Spelling errors from the Navy high command are allowed, as they can spell, even if they misspell a word here or there. We Marines do not have such concerns, rather we communicate with hand and arm signals, grunts and frowns. This seems like some recognition that “Houston we have a problem”, and a start at some introspection. If someone follows through perhaps we will find our way out of the defense procurement problems at the same time.
He was a lieutenant on board HMS Swiftsure, a nuclear-powered hunter- killer submarine, and was officer of the watch on the bridge as the boat steamed on the surface in St George’s Channel, between Ireland and Wales.
Having joined the Royal Navy in 1970 as a submariner, he switched to surface ships in 1991, taking command of HMS London, a Type 22 frigate, which went on a historic visit to Murmansk in post-Communist Russia to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second World War Arctic convoys.
His final sea command was HMS Illustrious, the aircraft carrier, from 1998 to 2000. In May 2000 he received an order to proceed “with all dispatch” to Sierra Leone to take part in Operation Palliser, the British military action launched to save Freetown, the capital, from falling into the hands of rebel forces.
Yes. Needless to say, there are a whole bunch of theories on why this happened, even at this remove in time. Most blame the CO, but there are some alleging a secret plan to mine Swedish waters being the prime culprit. Apparently the official story won't be declassified until 2041 (!).
From what I can tell they stumbled on each other. IIRC, the weather was not good, so Glorious had nothing in the air and so no early warning to turn tail.
I've heard the mining story, but Swedish waters would place Glorious in the Baltic, not the Atlantic where she was caught.
The official story will be interesting, but it would be 15 years from now before the release adn I will be in my late 80s, and likely dead. Men on both sides of my family generally lasts into their early 80s at the latest.
And maybe start requiring 2 or 3 tours in logistics to rise above a certain rank? Actually being on a ship to help get the full benefit of the posting.
With MSVL evidently not getting the green light, the army is in a real pinch to keep their fleet. I'd hand them the contracts to the LSM and let the Marines focus on their experimental ships and get cracking on a faster heavy connector than LCU.
The Key West agreement should be shredded and burned. What used to be Tactical Air Command should be turned back to the Army. USAF can then be the strategic service it has always aspired to be and not to have to worry about mud moving.
I'd be interested (as a former Phib Boat Group gu)y to see what we've done with the twixt-and-between capabilities. When the LCAC became the answer to the maiden's prayer all those slow ol boats, were seen as "surplus to needs". How about now?
Likewise how's the health of our Beachmaster community?
Given the abject (and wholly foreseeable) failure of a single pier during the last administration, I also have to wonder if there is such a critter as a "Phib SeaBee" anymore?
I suspect that the failure of the pier in Gaza was not due to the SeaBees but due to political types in the last administration who thought the were geniuses and gave instructions that did not mesh with engineering reality.
We're going to need a bigger boat. The Chinese just showed the way. We just built a similar size and style vessel for windfarm development. We don't need them to do what the Chinese are planning, but wow would a few prepositioned ones come in handy down the road.
As I was reading the CNO's letter, I wondered if you had caught the misspelling in para 4.a.(2). 8-)
Good call on CNO's part, though a bit slow in coming about. 52 years ago my first CO, CAPT Charles S. Christensen Jr, was a product of California Maritime Academy and had been on active duty since the Korean War. A true sailorman. He let junior officers conn themselves into trouble, knowing that if needed, he could do his magic and solve the problem. That was just one part of his great leadership. My next two COs in AFS-3 were aviators who hadn't been in a pilot house since they were young LCDRs, and really didn't understand how ships are maneuvered, especially UNREP up close and personal.
Now, what we really need are O-6 SWOs to get qualified as Aviation Observers (like ADM Spruance did) in preparation for them to take command of carriers. Let the flak begin!
"children?.....(raps on desk with ruler) children?....Hey you KIDS!......if you will take a moment, please, to look over the horizon? Yes, there. There is the enemy. That is our task today. So, if you'll please, please, please.....just get over yourselves, and concentrate on this.......CHILDREN!!! LISTEN UP!...."
From a personal perspective, I served under and worked directly for three COs on an east coast LPD in the early 90s, two aviators and one SWO, each with completely different leadership styles and competency.
The first was a Vietnam helo pilot who absolutely was a leader beyond peer. Didn't sweat the small stuff but was very involved in operations. However, recent events underway dictate COs should sweat the small stuff lest avoiding collisions and fires.
The second was a by the book SWO who had a hard-ass style of leadership that turned off many junior SWOs that were used to the previous CO's positive leadstyle. I personally got along great with him as I new exactly what the standards were each and every day...no deviation ever, which most officers appreciate.
The third CO, an aviator selected for CVN command could have been the poster boy example as to why aviators will no longer command large deck amphibs. His leadership style and outlook varied every day. His sole motivation at times, and he said it out loud more than once, was the impact the crew had on his future CVN command. He couldn't give a rat's behind about a single crew member, only what they could do for him to get to command.
