As someone who's looking into military aviation this was really valuable. Thank you.I think I can answer this. I had a direct appointment to USAFA and an offer to NAPS. I chose NAPS because I decided I wanted to be a Naval Aviator - specifically a Marine one. Disclaimer - I haven't been in the AF, so I'm speaking from one perspective here. However, I have several friends who are AF pilots and have been around AF pilots enough to at least give my opinion.
It mostly boiled down to culture for me. Naval Aviation tends to be more concerned about the intent or endstate of a mission than the nitty gritty of how it gets done. That doesn't mean intense planning doesn't occur on our end, because that isn't the case. It just seems that the AF is overly concerned about following the letter of the law for every rule out there. I can think of one particular example of a Navy helo pilot I know who was doing a fast rope exercise and did it in an area where nothing specifically stated they were allowed to be there, but nothing specifically denied them the option to be there either. Some AF pilots in the vicinity took exception to this and were a wee bit upset.
Naval Aviators seem to be trusted more at lower ranks by their commands than AF ones. Again, this is purely anecdotal, but I think I've seen this enough to make this blanket observation. I've had several AF pilots that I know make similar comments to me as well.
If you're concerned mostly about quality of life, go Air Force. The only downside to quality of life in the AF is potentially some of the bases being in remote locations (while Navy ones can be in some nice coastal areas). If you want to have more freedom to be an aviator and not just a "pilot," then fly Navy/Marine Corps.
"Additionally, you can be the worlds best pilot, but if you cant land on a carrier, than you are out of luck "My son and i discussed this. It came down to this, Air Force has way more fixed wing planes than the Navy. You have a good chance of flying a helicopter with the Navy. Additionally, you can be the worlds best pilot, but if you cant land on a carrier, than you are out of luck
I completely agree. I was worred when my son did AFROTC instead of Navy. I figured if he didnt get a pilot spot, there would be a lot of other interesting things to do in the Navy. In the end it worked outTo be honest ... USAFA said I wasn't smart enough for them ("thank you for applying, but you didn't meet our high academic standards...."); USNA said the same but offered me NAPS. Air Force was my first choice at the time (because of involvement with Civil Air Patrol). That said, something my BGO told me still rings true -- In the Air Force, if you aren't a pilot, you are a nobody, and at that time LASIK and less than 20/20 wasn't an option. He went on to explain all of the alternatives at Navy - USMC, SWO, Nuke, SpecWar etc. There are many more options through USNA if you don't fly.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this cannot be true. To say that if you are not a pilot, you are a nobody, means that 96% of Air Force personnel are nobodies. While pilots are extremely important in the Air Force, there are plenty of other fields to go into, just like in the Navy.In the Air Force, if you aren't a pilot, you are a nobody, and at that time LASIK and less than 20/20 wasn't an option. He went on to explain all of the alternatives at Navy - USMC, SWO, Nuke, SpecWar etc. There are many more options through USNA if you don't fly.
How many USAF Chief of Staffs, or Theater CINCs from the USAF have not been Pilots?Please correct me if I am wrong, but this cannot be true. To say that if you are not a pilot, you are a nobody, means that 96% of Air Force personnel are nobodies. While pilots are extremely important in the Air Force, there are plenty of other fields to go into, just like in the Navy.
That is the difference that struck me. Warfare communities, different platforms or missions, not support or service missions, but all pointy ends of a bundle of spears. Those line communities of aviation, surface, submarine, EOD, SEAL, Marine Corps and its MOS are a varied but equivalent group of warfare specialties, while the restricted line folks in the Info Warfare family, HR and others, along with the Staff Corps doctors, nurses, medical service corps, dentists, lawyers, PAOs, Civil Engineers, etc., are equally important to the integrated team, but relate in a more service/support way.How many USAF Chief of Staffs, or Theater CINCs from the USAF have not been Pilots?
The Navy has managed to promote and have full career paths for a multitude of warrior types, not just rated pilots.
All I am saying is that well-respected BGO's and Academy grad's like you have to watch what you say on the service academy forums. There are a lot of people on the forums trying to decide what to do with their lives, and what you say can have a huge impact on that. Saying that pilots are the only important people in the Air Force ON A SERVICE ACADMY FORUM could lead those who would join as an engineer, intelligence officer, etc. to turn away from the military life, when it is the perfect place for them.How many USAF Chief of Staffs, or Theater CINCs from the USAF have not been Pilots?
