Enlisted combat pilots?

[USMCmech]

The Officer/Enlisted class structure made sense a hundred years ago, but is changing rapidly.

In 1940 "some college" was all it took to apply for a commision. In that day and age most of the population lived in farming communities where staying in school past 8th grade was the exception. Urban dwelers were slightly better educated with a "high" school diploma really meaning something. A bachelors degree in any major meant that the prospective officer was much better educated than the enlisted men he was leading.

Even then, the US Army Air Corps was the exception in limiting pilots to commissioned officers. The USN/USMC, Luftwafe, RAF, and IJN all had enlisted pilots throughout WWII. In all but the US Navy/USMC, the majority of pilots were enlisted/warrants, with a few "flying officers" in leadership roles.

Today, the education gap between officers and enlisted is much less. Virtually 100% of enlisted recruits are high school graduates, many having some college, which makes the military better educated than society at large. The fact that college degrees are so common, and much less rigorious than in the past means that the officer corps is often only slightly better educated (while being less experianced) than the enlisted men. In some fields this situation can even be inverted. A sailor trained in operating nuclear power has graduated a school that would send any non STEM college grad back to 8th grade.

I personally think that the Army has the right idea with warrant officer pilots. There are no reason that the USAF, USN, and USMC can't promote E-5 to W-1s and train them to fly drones, helos, or transport aircraft.

 

[dustoff17]

Several years ago, in the days prior to days of the two pilot Kioma Warrior (OH-58D), the Army used Enlisted Soliders in the cockpit of the Kiowa (OH-58A/C). As Aeroscout Observer (AO), these soldiers were highly trained in techniques of low-level flying, navigation, call-for-fire, troop movements, threat I.D., etc, AND were continuously trained in Emergency Handling skills. Emergency Handling was hands on the controls to prepare the enlisted crewman to take over all flying duties and return the helicopter if the pilot should become incapacitated. There were several of these enlisted crewman that, quite frankly, were better pilots than some of the pilots in the company. I would put my AO up against any pilot in the unit.

The Army really missed an opportunity to send all of the AOs to WO flight training when they made the shift to the D Model. A LOT of experience and skills left Army Aviation in those days. Sad deal for all.......

 

[MikeD]

I personally think that the Army has the right idea with warrant officer pilots. There are no reason that the USAF, USN, and USMC can't promote E-5 to W-1s and train them to fly drones, helos, or transport aircraft.

The Navy just a few years back tried a test group of WOs (from former E-6s or higher, I believe) through pilot training for the helo and patrol plane community, and it apparently wasn't successful and was terminated after the first group.

The other issue apparently was what to do with them in the flying squadrons in terms of career progression, with them not holding same positions of leadership that commissioned officers were such as department head, etc. @///AMG may be more familiar with this.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

@///AMG weighed in during a thread about Mustangs.

https://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/curious-question.200728/page-2#post-2292528

The Navy has explored enlisted (enlisted to CWO) pilots every decade since WWII and it has never worked out. The Navy pulled the plug on the last program in 2009 or so.

The bottom line is that is really doesn't solve any problems and throws a wrench at squadron structure.

 

[bucksmith]

The whole officer/enlisted scheme is outdated imo. Start everyone off the same and give responsibility based on merit and experience. Also, lots of enlisted members already have college degrees or are working on them. Getting your degree before joining doesn't make one any more capable or intelligent. We had an ATC trainee who washed out but he got his degree so they let him commission and now he's a WSO on an F-15E

I was a RADAR (yes, it's a GD acronym) tech in the Tribe. I watched some of the smartest people I ever met wash out of atc after getting straight A's in school. What you do is voodoo and is not a good analogy for anything other than perhaps the ability to raise the dead or sacrifice chickens.

 

[bucksmith]

Besides, any loco yocal can operate an F-15. Now, gimme an A-10 pilot, and I'll go to war with that MFer.

 

[MikeD]

Besides, any loco yocal can operate an F-15. Now, gimme an A-10 pilot, and I'll go to war with that MFer.

You called?

