|
A.o.D. posted:What's absolutely astonishing is that Captain Watson was allowed to finish out his career and retire. It's that, plus he was very well connected. He spent the next six years in Hawaii then retired at the same rank.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Officers were, and in some cases still are, actual American nobility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
The accused Sailor for the BHR fire is a BUD/S dud that got stuck in Deck. A likely scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
DustyNuts posted:The accused Sailor for the BHR fire is a BUD/S dud that got stuck in Deck. A likely scapegoat. https://twitter.com/JustinRohrlich/status/1422755150637195265?s=19 Possibly but also something someone who thought they were king poo poo and got told gently caress off by both the Navy and girl. Men will burn down a ship rather than go to therapy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Who in deck department hasn’t thought it let’s be real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Who in deck department hasn’t thought it let’s be real. Or surface Navy in general. But most of us just sublimated the destructive impulse into drinking ourselves to sleep each night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
In the single most miserable command I was ever at someone in engineering allegedly threw some cheap but very hard to get a replacement part overboard when it was announced our "temporary" 120 hour workweek push became indefinite and the consensus in deck department was that they were the hero we needed. I honestly could not have cared less about "tHe MiSsIoN. After months of being treated with contempt and mocked for being undes you learn to just give it back. Also the added detail about his girlfriend being pregnant or not being pregnant or cheating on him or whatever and 3rd class dipshit telling the news "I'm like KINDA totally sure it's him because he was also wearing blue coveralls also firefighting gear that we totally did the maintenance on right was sabotaged in some vague way!!!" is screaming some pretty big USS Iowa vibes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Also I saw on reddit discussing it, someone pointed out that the DCA, one of the people claiming it was deliberate sabotage, had greenlighted all the hoses that when it turned out where 1/4 actually worked. They really are hitting all the notes for an Iowa 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
I wonder if this dude did more damage than the guy who caught the GW on fire? What is the total we are looking at for damage to ships from sailor caused fires in the last 15 years? 5 Billion? Seems odd that the Navy is its own worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
At least you guys didn't get 20% of your destroyers sunk in one night like some European shitbirds managed to do 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
IncredibleIgloo posted:I wonder if this dude did more damage than the guy who caught the GW on fire? What is the total we are looking at for damage to ships from sailor caused fires in the last 15 years? 5 Billion? Seems odd that the Navy is its own worst enemy. Aren’t they scrapping it? If so I’m sure that beats the GW fire. Also even if it wasn’t destroying its own ships the Navy would still be its own worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
Yeah, GW was something like $75 million in damage (probably more accounting for inflation). Change compared to the $3.5 billion or so it costs to build an LHD nowdays. But yeah. the Navy is still its own worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
The Valley Stared posted:Yeah, GW was something like $75 million in damage (probably more accounting for inflation). Change compared to the $3.5 billion or so it costs to build an LHD nowdays. I am surprised it was that little. I had, at the time, heard through the grapevine that a lot of the cables and instrumentation for the aft EDG room was destroyed and would imagine the Rx fill system would have needed a pretty thorough testing and commissioning processes after the fact. Glad they were able to get it done for less than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
Wibla posted:At least you guys didn't get 20% of your destroyers sunk in one night like some European shitbirds managed to do Close enough to check it off the list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Close enough to check it off the list. It was 7 out of 156 Clemsons, that's not even close lol Drachinifel wasn't kidding when he said the US had a "Clemson Swarm".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
... 4.5% loss. That's about one Bonhomme Richard and two DDGs, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
HMCS Calgary is in Auckland and has been for a few days. I noticed this as I left work tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
I was thinking "Well, Calgary......Stampdede, yeah I guess that makes sense" and then I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
Why a making GBS threads Ford Mustang logo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Someone should really tell the CO to touch up that paint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Way ahead of you!!!  I'd wager someone got a reaming for it
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
"Yeah, that'll do."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 04:00
|
|
|
Snitch
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
I've got a better idea for a touch up. See, the problem is that a few months at sea will just restore the rust stain. You need to do something to make it look intentional.  I feel like that change will really class up the ship. A.o.D. fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
