Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Saturday, April 16, 2005

More Asshattedness?

Lt. Raymond Perry, USN (Ret) has seen fit to take fingers to keyboard again with his opinions on the San Francisco issue. Unfortunately, I don't have time to really go through it right now (I'm working nights) but it looks like he's decided that, among other causes, a requirement to have officers do "joint duty" is to blame:

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s Congress passed legislation requiring officers to be trained for “Joint Duty” assignments. Such training requires specific education and time spent in joint duty billets – that is, years spent away from an officer’s chosen specialty. My own naval experience has confirmed that this significantly reduces an officer’s available time for professional development in his critical specialty during the period from the 7th to 15th years of an officer’s overall service.

"After the joint duty policies went into effect, it was the initial position of the Submarine Force that such training would seriously reduce the performance of Nuclear Trained Submarine Officers. Submarine Force commanders sought an exemption from the new requirement on grounds that the professions of both submarining and nuclear engineering were so demanding that they would not be able to do them justice with the added burden of joint duty. In a previous article (
“Why Are Navy COs getting the Ax?” DefenseWatch, March 2, 2004), I discussed the demands of joint training and its impact on the professional development of Commanding Officers in the Navy.

"Senior Submarine Force leaders frequently remarked at that time that if they could not obtain such an exemption then submariners would withdraw from joint duty altogether. The long-term implications were clear: Ultimately, there would be few submarine qualified admirals since the law required flag officers to have been trained for and to have served in qualifying joint billets.
"But Congress rebuffed the submariners’ objections and directed “no exemption”. After a recent spate of submarine mishaps in recent years, the question arises that the Submarine Force leaders might have erred in not standing their ground."

I haven't had a chance to do all the research yet, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember submarine officers being specifically exempted from this until a few years ago at the earliest, and I don't know if CDR Mooney ever did Joint duty. I'll finish my analysis of this article later.

Staying at PD...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking for something to write about? Submarines that ply CRUSH to SURFACE have no QM's could this be worth exploring? Why do skimmers still have them but the more complex 3-D Navigation required by boats do not?

As an Engineer you had a damn good idea of everything but nobody could expect you to know everything. Established management practices, ongoing PM and intuitive observations by engineers is critical. So to CO, skipper Mooney for example, should have a command presence and excellent overall knowledge of his entire ship . . . but he is dependant on his crew, and the training they received by the CO he relieved, and his CPO's who are the backbone of the navy. Was CO Mooney and others robbed by not having Full Time Professional Quartermasters? The Sardinia Channell grounding, GPS, insanity. The charging over course with a 32' with dotted lines all around it when your boat draws 39'? But for the grace of God SFO was not added to Threasher and Scorpion. Navigation can not be reduced to spellcheck.

4/16/2005 6:59 PM

Blogger Skippy-san said...

Joint Duty is not to blame here. I'll bet that CDR Mooney was slated to go to Joint Duty after his CO tour, since Subamriners seem to be able to allow folks to go sea to shore then. Aviators have not quite grasped that yet.

The JSO requirement is here to stay and the submarine community knows that.

Congess basically told the Navy its had 7+ years to get its act together and that they would close the Critical Operation Speciality take out ( the one that let you out of Joint prison after only 22 months of your 36 month sentence.).

Since Submariners want to make O-7 as much as anybody else, they will comply.

4/16/2005 7:16 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

That's the way a lot of submariners do it (get their Joint tickets punched after command). I'm hearing from one person that CDR Mooney may have done a non-traditional "joint" assignment between XO and CO, but honestly -- you can't have submariners spending all their time doing sub stuff; the Navy need senior officers who have the "big picture" and Joint Duty is a good way to get that. (It also makes for some good stories about how messed up the other services are.)

4/18/2005 12:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the Asshat comments, we had a 20 year Quartermaster onboard who was offered the fleet A'Nav tour this year at ComSubPac. He was a FULL TIME A'Nav with no other duties than standing dive. GET OVER IT, and learn. Questions now on ridiculous statements?
If we had transcribed the "brown water" from the general area chart to the classified chart we were using, we would have punched rock even worse and probably went 3 section with two of our friends for life, because the general chart was wrong also. EB has engineered that video, just a few degrees to the port, and we would have collapsed the fwd elliptical bulkhead and the entire bow forward of the RC.
Thanx Mr. Pauli for your comments, but they are offhand, and you do not know the situation, so, how about you have a nice cup of shut the f@ck up?
MMCS(SS). The DOOW for the collision on the mighty San Fran.

4/18/2005 4:01 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

For those who might be wondering, Rebootinit was indeed the DOOW on the 711 during the grounding. He's seen the dragon...

4/18/2005 3:10 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home