Old Dog
Member
WT, finally something I agree with you on ... after 26 years in this canoe club, I also believe the Navy has far too many officers ...
Navy's plans for fighting terror call for smaller ships
- Thread starter 280PLUS
- Start date
- Status
280PLUS
Member
Oh, I don't know, I don't think you could EVER have enough Ensigns running around... 
I'd tell a couple Ensign stories but I don't want to get in trouble with the LCDR...
I'd tell a couple Ensign stories but I don't want to get in trouble with the LCDR...
Preacherman
Member
Heh. Once, in a previous life, I was an Ensign... oh, the shame of it!
MillCreek
Member
My wife, the retired CPO always said that she just loved a fresh new Ensign. Preferably deep-fried and served with a side of ranch dressing.....
Igloodude
Member
Old Dog said:
Me too, that's why I got out - now they have one less to worry about.
VMI 1991
Member
280PLUS said:Oh, I don't know, I don't think you could EVER have enough Ensigns running around...
I'd tell a couple Ensign stories but I don't want to get in trouble with the LCDR...
That's OK, I could tell just as many chief stories.
Seriously though, today's ensigns become tomorrow's admirals. All those officers who enlisted sailors think are fools start off as a blank slate. It is our job, experienced officers and CPOs, to mold them into the kind of officers who will lead the Navy into the future.
280PLUS
Member
Very true. I went to my ship's reunion a few years back and was amazed at how some of the junior officers I knew way back when were now sporting Eagles and stars. My XO had 3 stars the last time I saw him and had the title COMNAVSURFPAC. He's retired now.
Probably the scariest thing I recall is doing a visit ship on the USS Caron once and all the chiefs looking like kids to me.
Now that I think about it, I could come up with a few chief stories too.
But, gonig back to the subject of numbers. Given the Navy's role from a global standpoint. Does 350,000really sound like too many? I mean, we are at war pretty much everywhere, it doesn't make sense to me to talk about cutting numbers.
Last edited:
Old NFO
Member
We already have... SBU's use em to deploy SEALS...oneshooter said:Sounds to me like we need to bring back the PT boat, in the later "gunboat"version. 80'-85'long, 25'wide, fiberglass/kevlar hull, ceramic armour at vital places, 20mm on bow, twin 40mm Bofers on the stern and the two twin 50cal mounts.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Old NFO
Member
FYI folks, in 1991-1992 SECDEF conducted a review of manning levels and formalized it under a program called Defense Officer Planned Manpower Act (DOPMA). They realigned ALL of the services officer manning levels and reduced the Air Force, left the Navy levels alone and the Army and Marines were increased. While manning for planned ships is reduced by factor of 50% as 1991 says, it will be 8-10 years before those ships actually hit the fleet in any numbers. Also, remember manning levels are predicated on COMBAT losses also. The Navy is currently understrength in a number of areas, along with not enough ships/airplanes/helo's to get all the tasking completed. I'm not going to go into detail, but suffice to say, we are stretched pretty thin just trying to maintain OPTEMO/PERSTEMPO. The other thing you are forgetting is the training pipeline, which is nominally 18 months, add in education for up to 2 years (both Officer and Enlisted), shore support requirements, logistics tails, etc. and the Navy is hurting for personnel. I work with all three communities on a routine basis, and as a former Mustang, I talk to both the O's and the E's. NO ONE I've talked to says they are overmanned...Preacherman said:
280PLUS
Member
Hi NFO...
Nice to "see" you!
Nice to "see" you!
VMI 1991
Member
Old NFO - Sir, nice to hear from you.
ADM Clark, the former CNO, stated that he wanted to cut 30,000 people from the Navy's overall endstrength.
In the ship I am serving on now, we are wondering where those people are going to come from... We have divisions on the ship that are undermanned by up to 35%
ADM Clark, the former CNO, stated that he wanted to cut 30,000 people from the Navy's overall endstrength.
In the ship I am serving on now, we are wondering where those people are going to come from... We have divisions on the ship that are undermanned by up to 35%
Old Dog
Member
Well, Old NFO ... I know a little about what you're saying here ...
So yeah, if a command is gonna go by its ship or squadron manning document, manpower authorization or EDVR, the command's manning levels are definitely going to look pretty grim. One of the problems today is that many of the community managers at BUPERS have been asleep at the switch so long, the numbers are all screwed up. Today's latest fad of merging every rating in sight is hosing things up even worse ...
