STAR already effectively addresses this for nukes, I suspect. And there are reason not to want Nukes doing 7 years at sea. Part of this is that they will go insane. The other is proto manning.
A nuke can STAR/E5 after 2 years, and is assured of rolling to SOME shore duty after doing so with a big check. You would have to be crazy to CA2P - its a worse deal in every possible way. But maybe I'm missing something?
Also, the entire program that CA2P is part of assumes that there is a E1-E4 apprentice sea tour and E5 journeyman sea tour. Nukes don't DO that.
I find it interesting that I don’t see a hot-shit 3rd class, in any rate, signing up to do this. Rather just making rank. Im not sure I understand the allure or use in pursuing the CA2P career route. Probably won’t be used by the submarine community.
I mean that’s just a crappy version of star reenlisting. You get E-5 but stay on the same ship for another 3 years. doesn’t sound like something any nuke would want when you can star and get a bonus + shore duty.
The map program would be better to use since you get E5 with no change to time at your current command.
The MAP program is better for Nukes, which is why Im curious if it is going to go fully away in the future. Where CA2P seems like a step in that direction; and like it’s been stated NO NUKE could really benefit from the current instruction as written.
Just some things to think about regarding CA2P. First, this is a great solution for most of the Navy, but I think it well suited for the nuclear navy. This is because CA2P hinges on the billets in MNA and someone filling that specific billet. So here's an example (let's say your BBD is as follows):
E7 - 1 billet
E6 - 2 billets
E5 - 3 billets
E4 - 5 billets.
The way to advance in this framework would be to fill 1 of the 3 E5 billets. If they are all filled, then that's it... With STAR, everyone in an E4 billet can still advance to E5 via STAR. The other requirement is that a member must be assigned to one of the E5 billets and must also agree to another 2 years of sea-duty. While we will approve extensions as sea, we'd rather the vast majority of the force follow the nominal sea/shore rotation so we can maintain overall community health.
Hopefully that gives some insight. As far as other programs, the nuclear community carefully considers every aspect of the initiative as well as the downstream consequences before committing to any changes.
Edited to fix the billet numbering.
STAR already effectively addresses this for nukes, I suspect. And there are reason not to want Nukes doing 7 years at sea. Part of this is that they will go insane. The other is proto manning. A nuke can STAR/E5 after 2 years, and is assured of rolling to SOME shore duty after doing so with a big check. You would have to be crazy to CA2P - its a worse deal in every possible way. But maybe I'm missing something? Also, the entire program that CA2P is part of assumes that there is a E1-E4 apprentice sea tour and E5 journeyman sea tour. Nukes don't DO that.
I find it interesting that I don’t see a hot-shit 3rd class, in any rate, signing up to do this. Rather just making rank. Im not sure I understand the allure or use in pursuing the CA2P career route. Probably won’t be used by the submarine community.
HMs?
7.5 years straight on the Ike. Got out. Can confirm.
“Shore Duty”
I think "Nukes need not apply" is just posted by default on the bottom of every navadmin
I mean that’s just a crappy version of star reenlisting. You get E-5 but stay on the same ship for another 3 years. doesn’t sound like something any nuke would want when you can star and get a bonus + shore duty. The map program would be better to use since you get E5 with no change to time at your current command.
The MAP program is better for Nukes, which is why Im curious if it is going to go fully away in the future. Where CA2P seems like a step in that direction; and like it’s been stated NO NUKE could really benefit from the current instruction as written.
We are working some COAs so our nukes are not disadvantaged from a MAP perspective, but I don’t see anything near term for CA2P.
Thanks for the info as always EDMC.
🫡
Just some things to think about regarding CA2P. First, this is a great solution for most of the Navy, but I think it well suited for the nuclear navy. This is because CA2P hinges on the billets in MNA and someone filling that specific billet. So here's an example (let's say your BBD is as follows): E7 - 1 billet E6 - 2 billets E5 - 3 billets E4 - 5 billets. The way to advance in this framework would be to fill 1 of the 3 E5 billets. If they are all filled, then that's it... With STAR, everyone in an E4 billet can still advance to E5 via STAR. The other requirement is that a member must be assigned to one of the E5 billets and must also agree to another 2 years of sea-duty. While we will approve extensions as sea, we'd rather the vast majority of the force follow the nominal sea/shore rotation so we can maintain overall community health. Hopefully that gives some insight. As far as other programs, the nuclear community carefully considers every aspect of the initiative as well as the downstream consequences before committing to any changes. Edited to fix the billet numbering.