Bottom line...from my experience SWOs should command large deck amphibs. The ship got lucky with the first aviator CO but the second was enough to drive competent sailors out of the Navy.
While I served 21 years in the military, between active (Marines) and reserves (Air Guard), I was also a municipal police officer. My first shift lieutenant was an absolute strict by-the-book SOB. He eventually became the chief of police and continued to be the same SOB. You knew, every day going to work, what was expected from you as far as behavior and work product. He never varied. Tough man to deal with, but you always knew where he was coming from. I so much preferred him to my next lieutenant who was a nut case and you never knew what was coming out of his mouth next. Then again, he got fired for assaulting one of his officers (not me). I tried to be more of police leader like I was as a senior NCO in the military. I took care of my people and insisted on top quality work. I retired from the PD as the deputy chief. I didn't worry about kissing butt or stepping on subordinates to get promoted and it happened anyway.
I had two COs aboard my ship... it was a deep draft command and a stepping stone.
First CO was a Tomcat pilot. Could handle.our single screw, huge sail area AFS with uncanny, even supernatural skill. Strictly, but he also bent and tweaked rules- mostly for the benefit of the crew. Good extended port stops, BBQs often... even a twin Tomcat flyby in the Med from old squadron buddies- 50 ft off the deck and supersonic. Never mind the damage it did to the ship lol!!. The CO wandered the ship often, and talked to even the lowest newest sailors to "get the dope" about what was happening on board. He also drove a red Corvette droptop with our hull number on his plates. Single... dated only the hottest "model of the week", which the crew enjoyed since he brought many to "see his boat"! The crew loved him... and even though we were a supply ship... we'd of all charged into fleet combat with our twin 3"50s if he said to... without doubt or hesitation.
Now... second CO... overweight, concerned with nothing but his image and career. Gave illegal orders to help keep the crew from making him look bad. Couldn't drive a ship to save his life. I feel like he would've thrown the whole crew overboard at sea if it'd enhance his image with our Commodore and get him a star. Most disturbing Officer I ever had the displeasure to serve under. Sure... maybe we were a bit spoiled by the previous CO... but this guy should've never made full Lt... nevermind Captain!! So... my limited experience says aviators can be great COs... and SWOs... in my mind its a mixed bag...
Had a friend, LDO engineer, who used to tell a story about his dept senior chief was he was a Lt on a deep draft with a CO who had been a Blue Angles pilot.
CO brought the guys from his old unit on a tour and introduced them to the men "Men, these are the Blue Angels!"
Senior chief steps forward "Well, I don't follow baseball much, but it's nice to meet you guys anyway."
Possibly a sea story but I always rather hoped it was true.
Used to be the deep draft “training wheels” ships were logistics ships. The aircrew guys broke some of those too, but never burned them to the waterline pier side. The best aviation skipper I saw when on a logistic staff got busted for trying to fish from the company pier. He never got a worm in though.
For giving Aviators LPD commands I think it was a chance for them to be in command of a ship before a CVN or LHA/LHD. Get used to thinking ship instead of air. My thinking on LHA/LHD and historical LPH being Aviation commands was from those ships originating from CVs in the past. Makes perfect sense in that regard.
As for AS being Submarine commands, well, they are slotted in under Submarine Force as a type commander. I expect them to fight to keep them as the only major commands they have. SSGNs are going away, and with them are eight O-6 command at sea billets.
Yeah. Sea Story: While in command of my AO during Lebanon ops in 1983, I barely restrained my First Lieutenant from putting rat guards on the hoses we sent over to fuel the LPH. She was that badly maintained.
It’s one thing to learn how to con a CVN or learn how to be a reactor operator. It’s a totally different thing to have lived your whole professional career learning how to maintain and support the progressive, incremental overhaul including accomplishment of planned and corrective maintenance, and directed modernization actions during the refit maintenance period of nuclear submarines and coordinate with the planning yard, SUBMEPP, NR, SSPO, SMSO. All the repair, weapons and supply officers are required to be submarine qualified including many of the more senior division officers. I guess since the squadron staff is on board as well who are all submarine qualified and who have for the most part spent at least half their career there or better neck deep in submarine maintenance and support there would at least be hands on adult supervision. There are probably some aviators who could lead an AS but since sub tenders are almost always welded to the pier I don’t know how it could be good for the Navy to throw an aviator into a high pressure maintenance environment it takes years to learn. Submarine maintenance and quality assurance are designed to prevent the readiness and material condition problems in the amphibs. Don’t think aviators can contribute anything but risk to the submarine mx equation.
