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.)
Submarine Group TEN in Kings Bay has been running a blog for a little over a month; here's the link. Most of the posts have been by RADM (or is it RDML now?) Bruner. Looks like it's time to put your bookmarkin' fingers to use.
posted by Bubblehead at 2:04 PM
I'm Joel Kennedy -- a married, 50-something year old retired submarine officer and esophageal cancer survivor with three kids who has finally made the transition to civilian life. Politically, I'm a Radical Moderate. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me. Don't call me at home.)
23 Comments:
I think you got it reversed. RDML is 1-star, RADM is 2-star.
8/25/2009 2:40 PM
The posts have been from RDML Barry Bruner (CSG-10 commander) and Captain Bill Traub (CSG-10 Chief of Staff).
Brian, you are correct a 1-star is RDML and 2-star is RADM.
8/25/2009 2:45 PM
I learned something today. I think they were still using RADM (Lower Half) back when I got out.
8/25/2009 5:08 PM
"I think they were still using RADM (Lower Half) back when I got out."
I believe they started using the current abreviations in the late 80's, early 90's.
As for the blog...looks like a lot of fluff.
8/25/2009 6:41 PM
Greetings, BH!
Below is the chronology, and it is not only confusing, it seems rather senseless. Why do I say senseless? Because both the title and the one star rank "Commodore" had existed when I left the Navy in the 70s.
"In 1981, Pub.L. 97-86 expanded commodore from a title to an official permanent grade by creating the one-star rank of commodore admiral.[4] After only 11 months, the rank was reverted back to just commodore but kept the one-star insignia. Then in 1985, Pub.L. 99-145 renamed commodore to the current grade of rear admiral (lower half).[4] Up until 1981, all rear admirals wore two stars on their shoulder bars and rank insignia. Since then, rear admirals (lower half) wear one star while rear admirals wear two; verbal address remains "rear admiral" for both ranks. On correspondence, where the rear admiral's rank is spelled out, an (LH) and (UH) follows the rear admiral's rank title to distinguish between one and two stars."
When, between the 1970s and 1981, then, was Commodore only a title and not a pay grade? Perhaps the phrase "permanent" pay grade applies. Commodore was the Navy's equivalent of the Army's, Air Force's ans USMC's Brigadier Gen.
What does "permanent mean? Did no one ever retire as a Brigadier Gen. or Commodore?
8/25/2009 7:12 PM
I think permanent means that you can only hold the grade as long as your position warrants it. These days, three star and four star ranks are not permanent. Therefore if you are a 3 star and do not get reappointed to a 3 star billet (or higher) you will revert to your highest permanent rank (unless you have sufficient time-in-rank-- then you can retire as a 3 star). For example VADM Poindexter retired as a 2 star.
Not sure why this system exists.
8/25/2009 7:29 PM
I like the picture in the first post (all the way down at the bottom of the page) - the forced hugs as a demonstration of teamwork is really a good touch.
8/25/2009 7:33 PM
Below is the chronology, and it is not only confusing, it seems rather senseless.
Think it's confusing now? Imagine what it was like to a new sailor back then, like I was. I learned a rank structure that excluded the one star rank altogether, then the rank "Commodore" was added, I then report to my first boat and, of course, the Commodore paid us a visit. I see the guy, and he's wearing a Captain's uniform!?! My Chief (in his own gentle way) explains to me the difference between "Commodore" and "Commodore". Apparently, I'm not the only one confused by this, because as Vigilis pointed out, a couple of years down the road Commodore became Rear Admiral Lower Half. Problem solved, right? Now we just have two Rear Admiral ranks!
Lotsa fun.
8/26/2009 5:51 AM
It was much simpler in boot camp. If it moves and isn't wearing a black skull cap or white leggings, salute it! I've always been amused by the term "rear admiral" anyway. The extra title of "lower half" was just icing on the cake! As far as why all the rules exist for retirement and such, it all goes back to the Navy being an agency of the government. No reason to make things simple if you can tax on whim and spend freely.
