I have served both in the military and the merchant marine for more than 15 yrs each.
This is just for reference and not to claim any eligibility to greater wisdom.
All training methodology in the civilian sector has trickled from the armed forces. Therefore the merchant marine STCW courses cannot provide a better solution to the problem of Navy watchstanding weaknesses.
Regarding the technical aspects, just remember that ARPA is a very basic version of any surface warfare target acquisition and tracking system.
The US Navy just needs to sort out its own house. It can of course benefit from some fresh ideas from the USCG.
Fatigue management is probably a bigger and more relevant issue than training.
1 Like
So it seems by your standard the SWO training is sufficient for the most part for basic ship operations. The high percentage of allisions, collisions, groundings and engineering casualties per underway time is just happenstance.
The enlisted, foreign navies, and merchant side might disagree to some extentâŚ
Well, to be fair, we need to discount all the issues with the LCSâs from the equation⌠those things are floating turds that should never have left the drawing board it seems.
yadda, yadda , Yea, sometimes i see some distressing comments about the military. Considering how anyone in uniform anymore is a âHeroâ, seemingly canât do any wrong âŚoh, and âthanks for your serviceâ itâs good to see some criticism once in a whileâŚwell, constructive criticism at least!!! I can tell you during the 24 yrs. I served starting in '73 things sure went to pot and likely wonât reverse till another we get in another heavy hitter⌠(vietnam or something) btw⌠I also spent a year âover thereâ and figure i can say whatever about what itâs like but you probably wonât find me being disrespectful.
2 Likes
Lone star
You have not read my post properly.
COLREGs is not rocket science.
The average SWO of the US Navy is way smarter ( read⌠higher IQ) than the average Merchant Naval Officer.
The only problem has been weak training and fatigue.
The US Navy can easily sort it out within.
You donât have to worry about respecting your own Navy.
What you have to worry about is whether or not the other country respects your Navy.
If they donât, then why bother having a Navy?
Any Navy serves two purposes; protection of the homeland and projection of force.
Protection of the homeland is a gut instinct; projection of force is a Government decision.
Popular opinion may influence a decision but at the end of the day the shiny arses have the final say so.
Even Switzerland has a Navy.
As a (half) Brit I am very conscious of how both Royal and merchant navies here affected how the world is today.
I live in a country that is 1/8th of the size of Texas (Iâll do it old fashioned speak =one eighth the size of Texas).
Do you know why Britain ruled the world (at that time, and probably for only about 20 minutes).
The Royal Navy.
Obviously, when you came home from one of these Empire Strikes Back missions with 2 limbs missing and half your face shot off you were sent to the foggy land of Norfolk so that nobody could see you.
But the point is, and I have spent a long time thinking about this (1/2 an hour and 3 glasses of Brandy), no nation, as far as I can see, with my Mark 1 Eyeball, can exist without a Navy.
Unless you go extra-atmosphere of course but then how the hell you do teach your lookouts 360 3D degree watch?
PS. The other half of my 'Brit; is German so Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gniesau, U559 (check that one out on your own), the geese at Cologne,
So, Navy is good, merchant navy, not quite so good> extract from somewhere that I found (all Brits, donât have dispersion figures for other nationalities)âŚ
36,749 seamen and women were lost by enemy action, 5,720 were taken prisoner and 4,707 were wounded.
But then again, this next level is slightly unbalanced because on an old collier you could only ever shit in your pants:
Bomber Command: 55,373.
If you are in a hurry to annexe a country; lets say , just like Russia did with the Ukraine a couple of years ago ( missed that one?) nothing like having a regular Bosun arrive back on the ship telling you that his local airport has just been levelled by âinsurgentsâ.
Without the use of a Navy.
So, in conclusion, I hand it back to you:
Does any country need a Navy?
The Royal Navy surely was a great tool in making and running the empire, but it was also due to very good training of the men and very strong traditions. Maverick Captains with some real quirky idiosyncrasies were allowed to flourish as long as they did whatever to promote the interests of the crown.
Anyone can buy a Navy with money but can run it only on the strength of character and tradition.That takes centuries, not decades.
Napoleon would have fared much better if he had built a larger Navy
Ok, time to trot out MahanâŚ
A navy exists, in the historical context, to protect (drum roll) commerce; i.e. a nationâs merchant fleet. The âglobal commonsâ, where peaceful trade between nations occurs is the ocean. Mahan argued no great nation of the past (as he wrote late in the 19th century) rose to power without trade and a navy to protect that trade.
