You know how long we have been yabber'n on about the horrible record of LPD-17 and how she is one of the poster children for "The Lost Decade" in Navy shipbuilding. Just click the LPD-17 tag below if you need a review.
Well, Galrahn over at InfoDis has a JAGMAN that requires your attention. Head on over and give it a read.
It is best enjoyed along with a review of his post last week at USNIBlog. Read it first, then head on over to InfoDis.
1 hour ago
21 comments:
One has to wonder, when listing the failure to train the crew of San Antonio to such a large extent, how many of them received their sexual harrassment lecture, their sensitivity lecture, attended mandatory "optional" formations and ceremonies for this, that, or the other race/gender history month. And how much of the crew's lack of training was due to lack of TAD funding for schools, etc.
AMEN to URR's comment!
Plenty of blame to go around for this floating fluster cluck, and spread evenly all the way up the chain, not merely a CO, XO, CHENG, DIVO, CPO, LPO or watchstander failing to perform.
Those afloat will catch most of the grief and "overtime authorized" to "fix" many of the problems, but someone damn well better be holding their senior's feet to the fire as well!
Looks like they already had been adding 3 watchstanders out of a minimally manned crew, just to try to cope with the chronic failures of the gee-whiz automated systems that did not work. Guess what that does to training, crew rest, morale, etc.
I highlighted #265 for a reason.
Fleet Training Management Planning System (FLTMPS) training is the new web based training model where the fleet learns via using a computer. If I am not mistaken, I think this was implimented for LPD-17 under Harvey when he was manpower & training? I know he was at manpower & training during the time period of that epic record of results on LPD-17 by the JAGMAN.
#265 is one report card for how we can measure the Navy's implimentation of transformational computer based training as we roll it out to the fleet.
Actually FLTMPS is the master listing of all the schools you have been to and official education that you have received, whether through informal training (death by PPT) or in offical classes (A,B,C Schooling or FASOTRAGRU). Think of it basically as a electronic form of your old Page 4. The other cool thing about FLTMPS is that I can take a look at it and if you need to go to rope yarning school, but the one at your home base is closed up till 2013 and the school at Jax has a class seat in the next two weeks. Then I can go to another system and schedule you the Jax NAMTRAU school. What your thinking of is the Navy E-learning system which has now been rolled into NKO. One of the problems with Navy E-Learning program is how they plan sounded with some one's good idea fairy and then how it is actually working. I mean there are some programs that I can get credit on just by clicking through such as "How to write a Navy Letter.", meanwhile on the other side to prior to me going to the range to qualify annual with my M9 I need to pass with 100% on the final test. If I fail the online class, I need to wait a minimum of 6 months prior to doing the class again. The idea was that these classes could save $$$ since we wouldn't have to have as many people with supposedly "useless NECs" of instructors. Also supposedly CBT would save $$$ since we could speed the accession program of new recruits since we would have spend as much time in the actual classroom trying to teach them to do the minimums of thier jobs. We have seen what has happened due to CBT, there are just some jobs and rates where CBT ain't going to cut it.
We had people who made it up thru GS-14 in very short order, by spending most of their first decade in Civil Service almost exclusively running thru all those endless DAWAI DAU courses. But they managed to learn almost Nothing at all about shipbuilding. NAVAL SEA SYSTEM COMMAND might wonder why they we're becoming "Brilliant At The Basics" of shipbuilding :)
Conversely, we had a few remaining old timers who barely managed to rise past GS-11 into GS-12, who would only take the bare minimum of those CBT courses from Defense acquisition university training. But these truly experienced shipbuilders knew more than the new GS-13/14 people hired in the past decade will ever learn about how to properly construct werships.
Sad but true, all these CBT certifications that eat so much work time are sometimes a refuge for those who don't really want to learn what the current NAVSEA Admiral is pushing shipbuilders - to become Brilliant At The Basics". As the GEICO Gecko would say, Want to save a ton of money ? (as well as save man-months per employee per year): Get rid of this wasteful (and expensive) DAWAI DAU which has resulted in the newly hired shipbuilders becoming Ignorant Of The Basics.
You do know that they no longer call themselves "Supships" and are now known as" Shipbuilding Specialtists?"? That all of the "dinosaurs" are extremely knowledgeable (as they are virtually all retired Navy from back when they actually did repairs on their ships), and that the newer ones are dumber than a box of rocks and seem to think it's more important to write Corrective Action Reports on people like me than make sure the job gets done? (and by the way, there are so many rules to doing this work that have virtually zero impact on whether a job is done correctly or not that it amazes the hell out of me.)
As soon as some staffie says "right sized" you know ships are going to be brutally undermanned.
How many courses required? How many men assigned? How many men could be spared a week and still operate the plant and deal with the mountain of KNOWN problems? Looks like mission unachievable, given that the troops aren't coming via the schools.
I read deckplate leadership exhaustion, absence of required training, and 6 tons of work and paper work loaded on a one ton chassis. Computer training is useless for engineering craft expertise, the kids MUST get their hands on, directed by PO's and CPO's who know.
Useless NEC's as instructors, mmm? I would love a back audit of class size, travel funds, and available quotas, and classes sked in that sad litany of 1 of 23 required graduates.
Computer training? Maybe as homework for the lab course where the sailor does the task under supervision and makes the required record entries.
