[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;80562]20 years to become CO of a Tin Can? That says a lot right there. Had a CO who was Mass Maritime grad and he made the butter bars and Jgs become good ship drivers. Lots of man overboard drills and leap frogs. Hell, we left the pier twice without tugs in Norfolk because they were taking to long. There are some damn fine ship drivers in the USN, but one ‘aw f*#k’ wipes out a thousand ‘atta boys’.[/QUOTE]
How about a fuck-up when the ship’s ramp comes up and smacks ya on your ass.
The CO you knew are far and few between, they don’t have sea time to hone such skills ( given they have any aptitude).
The usn will find a place with this CO, the navy closes ranks fast and takes care of their own. He will be placed on some staff at a CTF or the pentagon . With his Guam back ground perhaps he will assume msco guam. He will retire with full pension.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);80659]The CO you knew are far and few between, they don’t have sea time to hone such skills ( given they have any aptitude).
The usn will find a place with this CO, the navy closes ranks fast and takes care of their own. He will be placed on some staff at a CTF or the pentagon . With his Guam back ground perhaps he will assume msco guam. He will retire with full pension.[/QUOTE]
So true.
The CO of my squadron, a Naval Academy ring knocker, often mention that on the fitness report (the singular most important document for advancement in the Navy) your ability to fly is but one of many items and “by far not the most important.” I knew right then and there I would never request augmentation from Reserve to Regular, not that I ever had this intention, most of us reserve types looked forward to our honorable discharge.
Ted Williams mentioned something along the same line. You might recall, Ted was activated in the middle of his most brilliant career as a professional baseball player. He was a fighter pilot in the Marines, and he was a Reserve Officer, I might add.
When there is a war on things change for sure. My dad who was a flight cadet in WWII when taking basic flight training he flew a PT17 (Army air corps ). He was having problems with power on and off stall recovery. The instructor ( a WWI pilot) asked him why he tried so hard and why he never gave up. My dad told him he had already lost two brothers the year before (1942)… When time came for the final solo test the old pilot slapped him on his shoulder, got out of the back and told him to " take it up and get it back down safe" and walked away. Dad got his wings and went on to fly in two wars, never got a scratch on him. Yes, things change in war time for sure.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);80704]When there is a war on things change for sure. My dad who was a flight cadet in WWII when taking basic flight training he flew a PT17 (Army air corps ). He was having problems with power on and off stall recovery. The instructor ( a WWI pilot) asked him why he tried so hard and why he never gave up. My dad told him he had already lost two brothers the year before (1942)… When time came for the final solo test the old pilot slapped him on his shoulder, got out of the back and told him to " take it up and get it back down safe" and walked away. Dad got his wings and went on to fly in two wars, never got a scratch on him. Yes, things change in war time for sure.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate reading those words, thank you. We all have stories, one of the funniest (for me anyway) involved a student pilot we called May Day Bob. He was on a solo flight, told by tower to take position and hold for take-off clearance. On this fine day the air waves was full of a strident voice calling out “May Day May Day, I have an engine fire.” He wasn’t even in the air, he was in position (on the runway) and holding for take-off clearance and noticed excessively high exhaust temp, his exhaust gas temp gauge (EGT) failed. He forever was endowed with his nick name. He made through Nam without any problems.
Your father was a brave man and your family held their breath as you lost two Uncles. Very sad!
Good story about Bob… The two brothers were killed in the pacific, Dad fought the Germans in the air in Europe. While we never knew the uncles we have never forgot them. They are simply known as " the brothers" within the family. My dad passed away in 1995, his one remaining brother ( a US Army vet who hit the beach in Normandy ) died a few years before. All the brothers are gone now, but none are forgotten.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);80714]Good story about Bob… The two brothers were killed in the pacific, Dad fought the Germans in the air in Europe. While we never knew the uncles we have never forgot them. They are simply known as " the brothers" within the family. My dad passed away in 1995, his one remaining brother ( a US Army vet who hit the beach in Normandy ) died a few years before. All the brothers are gone now, but none are forgotten.[/QUOTE]
The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.
