That is a good point because I think he loved his work. Can’t imagine him as a captain or deputy chief, allocating work to others.

While I was serving, it was considered a death trap and some Marine squadrons were busted falsifying maintenance records (probably under orders) to make their performance look better.  The truth of things was it didn't have the lifting capacity of the SH-53, but had greater speed.  The transition from hovering to forward flight, as I recall was one of the most dangerous moments.  Thing is, experiments on those types of aircraft went back to the 60s.

Out in the surface Navy, we had the AEGIS Weapon System, which was on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and the new Arleigh Burke destroyers.  It used a phased array radar to identify and designate targets for surface to air missiles.  The radar was electronically directed, rather than a rotating dish that projected the beam.  We saw a demonstration, as a midshipman, of the control station in the Combat Information Center.  It had a rollerball controller, like an arcade game and it was rather like playing Missile Command,  Problem was, the radar was often down, or some other elements of the system and you were constantly ordering emergency repair parts to get it operational.  We had what was known as Casualty reports (or CASREPS), whenever a piece of equipment was down, which inhibuted your ability to carry out your mission (engines, navigation radar, fire control systems, etc).  The most CASREPed system in the US Navy, in the early 90s was the AEGIS Weapon System.  A close second was the Close In Weapon System, which is the R2D2 looking mini gun station, that you see firing in the Wonder Woman 84 trailer...




The radars were very twitchy.  In that trailer, you see them being used as an offensive weapon.  They are only for defense, designed to destroy inbound missiles.  They also show them mounted in tandem and the are usually only mounted as a single weapon or one forward and one aft, on a big ship.  They use a spent uranium projectile, with a very dense mass, to destroy the missile.  However, as was shown in the first Gulf War, when the round hits a target, uranium dust in released into the atmosphere and there was a strong link between spent uranium munitions in the Gulf War and Gulf War Syndrome and the cancer rates of people living in the battle zones of that war.  There were also links to experimental vaccines taken against potential chemical weapons.  There has been a fight going on ever since the war, much like the fight to recognize Agent Orange health issues, with the Vietnam Era Vets. 

I thought this was interesting:

Tom Cruise Had Some Really Kind Words For The Navy 'Heroes' Who Helped Him Prepare For Top Gun: Maverick

Not sure what happened with that link, but this is another interesting one:

people.com/movies/tom-cruise-jerry-bruckheimer-become-honorary-naval-aviators

Here's a bit of fun, from the Legal Eagle channel, on Youtube, as he and a former JAG officer explore the number of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by Maverick....



Couple of errors within it, as the ex-Marine JAG served later and lacked some perspective on the era. The host mentions violating the California motorcycle helmet law, which didn't come into existence until a year or two later. However, the JAG missed the fact that DOD regulations require all service members to wear helmets while operating a motorcycle (and hard-soled boots, long pants and other protective gear) and seatblets, in a motor vehicle.

The host brings up the alleged gay subtext and the JAG says it would be a no-no within the chain of command; but, not necessarily in their private lives. That is completely wrong. The film was released in 1986, when admitting to being a homosexual or the military producing evidence of homosexual activity was grounds for dismissal from the service. It didn't matter how good your service record was, you were out. This changed in 1994, when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," came into effect; BUT, only in the matter of the military asking if you were a homosexual. The military was barred from asking if a service member was a homosexual; but, the service members also were barred from openly admitting their sexual orientation. If they did, they were dismissed from the service, for violating that policy. You could not be kicked out for suspicion of being a homosexual; but, you could be kicked out for openly declaring that you were gay. It was a while before serving openly as a homosexual service member was allowed. The Jag served in the post-9/11 military.

It's not covered in too great a depth, but the JAG cites the two major charges of "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman" and "Disobeying a Direct Order." The latter is pretty self-explanatory, as is the charge he brings up a couple of times for deliberately hazarding his aircraft. "Conduct Unbecoming" is a massive "catch-all" that pretty much covers any action that might embarrass the Navy, regardless of criminal intent or disobedience. It has been used against whistle-blowers and others, for political reasons, as well as deserved behaviors, like sexual harassment, drunken behavior and to just pile on charges for criminal offenses, when they really want to throw the book at someone.

