Visit our Popular Forums

kmacdonald · 20-02-2019, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

FWIW, because it's not really relevant to the topic, but I disagree.

The root cause.

Service in the military is a place where men often fulfill the very greatest of their potential -- being fully part of something greater than themselves, devoting themselves, even unto death, to honor and service.

No. They do not encourage free thought. Stifling work environment. If you need it you will be issued it.

And on other days it can be a bureaucratic clusterfumble.

But those things don't contradict each other -- bureaucratic clusterfumbles are inherent to large organizations.

Of course you are supposed to do what you are told -- it wouldn't work without subordination and following orders. Neither does it work in a company or any other large organization.

Not if it causes the lives of sailors. Common sense needs to be practiced.

The problem with U.S. Navy destroyer collisions has nothing to do with people blindly following orders or the culture of the military. It is an organizational problem.

Culture problem. Personnel problem.

As to the mission of the military -- well, I'm a pacifist, and I'm against every war we've been involved with since WWII. But sometimes even the most enlightened nation has to defend itself -- and for that, you need an effective military. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Don't blame the military, for the chronic stupidity and fecklessness of our politicians.

Yes, very good point.

jmorrison146 · 20-02-2019, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well thank you for your service. Did you observe the USN's fixing process enough to describe it?

The best are trained in, practice (ideally in a full-mission simulator), and operate with the concepts of Crew Resource Management which evolved from aviation's "Cockpit Resource Management" which was stolen from best practices aboard warships. Used to be called "Bridge Resource Management" but "Crew" denotes its value to boat crews. Can be adapted to any high-performance team as the elements of effective teamwork:

Leadership
Communication
Resource Management
Adaptability
Situational Awareness
Assertiveness
Decision Making

No element has precedence, all are concurrent and codependent. Specific tactical tools are in practiced to support each element.

SV_Harbinger · 20-02-2019, 11:19

In regards to the material condition of the Fitz I unfortunately have to say she is/was not unique in the fact that many of her systems were in degraded status, it is becoming an increasing issue fleet wide, and while my experience has nothing to do with surface operations and is over a decade old, I can't imagine the problem has gotten any better in that time.
Without naming vessels or time frames I can go into a myriad of issues, Auxilary drain systems with inoperative pumps, replaced with off the shelf air powered diaphragm pumps with hoses duct taped into tank vents, main hydraulic systems that are in a permanent state of manual bypass, a culture of make do, and carry on, where just under half the jobs are chocked up into the defered maintenance pile.
That's on the ship side, on the crew side, there was increasing reliance on computerized click through training, and rapidly decreasing actual hands on training, by the time I was getting out there were new MMs reporting aboard that had never actually held a tool throughout their entire A-school, I can't imagine that the situation was any better for non engineering rates. Most of the training even for a "rated" individual was rapidly turning to OJT, making them very little better than your average "striker"
Just my 2cents worth, however while I was in there were some fantastic chiefs and 1st classes that really and truly knew their stuff and passed on the tribal knowledge. End rant.....

kmacdonald · 20-02-2019, 12:16

Yes, there are some exceptional career navy personnel but there are far to few to safely and professionally operate a ship. The "click through" training doesn't catch the aptitude, or lack there of, of the student. You see, certain people are trainable for certain positions and others aren't. Trying to put a square block in a round hole just doesn't work well.

Years back the military went through a restructuring where anything that wasn't directly related to battle was to be done by contractors. It was done to eliminate the shotty work by unskilled and untrained military personnel. (and a shell game with budgeting) That's not a smack down of the military personnel. We all know we learn the first time doing something and improve on it each additional time. It might be time to take that a step further. There may still be a need for a small contingency of brainwashed soldiers who will gladly go into battle facing certain death if only to escape the wrath of military discipline. The sharper specimens don't follow that tradition and leave the military ASAP.

