In reading of the relief of 7th fleet commander Adm Aucoin, he was a career aviator, serving as a former wing and carrier strike group commander. I'd be curious to know how often former ship CO's vs. air commanders get those fleet positions?
US Navy Destroying Destroyers
- Thread starter Andrew1972
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
In reading of the relief of 7th fleet commander Adm Aucoin, he was a career aviator, serving as a former wing and carrier strike group commander. I'd be curious to know how often former ship CO's vs. air commanders get those fleet positions?
He took command in July 2015 and is due to retire in a few weeks even if he had not just been forced to step down.
You raise a valid point.
BTW, thanks for your earlier posts and sharing your experience.
In reading of the relief of 7th fleet commander Adm Aucoin, he was a career aviator, serving as a former wing and carrier strike group commander. I'd be curious to know how often former ship CO's vs. air commanders get those fleet positions?
He took command in July 2015 and is due to retire in a few weeks even if he had not just been forced to step down.
You raise a valid point.
BTW, thanks for your earlier posts and sharing your experience.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
They'd have to take down CIC/Sonar/Fire Control/Radar as well... all of whom can track contacts. And even if they did, you'd still have the old eye balls from look outs and bridge watch standers. When standing surface watches as OOD I'd have a pair of look outs on the bridge/sail with me. And the Nav ET or Fire Control Tech of the Watch would have #1 periscope optics to see even further out. Unless the tanker was coming at them w/o running lights, I don't see how you don't see them coming with plenty of notice. If the Nav/Warfare tracking systems were hacked, you'd have had a ship's emergency where the CO and XO would be on the bridge and the piloting party probably set. If those systems are not functioning, then the ship is "unarmed" and cannot perform its mission. That's critical. Everyone would be on their toes. That tanker should not have gotten in that close even with all electronics down. You still have the old maneuvering board as well as doing TMA in your head, the basics the Navy taught you.
I recalling doing a night shift on the surface in the Bahamas and following behind a Cruise ship about 4 miles ahead of us. I deviated a slight bit off track to avoid the cold sea swells that were crashing right on our heads in the sail. We had plenty of room in our channel to do that. A couple minutes later the CO was on the JA phone with me with a [censored]? Get back on course OOD he said! He was concerned about closing the range to that Cruise ship to div>
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
They'd have to take down CIC/Sonar/Fire Control/Radar as well... all of whom can track contacts. And even if they did, you'd still have the old eye balls from look outs and bridge watch standers. When standing surface watches as OOD I'd have a pair of look outs on the bridge/sail with me. And the Nav ET or Fire Control Tech of the Watch would have #1 periscope optics to see even further out. Unless the tanker was coming at them w/o running lights, I don't see how you don't see them coming with plenty of notice. If the Nav/Warfare tracking systems were hacked, you'd have had a ship's emergency where the CO and XO would be on the bridge and the piloting party probably set. If those systems are not functioning, then the ship is "unarmed" and cannot perform its mission. That's critical. Everyone would be on their toes. That tanker should not have gotten in that close even with all electronics down. You still have the old maneuvering board as well as doing TMA in your head, the basics the Navy taught you.
I recalling doing a night shift on the surface in the Bahamas and following behind a Cruise ship about 4 miles ahead of us. I deviated a slight bit off track to avoid the cold sea swells that were crashing right on our heads in the sail. We had plenty of room in our channel to do that. A couple minutes later the CO was on the JA phone with me with a [censored]? Get back on course OOD he said! He was concerned about closing the range to that Cruise ship to div>
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
On my last 2 ships we often had E-2 and E-3's manning the ship's steering and planes watches. These guys were often part of deck division. Most of them were pretty darn good at controlling the ship. While a Chief Petty Officer or E6 was often in charge of them, it was the E3 doing the actual steering and diving. I had a lot of respect for those guys. They did a lot of the ship's dirtiest work....yet steered the vessel around the ocean too. Most of them were qualified topside lookout watches as well. A lot of safety/security of the ship was in their direct control. As a rule, anyone on board a sub could come into the control room most of the time.
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
On my last 2 ships we often had E-2 and E-3's manning the ship's steering and planes watches. These guys were often part of deck division. Most of them were pretty darn good at controlling the ship. While a Chief Petty Officer or E6 was often in charge of them, it was the E3 doing the actual steering and diving. I had a lot of respect for those guys. They did a lot of the ship's dirtiest work....yet steered the vessel around the ocean too. Most of them were qualified topside lookout watches as well. A lot of safety/security of the ship was in their direct control. As a rule, anyone on board a sub could come into the control room most of the time.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
"but steering had been regained afterward."
