|
Nostalgia4Dogges posted:Another hide 'n seek? Hopefully.
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If I remember right our esteemed senior ranking naval officer said this of being a department head "there are two things I hate: ships and sailors" At least somebody's honest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:
See if you can jump to the AF. They're paying $432k if you do the full 9 year re-up. It's not helping retention
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Looks like the report was released in conjunction with this news: Ship didn't sink. The system works fine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
We'll see who's right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:They should also punish whoever made him the CO.  Yeah that's how this works.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. That's an incredible find.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
LordNad posted:http://imgur.com/a/WjpXF That'd fit in on an E-3. Those 1960s computers are slowly being replaced, a couple of jets per year. The reel-to-reel "hard drive" was replaced by a reel-to-reel emulator in the late 90s, that's the only real computer upgrade it's had since 1971 until the current block upgrade.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Also from aviation, if you made SWOs spend their first two years studying ships, driving little training ships, and running ship simulators, with a standardized training syllabus, all before they ever set foot on a fleet ship, they'd probably be pretty loving good at driving ships. And then they'd jerk off ashore for 6-18 months and forget everything while the wing struggles to keep 3 jets airworthy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
They are squawking any time they're in controlled airspace, outside of military airspace. But usually even then.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:There's nothing expensive about an LCS. Casualties in a shooting war will be.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:And that's really the issue. They keep adding poo poo but since these are supposed to be cheap and expendable you get cheap expendable systems. Bthen the sailor shows up and asks why x doesn't work like it does on uss loving multi billion dollar warship and I have to not have a brain aneurysm. The problem with cheap and expendable is that anti-ship missiles are cheaper and more expendable. And if your cheap and expendable ship can't effectively protect itself, welp, I hope the crew was cheap and expendable too. LCS are gross overkill for loving pirate patrols, too. You could've built a cheaper frigate without the nonsensical modular ideas and some off-the-shelf EW systems for basic self-protection in case of a real "oh poo poo" moment, and it would've been half the cost.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Which you're not using an LCS for.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
All I remember from my childhood there in the early 80s is Kmart. I imagine it hasn't been updated in appearance or stock since then.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
It's not just the contractors vs AD piece, though that's probably part of it. But the low stocks of parts (because keeping a warehouse of stuff is wasteful! Thanks, BRAC), and low numbers of maintainers are giving the AF similar problems. I've seen MR rates in the toilet during actual combat operations while maintenance guys were working around the clock just to try to keep us above the 50% mark. And we usually had the parts available, at least. Old planes, no spares, insufficient personnel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
But businesses show that low overhead is more cost effective.  Because that's what matters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Which makes flight ops at Fallon loving hilarious to watch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
We still have signs around here saying Pokemon Go is not authorized on the base.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
There's also a countermeasures ship USS Patriot. Hmm....
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
I think you guys are really underestimating how hard that "No" can really be. Let's pretend you've got an air wing that during workups has several days with near mid-air collisions due to mediocre airmanship. Let's pretend the aggressors win as often as they lose. Air-to-surface targets are not effectively serviced because weaponeering skills are lacking, as is aerial proficiency. "Here are the results CAG." "Well, clearly we're not ready to deploy. Put the CSG on hold, let me make some calls to get another $3-5M so we can run through another 4 weeks of workups." Get loving real.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:The culture in aviation tends towards brutally honest self-assessment and there are no shortage of reps for aircrew going on deployment. Even fdnf aircrew are getting lots of looks at the full range of missions. Not enough. In another environment I can go into detail, but naval aviation is not where it thinks it is and it's sure as poo poo not where it acts like it is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Man, I wish we were just pretending... I don't know where you fit into this one, but it was pretty rough compared to most of the others I've seen. But one of wing's O-6s loving gets it. He stood up at the end of a mass debrief and laid it out there...it was not a "hey we're getting through this" or a "you'll do better next time" or even a "hey, it's Fallon amirite?" speech. It was a candid and accurate assessment of where they were as professional combat aviators and how their performance was likely to serve them if the poo poo hits the fan. I wanted to loving applaud when he was done.