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.)

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Norfolk Naval Shipyard CO Fired

From Navy Times:
The commanding officer of Norfolk Naval Shipyard has been fired less than one year after assuming command.
Capt. William Kiestler was relieved Wednesday. Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, cited a loss of confidence in Kiestler’s ability to command. There was no mast, according to NAVSEA spokeswoman Pat Dolan.
The loss of confidence stems from “a series of events over the past few months,” Dolan said. Specifically, there was a “failure to ensure critical maintenance work was being performed according to procedure and loss of situational awareness with respect to the status of ongoing submarine projects.”
Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., is one of four shipyards specializing in repairing, overhauling and modernizing ships and submarines. The ballistic submarine Tennessee and fast-attack sub Montpelier are in the shipyard for scheduled maintenance. Dolan said she did not know whether the failures have affected the yard time for either sub.
In addition, the submarine tenders Simon Lake and McKee are in the shipyard for decommissioning.
I pretty much only had experience with NAVSEA in Groton, so I don't know if the culture in Norfolk was any different. As a general rule, the Repair Officers in Groton did a pretty good job. Anyone got any horror stories about NAVSEA types screwing up on their boat?

72 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both of those tenders were decommissioned in 1999.

7/01/2010 11:25 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Did Capt. Kiestler's removal pave the way for appointment of a female shipyard commander?

Kiestler, a mustanger, enlisted in 1981 training as a nuclear electrician. Appointed to the Naval Academy, Kiestler graduated in 1986, and went on to become an engineering duty officer.

Kiestler served as NNS's Ops and executive officers, the latter from December 2006 to June 2009.

He took command of Norfolk Naval Shipyard in July 2009, supervising some 1,000 Navy personnel and 8,000civilians.

Capt. Anthony Mullarky, assistant deputy commander of industrial operations at NAVSEA, will serve as shipyard commander until the new commander is named.

The Navy has fired 10 senior officers so far this year, 90% male.

7/01/2010 12:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At Vigilis,

Kiestler was not removed just so a female could be placed in his position; there were many factors that led to his removal - gender bias was not involved.

7/01/2010 1:18 PM

 
Blogger Howard said...

Sounds like you have some inside info. Speak up......

7/01/2010 1:23 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon @ 1:18 PM -

"Kiestler was not removed just so a female could be placed in his position,"

My question (there is a very big difference) was: "Did Capt. Kiestler's removal pave the way for appointment of a female shipyard commander?"

Time will soon answer my question with certainty, interim assignments aside, confirming or contradicting any possibility of gender politics involved.

BH, asked for horror stories; if gender bias were involved, this might rise to that level, no?

7/01/2010 2:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vigilis, you continue to provide idiotic comments. At least you are consistent. You are clearly one of those morons who will defy logic and reason, going to great lengths in your attempts to find conspiracies where they do not exist.

A CO was fired by his superiors and you are looking for a way to attribute this to gender bias? Wow.

Thank you for making the rest of us seem smarter in comparison.

7/01/2010 3:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:08 PM

"A CO was fired by his superiors and you are looking for a way to attribute this to gender bias?"

Aren't you being a little closed-minded?

As Vigilis correctly summarized, "10 senior officers so far this year, 90% male" have been fired.

Why not just wait and see what happens?

Rex

7/01/2010 4:23 PM

 
Anonymous MentalJim said...

What percentage of those in Command are males? Without that the 90% statistic is meaningless.

7/01/2010 6:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't try to make sense with our resident statistical experts, there's evidence of a MASSIVE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY to DO SOMETHING SINISTER. Ignore the facts that most COs are male, and that the sample size of a whopping 10 COs is so small that it would be impossible to draw valid conclusions, there's WILD CONCLUSIONS to leap to!

7/01/2010 6:39 PM

 
Anonymous Trojan Duck said...

Assigning a person of the female gender to the CO's now temporarily-filled spot will of course prove nothing.

Now, conversely, on the other hand, assigning a red-headed twink midget would go a long ways toward making amends to those of the...well, somewhat non-descript gender.

Now THAT would be truly gender-neutral, and the time has come for such measures of male admission to...well, being male and all.

J'ai une grenouille dans mon bidet!

~ "Mad Jack"

7/01/2010 6:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 6:39 -

"Evidence of "a MASSIVE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY to DO SOMETHING SINISTER?"