Percussive maintenance
"but steering had been regained afterward."
Percussive maintenance
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
On my last 2 ships we often had E-2 and E-3's manning the ship's steering and planes watches. These guys were often part of deck division. Most of them were pretty darn good at controlling the ship. While a Chief Petty Officer or E6 was often in charge of them, it was the E3 doing the actual steering and diving. I had a lot of respect for those guys. They did a lot of the ship's dirtiest work....yet steered the vessel around the ocean too. Most of them were qualified topside lookout watches as well. A lot of safety/security of the ship was in their direct control. As a rule, anyone on board a sub could come into the control room most of the time.
During my time I stood lookout and helm watch on a 4 hours on, 8 hours off duty schedule. We would alternate between the two every hour. Since this was up in Alaskan waters, that was much welcomed as it gave the lookout a chance to thaw out from below zero temps. Later I moved up to BMOW , Bosuns Mate of the Watch, which meant I was all over making sure everything was secure. The only place we could not enter was the CIC or Combat as it was called then.
Nobody slept on watch. Even on the mid watch, 0000-0400, there were enough people to keep each other awake plus coffee was hot 24 hours a day.
Merk, I threw my share of garbage off the fantail as well. That was standard practice. The best were those 5 gallon milk containers that went into the milk dispenser. They would get sucked into the screws and the ocean would erupt in white. The milk always spoiled after a couple of weeks so we threw a lot of those into the ocean.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
While you were Officer Of the Deck, I was the lowly E-3 sailor that would throw trash bags full of wet garbage off the fantail. I was never allowed on the quarterdeck. Back then, you were a pretty highfalutin dude if you were on the quarterdeck while underway.
On my last 2 ships we often had E-2 and E-3's manning the ship's steering and planes watches. These guys were often part of deck division. Most of them were pretty darn good at controlling the ship. While a Chief Petty Officer or E6 was often in charge of them, it was the E3 doing the actual steering and diving. I had a lot of respect for those guys. They did a lot of the ship's dirtiest work....yet steered the vessel around the ocean too. Most of them were qualified topside lookout watches as well. A lot of safety/security of the ship was in their direct control. As a rule, anyone on board a sub could come into the control room most of the time.
During my time I stood lookout and helm watch on a 4 hours on, 8 hours off duty schedule. We would alternate between the two every hour. Since this was up in Alaskan waters, that was much welcomed as it gave the lookout a chance to thaw out from below zero temps. Later I moved up to BMOW , Bosuns Mate of the Watch, which meant I was all over making sure everything was secure. The only place we could not enter was the CIC or Combat as it was called then.
Nobody slept on watch. Even on the mid watch, 0000-0400, there were enough people to keep each other awake plus coffee was hot 24 hours a day.
Merk, I threw my share of garbage off the fantail as well. That was standard practice. The best were those 5 gallon milk containers that went into the milk dispenser. They would get sucked into the screws and the ocean would erupt in white. The milk always spoiled after a couple of weeks so we threw a lot of those into the ocean.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
I read the new 7th fleet is a Submariner.
The loss of life in this manner is horrific. It surely has a negative impact on morale. As a Navy vet, I served on 963 class Destroyer's and CG-47 class Aegis Cruiser's and this incident along with the other 3 trouble's me greatly. The Navy seems to have some serious issue's these days and I hope they get to the root cause of these horrible accident's VERY soon before another major incident and loss of life occurs. On a side note, just before I was honorably discharged in early 1992, I was stationed onboard the USS San Jacinto CG-56. We were doing something or another in the Carribbean with the newly commissioned USS Arleigh Burke DDG-50. What an awesome sight to see and just a beautiful warship!
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I read the new 7th fleet is a Submariner.
Vice Admiral Sawyer has some serious operational experience
I read the new 7th fleet is a Submariner.
Vice Admiral Sawyer has some serious operational experience
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I read the new 7th fleet is a Submariner.
Vice Admiral Sawyer has some serious operational experience
That he does. Hopefully he can bring some much needed change. I see he was on a diesel boat, Bonefish.
I ride just about every west coast SSBN in from sea. I hope this guy makes training a priority.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I read the new 7th fleet is a Submariner.
Vice Admiral Sawyer has some serious operational experience
That he does. Hopefully he can bring some much needed change. I see he was on a diesel boat, Bonefish.
I ride just about every west coast SSBN in from sea. I hope this guy makes training a priority.