 

[bucksmith]

You called?

Not yet, but that F-35 is getting drunk, I think she's gonna need a ride home...

Nobody I'd rather have a beer with than the Air Forces red headed step child.

 

[JDean3204]

Of course it was shot down. The program is trying to streamline the training process to wing pilots in the most efficient way possible, no way enlisted dumb dumbs could make it through such a program. After all, most of us joined the service out of HS because we were sure to fail out of college or were in the fast lane heading to jail.

I say give it a whirl, let's see the difference in pass/fail rate between the typical academy guys and highly motivated enlisted guys. I bet those enlisted guys would give commissioned JO's a run for their money in that category. I could be biased in my opinion but if you select those guys that are enlisted and screen them with a series of exams and they pass what's the worst that could happen? Oh maybe the multiple decade thought process of only those that are highly educated can fly in the military could be thwarted.

Now get back to fixing my plane enlisted puke, and make sure that PPE is donned correctly. Did you pre flight my plane?? There's a bug on my window..

 

[Nark]

It's a lot easier, as an officer, to tell the generals aid, "no."

This is, of course my opinion, why some positions will always be held by officers/warrants. It's not always about moving metal. There is a lot of behind the scenes things happening congruently.

 

[Flyinthrew]

I've been holding off because I've been giving it some thought, but here goes-

1) Is there any doubt in my mind that you could take the top 1/3 of enlisted Marines and train them to fly. Not at all. The intuition, intelligence, common sense, and motor skills are the same no matter what your rank.

2) Do I believe that should happen? No. There's a lot more going on under the surface than just moving an airplane around the sky. The whole point of the armed forces officer is the "exceptional and unremitting responsibility" given to those with a commission. Technical competence in the employment of force and managing violence is the expectation of a professional officer. That same sentence could easily be said of an NCO in charge of a squad of Marines, however, the sentence prior cannot. If the NCO takes his squad on patrol and gets massacred/creates a massacre, the blood is not on his hands. Likewise, if an enlisted man were to take a section of aircraft into combat, and things were to go horribly wrong, the blood is not on his hands. The destruction(or self destruction) that is possible with a very short chain of actions and decisions in a modern combat aircraft is orders of magnitude higher than that of just a few generations ago. This is at the core of why commissioned officers fly combat aircraft.

3) It is of no concern to the institution that there are men that chose to enlist and fulfill that oath to their nation when they possess the faculties to have achieved a commission. Despite that, there are multiple pathways to get from one side to the other, and those who use it are often highly respected by both groups. The degree is an absolute requirement, and will never change. And while we technically do accept any bachelors degree from any accredited university, one only needs to inventory the typical ready room to see that that camel doesn't pass through the eye of the needle very often.

 

[WMostellar]

Of course it was shot down. The program is trying to streamline the training process to wing pilots in the most efficient way possible, no way enlisted dumb dumbs could make it through such a program. After all, most of us joined the service out of HS because we were sure to fail out of college or were in the fast lane heading to jail.

I say give it a whirl, let's see the difference in pass/fail rate between the typical academy guys and highly motivated enlisted guys. I bet those enlisted guys would give commissioned JO's a run for their money in that category.

You are biased (as we all are); nothing wrong with that. My older brother retired as a Senior Master Sergeant...I graduated (or so I was told by my Instructor) third in my OTS Class of 200 (?) and got out as soon as possible after not getting selected for a White House Fellowship (I saw the writing on the wall).

I took this away from Mike's post and is the crux of the matter.

The other [and more important] issue apparently was what to do with them in the flying squadrons in terms of career progression, with them not holding same positions of leadership that commissioned officers were such as department head, etc. @///AMG may be more familiar with this.

There are myriad Officers who would love nothing more than Fly the Line rather than do all the ancillary things necessary to get promoted...When I made my decision to get out in 1997, my Commander told me that I wouldn't be getting a new position of responsibility within the Squadron (which would've made promotion highly likely). Fortunately, he let me continue to fly the line for a year...best flying of my life without all the "other things."

