Navy or Air Farce?

"Elmshoot" wrote in message
...

A friend sent this one on to me I hadn't seen it before thought you
would all agree with his comments.
Sparky
USN or USAF?


Naval aviation exists for those that can't qualify for the Air Force.

roncachamp- Naval aviation exists for those that can't qualify for the Air
Force. BRBR

righto-we all had assigned seats everytime the USAF exchange officer came
aboard the boat...better show than either the USMC pilot or the movie...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 05 Mar 2004 14:25:04 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

roncachamp- Naval aviation exists for those that can't qualify for the Air
Force. BRBR

righto-we all had assigned seats everytime the USAF exchange officer came
aboard the boat...better show than either the USMC pilot or the movie...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Everyone has their place. I respect the skill it takes to get on and
off the boat. I had a chance to ride with the VF-11 Rippers off of
Forrestal in the Med. It was impressive. Did the whole tour--couple of
flights, hang around the ready room, eat in the chow hall, bang my
head on the overhead, trip over the passageways, get lost in the maze,
take a dry shower, visit pri-fly, stand between the cats in the box,
contemplate the net below the LSO perch, etc.

Now, OTOH, when I was there, we tapped an KA-6 after T/O. The
nose-gunner driving me around bragged later about his tanking
ability--we took 1500 pounds to ease the cycle. I mentioned that the
previous week I'd returned to Spain from Incirlik and we took 16,500
pounds in one hook-up.

We did some 1-v-1 at the end of our station period. I was amazed at
the ability to low-speed fight the hard-wing F-4. I mentioned to the
guys during debrief, that if they ever saw me in my green/brown F-4
coming to fight their grey ones, it would be at 420 kts minimum and
probably a lot faster. There wouldn't be no knife-fighting and
scissoring. And, if I caught them on CAP like I'd just
watched--loitering at 250-275 kts in a holding orbit, they'd be dead
before they knew it.

In my squadron back on land, we had a huge grease pencil board on
which we logged our six-month requirements. Refuelings, low-levels
(day/night), nuc deliveries (vis/radar), conventional deliveries
(10,20,30, rx, strafe), intercepts (day/night), approaches, etc. The
Rippers had a small board. It logged landings--that's all, nothing
better than a green-three. Everything else (i.e. mission) seemed to be
secondary to coming aboard.

Just an AF perspective.

BTW, I did get to taste a bit of warm scotch in a paper cup while
hunched in a cramped C-position on the edge of a lower bunk with six
guys in a 8x5 foot stateroom without a window, beneath a cat and next
to an ammo hoist. Nice life!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed,

Now, OTOH, when I was there, we tapped an KA-6 after T/O. The nose-gunner
driving me around bragged later about his tanking ability--we took 1500
pounds to ease the cycle.

Being a fighter guy, he would have taken more had Tanker Control let him.
Having been - at times - the right-seat "gas passer" in the mighty K, I
heard ALL airborne whines and snivels of fighter guys begging for more. I
guess it's like being a whore or a traffic cop - in that position you hear
'em all. My stock answer (given when I was too bored or lazy to think of
anything else) was the equivalent of "tell it to the judge" (Tanker
Control).

Everything else (i.e. mission) seemed to be secondary to coming aboard.

I can't speak for the FITRON Ready Rooms, but in Attack there was always
CEP, Bulls-Eye patches and Top Stick / Top Scope competitions. BTW, if you
can't get aboard, then you can't prosecute the mission. If you can get
aboard, you probably have the skills to do most anything.

BTW, I did get to taste a bit of warm scotch in a paper cup while hunched
in a cramped C-position on the edge of a lower bunk with six guys in a 8x5
foot stateroom without a window, beneath a cat and next to an ammo hoist.
Nice life!

Hey, they could've sent you to one of the JO bunkrooms. Imagine a
fraternity house shoehorned into a phone booth and you'll get the idea. (I
understand that - in today's female JO bunkrooms - it's even more cramped.
"More stuff" is the reason I've heard. Women came aboard ship long after my
time.)

--
Mike Kanze

"And why is radicalism so strong in California? Because the State is run by
a dreadful combination of crooked politicians and grasping Babbitts."

