|
Howard Phillips posted:Academy sub guys incur 5 year obligation. On average it takes 2 years for a sub candidate to go through power school, prototype, and submarine officer basic course (SOBC). Their initial sea tour is 36 months. That's exactly five years. Most finish their sea tour with about 6 months left on their 5 year obligation. Some go to shore duty before getting out and others extend onboard for the last 6 months. Right. All Academy folks incur a 5-year obligation. ROTC/OCS is only 4. SWO folks generally crank out their 2 DIVO tours, plus a shore duty before deciding to sign up for 2 DH rides or rolling out. Godholio posted:Historic applies. The USAF is the smallest it has ever been by tens of thousands; the smallest since Nov 1941, just a few months after the Air Corps was reorganized into the USAAF. It's currently almost 200,000 people smaller than any time in the 90s. Right, we're approaching pre-WW2 levels. And, we're also more technologically-enabled than at any time in our history as well. Only what, 17% of the USAF is directly-involved in some sort of aviation-related field, right? So the rest of it has essentially served as the logistics hub for long-haul transport for the last two major theaters of war. Beyond that, what does the AF require such large numbers of people for? They're not operating ~290 ships. buttplug fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Sep 8, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
buttplug posted:Right. All Academy folks incur a 5-year obligation. ROTC/OCS is only 4. SWO folks generally crank out their 2 DIVO tours, plus a shore duty before deciding to sign up for 2 DH rides or rolling out. But that's more a result of us having essentially no initial accession training. If we had a school of any appreciable size tacked on as ensigns then we would be much closer to the sub folks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
buttplug posted:Right, we're approaching pre-WW2 levels. And, we're also more technologically-enabled than at any time in our history as well. Only what, 17% of the USAF is directly-involved in some sort of aviation-related field, right? So the rest of it has essentially served as the logistics hub for long-haul transport for the last two major theaters of war. Beyond that, what does the AF require such large numbers of people for? They're not operating ~290 ships. I don't think your 17% figure is accurate, but I don't have access to the AFPC site that gives the breakdown. Typically admin personnel make up about 1/3 of the force, so the rest will be aviation-related (I expect aircraft maintenance alone accounts for at least 17%), medical, security, combat arms, and services I guess. The point I was responding to isn't that the Air Force needs more people, it's that cuts like these are literally unheard of, are absolutely NOT cyclical, and are far beyond the Peace Dividend. This is more like the post-WWI drawdown than anything else, and that should scare the hell out of anyone who knows how that went. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Not really. Manning levels aren't equivalent 70 years apart... technology gaps and the ability to mobilize should scare the poo poo out of people. Large standing forces are expensive and people are the largest part of that expense.
Boon fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
That has been well known for millenia. And one thing that we've learned every time we've gone through those cyclical cuts is that you lose a lot of muscle with the fat. And once in a while (1919, for example) you lose almost all the muscle. The AF has been cutting Weapons School grads (think 6-month version of Top Gun but more expensive) because of 5-year old PT scores for gently caress's sake. The Navy has a long way to fall before it's making that kind of personnel fuckups. You guys have your own issues for sure, but you definitely take better care of your people, even with the issues being discussed in the last page or so. Edit: I really didn't intend to derail this, I just took issue with the idea that "historical" wasn't accurate. It absolutely is, for the Army and AF. Maybe not for the Navy yet, but we'll see how many of those Chinese ships up around Alaska make it home and see what happens. Godholio fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
I like my job in the navy, controversial statement, I know
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan posted:I like my job in the navy, controversial statement, I know No, it's not. I love my job. I just hate every single person at my job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Schlabbalabba posted:No, it's not. I like the parts of my job that are not actually part of my job. And some of the people. A few. Mostly the paycheck and health insurance. Go Navy!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Schlabbalabba posted:No, it's not. Man, I'm the opposite. I hate what I do, but I love the folks I work with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
At my home port Hueneme to Seabee it up. Time to see if I flip out and put in an OCS packet and become a SWO like Mr. Nice! has been telling me to
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:become a SWO Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Well Seabees are downsizing like crazy gotta do something