Military law is quite different from civilian and is also a separate jurisdiction. A servicemember can commit a criminal offense and be tried in civilian court, then face charges under the UCMJ, for the same offense. I took part in the court martial of a warrant officer, from one of the squadron's ships, where the warrant officer had been charged with sexually molesting his stepdaughter. She broke down and told a school guidance counselor, who immediately reported the situation to the Charleston, SC authorities, who arrested him and he was tried in civilian court. Now, he was facing military justice for violations of the UCMJ. He was ultimately sentenced to 10 years, hard labor, at Leavenworth. I am not a violent person; but, as I heard some of the testimony, I was glad I did not carry a sidearm, as I am not exactly sure I wouldn't have used it. Anyway, usually, the civilian authorities will turn over the case to the military, for disposition; but, not always. depends on the offense. I had a disbursing clerk who was arrested by the civilian authority for possession of cocaine and he was remanded into Navy custody, then brought up on charges, for Captain's Mast (non-judicial punishment....like the principal of the school dishing out punishment; but, he can bust you back a grade in school, take away 2/3 of your allowance for 60 days (and a reduced pay rate, since you were busted a grade) and give you 90 days detention and extra homework). He was administratively discharged from the Navy, for violating the drug policy. While he was under arrest, his situation was compounded by the results of a random urinalysis which indicated cocaine in his system. Nice guy and good worker; but, he had a problem. I had to sign off on his paperwork, as he left and wished him well, but told him he needed to seek help to deal with the drugs and rebuild his life. No idea whatever happened to him.

The Marine officers go through The Basic School, where they are trained as infantry officers first, including weapons, before going on to their specialty.  Some switch from a previous specialty to JAG.  I knew a Marine captain who was a pilot and transferred to the JAG Corps, after earning his law degree.  The JAG officer in the video did that, as well.

In the Navy, most came into the JAG Corps directly from law school; often the Navy paid for their schooling, in return for a term of service.  I don't know for certain; but, I suspect they also have an OCS recruitment, similar to Supply Corps and the Medical Corps, putting them through a commissioning program, then sending them to a specialty training school (that was the normal method for Supply Corps officers; OCS then 6 months of Supply Corps School).  They might do a weapons qualification; but, in my time, that was pretty much only while you were assigned to a ship, a security billet, or with the SEALs.  I don't recall any of the destroyer squadron staff having to qualify with weapons.  A couple went to the pistol range to try to earn a pistol marksman badge; but, that was about it.  I tried it once, but sucked horribly, due to my myopia and the .38 revolvers we were using.  I have smaller hands and the pistol was a bit cumbersome, to me.  I did much better on board ship, with a .45 and qualified with pistol and 12 gauge shotgun (of course, I only had to fire three rounds and hit the ocean!).  I did fire weapons during my midshipman training cruises, handling a .50 cal machine gun, during my first cruise, an M-16A2 rifle and M203 grenade launcher, on my second.  I grew up in a family that hunted and had target fired a .22 rifle and hunted with my own 20 ga. shotgun.

Medical Corps starts out at Lieutenant Rank (equivalent to an Army captain) and I think the JAG Corps does, too, because of the level of schooling and the nature of their work.  Supply Corps started as lowly ensigns, which meant we got treated like @#$%, doubly, as supply officers (not everyone; but, there was a certain subset of line officers who looked down on supply officers) and as "butter bars."

Usually, it is only in highly specialized fields, with great technical schooling, that the officer starts at a higher rank.  Pilots go through a lot of training before they are assigned to a squadron and are usually at least a Lt(jg), when they arrive, which you usually get after 2 years service.  I could be wrong about that, though.  Seems to me it is similar, for the SEALs; but, I am not sure about that.  I know that midshipman who wanted to go into Nuclear Power, Aviation or Special Warfare (SEALs) had a 6 year commitment, instead of the usual 4 (or 5, for some midshipman who got certain engineering degrees, which required more than the usual 4 years).  Most of that was because you were going to go through a much longer training process (Nuke School and Prototype are about a year, in total and BUD/S and SEAL Tactical Training are about a year, cumulative.  Flight School is quite lengthy; but, I am not sure how long, exactly, before earning your wings.)

You can also have an officer transfer into a restricted line, who is already at a higher rank.  My class at Supply Corps School had a lieutenant, who came from submarines, who switched to supply.  He was the ranking officer for my class and also for the students in the program, at the time.  We also had a warrant officer, who was a chief who was promoted to warrant rank.  The rest of us were ensigns, fresh from the Academy, NROTC or OCS.

