The flying Warrants are going through their flight training as we speak. By all accounts, this will be a very successful program for the Navy. The Navy will be better able to groom their future NA Regular Line Officers (RLOs) in offering more leadership responsibilities earlier in their careers. Of course, there will be a corresponding reduction in flying time for the RLOs.

The flying Warrant program has been in existence for over 55 years in the Army. The Navy program will/should pattern the Army's program in full in about 15-20 years. In the Army, the Regular Line Officers do not have the responsibility of being instructor pilots. That is solely a Warrant Officer function in the Army.

Not only will the Navy find the program very successful, the Navy should allow the flying Warrants into the strike community as well. It will take time. But, it took the Navy over 20 years before they allowed women NA/NFO into the strike community.

I would recommend one change to their selection process. Prior enlisted experience not required. Have the civilian applicants meet the same requirements for OCS excluding the college degree. The Navy will find more than enough super smart and qualified women/men in the age range of 18-20 yrs old that can be NA/NFO. The Army splits their training slots 50/50. Approx 600 RLOs and 600 Warrants annually. Approximately 150-200 of the Army flying Warrants had no prior service experience.

It's going to be a new day for Naval Aviation. If you want flying time in the future, go Warrant. If you wish to be a leader go RLO.

Let's see how long it will take for the USAF/USMC/USCG to pickup this program. I doubt if they will but Congress may forced this on them.

What a sad day for the U.S.N., not that Warrant Officers aren't capable, just that the U.S.N. is adapting a U.S.ARMY style program. With non Line Officers flying, the whole concept of an Aviator commanding a carrier will be history.
The U.S.N. knew the value of this AND they also knew the value of ENLISTED personnel flying aircraft as pilots in command. The value of this was held all the way through WW-II, with "enlisted pilots" flying combat missions from carriers.
Warrants flying=good, Line Officers not flying=very bad. What's good for the Army, is not necessarily good for the U.S.N..
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Sunliner, a friend of mine was selected for this program, along with 13 other guys.

13. That's it.

The point of this is not to move the URL officers out of the cockpit, but rather to free up JOs to fill more career-enhancing positions within the squadrons they fly in. The program also only posts these LDOs and Warrants into HSL and maritime patrol squadrons. They will NOT be flying jets off carriers any time soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Sunliner, a friend of mine was selected for this program, along with 13 other guys.

13. That's it.

The point of this is not to move the URL officers out of the cockpit, but rather to free up JOs to fill more career-enhancing positions within the squadrons they fly in. The program also only posts these LDOs and Warrants into HSL and maritime patrol squadrons. They will NOT be flying jets off carriers any time soon.

No offense to the "Warrants", but glad that the "Regular" Line Officers will still be flying off the "big decks". Despite what some non flying line officers might believe, it takes an aviator to have the understanding to command a carrier.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Sunliner81
Bleah

After the Navy gives 100% approval of this expermental program perhaps it will approve of the flying Warrants in being assigned to the strike community as well.

The Army ratio of pilots is 50/50 RLO vs Warrants. The RLOs will hold the command positions in Naval aviation obviously but will have overall less flying experience than their Warrant Officer counterparts.

Hopefully, the Navy will drop the restriction on demanding prior Navy enlisted experience. Open the program to civilians as young as 18-19. There are more than enough smart/mature young teenagers that can fill the numbers needed. The military academies turn down 75% of the applicants each year and those appicants are more than qualified for this type of program.

The USAF has reviewed his program and has voted it down time and time again. In fact, the AF doesn't even have Warrant Officers amongst their ranks since the 70s on the active duty side.

quote:

Originally posted by zaurus:
Sunliner81
Bleah

After the Navy gives 100% approval of this expermental program perhaps it will approve of the flying Warrants in being assigned to the strike community as well.

The Army ratio of pilots is 50/50 RLO vs Warrants. The RLOs will hold the command positions in Naval aviation obviously but will have overall less flying experience than their Warrant Officer counterparts.

Hopefully, the Navy will drop the restriction on demanding prior Navy enlisted experience. Open the program to civilians as young as 18-19. There are more than enough smart/mature young teenagers that can fill the numbers needed. The military academies turn down 75% of the applicants each year and those appicants are more than qualified for this type of program.

The USAF has reviewed his program and has voted it down time and time again. In fact, the AF doesn't even have Warrant Officers amongst their ranks since the 70s on the active duty side.

No offense to the Army, but the program that works well for the Army, will not work for the Navy, completely different circumstances and conditions.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I agree with your last post SUNLINER.

What is missed a lot of times when people try to bridge the gap between naval officers and Army/Marine officers is that there is a huge diference between the two.

This can most easily be expressed this way: Army officers are in charge of large groups of men but hold relatively little responsibility over assets, while Navy officers are in charge of comparatively small groups of people yet hold responsibility of the safe operation of millions (some times billions) of dollars in capital assets.