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:At my home port Hueneme to Seabee it up. Time to see if I flip out and put in an OCS packet and become a SWO like Mr. Nice! has been telling me to Send me a PM if you want some straight talk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
The important thing to know about being a SWO is that if you were to graph the amount of enjoyment you'll have over a normal career track, it is basically U shaped. The trick is to get out of the community before you hit the trough, or be ready to grin and bear it until you hit the upswing again.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't think your 17% figure is accurate, but I don't have access to the AFPC site that gives the breakdown. Typically admin personnel make up about 1/3 of the force, so the rest will be aviation-related (I expect aircraft maintenance alone accounts for at least 17%), medical, security, combat arms, and services I guess. The 17% could be pretty off. I'm pretty sure I heard that from an AF SNCO at some point but never did any fact-checking. Who knows. I do agree that the cuts are a bit worrisome. To me, not necessarily because of the size but rather where the cuts are being targeted (i.e. personnel). We have an incredible amount of astronomically-wasteful spending and lovely-rear end programs that could be axed before we'd need to dig into personnel costs (i.e. F35/F22 (pick one?), LCS, uniform fuckery (PICK ONE already!) just to name a few). maffew buildings posted:At my home port Hueneme to Seabee it up. Time to see if I flip out and put in an OCS packet and become a SWO like Mr. Nice! has been telling me to ManMythLegend posted:Send me a PM if you want some straight talk. Pssh gently caress that. Here's some straight talk: do not go SWO. Go anything else BUT SWO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Ok, THAT I can agree with. I'd have cut the F-35B in a heartbeat, and scrap the babby carriers that have no realistic mission. The F-22 lives up to the hype, and the F-35A/C will be fine replacements for the current low-tier multirole fighters and probably would've come in at a more reasonable price without all these loving STOVL shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I like working for the Navy, but every day I'm really glad I'm not in the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Ok, THAT I can agree with. I'd have cut the F-35B in a heartbeat, and scrap the babby carriers that have no realistic mission. The F-22 lives up to the hype, and the F-35A/C will be fine replacements for the current low-tier multirole fighters and probably would've come in at a more reasonable price without all these loving STOVL shenanigans. Don't have the time for a real response but, Gator Navy has a value-added purpose in the grand scheme of operations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
yeah similar to how ssgns have some value-added purpose in some white paper somewhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:yeah similar to how ssgns have some value-added purpose in some white paper somewhere http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/ssgn.htm 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
buttplug posted:
SWO sucks, but it's also been extremely personally beneficial in a way that I doubt other communities (with the exception of maybe submarines) can provide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:SWO sucks, but it's also been extremely personally beneficial in a way that I doubt other communities (with the exception of maybe submarines) can provide. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:I like working for the Navy, but every day I'm really glad I'm not in the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I lurk this thread only to remind myself how glad I am that I'm out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:yeah similar to how ssgns have some value-added purpose in some white paper somewhere Hahaha what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Nick Soapdish posted:Don't have the time for a real response but, Gator Navy has a value-added purpose in the grand scheme of operations. Sure, but they don't need a floating runway and fifth-generation fighters. The argument for these systems is what's stupidly called "a self-licking ice cream cone."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Go SWO, pretty sure it's the only community where it's socially acceptable to brain your subordinates with a coffee cup. I think that is pretty much the best selling point TBH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Sure, but they don't need a floating runway and fifth-generation fighters. The argument for these systems is what's stupidly called "a self-licking ice cream cone." Why? Is your contention that any conflict involving committing to a full amphibious landing would also involve committing a CSG? Because while that is probably true that doesn't necessarily mean that the CVN will be available to fully support the landing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:29
