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.)

Friday, January 09, 2009

Not An April Fools Joke!

From the official Navy website:
The Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter announced Jan. 8 that the next Virginia-class attack submarine will be named in honor of recently retired U.S Sen. John Warner of Virginia. Warner retired Jan. 3, 2009 after 30 years of service in the U.S. Senate.
"Senator Warner has served his country for over 63 years and has been an unwavering advocate of the men and women of our nation's armed forces. It gives me great pleasure to be able to honor him in this manner and I thank him for his support and mentorship," said Winter.
This will be the SSN 785 (expected delivery April 2015), breaking the string of 11 Virginia-class boats named after states; it wasn't until the 23rd Los Angeles-class boat that they screwed up the convention, while the 5th Ohio-class submarine had a naming anomaly; the Sturgeon-class had 31 fish-named boats until they brought in the politicians. My thoughts on the concept of screwing around with submarine naming within classes are well known. While I know that Sen. Warner served our country with honor, wouldn't a destroyer, which are named after people anyway, have been more appropriate? On the other hand, sometimes you can get humorous nicknames for boats named after people, like the "Bouncing Billy" Bates.

What do you think? Should we just give up and go with my suggestion from last April? Or is this worth a fight?

61 Comments:

Blogger Buck said...

Ghastly.

The whole class is named for the man's state, you think that would be enough.

Soon, they'll start auctioning off names, and we'll have the USS Drink-Pepsi, complete with corporate logo on the hull.

1/09/2009 8:58 AM

 
Blogger J120 Bowman said...

I am against naming ships are living persons in general. I agree that naming conventions should hold.

With that said, I can understand the Rickover naming based on his almost single-handed revolutionizing of the submarine force.

The Henry M Jackson was originally the Rhode Island until the senator died. He was obviously a staunch supporter of the submarine force as can be witnessed by the giant pork barrel project called Bangor Submarine Base!

The Reagan (he was still alive when it was named) and H.W. Bush carriers are at least named after Presidents!

Warner? No effin' way! This was obviously a politcal "pay off" for his support of the Virginia class and NNSY. Isn't he a Republican, by the way? Coincidence?

He obviously has the military and government background to justify a ship naming. But not while he is alive, and definately not enough to break the submarine naming convention.

1/09/2009 9:07 AM

 
Blogger cheezstake said...

I was about to mention the HM Jackson, but Bowman, you beat me to it. I always thought it was a shame that submarine classes haven't been uniformly named. With the Virginia class, I was looking forward to the whole class being named after states (although, I am slightly unsure about the use of the Missouri).

I think that naming subs after politicians is amazingly stupid, and even more so if naming them after living and/or unimpressive ones at that.

I was not too pleased at the naming of SNN 23. (Sorry)

1/09/2009 9:17 AM

 
Blogger J120 Bowman said...

Forgot about the Carter, oops! But again, at least he was a President.

Of course the irony of naming the Parche replacement after Carter is just too much to not bring out a laugh!

I wonder how much money Bush got out of Warner (aka pay to play, al la Blogo) for the naming rights.

1/09/2009 9:26 AM

 
Anonymous Spade said...

The Navy ship naming people are insane. Totally off their rocker.

As an aside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_of_the_Continental_Navy

How many of those names are currently serving?

1/09/2009 9:32 AM

 
Blogger cheezstake said...

I always liked the names of British submarines. I prefer our ships to have names with Naval historical significance or names that instill a sense of being "bad ass" (Batfish, et al).

1/09/2009 11:02 AM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

Ships are expensive. It takes political work to get them built. Naming of ships, after the era of 637's, has been all politics.

Any mystery you have never seen the USS Fargo? It's amazing we have Cheyenne considering the 3 votes from Wyoming.

I prefer to have names like the brit boats, but then again it would be nice to have beer underway as well.

1/09/2009 12:37 PM

 
Blogger Harry Buckles said...

It's not amazing that we have a Cheyenne when one considers that small states have just as much representation in the Senate as large ones. Senator Simpson would not have been insignificant to please with a boat.

My state however, New Jersey, has so far managed to not have one ship from any of the last four classes of boats. I tend to think that such is linked to the decline in military service amongst my co-residents. Not a cause and effect, but that perhaps something like our senators and congressmen tend to shy away from military committees due to the fact that we have so few veterans per capita.