Aviators are far far more QA and maintenance savvy then you must know. Working on aircraft is right up there with sub maintenance. I doubt a sub ever sank from a lost dime but aircraft and pilots have been lost for that so there is a high level of expertise and oversight in aviation maintenance as well. The SWO side.. the most often worst case maintenance outcome would be a fire or DIW resulting in major damage requiring a tug. Aviation maintenance malpractice kills just the same as in the sub world. NCIS shows up if someone leaves a dewalt drill somewhere in your aircraft from a maintenance facility just the same as if you found one in a trim tank. I think you may not be that familiar with aviation maintenance. Aviation maintenance is probably a lot more parallel to Sub maintenance than you might think in terms of the layers of oversight and monitoring programs.
Pitch - I am very familiar with the basics of aircraft maintenance. Having seen, been briefed, walked through and consulted for USAF depot maintenance and inventory operations including rotables, multiple large GA FBO operations, one large US domestic carrier and one large US parcel carrier. Especially in civil aviation the paucity of work instructions and lack of independent QA shocked me on jobs that I would have thought would be worked under a QA package. Example nothing that I am familiar with on a submarine gets lockwired without a QA package and independent verification and that was not the case in the early 2000s when I was touring aviation Mx facilities across the fruited plains. I was not saying that US military aviation QA is not up to the task it was designed for given the extreme conditions both it and scheduled airlines operate under. Rather I don’t think the two systems share the same QA philosophy and planning undergirded by QA principles which influences the behavior and the level of professionalism that extends from the first term submarine qualified non-nuclear machinists mate twisting a wrench on a leaking trap in the galley sink, a salty old submarine qualified LDO running shop 38 in the outside machine shop on the tender to the captain of an AS who is a former submarine captain and has an SSN alongside the pier getting a nuclear steam generator cleaning. It just has to be something you have lived and breathed to be good at and it’s not an environment where we should be experimenting. Look at all the delays in nuclear ships in overhauls in both public and private yards. Mx is hard everywhere but I think the record supports that nuclear powered ship repair is not the place to experiment.
USAF does maintenance a lot different then USN and they aren't really comparable. They have maintenance squadrons. USN we have O level, I level an D level maintenance and every nut and washer is accounted for and witnessed being torqued and signed off. Your getting a hangar tour at a USAF facility is not the same as O level or I level maintenance going on on a CVN. Did every single tool on the submarine have a engraved serial number and had to be signed in and out of a tool room with every usage? Would you have gotten in serious trouble bringing your own screwdriver on the submarine? You know the administration side and got some exposure but you really don't know Naval Aviation Maintenance and I suspect when SUBSAFE happened.. they adopted a some aviation methods.. not the other way around.
All good points. It does sound like Naval Aviation does have a stronger maintenance QA culture than what I have seen elsewhere in aviation. But while Fleet Admiral King commanded destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers and was qualified in submarines before there were dolphins, albeit he did the first design for the dolphin pin, I don’t believe there are a lot of budding fleet admirals in today’s Navy ready to cross deck at the captain level into a submarine path with follow on tours in USW. It was Congress who wrote into law that you had to be an aviator to command a carrier. Maybe the same thing needs to be done to protect submarine critical commands.
We should be careful with this or we may end up with a fleet of ekranoplans and airships.
I'll pitch that we need ore amphibs and also pitch that part of our problem is their size. 45 and 25k tons will never create the flexibility needed, Build a little LSD we can also sell new in the export market. Small enough it can use Burke size maintenance facilities. Do this and hand the LSMs to the Army.
"We should be careful with this or we may end up with a fleet of ekranoplans and airships."
Wha..? hey, play nice! :)
('salright. I know that to most folk "airships" means blimps or some other glorified balloon nonsense. can't fault you for that.....I would dread such a state myself. blimps, bah!)
You know I am just an old grandson of a dry land cotton farmer in Texas (read hard working and STRONG CHRISTIAN background) who joined the Navy so I could Sacrificially Serve my country. The whole time I took part in the pre-during-post LCS debate (that is still going on I guess) I kept hearing this ‘Command at Sea’ argument . . . and could not figure out what was going on. Well, now I understand. We had a lot of frigates and they were commands at sea. They were all parked with no replacement restricting that path of advancement. WHAT AN IRRESPONSIBLE DECISION! They neutered the platforms first (Mk13 GMLS removed) because they did not want to support it, then they took our ESCORTS from us (U.S.) claiming Righteous Budgeting while they gutted our SWO ranks of Command at Sea billets.
THIS is why we need a good multi-warfare frigate (PERIOD). With 50-60 frigates in the force we can provide ‘first look’ Command at Sea performance providing some balance in this realm, provide a path for Reserve SWO officers, and enable/promote our Citizens Sailors a path who want to continue service. We get an eight-fold return on every $$$ invested in the Reserve Forces until mobilization.
A Reserve Frigate Program should return to our U.S. Naval Force! Home ported at some U.S. bases, but prefer away from those bases moving to USCG Cities, then major/minor ports that are near metropolitan areas that can provide economic stability/support. We can use all three coasts but the Left Coast should not receive any special treatment except for Alaska.
