OK. I"ll admit that, to say in an internet post: “Not to say that’s it’s not…” is a POOR way to say that something “IS”. Almost as bad as Bill Clinton under oath! I guess it’s more like something you’d say in face to face conversation, which has a lot more cues to meaning than a cold line of type!
So, YES, I DID mean that safe navigation IS necessary to the Navy’s mission. And in my further post I agreed with Diesel that “fundamental” was an even better choice of words to express what I was trying to say.
To maybe further explain my post, it wasn’t intended to grind the axe that “the Navy isn’t/can’t be concerned about safe navigation because it has a different mission.” Rather, it was mainly to share that interesting article, with a fascinating historical perspective (if you’re at all interested in Naval History) that appeared in the daily posts on the Naval Institute website.
I’m not sure, but it seemed to me that, in that article, the author, was trying to make the point that this “different mission” point of view of the Navy has adversely affected training and operational philosophy with respect to safety (of navigation and perhaps other things?). At least that was the point of the story about the RN’s disastrous loss of HMS Victoria in the 1890s and its possible echo at the Battle of Jutland.
Clearly, something’s wrong and needs to be fixed and, eventually it will be. Ordering the AIS transmit turned on in at least limited circumstances is one good step taken. In another thread here I posted some comments about the revival of the old idea of the “Sailing Master”, professional pilot/navigators. If the skipper and his ODs have too many other concerns to insure safe navigation, I personally think that sounds like a good idea.