I assumed the SWOLE act would mandate performance enhancing drugs for active duty, but specialist SWO paths are also plausible. Clearly a response to https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-154 and https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-168. I think funded research into SWO retention probably should happen. The text of act, as of now, breaks SWO into two: engineers and not engineers and commissions a study with fairlybl loose requirements. It also holds hostage 25% of navy funding FY22 until the Navy develops standards to earn a rating endorsement, merchant mariner credentials, and associated standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Merchant Marine credentials seems huge. I never hear about SWOs getting out to drive ships and it seems like something of a societal waste. Actual good change?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Dorstein posted:Merchant Marine credentials seems huge. I never hear about SWOs getting out to drive ships and it seems like something of a societal waste. Wait, your SWO's dont sit for the NMC deck officer exams? Any SWO track graduates from the  Naval War College also sit for the Norwegian equivalent of the NMC ONC01 (Master/Chief Mate Unlimited Tonnage) license exams as part of their education, but I guess the  Navy had a better idea 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
piL posted:I assumed the SWOLE act would mandate performance enhancing drugs for active duty, but specialist SWO paths are also plausible. Is the GAO study saying there aren't metrics in those areas like proficiency and retention cause thats insane if so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
If I could have left the navy with the ability to immediately go be a deck officer on a merchant ship, I would have done so and kept at it. I miss shipdriving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
piL posted:I assumed the SWOLE act would mandate performance enhancing drugs for active duty, but specialist SWO paths are also plausible. Just a minor correction, SWO will be chopped into three - engineering, combat systems, and operations. This is a good thing, imo, and I'm in full support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If I could have left the navy with the ability to immediately go be a deck officer on a merchant ship, I would have done so and kept at it. I miss shipdriving. You maybe could have (well, not immediately, but within a year), but Navy Cool isn't well advertised to officers and it would have required you to have done a lot of research. https://www.cool.osd.mil/usn/officer/odc111x.htm As far as I can tell, you'd need a test and a training program (five-week course) for your third-mate license. I was looking into this as early as 2016, so if you got out before then, I'm not sure, but it was basically this going back--you need experience and a test and 1080 days of time. It's 60% of time assigned (or a more complicated formula before 2014 I think). So 48 months of sea tour standard among SWOs would have gotten you 876 days. An extra 7 months of sea duty would get you the rest of the way. Or, if you got out after DIVO tours, if you were planning on it, I suspect Millington would have jumped at the opportunity to fill a gap somewhere on a ship /OPHOLD you for an extra 8 months if you explained it was part of your transition, especially if you discussed it as you were dropping papers. If you went to the Academy or ROTC, you owed 5 years anyway, so it wouldn't have changed a timeline. If you went to OCS, you had a GI bill to go to get underway training, and there's probably a way to ask for only a year while still drawing a stipend and BAH. See: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/military_sea_service/ https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/professional_qualifications/officers.pdf I think. But I'm not really sure and so there's risk. Risk you're probably not interested in calculating after back-to-back sea tours either as a DIVO or a DH and whatever happened during them that makes a SWO not sign on for more. It's been a minute since I've dug into it, it's all very complicated, I wouldn't be confident about putting myself through all that without more research. I'm surprised there isn't some headhunting agency slamming SWOs through a pipeline and taking a fee. Mr. Nice! posted:Just a minor correction, SWO will be chopped into three - engineering, combat systems, and operations. This is a good thing, imo, and I'm in full support. The article reads like that, but act doesn't: a classic case of Panda Violence. The Current Draft posted:4 ‘‘§ 8140. Regular Navy: officers designated for surface I agree that most likely the Navy would make the Operations/Combat Systems category as two separate subcategories if this made it through without amendment, but maybe not. There's a few different ways to tackle it and "Engineers" and "Non-Engineers" has some advantages that might appease the salts who prefer jacks-of-all-trades. piL fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Aug 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I got out in 2013 but had only done one of my divo tours. Was medically discharged because of a torn hip that was misdiagnosed as cerebral ballsy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Is the GAO study saying there aren't metrics in those areas like proficiency and retention cause thats insane if so. Proficiency metrics are a very complicated problem. The military, and the Navy especially, is quite bad at collecting the data for things like 'proficiency'. There's a few reasons for this. First is the nefarious one all minds immediately jump to: that they may reveal the the dishonesty in the system that's required for the system to function, or find a problem that they now have to 'fix' when they have other problems they need to fix first. People who don't behave in a risk-adverse fashion are removed from positions of leadership. Second is that, while a technical service, very few Naval Officers have the requisite training to actually conduct meaningful science, by merit of going into a demanding career right after graduating college. Very few of the decision makers have done science, and so the Navy often does have metrics, but they don't match GAO's expectation of rigor. Third: leadership is scared of the tail