1/09/2009 1:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SecNav must have been mugged by the uniform board to make this decision.

Navy leadership has lost the bubble for sure not fighting against more politicization. All this break with ship class naming tradition got started during the Viet Nam war and was largely politically motivated. The KOG started the submarine trend with his "Fish don't vote" comment in regard to naming a 637 class boat after a politician.

I believe our submarines should be named after our WWII boats for a clear link to wartime heritage and tradition.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble.....

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

1/09/2009 1:33 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

To the last poster:

I can just see it now...

USS ORANGE NEW JERSEY

1/09/2009 1:34 PM

 
Anonymous SEKOTDCOB said...

Cheyenne may be a small city in a small state, but they love their Submarine. There are several larger cities and states named after submarines that could due a lot more to support their boat. Also, don't forget the VP is from Wyoming. He's been handing around DC for a long time and I'm sure had some influence in the naming.

1/09/2009 1:38 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1/09/2009 2:03 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

With the new administration, do you suppose that a new...

USS WINNEMUCCA

is in order?

Or what about a USS AIEA?
Or what about a USS SARATOGA SPRINGS?
Or maybe even a USS WALT DISNEY?

How about a USS ORANGE COUNTY? (That one could refer to counties in Fla, NY, CA, etc.)

1/09/2009 2:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well some names of states that will probably never be used because of their historical significance.

USS ARIZONA and USS UTAH - both still reside in Pearl Harbor.

USS MISSOURI - Surrender of the Japanese.

As for naming subs for people. Only if they have a significant impact in the submarine force.

USS RICKOVER - yes.
USS WARNER - HELL NO!

Just wait and see..USS OBAMA (CVN-XX) isn't far behind! Probably before he leaves office in 4 or 8 years.

I prefer the fish names, but if the cities want to support a boat, then name one after a city. More prode involved!

STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET

1/09/2009 2:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

STSCS - SSN 780 is USS MISSOURI.

1/09/2009 3:22 PM

 
Anonymous GomerB said...

As an IL native, I think the USS BLAGO would be an excellent sub name. It stands for being sneaky, and when discovered would fight boldly even in the face of total futility. Perhaps this could be used to name a replacement for NR-1... something that would sink lower than anyone else.

1/09/2009 4:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW
I didn't know there was a new USS Missouri. Learn something new every day!

They might as well name one the USS UTAH and the USS ARIZONA!

STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET

1/09/2009 5:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't do it on ARIZONA - she's officially still in commission. UTAH would work though. Bottom line, it was perfect until they named JOHN WARNER. Now there's 18 VIRGINIAs left to name, and 19 states that are still un-honored. Best idea is to expand the class to 40, throw in DC and the other 4 territories, and you still have 4 left for a new RICKOVER, and three other random people important to the submarine force. My favorite would be "Uncle Charlie" Lockwood.

1/09/2009 8:32 PM

 
Blogger The Custodian said...

I always thought it was incredibly ironic that the USS CARTER, named for a president whose foundation was intended to fight for transparency in elections and government, was the submarine taken back to the yard and modifed to the tune of a whole bunch of millions so they could put what every rumor I've seen says is an undersea cable splicing/tapping facility in it.

1/09/2009 9:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beadwindow. Joel, please....

1/10/2009 5:35 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Watched the ship-naming follies for two years on Lehman's staff in the '80s - colleague Dave Baker was Lehman's primary guy on names, histories, etc.

Conclusion that must be drawn: there's no way for outsiders to influence the selection of ship's names. The players are SecNav, maybe sometimes the CNO, and maybe maybe sometimes strong pro-Navy members of Congress.

Lehman's game was to get something for the Navy for every shipname assigned. If you're pro-Navy, that's a splendid approach. All this whining above is a bit unseemly and fey. Shift the discussion to something useful.

1/10/2009 7:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, submarines don't grow on trees!? No politicians = no submarines. Get over it.

1/10/2009 11:41 AM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

Negat Beadwindow. What The Custodian said is open source -- and therefore almost assuredly wrong.

That being said, I believe strongly that President Carter was telling the truth when he told us (the Precom crew of the Carter)that the security of the country has always been his top priority; he just has a different idea than most in the military about how to maintain that security. The naming convention of the Seawolf-class boats had already been screwed up when they named the 23, and this is one case where I think it was at least somewhat appropriate to name a submarine for a living politician. The man stood a watch for 4 years, the stress of which the rest of us can't even begin to understand.

