Navy Vs. Air Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
I learned two things yesterday at the Joint Service Open House at Andrews Air Force Base (which is actually a joint base).

1. The U-2 is still in service.
2. Navy sailors give horrible directions on a base and are even worse at directing traffic.
 
Mongo said:
Again, "fact" posted on your post when you revived the thread: My unanswered question from way back on thread #25:
Click to expand...

Bullet said:
Of course, AF landings just aren't as "cool"; we tend to worry more about the mission (which, personally, I think is the vastly more "cooler" aspect of flying fighters), and take the fact that we have to land after wards pretty low on our mission priority for that day's work.
Click to expand...


Mongo said:
You do know that were the shoe on the other foot, there are those who, not waiting an explanation, would become 'righteously indignant' over a post such as this?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this in my last post:


Bullet said:
Now, are you going to go back and chastise everyone else who came on this thread before I posted and gave their opinions on why the Navy was so much better? Something NOT based on fact, and the ultimate reason I responded with a request to continue asking on other forums, and gave my OPINION as well?
Click to expand...

Please note the last few words, where I distinctly mention that I providing my OPINION, and made sure everyone was aware of this through the use of All Caps. And it was in repsonse to someone else's OPINION that Navy flying was "cooler" because of the carrier landing capability.

And to put your mind at ease, I never stated or in any way agree that one service accomplishes the "mission" better than the other. Like I SAID BEFORE, the quality of fliers in both services is outstanding, and both service's aviators are as professional as any could hope for.

I preferred to ignore your question for several reasons:

1) Your chose to take the conversation down a rabbit hole that was entirely different than any topic discussed prior (quality of professionalism and airwork between the two services' aviation community), and would only lead to more angry words and potentail bannings.

2) It just isn't worth it to go down the "here are the facts that prove one is better than the other" path, as folks are too intimatley tied into one side of the other (i.e. they won't listen or ever admit they may be wrong in any way), won't be willing to actually discuss the issue, and would rather just turn it personal. No need for that on these forums (Like JAM did when she accused me of a crime).

3) I have better things to do.
 
I also attended the Joint Service Open House.

2. Navy sailors give horrible directions on a base and are even worse at directing traffic.
Click to expand...

That's because Sailors normally have better things to do then direct traffic, unlike the guys/gals from the Chair Force ;-) (Joke)

But on a more serious note...I'd rather have Sailors who can't direct traffic than airmen who are arrogant and give lip, who don't properly check identification cards, and don't know how to properly address the rank of any service. I was quite annoyed at the professionalism and I am not normally the one who complains or demands respect!

The above isn't necessarily aligned with the original post subject.
 
Last edited:
jadler03 said:
I also attended the Joint Service Open House.



That's because Sailors normally have better things to do then direct traffic, unlike the guys/gals from the Chair Force ;-) (Joke)

But on a more serious note...I'd rather have Sailors who can't direct traffic than airmen who are arrogant and give lip, who don't properly check identification cards, and don't know how to properly address the rank of any service. I was quite annoyed at the professionalism and I am not normally the one who complains or demands respect!

The above isn't necessarily aligned with the original post subject.
Click to expand...

We must have had very different experiences. The sailors I ran into, when not sitting in a lawn chair relaxing, acting very much like the land handlers we would have the "honor" of working with at every Navy pier we pulled into on my ship (should not be taken as a compliment.)
 
LITS,

We definitely had different experience. I was talking about a personal one-on-one interaction between myself and an enlisted Airmen that bordered on an Article 89 UCMJ offense. It actually had nothing to do with a vehicle, or directing traffic. I took care of it on the spot.
 
Mongo said:
The better the preparation the greater the accomplishment.

I think to suggest that anyone launches on any mission with less than total preparation in all facets is a very serious allegation.
Click to expand...

Again you take what someone says out of context...

Also, there is NO such thing as TOTAL preparation. Anytime you think you are "totally prepared" you've screwed the pooch. Every mission has one thing in common: finite time until execution. You LD when you plan (or close to it) or else the timeline is completely f'd. You never have enough time to plan and prepare. Thats why they make us Officers: to prioritize those things that will kill us first or worst. And rank the other threats on down the line (i.e. losing the element of surprise, the Enemy displaces to an alternate location...). NCOs exist to run those rehearsals until as best they can in the time they have. Pilots do this through pre-flight briefing (or so I'm told), as many of the technical aspects of flying are rehearsed on a weekly basis.

Bottom line: There is never enough time to plan/rehearse/prepare. If the Good Idea Fairy comes to you in the middle of rehearsal time and suggests that you're 100%, IGNORE it and find something else to improve on.

Thats why I broke it down by percentages/not time. As percentages belie the priorities and time only accounts for how much warning you've had.
 
Malachy Marine said:
Again you take what someone says out of context...
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I do admit that I was responding more to your agreeing with what I thought Bullet was saying rather than what you actually said. However, since Bullet has clarified that he was only discussing needless worry which does not affect the effectiveness of the mission whatsoever and that his comment was inconsequential, he and I agree.