It's a very different job. My brother's captain (Army O-3) leads a lot more people than the LTs I work with in my office, who have never led more than 8-10 people at a time. Those LTs have all had billion dollar nuclear submarines under their direct control, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
I agree with your last post SUNLINER.

What is missed a lot of times when people try to bridge the gap between naval officers and Army/Marine officers is that there is a huge diference between the two.

This can most easily be expressed this way: Army officers are in charge of large groups of men but hold relatively little responsibility over assets, while Navy officers are in charge of comparatively small groups of people yet hold responsibility of the safe operation of millions (some times billions) of dollars in capital assets.

It's a very different job. My brother's captain (Army O-3) leads a lot more people than the LTs I work with in my office, who have never led more than 8-10 people at a time. Those LTs have all had billion dollar nuclear submarines under their direct control, though.

The Army's Warrant Officer program works for the Army because, you can have, in the Army, a permanent cast of officers limited in rank and do nothing but fly their entire career as helicopter pilots and do nothing else. The Navy officers must, of necessity, do other things, like command ships, ships that could literally start world war three and devastate entire continents with their weapons. If Navy officers were limited in their responsibilities, like Army officers, yes, the Army plan would work in the Navy, but like I said, totally different set of circumstances and responsibilities. No offense to Army warrants and regular officers, but the Navy officers are tasked with greater responsibilities...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

First I see no reason why it won't work for the Navy. I just hope they stick with it but the Navies history says that they will not. The Navy has had many programs, starting with NEASEP which was not strictly speaking an aviation program but spwn more than a few pilots, then in the early 870's "Flying LDO.s" that went by the wayside, then NAVCAD in the Late 90's that did not survive the drawdown of the 90's. There was also a program for RLO's that just want to fly, it had much of the same appeal as discussed above but they were not WO's. They would most likely not make it past LCDR, were not in line for being sqadron CDR's or CAG's and of course would never be skipper of a CV, but on the other hand would never have to worry about getting stuck flying a desk in DC or where ever, they would just go from one flying assignemnt to another. That program did not last either.

So we have been here before

quote:

Originally posted by ETCPJ:
First I see no reason why it won't work for the Navy. I just hope they stick with it but the Navies history says that they will not. The Navy has had many programs, starting with NEASEP which was not strictly speaking an aviation program but spwn more than a few pilots, then in the early 870's "Flying LDO.s" that went by the wayside, then NAVCAD in the Late 90's that did not survive the drawdown of the 90's. There was also a program for RLO's that just want to fly, it had much of the same appeal as discussed above but they were not WO's. They would most likely not make it past LCDR, were not in line for being sqadron CDR's or CAG's and of course would never be skipper of a CV, but on the other hand would never have to worry about getting stuck flying a desk in DC or where ever, they would just go from one flying assignemnt to another. That program did not last either.

So we have been here before

Yes we have, so why re-invent the wheel?
You want to solve the problem, it's not flying W.O.'s, why not go back to flying enlisted?
You don't have to worry about creating a "two tier" set of officers. Enlisted have flown successfully in the Navy's history and that includes combat flying, so what's the problem?
Let the enlisted, who qualify, mentally and physically, fly, problem seems to be solved.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:
Enlisted have flown successfully in the Navy's history and that includes combat flying, so what's the problem?
Let the enlisted, who qualify, mentally and physically, fly, problem seems to be solved.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I agree, but unfortunately, politics, both civilian and military shot down the enlisted pilot program after WWII.

It would be nice if there were Flying Chiefs again.

But not likely.

I thought these guys were going to fly P-3's and helos. I believe there will be plenty of commissioned officers who fly available to command flattops...

quote:

Originally posted by SgtLtUSMC:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:
Enlisted have flown successfully in the Navy's history and that includes combat flying, so what's the problem?
Let the enlisted, who qualify, mentally and physically, fly, problem seems to be solved.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I agree, but unfortunately, politics, both civilian and military shot down the enlisted pilot program after WWII.

It would be nice if there were Flying Chiefs again.

But not likely.

A-MEN!
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by jgl1974:
I thought these guys were going to fly P-3's and helos. I believe there will be plenty of commissioned officers who fly available to command flattops...

There is! The program removes JO's from petty tasks and allows them to gain dept head experience quicker. In the ARMY..pilots only FLY..so the NAVY program is NOT a copy.
..Sunliner either has little understanding of the program..or got passed over and is venting.
Any helo crewman with 1000+ hours flt time can tell you...It's not "Rocket Science" to fly the aircraft! And if it's a college degree your looking for, the selection board de-brief pointed out that all of the top selections already had one. Flying an aircraft takes some skill but has ZERO to do with leadership.
p.s.
having completed several deployments with the Sunliners...
at least us enlisted aircrews knwo how to properly zip up and wear our flight suites!
who said sunliners...

quote:

Originally posted by HoDub:
Flying an aircraft takes some skill but has ZERO to do with leadership.