1/10/2009 12:23 PM

 
Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

Believe it or not, the Navy has always been politically sensitive. Can you guess why there is a major SSBN port in Georgia (Sam Nunn); why Charleston had so many Naval Installations (Carl Vinson and L. Mendell Rivers); why NAVPERS is in Millington, TN (Al Gore); why the Enlisted Personnel Center was once in New Orleans (Russell Long); etc. For the Navy, it is an inexpensive way to influence Congress. Warner was a strong supporter of the sub force both as SECNAV and as a Senator from Virginia. The outgoing administration wants to honor his service before they depart office, so.... The WARNER will be the exception to the State rule for submarines.

1/10/2009 1:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anon E Moose said...

"(1/9 2032) Can't do it on ARIZONA - she's officially still in commission."

From the Naval Vessel Register website:
BB39 Arizona, Commissioned: 10/17/16; Decommissioned: 12/29/41; Status: Dedicated as Memorial

Is there something I don't know?
[I concede it would be sensitive to rename an Arizona, but not unprecedented with sunken boats/ships]

1/10/2009 4:40 PM

 
Blogger BostonMaggie said...

Name anything after Warner? No, no, a thousand times no.

He deserves nothing after what he did to CDR Lippold.

1/10/2009 5:18 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"He deserves nothing after what he did to CDR Lippold."

Please write on the board 100 times "The commanding officer is responsible for everything that happens on his ship."

Warner, former SecNav, understands that - wonder why BostonMaggie doesn't. Perhaps never been there.

1/10/2009 5:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon e moose -

Upon further research, I agree - you're absolutely right. But I am in good company - lots of "contrary to popular belief" and "the most enduring myth" remarks on ARIZONA's status. And I think it would be VERY difficult to use that name again.

1/10/2009 6:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber Ducky,

Me thinks you've spent too much time in DC rubbing elbows with all the politico's..

Given the low esteem politicians in general, and Congress are held in by the public (which includes me) it just looks like a cheap parting shot by the Bush administration. The message to me is, we really don't care about your submarine service heritage and the importance of the linking submarine names to warror deeds. Instead, I'll name this boat after a Republican member of the Senate who I liked a lot--period.

The "41 For Freedom" THEME which broke with the tradition of naming submarines by alphabet class (O,R,S,K), and fish at least honored DECEASED patriots and VIP's who contributed to our national heritage.

The submarine naming business got messed up by the KOG naming a SSN after a politician as I mentioned previously. He really didn't care about anything but his program, getting his way, and was thumbing his nose at submarine flag officers who wouldn't "kiss the ring."

It's a sad day when the Navy brass won't stand-up and say no-way to the politicians. Naming that boat after John Warner isn't going to buy one damn thing for the Navy.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble.......

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

1/10/2009 9:21 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"Me thinks you've spent too much time in DC rubbing elbows with all the politico's.."

Twelve years, but only two years in the Building.

1/11/2009 6:37 AM

 
Blogger BostonMaggie said...

Rubber Ducky - I have never been in the service, much less in command. I didn't realize expressing opinions here was restricted to those with relevant experience.

But if you feel that "The commanding officer is responsible for everything that happens on his ship." should be take to the extreme, the way Warner did....why didn't he just hang him?

There is assessing responsibility and then there is vindictiveness. Warner destroyed a man for political reasons.

That negates any good Warner has in his past as far as garnering honors. At least in my civilian opinion.

1/11/2009 8:09 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Warner did what he had authority and responsibility (in his eyes) to do.

Speaking for myself, I have only contempt for those skippers who screw the pooch - by their own hand or bad luck - and then go on to whine and wangle for a better outcome than being sacked. To my knowledge, Lippold did not so behave - don't tar him with that brush by doing it for him.

A contrast: Captain Waddle of GREENEVILLE went to his punishment with honor; whereas a to-be-nameless DD skipper now of academic fame and enlightenment did all he could to blame his officers for a serious crunch under his command and wriggle out of responsibility (in which he fortunately failed and was relieved for cause - praise the system).