There's lots to look at from operations tempo, training/quals, experience, watch station manning, procedures and procedural compliance, etc. For one, traversing busy sea lanes at night is never a great idea....especially in the busiest areas of the world such as West Pac, Indian Ocean, and Med. In all the times we maneuvered to or from ports, I don't recall ever coming in or leaving at night. At least it was far from the norm. Then again, by design, Atlantic Fleet subs generally avoided "traffic." I was sort of lucky never to be on a boat assigned to Carrier Group escort. We almost always operated alone with only minimal Fleet Ex's tossed in for variety. Our primary missions were either manning a target package (SSBN), testing advanced torpedoes or other weapons/weapons systems (SSN), or looking for the "other guy" while being undetected (SSN).
No doubt that today's Navy is far different than the one I was in 30 yrs ago. Less ships, less manpower...and still doing the same amount of coverage if not more.
No doubt that today's Navy is far different than the one I was in 30 yrs ago. Less ships, less manpower...and still doing the same amount of coverage if not more.
2015 Government Accountability Office report raised concerns about ships that were stationed at ports overseas, in order to be more quickly and effectively deployed. The report found incidents of degraded or out-of-service equipment on ships ported overseas had doubled over the past five years. The GAO concluded that the "high pace of operations the Navy uses for overseas-homeported ships limits dedicated training and maintenance periods, which has resulted in difficulty keeping crews fully trained and ships maintained."
The report specifically singled out Japan-based cruisers and destroyers, noting that those ships spend 67% of their time deployed, 33% in maintenance and did not have a dedicated training period — compared to US-based cruisers and destroyers that spent 60% of their time in dedicated training and maintenance periods.
Article
The report specifically singled out Japan-based cruisers and destroyers, noting that those ships spend 67% of their time deployed, 33% in maintenance and did not have a dedicated training period — compared to US-based cruisers and destroyers that spent 60% of their time in dedicated training and maintenance periods.
Article
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
I never said it was unusual. It would been helpful imo if the McCain CO had a NAV/OPS tour in there instead of a 2nd engineer's tour. It's great being a super-engineer. But, there's a front half of the ship too. Who knows, maybe this skipper was one of the best regardless. But, with 2 DDG's damaged in 2 months, with "Fleet Up" skippers in command, maybe that program needs a second look. While I understand the benefit of having a seasoned XO stay on the ship as CO, there's also a downside in that too much familiarity over time can breed complacency. The Navy usually staggers the Dept Head, XO, CO tours accordingly to ensure you don't end up with a gap where too much shipboard "command" experience is lost at one point. I don't know if this Fleet Up program is only for the "best" prospective XO's and CO's....or it's closer to the norm for the DDG community.
New change to Fleet Up CO pipeline
I just found that link. Seems in August 2016 they were looking at providing some alternatives in this XO/CO fleet up program to ensure the CO is better prepared for his role.
How the Navy promotes it's CO/XO's should be the least of its worries. The McCain tragedy hit close to home since the IC1 who passed served onboard the Boxer with me. It has been my opinion as a former Sailor the Navy has serious issues it should resolve stated issues should not have resulted in the Fitz and McCain collisions. I do not have faith in present "Naval" leadership to be honest. But I do pray the Navy pills together and gets right.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
This class of FFG is the recipient of fast tracking officers into XO/CO slots. The CO on the Fitzgerald was the previous XO, and was only in the CO slot a couple of months before their June collision. The McCain's CO also was the previous XO. The idea is that they fill XO slots on that ship, and then fleet up to CO. Never was a fan of going from XO to CO on same ship. And back in my day that was basically taboo....even split Dept head tours would be on 2 different ships. You got to experience 3-4 different ships on your Dept Head, XO, and CO tours. Familiarity can breed problems even if you became more expert on that particular class of ship.
In looking at the McCain CO's resume, he had 2 Engineer Officer tours but nothing in Nav/Ops/Weapons. He reported to the McCain in April 2015 as XO. He had 11 months into his CO tour.
CO's resume
There is nothing unusual about his career progression. As for "fast tracking" this is a typical progression for a superior performing surface warfare officer.
I never said it was unusual. It would been helpful imo if the McCain CO had a NAV/OPS tour in there instead of a 2nd engineer's tour. It's great being a super-engineer. But, there's a front half of the ship too. Who knows, maybe this skipper was one of the best regardless. But, with 2 DDG's damaged in 2 months, with "Fleet Up" skippers in command, maybe that program needs a second look. While I understand the benefit of having a seasoned XO stay on the ship as CO, there's also a downside in that too much familiarity over time can breed complacency. The Navy usually staggers the Dept Head, XO, CO tours accordingly to ensure you don't end up with a gap where too much shipboard "command" experience is lost at one point. I don't know if this Fleet Up program is only for the "best" prospective XO's and CO's....or it's closer to the norm for the DDG community.
