Thank you for a very smart set of multiple answer question set.
The answer is C.
BTW, I am not a US Navy SWO.
You guys use way too much Trump style personal attacks. Try to discuss issues on the strength of logic and facts.
Thank you for a very smart set of multiple answer question set.
So the most basic Officer on a merchant ship has a minimum of four years of training to be the equivalent to an ensign. An ensign has a history degree and a few months military bearing training. They then board a naval ship, get some PQS signatures, observe a few watches, learn some conning commands and check list, sit before a board, answer a few questions and before the course of a year are standing OOD and cutting in front of tankers. Let me tell you it sure was more difficult to get an AGT license than a SWO pin (w/ OOD).
I have discussed OOD and SWO training in depth with zero counter arguments. The tax payer can plainly see (and rightfully so) the exact training and qualifications of SWOs, and it is not impressive no matter how you spin it.
Paging captain obvious. Do you mind if I ask what you’re background is. I suspect British since there was mention in a previous post of the “merchant navy.” Regardless, you are opening yourself up for a gang tackle with these posts.
I’m not in the navy but I have a binder three inches thick with certificates and qualifications I’ve had to procure over the years. As for continuing ed, everyone here is in classes at least once a year to keep their ticket current.
With regards to your argument that it is the application of the rules that is the problem. Wouldn’t the naval officers superior intelligence negate this? Intelligence is nice but it does not guarantee a proficient officer. I’ve sailed with guys that are not regularly attending Mensa meetings but they were excellent ship handlers and natural seafarers.
Your arguments are specious at best. Oh shit! I can’t tip my hand like that. Let me get that more in line with your perception of professional mariners and dumb it down a bit. Eat a bag of dicks.
There are different streams of intakes into the US Navy officers recruitment.
Ever heard of the US Naval Academy? That is 4 years of science education equivalent to an Engg degree.
You are referring probably to the ROTC stream.
A large percentage of officers are former enlisted personnel. They serve as enlisted, then get a college degree and return as officers. His college degree might be in history but he is an experienced seaman.
Then these officers are definitely not the hi IQ crowd you are advertising because even the “dumbest” merchant mariner understands that. If a watch officer hasn’t had the concept of “deadly collisions” instilled he shouldn’t be on a bridge, period and if this is the case it is a major failure in USN training and leadership.
Reinforcing good seamanship shouldn’t be such a hard hard task with such “bright people”, in fact it should be second nature. What the Navy seems to have is a lack of understanding or respect for the level of investment the public has made in them. At $1.75 billion per Aegis Destroyer there should be nothing but the most competent personnel on board and there is no excuse the Navy can give me to satisfy the question of why there are not.
So, when do we discuss the positioning of “Airedales” as COs of CV(N)s? I still want to know what numbskull thought it would be a good idea to have pilots, sorry… aviators in command of some of the biggest naval vessels afloat.
By the way… [Knocks Ring], yeah, there are some idiots out there, but not all of us are knuckle draggers like you seem to think.
The vast majority of unlimited deck officers worldwide have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent as part of their required training. Very few officers sail in international trade that aren’t very intelligent, whether they went to college or not. Plus they have significantly more experience navigating than even the average Navy CO.
And I know plenty of of ROTC grads with high engineering degrees from many different fields, doesn’t change anything. And you bet your ass you can get a history degree from the naval academy. You are digging holes here.
Another unintelligent argument. Stats would show a relatively small percentage of officers are prior enlisted. An even smaller number of those have ratings that would even give them some remote experience in seamanship.
The Navy begs to differ… “The LDO/CWO community makes up approximately 11 percent of the total officer force throughout the Navy.”
Its time to spike the pikeman
Historicaly this is extremely untrue. Merchant techniques and traditions flowed into navies, not the other way around.
This only shows me how unfamiliar you are with how unlimited merchant deck officers and engineers are trained, and the requirements that need to be met before “passing license”. The fact that you would make that kind of statement on this kind of forum is pretty astounding.
It is evident that some of the commentators in this thread harbour a visceral hatred for the US Navy. It is difficult for them to discuss anything on the basis of facts and logic. If anyone disagrees with them, they quickly prefer to use personal insults. I can give you all in equal measure but abusing one another is not going to help anyone.
Why do we enter into discussions on such forums? I have never failed to meet at least one person who has given me a better insight into the subject, even if I had to suffer the nonsensical diatribe of ten others.
Coming back to the point, everyone agrees that the US Navy is grappling with serious issues of competence in bridge watchkeeping. Every organisation goes through periods of turbulence one time or another, but that doesn’t mean that we can tar the whole lot of US Navy SWO community with the same brush. Those of you who write eloquently about SWO failures ought to recall your own near misses at sea which could have easily been serious accidents. So get off your high horses and engage in some balanced commentary.
Ok… so tell us what qual pin you do wear then please… or what rating you struck as. Because the more you talk, the more you sound like just a Navy apologist.
We don’t harbor a hatred for the Navy, we harbor an innate hatred for stupidity, and those that defend such stupidity. If you look at most of our profiles, we put our licenses up there for others to know whether we’re qualified to give the answers we do. You… on the other hand have given no indication of your qualification to speak on the subject.
I don’t have to put up my quals but rest assured that I am as much certified as anyone of you and have been at sea till last year.
Once again, you are unwilling and unable to discuss issues on their merit.
Have you never been stupid during your ship service? I bet there are a lot of failures that you would not be proud of. So stop judging everyone else.
Of course I have… I also learned from it, which is something the Navy could stand to do a bit more of.
The US Navy/US Merchant Marine relationship is very backwards from most foreign Navy’s. While I have no doubt you can speak to great lengths about the Indian Navy and Merchant Navy based on your experience. This does not translate well to the US Navy where a great deal of technology and procedures transferred over from the civilian side of things first. We may have great “warfighting systems” but the procedures for shiphandling and management pretty much stink.
I have worked with the US Navy and the USMC both for over a year, so I am not a stranger to these organisations.
I am not an apologist for the US Navy. However, everyone deserves a fair and balanced treatment.
oh but you are SIR and any denial to the contrary rings very hollow to our hears
oh come on now…we are all big boys here wearing big boy pants. tell us what you said or are you chicken?
Time to let this thread die.