What drove you to choose Naval Aviator vs AF Pilot (and vise versa) *as Officer*

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.
 
pilot2b said:
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.
Click to expand...
As someone who's looking into military aviation this was really valuable. Thank you.
 
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
 
Quality of life was the biggest reason for me. Not that other services don't take care of their people, but I'm sure every aviator on this forum can attest to how much they enjoy the amenities the Air Force offers on their bases. I really like the varied locations offered as well, especially for my airframe. Naval bases are in some pretty sweet locations, but I can pick from England, Japan, Florida, Washington, and a variety of reserve and National Guard bases with attached active duty personnel. Not to mention there are about a bazillion National Guard and reserve bases to apply to that fly my airframe once I'm done with active duty. Other branches have a reserve aviation component, but nothing that matches the size the Air Force does. At my airframe schoolhouse, we have several Navy and Marine aviators going through transitioning to the Guard and reserve for the Air Force.

The Air Force is also the least "military" of the branches. It feels a lot more like a corporation than anything sometimes, while other services really like to hone in on traditions and pomp and ceremony from what I've observed. I came into the military super "gung-ho" about stuff like that, but I've learned to enjoy the more relaxed atmosphere.

The Air Force also offers the most options in terms of aircraft as well. People keep repeating this myth that the Navy has more planes than we do, but that's just factually incorrect. We're America's aerial warfare branch and we have the numbers to prove it. We have an equivalent version of almost every aircraft the other branches have and then some. You're never gonna get the chance to fly anything larger than a C-130 or a P-8 in the Navy or USMC, and certainly won't get the chance to fly something like the F-22 or U-2.

So to sum it up, the Air Force has lots of options for career progression, bases, air frames, a generally higher quality of life, and a more relaxed atmosphere, at least on the heavy side. If you wanna fly a fighter for the Air Force you can turn up the intensity quite a bit.

There isn't one decision that's 100% correct. I'd be lying if I said there aren't some days I wake up and think about what it would be like to see the words "U.S. Marines" on my uniform pocket or to catapult off a carrier deck in an F-18. However, I'm a big fan of the saying "you can't put a price on happiness." I'm pretty happy with my decision to choose the Air Force.
 
It’s all about fit, both ways.
 
Humey said:
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
Click to expand...
"Additionally, you can be the worlds best pilot, but if you cant land on a carrier, than you are out of luck "

Uh, only if that's what you want to do. And those that do that, are well trained to do that.

I struggled with which to choose: USAFA or USNA. I was going to fly, regardless, unless something horrific happened. Then it became "which service?"

The end decision for me was heartbreaking because I'm a sea lover! I've sailed since I was 5..."soloed" a Sunfish when I was 6...crewed sloops and ketches...however...I just couldn't reconcile with the navy lifestyle. I'm a family nut...and my hats off to all that sail, I don't know how well I would handle a sea deployment. "I" would do fine, but I'd feel really bad for any family I had. I never knew how navy families did it. AF units didn't deploy as navy did.

Until 2001...and then...okay...welcome to "The Deid" and other lovely locales...you'll be here for (4 months, 6 months, longer...) and the rotation will be every, oh, 18-36 months. Hmm...

Oh well, that was then; this is now.

It's a tough call.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
For me, it wasn't "which branch can I fly in," but which service did I want to go into. I chose NROTC to pay for college and for all the paths that were available. Originally I applied for subs and even got a 1/c cruise to the North Pole. However, my grades in my major weren't strong enough for the nuke power screen. So I put in for aviation, got orders for NFO training in Pensacola, and life moved on.

I had a great time in the Navy, and am proud to have served. I think every vet, no matter what service, can say something similar.
 
To 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.
 
Old Navy BGO said:
To 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.
Click to expand...
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 out
 
Old Navy BGO said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
USAFA_86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
OldRetSWO said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
OldRetSWO said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
^ That's right. Let's not give an honest opinion on an open forum directly addressing the subject of this thread, because it might discourage someone from joining the Air Force or the military altogether. :eek:

Frankly, if anyone is turned away by somone's honest opinion here, from anonymous sources, they couldn't have been very interested in the first place. That being said, you are more than welcome to argue your honest point of view expressing why you think AF is a better path for some individuals. I encourage you to do so.

Let the questioner make their own assessment based on all the input here. They know what's important to them. We're here to help them weigh their options.

Just one man's two cents.
 
OldRetSWO said:
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.
Click to expand...
Capt MJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 USAF 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
 
flieger83 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top