Calm down, dude. Recall that one of justification (the non-political one) actually cited by the navy for assigning women to submarines was "the shortage of male officer volunteers". Can we agree, so far?

Then how do YOU rationalize the navy's replacing some of the male sub volunteers from the naval academy to other career paths to make room for the 19 female selectees?

Please, we all await your enlightened answer, assuming of course that you, who likes to call others morons are not one yourself!

Rex

7/01/2010 7:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trojan Duck -

Of course "Assigning a person of the female gender to the CO's now temporarily-filled spot will of course prove nothing."

But to open-minded individuals who accept the fact that greatest "percentage of those in Command are males" (courtesy of MenatlJim) it should open a few paradigm closed-minds, if not start to raise an eyebrow.

Just saying...

7/01/2010 7:06 PM

 
Anonymous McNubowitz said...

Then how do YOU rationalize the navy's replacing some of the male sub volunteers from the naval academy to other career paths to make room for the 19 female selectees?"

Ha. And where did you hear this?

7/01/2010 8:30 PM

 
Anonymous mark/MM1(ss) said...

Sorry, but because of the relative infrequency of Vigilis' intelligent posts compared to the overwhelming preponderance of fringy conspiracy crap, it's hard to take much of his stuff seriously. Who knows, maybe Big Navy would like to put a chick in charge of one of the public shipyards, but this dismissal is entirely consistent with the way the Navy has run things forever, and the fact is that the performance of NNSY for several years is piss-poor. Most likely, it has more to do with civilian leadership, but it's not unusual for them to start at the top, especially with civil service rules. You can be pretty sure that there will be some shuffling in the senior civilian leadership there as well, though - but starting this way does have a way of getting folks' attention.

7/01/2010 9:40 PM

 
Anonymous T said...

1) Given female retention rates and accession rates into the Navy, it's entirely plausible that at least 90% of CO's are male across the entire force.

2) Female officers are not "replacing" male officers, but they are just "plussed up" from the normal male numbers. I.E. Male accessions will remain unchanged, but some boats will have 2 extra women. I believe that this is how it works in the surface nuke world to this very day, because female officer retention is so atrocious that the SWO's don't bother to factor them in for their retention numbers.

7/01/2010 9:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10% are female.

That could only be Holly Graf you're talking about. That uncaring rude cunt deserves to be fired...are you kidding me? You have TWO crews from TWO different ships from TWO different time periods stating the same lines of behavior exhibited from that 115LB buzzed little cunt.

No fucking way she's staying in the Navy. She wanted to act like a wanton twat with no trust in those she "lead"?,,,,then she'll be treated accordingly.

God save us all once the Sea H.A.G. is gone FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

7/01/2010 11:43 PM

 
Blogger hughmon said...

Bill Kiestler was my Weapons Officer on USS Georgia SSBN 729 many years ago - he was a good man, and smart enough to listen to his CPO's. He stood a good underway OOD, one of the very few officers who would brief the entire control room party upon assuming the watch. Weapons department amoked NTPI, TRE, and all admin inspections under his leadership. Hugh, MTCS(SS)(RET)

7/02/2010 2:53 AM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

You guys kill me. How did the firing of a shipyard CO turn into a discussion about gender? I cannot in my wildest imagination believe the navy would fire a CO with the intention of replacing him with a woman. If it happens, so be it. Was it pre-planned? Ridiculous.

As for the academy replacing male submarine volunteers to make space for the new women officers... it only makes sense that this indeed happened. That is unless you believe there were not enough male volunteers; something I don't believe is true. These women were picked precisely because they are women (I am not questioning their technical qualifications... I'm sure they are qualified and are at the top of the heap.) Yet, like any affirmative action policy, these types of things will happen.
John

7/02/2010 5:23 AM

 
Anonymous McNubowitz said...

"That is unless you believe there were not enough male volunteers; something I don't believe is true."

Believe whatever you like. Had they actually replaced male "volunteers," everyone involved would have gone home happy.

7/02/2010 6:56 AM

 
Anonymous SSN LCDR said...

"I am not questioning their technical qualifications... I'm sure they are qualified and are at the top of the heap."

And exactly how do you spell "assume," Senior Chief...?

Allow for the possibility that these women were picked for their PR value (i.e., good looks) more so than their technical ability.

It'd be very interesting to know what the technical abilities of the displaced, male midshipmen were like compared to the women-folk.