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Why? Is your contention that any conflict involving committing to a full amphibious landing would also involve committing a CSG? Because while that is probably true that doesn't necessarily mean that the CVN will be available to fully support the landing. And even if the CVN can commit, I'd be hard pressed to believe a case could be made that in an opposed landing, less air power is somehow better.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
bengy81 posted:Go SWO, pretty sure it's the only community where it's socially acceptable to brain your subordinates with a coffee cup. I think that is pretty much the best selling point TBH. It's honestly 10,000x more appealing than the idea of commanding Seabees
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Octopode posted:And even if the CVN can commit, I'd be hard pressed to believe a case could be made that in an opposed landing, less air power is somehow better. Sure, if we're in a world of unlimited budgets. But what's more likely to be the case, an unsupported opposed amphibious landing or...maybe having a mission for a legitimate LCS? Or an air campaign (requiring a survivable heavy bomber or a wide front of EW) against a reasonable IADS? Like it or not, the Marines' pie in the sky stroke ammo has hurt the rest of the services more than it'll help in 99% of the scenarios we're going to face in the next fifty years. But realistically, the F-35B is not the aircraft the Marines need to provide CAS, and their ships can't carry enough of them to simultaneously provide CAS and air superiority against anyone but maybe North Korea. So I guess it's a good thing they got a goddamned fifth-gen medium-to-high altitude fighter! And yet now they have the F-35B so we're basically obligated to keep the LHD on hand and probably get a similar replacement during the F-35's service life, rinse, repeat. I'm not arguing that the mission is useless or will never be a viable option. What I'm arguing is that his mission is impacting a disproportionate amount of other more valuable missions and capabilities relative to the likelihood that it will ever be needed. But yes, a case can be made for less CAS airpower, because the airspace above is going to fill up very fast. It takes some effort to manage a CAS stack, and you simply don't want too many aircraft in there. This isn't WWII where everyone can turn on a dime. An F-35 (or Hornet, or whatever) needs a lot of room to run his orbit over the top, and you can't just stack everybody up and let them put ordnance through the lower altitude blocks when there are aircraft there, too. Godholio fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Sure, if we're in a world of unlimited budgets. But what's more likely to be the case, an unsupported opposed amphibious landing or...maybe having a mission for a legitimate LCS? Or an air campaign (requiring a survivable heavy bomber or a wide front of EW) against a reasonable IADS? Like it or not, the Marines' pie in the sky stroke ammo has hurt the rest of the services more than it'll help in 99% of the scenarios we're going to face in the next fifty years. But realistically, the F-35B is not the aircraft the Marines need to provide CAS, and their ships can't carry enough of them to simultaneously provide CAS and air superiority against anyone but maybe North Korea. So I guess it's a good thing they got a goddamned fifth-gen medium-to-high altitude fighter! And yet now they have the F-35B so we're basically obligated to keep the LHD on hand and probably get a similar replacement during the F-35's service life, rinse, repeat. I'm not arguing that the mission is useless or will never be a viable option. What I'm arguing is that his mission is impacting a disproportionate amount of other more valuable missions and capabilities relative to the likelihood that it will ever be needed. Well I mean this is rather the point of the LHA's and LHD's and what I was alluding to earlier as the CSG, and whatever the AF has in theater, will be tasked with air superiority/dominance missions and won't be available for the CAS in support of a landing. I mean you're exactly correct when you say that the 35B is an overmatch for CAS, but the Harrier blows, is on it's last leg, isn't survivable against a semi-modern IADS, and needed a replacement. So then the non-35B options become: 1) Design and build a "legacy" generation dedicated CAS platform for the Marines. 2) Increase the level of forward deployed AF CAS aircraft. 3) Build another CVN or two with associated air wings to absorb the mission set during MCO. 4) Drop opposed amphibious landings from the USMC capabilities set. None of those look very tenable. Sure some of them are a hell of a lot cheaper then what we're doing now but based on the strategic pivot to the Pacific the idea of removing capabilities from the Marines seems to undermine our ability to actually operate there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