I always judged the state of my departmental and divisional manning by whether or not we were getting all the jobs done, not by how much under BA or NMP we were ...
The reality is, though, it's all just a bunch of numbers ... Of course, NO ONE is gonna say they're overmanned ... and, according to the methods we use to figure out manning -- here's a shocker -- we're ALL undermanned. But one of our dirty little secrets is, most of our billet requirements are all generous figments of someone's imagination. Many manpower authorization documents today still are based on equipment, technology and assets most commands were using twenty years ago. A huge problem is that we're not keeping up with our technology, compounded by the fact that no one understands our manning process ...
So yeah, if a command is gonna go by its ship or squadron manning document, manpower authorization or EDVR, the command's manning levels are definitely going to look pretty grim. One of the problems today is that many of the community managers at BUPERS have been asleep at the switch so long, the numbers are all screwed up. Today's latest fad of merging every rating in sight is hosing things up even worse ...
I always judged the state of my departmental and divisional manning by whether or not we were getting all the jobs done, not by how much under BA or NMP we were ...
Why is it a bad thing to reduce the size of the Navy? Where is this fictional super force that we are going to be threatened by if we do reduce the size of the Navy? And since when is the military good at combating terrorism...other than physically pulling the trigger? I always thought that was an intelligence community problem, seeing as how terrorists don't operate like a conventional military.
280PLUS
Member
Naval Intelligence? (NIS IIRC). That's pretty much what I meant when I said the Navy's global role. One of the biggest jobs the Navy does is gather information. There is more to the job than just sailing ships around and keeping them working and looking pretty...
Old NFO
Member
Old Dog said:
Too True Old Dog- You're right, 205 has been asleep at the wheel for at least 30 years (that I know of). I'm waiting for an IT rater to try to do a plain old message the old fashioned way (e.g. not with the computer) and select the correct freqs manually... Ain't gonna happen....
Good point too on the D&D manning
My last deployment as a Div "O", I had an EDVR for 105, we left with 95, went down to 89, and by working 24/7 managed to clear about 90% of the gripes. BUT I was lucky in that I had a good shop, good Chiefs and LPO's and the Old Man's backing to get things done. Honestly, I'm glad to see this discussion, as it shows I'm not the only one wondering where we're going.Jeff Timm
Member
You have to remember, the USAF and the USN make pilots officers and gentlemen, by requiring 4 years of schooling, then spending years making them officers and pilots. Skews the data.
I prefer the Pilot Officer system, similar to the Army Helicopter pilots, taking everyone in as enlisted, training them to fight and fly, then taking the best pilots and keeping them in cockpits, while taking the leaders into the Officer ranks.
Geoff
Who has been de-target-ranked as a DoD Civilian to save money.
I prefer the Pilot Officer system, similar to the Army Helicopter pilots, taking everyone in as enlisted, training them to fight and fly, then taking the best pilots and keeping them in cockpits, while taking the leaders into the Officer ranks.
Geoff
Who has been de-target-ranked as a DoD Civilian to save money.
VMI 1991
Member
Where we are going...
Most of what I have read follows the vein of "Advances in technology will let save money by needing less people"
Nice, but who will be left to paint?
A great deal of this technology depends on connectivity to the internet. What happens when it breaks or you are trying to avoid being detected electronically?
What happens when your ship is hit? Every single person in USS COLE was involved in damage control. The crew was at the point of physical exhaustion when US help arrived. They had 280+ people. What happens to a ship that has a crew of 100?
Most of what I have read follows the vein of "Advances in technology will let save money by needing less people"
Nice, but who will be left to paint?
A great deal of this technology depends on connectivity to the internet. What happens when it breaks or you are trying to avoid being detected electronically?
What happens when your ship is hit? Every single person in USS COLE was involved in damage control. The crew was at the point of physical exhaustion when US help arrived. They had 280+ people. What happens to a ship that has a crew of 100?
280PLUS said:
Well, I can appreciate they have their own intelligence. But it seems duplicative when we have an agency dedicated specifically to intelligence gathering. And considering how the arguments being made for maintaining or expanding the Navy's fleet have little to do with intelligence gathering, I dont see it as being necessary. No question we should have a standing Navy, and definately with the best available equipment and training (as we do). But, we have to realize we are so far beyond every other military in the world on just about every level that the "need" for more carrier battlegroups doesn't seem real.
