This user hasn't shared any biographical information
The Navy Career Advancement system is the one thing that is the most destructive problem. I have a top MBA and I’ve been in a Fortune 500 company for several years now and I am very successful there. I attribute a lot of my success to the things I’ve learned in the Navy. The business concepts I learned would make me way more impactful a leader in the Navy. But we don’t allow for many people to get any of that experience and knowledge and the few that do are relegated to low-impact jobs because you just got to have that boat tour.
I read an article a while back about the VP-5 Skipper (CDR Toraason) making some really interesting changes to the culture and organization of the squadron. I wasn’t close enough to know whether it made an impact or not. I don’t know if the squadron felt it was an improvement. I have no idea if the changes lasted beyond his tenure as a Skipper. I do know that he had the unique background to do this, I’d urge anyone reading this to think hard about the experiences he had and why that made him more successful than the standard VP Skipper.
Recently, I got an e-mail alerting me to some new comments. After seeing the comments, I thought they were really well thought out and it gave me the motivation to quickly finish the last three articles. I didn’t put in 100% on these – apologies if the quality isn’t that good. If anyone would like to take up the mantle of running this blog, feel free to send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Strategy: Why we need to be bad in order to be great
- Incentives are Important: Why our DUI prevention incentives don’t work but our mishap prevention incentives do
- Operations Management: The answer to “doing more with less”
- Talent Management: Allowing people to do what they enjoy and are good at leads to better outcomes for everyone
- A Strategy for Change: What are VP Navy’s unique strengths and how to leverage them
- Conclusion – The military is not a business: Why treating it like one can lead to failure
- Final Thoughts
In business, there are revenue centers (Sales) and cost centers (Manufacturing). Most businesses try to invest in the revenue generating side of the house and cut costs on the cost centers in order to maximize profits (Profit = Revenue – Cost). The investments on the revenue side are typically things that will make customers buy more of their product or pay more for it. Cost cutting is to offer the product cheaper. For this example, please do not go down the rabbit hole of thinking that revenue is government tax dollars. In my Navy-as-a-business model, the customer is the US Taxpayer, and tax dollars represent customer payments to the US Navy in return for their product.
The VP Navy would be traditionally considered a cost center. Everything we do is scrutinized by a budget, every activity tied to a monetary cost. Cost cutting efforts would be to cut back on maintenance, cut back on flight hours, reduce the number of people, make the operations more efficient. The amount of dollars we spend is a pretty easy thing to measure, and hence is easy for our leaders to show impressive results to save money that are explicitly stated.
A business leader might be able to showcase cost cutting efforts but would be held accountable if those cost cutting efforts reduced the revenue side more than the money they saved. A good example is to cut costs by reducing quality. But if the quality gets too low, people stop buying the product, or won’t be willing to pay as much. So if you have saved $1M but lost $2M in revenue = bad idea and that’s easy to know because you’re comparing dollars to dollars.
So if you treat the VP Navy like a cost-center, you’d come to two basic conclusions:
1) We need to cut costs
2) We need to get more for what we’re paying
The first conclusion is what happens most often. With every budgetary review, there is pressure to reduce flight hours, reduce personnel, reduce everything. Very infrequently is there ever a push to increase efficiency through process improvements (see the operations management article).
In executing the second conclusion, there is a problem. The Navy doesn’t have a great revenue metric analogous to one that a more traditional business would have. We don’t make any money. The product we offer is National Security and Force Projection. It’s very hard to put a dollar amount to that. How much is it worth to the US Taxpayer that we’re good at ASW? How does the US Taxpayer every feel like they’re getting value for their payments if we never use our ASW?
My belief is that decision makers have a strong incentive and are more likely to deploy force to show value and justify the cost. Or they may be more likely to approve missions or operations despite the fact that they seriously cost-cut and they’re not sure the mission will be successful. I think the two major ship collisions in the 7th fleet speak to this trend (and mind you those are the two incidents we know about, there are probably tons of close calls). We cut costs in training our people and our leaders are desperate to show that we can achieve the same results at a lower cost. In the aviation community, we only need to wait a couple of years for a major grounding due to safety issues stemming from cost savings.
The conclusion is that there are some things that the Navy could learn from business. But going too far and treating it exactly like a business is dangerous and foolish.
