mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (07/17/90)
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
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (07/18/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Jul17.032016.22957@cbnews.att.com> mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: > > >As a sidebar to the above, anyone else out there besides me feel that the CO of >a carrier should be surface type? > As a former blackshoe I admit I may be biased, but I want to offer some background. The policy of requiring aviation qualified carrier CO's started back in the days when aviation qualification was what would now be called a subspecialty. That means the aviators went through much of the same training as other naval officers (including driving ships), they just learned how to fly a plane along the way. In addition at this time (around WWII and shortly after) ship captains had much more tactical responsibility than now. In many cases it was the senior officer of the ships present that was OTC (officer in tactical command). In this environment, requiring aviation qualifications of carrier captains made sense. Since they might serve as OTC, and the OTC needed to have knowledge of aviation operations, this requirement ensured that the carrier captain would have that knowledge. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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). -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller) (07/18/90)
From: ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller) Re: Aviators, skimmers and others.... That the CO of a carrier has to be an aviator probably stems from the pre-WWII problems where carriers were commanded by non-aviators and caused problems. References to "battleship admirals" implies that there was "turf" to be protected amongst the specialties and that the current turf for aviators includes CO of the moving airfield. Add to that the requirement (from Congress probably suggested by Rickover) that the nuclear carrier CO be nuclear trained.... and you've got one helluva training problem. (Aviator serving as CO of a nuclear powerplant that happens to have a flat roof - sheesh!) Fortunately, most of the top candidates are really bright guys and can cope with the challenge but they will make mistakes (two of my father's friends were in Nuclear Power School as aviator C.O. candidates while I was there as a new Ensign) I think there are arguments on both sides but to put a surface qualified officer in charge of the birdfarm would require changing the status quo and THAT would take some awfully powerful arguments. Maybe the third alternative would be to give it to neither and put a Nuclear Submariner in charge! Ask any Submariner and they'll tell you there's nothing you can ask that they can't look up :-))) Ron Miller ex-Lt. USN (formerly of USS CINCINNATTI SSN-693 Black & Blue Crew)
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (07/24/90)
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.
Mikebaldwinj@manta.nosc.mil (Justin D. Baldwin) (07/25/90)
From: baldwinj@manta.nosc.mil (Justin D. Baldwin) mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >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. The primary resistance, among carrier aviators, to a surface officer's commanding an aircraft carrier is due to the fact that the CV CO is the one who makes the determination as to whether it is safe to launch aircraft. Most of us, myself included, don't much appreciate the idea of that decision being made by someone whose ass has never been in that particular sling. The only specific complaint I've seen here about aviator proficiency in surface ship tactical operations is lack of appreciation of the submarine threat. My personal, highly biased, view of the source of this problem is that it is almost impossible for anyone except a strike or fighter aviator to get into that career path. The battle group commanders, carrier CO's, CAG's, and super-CAG's are extremely rarely S-3 aviators and *never* helo aviators. Just take a look at how the S-3 and helo assets are treated by the airwing during a FLEETEX (particularly when $$ start to run short) for confirmation of this. It looks like we're going to get away with having allowed this state of affairs to exist, however: with the relative decline of the USSR as a naval threat, ASW protection of the CVBG becomes less important relative to its role as a strike asset in the ongoing conflict with Third World Crazies [TWC's]. However, it is well to remember that there are plenty of subsurface threats in that theatre as well. Since the primary goal of TWC's is to politically embarass the US, there is a strong incentive to use all of those surplus Romeos, Foxtrots, Kilos, and Charlies out there in an attempt to damage a US capital ship. -- >From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I AM A GUEST ON NOSC.MIL FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY REPLY ADDRESS!
scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (07/25/90)
From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) In article <1990Jul23.202253.6129@cbnews.att.com>, mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: > 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. For us civilians, what is a FLEETEX? It sounds like a wargame operation or simulated conflict of some sort. [mod.note: Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd guess that FLEETEX = "Fleet Exercise."- Bill ] Are you saying that everytime a carrier group is involved, the carrier gets sunk?! What is involved in one of the operations, how sophisticated are they, and how are hits and damage determined? Is the operation primarily a hide and seek kind of thing? That is, when the carrier group is spotted and identified, are statistics simply used from that point to guess at what damage would be inflicted on the carrier group by the enemy forces? Scott scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/28/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) >Are you saying that everytime a carrier group is involved, the carrier > gets sunk?! ... Of course not. It takes seven torpedo hits and the umpires (carrier or ex-carrier officers, mostly) decide that its speed is reduced by two knots until Damage Control tidies up. :-) (The story I hear -- admittedly thirdhand -- is that the funniest part about this is that it's not an exaggeration.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry