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, June 03, 2006

Texas Finishes Bravo Trials

[Intel Source: The Sub Report] PCU Texas (SSN 775) reportedly finished Bravo sea trials in 11 days, pulling back into Newport News on Tuesday. According to the article, she'll have INSURV trials in the middle of June, and then get delivered to the Navy on June 20th. She'll get commissioned in Galveston, Texas, on Sept. 9th. Then, she'll head to EB in Groton for 11 months of PSA.

Unless the Navy plans on stationing her in Groton, that plan (to move to Groton for 11 months before either heading back to Norfolk or out to Pearl) just totally blows for the families. Sure, EB won the bid, but having many of the families separated for almost a year doesn't make much sense from the crew morale standpoint.

8 Comments:

Anonymous EW3 said...

BH, I really think the USN should take care of moving families. In terms of cost, it's peanuts compared to the cost of training a sailor. Classic pennywise pound foolish.
A question for you sub knowledgeable people. Why is Texas going back in the yards for 11 months. She just got launched.
Feel free to say anything unclassified.

6/03/2006 4:47 PM

 
Anonymous paul said...

It's part of the standard acquisition timeline called a Post Shakedown Availability (PSA). (I always found it a bit strange that the maintenance periods when subs are not available are labeled that way.)

PSA is a maint. period where repairs are made to the ship that are under guarantee by the delivery yard (GDEB/NGNN). This also allows installation of things that would have required contract renegotiation if done during new construction. Now that the Navy owns the ship, they can be installed.

6/03/2006 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

<12 months away from homeport means no change of homeport certificate for the sailors means Navy doesn't pay for any family moves. That's what we call a good Navy deal! On the upside, Rosie's should enjoy a brisk revenue growth over that 11 months...

They actually used this fact as leverage to pressure short-timers on the Guam-bound boats into extending their enlistments. I thought that was a particularly hideous abuse of power...

6/03/2006 7:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon above is full of crap

"pressure short-timers on the Guam-bound boats into extending their enlistments"

doesn't make sense - a Sailor can get out when his time is up - period. Sailors voluntarily chose to detach from the Guam boats by re-enlisting. They exercised their own free will. The result to the Guam boats was devastating. These unfortunate "short timers" were also the most experienced guys on board. The Navy shouldn't find sufficient experienced Sailors to replace them, and sent green Sailors instead.

I don't think any of these acts are hideous - just the result of a bad system. As for anon - if you were on of the guys to leave early and feel you were pressured, then you are a weak sack of s---. You should have served where your country needed you most - on a forward deployed fast attack submarine.

6/04/2006 10:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To emphasize the 2nd anon, Used-to-fish actually won the "Silver Anchor" because of the number of people reeinlisting early to get off the boat back in the 80's. We like to think we were they reason they changed to rules for awarding the trohpy!

6/04/2006 10:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

orig anon here:

Here's what happened. Some sailors were facing the prospect of spending 6-12 months in Guam without their wives or children. They were discreetly presented the option of extending on-board in exchange for Change of Homeport certificates, which would allow them to move their families. Re-enlisting for orders off the boat is not an option when you're 8 months away from your PRD.

Re-enlisting for orders off the boat happened long before the above actions occurred, and it only cut a couple months off of time-on-boat (at most). Completely different issue. Experience shortfalls were caused by poor long-term personnel planing at BUPERS, NOT early detachments by ship's force. None of these issues affected me personally, but thanks for the insult anyway, idiot.

One piece of advice: stop eating from the drain strainer; it's affecting your brain...

6/04/2006 12:05 PM

 
Anonymous EW3 said...

Thanks Paul.

6/04/2006 4:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The same thing can happen the other way too. Sailors on the San Francisco faced leaving their families in Guam when they came back to the States if they had less than a year left on board. The command tried to sort most of these out, but couldn't fix all of them.

6/06/2006 7:41 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home