This one should be pretty quick. It’s building on the previous blog post about what a good strategy is, which is leveraging an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage to create value better than others. So what are our sustainable competitive advantages? Let’s first break down the word sustainable:
Sustainable means that it’s a long lasting advantage and isn’t easily lost. Apple’s iPhone technology package was revolutionary, but wasn’t a sustainable advantage. Samsung caught up pretty quickly. Modern datacenters use up a lot of space and energy. Hence, datacenters in areas with cheap real estate and hydroelectric (cheap) power have a distinct advantage.
Competitive means that there is an inherent comparison to another organization. Who do we compete with? For the sake of this article, I am going to ignore who we compete against – it’s very unclear and at the end of the day it doesn’t matter – we want to be the best we can be.
I think our two biggest advantages are:
1) Our people’s intrinsic motivation
2) Heavy Rules-based culture
I created a survey a couple years back testing whether people try hard or do not. I was surprised by the results in that, on a blog that was designed to attract people complaining about the VP Navy, most of the participants stated that they try very hard despite the numerous incentives not to. For-Profit Corporations would kill to have that kind of dedication.
People follow Navy instructions very closely. This is good and bad. The bad thing is that it doesn’t allow for much innovation outside those instructions. It can also teach people to be unable to make decisions without instructions to tell them how to think. The good thing about it is that you can make a change instantaneously with a word document and a signature.
My recommendation is the implement some instructions that govern innovation, incentives and rewards, role placement, process improvement, and change management. Any skipper can, overnight, create an innovation cell to do all of these things, and I know there would be dozens of people that would love to be part of that effort. The bottom line: use the rules-based culture to frequently make incremental improvements.
Talent Management: Allowing people to do what they enjoy and are good at leads to better outcomes for everyone
Different people excel at different things. There are some tasks that some people will never ever be good at, regardless of how much training they have or effort they put in to it. Consider someone who has a really difficult time with attention to detail – they’re probably not the best person to release message traffic nor will they be a very good admin officer. Some people are terrible at relating to others and make terrible leaders, yet we force them to assume leadership roles. Hate doing paperwork? NATOPS probably isn’t a good fit, even though it’s generally reserved for the best aviators.
There’s two things at play here:
1) The Navy’s career advancement program requires a breadth of roles for all people, focusing and rewarding more for different experiences rather than high performance in one area of focus.
2) There’s zero effort to identify people’s true strengths, zero effort to explicitly state what strengths people need for different roles, and zero discussion with people before being placed in a role.
This isn’t a good system. Some people will excel in many different roles, or just get lucky and get the roles that they’d naturally have been good at. Many people, however, will find themselves in a position they’re not very capable at. They will respond in two ways: work hard to overcome their deficiencies and be marginally successful in the role, or do terrible in the role and their career never really recovers. This happens all over the place and at different times – I recall a JO Comsec Officer who had difficulty understanding process and paying attention to details. He was fired and that was that. One year into this person’s career, it was over – he could never recover from failing at a job he would never have been successful at anyways. That’s an example of what’s bad for our people.
We see this also at the O-4 level, where the career funnel almost mandates you take your turn as the MO or Ops O. What percentage of O-4s do you think were really good at those roles? It’s less than half. This is an example of what’s bad for the Navy. Another example are those roles to PMA-XXX where somebody would influence long-term strategy, tactics, and procurement. There’s virtually no screening for ability before those roles and they have the potential to be hugely impactful for the entire community – bad for the Navy.
Leaders that have been successful through this system will argue that it’s a testing platform to figure out who’s the most adaptable, and it’s also is a great learning opportunity when you fail. That’s true. But if the penalty for failure is a derailed career, I’d argue that failure isn’t celebrated as a learning opportunity but is something to avoid at all cost.
There’s a much better way to do this. When people get roles they’re going to be good at and like doing, it’s really good for the Navy. It’s also really good for the person, because they’ll get high performance marks. It’s also really good for management because they don’t have to have as much oversight. Everyone wins.
A VP skipper can implement this within the squadron. The only thing he/she would have to change is the evaluation system. You’d have to eliminate the “X JOB” = #1 ranking philosophy and you’d have to ensure the person behind you that will eventually write the final fitreps is onboard with this philosophy too. And each XO could be very transparent about the skills needed for people to be successful at follow-on orders and try to place people accordingly.
There’s tons of people that agree the career progression in the Navy needs to be revamped. There was an 80+ page paper written by some ex-Army officers at Harvard. No company in the world manages their talent the way we do. I remember speaking to a VP O-6 about this. I was really disappointed that he generally agreed with me but he said, “I don’t think there’s a better way to do it.” Knowing what I know now, he was blind to his own bias. He considered himself very successful, and automatically attributes it to the system of career progression. But consider how many skippers are getting fired and how broken our senior ranks seems to be.