A military court martial does not have a jury, per se.  There is a panel of senior officers who determine the verdict or just a single judge, depending on the offense.  The prosecuting and defending attorneys argue before the judge or panel.  The court martial where I acted as bailiff was just a single judge (a Marine colonel).  Service members can have civilian lawyers, though.  They act in conjunction with a military defense attorney, who provides expertise about military legal procedure and statutes.  The warrant officer who was tried in the case in which I participated had a civilian lawyer, with a Navy defense attorney.  The prosecuting team was a Navy lieutenant and the Marine captain I mentioned earlier (the ex-pilot).  I only knew from Hollywood and was surprised to see the civilian defense attorney and the Marine captain speaking, during a recess, about a few things that occurred.  Not within the case; but in the courtroom.  The Navy prosecutor was being a bit overzealous and wasn't listening to some of the responses given by a few civilian witnesses (therapists who were involved in treating the warrant officer, as part of his sentence from the civilian court) and was creating a hostile environment.  The judge reprimanded him for not listening to the witnesses and warned him to tone it down.  They were discussing that; and, the judge, in general.  The judge chewed tobacco during the entire trial and kept a spittoon beneath his desk and would periodically spit into it (Ping!).  The Marine captain said he was known to spit at a lawyer who ticked him off greatly!.

Back to the jury.  It is a panel, made up of officers, usually, though the accused, if an enlisted member, may request that 1/3 of the panel consist of enlisted personnel.  It's usually a panel of 3, but it can be more.

You also have "non-judicial punishment," under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Marines refer to it as "Office Hours," while the Navy calls it "Captain's Mast," as it was traditionally conducted before the main mast, on a sailing vessel.  Charges are brought against a servicemember for less serious offenses and then referred to the commanding officer, under Article 15.  The CO then hears the case and renders judgement and is legally authorized to issue certain limited punishments.  In the Navy system, charges would be brought, which would first go to XOI, or Executive Officer's Investigation.  The XO would hear the charges, listen to the accused's defense and could dismiss it outright, if he or she felt the charges were unfair or refer it to the CO, for disposition.  The one time I was involved with XOI, on my first ship, the XO referred every charge to the CO; but, then again, he was a complete a-hole, beyond the normal levels expected of the XO (XO is usually Bad Cop and the CO is Good Cop, though you can have Bad Cop and Even Worse Cop).  Those referred to the CO are then brought before the Commanding Officer and the charges are read.  The CO then asks the accused to state their side and then renders judgement.  In the Navy, he could reduce the accused one grade in rank, take away a portion (up to 2/3) of their pay for a specific period (up to either 60 or 90 days; my memory is hazy on that point), restrict them to the ship for up to 90 days, and assign them to extra duty, beyond their normal duties.  He can give any of those punishements or a combination of them, if he really wants to send a message.  The real kicker is if he reduces them in rank and takes away pay, as their pay is determined at the new lower rank.  So, they get busted a grade and then earn less money because of it; AND, get up to 2/3 of it taken away from them.  You'd be surprised at how quickly someone shapes up when they have money taken away!  Lot of kids out of high school suddenly grow up.

Captain's Mast was a pretty formal affair.  The Master at Arms brings in the accused, in full military bearing.  They stand at attention while the charges are read and must answer formally and can only relax if the CO puts them at Parade Rest (which they rarely do).  It is not a good place to shoot your mouth off (which was often why young sailors ended up at Captain's Mast).  I chief I worked with had served on a destroyer that had been commanded by the squadron's then-current Chief Staff Officer (second in command of the squadron).  He was a witness for a sailor who was brought up on charges of disobedience and disorderly conduct.  The accused kept violating protocol, was belligerent, and then leaned over th captain's podium.  The CO was second generation Navy and a no-BS guy.  He dismissed everyone but the accused from his quarters (where Mast was held).  The chief said they all left and closed the door.  he said he heard a loud smack, followed by a thump.  They were called back in and found the accused sailor lying on the deck, unconscious.  The captain told the master at arms to "Get this POS out of my stateroom!" and that was that.  Now, legally, an officer cannot strike an enlisted member, except in self defense; but, there were no witnesses that anything to prove anything other than the accused tripping and falling to the deck, knocking himself out, occurred.   I really respected that officer, as he was always straight with you, had no time for the politics and BS that seemed to come with the officer corps, and did what really needed to be done, giving praise where it was due, and handling discipline in private.  I always tried to think of how he would handle things, as a manager, in civilian life.  Well, minus swearing at incompetent leaders and cold-cocking loudmouth punks who are asking for it.  Civilians get uptight about that.