New change to Fleet Up CO pipeline
I just found that link. Seems in August 2016 they were looking at providing some alternatives in this XO/CO fleet up program to ensure the CO is better prepared for his role.
How the Navy promotes it's CO/XO's should be the least of its worries. The McCain tragedy hit close to home since the IC1 who passed served onboard the Boxer with me. It has been my opinion as a former Sailor the Navy has serious issues it should resolve stated issues should not have resulted in the Fitz and McCain collisions. I do not have faith in present "Naval" leadership to be honest. But I do pray the Navy pills together and gets right.
69GTX said:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
At the beginning of the millennia the maintaince shift of the Navy shifted to do only what was necessary during availablity periods. It was shifted from breaking everthing down during availablity and rebuilding to do what can be done and be back to sea. This was deemed more efficent and cost effective. This was pitched as the new "business" model for the Navy.
Even so, that shouldn't have much bearing on how one pilots/navigates a ship in congested shipping channels, even if high tech equipment is out of service. How the Navy advances its CO/XO's is certainly of key importance as those 2 set the tone on the ship for both morale and accountability. XO's tend to play the "bad cop" role. And after having done that for 18-24 months, shifting to "good cop" CO for the same crew won't be very effective.
At the beginning of the millennia the maintaince shift of the Navy shifted to do only what was necessary during availablity periods. It was shifted from breaking everthing down during availablity and rebuilding to do what can be done and be back to sea. This was deemed more efficent and cost effective. This was pitched as the new "business" model for the Navy.
Even so, that shouldn't have much bearing on how one pilots/navigates a ship in congested shipping channels, even if high tech equipment is out of service. How the Navy advances its CO/XO's is certainly of key importance as those 2 set the tone on the ship for both morale and accountability. XO's tend to play the "bad cop" role. And after having done that for 18-24 months, shifting to "good cop" CO for the same crew won't be very effective.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: dave1251
At the beginning of the millennia the maintaince shift of the Navy shifted to do only what was necessary during availablity periods. It was shifted from breaking everthing down during availablity and rebuilding to do what can be done and be back to sea. This was deemed more efficent and cost effective. This was pitched as the new "business" model for the Navy.
Even so, that shouldn't have much bearing on how one pilots/navigates a ship in congested shipping channels, even if high tech equipment is out of service. How the Navy advances its CO/XO's is certainly of key importance as those 2 set the tone on the ship for both morale and accountability. XO's tend to play the "bad cop" role. And after having done that for 18-24 months, shifting to "good cop" CO for the same crew won't be very effective.
The day's of good cop and bad cop are long gone. The most pressing questions are what needs to be done and when can we accomplish mission. There is no longer enough time in the day to deal with problem children. They will be left at port and sent home. More often then not it is the more senior leadership causing issues. The younger Sailors have thier faults and shortcomings mostly it is physically taxing labor is required sometimes.
The maintenance issues to hand with hand in the training issues. Often training time is available because the ship is in a long enough availability and the proper time is allocated to train and not worried about operational requirements. The issues with this Navy are going to be reported soon and it is not going to pretty. Until then it is time to morn our losses and ensure this non sense does not happen again.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
At the beginning of the millennia the maintaince shift of the Navy shifted to do only what was necessary during availablity periods. It was shifted from breaking everthing down during availablity and rebuilding to do what can be done and be back to sea. This was deemed more efficent and cost effective. This was pitched as the new "business" model for the Navy.
Even so, that shouldn't have much bearing on how one pilots/navigates a ship in congested shipping channels, even if high tech equipment is out of service. How the Navy advances its CO/XO's is certainly of key importance as those 2 set the tone on the ship for both morale and accountability. XO's tend to play the "bad cop" role. And after having done that for 18-24 months, shifting to "good cop" CO for the same crew won't be very effective.
The day's of good cop and bad cop are long gone. The most pressing questions are what needs to be done and when can we accomplish mission. There is no longer enough time in the day to deal with problem children. They will be left at port and sent home. More often then not it is the more senior leadership causing issues. The younger Sailors have thier faults and shortcomings mostly it is physically taxing labor is required sometimes.
The maintenance issues to hand with hand in the training issues. Often training time is available because the ship is in a long enough availability and the proper time is allocated to train and not worried about operational requirements. The issues with this Navy are going to be reported soon and it is not going to pretty. Until then it is time to morn our losses and ensure this non sense does not happen again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
