Better not do this with the USN, They can’t maintain safe navigation with windows uncovered ( USS Port Royal and others ).
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);119865]Better not do this with the USN, They can’t maintain safe navigation with windows uncovered ( USS Port Royal and others ).[/QUOTE]
Agreed. If we ever made the switch to have career navigation officers and career engineers like most other navies in the world, then perhaps we could start doing more advanced things like this, but certainly not until. There are people within the navy lobbying for this change, but I really don’t think it’s ever going to happen.
I doubt it too, certainly makes sense to have deck and eng officers like the merchants - right you are they other navies are organized like this and makes total sense. The USN has stated many times in the past they want a " well rounded " officer. I can see knowing something about engineering, weapons, deck etc… But with that mindset very easy to fall into the " jack of all trades, master of nothing" reality.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);119871]I doubt it too, certainly makes sense to have deck and eng officers like the merchants - right you are they other navies are organized like this and makes total sense. The USN has stated many times in the past they want a " well rounded " officer. I can see knowing something about engineering, weapons, deck etc… But with that mindset very easy to fall into the " jack of all trades, master of nothing" reality.[/QUOTE]
We have certainly become just that, jack of all trades master of none. But there are goods and bads I think. For how long we have to train these brand new ensigns and JG’s that come onboard I think we do reasonably well. Especially with the amount of sea time that they get in a two year tour and considering that we do some dangerous evolutions at high speeds. The problem is that there’s no formal knowledge test. Just a PQS and a board with the CO and DH’s so qualification process and knowledge requirement will vary slight from ship to ship. Because of that you get some ships that are better or worse than others. I really enjoy that we still do ‘real-time’ piloting having bearing takers on the bridge wings with headsets and working out running fixes and using the old special cases (double the angle on the bow, etc), employing the slide rule and speed triangles on the chart. You have to be really fast on the chart in order to yell out nav reports and track recommendations that are still relevant during the transit. It’s a challenge. I never got to con a ship from pilot pickup to pier when I was in the merchant marine as a mate. But then we do stupid stuff too like for some reason almost all of the navy plots with compass’ instead of dividers and you’ll be hard pressed to find nav triangles on a navy ship. I’m not sure where we got into that habit of plotting with compass’, but no other country I know of does it. So yeah there are goods and bads, but probably more bads than good.
In my long years with Msc the saddest thing I noted was that most commanding officers were just counting the days until their sea tour was over. The reason I think they didn’t seem to enjoy their command time was constantly being under the gun. Just one screw up and you are done. I thought it was a pity to not enjoy the perhaps one time they would command ship at sea. After that, if they survived they would go shore side in command of some shore facility, or pentagon tour. While there has to be standards, I think at the same time the navy tends to " eat their young" too much. This builds officers that are scared to make a decision. Just my observation. I was never a navy officer and for that matter never desired to be one. ( I was told however more than once by USN officers they were envious of our time at sea, and the fact that it seemed we have more latitude in the command of our ships).
There is more going on aboard US Navy vessel than meets the eye and this thread has left out a large segment of the officer community, specifically the EDOs,LDOs and CWOs etc. Many of them do drive the ships, (some don’t). They would modify the old saying to something more like “jack of all trades-master of some”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naval_Officer_Designators
It seems to me that deck folks qualifying in the ER and conversely an engineer qualifying on the bridge is a good thing. Whenever I’ve heard conversations about a person that had attained both a Deck license and Engineering license, the individual so licensed was held in high esteem. So why is there pagan idolatry for a duel licensed civilian but the a naval officer that is duel qualified is a maritime rube?
Keep in mind that Naval officers in the ER are not wrench turners and the officers on the bridge aren’t plotting like they are on merchant vessels, they attain an in depth understanding of the systems and techniques but mostly they manage/lead, so a direct comparison with their civilian counterpart isn’t really possible.
WRT to the underway sea time comparison, while the civilian mariner is off the ship and home for weeks if not months, the naval officer is attached to the ship for years, and there are learning experiences and proficiency opportunities while that naval officer is in port, i.e.: fast cruise drilling, repair availabilities, dry dockings, simulators, etc. Yes, naval officers do pull shore duty eventually, but this can’t be considered a total negative. It is another facet of naval officers that make any direct comparison with their civilian counterparts not really possible.
As far as references to US Navy ship accidents as proof that naval officers are sea-going clowns, I’ll see your Port Royal and raise you a Costa Concordia! We could go back and forth all day like that, but let’s not. 
“As far as references to US Navy ship accidents as proof that naval officers are sea-going clowns, I’ll see your Port Royal and raise you a Costa Concordia! We could go back and forth all day like that, but let’s not. :cool”
Yes, let’s not. Safe to say that in my dealings with the USN there were very few officers I dealt with that I had much respect for. Often times in fact I’d sooner deal with the senior enlisted who many times had a better handle on what they were trying to accomplish.