Good skippers take the risk in stride - it goes with the territory. To quote an old shipmate, QM-3 Gabby Hayes of Marble Fall TX: "Cowboys don't cry."

1/11/2009 9:47 AM

 
Blogger BostonMaggie said...

So, let me get this straight.

CDR Lippold is only honorable if he takes any and all punishment, fair and unfair with a stiff upper lip.

Warner does what he thinks he should do and no one gets to disagree or comment or object to honors rendered to him.

I dishonor CDR Lippold by saying I think he was treated shabbily for purely political reasons.

What a crock!

Since when is it the duty of a commanding officer to be a scapegoat in a purely political matter?

CDR Lippold's fate was not the judgement of his peers. It was certainly not the judgement of Navy. It was petty politics on the part of a weak man (Warner) who wouldn't stand up to an uneducated, unappreciative group of civilians.

Based on your comments, if you believe CDR Lippold should pay in whatever way a fickle public decides.......then so should Warner. You state "Warner did what he had authority and responsibility (in his eyes) to do." So Warner is subject to the same fate. I judge him unworthy.

1/11/2009 10:47 AM

 
Blogger Bigbill said...

I have nothing against naming a sub after Warner other than breaking the state theme. For the carrier world, the GHWB made me happy and the Gerald Ford made be absolutely giddy. Ford was a carrier sailor. I was worried that some politician that followed Bush 41 might get the nod.

When I was part of the conversion crew on the 626, we had a pool on the name of SSN 23. I had my money on the USS Michael Jordan.

1/11/2009 11:07 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Amateurs and shoe-clerks should stay out of the traditions of the sea...

1/11/2009 11:13 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CDR Waddell did not take his punishment with honor - he should be in jail, not getting a big fat retirement check. The man killed nine people due to his negligence.

Anyway, back on topic, John Warner is tied into big money from his former marriage to the Mellon family. He has been associated with the Kennedy's (not Bubblehead, but the one's from Mass.) for years - not too surprising he would get his name on a boat. Seems like a bad move to me....but they don't ask us, they just take our money and do what they want with it.

1/11/2009 1:24 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"CDR Waddell did not take his punishment with honor - he should be in jail, not getting a big fat retirement check. The man killed nine people due to his negligence."

I didn't say he should get a ship-handling award ... but he did behave honorably, told the truth, and took his lumps in the tradition of the Service.

The system had opportunity to charge him for his misdeed and did not. One recalls an earlier accident (BELKNAP/JFK, as I recall, the BELKNAP at fault) in which the CG's CO was originally charged with manslaughter under the UCMJ (later dropped). Big Navy had this option ICO GREENEVILLE and did not do so. Fault Navy, not Waddle.

1/11/2009 2:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wtfdnucsailor,

Beg to disagree with pure politics being the driver.

Squadron 16 was being chased out of Rota Spain and needed a new home in early 70's. SQ 18 was physically located at NWS Charleston, no more room there. No room in New London or Norfolk.
Kings Bay had been a former maritime administration anchorage in WWII. Federal Government still owned the adjacent land and was happy to see it put to use again AND, it could be set up quickly. If Congress wanted to set up the Nav with a new installation, I'm sure the Submarine Leadership was happy to go along as was the state of Georgia.

For generations Charleston had a large Naval presence even before Rivers and Long. A Naval Shipyard, Destroyer Squadrons, Submarine Squadrons, and a large supply base. All dictated by defense requirements dating back before WW I. What was new was the support infrastructure for the Polaris program. It had to go somewhere. Charleston had room, other locations did not. You betcha L. Mendal Rivers smoothed the way with the state, counties and communities to get the operational stuff put there, NWS, Polaris Training Facility, MenRiv Park, and a lot of buildings and barracks to support off-crew for SQ 16 and 18. Where else was it going to go?

BuPers going to Millington TN was a direct result of the BRAC Process, BRAC 95 I think. Having lived/worked through two BRAC AF Base closures I can tell you DOD and Congressional politics have very little to do with how those BRAC decisions shake out. For example, I observed the last BRAC deliberations on C-SPAN in 05(?) I watched Sen John Warner and the VA Governor get their ears pinned back by the BRAC Commission over the NAS Oceana/VA Beach encroachment issue. In order to save NAS Oceana, VA and VA Beach had to stop all encroachment and buy up a lot of private property surrounding the base to clear the ACUIZ Zone. If they did not meet the deadlines set by the BRAC Commission, Cecil Field in FLA was to be reopened and Oceana would close.

