How 'bout meld?*mold - c’mon autocorrect! Leave me alone!
How 'bout meld?*mold - c’mon autocorrect! Leave me alone!
But, giving yourself an opportunity to command a company and develop Lieutenants is the epitome of leadership. Being responsible for up to 150 of America's sons and daughters is enormous. It gives you the opportunity to deeply understand logistics, manage an arms room, develop a maintenance program, develop and execute a training strategy, administer discipline through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, contribute to the fulfillment of the Battalion commander's mission and intent...among others.
These are meaningful things you should experience before deciding to leave the Army. There is a HUGE difference between leading a platoon and commanding a company.
I always encouraged officers to command a company before they depart.
I don't know anything about the change in service obligation...but 6 years means a couple of duty stations....and an opportunity to command.
An additional year...and an exponentially increased leadership experience.
This is similar to the discussion earlier about AF pilots serving 10 years from flight school graduation. Army AV just recently extended the flight school ADSO from six to eight years for rotary that doesn't begin until you complete flight school. Its a separate ADSO from your commissioning source but effectively means you'll be on AD for the entire period of your commissioning ADSO. The ADSOs run concurrently (not added to one another).
Where can I find the recent change in ADSO for Army IERW? The Army website still states 6 years after completion of flight school.
Correct, but they thought they were taking a survey and were not told that it was a pilot program and that everyone else would only have a 5 year commitment. Reminds me how I felt on an airplane the last time I asked they guy in the seat next to me what he paid for his ticket.6 years is a pilot program. Only those applicants who indicated they would be willing to accept a 6 year commitment in previous surveys were selected for this commitment.
Those offered admission with a 6 year ADSO were RANDOMLY selected from the group of candidates (nearly 4000) who answered “yes” to the question on the candidate application of whether or not you were willing to serve on active duty for 6 years.
If you answered ‘yes’ your name went into the pool. A very small group of offered candidates has been put in this category. This is a study initiated by the Department of the Army. If you were offered an appointment with a 6 year ADSO and feel betrayed or snookered by the academy then simply decline the offer and allow someone else to step into your slot.
Thank you. We moved recently so our mail is being forwarded. Haven't received BFE yet. That explains our cluelessness!On letter in BFE
This is similar to the discussion earlier about AF pilots serving 10 years from flight school graduation. Army AV just recently extended the flight school ADSO from six to eight years for rotary that doesn't begin until you complete flight school. Its a separate ADSO from your commissioning source but effectively means you'll be on AD for the entire period of your commissioning ADSO. The ADSOs run concurrently (not added to one another).
It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.Perhaps the military academies should increase their commitment to at least 10 years on active duty as well. If it's good enough for pilots, should be good enough for cadets/midshipman.
Significant second order effects for some branches because of career path differences between them. I know more about the Navy and can tell you that a Surface Warfare officer at the five year point has typically either finished or is close to finishing their required Division Officer Sea Tour (s) which is typically followed by shore duty which can often include an advanced degree program. It is a pretty good time to leave if that is what is desired OR a Navy funded advanced degree that is followed by the Department Head track which is typically where officers promote to O4. A ten year commitment forces officers to stay into the Department head tours which ends up keeping too many people without enough appropriate billets. The normal rank pyramid is also seen on a ship with far more Division Officers than Department Heads. While there are year groups that are low on/could use more Department Heads, the shortage number is MUCH smaller than the number that would have been added by doubling the obligated service.It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.
Applications as well as retention after Plebe/Yearling year would plummet.
Aviators make their choice after three years at the academy and exchange the additional years to obtain a significant skill. Since Aviation is not guaranteed, creating a ten year commitment after Yearling year would reduce the academies retention of potential Aviators as well as non-Aviators.
The difference with aviation is the amount of money they spend on training compared to other branches. Not saying they dont spend on the other branches but flying and learning to fly a plane is expensive. My son is an AF pilot. I found this info on a comparision between keeping a pilot and getting a new one. The following is the cost to train AF pilots
"The cost of training a basic qualified fighter pilot ranges from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an F-22 pilot. Bomber pilot training cost is also high, ranging from $7.3 million for a B-1 pilot to $9.7 million for a B-52 pilot. Costs for training transport pilots and mobility pilots are somewhat lower, but still considerable, ranging from $1.1 million for a C-17 pilot to $2.5 million for a C-130J pilot. "
My point isnt to say that the number of years required after academy should or shouldnt be increased. It is just to say there is a reason why they keep you for 10 years if you are an aviator. As for the army changing it to 10 years, that actually seems strange. The story you always get about Army aviators is that they spend 2-3 years flying and then they get command positions and fly a desk. They say if you want to fly in the Army, its better to be a Warrant officer as they never stop flying. It would seem that if you stop flying after 2-4 years, dont know why it would critical to keep you in.
A good friend of mine who is going to be a Firstie this year always wanted to fly but is now reconsidering due to the length of the obligation. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of others are doing the same.It will be interesting to see what happens to Aviation during branch selection. Is demand elastic or inelastic? Raising the "price" by 67% should provide a definitive answer. However, I don't believe a trial is necessary to conclude what would result from a 100% increase in price for all cadets/midshipmen.
Applications as well as retention after Plebe/Yearling year would plummet.
Aviators make their choice after three years at the academy and exchange the additional years to obtain a significant skill. Since Aviation is not guaranteed, creating a ten year commitment after Yearling year would reduce the academies retention of potential Aviators as well as non-Aviators.