I don’t personally think the USN officer model is one to copy, especially for the civilian world and something the msc USN types often tried to mimic - and always with disastrous results.
also might I add in no particular order
USS MONTPELIER & USS SAN JACINTO
USS HARTFORD & USS NEW ORLEANS
and
Many, many more merchant vessel movements out there than naval vessels but not too many cargoships cutting right across the bows of a laden tanker in established traffic schemes or subs doing emergency blow and not checking what is above them on the surface?
The military hierarchy is an artifact of the days before universal literacy. Officers were educated and could read and write, enlisted could not read or write.
The military system seems less efficient because relationships like you see between the Chief mate and the bos’n , for example, don’t develop as often. A C/M and bos’n can achieve a solid relationship of mutual respect from working together and become very effective.
My (limited) observation of the military is that this type of relationship happens much less frequently.
Very well said, and a view I completely agree with having dealt with the USN and been with Msc ( quasi military organization) for many years. Indeed many masters and mates had a great working relationship with unlic personnel. So much so that often times the friendship would transcend normal working relationships to actual " off ship" mutual friendships. I can’t count the times a talented and dedicated bosn or Able seaman saved the day for me, and I thanked them for it to be sure! I think in years past the USN may also have been like this, but that sort of mutual respect seems to be gone - at least from what I’ve seen of the USN.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);120362]Very well said, and a view I completely agree with having dealt with the USN and been with Msc ( quasi military organization) for many years. Indeed many masters and mates had a great working relationship with unlic personnel. So much so that often times the friendship would transcend normal working relationships to actual " off ship" mutual friendships. I can’t count the times a talented and dedicated bosn or Able seaman saved the day for me, and I thanked them for it to be sure! I think in years past the USN may also have been like this, but that sort of mutual respect seems to be gone - at least from what I’ve seen of the USN.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);120362]Very well said, and a view I completely agree with having dealt with the USN and been with Msc ( quasi military organization) for many years. Indeed many masters and mates had a great working relationship with unlic personnel. So much so that often times the friendship would transcend normal working relationships to actual " off ship" mutual friendships. I can’t count the times a talented and dedicated bosn or Able seaman saved the day for me, and I thanked them for it to be sure! I think in years past the USN may also have been like this, but that sort of mutual respect seems to be gone - at least from what I’ve seen of the USN.[/QUOTE]
Jeffrox is right in that having naval officers qualify engineering is a good thing. Only like he said there isn’t any real comparison to dual licensed civilians. I am qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch and while I have a really good understanding of how every piece of engineering equipment in the plant works, how it affects me, and how to manage casualties, I lack the practical expertise in turning wrenches and troubleshooting the systems myself. I think there is also more of a need for naval officers to understand how the plant affects them because when we are in a tactical situation we need to know immediately how a casualty is going to affect combat and navigational systems and maneuvering and what not to do to make the issue worse.
It is sad as XMS Captain said that Navy CO’s can’t enjoy their Command at Sea. Just one screw up will end their Surface career and they will get assigned a desk job until they retire. They are constantly under the gun with inspections, and having to worry because they have brand new dysfunctional ensigns on the bridge. The more senior ENS and JG’s manage the new ones and do the training, but it’s never the most experienced teaching the brand new guys but rather OOD’s who have only been qualified OOD a short time. This makes for an extremely stressful command tour.
But we also get to do some cool stuff that’s a little more complicated, and not to mention the brand new Ensigns actually get to drive the ship from pilot pickup to pier, which is awesome experience. I have definitely gotten a ton more shiphandling experience since I joined the Navy for sure. Making waypoint course changes underway like I used to as a third mate on container ships was just not the same. In any case, there are goods and bads. We certainly have had our fair share of accidents, and I agree that it is due to our current system of not specializing our officers like every other country. It may not ever happen, but there are still plenty of things to enjoy about what we do as a Navy in the meantime.
speaking of USN vessels that are useless wonders & tinfoil pieces of shyte…Secretary of the Navy Ray Maybus doubles down on the worthless overpriced LCS vessels declaring then to be “the future of the Navy,…” OH JOYOUS DAY!
[B]Scrutinized Littoral Combat Ships Represent Our Future, Says Mabus
[/B]
September 13, 2013 By MarEx
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus visited Marinette Marine Corporation on Thursday to tour the shipyard and receive an update on the Freedom-variant littoral combat ship (LCS) and its manufacturing process.
“LCS represents the future;” said Mabus, “the future of the Navy, the future of manufacturing and the future of how we get things done.”
Citing recent improvements in LCS production costs, Mabus commended those at Marinette Marine Corporation for the work they have done on behalf of the Department of the Navy.
“The cost of the 10th LCS out of here s going to be about half of the first, and what that means is that you are doing your job really well,” he said.
During his visit Mabus also spoke with shipyard workers, thanking them for their commitment, and reiterated the importance of a strong industrial base to the Navy’s warfighting capabilities.
“The work that you do here at Marinette is work that protects America,” said Mabus. “You can’t come through here and not think that American manufacturing is exceptional. American manufacturing leads the world…just like the American Navy.”
Mabus also underscored his commitment to both LCS and the Navy’s partnership with industry.