Last but not least, you say "affirmative action" like that's a good thing. Someone else might call that - quite accurately - "dysfunctional gender bias."

7/02/2010 7:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Replace women with men for Sub duty at the USNA... Crap, they found out about that too?
Jeffry
P.S. Sorry to inform all, but the party that was planned has been cancelled and please send back the USNA jackets.

7/02/2010 7:39 AM

 
Anonymous Trojan Duck said...

Speaking of parties, I've been asked to provide some of my remarks and commentary as the keynote speaker at the pre-election PC Assclown convention in Newark, New Jersey.

If anyone wants to attend, merely contact either your local or national PCA representative.

Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas.

~"Mad Jack"

7/02/2010 7:53 AM

 
Anonymous T said...

No male sub volunteers were replaced, anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant and has not been following this issue very closely. PERS-4 has actually been incredibly upfront about this part, and its the one thing with integrating submarines that they are doing correctly.

Let's say the The nominal number of Male JO's for ALL boats is 12. Thus ALL boats get 12 swinging dick JO's. The 4 boats that are getting females are getting an additional 2 JO's with vaginas on top of the 12 guys they would usually get (no pun intended). That is the official policy. Accessions are calculated (in theory) by the number of JOs you need to get the number of DH you need, and the female JOS are not included in any way in that calculation, at least for right now.

7/02/2010 8:14 AM

 
Anonymous Say what? said...

t,

Were you a split-tongue in a former life?

Not to pick a bone, but if as you say the accession numbers are unchanged as they are based on the number of needed department heads...then the accession numbers are unchanged.

If the accession numbers are unchanged (i.e., they were not increased to allow for the women), then it's quite possible to likely that the female midshipmen did in fact displace some male subvols.

By the way, PERS 4 has dick to do with how many male midshipmen are subvols, and that's the question at hand. PERS 4 only controls the accession numbers.

In other words (back to the original ones): did the female midshipmen subvols displace any male subvols? If so, were the female subvols more qualified than the males whom were displaced...?

That's the heart of the matter...so please back away from the detailer double-speak regarding unchanged accession numbers and join the rest of us here on planet earth.

7/02/2010 8:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First let me state that women on submarines is a terrible idea I completely disagree with.

But, I must dispel some of the wild theories. As an 1120 currently stationed at USNA I serve as a pre interview mentor to interested candidates and as a "pitch man" for the submarine community.

This year we actually forced males to go to interviews even if submarines were not their first choice. We had a set goal and we actually exceeded it by 2 before any of the girls came to the party.

All of the girls had previously been selected for nuke swo. When all the political crap that drove this decision started CDR Jarret solicited volunteers of women who wanted to join the sub force. 24 volunteered, 11 were selected and sent to NR even though NR only asked for 9. All 11 were accepted by NR. No males were displaced, in fact I am sure we could have found 11 to give up their spots if they had asked!

The final result was 11 extra vaginas and 2 extra dicks over and above what the academy was asked to provide.

Since this didn't happen until April I am pretty sure it did not effect the ROTC accessions process either but I have no knowledge about that.

Now all that said, WTF happened down their to get this guy fired? how badly do you have to screw up a re-fueling to fire the CO of the shipyard???

7/02/2010 9:07 AM

 
Anonymous Say what? said...

Thanks for the reality check, prior "anon"...it's much appreciated.

But if as you say "all of the girls had previously been selected for nuke swo," then why did they have to go back to NR for interviews? NR controls the nuclear-trained officer gate...not the submarine force gate.

As to your "WTF" question on the Norfolk SY commander, I hearitly agree. Something tells me that somebody seriously stepped on their dick in shipyard's nuke land.

Having seen major newcon nightmares first hand...the kind that books were written about...it's stunning to see the shipyard CO take it on the chin. But this is a Navy yard, so that is actually the right place to start if things are FUBAR.

7/02/2010 9:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon.... You are working as a pitch man in the 1120 community and don't buy into the woman on subs? Makes zero sense. Oh and as a mentor too? Wowsa, I can see the forked toungue coming out when speaking with your 1120 boss the Dant or the Supe for that matter.. Good luck with that ASSignment.

7/02/2010 9:42 AM

 
Anonymous T said...

Say What?:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is a PERS 4 Accession number, it only takes into account male accessions. Women do not factor into it at all. So if the sub force says they need 1000 submarine JOs for FY10, they get 1000 swinging dicks (i.e. males).