There’s one really easy way to make this better – make PERS more transparent. Have job postings. Have some writeups about what the job entails and what kind of skills you’d need in that role. This isn’t that difficult to do.
Highly skilled people leave the VP Navy because of this broken system.
Posted in Uncategorized on 13March2017
In every business, there are three major areas of work. With simplified definitions and in no particular order, they are:
- Marketing – creating the demand for the company’s product or service (examples are advertising and product development)
- Finance – providing the capital (cash or debt) to fund the company
- Operations – providing the core product or service (examples are manufacturing and logistics)
A VP Squadron doesn’t have to do Marketing or Finance – it is a 100% operations center. The goal of every operations center is always to seek efficiency. Reducing costs, eliminating wasted effort, and moving faster are all objectives of operations, however they are bounded by being aligned to the company’s product. For example, a super-high quality custom furniture maker wouldn’t want to adopt the ultra-efficient manufacturing processes of Ikea because those efficiencies are gained only because they produce a lot of the same thing very fast (i.e. they’d lose the customization which is their core offering).
The study of how best a company brings its product or service to life is called Operations Management. There are many fields of study within the umbrella of Operations Management including process improvement, process optimization, risk management, forecasting, and more. You’ve probably heard of “lean” or “six-sigma” and those fall under this category. This field of study is far too big for me to really do it justice in a blog post… But I’ll try to cover some of the big points that VP is missing.
Statistics and Bottlenecks: Statistics is something that every major corporation incorporates into their daily operations. The good ones understand that there is always going to be some statistical variation. The better companies understand how dependent events become affected by that variation. Amazon, Walmart, and Costco do this better than anyone else which is why they are so successful. They’re able to eek out efficiencies here and there better than the competition.
Operations also involves the understanding of your limitations, and good companies focus on optimizing around their constraints (also called bottlenecks). Apple used to have a big problem getting customers their iPhones on day 1 (remember all those long lines at the Apple store?). They finally figured out the statistics around product mix and improved their operations to have enough iPhones for their customers on day 1 of a product launch. But they only went as far as how many UPS/Fedex/USPS could actually deliver in 1 day. It would make no sense for Apple to continue to improve how many iPhones they can produce when their shipping partners can’t handle that volume. They improved upon a constraint until another constraint became the bottleneck.
Let’s take a typical VP squadron in Jacksonville in the Summer. They have 5 planes. They have 140 aircrew. Here are all the statistics and constraints you’d consider in developing a flight schedule:
- Some percentage of attempted takeoffs will be delayed or cancelled due to maintenance (there will be variation of this percentage among aircraft too!)
- Some percentage of aircrew will be med down
- There will be some probability of afternoon thunderstorms which may cancel or delay flights
- Some percentage of aircraft will return in a down status and affect the next mission
- There will be some variation in the length of time it will take to get the plane off-deck
- Crew rest
- Number of combinations of aircrew you can field
- Daily caps on flying and man-ups
- Number of aircrew needed on each plane depending on the type of mission
- For training events, available students and qualified instructors
We have all that data. What we don’t have is the knowledge or tools to effectively utilize it. There are techniques and tools that can help us sort through the complexity and answer a basic question like, “How likely is it for the squadron to get x flight hours or y mission quals today?” This particular problem wouldn’t be terribly difficult to model, and the benefit would be that you could understand what a reasonable expectation of performance is.
Too often, we aim for 100% mission completion, or 100% on-time takeoff, or 100% of some other metric that is easy to measure. These are foolish objectives that are reinforced when a detachment gets lucky and goes 10 for 10. That’s like expecting the roulette table to always come up black because it once went 10 times in a row.
So we end up doing some perverse things to attain these unrealistic goals. We schedule backup aircraft. We schedule backup aircrews. We increase maintenance shifts. Once we run out of aircrew, we schedule the ready crew. We do all these crazy things that consume every last drop of our resources. These are huge morale killers. Not only does it sap everyone’s energy, but sometimes the objectives are so unrealistic that there’s no way to actually be successful. Patting ourselves on the back for the ol’ college try when the goal was completely unrealistic reinforces all sorts of bad behavior and attitudes.
Sometimes it’s necessary to try to achieve higher performance outside the range of a statistically probable outcome. However, the cost of achieving that objective grows exponentially the further it gets from reality. We should be smarter about when we use the resources lever to eek out higher performance. It should be for a good reason and at an appropriate time (an ASW exercise 2 weeks after returning from deployment is not a good time for this).
