Rendering of the new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel


#101

[QUOTE=cmakin;180817]I remember some decades ago when MARAD had a big push to by ROROs for their use and they bought some real crap ships from the northern Europeans. Yeah, they got a deal, but so did the sellers who would have been happy getting scrap value for them. . . . was involved with them quite a bit in my ABS days. . . yet I digress yet again. . . back to what y’all were doing.[/QUOTE]

well, we can only hope that MarAd might be a bit smarter these days however that does not negate the value to the taxpayer for existing vessels to be procured on the world market which can be both excellent training platforms and valuable defense attests while also being a good value all at the same time. These proposed purpose built training ships are a massive waste of money but I do believe we need to shed these old steam vessels being used for training today. They are antiques and our mariners should learn with much more recent equipment which hopefully would have low speed diesel propulsion. (I know many ro/pax have medium speed diesels which is a bit of a downside to them but still they are the best possible ship for the purpose)


#102

[QUOTE=c.captain;180826]well, we can only hope that MarAd might be a bit smarter these days however that does not negate the value to the taxpayer for existing vessels to be procured on the world market which can be both excellent training platforms and valuable defense attests while also being a good value all at the same time. These proposed purpose built training ships are a massive waste of money but I do believe we need to shed these old steam vessels being used for training today. They are antiques and our mariners should learn with much more recent equipment which hopefully would have low speed diesel propulsion. (I know many ro/pax have medium speed diesels which is a bit of a downside to them but still they are the best possible ship for the purpose)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, most of the ROROs both purchased by MARAD back in the day and those available now on the market are of the medium speed type. And while it would be advantageous to have training in slow speed diesels, that can be done in classroom or lab settings and still have an impact. For an engineer, I found that training in overall plant operations regardless of the type of propulsion machinery (yeah, even steam) was more important. Understanding the plant system and auxiliaries was the greater lesson. But, we can both agree that in the current state of the US flag industry, even medium and high speed diesel operations should be weighed a bit more than slow speed. . .


#103

Idea for training ships below. Based on the merchant marine we have today, and the money we can bestow on it. Not the best idea, not the worst. Impractical perhaps, because it relies on the rarest of commodities: cooperation and dedication.

A) Marad would operate two traditional type training ships. Marad/DOD funds. All state academies would send their 4th-year students to these two ships. A new division of Marad would coordinate it all. Mix the trainees from different schools together. Just 4th year students.

B)2nd and 3rd year: State academies and KP would not have big training ships. Instead, they would each operate a fleet of about 3-4 big tugs with barges. The tugs would operate in areas that are a challenge to navigate, even in this day-and-age. On the West Coast the WA-BC-AK Inside Passage. On East Coast the Intracoastal Waterway from Florida to New Jersey. Crew of 20 trainees per boat. You have a watch or two every day. Endless boathandling. Endless collision avoidance. Endless making, breaking tows. When not in wheelhouse on deck or jumping barges. Or in engineroom. When not in engineroom then cooking meals and washing dishes. Minimal professional crew as trainers. You may not want to tow for a living but there is very little that you learn in towing that you won’t use somewhere else.

C)1st-year students: Separate the wheat from the chaff. The first year is meant to teach trainees trade fundamentals, which means, for engineers, the care/feeding/repair of engines, and for deck students basic navigation and the effect of wind and current on a vessel. 1st year is meant to get rid of bad habits and build in good ones (AKA “boot camp”). Foremost, the first year is meant to eliminate people who have no real interest in going to sea. To that end, for engineers , after three months of intensive classroom study and lab, teams of student engineers take apart 3000 HP diesel engines ashore. Tear them down to their smallest part, then put them back together again and operate them. Time the teams. If after three attempts a student can’t do it in an allotted time the student is politely told to go elsewhere. As for deck students: travel up the same waterways they will navigate in their 2nd and 3rd years, but in the crudest, stupidest vessels imaginable: open boats with nothing but sail and oar. No motor. No electronics. Compass and paper chart. If they can’t get from Point A to Point B after several weeks they are politely asked to leave. After such pain, suffering and frustration the remaining students would be the few who [I]really [/I]want to go to sea. Bonus: they would have learned,by pain and sweat, the fundamentals of their trade


#104

Tugs won’t satisfy the tonnage requirements. I don’t know about all academies, but most are pretty rough the first year. Not your “leave you in the woods with a knife and map, find your way home” but you may be surprised how many people drop out during the first year.


#105

Understood. Plan has flaws on several levels. Not to be argumentative…
I went to CMA. My experience was that people drop out the first year for the same reason students in a normal college drop out their first year, and it has little to do with [I]aptitude[/I] for the trade. My pet peeve is academy graduates that can’t navigate the Inside Passage without a plotter. Why aren’t they learning basics? As for tonnage requirements:laws are made to be changed.


#106

[QUOTE=cali deckie;180807]If they keep the pub i would be willing to come back as a teacher in a few years[/QUOTE]

a pub and a disco too but then there’d be one girl in it for every 20 guys and we all know what happens in such situations…you’d need a team of bouncers to throw all the miscreants in the brig!