- H. L. Mencken (1924)


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
[rest snipped]

I can't speak for the FITRON Ready Rooms, but in Attack there was always
CEP, Bulls-Eye patches and Top Stick / Top Scope competitions. BTW, if
you
can't get aboard, then you can't prosecute the mission. If you can get
aboard, you probably have the skills to do most anything.

It's been my experience that with rare exceptions, most aviators have strong
suites and weaknesses. I've known many guys who were consistent top ten yet
a grape in ACM or a dullard in air-to-mud. Vice versa as well.

Your observation that the on and off the boat skill is necessary to mission
completion is spot on, but I've always thought it overemphasized. If an
aviator has achieved basic competence in carrier landings, there's no real
effort made to improve his remaining skills. (Put a string of no-grades on
the board and you'll get personal attention from CO, LSO, CAG LSO ... not
unreasonable ... but be a perennial loser elsewhere and you'll get the rep,
but rarely remedial training).

R / John

Ed,

A further thought concerning the emphasis placed upon the Greenie Board...

Since the boat is a pretty tight place from which to operate aircraft,
flight ops must be done efficiently and safely. Part of this need
translates into maximizing the boarding rate. This is done in at least two
ways:

* Minimizing the interval between successive approaches. (During my 1973
cruise aboard CORAL MARU, we strived for a 15 second trap-to-trap interval.)

* Maximizing the number of first-time arrestments.

An air wing with a highly-efficient boarding rate enables the ship to stay
within the Air Plan ("on-time" launch / land cycles more likely, greater
margin within which to deal with inevitable problems, etc.) and maximize the
number of sorties available.

Crews that predictably contribute to high boarding rates are valued
accordingly.

Also, the boat is the only place where crews can really hone this particular
skill. FCLPs are not - by themselves - adequate. Besides, time ashore is
better spent on honing warfighting skills so that - when you do finally
deploy - you do so ready to fight.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Project Uncertainty Principle says that if you understand a project,
you won't know its cost, and vice versa."

- Dilbert, August 6 2003


"Mike Kanze" wrote in message
...
Ed,

Now, OTOH, when I was there, we tapped an KA-6 after T/O. The nose-gunner
driving me around bragged later about his tanking ability--we took 1500
pounds to ease the cycle.

Being a fighter guy, he would have taken more had Tanker Control let him.
Having been - at times - the right-seat "gas passer" in the mighty K, I
heard ALL airborne whines and snivels of fighter guys begging for more. I
guess it's like being a whore or a traffic cop - in that position you hear
'em all. My stock answer (given when I was too bored or lazy to think of
anything else) was the equivalent of "tell it to the judge" (Tanker
Control).

Everything else (i.e. mission) seemed to be secondary to coming aboard.

I can't speak for the FITRON Ready Rooms, but in Attack there was always
CEP, Bulls-Eye patches and Top Stick / Top Scope competitions. BTW, if
you
can't get aboard, then you can't prosecute the mission. If you can get
aboard, you probably have the skills to do most anything.

BTW, I did get to taste a bit of warm scotch in a paper cup while hunched
in a cramped C-position on the edge of a lower bunk with six guys in a 8x5
foot stateroom without a window, beneath a cat and next to an ammo hoist.
Nice life!

Hey, they could've sent you to one of the JO bunkrooms. Imagine a
fraternity house shoehorned into a phone booth and you'll get the idea.
(I
understand that - in today's female JO bunkrooms - it's even more cramped.
"More stuff" is the reason I've heard. Women came aboard ship long after
my
time.)

--
Mike Kanze

"And why is radicalism so strong in California? Because the State is run
by
a dreadful combination of crooked politicians and grasping Babbitts."

- H. L. Mencken (1924)


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
[rest snipped]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:11:29 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

Ed,

A further thought concerning the emphasis placed upon the Greenie Board...

Since the boat is a pretty tight place from which to operate aircraft,
flight ops must be done efficiently and safely. Part of this need
translates into maximizing the boarding rate. This is done in at least two
ways:

* Minimizing the interval between successive approaches. (During my 1973
cruise aboard CORAL MARU, we strived for a 15 second trap-to-trap interval.)