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:Other than knowing that you live in the same poo poo hole I just left I don't know where you fit in either. Until recently I was part of the group delivering the asskicking you were describing. I'm part of Strike. I know there are a lot of people who can look at this from a realistic perspective, but I've made several people mad by bringing it up; typically at or near the sq xo level, and one O-6 that I have no idea who he was and was pleasantly surprised it didn't blow up in my face. There's a lot of head-burying going on, especially as Hook rolled around, but there are a bunch of people a couple of paygrades too junior to do anything about it who can see the writing on the wall. vulturesrow posted:First of all you, you are talking about a completely different thing than the poster you are responding to. And as for your assessment of Naval Aviation, even if I assume that your pessimistic assessment is really true, we are still leagues ahead of the surface world in terms of self-assessment, etc. The surface force is inching in the right direction but have a long ways to go. I think your branch of aviation has a better handle on reality than some of the others. But as far as being a different thing...no, not the part I'm talking about. There aren't many O-5/O-6/O-7 types willing to look at the 3 or 4 star and say "The people I am responsible for training to combat readiness are not fit for real world operations." It doesn't matter what pin they wear. Also this air wing had a pretty hosed up schedule, which I think was from high up on the CAG side. The schedule did not at all do them any favors. Godholio fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
They already are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I've seen more Admirals this week than I've ever seen before. Apparently folks are real interested in keeping 7th fleet from playing bumper boats with their ships. Eh. I think most of them are more interested in keeping out of the news, and actual safety is just a side effect.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Because if you're a USN ship and you're radiating, you are being tracked. Edit: And not in a friendly "Just keeping an eye on everything to make sure it's all safe" kind of way. In a "let's absorb every electron that comes off that boat for analysis, and also measure how fast it can turn, slow down, accelerate, and maybe even see what their shift schedule is, and maintain as much information for targeting as we can until they stop broadcasting their location" kind of way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:While I understand your concern, we're talking about navigation radars here. I don't think the US Navy uses anything fancy for that; I think Furunos were mentioned up thread. Military aircraft that are on operational missions are subject to different rules. And they're generally not landing at civilian airfields. I'm also not saying they should never flip the switch to "on." I'm saying that they have different rules, and for good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
One ping only.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:If we're conducting these surveys and not acting on them, what's the point. If you're dumb enough to attach your name, the point can become what the Air Force was calling "force shaping" in a "fiscally constrained and overmanned environment."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say the Navy does a lot of things better than the AF.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I remember hearing a saying that went "If there's not a rule forbidding it, you can do it in the Navy. In the Air Force, just assume it's written down somewhere, and don't do it." It's almost certainly written down. There are so many AFIs, which all have MAJCOM supplementals, which have Wing (sometimes Numbered AF as well) supplementals, and then OGIs to reinterpret all that, then squadron policies, there's no room for innovation anywhere. Anyway, back to NAVCHAT.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:This is making me kind of happy I decided to not go for bombers before the cutoff age because I wasn't sure about eyesight guidelines.  I hope Kelly McGillis plays his ex-wife claiming his whole retirement and raising their three kids after divorcing him in the Tailhook aftermath, which is also responsible for his career change.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:Not to mention how is it in any way plausible that he'd be still flying (as a military member) after 30+ years? It's not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Cross posting from the Air Force thread. AF fighter pilot bonus is up to $455,000 now. $432k didn't work, so I doubt this will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:*orders ~1,700 F-35As, can't find enough pilots to eventually fly them* I danced out the door in 2012. Navy contractor now. Edit: I'd have taken that career change in a hearbeat. Fighter dudes fly once a week or more for currency. Once we hit "experienced" status it was 3 flights in a rolling 90 day period, and the rest of your time was basically shoving your balls in a woodchipper.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I've never seen a contractor get recognized. GSes, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
It ain't 2006 anymore, salary-wise. And whatever the government is paying, the employee is getting a fraction.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
I was an AWACS controller, not a pilot. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they wanted to recall us though...they booted/released a lot of people in 2011/12/13/14. So many people are getting out as O-3s (as the commitment expires) that O-2s are flying in positions previously held by O-4s...there just aren't enough left. They brought volunteer retirees back on active duty in 2010 because there weren't enough O-4s/O-5s, so it really wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
He was a flight engineer...not much need for a recall there either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
The only way it could've recaptured anything from the original was if Maverick had transitioned to Hornets in the 90s, retired, and got hired on at Boeing/Lockmart as a test pilot and takes an F-35 into combat for some bizarre reason. Instead he's allegedly a helo pilot. Because of course, however the gently caress that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 04:15
|
|