maybe so but do not throw our unlicensed brethren under the bus…they do not deserve it
How is it throwing them under the bus? I don’t think you’re fully understanding what’s being discussed.
my take is that you are ok with US “2nd” flag ships sailing with only US senior officers and foreign national crewmembers while I am saying that for a military sealift of even Gulf War size where every ROS ship in the government inventory needs to be fully manned, the US will need more than just extra masters and chiefs. We are talking about more than 70 ships (most RRF ships plus all the LMSRs) in total at 30 to 40 men per and that doesn’t take into account men wanting to get a relief. Just to keep all these ships going is going to require a close to 4000 people plus while this is happening there is the rest of the industry to keep manned and operating. We need every jack one of us if there is going to be a fight like 1990 again someday and I speak from experience because I was there and know how short we were of people that time. It was a crisis bar none
This does make sense in the statistical analysis. More senior officer slots means you can train more officers up to master in a quicker fashion. I would counter however that I have seen a massive drop off in interested young officers in jumping through the requisite hoops to get their Chief Officer ticket. Engineering is a different story. Can’t beat the prospective Chiefs off with a stick.
It’s not like I’d have an issue finishing out my career on the newest, cleanest, largest, and most impressive vessels in the world at a lateral change in pay. I’ve been on the same class of ship for 13 years. Time to change it up and if that improves the pool of qualified top tier officers, yeah that makes sense to me.
No ot is NOT.
Like in the UN General Assembly it is one member one vote. (No veto power due to size of fleet etc.):
A post was split to a new topic: Off-Topic
Fleet size do have a impact on committees and bargaining position. Norway has had a disproportionately impact on IMO because we are a big maritime nation, losing our fleet would make us irrelevant in IMO. USA doesn’t need a fleet to be a big player, but if they made a second register and made Panama, Liberia, Bahamas etc… irrelevant they would pull much of the power in IMO back to the Western Nations. You could say that because USA has not used it’s power to guide IMO, small nations and FOC has had a rediculus power in forming maritime policy’s.
I don’t think an “engineer/deckhand” off a mud boat or brown water tug is going to quickly pick up the nuances of maintaining and operating the plant on a slow speed powered ship.
That’s also assuming that they would want to work deep sea and transition from a two week, three week, or four week rotation (whatever the monetary benefit) to 60-90 days.
They don’t need to know the nuances, they just need to be able to turn a wrench and have enough engine room knowledge to not plug a necessary drain hole. It’s the officers’ job to know the nuances and supervise the unlicensed.
Whether you like it or not it’s the most practical and really the only realistic idea anyone has yet to come up with.
which solves nothing related to having the manpower for a sealift so it is perfect for the goobermint to adopt
how about the plans I have presented? all DoD cargoes in US bottoms? build and charter? expand MSP? all would mean more US ships and US mariners, but your plan means no spending so you get exactly what you pay for…a lot of ships with a US flag off the stern with US masters and chiefs aboard but few if any other Americans. Likely the ships are not of particular value to the DoD (bulk carriers and tankers) so if there is a war, these ships will not be usable in the sealift thus no ships and no US mariners added to the fleet plus why would any of these American FOC shipowners even want to bring their ships to this 2nd US register anyway unless they were given something for doing so? So cost to the taxpayer but no benefit…
keep trying Brownie
There is already a “second register”; it is called Marshall Islands Register and is operated by an American company, in America and by mostly Americans: https://www.register-iri.com/
It is the Registry of choice for many US Shipowners, who are mostly “asset players”, not interested in the actual operation of their ships. MI also have US Laws as basis, which is attractive to US Owners, Financiers, Underwriters as well a Charterers.
The problem, seen from the point of view of military preparedness, is that the ships cannot easily be commandeered in case of war. It is also a problem, as seen by most members here, that few if any US mariners are serving on these US owned ships, for whatever reason.
of course that is the problem. legally the DoD cannot take control of these ships and would need to charter them at wartime rates plus most of these FoC ships are bulk carriers anyway so not useful in a surge sealift. Further, while the US cannot command any civilian to serve in a surge sealift (except for KP grads who still are under their service obligations), it has been amply proven that when the call goes out to man the Feady Reserve Fleet (such as in 1990) American mariners step up and get the cargo moving. The problem is what kind of people do you want to run all these RRF ships? People who have not run big ships (such as tugboat people) or deepsea mariners with the credentials? You can’t really breakout the RRF in a surge sealift without a good backup of people to be called for already in the industry so should the US not have a reserve of mariners just like it has a reserve of ships? And what about the LMSRs? They are also in ROS these days so would need to be crewed up as well. 4000 mariners needed in the first month if the balloon goes up and where are you going to find them? NOT FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES!
Kind of stupid to let foreign companies own the car carrier lines between Europe and USA then. Instant sealift capacity if it were under US flag.
Plenty of those same owners have reflagged some of their PCCs and PCTCs American already under the MSP.
We need more…many more!
That’s already a law.
Charter for what use? DoD doesn’t need a significant amount of extra tonnage.
Would they be able to charter them for commercial use at an acceptably low rate? Highly doubtful.
First the DoD breaks the law regularly and ships plenty of its cargoes in foreign ships.
Second, the concept of build and charter worked with the Mariner class of ships in the 50s and there is no reason it couldn’t work again today
But the law is already there.
Maybe it could, but I don’t see why we couldn’t do that AND a second register to have more senior officer billets out there. (Master, CM, CE, and 1AE at a minimum.)
And why would I want to bring my Marshall Islands flag grain carrier to the 2nd US registry if I have to spend more on my top 4 officers than the whole of the rest of the crew? I’d need some pretty major inventive or a subsidy…still gonna cost the Treasury some major coin!
Next plan pls