The Navy has managed to promote and have full career paths for a multitude of warrior types, not just rated pilots.
How many USAF Chief of Staffs, or Theater CINCs from the USAF have not been Pilots?
The Navy has managed to promote and have full career paths for a multitude of warrior types, not just rated pilots.
Both of these are excellent responses to a great question. May I interject some AF thought? ***Disclaimer: my brilliant assessment and $1.09 here in AZ will get you an XL soda at Circle K.***That is the difference that struck me. Warfare communities, different platforms or missions, not support or service missions, but all pointy ends of a bundle of spears. Those line communities of aviation, surface, submarine, EOD, SEAL, Marine Corps and its MOS are a varied but equivalent group of warfare specialties, while the restricted line folks in the Info Warfare family, HR and others, along with the Staff Corps doctors, nurses, medical service corps, dentists, lawyers, PAOs, Civil Engineers, etc., are equally important to the integrated team, but relate in a more service/support way.
Again, one Service model is not better than the other, just different. Navy and Marine Corps need warriors to operate in the air, over the water, on the water, under the water, in the littoral zone, on the land. So they have that variety.
Yes! A nice balanced way of describing a Service that is cohesive around 1 critical piece of gear, the airplane, though with many missions and types of aircraft. It just makes sense.Both of these are excellent responses to a great question. May I interject some AF thought? ***Disclaimer: my brilliant assessment and $1.09 here in AZ will get you an XL soda at Circle K.***
I doubt you will see a Chief of Staff of the Air Force that's not a pilot anytime soon. It's probably the same reason you're not going to see a Corps of Engineer general as CofS US Army, although, in many ways, the army has more similarity to the navy communities than the air force does. We used to debate this at the war college a LOT; especially with officers from different career fields. Security forces, engineers, systems command, space & missile...and, aircrew.
The navy, and to a similar extent the army, has what the navy calls "communities" and the army likes to call "branches." The air force has neither. The air force has "Major Commands (MAJCOM's.)" These are the "warfighters" of the air force. Except...are they "warfighters? The MAJCOM's are:
Air Combat Command (Planes)
Air Mobility Command (Planes)
Air Force Global Strike Command (Planes and missiles)
Pacific Air Forces (Planes)
US Air Forces in Europe - Africa Command (Planes)
Air Education and Training Command (Planes, and classrooms)
Air Force Material Command (Logistics, science, research, etc.)
Air Force Special Operations Command (Planes, ground warriors, very specialized folks)
Air Force Reserve Command (Planes, and others on a smaller scale)
Now...look at each and its title. The first five are what used to be known as "combatant commands" before jointness really took hold and terms changed and the services combined forces to true combatant commands like the 11 we have today. Combat commands do precisely that: engage in combat. ACC is the spear...these are the hitters. Global Strike...that's the BIG bang...PACAF/USAFE-AFRICOM...these are hitters. The others....think training, logistics, small highly skilled special operators (some serious hitters) and the reserve forces.
Now...among the "hitters" you have...aircraft: fighters and bombers, recce, and UAV's. In mobility, you have the support aircraft: tankers and transports. In AETC and SPEC OPS you have aircraft: trainers and special operations types. The other two commands: AFRC and AFMC...support, except that in AFRC you also have hitters as well as mobility aircraft.
See the unending commonality of 7 of 9? Aircraft. And that means pilots. And that means the leadership will be pilot-heavy. Are there highly qualified officers that could serve as CofS and not be a pilot? I suppose there are. One example, IMHO, is my classmate, Lt Gen Kevin McLaughlin. Kevin was Deputy Commander of US Cyber Command and is a seriously brilliant individual! Could he command the AF? I believe he could BUT he really doesn't know a thing about employing an air battle component. However, he would have a superb staff that could advise him and help him so I don't think that'd be a real issue. However...I think that the world being the way it is, politics the way they are...I don't see the Senate confirming a non-pilot (aviator) as CofS USAFA any time soon.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying don't pick a service because you think there's a better chance to be CofS or CNO, or Commandant based upon your career field choice.
Okay...did ANY of that make sense???
Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Neither. Fly Army![]()