Hey!!! Back to the future again. Good show CNO. Using various surface ships as training wheels for prospective CV CO was never a really well thought out process. Let Black shoes drive ships, and Brown shoes aviate. Hm: How about Black shoes command carriers too?
I never understood why not. If the CO of the ship also commanded the airwing, it would make sense to be an aviator. Is it the idea that to be Carrier Task group commander you have to have been both CV Commander and an Aviator?
Brits kept the two things separate, generally successfully (pace--maybe--HMS Glorious 1940). Likewise engineers and deck types. No reason functionally for a CV CO to be telling CAG how to run his Air Group, or vice versa.
The point is in managing and maintaining a ship and her crew. Projectiles once fired--be they manned or not--are not under the control of the CO. Blackshoes have done pretty well at controlling Carriers, BTW--I offer Spruance and Midway as an example.
Aviation ships still need Aviators in Command. Day 1 indoc Helicopter Training Squadron 18 (HT-18) Jan 1992.. Instructor "The shoes will try and kill you" I will give you LHA/LHD but CVN's should and always were and are Aviators back to the USS Langley. So you know there is often a SWO O-5 as OOD during intensive operations so the expertise is there. A helicopter pilot I know won the ship handling contest on a CG in the late 90s against every SWO on the ship.. He was a ringer though.. Graduate of Maine Maritime and actually a licensed mariner.. As a prior OS in my enlisted days I could do desired wind problems in my head looking at my repeaters in the LSO shack on FFG/DD/CGs and usually could nail the course and speed we needed better than the pilot house. Drove them a bit nuts when I was right. Probably the only SH-60B pilot to do a MO Board in the helicopter when our system completely failed but our radar still worked in backup mode.
Interesting. Just when things like LHA's are becoming prospectively (or perspectively) in CNO terms) more important to aviation warfare we change the career paths for CO's. First they expanded to F35B's. Now drone carriage is on the horizon.
We've got a lot less big decks for aviators than we used to have. I guess they are putting SWO's back on amphib command tracks because they also have fewer major command tracks. But more than likely these large deck amphibs will start to be used for drones of all sorts...subsurface, surface and aviation. Better have a good sub guy and aviation guy behind each SWO CO, or SWO and Sub guy behind any aviator, and ditto SWO and aviation behind a sub guy. I can see that these platforms need max flexibility in the future for less rigidity so missions with drones can expand.
I really appreciate that new "Perspective Commanding Officer" pipeline.
Every Commanding Officer should demonstrate adequate perspective.
I suggest we also consider a "Perceptive Commanding Officer" pipeline.
So what happens to the guys in the existing PCO (Prospective Commanding Officer) pipeline?
And WTF is wrong with our educational system?
I learned the difference between prospective and perspective in second grade, from a very perceptive graduate of a State Normal School (where they produced actual teachers).
I've seen the results of just such posting and would fully endorse my SF Brother's take
Spelling errors from the Navy high command are allowed, as they can spell, even if they misspell a word here or there. We Marines do not have such concerns, rather we communicate with hand and arm signals, grunts and frowns. This seems like some recognition that “Houston we have a problem”, and a start at some introspection. If someone follows through perhaps we will find our way out of the defense procurement problems at the same time.
Shouldn't PCO be "prospective" rather than "perspective"? Silly staff officers!
Just added that in. LOLOL
Does this mean a nuc submarine officer could someday command a carrier, or an airdale be run through nuc school and before command of a sub?
No.
Emphatically No.
It's interesting to note that the Brits have had leadership tracks where bubbleheads have commanded carriers.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/submariner-rises-from-the-cold-war-depths-z3rnqwsxdr5
Submariner rises from the Cold War depths
He was a lieutenant on board HMS Swiftsure, a nuclear-powered hunter- killer submarine, and was officer of the watch on the bridge as the boat steamed on the surface in St George’s Channel, between Ireland and Wales.
Having joined the Royal Navy in 1970 as a submariner, he switched to surface ships in 1991, taking command of HMS London, a Type 22 frigate, which went on a historic visit to Murmansk in post-Communist Russia to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second World War Arctic convoys.
His final sea command was HMS Illustrious, the aircraft carrier, from 1998 to 2000. In May 2000 he received an order to proceed “with all dispatch” to Sierra Leone to take part in Operation Palliser, the British military action launched to save Freetown, the capital, from falling into the hands of rebel forces.
For a not as happy similar situation, check out HMS Glorious in 1940.
That was a pretty bad bit of bad luck.
Yes. Needless to say, there are a whole bunch of theories on why this happened, even at this remove in time. Most blame the CO, but there are some alleging a secret plan to mine Swedish waters being the prime culprit. Apparently the official story won't be declassified until 2041 (!).
From what I can tell they stumbled on each other. IIRC, the weather was not good, so Glorious had nothing in the air and so no early warning to turn tail.
I've heard the mining story, but Swedish waters would place Glorious in the Baltic, not the Atlantic where she was caught.