wagging the dog. People trying to measure proficiency standards is how you get a bunch of multiple choice tests that are a useful start but certainly can't test control under pressure. Very well meaning, very smart leaders fight back against attempts to include tests when they'd rather people do training, since nobody knows what the real test of military contest will be. Fourth: leadership is aware the community is overworked and unhappy about it, and stonewalling more opportunities for examinations which put more stress on the JOs and add logistical challenges to getting ships underway is incentivized. Fifth: Proficiency examinations for programs like these are going to be incredibly subjective. Regarding retention, I'm sure there are some metrics, but it's not an easy one to tackle and not one Naval Officers are equipped to do. When a SWO hates sea duty and isn't going back, but stays on for three years of shore duty first while they focus on preparing to transition out, are their answers of why they're not sticking around then really the accurate cause or do you need to establish a history of surveys and tie them to retention decisions? All possible, but something that sounds 'nice to have' when you're SURFOR and you're spending your waking hours trying to convince people to fix your ships, to stop buying you ships you don't want, to pay for training your SWOs, to please put missiles on all of the ships so we have scary tankers. An old CO of mine that worked at the Pentagon before coming onboard for XO-CO fleet up once described the problem thusly: When a widget on a plane fails the plane falls out of the sky and you have dead Sailors. When a widget on a submarine breaks, submersion exceeds surfacing by more than one and you have dead Sailors and a less credible nuclear deterrent. When a widget on a surface ship breaks, you miss an underway or stay at sea a few days later. When SECNAV, CNO, Congress, NAVSEA, NETC all consider what can wait until next year, air and subsurface will always have first seats at the trough. Often surface gets what it needs eventually, but not consistently, and so we'll always be a very inconsistent community.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Thanks for the clarification. Ah, sorry. In your case basically none of what I said applies, but it dies for a huge majority of SWOs who still don't take that path.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Does the USCG consider every day on sea duty as sea time? In Canada Transport Canada only counts the days you actually leave the dock as sea time if you’re not on a cargo ship. Also the day you join and the day you sign off count for half. So if you need 360 days for a license, get like… 380-400.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Does the USCG consider every day on sea duty as sea time? I thought I linked this, but I had linked something else: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/professional_qualifications/crediting_military_ss.pdf Most Sailors don't have full records of underway time for their ships, and the system is designed not to penalize them for it. This is why every day counts, but only at a rate of 60%. Realistically, ships are only away from home for ~24% of the time., since you include yards time in that figure, but you still spend a considerable amount of your time in port doing Sailor stuff--I expect at a higher proportion than commercial Sailors for whom commercial shipping companies are likely to divest themselves of if they have a ship not getting underway for a period of time. Since the time on board is onlyone factor and there are associated assessments and qualification requirements, the estimate is probably fine and prevents increased paperwork from reducing applicants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Does the USCG consider every day on sea duty as sea time? I'd imagine that's a question for the Coast Guard thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
piL posted:Proficiency metrics are a very complicated problem. The military, and the Navy especially, is quite bad at collecting the data for things like 'proficiency'. There's a few reasons for this. I mean, these are all reasons and present difficulties but they aren't good reasons. Leaderships purpose is to set clear goals along with measurements by which to judge success or failure. If you don't do this and institute a change, you are just reacting and have no idea if you're making things better or worse. There are no perfect metrics that can't be gamed or tell the full story. Using them judiciously is just as important as choosing them but avoiding them because of those reasons is a complete failure in leadership and an abdication of responsibility. You don't need an MBA or be some statistical savant to figure this stuff out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Lets not forget that we're talking about the US Navy, the same group of chucklefucks who haven't figured out how to run a reasonable watch schedule on their overmanned boats even in the year of our lord 2021.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Wibla posted:Lets not forget that we're talking about the US Navy, the same group of chucklefucks who haven't figured out how to run a reasonable watch schedule on their overmanned boats even in the year of our lord 2021. I'm not sure which angle you're coming at this from, but I doubt the Navy's 'boats' are overmanned based on the demand that's placed on them, but that they're undermanned based on the requirements placed on them. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-366 assesses crew fatigue. The truth is, is that there's just too much work and requirements for the crews to accomplish. Especially if you're measuring filled billets by percentage of funded billets, which itself is less than the number of required positions. That work load is a big contributing factor to why the Navy can't figure out a functional watch team. Most crews are trying to put on a 10-cat show with 7 cats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2021 01:06
|
|