USN has not always been on top of their "game" as you may think they are. A classic case was BRAC 91 where they didn't do the home work on their base closure recommendations, and got their head handed to them by the commission. What made it worse was the Air Force had a logical and well thought out closure plan (retire the airframe, close the base). In contrast the Navy did not and looked stupid compared to the Air Force. Another example going back to post WWII and the unification battle, the Army and the Air Force "ate their lunch" because the Navy had traditionally been apolitical.

There is one example I'm aware of where Congress did do something for the "TROOPS" and shamed the first Bush Administration and DOD into action. that was in 1991-92 with the major force drawdown at the end of the Cold War. Nunn in the Senate and Sonny Montgomery in the House ensured the Transition Assistance Program legislation was passed and funded. It included early retirements and buy outs as well as transition assistance.

Yep, politics is part of the story, but it ain't the whole story.

My two cents and keep a zero bubble.....

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

1/11/2009 9:42 PM

 
Anonymous Spade said...

Rubber Ducky said...
"Amateurs and shoe-clerks should stay out of the traditions of the sea...

and

Lehman's game was to get something for the Navy for every shipname assigned. If you're pro-Navy, that's a splendid approach."


Yeah, let's throw out those traditions to "get something for the Navy".

There's a Reason they used to keep using proud ship names. Because it established tradition!
By your logic perhaps the USMC should rename the 1st Marine Division the "head of appropriations committee" Marine Division. Perhaps they'd get more money then.
Of course, the USMC has always been head and shoulders above the Navy in the whole History and Tradition thing lately. As evidenced by the sad current state of USN History's branch (see USNI blog).

1/12/2009 7:20 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

1/12/2009 7:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So.... is the USS OBAMA gonna be a SSN, SSBN or CVN???

I bet that is commissioned before he is out of office!!!!!

STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET

1/12/2009 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber Ducky, I thought Waddell acted like the victim and then went on a media tour to sell his book. Yeah, he teared up at the right times and all and took responsibility, but I'm convinced that he managed to make it seem like he was the fall guy for an unavoidable accident instead of a negligent CO.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

1/12/2009 11:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anathema said...

Ducky - I'm with Mags...

You seem well read, but I recommend you look a bit more on the background between Lippold-Mullen-Warner and what happened in the years AFTER USS COLE. This is NOT a simple case of "the CO is always to blame" or some other such Baby Boomer honor nonsense.

History is full of examples in which COs were caught on the wrong side of a battle, and went on to greatness inside the Navy. This should have been one of those stories and John Warner is the reason it wasn't.

1/12/2009 11:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anthema,

For example, Fleet Admiral Nimitz and Rear Admiral Elliot Loughin, both Submariners.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

1/12/2009 12:08 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

All discussions about GREENEVILLE are moot. CDR Waddle did the right thing by retiring early, and his book tour only helps him pay for the immediate needs of himself and his family.

What about that AF pilot (LT Shane Osborn) who landed the plane on the island in 2001? Why give CDR Waddle his walking papers, and the LT a medal for not doing his job?

I think the subject should be dropped for other reasons too.... And the reasons aren't really germane to this discussion.

1/12/2009 12:45 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

After the loss of life, the real loser in the GREENEVILLE incident (the one with the EHIME MARU, not the collision in the Arabian Sea or the grounding at Saipan) was Bobby Brandhuber. Captain Brandhuber was Chief of Staff at ComSubPac and was riding that day. His career shot at admiral was shattered by the accident.

Bobby was a superb officer and skipper (SAN JUAN). It pained me greatly to see him go down in flames because a four-star wanted to show off a submarine to his golf buddies and The Sailor's Pal didn't have the wit to tell him to pack sand.

And again, as to Lippold, cowboys don't cry...

1/12/2009 1:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh. My. God.

By sticking up for Brandhuber, Ducky, you have forever lost whatever shred of credibility you ever had on this board.

1/12/2009 1:58 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

FYI. Capt Branhuber was the CO at NPS for a while.

1/12/2009 4:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I always thought Brandhuber was the only good thing about the Greeneville. I only knew him from his time as CO of NPS, and was not a fan.