The official story will be interesting, but it would be 15 years from now before the release adn I will be in my late 80s, and likely dead. Men on both sides of my family generally lasts into their early 80s at the latest.
And maybe start requiring 2 or 3 tours in logistics to rise above a certain rank? Actually being on a ship to help get the full benefit of the posting.
Yeah, no thanks. Also, how much time do you think people have in their careers?
It looks like the Pentagon is finally taking the Gator Navy seriously.
Maybe we will even see the Marines seize some islands and beaches.
I could not understand why we didn’t take over the islands off the coast of Yemen when the Houthis started causing problems.
I don’t understand why we haven't seized some of the islands off Iran and some of the ports between Pakistan and the Strait.
You need a Gator Navy if you want to project power from the sea and be a world power.
Those problems were all fixed by Goldwater Nichols. Just ask CDR Sal.
With MSVL evidently not getting the green light, the army is in a real pinch to keep their fleet. I'd hand them the contracts to the LSM and let the Marines focus on their experimental ships and get cracking on a faster heavy connector than LCU.
We saw how well that worked in Gaza a couple of years ago
The Key West agreement should be shredded and burned. What used to be Tactical Air Command should be turned back to the Army. USAF can then be the strategic service it has always aspired to be and not to have to worry about mud moving.
I'd be interested (as a former Phib Boat Group gu)y to see what we've done with the twixt-and-between capabilities. When the LCAC became the answer to the maiden's prayer all those slow ol boats, were seen as "surplus to needs". How about now?
Likewise how's the health of our Beachmaster community?
Given the abject (and wholly foreseeable) failure of a single pier during the last administration, I also have to wonder if there is such a critter as a "Phib SeaBee" anymore?
Just wonderin'
I suspect that the failure of the pier in Gaza was not due to the SeaBees but due to political types in the last administration who thought the were geniuses and gave instructions that did not mesh with engineering reality.
We're going to need a bigger boat. The Chinese just showed the way. We just built a similar size and style vessel for windfarm development. We don't need them to do what the Chinese are planning, but wow would a few prepositioned ones come in handy down the road.
I was certainly NOT slagging on our people. Far from it.
As I was reading the CNO's letter, I wondered if you had caught the misspelling in para 4.a.(2). 8-)
Good call on CNO's part, though a bit slow in coming about. 52 years ago my first CO, CAPT Charles S. Christensen Jr, was a product of California Maritime Academy and had been on active duty since the Korean War. A true sailorman. He let junior officers conn themselves into trouble, knowing that if needed, he could do his magic and solve the problem. That was just one part of his great leadership. My next two COs in AFS-3 were aviators who hadn't been in a pilot house since they were young LCDRs, and really didn't understand how ships are maneuvered, especially UNREP up close and personal.
Now, what we really need are O-6 SWOs to get qualified as Aviation Observers (like ADM Spruance did) in preparation for them to take command of carriers. Let the flak begin!
"children?.....(raps on desk with ruler) children?....Hey you KIDS!......if you will take a moment, please, to look over the horizon? Yes, there. There is the enemy. That is our task today. So, if you'll please, please, please.....just get over yourselves, and concentrate on this.......CHILDREN!!! LISTEN UP!...."
damn kids. get off my lawn.
From a personal perspective, I served under and worked directly for three COs on an east coast LPD in the early 90s, two aviators and one SWO, each with completely different leadership styles and competency.
The first was a Vietnam helo pilot who absolutely was a leader beyond peer. Didn't sweat the small stuff but was very involved in operations. However, recent events underway dictate COs should sweat the small stuff lest avoiding collisions and fires.
The second was a by the book SWO who had a hard-ass style of leadership that turned off many junior SWOs that were used to the previous CO's positive leadstyle. I personally got along great with him as I new exactly what the standards were each and every day...no deviation ever, which most officers appreciate.
The third CO, an aviator selected for CVN command could have been the poster boy example as to why aviators will no longer command large deck amphibs. His leadership style and outlook varied every day. His sole motivation at times, and he said it out loud more than once, was the impact the crew had on his future CVN command. He couldn't give a rat's behind about a single crew member, only what they could do for him to get to command.
Bottom line...from my experience SWOs should command large deck amphibs. The ship got lucky with the first aviator CO but the second was enough to drive competent sailors out of the Navy.
While I served 21 years in the military, between active (Marines) and reserves (Air Guard), I was also a municipal police officer. My first shift lieutenant was an absolute strict by-the-book SOB. He eventually became the chief of police and continued to be the same SOB. You knew, every day going to work, what was expected from you as far as behavior and work product. He never varied. Tough man to deal with, but you always knew where he was coming from. I so much preferred him to my next lieutenant who was a nut case and you never knew what was coming out of his mouth next. Then again, he got fired for assaulting one of his officers (not me). I tried to be more of police leader like I was as a senior NCO in the military. I took care of my people and insisted on top quality work. I retired from the PD as the deputy chief. I didn't worry about kissing butt or stepping on subordinates to get promoted and it happened anyway.