8/26/2009 10:53 AM
Ok, I came in the Navy in 1982 when 1-stars were called Commodores. Then in 85 or so, they renamed them to Rear Admiral Lower Half. I always remember seeing their rank as RADM (LH) as said before. It was some time in the 90s when I started noticing the RADM(LH) was changed to RDML.
A MCPO explained to me the following about the Commodore title used today. Any officer in command of a unit, where he is listed as a Commander and not a Commanding Officer, shall be referred to as Commodore to show a distinction between a Captain (Commanding Officer regardless of rank) and the Commodore position.
Submarine Squadron 1 title is Commander, Submarine Squadron One, but that position is filled by a O6/Captain. So everyone refers to him as Commodore. Same with the Region Commanders for recruiting. I am sure the same for the rest of the Navy.
From my understanding, the next step above a Commanding Officer can't be a Commanding Officer.
STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET
8/26/2009 11:29 AM
That group blog is a really great idea. I wish we had blogs while I was still in.
8/26/2009 12:01 PM
That group blog is a really great idea. I wish we had blogs while I was still in.
Agreed, but I forsee someone stepping on their crank with an inappropriate comment there and it getting back to the commands' leadership.
8/26/2009 12:07 PM
Agreed much so, 630. They'll have to screen it constantly. The blog is worthy of a stopover from me now and then but I don't see me posting on it since I have nothing to do with their group.
Now, at the same time, my wife has a blog for her 9th grade world history class....so far, she's been very lucky!
8/26/2009 12:22 PM
Checked out the CSG-10 blog.
Self-serving.
Egoistic.
Tone deaf.
Filled with unchallengeable platitudes.
Cheerleading at its worst.
Barf-worthy.
IF the blog were to deal with real issues (with specifics), IF it were to offer the troops some promise that they won't get bit in the butt for posting, IF it were to encourage a voice for junior enlisted, the chiefs, JOs, and staffies ... if if if ... it might be useful. But this (so far) is really tripe.
A college advisor had a phrase for this sort of thing: MEGO. My eyes glaze over.
8/26/2009 3:29 PM
Wow RD, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!
I seriously doubt you'll ever see a blog as you described from official channels.
8/26/2009 4:00 PM
So then why do it? Reminds one of the lyrics...
"The enlisted men ride in a motor boat,
The admiral he rides in a gig,
He don't go a damned sight faster,
But it makes the old bugger feel big."
8/26/2009 4:17 PM
RD, I agree with your assessment. It makes me glad that I am not serving on the CSG-10 staff.
8/26/2009 5:19 PM
Hey, the guy might be a great guy and a grand leader, but this new blog-thing idiom just gets orthogonally cross-threaded with a hierarchical structure.
The same thing happened when CNO Frank Kelso tried to introduce Deming's ideas under the rubric of Total Quality Leadership. It's a great idea - bring the ideas up from the experts on the deckplates - but it requires humility and a senior's willingness to be shown wrong in the service of a better outcome.
Kelso's flags couldn't handle it and this new fangled blog thingee seems to have the same destiny. As Jean Giraudoux said, "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made."
8/26/2009 5:38 PM
Egad, don't get me started on TQL- or as my sailors referred to it- Total Quality Lip Service. You are one of the few who recognizes why TQL was doomed to failure in the Navy from the start; no one in leadership truly willing to admit that someone below them might actually have a good idea.
8/26/2009 7:05 PM
It's not a problem limited to the Navy. I remember all-too-well how a senior manager at a major electronics company once commented as to how they "don't want rogue cross-functional teams" providing ideas up the food chain.
Snort!
8/26/2009 8:16 PM
I used to be on the CSG-10 staff. You'd never know it was a submarine command unless you were in Ops. Too many politicians with commissions, not to mention their E-9 and civilian underlings. It was good to get back down to the waterfront.
8/27/2009 12:43 AM
So do any of you think there will be a lot of butt-kissing going on over there?
I see the potential for it.
I did post once citing what a good idea this was, but it seems to be a hands-off blog and generally used for the group and those who belong to it.
8/27/2009 9:32 AM
Really effective material, thanks so much for the post.
9/12/2012 7:36 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home