I think VP is stuck in the mindset of trying to hit unrealistic goals all year round. We should invest some time and money into developing some tools to enable the OPS department to understand what a reasonable range of performance is based on the specific stats and constraints of the day/week/month/quarter. This would relieve the pressure our mindless 100% mantra causes and allow us to set reasonable expectations. It would also enable a real evaluation of squadron performance. Over time, the best squadrons would often perform near the upper boundary of the performance range and the worst squadrons would be near the lower boundary.
There’s a really good lesson to be heard about GM in the 80s. Basically Toyota had GM send its worst factory’s workers and managers over to Japan where they were shown exactly how Toyota was able to make cars of much higher quality and much lower cost than GM. Those workers came back and turned GM’s worst plant into the best plant, by far. But today, GM cars still don’t have the quality of Japanese imports, and GM went bankrupt along the way.
The difference was in culture and how it was applied to their operations. Toyota strongly enforced the idea of continuous improvement (“kaizen” in Japanese). Every person in their organization was committed to improvement – from the CEO down to the lowest person on the factory line. I strongly recommend listening to this podcast https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/nummi-2015 – it’s about an hour long and I guarantee you will find yourself drawing parallels between GM and the VP Navy. Toyota’s culture of continuous improvement is something that the VP Navy could adopt because our people are extremely dedicated and hard working. The only thing stopping us is our own leadership.
When I got out, I was certain that there were better ways to do things … and there are. Lots of them. Too many to list in this article. I believe that we should start by better defining our performance expectations using statistics, but we just don’t have the education or exposure in the VP Navy. But that’s my opinion and I’m biased because I like statistics. At the very least, every Operations Officer and Maintenance Officer should have to do some amount of required training in Operations Management. In the business world, similar jobs require years of experience and quite a bit of education in this field before running something as big as a VP Squadron.
Adding management education to our leadership track should be a no-brainer. While we wait, I recommend required reading for all DHs – “The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement.” I won’t spoil it but it basically covers a simple idea: there are a limited number of constraints in any organization. Identify them, and then work to help them or remove them (only to find another constraint). https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process-Ongoing-Improvement/dp/0884271951/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489386642&sr=8-1&keywords=the+goal
Incentives are Important: Why our DUI prevention incentives don’t work but our mishap prevention incentives do
Posted in Uncategorized on 2March2017
On the surface, incentives seem really simple. You want people to behave a certain way so you establish a reward for that behavior. But incentives can be tricky, especially if poorly implemented. A well-known example of misaligned incentives is real-estate sales commissions. A home seller incentivizes a real-estate broker by giving them 3% of the home sale price. The broker is therefore incentivized to maximize the sale price. If you’re trying to sell your house for $210K, and the broker gets a buyer willing to pay $200K, the broker is already getting $6K in commission, and will only going to get another $300 if they get up to $210K. That extra 10K might be really important to you the seller, but that $300 doesn’t mean jack to the broker. The real incentive for the broker isn’t to maximize sale price, it’s to sell as many homes as quickly as possible.
The Navy has limited positive incentives like cash bonuses for high performance. What the Navy does have is a lot of negative incentives, like punishment. This idea is that people want to avoid punishment, so they don’t do the behavior that gets them that. A note on negative incentives: using too many of them creates a culture of risk-aversion (not in scope for this article, but it’s definitely a problem).
For both positive and negative incentives to work, they must be carefully constructed so that you actually get the behavior you want. I’ll use two examples – one we do right and one we do wrong.
1) Airplane Safety: We all know that we have a very safe platform because when things go wrong, everyone does a deep dive, learns from what happened, and then those lessons are disseminated and incorporated into our training curriculum to make us safer. This requires people to divulge mistakes, safety incidents, etc. So our incentive is to reward squadrons for the number of HAZREPs they produce. Further, each squadron and wing publicly rewards individuals for doing safety related acts of kindness. Great alignment to get the behavior you want.
2) DUI and the friend: We all know that if you’re out with a buddy, and he offers to drive but gets pulled over and arrested for a DUI, not only does the DUI offender get in heaps of trouble, but everyone that “allowed” him to drive drunk gets punished too. The idea is that you want people to take care of each other, so you will punish when they do not. There are two choices If I have to decide what to do in this situation: 1) take care of a sloppy drunk (really hard) or 2) steer clear of them (really easy). The result (avoiding punishment) is the same if I do either one successfully. Because the incentive is the same I’d much rather do the easier of the two options and just steer clear. Further, even if I work really hard to take care of people, there’s no guarantee I’d be successful. This is a perverse disincentive combined with a risky situation where it’s more likely to cause people to do the opposite of the behavior you want. How many people have seen the senior most person just disappear when things were getting fun? How many of you have been the senior person that recused themselves from going out in the first place?