However, I do think you are continuing down a slippery slope. Your premise seems to be that there is only a finite amount of planning time of which is insufficient to prepare properly all facets of the mission. In aviation, this is very seldom, if ever, the case. I would almost guarantee you that a skipper who succumbed to this line of thinking would be relieved, maybe even before there was a mishap or he failed to perform a mission. Did they have the Capstone ethics seminars when you were a firstie? One of the case studies is this exact scenario.
 
Mongo said:
...needless worry which does not affect the effectiveness of the mission...

Your premise seems to be that there is only a finite amount of planning time... In aviation, this is very seldom, if ever, the case.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is the fact that I'm not an aviator... but I doubt it.

In any real mission (not Red Flag, or some other training mission concocted by someone weeks and months in advance where the scenarios are already known prior to execution) there is a FINITE amount of time. The frag comes down to push and LD at a given time, so you prioritize.

Aviators get alittle more lead time on this, in that they attempt to maintain a constant state of readiness in the technical skills of flying, so that the majority of their preparations are focused on mission planning.

However, the premise I am referring to is a mindset. One in which you never have all the answers, nor can you. You work hard, do the best you can within the time that you have. But you never let yourself feel like you have "arrived." The moment you feel like you've covered all the bases, you've lost. Because your arrogance overrode your critical thinking.

If you want to talk finite preparation time, look at the Marine Corps Planning Process... Specifically, the Rapid Response Planning Process (R2P2)... 6 hours from frag to the Commander to its execution by the various maneuver and support elements of a MAGTF. 6 hours, to draw ammo, fill water, prep vehicles, load ordinance on aircraft, pre-flight inspections, briefings, rehearsing, etc. There is and never will be enough time to prepare 100% for any mission.
 
Malachy Marine said:
Maybe it is the fact that I'm not an aviator... but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
LOL. Don't be too sure.

Of course there is a finite time to prepare for a mission. A commander will ensure that his troops utilize this time to maximum effect. I doubt seriously that, given six hours to prepare, you would give a 2 hour lesson in donning body armor, take your troops to the rifle range for a couple of hours, and have your drivers practice their driving skills for another couple of hours. Your CO would have your butt for not having accomplished these tasks prior to mission tasking. Same with carrier landings. Basic skill sets. They are a basic part of being a Naval aviator and do not detract one iota from specific mission planning.
 
Folks, let's keep this debate civil. This forum promotes ALL military services and their members. While there are obviously differences among them -- which can be worth discussing -- all of uniformed services and their members serve this nation with honor and pride.

The occasional joke (if clear) is ok but denigrating a service or its members will not be permitted.

Thank you.
 
I've actually lost sight of what is being discussed or argued here.

Mongo...in one sentence....what are you arguing? Am I hearing that you think the Navy doesn't "over prepare" or prepare at all? It would seem 90% of their time is training. Are you saying the Air Force over prepares etc?

I have to say I'm a little lost now...it's been going in circles so long, not sure what the starting place was.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I've actually lost sight of what is being discussed or argued here.
Click to expand...
Go back and read your random, totally off topic posts to see why.

Take out the fluff and the *discussion* is not that difficult to follow -
First - Bullet said that Navy pilots are more concerned about landing than completing the mission (TOS violation)
Then - He said - it takes away from prepping for the mission

Mongo is saying that landing on a carrier is a skill set - practiced much of the time - like take-offs and zipping the flight suit. To say that a Navy pilot practicing landing on a carrier is an integral part of a mission and planning is not quite right - it's really part of the job. Similar to practicing on the rifle range. After all when the Marines launch a mission - we would expect them to already know how to shoot.


With all respect to the moderator - denigrating service members (and branches of service) occurred way back several days and many posts ago. About the time Bullet revived the thread.
I didn't realize the US Naval Academy forum was a debate forum. According to the TOS it is to provide FACTUAL information.

This forum is intended for applicants and their parents to ask questions concerning the United States Naval Academy. It is our desire that all information provided in response to those questions be accurate and that the threads not drift off-topic. As such, please reply only if you are certain of your answer. If your answer is based on one or more conditions, then please state them. Providing links to official or otherwise trustworthy sources is particularly encouraged.
Click to expand...
http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showpost.php?p=70099&postcount=1

Bullet - my apologies to you. I did not realize that you have difficulties with metaphors and will make a note of it in further discussions.
 
Thanks JAM, your insight, as always is refreshing.

Reciting TOS again? Perhaps we should let the people who are currently or have in the past worn the uniforms go back in forth. It may be distracting, but I would venture to guess their insight has far more credibility, than say, someone who has never served at all. Just a thought.
 
Amazing that less than two hours after a mod warning to keep it civil, there is a continuation of personal attacks. Even more pathetic in the fact that what was posted was during this attack was:
1) wrong (statements attributted to me about what NAVY pilots are concerned was not in my original post, and I never contributed to the "planning effectiveness" debate, but was identified as the primary instigator),
2) assuming in nature as to intent of another poster's thread revival (and also wrong in their assumption), and
3) inflammatory in nature and content.

I believe this thread has reached the end of its useful life, and recommend the mods just give it the death it deserves.
 
Time to end this thread. If there are legitimate issues that need still to be discussed, take them to the appropriate forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top