Then there are the women, which are plussed up onto the top of the normal accession numbers. So if they get 12 women, then there is 1000 men + 12 women on top of that.

That is the policy. To the best of my knowledge, that is the exact same policy that the SWO Nuke world follows to this very day, because poor retention of female nuke officers makes it very difficult to predict future DH numbers if you lump men and women into the same pool.

As someone mentioned earlier, for the last 2 years or so, USNA has been sending guys to interview where it wasn't really their first choice just to make their numbers anyway. So the idea that there's some "hard-working wants to be a submariner" guy out there getting replaced is sort of ridiculous in and of itself since the submarine force wouldn't be able to make its numbers without some kind of outside assistance anyways.

It's funny that you're labeling me as some kind of PERS4 apologist, as I'm highly critical of the change in policy, however, I think it's best that if we're going to attack it, we at least attack it on the merits of what is actually happening.

7/02/2010 9:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Return to topic and connect the following dots:

"At approximately 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 3, a Norfolk Naval Shipyard employee fell to his death while working."

"Feb 19, 2010 - A sailor on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was killed during an electrical accident on the ship stationed in San Diego"

"Norfolk Naval Shipyard successfully completed USS Ronald Reagan's (CVN 76) six-month Planned Incremental Availability May 19 at San Diego's Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) under budget."

Note that gender has nothing to do with these problems.

Note that the common thread is Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

7/02/2010 9:57 AM

 
Anonymous Trojan Duck said...

"Anon.... You are working as a pitch man in the 1120 community and don't buy into the woman on subs? Makes zero sense."

Good catch, 9:42 anon. ALL 1120s MUST agree with the change in policy. They are not allowed to have opinions that this may in fact be a complete and total debacle. And they MUST ABSOLUTELY learn to speak PC Assclown if they desire to become an admiral some day.

Thank you for helping to clear that up.

Liebe macht erfinderisch.

~"Mad Jack"

7/02/2010 11:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:57 AM

Electrician's Mate Chief John G. Conyers suffered severe electrical shock while conducting routine work Feb 19, 2010 on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was killed.

He was not wearing rubber gloves while working on live equipment. He removed himself as supervisor so he could show the worker how to do it.

Yeah, that sounds like it had to be NNSY CO's responsibility alright.

Rex

7/02/2010 12:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At Rex,

NNSY was the Lead Maintenance Activity...see the JFMM for a full definition of this term.

The electrocution happened when NNSY was the LMA.

"Responsibility" is not the same as "direct cause"...the "direct cause" was failure to meet the requirements for electrical safety.

Without regard to direct cause the LMA is responsible in all respects.

7/02/2010 12:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:57 PM

Let me gat this straight. The CPO performing "routine maintenance" was from the shipyard, not the Reagan's crew, and the shipyard's senior LMA representative aboard Reagan at time of fatal accident, was relieved of duty - No, did not happen?

Sounds like the shipyard may not have been responsible. Guess the ship's CO was not fired either.

You may have no evidence of the actual events you have been talking about.

7/02/2010 1:57 PM

 
Anonymous MentalJim said...

So the Navy is putting women on subs not by detailing them to current billets, but by making up extra billets in addition to the boats normal and full manning? The reasoning is that they will not make it or chose to not stick around to be Department Heads? Why would any of them go? The Navy says,"We want to use you for political purposes, but we have no expectations of you actually being able or willing to do the assigned job."

And yet they sign up? Wow.

7/02/2010 4:06 PM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Not to mention that anyone working that job now knows first-hand why we wear gloves when doing live work. The Chief led, but not quite the example he wanted to set.

7/02/2010 7:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trojan Duck aka "Fowl Condom",

Ass Clown language is very powerful and small minds can be damaged if using Ass Clown untrained and unsupervised. Proepr Ass Clown safety procedures must be in place to protect all parties. A supervisor, reader, phonetalker, operator and receivee must be present for safe Ass Clowning evolutions. Friends do not let friends Ass Clown without proper safety procedures.

Kirk

7/02/2010 8:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How did we get from the original topic of the Norfolk CO being fired to women on submarines and the taking away of male USNA and ROTC slots in favor of females? I think you all have lost your minds.

