Flying Alternatives

While I was at the USNA visitation weekend, the main criticism I heard about the AF and AFA from the mids was a lack of career choices. They implied that if you did not fly, you would be stuck behind a desk. While I know that is an exaggeration, it did get me thinking...

Anybody know what the 3-4 most popular service selections are from AFA graduates... Obviously aviation is the most popular. What comes next?
 
I can't really tell you what the most preferred or popular careers are for officers; but I can tell you that EVERY job has their amount of "Desk" time. And that the Navy doesn't really have MORE jobs than the air force. It's just that many of theirs are done on a ship instead of on land. I really don't know how to answer your question. You're asking basically which jobs aren't "Desk Jobs". ALL JOBS are desk jobs. Even Pilots. If I were you, I wouldn't even be thinking that direction. I would try and figure out what you want to do with your life; what interests you; what you have the aptitude for; etc... and then match that to a job in the military. Then determine if you want to do that job on land or on sea. Any other method will just have you running in circles.
 
Buffalo, that's funny I remember having a conversation with Potterfan after she returned from NASS. She grew up Air Force, and even though I worked with the Navy for a short time she was never exposed to Navy life. She looked at me and said "Dad I could see myself attending Annapolis, but dont really know what I would do in the Navy". She saw the same limit you heard from the mids about USAF life. Truth is any job you really want to practice can be found in both services, and the Army too. You just need to decide if sea life with long deployments at sea, Army life with long days spent in the feild, or Air Force life usually at a base with some creature comforts fits you lifestyle.
 
Some desk jobs involve a lot of travel (ie OSI, Intel). Remember, the officer is the manager, not really supposed to be hands on like a mechanic or airfield operator!
 
Career Choices USNA Class of 2009

Christcorp said:
... but I can tell you that EVERY job has their amount of "Desk" time. And that the Navy doesn't really have MORE jobs than the air force. It's just that many of theirs are done on a ship instead of on land. ....
Click to expand...

The list below includes those career choices selected by members of the USNA class of 2009.

Line Officers
Surface Warfare Officer (Conventional)
SWO (Nuclear)
SWO OPTION (Oceanography)
SWO OPTION (Information Professional)
Submarines
SEALS
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Navy Pilot
Naval Flight Officer (NFO)
Marine Corps Pilot
Marine Corps NFO
Marine Corps Ground

Restricted Line & Staff Corps
Information Warfare
Intelligence
Medical Corps
Supply Corps
Civil Engineering Corps

Not selected but available:
Chaplain Corps
Medical Service Corps
Naval Reactors
 
Not sure I understand. The Air Force has very similar positions for officers. Maybe not subs. But very suitable substitutes to each of those jobs. And ALL of them have their level of desk time and paper work. later... mike....
 
I am with CC there are hundreds of jobs out there in the AF...it just comes down to the branch of service you want to serve in.

The AF has everything that the Navy, Army and Coast Guard offer...only difference is the mission goal...AF's goal is air superiority, Navy is water, Army is land. Navy, Army, Coast Guard and Air Force all have Comptrollers, Intel, PA, A & F, Legal, Medical, Security, Logistics, etc, etc, etc, so don't buy into if you aren't flying a jet in the AF all you are doing is picking up bird poop on a runway. Not one jet can take off durig war time without every military members active involvement. NEVER FORGET THAT

In the end, every support job exists for every branch, choose the branch, unless it is job specific. Not much of a chance for driving a tank in the AF or Navy, same is true for driving a boat in the AF or Army. You also face higher chances of flying or being a missilear if you go AF
 
I agree, but the Army has more boats than the Navy (much smaller of Course), and more "air craft" than the Air Force...just to let you know
 
Actually; while I can see the use of an UAV; I am not a big fan. I actually believe that for "some" missions, they may actually cause more loss of life than a manned jet. Simply put; when you are in the seat of a fighter/bomber, you are very aware of your surroundings. You are aware of your target. You are aware of the collateral damage. When you're playing a video game "UAV"; the same decision making process is NOT there. It can't be. Playing Call of Duty is NOT the same as having an M-16 in the desert of Iraq. Playing F-22 is not the same as flying overhead and dropping a bomb or missile at a target on the ground. Neither is "Playing" UAV the same as the pilot who has to decide then and there whether to "Pull the trigger" on a target. It's a lot easier to operate a UAV and say; "What the hell; looks good to me".

Bullet, Steve; am I wrong? Am I in left field. Maybe I am. I think a UAV for recon or intel is excellent. I just have a problem with them in the capacity to shoot/drop/kill people. Maybe I'm naive. I admit that by the time I retired about 9 years ago, that UAV weren't as popular as they are now.
 
I remember a couple of yrs ago an uproar because some UAV pilots got a bronze star, while the pilots getting shot at did not. It ticked off quite a few people.

My 2 cents is that the UAV is an important aspect in our military inventory, but you cannot compare that pilot to the pilot who has to land a jet and their crew safely due to a malfunction. UAV pilots will get in trouble for not completing their mission, but the loss of their life is never put into the equation, whereas, for any manned airframe that is a reality
 
Christcorp said:
Actually; while I can see the use of an UAV; I am not a big fan. I actually believe that for "some" missions, they may actually cause more loss of life than a manned jet. Simply put; when you are in the seat of a fighter/bomber, you are very aware of your surroundings. You are aware of your target. You are aware of the collateral damage. When you're playing a video game "UAV"; the same decision making process is NOT there. It can't be. Playing Call of Duty is NOT the same as having an M-16 in the desert of Iraq. Playing F-22 is not the same as flying overhead and dropping a bomb or missile at a target on the ground. Neither is "Playing" UAV the same as the pilot who has to decide then and there whether to "Pull the trigger" on a target. It's a lot easier to operate a UAV and say; "What the hell; looks good to me".

Bullet, Steve; am I wrong? Am I in left field. Maybe I am. I think a UAV for recon or intel is excellent. I just have a problem with them in the capacity to shoot/drop/kill people. Maybe I'm naive. I admit that by the time I retired about 9 years ago, that UAV weren't as popular as they are now.
Click to expand...

And thats why I said recon UAV :thumb:
 
I really hope you realize I'm being sarcastic when I say dinky RC plane.

At USAFA, cadet actually took an even smaller Army "UAV" and improved it a great deal. It's wings are rollable so that they can roll it and put it on a tube that is carried on one's back. Neat stuff.
 
Oh, yeah - I was not serious. I wasn't implying that you don't pay attention, either. Do you know what they are used for? BTW the USAFA forum overtook the USNA forum in number of posts! Yay!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top