From the New Recruits Handbook:
The mission of the United States Navy is to protect and defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans and to protect our country against her enemies.
Seamanship is not the Navy’s mission.
I think they do a pretty good job of fulfilling their stated mission.
As bad as the pirate situation is, it would be much worse if not for them.
Seamanship would be required to carry out the mission statement, it’s like saying it does not state in the contract of a CEO that he needs to understand sales, and economics. How would someone be expected to take a ship to sea, maintain freedom of the seas without knowledge of seamanship. When I drive up an on ramp onto an interstate is there a sign that says I need to be able to drive? Some things are simply understood as a requirement for the job or task at hand.
So would you expect the CO to say in his defense " well, we turned in front of the tanker alright, but seamanship is not in our mission statement".
I just took a look at the threads in “Marine Incidents” for the last year, here are the results:
US Navy 2 Commercial 15
Container Barge Hard Aground in Rosario Strait,
The Int’l Hunter sunk 2 days ago after reportedly hitting a submerged obstruction about 30 miles out of Sabine.
The Mel Oliver collision
Containership Rena aground on well known reef in New Zealand
M/V Delta Mariner takes out Kentucky Lake Bridge
Barge collision, oil spill, close Mississippi
Crowley Tug Bulwark Grounding
Alaska ferry plows into dock
Weeks Marine Smashes Space Shuttle into Railroad Bridge during Tow
Can’t go a week in Fourchon without something…Tidewater supply backed into a Chouest supply
US Navy ships collide off California coast after 'steering malfunction’
Ms. Caroline in collision
Costa Concordia Grounding
SUNY Maritime’s training ship, Empire State has run aground
Shell Drill ship Runs Aground
A tug named Pathfinder sets a course and runs aground at full speed on Bligh Reef
Bulk carrier OCEAN BREEZE hard aground on Chilean beach.
Navy Ship Collides with Tanker
"I can imagine a no more rewarding career, and any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy’"
President John F. Kennedy
So Jeff, you are tossing the entire world of commercial shipping in comparison with the US Navy.
Well OK
I also served in the US Navy, my squadron mates were the best men I have ever known.
I have additional comments to make, thought better of it.
I’ll let this simple post stand as is.
Yep, it’s true that there many more commercial ships and vessels from various flags plowing the worlds oceans more so that us navy ships. I don’t get the connection, or comparison.
In 2011, the US Navy counted 285 ships in its fleet.
Now, if you want to play the statistics game, please do so and get back to us with the accident rate per mile or per crewmember per mile, or depth of dent per port call, or any other off the wall measure you can think of to show how good the Navy is at running ships.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);80758]Yep, it’s true that there many more commercial ships and vessels from various flags plowing the worlds oceans more so that us navy ships. I don’t get the connection, or comparison.[/QUOTE]
There is no connection, no comparison, only a quote from JFK which brought out my comment about my squadron mates, a quote which has absolutely nothing to do with the point of his post. Jeff’s logic is flawed.
[QUOTE=Sweat-n-Grease;80749]So Jeff, you are tossing the entire world of commercial shipping in comparison with the US Navy.
Well OK
I also served in the US Navy, my squadron mates were the best men I have ever known.
I have additional comments to make, thought better of it.
I’ll let this simple post stand as is.[/QUOTE]
I should follow your example Chief, but I won’t…
I wish my country’s Navy produced the worlds finest seafarers.
Sadly, they do not.
I demand my country’s Navy produce the worlds finest War-fighters.
I submit that they do.
@ Xmsccapt(ret)-
You sailed for 30 years beside these guys with an unblemished record.
Did you take steps to improve their performance?
Could you do something now to make improvements?
I think your suggestions would carry some weight.
As Americans and Professional Mariners we should all want our Navy to be the best.