“The Chief of Naval Operations and I are absolutely committed to the LCS program,” he said. “As Secretary of the Navy, I’m doing everything I can to protect shipbuilding and, working together, we’re going to make sure we get the ships the Navy needs.”
There are currently four LCSs under construction at Marinette Marine Corporation shipyard, with two more in the material procurement process.
Simply unbelievable how stoopid the Navee is with these terribly underarmed ships! All they can do is go very fast to run away and burn hideous quantities of fuel in the process. I have seen their construction first hand and can tell you that they have painfully paperthin hulls with zero protection from even small arms. All this at almost $400M per! Hell, these don’t even rate a patrolboat yet alone a warship…utter GARBAGE!
We’re doomed! Where oh where is Bill Halsey when you need him? He’d shut all this nonsense down in a heartbeat and have the Navee build ships that can Kill Japs, Japs and more Japs…er sorry, I mean that other Asian enemy of the future who won’t be named at the moment but will soon have a bigger economy than the US.
[QUOTE=c.captain;120509]speaking of USN vessels that are useless wonders & tinfoil pieces of shyte…Secretary of the Navy Ray Maybus doubles down on the worthless overpriced LCS vessels declaring then to be “the future of the Navy,…” OH JOYOUS DAY!
Simply unbelievable how stoopid the Navee is with these terribly underarmed ships! All they can do is go very fast to run away and burn hideous quantities of fuel in the process. I have seen their construction first hand and can tell you that they have painfully paperthin hulls with zero protection from even small arms. All this at almost $400M per! Hell, these don’t even rate a patrolboat yet alone a warship…utter GARBAGE!
We’re doomed! Where oh where is Bill Halsey when you need him? He’d shut all this nonsense down in a heartbeat and have the Navee build ships that can Kill Japs, Japs and more Japs…er sorry, I mean that other Asia enemy of the future who won’t be named at the moment but will soon have a bigger economy than the US.[/QUOTE]
Ray Mabus does about as good of a job as SECNAV as he did governor. His post is nothing but a political spoil of war.
I had serious doubts about DDG-1000 but I was recently afforded the opportunity to speak to someone who was, at some level, part of her design team. While I am still not 100% convinced of the merits of this new floating cardboard box my confidence has been bolstered in her new gun system, which has always been chief among my doubts about the modernization of the U.S. Navy. There is something underwhelming and disheartening about a naval vessel that has only one single 5-inch deck gun, no matter how fast that gun can fire and how many missiles and other armaments the vessel carries. Shells and powder are CHEAPER, which as a tax payer I greatly admire, and do not have fancy computer chips that can fry at any moment causing them to make a hard left and dive into a friendly installation.
I assumed that because DDG-1000 was supposed to be the most high-tech surface combat vessel in the world there would be an utter de-emphasis on naval artillery. Boy, was I ever wrong. Not only does she have 2 main guns to the Arleigh Burke’s 1 Mark 45 but those two guns fire 6.1-inch shells instead of 5-inch shells, and their range is up to 5 times longer. The rate of fire is about half of that of the Mark 45 but it is made up for by the increased per-shell effectiveness in the new “Advanced Gun System” as its called. I sleep just a little bit better at night knowing that the U.S. Navy has made a greater commitment to its naval artillery program, and perhaps most importantly its USMC shore support capabilities, than it has in the last 30 years or more.
HOO AH for United Defense Industries…a Division of BAE Systems. (formerly of the Carlyle Group)…one immense black hole in which money flows at rates even Einstein himself couldn’t calculate.
US Department of Defense spending…federal welfare for mega corporations!
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;120515]I had serious doubts about DDG-1000 but I was recently afforded the opportunity to speak to someone who was, at some level, part of her design team. While I am still not 100% convinced of the merits of this new floating cardboard box my confidence has been bolstered in her new gun system, which has always been chief among my doubts about the modernization of the U.S. Navy. There is something underwhelming and disheartening about a naval vessel that has only one single 5-inch deck gun, no matter how fast that gun can fire and how many missiles and other armaments the vessel carries. Shells and powder are CHEAPER, which as a tax payer I greatly admire, and do not have fancy computer chips that can fry at any moment causing them to make a hard left and dive into a friendly installation.
I assumed that because DDG-1000 was supposed to be the most high-tech surface combat vessel in the world there would be an utter de-emphasis on naval artillery. Boy, was I ever wrong. Not only does she have 2 main guns to the Arleigh Burke’s 1 Mark 45 but those two guns fire 6.1-inch shells instead of 5-inch shells, and their range is up to 5 times longer. The rate of fire is about half of that of the Mark 45 but it is made up for by the increased per-shell effectiveness in the new “Advanced Gun System” as its called. I sleep just a little bit better at night knowing that the U.S. Navy has made a greater commitment to its naval artillery program, and perhaps most importantly its USMC shore support capabilities, than it has in the last 30 years or more.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is looking to be an awesome vessel. I believe those two main guns, with their automated rate of fire is equivalent to five or six 155 cannons in a battery, complete with a firing direction center. This system coupled with the new Excalibur type guided shells is sure to be a winner for the Navy in terms of gunfire support.