The Air Force could solve it's challenges by allow Officers to decide at some point approaching the end of their initial commitment whether to pursue a Leadership or Line Pilot path and not "punish" those who choose Leadership by taking them out of the cockpit or those who choose the Line Pilot path by forcing all the Additional Duties, Schools, etc. JMHO

 

[JDean3204]

@MikeD and @WMostellar if it is the the other duties and responsibilities that are the issue with what career progression could look like as an enlisted pilot. What is the difference in leadership abilities and the accountability of a Warrant Officer? I do think if a program was ever put in place, pilots should be Warrant Officers. Just like the Army does it now in Combat Helicopters that are capable and can cause a good amount of destruction. I would also argue that collateral jobs pilots have such as Department Head, a Warrant Officer may even be a better choice to lead a certain group of airmen. Knowing the details of what makes a group or department tick could benefit the Warrant Officer as they step into that leadership role.

As a previous maintainer, it was always easier working with an Avionics Division Officer or Maint Officer that was a mustang. They seemed to be a little more engaged, personable and approachable vs the JO that appeared to be bogged down by the chore of leading our division. We could tell which ones wanted to lead and which ones were just simply fulfilling their collateral duties. Again, that is a viewpoint from someone who was only enlisted and very young while enlisted. However I was observant and could tell that certain officers had less leadership skill than others. I have respect for the history, traditions and customs of the military and certainly respect the amount of responsibility a commissioned officer can hold further down the road in their career. I just think the military can change certain mentalities approaching the qualifications needed to be an aviator.

I do think all of this dances around the real issue the Air Force is having. That's pilot retention. Maybe the brainstormers thought if they gave enlisted airmen a chance to fly, they would retain a higher amount of guys and gals.

 

[ian]

The whole officer/enlisted scheme is outdated imo. Start everyone off the same and give responsibility based on merit and experience. Also, lots of enlisted members already have college degrees or are working on them. Getting your degree before joining doesn't make one any more capable or intelligent. We had an ATC trainee who washed out but he got his degree so they let him commission and now he's a WSO on an F-15E

No, that’s not how it works in the military.

 

[gocaps16]

What are the minimum "koala"-fications for these 5 enlisted guys? Do they need to be a certain rank? Previous flight experience? College degree? Yea, I can see a 26-year desked MMCPO or whatever they call in the Air Force E-9 getting selected to fly an F-16. Or what about a 5 year "Nuke" E-6 getting selected? Sorry guys, I'm think Navy.....

 

[ppragman]

No, that’s not how it works in the military.

I mean - philosophically it probably should though right? Right now the officer ranks probably favor people from the upper classes of society, no? People who have the means to go to college before joining, are probably a lot more likely to become officers than folks who were enlisted first? (I'm guessing - anyone have any data?)

The officer and enlisted designations are pretty traditionalist structures that if memory serves have their roots in feudalism...

 

[NovemberEcho]

No, that’s not how it works in the military.

I know that's not how it works. I'm saying maybe that's how it should.

 

[WMostellar]

@MikeD and @WMostellar if it is the the other duties and responsibilities that are the issue with what career progression could look like as an enlisted pilot. What is the difference in leadership abilities and the accountability of a Warrant Officer? I do think if a program was ever put in place, pilots should be Warrant Officers. Just like the Army does it now in Combat Helicopters that are capable and can cause a good amount of destruction. I would also argue that collateral jobs pilots have such as Department Head, a Warrant Officer may even be a better choice to lead a certain group of airmen. Knowing the details of what makes a group or department tick could benefit the Warrant Officer as they step into that leadership role.

As a previous maintainer, it was always easier working with an Avionics Division Officer or Maint Officer that was a mustang. They seemed to be a little more engaged, personable and approachable vs the JO that appeared to be bogged down by the chore of leading our division. We could tell which ones wanted to lead and which ones were just simply fulfilling their collateral duties. Again, that is a viewpoint from someone who was only enlisted and very young while enlisted. However I was observant and could tell that certain officers had less leadership skill than others. I have respect for the history, traditions and customs of the military and certainly respect the amount of responsibility a commissioned officer can hold further down the road in their career. I just think the military can change certain mentalities approaching the qualifications needed to be an aviator.