By the way, there isn't much here that didn't appear in the INSURV Notice of Frequent and Repetitive Deficiencies from 1975. Blackfin ruined all propulsion diesels coming out of overhaul around the 69-70 time frame,same basic deal. Surviving dinosuars know because they have seen a lot of non survivors, and the basics, once fully understood, change very little.
The incumbent ComSubPac retired in grade at end of tour after the Blackfin fiasco and the "Shoredragon" endless overhaul. Word on the waterfront was there might have been a connection. Just the fact that the scuttlebutt made the assumption tells you how far we have come in flag accountability in the last 40 years.
Byron, notice that "they" (Supships or whatever they are called these days now), are writing the PC type of paperwork to you:
OLD WAY When I was working: we write QUALITY DEFICIENCY REPORTS QDR.
NEW kinder gentler PC way: they now write CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS CAR.
So now the Navsea overlords (who are mostly inexperienced like you said) are reduced to ASKING you (requesting) in a CAR to take a "correctiive" action !
That certainly sounds much more "gentle" and friendly than putting out a "report" QDR that flatly states (along with detailed References we hope) that Supshipss have detected a DEFIENCY in QUALITY.
Before I retired over a year ago now, the Shupship "normal" paperwork had stopped writing QDR's and everyone (almost) was was writing CAR's. The rules were easier and the "management" at the shipyards did not have to see Metrics, charting just how many new QDR's arrived each week. Contractually, the yard had to respond much differently to QDR's . So, in the "new" Navsea oversight role of the new, neutered Supships, all the upper shipyard management could present to Navsea quarterly program reviews (QPR's) nice charts and graphs that showed very few QDR's !!
Yea team !! QUALITY is UP !! BONUS TIME !
(Heads in sand time = ostrich time for Navsea HQ leaders who visit the yard once each quarter).
So, QDR's declined, while on a separate set of books, everyone processed hundreds of CAR's ! Which the contracts do NOT address at all like a QDR. In recent years, if a young civil servant engineer bothered to research and write a QDR and submit it up the chain at Suphsip, then very soon someone would call him and ask that it be converted into a CAR. Now you know why. I could never have worked 30 years (or any years) under this new "leadership" philosophy of gaming the system so that QUALITY looks good enough for EVM ( Earned Value Management) which pays the yard (wink wink) for their newest well built warships. Ultimately, Navsea headquarters is to blame for the mess they (we) are in now. Fire them ALL and make them reapply for their jobs from scratch.
As I mentioned over at ID, I am not at all sold on CBT/distance learning for practical "hands-on" tasks, and I know it has watered down some of the proficiency levels in the USMC, so I imagine it has done so in the Navy (though, in the case of LPD-17 it was all moot because nobody took the training anyhow).
CBT/distance learning saves money up front, but lower proficiency and smaller skill sets mean more maintenance dollars and more frequent replacement of SECREPS. There's that TCO balloon again. Squeeze it in one place, and it will expand in another.
Well past time for the Navy to get on board with understanding the most fundamental principle of owning equipment.
Just buy up some old cruise ships and be done with it...
As the TOO GOOD TO FIGHT! USN is civilianizing the force anyway, its pretty much a fait accompli they will no longer be warships per se.
Any troubles, they can just call Sea Tow to come get 'em.....
Think of how much money can be freed up for USNA football!
that was me...
I know of one shipyard that got FIVE Method D CARS within 30 days....and they're still working..well, except for the three ships (and counting) that the CO said they'd never step foot on his ship again.
John, it appears the USN is deciding to give up on trying to man up a competent engineering force on these ships, and is talking about putting CivMar engineers aboard the amphibs.
See last week's Navy Times.
Or course, there are some complicated issues with that...
<span>Finally, Navy planners should remain mindful that warfighting capacity diminishes as
active duty personnel are replaced by civilians.</span>
At what point does a military organization start to lose its identity as a fighting organization?
Seems the -WE ARE TOO GOOD TO FIGHT!- 21st century USN is on course to test the limits....
funny part about all of that--nobody in the amphib community knew that CNO was going to say that. He reversed course after telling everyone he WAS NOT going to do that.
Rumor: even Harvey down in USFF didn't know...
Isn't it great when even 4 stars depend on Navy Times?
Saw Roughead on CSPAN last night...
He was touting the fact that there were more IA's on shore than there were sailors in the 5th Fleet.
So...
We need a Navy...Why?
Really.
Can the carrier based aircraft operate without the land based assets inn theater?
No.
Can the USN influence events on shore to any great degree otherwise?
No.
Is the USN adequately positioning istself for the conflicts of the of the 21st Century?
No.
But hey. We got dusty boots! A diversified Color Guard! And a pretty good school football team!
After talking to a machinist leadman (deckplate supervisor) I have found this: ANY time you cut into the lube oil piping system you absolutely MUST do a flush. Second, you should never, EVER use carbon steel pipe on a lube oil system.
Penny wise, millions of dollars foolish.
Penny wise megabucks foolish....over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Roughead, Mullen, Harvey, Greenert....
The wiggling going on to defend some of these guys at the expense of others is humorous. And why? They are all cut from the same cloth, all worship at the altar of "diversity" and are all part of the problem.
I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton remarking on voting when he said, "Detect some difference between the two persons in frock-coats placed before you at this election." Still applicable today in politics and perhaps not so coincidentally applicable to our flag leadership.
And pregnancies onboard ships! Making Sailors for the 21st Century's conflicts right there at sea!
Post a Comment