Incentives should also not be universally applied. Consider the Skipper that punishes the JO pilots when they make a mistake. Didn’t like how they handled that emergency? Pull their papers. This negative incentive is directly opposed to the airplane safety incentive listed above. You run the risk of causing people to simply not report safety incidents for fear of punishment. It makes you less safe, not more. This happens often enough that I’m convinced we don’t understand how to effectively use incentives.
Group incentives are also a useful tool – there’s a social component to it that we respond to. Remember when the drill instructor made everyone else do pushups except for the ass that showed up late? Everyone pays a heavy price except for one person, who shoulders all the blame. That person probably never shows up late again. This works great for negative incentives, but is pretty weak with positive incentives. You remember the 365 days without a DUI and everyone gets a day off? The incentive rests on the behavior of 300+ other people… am I really going to respond to this? Not really.
The interesting thing is that preventing DUIs and increasing aviation safety should be in the same category of incentives. Use negative incentives only for the things you really want to punish – safety incident cover ups and actual DUIs should be punished severely and publicly (add the social element). Punish the right people, not the bystanders. Punishments should also be public enough that everyone understands exactly the reason for it. If you’re severely punishing someone for covering up a minor safety incident, it could be misconstrued as a big overreaction. But also incorporate rewards – reward the individual who stops a DUI with a day off (and don’t punish anyone for reporting it).
We tend to rely heavily on intrinsic (or innate) motivations rather than incentives. Here are some common rebuttals to incentive schemes that I’d expect to hear from typical VP. “Stopping DUIs is the mission of every good leader. Work hard because you’re patriotic and doing it for your country. A prestigious but really hard job is your reward for high performance.” Innate motivation is great, and we in the military have it in spades compared to the corporate world. It’s a cultural attribute unique to the military and should be celebrated. But intrinsic rewards can’t be universally applied nor are they universally effective at motivating everyone. Not everyone has Captain America level patriotism. Not everyone cares about prestigious roles. Not everyone is a leader that cares deeply about the people around them. Adding a robust incentive system applied in the right way could build on that innate motivation. It would not only fix a lot of problems but would also maximize the productivity of our best asset: our people.
A couple of key notes about incentives:
1) Incentives need to be aligned to the behavior you want to achieve. Be honest about what you’re really incentivizing (harsh punishments for safety incidents is more likely to cause cover-ups than improve safety). “On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B” is a classic management article that talks about this in several industries, including the military.
2) Group incentives add a social component which is powerful, but the benefit is essentially split between all the participants.
3) Incentives have a time component to it: the longer it takes to get the reward, the less sensitive people are to it (people just don’t internalize rewards that are too far out).
4) Too much reliance on negative incentives creates a culture of risk-aversion.
5) Any meaningful change to VP culture should include changing our incentives for everyone from the Skipper down.
6) There is no reason not to experiment with different incentives and share the results amongst community leaders. I’d insert this into the DH and CO/XO curriculum at VP-30.
Posted in Uncategorized on 1March2017
A good business strategy must answer the question, “What are we going to be good at?” and equally as important, “What are we going to be bad at?” You can’t be great at everything, and trying to do so makes you worse at everything. Companies that do this the best and have their strengths aligned with something customers will pay for rise to the top. Strong focus allows companies to say no to opportunities that would be distracting and put their resources only towards what will make them successful. In VP land we’ve long been at the game of trying to do everything without a real strategy that addresses our very real constraints.
A well-known example of focus and tradeoffs can be found in Apple. What are they really good at and focused on? High-end design and the quality manufacturing of consumer electronics. What are they bad at? They have high prices and pretty limited variety of products with limited flexibility in what you can use their products to do. When Steve Jobs returned in the late nineties to a nearly bankrupt Apple, he cut their product line by 70% down to 4 core products. That is focus.
Apple trades off cost against quality, which are natural tradeoffs – it’s hard to do both well, and it’s better to focus on one or the other. The much-maligned F-35 program is a good example of how a desire to everything great (i.e. lack of focus) costs a lot of money and ensures that you are never that great at anything.