Sure it does, if you're leading a squadron, right?

I'm a USCG flight mechanic (crew chief, in DoD parlance). All our pilots are commissioned officers and, as such, absolutely must shine at something else beside aviator skills: i.e., the infamous collateral duty syndrome. I'm weary of playing the phone tree each day when three aircraft are lined up for ground runs but no pilot is available to do the run. Say what you will, the pilots understand which career enhancing move is paramount: run-up an aircraft for the Chief to get one green "Up" arrow or concentrate on the planning for the Mardi Gras party that the CO will attend. A CWO or CPO(AP) just doesn't have such worries.

All
Thoughts from the past re Flying Enlisted, Aircrewman, Bombadiers, RIOS et al
In the old NATS VR navy, we had flying CPOs who were non degreed, enlisted, had combat flying time, and generally were not expected to lead anyone, except to the local bars.
In the VR Logistics support navy, we had LDOs, old time WW2 ex fighter jocks and cast offs due to physical limits flying the Douglas and Lockheed aircraft. The Nav was done by newbies from P cola. These gents were experts, dependable and could get you there every time.
In the P2V navy, we had old hands, degreed, RLOs and some newbies from the NAVCAD era. All had division duties and did a great job. No enlisted folks flew these birds.
In the VW AEW Barron days, the pilots were all P cola grads, never had a day in Korea, or WW 2. Age had taken all the older guys off the line. Technology had erased the need for man handling the airplane. All had division duties and some actually commanded the squadrons. A very safe environment with expertise from the training commands very evident.
Our VA navy saw P cola grads, youngsters, and the Bombadiers. The latter had no hope of a command until very late in the 70s. As the Aircraft matured, so did the aviators. These folks were destined to live and die with the technology of the time. Leadership, division duties were all expected and performed. The WOs of that time did the Division leadership in the MAINT Divisions. WOs had a needed place, as did the LDOs. Our flying days were over, age, limits and technology kept most of us on the ground.
The enlisted pilots, CPO pilots, WW2 pilots and the big bus drivers were all phased out by the end of the 80s.
So to say that we have done this before is somewhat true and somewhat wrong. I can clearly remeber trying out for the US Army WO program in the 60s, until I found out it was to drive a Heliocopter in Nam.....
My opinion on WOs flying. If they can pass P cola cirriculum, then let the program go on.
WOs can lead a division as well as any JO. As to commanding a Carrier, not a career path for them, as well as 99 percent of the RLOs, That duty is best placed in the Academy RLOs hands, as tradition demands.
WOs have served the USN in time of need, at any station, duty or place asked. Let the program proceed on its own merits.
end

I was in the Navy for 9 1/2 yrs as an AT and an Aircrewman. I was a TAR and I knew that I would not go very far in the enlisted side as far as retirement. I then switched over to the dark side and became a Warrant Officer in the Army. I am now a CW2 and a blackhawk pilot. I loved the Navy, but I needed to move up and this was the best way for me. I have a little info about both pros and cons if anyone is interested. Just let me know. Also the Army is what it is, I enjoy it, the people are great, but does anyone know if the Navy is going to take any Warrants from the Army to fly? Im already a qualified pilot... I would love to come back over if it were possible. Seriously though, if anyone has any questions just ask....

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Sunliner, a friend of mine was selected for this program, along with 13 other guys.

13. That's it.

The point of this is not to move the URL officers out of the cockpit, but rather to free up JOs to fill more career-enhancing positions within the squadrons they fly in. The program also only posts these LDOs and Warrants into HSL and maritime patrol squadrons. They will NOT be flying jets off carriers any time soon.

No offense to the "Warrants", but glad that the "Regular" Line Officers will still be flying off the "big decks". Despite what some non flying line officers might believe, it takes an aviator to have the understanding to command a carrier.
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

It amazes me that somebody always thinks that it takes a RLO to run a carrier. Hell, a good maintenance chief could run the thing. Who do you think runs the flight deck? Certainly not the Flight Deck officer. But then again...the RLOs have been to knife and fork school, and they have real straight index fingers for pointing out everybody else's short comings. I guess you're right after all...We don't want any RLOs breaking a nail now do we.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave1960:
I'm a USCG flight mechanic (crew chief, in DoD parlance). All our pilots are commissioned officers and, as such, absolutely must shine at something else beside aviator skills: i.e., the infamous collateral duty syndrome. I'm weary of playing the phone tree each day when three aircraft are lined up for ground runs but no pilot is available to do the run. Say what you will, the pilots understand which career enhancing move is paramount: run-up an aircraft for the Chief to get one green "Up" arrow or concentrate on the planning for the Mardi Gras party that the CO will attend. A CWO or CPO(AP) just doesn't have such worries.

A-men brother!!!