SV_Harbinger · 20-02-2019, 13:09

That was more or less exactly my point, and born out by evidence presented by the goat locker from the Fitz most of them 10 years ago were probably either 3rd or 2nd classes and with dwindling retention the bar gets unavoidably set lower, the attempted remedy was the Perform to Serve program but that based the ability to remain in based on promotion to the next higher paygrade not the ability to perform one's job effectively, there by putting more emphasis on passing the promotion exam, and less on actual technical aptitude... if you test well, you usually advance well... couple that with reduced training standards..... along side political pressure and quotas within the advancement system so that a certain predetermined percentage of minorities get advanced even if they scored in what would otherwise have been a PNA (Passed but Not Advanced) situation. Blaming the skipper seems to me to be the easy way out, yes it was his boat and he is ultimately responsible for his ship, but so are the by that vein is squadron commander, on up.
When I was still in there was a big stink made about the whole Newport News/Mogamigawa collision, some heads rolled minor changes were made, then the Huston/New Orleans happened a few years later, some more new minor operating restrictions. I expect the same is going to happen with these .... head rolling, admirals yapping, a couple small procedure changes and very little to take care of the main issues of deteriorating vessels and there crews ....

Lodesman · 20-02-2019, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

The testiness comes from a curmudgeon making broad, sweeping statements like the entire US surface navy serves no purpose and should be disbanded.

I noticed an annoying buzzing sound too. FCR can't lock onto a target that small and insignificant, so I suggest ignoring it and hopefully it will go away.

kmacdonald · 20-02-2019, 15:49

Considering by the Navys own estimation it's surface fleet wouldn't last 20 minutes in a major conflict, it really doesn't make sense to continue funding it. It lost its bark a long time ago. I know, traditions are hard to break and there are those that will never let go. Reminds me of the dinosaur.

Lodesman · 21-02-2019, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Considering by the Navys own estimation it's surface fleet wouldn't last 20 minutes in a major conflict

Cite the reference, or it's BS.

Who were the first combat forces in the theatre of operations for the "war on terrorism" (Afghanistan/Iraq)? - The Navy.

This article touches on the benefits provided by naval forces: https://features.propublica.org/navy...-cause-mccain/

kmacdonald · 21-02-2019, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Cite the reference, or it's BS.

Who were the first combat forces in the theatre of operations for the "war on terrorism" (Afghanistan/Iraq)? - The Navy.

This article touches on the benefits provided by naval forces: https://features.propublica.org/navy...-cause-mccain/

https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-r...modern-weapons

It would be easy to cite pages of sources. Google it if you really need convincing. We all know your connection to the Navy and it's traditions but it's time to let go----past time in fact.

**Jim Cate** · 21-02-2019, 14:15

Quote:

Considering by the Navys own estimation it's surface fleet wouldn't last 20 minutes in a major conflict

If by this you mean an all out nuclear war, the only likely survivors would be the submarine fleet. All surface forces would be decimated... Army, Marines and Air Force. Perhaps some silo based missiles would survive the first strikes... but in reality, by that time it really doesn't matter. Civilization as we know it would be gone.

In the meantime, for conflicts of a lesser nature the Navy does present a useful force as it stands. Could it be better? Of course, and these incidents show that, but disbanding it as you suggest would leave a rather big hole in our defenses.

Jim

kmacdonald · 21-02-2019, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

If by this you mean an all out nuclear war, the only likely survivors would be the submarine fleet. All surface forces would be decimated... Army, Marines and Air Force. Perhaps some silo based missiles would survive the first strikes... but in reality, by that time it really doesn't matter. Civilization as we know it would be gone.

In the meantime, for conflicts of a lesser nature the Navy does present a useful force as it stands. Could it be better? Of course, and these incidents show that, but disbanding it as you suggest would leave a rather big hole in our defenses.

Jim

You mean like the Faulklands? Read the link I posted. Argentina didn't use nukes.

Threatening defenseless third world countries with force has lost it's appeal due to world pressures. It's just not in vogue any longer.

psk125 · 21-02-2019, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

You mean like the Faulklands? Read the link I posted. Argentina didn't use nukes.

Threatening defenseless third world countries with force has lost it's appeal due to world pressures. It's just not in vogue any longer.

It's not in vogue any longer? Somebody tell Ann Coulter to let Him know.