : warfare schooling, and then goes to sea as a shipboard department : head. So the dual qualified aviation officers aren't in the same : league, and only the most arrogant aviator would even try to make that : claim. And they do, routinely. : We are left with an anachronistic requirement that remains because it : suits certain bureacratic purposes. If a surface warfare officer : picked up his aviation qualification the same way an aviator picked up : his SWO qualification, he wouldn't be let near a plane. Why do we : still have it? It serves as a filter for those who want to be : admirals. To be an admiral as an aviator, you almost have to have a : carrier command. By requiring the SWO qual, it just makes it more : difficult to get the billet. It used to be that command of a nuclear : carrier also required nuclear power qualifications (it may still be : required). Bearing in mind that 55% (the last figure I heard) of the : admirals are aviation qualified you can see that it is an important : achievement to get the dual qualification. : : In defense of the policy I should admit a few things. First, it is : possible to successfully command a ship without detailed knowledge of : ship operations. You have to have good people that you can trust.\ I completely disagree here. The captain is ultimately responsible onboard a US Navy ship. You suggest putting a partially qualified individual in the position that must make the final decision and accept the responsibility. Not an intelligent solution. As you point out below, what about when the supporting cast is not strong? : Unfortunately, on a carrier many of the billets were you should have : the good people, are filled with aviators learning about ships, not : the experienced ship people you would like. Those SWO's who are : present generally are well regarded because they are the ones who have Not the carriers I've been on. The senior SWO, the guy with this experience, is the Chief Engineer, and is seldom, if ever, consulted concerning operations. Most of the surface types onboard are the guys in their first tour, the same type that you previously stated were not "really SWOs" yet. Besides what type of SWO WANTS to go to a carrier? While not the proverbial `kiss of death', it sure is close. The hot running surface types are on cruisers and destroyers, not carriers. : the experience, and who do the qualification. The policy does put an : aviation qualified individual in charge of carriers (although this may : not be as important since the navy started using Super-CAGS [commander : air group] that are commensurate with the carrier CO in air : operations). The policy does force some aviators to learn about An interesting note about the Super-CAG concept being equivalent to a carrier CO billet. CAPT John Mazach, the Super-CAG in the book Supercarrier, left that position to be Chief-of-Staff for Commander Cruiser Destroyer Group 8, and from there to be CO of the MIDWAY. Kind of shoots the Super-CAG idea to *&^%, wouldn't you say? : surface operations, just as battle group operations forces SWOs to : learn about aviation operations (remember that the main striking force : of the USN is aircraft). The point I was trying to make is that aviators are GENERALLY not tactically proficient in surface ship operations. That is where they get the carrier into trouble. What good are all those strike aircraft if they are at the bottom of the sea? IT HAPPENS EVERY FLEETEX!!! We will fight how we train, and we certainly don't train how we intend to fight. Mike