7/02/2010 8:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed. BH, your blog has unfortunately devolved again into a haven for morons who can take any topic and turn it into a discussion about how to blame:
a) women in submarines
b) USNA grads
c) officers in general
d) combinations thereof

This blog used to be a good site to discuss things that were actually relevant to the sub force.

7/02/2010 11:13 PM

 
Anonymous Veemann said...

My take on the quote from the Navy Times is that there were a number of nuclear related issues that had occurred in recent months and NR wanted him gone. I think it is as simple as that.

7/03/2010 7:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boiling water is such a deep and meaningful thing.

Women in submarines, another soon to be failed program from the 5-vector PC Diversity crowd. The Navy is in shambles. Some warships with fire control systems OOC due to mismangement and misfocused assets. If a real mission ever arises that requires actual naval intervention, the crap will hit the fan when people realize how badly this incompetent leadership has run a service into the ground.

Chew on that one for a while junior water boiler.

Boiling water is trivial crap when someone has the upper hand on you. Maybe this focus on engineering over functional warfighting has caused this fiasco. A CO is fired because of incompetent ship handling and other screw ups. This is just an indication of how weak things have become overall. How did this incompetent individual get fleeted up? Where is the quality at? Why do so many good ones vote with their feet? Maybe look at the ignorant culture fostered by the PC diversity clowns. All frill and no real performance improvements.

Women on subs will make everything better. What next,a diveristy program for hispanic/asian/african midgets for subs? The enemy could not care less about wasting time on this stuff. In fact, these flawed and failed "feel good" programs are a friend of the enemy because they detract from the real mission. Just a drag on things.

Mr. Engineer, you can philospize your water boiling BS all you want but it is still trivial and superficial in the big scheme of things.

PC AssClown Jr.

7/03/2010 9:53 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7/03/2010 12:14 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7/03/2010 12:14 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Within 6 months of Guitarro's pierside sinking, my boat was newly stationed at MINSY Vallejo, California within walking distance of Guitarro's sad hull. There was, however, a wee bit of lemonade with Guitarro's lemons.

State-of-the-art electronics gear that had been installed on Guitarro before her sinking was somewhat salvageable and reinstalled to upgrade a submarine training facility in Hawaii. Examined same firsthand about a year and 1/2 later.

Guitarro's Shipyard horror story:

On 15 May 1969, Guitarro was moored in the Napa River at Mare Island Naval Shipyard while construction was still underway. At about 16:00 hours, a civilian NUCLEAR team began an instrument calibration which required filling with almost 5 tons of water certain tanks aft of the ship's pivot point. Within 30 minutes, a different, non-nuclear civilian construction team began an assignment to bring Guitarro within a half-degree of trim; this entailed adding of water to tanks forward of the ship's pivot point to overcome a reported two-degree up-bow attitude. Until shortly before 20:00 hours, both groups continued to add water, unaware of each other's activities.

Twice between 16:30 and 20:00 hours, a security watch advised the non-nuclear group that Guitarro was riding so low forward that the one-and-a-half-foot- (0.46-meter-) high wakes of boats operating in the Napa River were sloshing into an uncovered manhole in the forward most and lowest area of the ship's deck; these warnings went unheeded. At 19:45 hours, the non-nuclear group stopped adding water to the ballast tanks and began to halt work for their meal break, leaving at 20:00 hours. At 19:50 hours, the NUCLEAR group completed their calibrations and began to empty the tanks aft.

At 20:30 hours, both the NUCLEAR group, still aboard, and the non-nuclear group, returning from their break, noticed Guitarro taking a sudden down angle which put the forward hatches underwater. Massive flooding took place through several large open hatches. Efforts between 20:30 and 20:45 hours to close watertight doors and hatches were largely unsuccessful because lines and cables ran through the doors and hatches, preventing them from closing. At 20:55 hours, Guitarro sank.[1]

Guitarro was refloated three days later, on 18 May 1969. Damages to her were estimated at between $15.2 million (USD) and $21.85 million USD.

7/03/2010 12:18 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7/03/2010 12:18 PM

 
Anonymous Lather, Rinse...Repeat said...

Vigilis: Blogger (Joel's blogging app of choice) sometimes posts slowly.

To see if your post was accepted by the system, click on "post a comment" and then scroll to the bottom to see if your comment 'took.'