In answer to your very good question and suggestions:
No, I never suggested how they should run a ship. The relationship between an MSC Master and USN is not politically stable enough for me to suggest much of anything. The USN generally looked down on us civilian captains. Add to that, if any wanted to listed and learn they would soon be off to another shore command anyway. There are a few USN COs that were excellent to work with. Some I worked with fostered fine professional relationships and those few I looked forward to operations with. But this was not the norm.
No, I’m out of the game and enjoying the new found world of consulting.
I doubt any suggestions from an outsider would carry any weight. The USN would not want to hear it I’m sure. ( I " consulted" around a ship simulator for a time, none of the hot dogger USN officers wanted to learn anything, they just wanted to play and thought that 80,000 horsepower could solve any problems).
In closing, my 30 plus years of going to sea without an issue was mainly luck. I had friends and peers that ran aground and had collisions. I did nothing special that they didn’t do. I’d say my time in command without incident was 20 percent talent and ability, and 80 percent luck. I had numerous close calls and simply reacted at the time to avoid a collision or other mess that was within seconds of becoming a reality. One must always keep in mind that anything can happen to anyone at any time at sea. No matter how good you are, or think you are. I did nothing special, I just survived.
But if you could suggest a path for improvement, what would it be?
More training?
Longer sea rotations?
Slower promotion rates?
I’m sure all of those are good ideas.
But you were there, is there a simple answer?
There is an investigation going on about this recent incident with the PORTER.
Public comments will be reviewed as a part of it.
For whatever good it might do, I will write to make suggestions.
Just complaining on a chatroom forum doesn’t do anybody any good.
The USN would need to undergo a complete restructuring and that’s not going to happen. Personally I’ve always had heartburn with the USN officers being a weapons officer one time, a navigator another, an MWR officer another and a " chief engineer" yet on another tour. I know they want to do this in hopes of a well rounded officer, but in my estimation they should be either deck or engine like the merchant marine, and other navies around the world. Having worked with the Brits, and Australians ( and others) the deck line officers seems much more “connected” to basic seamanship. But that’s just my take.
Another point is this: the USN does not allow officers to make a mistake. I know, I know - you simply cannot make a mistake with a war ship… ( now we see a large one with USS Porter), Ok, but the current crop of USN officers in command or near command are generally very afraid they will make a blunder, and well they should be. But, didn’t Admiral Nimitz run a small ship aground when a junior officer? I’m sure there was an investigation, but he made Admiral and where would we have been in WWII without him? In the 30 years I worked with the USN I knew but a few that enjoyed command at sea to the point of actually having fun at being in command. Most are just punching tickets, they know one even small screw up and their career is shot. As for me and my group we enjoyed command at sea. True we had very long sea tours and got very comfortable in command, but that is the one thing I miss if anything, That being taking a ship to sea with a good crew, doing a job the best you can, and come back safe. With all the politics, and the hammer hanging over the navy COs head I didn’t see a lot of enjoyment beaming from them. Again, just my observations… Nothing to act on.
You are right, There are no simple answers.
I agree that fooling around on a forum servers little to better anything other than the ability to comment and type.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);80780]The USN would need to undergo a complete restructuring and that’s not going to happen. Personally I’ve always had heartburn with the USN officers being a weapons officer one time, a navigator another, an MWR officer another and a " chief engineer" yet on another tour. I know they want to do this in hopes of a well rounded officer, but in my estimation they should be either deck or engine like the merchant marine, and other navies around the world. Having worked with the Brits, and Australians ( and others) the deck line officers seems much more “connected” to basic seamanship. But that’s just my take.[/QUOTE]
Interesting
Cdr Martin Arriola, USN, was an engine cadet at Kings Point, therefore he didn’t take Maritime Rules of the Road or any navigation training at Kings Point. One would think that somewhere along the line leading up to his advancement and assignment as Commanding Officer of the USS Porter he must/should be knowledgeable in both. My take, he didn’t and wasn’t, perhaps it wasn’t important to him, he relied on others who did.