Jeff Timm
Member
obmax1212 opined: "Well, I can appreciate they have their own intelligence. But it seems duplicative when we have an agency dedicated specifically to intelligence gathering. And considering how the arguments being made for maintaining or expanding the Navy's fleet have little to do with intelligence gathering, I dont see it as being necessary."
It is a different kind of intelligence. The big carriers and carrier battle groups can do things NOW or real fast on the other side of the world. The exact nature of the systems is not easily available, but the US Navy can get you pictures of almost anyplace on earth, "up close and personal" with a recon pod on a fighter. Then they can take action.
Sometimes a little action NOW is a whole lot better than a LOT OF ACTION later. Example, Bratislavia and Kartoffleslavia have been arguing about the Bier Provence for 150 years. The new liberal government of Bratislavia takes a sh*t load of surplus Warpac AFVs and rolls across the border. While the Kartoffleslavians are trying to get their militiamen out of the rathskellers the Brats armored column suddenly has acute engine trouble, caused by the sudden impact of an IR homing shaped charge blowing up the engine compartment. The Brat Air Force is suddenly grounded by airfield debris problems, small metalic objects which go BOOM! when you try to move them, and since their supply of jet fuel is currently entaining the locals by burning merrily, it's tough to work up enthusiasm for removing the mines.
In Bratislavia city, the US Ambassador sez to the Premire, "As I said, the US will enforce the UN agreement, Sir. Wattsamatta, you didn't believe me?"
Now, in the "War on Terror" the mission is not so easily defined, but having the ability to SUDDENLY deliver overwhelming force, or a level of force down to a two man sniper team anywhere in the world has a certain value. The Navy can stand ready to do this, just over the horizon.
The question is, when, and the will in the Political Arena to act.
Geoff
Who believes actions speak louder than words.
It is a different kind of intelligence. The big carriers and carrier battle groups can do things NOW or real fast on the other side of the world. The exact nature of the systems is not easily available, but the US Navy can get you pictures of almost anyplace on earth, "up close and personal" with a recon pod on a fighter. Then they can take action.
Sometimes a little action NOW is a whole lot better than a LOT OF ACTION later. Example, Bratislavia and Kartoffleslavia have been arguing about the Bier Provence for 150 years. The new liberal government of Bratislavia takes a sh*t load of surplus Warpac AFVs and rolls across the border. While the Kartoffleslavians are trying to get their militiamen out of the rathskellers the Brats armored column suddenly has acute engine trouble, caused by the sudden impact of an IR homing shaped charge blowing up the engine compartment. The Brat Air Force is suddenly grounded by airfield debris problems, small metalic objects which go BOOM! when you try to move them, and since their supply of jet fuel is currently entaining the locals by burning merrily, it's tough to work up enthusiasm for removing the mines.
In Bratislavia city, the US Ambassador sez to the Premire, "As I said, the US will enforce the UN agreement, Sir. Wattsamatta, you didn't believe me?"
Now, in the "War on Terror" the mission is not so easily defined, but having the ability to SUDDENLY deliver overwhelming force, or a level of force down to a two man sniper team anywhere in the world has a certain value. The Navy can stand ready to do this, just over the horizon.
The question is, when, and the will in the Political Arena to act.
Geoff
Who believes actions speak louder than words.
So we need an entire carrier battle group to take a picture? 10,000 sailors to support a pilot with a Kodak Brownie camera?
The other day I saw a report where a 500# JDAM was used to take out a single Iraqi sniper. Hit the wrong building. 17 civilians dead. OOPS!
Pilots are obsolete. I would think a couple of cheap UAV's launched from a small patrol craft would do better, taking pictures or dropping bombs.
Meanwhile, the 400 harbors in the US are unprotected.
The other day I saw a report where a 500# JDAM was used to take out a single Iraqi sniper. Hit the wrong building. 17 civilians dead. OOPS!
Pilots are obsolete. I would think a couple of cheap UAV's launched from a small patrol craft would do better, taking pictures or dropping bombs.
Meanwhile, the 400 harbors in the US are unprotected.
- Status