What are all the things that VP tries to do well? Starting with our mission set, we do ASW, ASUW, ISR, C2, MIW, SAR. For the sake of brevity I’ll leave it at those missions, but you could break them down further by weapon type, over-land vs. maritime, etc. Outside of the missions, we do aircraft maintenance, ordnance handling and loading, admin, Intel, IT support, classified material handling and storage, legal, mission training, MWR, geedunk, medical, scheduling, NATOPs, Safety, and on and on and on… This post aims to provide 3 ways we can be more focused.
1. Organizational Focus:
A VP Squadron has one core mission: put maritime patrol aircraft on station, on-time, and execute the mission. A VP Wing’s core mission is to support the VP Squadrons under it. If I wanted to put more of our constrained resources towards our core mission at the squadron level, I would start by getting rid of legal, admin, IT support, and the geedunk. All of these functions could be centralized at the Wing level. There would be a lot of tangible benefits to doing this: economies of scale, increased standardization, freeing up resources of the squadron… But even better is that the strategic advantage would be to put these support functions where they align with the core mission of their parent organization.
There would be growing pains in that you’d lose some responsiveness and customization, but I’d argue that VP squadron doesn’t need or want to be great at these functions anyway, but the VP wing does. The functions mentioned above are just a starting point. Safety/NATOPs could be the ending point. There’s really no reason why that function needs to be duplicated in every squadron.
2. Mission Focus:
On the mission side, the VP community has allowed our core competency of ASW to be diluted by requiring competency in ever more complex, diverse, and disparate missions. There might be good reasons to diversify our capabilities, but focus would demand us to have an honest discussion about what we’re going to be great at. Start with the actual utility of some capability and compare it to how difficult that capability is to maintain. Then look for overlap with other capabilities to get some scale economies. For instance, ASW and MIW have some overlapping training and execution requirements. If we’re good at ASW, it doesn’t cost much for us to be good at MIW also.
However, if we want to also be good at Maritime Air Support, which is a totally different skillset from ASW, it costs a lot more. Add enough of these disparate missions to the requirements and you’ll eventually run out of resources to attain any sort of excellence.
Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, it could be a hybrid model. For example, half of our squadrons could be great at ISR and ASUW, half of our squadrons are going to be great at ASW and Mining. You’d get better tactical performance but trade off against only having half the global capacity for either mission.
3. Competency Focus (be ready only when you need it):
But maybe the Navy needs us to be the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. After all, the original name for the P-8 was the Multi-mission Aircraft. Because our missions are too dissimilar and require high levels of specialized training, it’s foolish to think every aircrew could be good at every mission, all the time.
One could logically say it’s a waste to be ready for 100% of our mission set when we only utilize 10%. For example, getting ASW ready only to deploy to El Sal or the Middle East is wasted effort. An even bigger waste of resources is to try to maintain an unutilized capability during high op-tempos (EMATTEX in the Arabian Gulf comes to mind as a giant waste of time and morale-killer). And if there is one certainty, it’s that the VP Navy can’t predict which mission set will be most utilized.
Rather than try to be great at all these disparate missions all the time, which is extremely costly, we could change what we define as our core competency. It’d be much more effective to be great at rapid training, ramp-up, and capability deployment as needed. In simpler terms, we should be great at adapting to real-world situations by making our core competency to be ramping-up aircrews and airplanes for specific missions really fast.
Of course, there are some missions that require too much training to be able to ramp up quickly (like ASW). And we’d need to be competent in the missions required for our deployments. And if we wanted to rapidly train our crews, we’d probably need trainers to train and possible serve as rapid response teams while the rest get up to speed. I think the Wing’s WTU and/or the MPRWS could fill those roles quite nicely.
- Focus allows for excellence in something by trading off against something else
- VP Squadrons can focus on mission performance by trading off their support functions to the Wing
- VP Navy can focus on specific missions by reducing the number of missions (i.e. no more ASUW) or by reducing the number of aircrew required to be competent in each mission (i.e. half ASW, half ASUW)
- VP Navy could be ready for a wide variety of missions only when needed, not all the time. To accomplish this best, redefine our core competency as the ability to rapidly train and deploy capabilities as needed.
We’ve been guilty of not having a coherent strategy for too long. Rather, we’ve just been blindly following our marching orders: be combat ready at an ever-increasing number of diverse mission sets, and transition to a new aircraft. Meanwhile our P-3s get older, our budget is uncertain year over year, our adversaries are improving and other platforms are outperforming us at everything. I’ll add that the P-8 is not going to solve the fundamental problems within our community. The P-8 is only solving surface level issues – without focus, without strategy, we’ll be left scratching our heads as to why P-8 squadrons don’t seem to be performing that well.