I do think all of this dances around the real issue the Air Force is having. That's pilot retention. Maybe the brainstormers thought if they gave enlisted airmen a chance to fly, they would retain a higher amount of guys and gals.

This is likely going to bore most who read it and I'm writing off the cuff (so I will have to defer to myself six months from now would someone want to quote me... ), but it's a topic I'm always interested in and studying. Read on at your own peril.

I'm not following the "question" though you and I are likely on the same page. Here's my perspective...

1. ACCOUNTABILITY has to do with doing your Job properly...something everyone (hopefully) wants to do
2. MANAGING has to do with ensuring those your under you are doing their job properly...usually requires constant supervision and can make those "under" them uncomfortable (I know it does me...)
3. LEADERSHIP has to do with giving everyone the Tools necessary to get the Job done...something something few are able to do effectively and where many organizations substitute Hyper-Managers into Leadership positions because their management abilities produce results rather than effects (think culture).

There are Officers who are good at Accountability, those who are good at Managing, and those who are good at Leadership...The Air Force (and many other Organizations) gets bogged down in trying to make each a stepping stone rather than allowing Officers to find their niche. In the particular case we're talking about, introducing Enlisted Personnel further complicates the solution of identifying Officers who want to be great Aviators (Accountability) and allowing them to succeed there, those who are good at Managing and putting them into those positions (there's a necessity to be a good Manager before being given an opportunity to Lead...there's my Bias Showing...LOL), allowing those who aspire to be Leaders the opportunity to excel there rather than pushing every Officer to become a Leader.

Enlisted Pilots could fit into those ranks, but that would dilute the opportunities to find Officers who are capable of other duties...nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with any of these skill sets...as you correctly posit, it's a matter of numbers.

 

[Lawman]

I mean - philosophically it probably should though right? Right now the officer ranks probably favor people from the upper classes of society, no? People who have the means to go to college before joining, are probably a lot more likely to become officers than folks who were enlisted first? (I'm guessing - anyone have any data?)

The officer and enlisted designations are pretty traditionalist structures that if memory serves have their roots in feudalism...

We’ve gone through several cultural changes since the original idea of lords/knights and the armed marching surfs turned into pikeman they commanded. Our Officer corps shares far less with that’s just how we’ve always done it and more with the necessity of what we have to work with.

We have only been a volunteer only force for the last half century. Prior to that yes, officers and a small cadre of senior enlisted were likely to be the only continuity within the military population passing down the lessons of their experience unto the next generation the same way it was passed to them. Key reason for the maintaining of separate officer and enlisted corps, the end goal of the entire process of development in those chains has entirely different outcomes. It’s not just a virtue of class or previously available means. An officer exists from their first until their last day to serve as a leader. We make exceptions in some fields and groups on the grounds of fair compensation (limited duty officer, doctors, engineers) but those are specialty fields.

An Armor, Infantry, Aviation, whatever Officer they are all there to do one thing, learn what the need and gain experience necessary so they can progress to the next level of leadership and responsibility and be successful there. That’s why the evaluation process functions like it does, not to say “he’s an outstanding company commander” but to tell a council of experienced officers “he is absolutely ready to be a battalion S3.” And that started from day 1 of arriving at a unit after their technical training school. That difference is everything. No enlisted soldier entering the military gets told “here are your soldiers” when they get out of tech school. The officer does get that level of thrown to the wolves and it’s up to his unit and the senior professionals around him/her to mold that officer in each of the limited time events they have to develop for that next job.

 

[derg]

You can't possibly be smart enough to fly an airplane if you don't have a college degree. Having a degree in Modern Dance Theory not only makes you a better pilot, but easier to have a conversation with in the cockpit.

If the man says wear a red t-shirt if you want on the ride, wear the red t-shirt and get on the ride.

Or don't. It don't make Mista Chow no difference if you do or do not!