Wilhelm II, besides having a serious inferiority complex when he looked in turn at Grandma, his uncle, and then his cousin, decided if the German Empire was to become a true world power he needed colonies and a merchant fleet to trade with said colonies and then a navy to protect it. Shake and stir a naval arms race occurs and the inevitable showdown with Britain occurs.
SooooâŚif the US has a shadow of its former merchant fleet, is a navy, in the classic context needed? Begin discussion/argument over FOC fleets, the need for power projection in furtherance of our national interest, and protection of someone elseâs shipsâŚ
2 Likes
On a side note in the midst of the rambling I point out a terrible injustice for Captain John Stevenson of the HMAS Melbourne 40 years ago and thankfully a relatively recent exoneration. This unfortunately has been a trend in U.S. Naval history. Iâm afraid it will continue in these recent cases with no expectation of the true facts being revealed to us tax payers who fund this Navy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EQwWyf9sE
âincredible incompetence, completely untrained bridge teamâ
I donât believe much as changed.
1 Like
Seapower can affect events on land in a disproportionate manner. Just a fleet-in-being is sometimes enough to leverage diplomatic discussions.
1 Like
.
Thanks for the humorous interlude.
Fatigue studies have been gold mines for industry and academia for the past 75 years at least. The conclusions havenât changed since the first study was conducted and industry (and government) response has not changed either. They write unenforceable feel good regs and workers, pilots, mariners, and exhausted people continue to die or kill others in the normal fashion,
2 Likes
The airline industry and the merchant marine both have managed fatigue quite well in recent years, if not earlier.
The armed forces not so much.
When will an attack come or how long will that last âŚis a question that no one can answer
Wow. Iâm really impressed.
Ever read âThe Best and the Brightestâ?
News flash: intelligence, intellect and education, while potentially quite valuable, are often way overrated in practice. If they cannot (for whatever the reason or reasons) be practically applied they arenât worth a damn.
Fatigue? Absolutely a critical issue for all mariners, civilian & military alike. Too bad all the smart people decided to ignore it since forever.
1 Like
The Imperial German Navy kept vast resources of the RN in home waters throughout WWIâŚJellicoe often said he was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. If the RN were defeated
and the deployed cruisers and raiders of the Kaiserâs fleet were joined by other units or his surviving capitol ships were able to enforce a surface blockade of the UK, the BED would starve.
History shows the opposite happened; the RN protected trade, the German Navy wasted away from inaction after Jutland, and Germany lost.
Thereâs been some improvements but from what Iâve heard most of the so-called compliance is on paper only.
3 Likes
If thatâs what you think then you obviously donât know them well enough.
4 Likes
Reaaaaaally⌠Well letâs test your Naval COLREGs knowledge with one question thenâŚ
BOTH INTERNATIONAL & INLAND You are underway on vessel âBâ and sight vessel âAâ which is a Naval Vessel. Which statement is true? (see DIAGRAM)
a) Vessel âBâ must keep out of the way of vessel âAâ because âBâ is to port.
b) Vessel âBâ must keep out of the way of vessel âAâ because âAâ is a DDG err, Naval Vessel.
c) Vessel âAâ must keep out of the way of vessel âBâ because âBâ is to starboard.
d) In this case, both vessels are required by the Rules to keep clear of each other.
⌠Too soon?
2 Likes
You should try to put forth your argument without resorting to one liners or memes.
Just take a hard look at the basic qualifications required to win a commission as an officer with the US Navy, the length and depth of subsequent training and continuation training. Compare it with the basic qualifications required for Merchant marine deck officers.
The problem behind the recent mishaps is in the application of knowledge and skills.
I brought up the issue of fatigue as the major factor. When a person is fatigued, his actions are quite akin to a person DUI. Even a well trained and responsible person can turn into a total wacko.
I know the COLREGs well enough. The problem with COLREGs is not the learning but the application. Watch keeping Officers fail to keep in mind that a collision can kill people.
The entire COLREGs is about AVOIDING A COLLISION. That requires an approach of defensive driving. This attribute needs to be constantly reinforced, not an easy task when dealing with officers and men who have been brought up as warriors.
A study of collision cases would show that in most incidents the collision could have been avoided simply by reducing speed, yet that is a action rarely utilised by watchkeepers.
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.
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.
4 Likes