"The entire manning CONOPS was founded on the abuse of Sailors - “How long can we work these people non-stop until they burn out?” - and unworkable PPT-thick understanding of how you can have ships only manned by experienced Sailors. "
That was certainly the peacetime CONOPS. I suspect the wartime CONOPS was that the overworked, sleep dep…
"The entire manning CONOPS was founded on the abuse of Sailors - “How long can we work these people non-stop until they burn out?” - and unworkable PPT-thick understanding of how you can have ships only manned by experienced Sailors. "
That was certainly the peacetime CONOPS. I suspect the wartime CONOPS was that the overworked, sleep deprived crew was one-and-done expendable. At least they were honest in calling it a seaframe. The complement, as orginally proposed or currently modified, is likely insufficient to fight the ship and preventing a mission kill from becoming a hulk on the sea floor. Three hundred was the complement for a similar tonnage Sumner, Gearing, or Fletcher. Losing 30 crew on an EP-3 to the enemy is the cost of doing business in combat. They are airframes after all. Lose three hundred crew an people will notice - but you can call it a seaframe.
The OHP FFG's were minimum manned. Served 4 years on one. First 3 years were wonderful. The last year we were an NRF ship. Lost significant manpower but were promised TAR replacements, and we were infrequently supplemented with SELRES (good people). Lots of personnel burn out, deliberate football injuries on weekends leading to LIMDU and transfers, one suicide, increase in NJP's. Retention was bad. Very difficult to keep up with watch standing, equipment maintenance, cleaning and painting. Never saw a TAR replacement in that final year. Long pipeline to train TAR PN2's and YN1's to be techs and mechs. Speaking from experience as a force converted EW1 from RD1, you are not at the top of your game tech-wise when you first report aboard. It wasn't pretty, that final year. Must have been hell on those LCS's from the git-go.
The FFG-7 program called for an undermanned complement out of the gates. While it slowly crept up over time (https://www.gao.gov/assets/plrd-81-34.pdf), it ultimately required a significant amount of support from IMAs to keep them as available even with a bolstered roster. I was fortunate to get a SIMA Mayport reservist billet in the early 90's and the "peace dividend". I had been penciled out of my CVN-72 billet in '93 and, as memory recalls, they gave you 3 months to fit into a new billet or they IRRd you. Anyway, Mayport had OHPs and there was always something to go help fix on them.
"The entire manning CONOPS was founded on the abuse of Sailors - “How long can we work these people non-stop until they burn out?” - and unworkable PPT-thick understanding of how you can have ships only manned by experienced Sailors. "
That was certainly the peacetime CONOPS. I suspect the wartime CONOPS was that the overworked, sleep deprived crew was one-and-done expendable. At least they were honest in calling it a seaframe. The complement, as orginally proposed or currently modified, is likely insufficient to fight the ship and preventing a mission kill from becoming a hulk on the sea floor. Three hundred was the complement for a similar tonnage Sumner, Gearing, or Fletcher. Losing 30 crew on an EP-3 to the enemy is the cost of doing business in combat. They are airframes after all. Lose three hundred crew an people will notice - but you can call it a seaframe.
The OHP FFG's were minimum manned. Served 4 years on one. First 3 years were wonderful. The last year we were an NRF ship. Lost significant manpower but were promised TAR replacements, and we were infrequently supplemented with SELRES (good people). Lots of personnel burn out, deliberate football injuries on weekends leading to LIMDU and transfers, one suicide, increase in NJP's. Retention was bad. Very difficult to keep up with watch standing, equipment maintenance, cleaning and painting. Never saw a TAR replacement in that final year. Long pipeline to train TAR PN2's and YN1's to be techs and mechs. Speaking from experience as a force converted EW1 from RD1, you are not at the top of your game tech-wise when you first report aboard. It wasn't pretty, that final year. Must have been hell on those LCS's from the git-go.
The FFG-7 program called for an undermanned complement out of the gates. While it slowly crept up over time (https://www.gao.gov/assets/plrd-81-34.pdf), it ultimately required a significant amount of support from IMAs to keep them as available even with a bolstered roster. I was fortunate to get a SIMA Mayport reservist billet in the early 90's and the "peace dividend". I had been penciled out of my CVN-72 billet in '93 and, as memory recalls, they gave you 3 months to fit into a new billet or they IRRd you. Anyway, Mayport had OHPs and there was always something to go help fix on them.
Did you ever make it to CVN-72? I was there in the early 90s
Never been aboard her. The Reserve Detachment was at NAS Point Mugu. On active duty I was on the Vinson, CVN-70. '87-91.
Got it. Engineering Lincoln, 90-93. Left about a week before the debacle in Somalia.