7/03/2010 12:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the thing at Naval yards, the mix of civilian and military leads to friction. The civilians think squids are there to take their jobs, and Navy guys think yardbirds are just trying to suck up overtime. We can fire CO's with relative impunity, but the managers just get shuffled around to different spots for a few years. (think RE-ORG in Dilbert strips) So... I'm guessing that no managers got canned over the carrier death, and the yards will move on as before. Let me finish by saying Pearl is no better, and probably worse. No-Ka-Oi bro

7/03/2010 2:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet a woman submarine officer wouldn't post the same story FOUR FUCKING TIMES in a row.

7/03/2010 2:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The USS Guitarro was the reason for 1) Safety draft marks. 2) Cofferdams. 3) Quick disconnects. 4) Trim calcualtions in evoltions moving ballast or a metric butt ton of water.

I seem to recall a boat, I think it was a 637 where the divers had some challenges identifying a certain hull valve and some folks know the rest on that one.

A submarine took a big tumble in a DD. A block dipsy doodle.

7/03/2010 3:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet a woman submarine officer wouldn't post the same story FOUR FUCKING TIMES in a row.

7/03/2010 4:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet a woman submarine officer wouldn't post the same story FOUR FUCKING TIMES in a row.

7/03/2010 4:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet a woman submarine officer wouldn't post the same story FOUR FUCKING TIMES in a row.

7/03/2010 4:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet a woman submarine officer wouldn't post the same story FOUR FUCKING TIMES in a row.

7/03/2010 4:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone serve on the Triton?

7/03/2010 5:02 PM

 
Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

I know that heads rolled in the NR office at MINSY after Guiterro sunk. I was on a boat in overhaul at PHNSY and half the NR office was TEMDU to Mare Island for about four months.

7/03/2010 8:16 PM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

ssn lcdr:
First: everyone knows how opposed I am to the foolish policy to allow women in submarines. Having said that:

to ssn lcdr:
And exactly how do you spell "assume," Senior Chief...?

- Agree. I did make an assumption. Perhaps naive, but I want to believe that these women *are* technically qualified.

Allow for the possibility that these women were picked for their PR value (i.e., good looks) more so than their technical ability.

- This is might be true and I think did play a factor. It's that human nature thing I keep harping on. I do think the group picked are exceptional good looking, IMHO. I have a number of personal favorites but I'll keep those to myself.

Last but not least, you say "affirmative action" like that's a good thing. Someone else might call that - quite accurately - "dysfunctional gender bias."

- I have mixed feelings about any affirmative action program. I don't think they are good, but over our history, we good 'ole white males have forced these things into place... and now we are paying the cost for it. In the case of WIS, I definitely think this affirmative action program is out-of-place for many, many reasons.

7/04/2010 5:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Female officers are not "replacing" male officers, but they are just "plussed up" from the normal male numbers. I.E. Male accessions will remain unchanged, but some boats will have 2 extra women. I believe that this is how it works in the surface nuke world to this very day, because female officer retention is so atrocious that the SWO's don't bother to factor them in for their retention numbers.

Yep, that's a good ROI. So tell me again why in Hell the Navy is pursuing this change?

*****

Electrician's Mate Chief John G. Conyers suffered severe electrical shock while conducting routine work Feb 19, 2010 on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was killed.

As a former EM1(SS/DV), what a dumbass!

7/04/2010 2:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yep, that's a good ROI. So tell me again why in Hell the Navy is pursuing this change?"

For purely political reasons.

Seriously, anyone who tries to make any sense out of this change is just going to end up with a headache. Embrace irrationality...and you shall have peace.

And try to focus on the upside...which, if it requires an explanation, means that you belong on a boomer.

7/04/2010 4:34 PM

 
Anonymous T said...

Yep, that's a good ROI. So tell me again why in Hell the Navy is pursuing this change?

And this is why putting women on subs is so fucking stupid. At the end of the day, you get nothing for it except some feel good bullshit. It's a lot of money spent on personnel and ship modifications at a time when the military is on the verge of facing large cutbacks, and the sub force in particular is hand-wringing about affording new submarines.

The only real beneficiary of this is the SWO Nuke community, as obviously submarines are now going to cannibalize some portion of the low ROI women that currently go their community.

7/04/2010 8:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Female officers are not "replacing" male officers, but they are just "plussed up" from the normal male numbers. I.E. Male accessions will remain unchanged, but some boats will have 2 extra women. I believe that this is how it works in the surface nuke world to this very day, because female officer retention is so atrocious that the SWO's don't bother to factor them in for their retention numbers.

