Welcome!

The Navy's traditions live on in the hearts of those who serve

Monday, October 11, 2010

The technical gap!

I have written before about the lack of personnel on Navy ships and the lack of creditable training that they receive. The fact is that the talent to do the job, without any help just does not exist anymore! I recently received an email from an independent duty corpsman who was bemoaning the fact that Marines were dieing in the combat zones because the corpsmen in the field just did not have the training and experience to save lives. This is a real tragedy since the independent duty corpsman has been the life saver of Marines and Sailors alike since the Second World War! But, this is only symptomatic of the big problem that exists throughout the Navy. I recently read an article that 's premise was that the Navy was contemplating putting merchant sailors on the ship's of the amphibious Navy. Not all of the billets, but the non-combat jobs. Personnelmen, engineering rates, other non-trigger puller jobs. My first reaction was a long vulgar, diatribe on the lack of intelligence of the Navy's senior management. Then, after cooling down for a couple of days, I thought, this is one way to get qualified professionals back to sea. For a long time, the Navy has used the "Up or Out" idea. If you don't make Senior Chief and have 24 years service, you HAVE to retire, regardless of how good you are at your job! That's just plain stupid! Not everyone can or even wants to be the president of the firm. If a sailor is good at his or her job, is not a disciplinary problem, rotates to sea on time, constantly passes the PRT, WHY would we tell that sailor to go home, when we obliviously need their talent, experience, and skills. So, merchant sailors on Navy ships makes sense. Hell, maybe I will go back to sea, if the Corpsman can stock all my drugs!

But there is another issue to address also. The technical ratings, have a severe deficit in training, experience, and ability. Much of the talent that was in the fleet is now retired. Some of these super techs are now civilians working for the shore establishment of the Navy, doing world wide tech assist, at an alarming rate. Quite a while ago, I was involved in a revolutionary project to establish a remote monitoring program for most of the Navy's high cost systems. The concept was to use existing systems monitoring programs, bounce the change data off the satellite and back to the shore maintenance establishment for monitoring. When a system was near failure, the super techs could tell the ship to replace the components, do the adjustment, or buy a plane ticket to meet the ship if the repair was more than the ship's tech was capable of. Please don't tell me it can't be done, the Marines adopted it, the oil and gas drilling industry has been doing it for 20+ years, and the airlines are doing it. There is a company, headquartered in Denver, named M2M that specializes in this. Ratheon Corporation jumped on the band wagon and now ALL CIWS and RAM systems are remote monitor ready. There is one particular use of this for the U.S. Army that has brought some wonderful data and set up some impressive maintenance successes, not to mention system up time that far exceeds the Navy's for the same system. But the Navy's Engineering Duty Officer program, who are in charge of what goes on Navy ships, is stuck in the "Not invented here" thought process. We can reduce manning on Navy ships, use less experienced, less trained sailors, and still complete our mission while reducing the cost of system's maintenance, if we introduce remote monitoring for most systems and develop replacement data based on usage, equipment performance parameters, and permit the gray beards in the shore establishment to manage this process. If we continue to follow "Not invented here" we will end up with dead sailors and ships on the bottom of the ocean. You figure out the cost! I say my idea is cheaper.

One other point, if they can use robots to do surgery, if the news media can send video reports back to FOX and CNN from anywhere in the world with little more than a cell phone, why can't every corpsman in the field have a satellite phone in his backpack that connects to a doctor? That might save a life or two also.

2 comments:

  1. A favorite author of mine once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that we need to be masters of so many things - self defense, auto repair, economics and politics, etc... specialization is for insects!

    It used to be, as it appeared to me again, that the Navy used to train the ships and boats to be self sufficient because the ships could and would operate on their own. Now, because you can phone it in, or order a part and have it almost immediately, they believe that self sufficiency is redundant. And redundancy is not cost effective. And when you don't have war fighters in the driver's seat, the focus shifts to saving money instead of lives.

    You know, I bet they could save even more money if the station PAC Fleet at Hawaii... I mean nobody would ever launch an attack... oh wait...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silver Fox,

    Pardon my language if some may feel offended. I happen to be very passionate about my rating, Sailors and the future of the US NAVY. I believe that placing Merchant Marines onboard amphibious platforms to replace Steam/Diesel Engineers is bullshit. It is not wholeheartedily a training issue!!! It is a manning issue. The reason that I am privey to this info is because of my experience as a former Detailer. On LHA/LHD/LPD platforms which are the ships of discussion....We are manning the Engineering Ratings to a bear minimum/dangerously low level. Where 4-5 years ago for example....The NMP for these ships were close to or above 100 Engineers total. Now we are manning the ships to roughly 85-90 depending on if the ship is stationed stateside or overseas. Ships that were used to operating with 1 MCPO, 1 SCPO, 5 CPO's are now operating with 1 MCPO and 2 CPO's. The E5 - E6 paygrades also were reduced.

    Engineering jobs in rating....SW-RMC, MARMC, SCRMC, SERMC or at any RMC. Where did the shore duty jobs in rating go? Now we do not have an opportunity for the Sailor to fine tune skills, obtain an NEC, learn their rating and gain much needed technical experience. When a Sailor works in a "Pump Shop", "Diesel Shop", "Valve Shop", ETC for 2-3 years they overhaul and repair thousands of different pieces of equipment. They become the expert!!! What happened to that mindset.

    Big Navy has shifted to the mindset of "Operator". Yet at the same time will accept degraded ships such as New LPD/LHD platforms. INSURV boards have recomended to the SECNAVY to not accept these ships due to material issues...The Government Contractors "Gold Plate" these ships, perform shotty work and deliver ships...They are not held accountable!!!!!

    I just read a recent article on LPD "Diesel" ships just delivered. Some have not been in commission for even 1-2 years!!!!! There are recommendations to scrap the ship all together...The US NAVY will save more money now by scraping these ships than to commission the remaining LPD's. Take a look at the LCS Program!!!!

    Then we have these ships, with all of these problems, delivered and the contractors are no longer accountable. Then we blame it on the junior sailor who just reported to the ship, undermanned and with poor training and lack of shore duty in rating, lack of NEC training. Now we are surprised!!!

    I don't think the Merchant Marines with their "Hybrid Crews" who are so much better than US Navy Engineers can do any better. Most of these Merchant Marines were prior Engineers in the US NAVY!!! If they had a hard time steaming these ships with 20-30 more Sailors what makes us think the same Sailor (Merchant Marine) can do any better?

    Also lets take a look at how Merchant Marines operate their ships....Do they manuever, deballast/ballast and perform amphibious operations??? Hell No. They steam a steady 12 knots and neglect maintenance.

    I will always place my money on the Sailor. The US NAVY has kicked us square in the balls and has failed to recognize that manning issues, training cycles, deployments and several other political factors are to blame. The blue suit "Careerist" in Washington D.C. is to blame.

    ReplyDelete