I had two COs aboard my ship... it was a deep draft command and a stepping stone.
First CO was a Tomcat pilot. Could handle.our single screw, huge sail area AFS with uncanny, even supernatural skill. Strictly, but he also bent and tweaked rules- mostly for the benefit of the crew. Good extended port stops, BBQs often... even a twin Tomcat flyby in the Med from old squadron buddies- 50 ft off the deck and supersonic. Never mind the damage it did to the ship lol!!. The CO wandered the ship often, and talked to even the lowest newest sailors to "get the dope" about what was happening on board. He also drove a red Corvette droptop with our hull number on his plates. Single... dated only the hottest "model of the week", which the crew enjoyed since he brought many to "see his boat"! The crew loved him... and even though we were a supply ship... we'd of all charged into fleet combat with our twin 3"50s if he said to... without doubt or hesitation.
Now... second CO... overweight, concerned with nothing but his image and career. Gave illegal orders to help keep the crew from making him look bad. Couldn't drive a ship to save his life. I feel like he would've thrown the whole crew overboard at sea if it'd enhance his image with our Commodore and get him a star. Most disturbing Officer I ever had the displeasure to serve under. Sure... maybe we were a bit spoiled by the previous CO... but this guy should've never made full Lt... nevermind Captain!! So... my limited experience says aviators can be great COs... and SWOs... in my mind its a mixed bag...
Had a friend, LDO engineer, who used to tell a story about his dept senior chief was he was a Lt on a deep draft with a CO who had been a Blue Angles pilot.
CO brought the guys from his old unit on a tour and introduced them to the men "Men, these are the Blue Angels!"
Senior chief steps forward "Well, I don't follow baseball much, but it's nice to meet you guys anyway."
Possibly a sea story but I always rather hoped it was true.
Used to be the deep draft “training wheels” ships were logistics ships. The aircrew guys broke some of those too, but never burned them to the waterline pier side. The best aviation skipper I saw when on a logistic staff got busted for trying to fish from the company pier. He never got a worm in though.
Is fishing from the pier a big no-no?
Not that kinda fishing…
Now I understand the "worm in" failure.
That did take a moment's thought.
For giving Aviators LPD commands I think it was a chance for them to be in command of a ship before a CVN or LHA/LHD. Get used to thinking ship instead of air. My thinking on LHA/LHD and historical LPH being Aviation commands was from those ships originating from CVs in the past. Makes perfect sense in that regard.
As for AS being Submarine commands, well, they are slotted in under Submarine Force as a type commander. I expect them to fight to keep them as the only major commands they have. SSGNs are going away, and with them are eight O-6 command at sea billets.
Yeah. Sea Story: While in command of my AO during Lebanon ops in 1983, I barely restrained my First Lieutenant from putting rat guards on the hoses we sent over to fuel the LPH. She was that badly maintained.
Speaking of, I just read Jack Carr / James Scott's "Targeted Beirut." It was eye opening; I never really had a full appreciation of 1983 in Lebanon.
It’s one thing to learn how to con a CVN or learn how to be a reactor operator. It’s a totally different thing to have lived your whole professional career learning how to maintain and support the progressive, incremental overhaul including accomplishment of planned and corrective maintenance, and directed modernization actions during the refit maintenance period of nuclear submarines and coordinate with the planning yard, SUBMEPP, NR, SSPO, SMSO. All the repair, weapons and supply officers are required to be submarine qualified including many of the more senior division officers. I guess since the squadron staff is on board as well who are all submarine qualified and who have for the most part spent at least half their career there or better neck deep in submarine maintenance and support there would at least be hands on adult supervision. There are probably some aviators who could lead an AS but since sub tenders are almost always welded to the pier I don’t know how it could be good for the Navy to throw an aviator into a high pressure maintenance environment it takes years to learn. Submarine maintenance and quality assurance are designed to prevent the readiness and material condition problems in the amphibs. Don’t think aviators can contribute anything but risk to the submarine mx equation.
Aviators are far far more QA and maintenance savvy then you must know. Working on aircraft is right up there with sub maintenance. I doubt a sub ever sank from a lost dime but aircraft and pilots have been lost for that so there is a high level of expertise and oversight in aviation maintenance as well. The SWO side.. the most often worst case maintenance outcome would be a fire or DIW resulting in major damage requiring a tug. Aviation maintenance malpractice kills just the same as in the sub world. NCIS shows up if someone leaves a dewalt drill somewhere in your aircraft from a maintenance facility just the same as if you found one in a trim tank. I think you may not be that familiar with aviation maintenance. Aviation maintenance is probably a lot more parallel to Sub maintenance than you might think in terms of the layers of oversight and monitoring programs.