The term opposed amphibious landing just makes me think of a bunch of LHDs eating missiles launched from the back of some mule located within 100nm of the shore Targeted by Achmed with a laser pointer he bought in Thailand. It's pretty lol to think about an opposed landing where the air force and CVN haven't glassed everything. If the near shoreline isn't 100% pacified, that LHD/ARG ( are they still ARGS?) won't be getting close enough to poop out Marines. Helicopters wouldn't work to well in that scenario since they are so susceptible to small arms / RPGs / AAA. LCACS are dumb. Their landing craft are slow and dumb. Amphibious landings are dumb without overwhelming numbers or a sleeping opposing force Laranzu fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
People have this idea that we just send amphibs out on their own without any sort escorts to do IAMD. Yes, the ARG has to be close enough to shore to be in CDCM range, and yes there will be plenty of preliminary strike missions prior to D (but as we have seen in every major conflict in history it doesn't matter how much you pummel the ground with strikes there will still be opposition). You're not cracking the loving case wide open here. Everyone knows opposed landings are dumb and dangerous. That's why we haven't done one since Inchon. However, the ability to even attempt a major opposed landing is powerful, and the US is the only nation that can really even pretend to do it. That's not to say that we can't have a viable military strategy without that ability, but losing it is a significant game changer and simply dismissing it because it's hard and/or dangerous is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Even without LHDs we are the only country capable of even thinking about it. Just supply chain issues rule it out for most everyone else. There are more cdcms than escorts. There always will be and it only takes one lucky hit for a mission kill. Instead of parking a big expensive ARG within range, use lots of expendable somethings for when they get blown up anyway. Amphibious landings need to be overwhelming or surprising or not at all. If it gets to that point there will already be air cover or a dedicated carrier with escorts for your marine transport. You can't impromptu a landing. Edit: I think you and I have fundamental differences in belief regarding how reliable and survivable ships would be in a combat scenario. I guess to be a SWO you need to have faith in your platform to operate as promised. Laranzu fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
You're correct in that you don't just wake up one day and go, "gently caress it! Opposed landing." In fact there's nothing really surprising about it in a post IMINT/ELINT satellite world. That's what Phase 1 and 2 operations are for. SEAD, DEAD, precursor ASW operations, IW support, these are all things that happen before the ARG is even close to the beach in order to tilt the odds in our favor. As for the LHA/LHD, the big deck would absolutely be essential to this hypothetical opposed landing because while yes, the majority of the landing force will be on the LPD's and LSD's, the entirety of the ACE for CAS is on the big deck and as I mentioned before the remainder of the air assets in theater will most likely be tasked with air superiority and unavailable for CAS. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If we're talking about an opposed landing we're automatically talking MCO, and if we're talking MCO we're talking OPLANS with branches and sequels for making sure the battlespace is prepared enough for NCA to give the thumbs up for the risk involved because it's never going be 100% risk free. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Whole lot of care going on itt. You're out soon, right Panda?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Boon posted:SWO sucks, but it's also been extremely personally beneficial in a way that I doubt other communities (with the exception of maybe submarines) can provide. OK I'll bite. When you say personally beneficial are we talking bribes or embezzlement or something? If you mean for education and the ability to add a wide range of skills that round you out as a person I can see where you're going. If you mean doing a personally fulfilling job that you have dreamed about since you were 4, protecting people from immediate harm, leading amazing sailors and becoming part of a close knit community of people whom you implicitly trust and count as friends for life - then I'd really like to read more about why. That's just never the impression I've gotten about swo life. Maybe my views are too influenced by SA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:If you mean for education and the ability to add a wide range of skills that round you out as a person I can see where you're going. I'm going to guess it's this one. The one thing I tell people the SWO community has going for it over the rest of the URL is it's flexibility. Minus required sea tours, successful SWO's can go just about anywhere in the government and military without impacting their career negatively. For aviators straying from the golden path means career suicide (especially these days). Other communities don't even let their folks consider it. But as long as a SWO breaks out in FITREPs and gets all the necessary quals while at sea they can stray pretty far off the reservation and still keep trucking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:Whole lot of care going on itt. You're out soon, right Panda? I'm out in may!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:45
|
|