1/12/2009 5:03 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Bobby Brandhuber was a fine skipper in SAN JUAN. That's the test, and he aced it. Class act. Also ran Nuke School well in Orlando. His bona fides in the submarine force are verified by his assignment to CSP COS.

He retired as an O-6 because some twit in GREENEVILLE didn't get enough pole up before he went deep and hit the chicken switches. The sea stalks the unwary.

I'm embarrassed to have to defend him to some guy named Anonymous...

1/12/2009 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and Rubber Ducky is a fine name. No hiding there!

1/12/2009 5:37 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Waterfront nickname for the ship I commanded. Earned.

1/12/2009 5:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber Ducky, your inconsistency is glaring. The reason Brandhuber's career ended is because he was the senior officer present on GREENEVILLE when the accident happened, saw what Waddle was doing, was in a position to stop it - either by ripping the CO a new one in front of everyone, or pulling him aside, however he wished - and DID NOTHING. Why are you willing to take Lippold's scalp but will fight to the death to save Brandhuber's? Because you liked him when he was CO on SAN JUAN? Much as the rules are written for COs, so are they written for SOPAs. The cold hard facts are that you don't give up the responsibility to take action when you shift the command pin from above the right pocket to below the left - especially if you are the TYCOMs representative! What he was like on SAN JUAN has no bearing on what he did (or didn't) do that day on GREENEVILLE. And as far as you assessment of Waddle goes, I have yet to find one of Waddle's contemporaries who thinks he behaved in the proper manner following the accident - unless you think posing for melancholy TIME Magazine photo spreads on the Pearl Harbor channel and crying on TV while shifting the blame to an FT1 is the proper behavior for a disgraced CO. If you want the epitome of grace, the SAN FRANCISCO CO is it. Gave complete and honest testimony during the investigation, took his DFC with no self-serving interviews, never blamed anyone else (although there are plenty of other organizations who should have shared in the blame), and certainly is not out making a buck off of the tragedy. I think this whole thread shows just how out of touch you are with the current submarine force.

1/12/2009 5:55 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Brandhuber wasn't the CO.

Am not commenting on the lumps he took - inevitable. Do lament his loss to the submarine force and the Navy - good officer and clearly flag material.

My general theme is that command at sea carries responsibilities that are absolute. I stand on that.

1/12/2009 6:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About LT Shane Osborn:

He was a Navy LT piloting a Navy EP-3E - not Air Force as you called him. As for not doing his job by landing on Hainan Island, Osborne's plane descended 8,000 feet in 30 seconds. It was Osborn's flying that directly saved the lives of his entire crew. The LT more than deserves his Distinguished Flying Cross.

1/13/2009 2:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"About LT Shane Osborn:

He was a Navy LT piloting a Navy EP-3E - not Air Force as you called him. As for not doing his job by landing on Hainan Island, Osborne's plane descended 8,000 feet in 30 seconds. It was Osborn's flying that directly saved the lives of his entire crew. The LT more than deserves his Distinguished Flying Cross."

And he was directly responsible for the capture of that aircraft by the Chinese and their capture of our technology. He does not deserve a DFC for that.

ENG

1/13/2009 6:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to beat a dead Hijack, but when you say Brandhuber was flag material if you meant that he was arrogant, condescending, and overly full of himself then I agree.

1/13/2009 6:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brandhuber would have been screwed no matter what he did. If he had acted, he would have essentially relieved Konetzni's favorite submarine commander. I bet he wish he had now, and not necessarily to save his career.

-phw

1/14/2009 9:44 AM

 
Anonymous Spade said...

Ducky, Who was the SSBN OOD that you served with who was chewed out by Don Kniss, and then later went on to a command and a Navy Cross?

1/14/2009 11:02 AM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

1. Waddle should be in jail. He did not 'act honorably.' He absolutely blamed his men for not backing him up. When you can claim to have done a visual search after less than 1 minute, at PD instead of broached, you are an idiot. And criminally stupid.

2. The EP3 pilot and crew should have studied destruction procedures.

3. I seriously doubt any sub CO has received a Navy Cross since WWII. There have been some Navy crosses, but if you think any sub guys have them...no way.

1/16/2009 12:46 PM

 
Anonymous sex-shop said...

For my part everyone ought to glance at it.

10/06/2011 11:56 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home