Pitch - I am very familiar with the basics of aircraft maintenance. Having seen, been briefed, walked through and consulted for USAF depot maintenance and inventory operations including rotables, multiple large GA FBO operations, one large US domestic carrier and one large US parcel carrier. Especially in civil aviation the paucity of work instructions and lack of independent QA shocked me on jobs that I would have thought would be worked under a QA package. Example nothing that I am familiar with on a submarine gets lockwired without a QA package and independent verification and that was not the case in the early 2000s when I was touring aviation Mx facilities across the fruited plains. I was not saying that US military aviation QA is not up to the task it was designed for given the extreme conditions both it and scheduled airlines operate under. Rather I don’t think the two systems share the same QA philosophy and planning undergirded by QA principles which influences the behavior and the level of professionalism that extends from the first term submarine qualified non-nuclear machinists mate twisting a wrench on a leaking trap in the galley sink, a salty old submarine qualified LDO running shop 38 in the outside machine shop on the tender to the captain of an AS who is a former submarine captain and has an SSN alongside the pier getting a nuclear steam generator cleaning. It just has to be something you have lived and breathed to be good at and it’s not an environment where we should be experimenting. Look at all the delays in nuclear ships in overhauls in both public and private yards. Mx is hard everywhere but I think the record supports that nuclear powered ship repair is not the place to experiment.
USAF does maintenance a lot different then USN and they aren't really comparable. They have maintenance squadrons. USN we have O level, I level an D level maintenance and every nut and washer is accounted for and witnessed being torqued and signed off. Your getting a hangar tour at a USAF facility is not the same as O level or I level maintenance going on on a CVN. Did every single tool on the submarine have a engraved serial number and had to be signed in and out of a tool room with every usage? Would you have gotten in serious trouble bringing your own screwdriver on the submarine? You know the administration side and got some exposure but you really don't know Naval Aviation Maintenance and I suspect when SUBSAFE happened.. they adopted a some aviation methods.. not the other way around.
That was the whole point of Aviators getting a 'Deep Draft' command...
Dad got one of the six AO's that was in the Pacific at the start of WWII which the "other" Sal showcased in this vid as his...
https://youtu.be/gv6lfke6lEY?si=_5prsd8QoNqOkYc_
And early on, I learned about some valuable Naval History from that.
Of course, nowadays Big Navy cant be bothered with such mundane tasks so they pawned UNREP off to MARAD.
Amphibs only have a deep draft when they are ballasted, and then certainly aren't moving at 25 knots into the wind.
Figure of speech Andy...
The term came about when there were APA's and such, and back then the SERVFOR ships were used for the role as well...
Before the job got contracted out.
The "L" wasn't used until the 70's.
Also, in dad's day, squadron Department Heads were "encouraged" to qualify as OOD underway while on deployment.
How often does that happen today?
All good points. It does sound like Naval Aviation does have a stronger maintenance QA culture than what I have seen elsewhere in aviation. But while Fleet Admiral King commanded destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers and was qualified in submarines before there were dolphins, albeit he did the first design for the dolphin pin, I don’t believe there are a lot of budding fleet admirals in today’s Navy ready to cross deck at the captain level into a submarine path with follow on tours in USW. It was Congress who wrote into law that you had to be an aviator to command a carrier. Maybe the same thing needs to be done to protect submarine critical commands.
We should be careful with this or we may end up with a fleet of ekranoplans and airships.
I'll pitch that we need ore amphibs and also pitch that part of our problem is their size. 45 and 25k tons will never create the flexibility needed, Build a little LSD we can also sell new in the export market. Small enough it can use Burke size maintenance facilities. Do this and hand the LSMs to the Army.
"We should be careful with this or we may end up with a fleet of ekranoplans and airships."
Wha..? hey, play nice! :)
('salright. I know that to most folk "airships" means blimps or some other glorified balloon nonsense. can't fault you for that.....I would dread such a state myself. blimps, bah!)
I knew you'd pop up at that one!
You know I am just an old grandson of a dry land cotton farmer in Texas (read hard working and STRONG CHRISTIAN background) who joined the Navy so I could Sacrificially Serve my country. The whole time I took part in the pre-during-post LCS debate (that is still going on I guess) I kept hearing this ‘Command at Sea’ argument . . . and could not figure out what was going on. Well, now I understand. We had a lot of frigates and they were commands at sea. They were all parked with no replacement restricting that path of advancement. WHAT AN IRRESPONSIBLE DECISION! They neutered the platforms first (Mk13 GMLS removed) because they did not want to support it, then they took our ESCORTS from us (U.S.) claiming Righteous Budgeting while they gutted our SWO ranks of Command at Sea billets.
THIS is why we need a good multi-warfare frigate (PERIOD). With 50-60 frigates in the force we can provide ‘first look’ Command at Sea performance providing some balance in this realm, provide a path for Reserve SWO officers, and enable/promote our Citizens Sailors a path who want to continue service. We get an eight-fold return on every $$$ invested in the Reserve Forces until mobilization.