* Maximizing the number of first-time arrestments.

An air wing with a highly-efficient boarding rate enables the ship to stay
within the Air Plan ("on-time" launch / land cycles more likely, greater
margin within which to deal with inevitable problems, etc.) and maximize the
number of sorties available.

Crews that predictably contribute to high boarding rates are valued
accordingly.

Also, the boat is the only place where crews can really hone this particular
skill. FCLPs are not - by themselves - adequate. Besides, time ashore is
better spent on honing warfighting skills so that - when you do finally
deploy - you do so ready to fight.

I realize the importance, but it was probably more a case of envy of
the "simple life." I, at the time, was an F-4 squadron Ops Officer. My
life revolved around getting all those front and back seaters to fill
all of those squares every six months. Contrasting the complexities of
home squadron life with a board that measured nothing but landing
grades was a confusing picture.

Of course that was also confused by the fact that I flew the very same
airplane (except for model number) as the host squadron on the boat,
not one single piece of my flight gear was compatible. My torso
harness was different. My G-suit zipped from top to bottom while yours
zipped from bottom to top. My Koch fittings were female to match with
male fittings on the seat, while the Navy harness held male fittings
and female on the M-B seat pack. Helmet was totally incompatible as
well.

Gotta say that it wasn't because one method was inherently superior to
the other.....


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed,

Gotta say that it wasn't because one method was inherently superior to the
other.....

Roger that. As this NG demonstrates daily, Blue Suit ways are often equally
mysterious to we Brownshoes.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Project Uncertainty Principle says that if you understand a project,
you won't know its cost, and vice versa."

- Dilbert, August 6 2003


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:11:29 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:
[rest snipped]

On 3/8/04 3:55 PM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:11:29 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:
SNIP
I realize the importance, but it was probably more a case of envy of
the "simple life." I, at the time, was an F-4 squadron Ops Officer. My
life revolved around getting all those front and back seaters to fill
all of those squares every six months. Contrasting the complexities of
home squadron life with a board that measured nothing but landing
grades was a confusing picture.


I have a hunch that the Navy OPSO's of the time tracked that stuff (if at
all) only on some spreadsheet (if at all) that they shared with the Skipper.
The tendency on cruise (especially then) was to gaff off readiness on cruise
because of the lack of training assets (ranges/bombs/training fuel on max
conserve cyclic ops).

These days, valid shot boards, valid release boards, SFWT syllabi, and
readiness tracking via SHARPS are the rule of the day. The Navy is
desperately trying to emulate the USAF's ops/admin.

Of course that was also confused by the fact that I flew the very same
airplane (except for model number) as the host squadron on the boat,
not one single piece of my flight gear was compatible. My torso
harness was different. My G-suit zipped from top to bottom while yours
zipped from bottom to top. My Koch fittings were female to match with
male fittings on the seat, while the Navy harness held male fittings
and female on the M-B seat pack. Helmet was totally incompatible as
well.

Gotta say that it wasn't because one method was inherently superior to
the other.....


Amen... Except that I prefer not to have to drag a 'chute around with me.
I've grown accustomed to the torso harness.

--Woody

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I realize the importance, but it was probably more a case of envy of
the "simple life." I, at the time, was an F-4 squadron Ops Officer. My
life revolved around getting all those front and back seaters to fill
all of those squares every six months. Contrasting the complexities of
home squadron life with a board that measured nothing but landing
grades was a confusing picture.

You would have loved the board we created at VMA-231 - all of
those night/instrument hours, approach, etc."currency" items, the
entire AV-8A syllabus with *that* currency for each flight in the
syllabus. Damn thing was 18+ feet long, and updated each morning
with the previous day's flight info. Once each month, all the
syllabus flights whose currency had expired, changed their
"month" designation from black to red. Pilots short of
night/instrument hours/approaches, etc., were the same, in red
until they met the six-month minimum. Dates for physiology
requirements, NATOPS checks, etc. - dates in black until
expiration two months away, then yellow until actual
expiration/renewal, red if expired.

Flight officer and OpsOs loved it, my clerks hated it. Went
through a gallon of plexi-cleaner and a bale of rags every
quarter.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]