NAW! turn those spaces over to teaching

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=freighterman;180843]Understood. Plan has flaws on several levels. Not to be argumentative…
I went to CMA. My experience was that people drop out the first year for the same reason students in a normal college drop out their first year, and it has little to do with [I]aptitude[/I] for the trade. My pet peeve is academy graduates that can’t navigate the Inside Passage without a plotter. Why aren’t they learning basics? As for tonnage requirements:laws are made to be changed.[/QUOTE]

you are correct in that we need to switch the focus of maritime training from pure deepsea to a mix of deepsea and workboats since our little lads and lasses are next to useless in the workboat world with their little third’s licenses. of course, I advocate that every maritime academy student be made to sail as an unlicensed seaman at some point in their training and not as a cadet. Seatime should be “real” working time and not just observing.


#107

[QUOTE=freighterman;180843]Understood. Plan has flaws on several levels. Not to be argumentative…
I went to CMA. My experience was that people drop out the first year for the same reason students in a normal college drop out their first year, and it has little to do with [I]aptitude[/I] for the trade. My pet peeve is academy graduates that can’t navigate the Inside Passage without a plotter. Why aren’t they learning basics? As for tonnage requirements:laws are made to be changed.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by not being able to navigate the Inside? Some sections are pretty tough for a first-timer. Especially if the landmarks are unfamiliar.


#108

If I understand you correctly:
Yes, I agree the IP is very difficult to navigate. I’m sure there are places in the world harder to navigate, but probably not many. But people learn it in a hurry, as you may attest to in your own considerable experience. Why, then, shouldn’t a budding navigator learn the art in school to begin with? When I went on a training ship we spent weeks roaming around the South Pacific learning celestial navigation. Seldom saw another ship, let alone had to avoid/cross/overtake one. Tidal currents? None. A couple of years after graduation celestial navigation was obsolete, and I never used it anyway in my job. What did I learn of lasting value in the South Pacific on a training ship? Many things, of course. But not as many as I would have had on a tortuous waterway thick with traffic.


#109

I guess they don’t call it casual maritime for nothing. I don’t know how all the schools are, but most of them have a pretty strict and regimented first year.

I agree they need vessels like the Kings Pointer, where weekend trips are possible and it doesn’t take a lot to bring everything online. It wouldn’t be that hard to get an OSV, pull out the mud and bulk tanks and you have and ER classroom, Martin Quarters on the back for the cadets to sleep and a nav class then officers in the house. The mess/galley would need an overhaul I bet, but it can be done and for a lot less than building a new one I would expect.


#110

[QUOTE=freighterman;180851]If I understand you correctly:
Yes, I agree the IP is very difficult to navigate. I’m sure there are places in the world harder to navigate, but probably not many. But people learn it in a hurry, as you may attest to in your own considerable experience. Why, then, shouldn’t a budding navigator learn the art in school to begin with? When I went on a training ship we spent weeks roaming around the South Pacific learning celestial navigation. Seldom saw another ship, let alone had to avoid/cross/overtake one. Tidal currents? None. A couple of years after graduation celestial navigation was obsolete, and I never used it anyway in my job. What did I learn of lasting value in the South Pacific on a training ship? Many things, of course. But not as many as I would have had on a tortuous waterway thick with traffic.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I see what your saying. Ideally a student’s time at sea should be on a fairly steep learning curve. Not going to happen in the wide open ocean.


#111

A tugboat load of cadets going up and down the ICW would be a disaster.


#112

it could be worse than a fleet of YP’s making security calls


#113

[QUOTE=Bayrunner;180855]A tugboat load of cadets going up and down the ICW would be a disaster.[/QUOTE]

I do get the humor in that. But it also, I believe, illustrates my point. If cadets can’t be trusted to go up and down the ICW with an instructor, perhaps they shouldn’t progress upwards in an academy. Certainly they shouldn’t be allowed to progress to that particular level until their aptitude at navigation had been rigorously evaluated at a lower level. You can get a aircraft private pilot’s license at 17. Thing is, you need to know how to fly. Different profession but a lot of parallels.


#114

[QUOTE=z-drive;180857]it could be worse than a fleet of YP’s making security calls[/QUOTE]

yeah! and running aground even!

no cadets on my ship…I don’t have time or patience. Let some other master deal with the lil darlins


#115

[QUOTE=c.captain;180859]yeah! and running aground even!

no cadets on my ship…I don’t have time or patience. Let some other master deal with the lil darlins[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but practically speaking what’s the difference in experience between a cadet and a new third mate, nothing, but the third mate has his own watch. Basically it’s no different than having a cadet up there.


#116

c.captain thinks officers should be at least 45 to hold their own watch, so decades of toiling as an OS and maybe AB!


#117

why not, nearly free labor!?!?


#118

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180860]Yeah, but practically speaking what’s the difference in experience between a cadet and a new third mate, nothing, but the third mate has his own watch. Basically it’s no different than having a cadet up there.[/QUOTE]

I’d never leave the bridge with a freshly graduated mate on watch…if this were a perfect world, all newly graduated officers would sail for a year unlicensed. Hell, I was a tug AB for almost eight months before I moved to a mate’s opening. Times were really sucky back then.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=z-drive;180861]c.captain thinks officers should be at least 45 to hold their own watch, so decades of toiling as an OS and maybe AB![/QUOTE]

and with the lack of jobs these days that might just end up being the case for the lil darlins


#119

[QUOTE=c.captain;180863]I’d never leave the bridge with a freshly graduated mate on watch…if this were a perfect world, [/QUOTE]

Most new thirds want to learn their profession, not get babysat.


#120

If you are near major traffic areas then its a good idea for the captain to be up there even if he is just doing paperwork he would have been doing down in his office. Just think empress of the north