A Reserve Frigate Program should return to our U.S. Naval Force! Home ported at some U.S. bases, but prefer away from those bases moving to USCG Cities, then major/minor ports that are near metropolitan areas that can provide economic stability/support. We can use all three coasts but the Left Coast should not receive any special treatment except for Alaska.
Hey!!! Back to the future again. Good show CNO. Using various surface ships as training wheels for prospective CV CO was never a really well thought out process. Let Black shoes drive ships, and Brown shoes aviate. Hm: How about Black shoes command carriers too?
I never understood why not. If the CO of the ship also commanded the airwing, it would make sense to be an aviator. Is it the idea that to be Carrier Task group commander you have to have been both CV Commander and an Aviator?
Thats the way it used to be until Lehman created the "Super CAG".
Now a carrier command is a tenant command little different from a NAS ashore.
(Not casting aspersions on Chowdah Hill...and yes I know the current NAVAIR was a carrier CO)
After that, the "Hot Stick/Cool Callsign Club" ...aka TOPGUNS... has drifted away from being "Naval".
https://youtu.be/FcMWGGr6aRs?si=2o2td3yZqXPR1nWZ
Just do like the Brits did and make 'Naval' Aviation an Air Force component.
Your average American taxpayer cant discern any distinction anyway.
The ghost of Jocko Clark would just love to wire brush these youngins back in shape I'd bet.
And, if you don't know who Jocko Clark was, then you are part of the problem (not you Orwell, speaking broadly).
Brits kept the two things separate, generally successfully (pace--maybe--HMS Glorious 1940). Likewise engineers and deck types. No reason functionally for a CV CO to be telling CAG how to run his Air Group, or vice versa.
Can you think of a Capital ship in history that the Captain had no control of his main battery?
The Super CAG idea has led to this.
The point is in managing and maintaining a ship and her crew. Projectiles once fired--be they manned or not--are not under the control of the CO. Blackshoes have done pretty well at controlling Carriers, BTW--I offer Spruance and Midway as an example.
My point is that 'Naval Aviators' should not be so lubberly that they cannot also adequately command a ship.
If thats they way its going to be, lets save money and just make them USAF.
Heck, they won't be doing FCLP's or traps before they get their wings real soon now.
And as far as the shells go once fired, the Captain still commands a Gunnery Department.
Spruance was a Force commander.
Then why not a Marine aviator on an amphib? (ducks for cover)
Actually.....
Aviation ships still need Aviators in Command. Day 1 indoc Helicopter Training Squadron 18 (HT-18) Jan 1992.. Instructor "The shoes will try and kill you" I will give you LHA/LHD but CVN's should and always were and are Aviators back to the USS Langley. So you know there is often a SWO O-5 as OOD during intensive operations so the expertise is there. A helicopter pilot I know won the ship handling contest on a CG in the late 90s against every SWO on the ship.. He was a ringer though.. Graduate of Maine Maritime and actually a licensed mariner.. As a prior OS in my enlisted days I could do desired wind problems in my head looking at my repeaters in the LSO shack on FFG/DD/CGs and usually could nail the course and speed we needed better than the pilot house. Drove them a bit nuts when I was right. Probably the only SH-60B pilot to do a MO Board in the helicopter when our system completely failed but our radar still worked in backup mode.
Interesting. Just when things like LHA's are becoming prospectively (or perspectively) in CNO terms) more important to aviation warfare we change the career paths for CO's. First they expanded to F35B's. Now drone carriage is on the horizon.
We've got a lot less big decks for aviators than we used to have. I guess they are putting SWO's back on amphib command tracks because they also have fewer major command tracks. But more than likely these large deck amphibs will start to be used for drones of all sorts...subsurface, surface and aviation. Better have a good sub guy and aviation guy behind each SWO CO, or SWO and Sub guy behind any aviator, and ditto SWO and aviation behind a sub guy. I can see that these platforms need max flexibility in the future for less rigidity so missions with drones can expand.
I really appreciate that new "Perspective Commanding Officer" pipeline.
Every Commanding Officer should demonstrate adequate perspective.
I suggest we also consider a "Perceptive Commanding Officer" pipeline.
So what happens to the guys in the existing PCO (Prospective Commanding Officer) pipeline?
And WTF is wrong with our educational system?
I learned the difference between prospective and perspective in second grade, from a very perceptive graduate of a State Normal School (where they produced actual teachers).
meh. all in one's point of view
Yeah, you're 100% correct. I just could not resist taking an easy shot at an official Navy document.
Being slow, and old, it took me this long to appreciate your riff on perspective.
I do have a half-assed excuse - I was an AT my first tour (a minimum ASVAP was required).
Then I found a home in the Seabees - we don't care about ASVAPs.
Speaking of minimums, good friend of mine, who made it to E-6 and retired 0-4, used to say "if it wasn't satisfactory, it wouldn't be the minimum!"
I took the ASVAB before going in the Army - what's an ASVAP? (Google insists I must mean ASVAB when searching on ASVAP)
lol:) Probably spell-checker killed him