I think there should be some clarification on this statement. Accession numbers and billets on a boat are two different things.

It is true that male accessions will remain unchanged and the Navy will just add females to that number. So this year instead of bringing in ~300 male officers the submarine force will bring in ~320 officers.

Nominal manning on a boat for JOs is 9. On the crews selected for female officers, instead of having 9 males they will have 7 males and 2 females, on average.

Those extra 20 JOs will be spread across the fleet. I am quite certain deploying SSNs, shipyard boats, and SSGNs are first to go to 10 when there are extra JOs.

7/05/2010 9:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nominal manning on a boat for JOs is 9. On the crews selected for female officers, instead of having 9 males they will have 7 males and 2 females, on average.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. EVERYONE has pointed out that female manning on boats will be in addition to the normal complement - because of the female retention numbers. That reason alone is why this assclown idea should have been sent to DJ's locker.

7/05/2010 9:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

....or maybe the manning numbers are unchanged because the VAST majority of submarines cannot accommodate female officers, and therefore the needs for all of the other submarines in the fleet still need to be met.

7/05/2010 10:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

....or maybe the manning numbers are unchanged because the VAST majority of submarines cannot accommodate female officers, and therefore the needs for all of the other submarines in the fleet still need to be met.

Uh, no. Each individual boat will still have the original manning number. Boats that accomodate women crewmembers will have an additional two JOs (female). Currently it appears that any female Chop sent aboard will truly be a replacement, not an additional body taking up food and space.

7/05/2010 12:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Currently it appears that any female Chop sent aboard will truly be a replacement, not an additional body taking up food and space."

Isn't "additional body taking up food and space" a fairly apt description of all Chops, regardless of gender?

7/05/2010 12:34 PM

 
Anonymous Trojan Duck said...

Wow...are you Neanderthals ever gonna love this information:

(1) "Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history."

(2) "Most managers are now women too."

(3) "And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same."

These facts and a storyline that you will not like, not to mention the title, are in this month's The Atlantic.

The article and its title:

"The End of Men."

Gee, maybe Big Navy really is onto something with the women on subs thing...?

You bozos need to wake up. As I keep saying, society is changing and the submarine force needs to catch up. It's OK NOW to be gay (DADT rescission is all but a lock-in), and women are clearly moving into the executive suites. This is reality, gents.

It's only a matter of time until US DEMOCRATS, the WINNERS, will ensure that the bisexual, transexual, NAMBLA, metrosexual, bestial-sexual, K thru 8th-grade sexual, onan-sexual, omni-sexual and red-headed twink midget communities are duly represented on submarines as well.

As I like to say when getting in someone's face (hopefully, hourly): "Get over it."

~"Mad Jack"

P.S. The article in The Atlantic has nearly 1,000 comments as I type this. Be sure to check in and offer your thoughts, especially if you're former enlisted that became an officer like I did, as we are of course the super-race.

7/05/2010 7:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, no. Each individual boat will still have the original manning number. Boats that accomodate women crewmembers will have an additional two JOs (female). Currently it appears that any female Chop sent aboard will truly be a replacement, not an additional body taking up food and space.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again.

7/05/2010 8:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: women in submarines.

In the movie "The Right Stuff", the astronauts and the rocket scientists are discussing changes to the prototype Mercury capsule. One of the astronauts asks the lead rocket scientist if he knows "what makes this thing fly?" Before the bemused rocket scientist can answer, the astronaut says "FUNDING!"

Likewise, it seems to me that the Navy is putting women on submarines for the sole purpose of satisfying the people who provide the FUNDING (Congress). If women crewmen actually contribute to the operation of the ship, so much the better.

ex-EM1(SS)

7/06/2010 5:55 AM

 
Anonymous t said...

Trojan Duck:

Haha. I almost responded before I read the name on that one.

I've heard the stupid argument of "there are more women in college now than men" therefore we NEED to allow women into submarines just to have any hope of keeping our ships manned and was ready to point out the stupidity of that entire idea (at least for the immediate future), but then I realized that you weren't serious.

well done.

7/06/2010 6:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An organization the size of NNSY doesn't decline in 12 months because of one man. I hope the CNO pulls the star of the previous NNSY CO, who sat back and did nothing except have his picture taken in the local newspaper. No, that would be too far even for NAVSEA 08. Much easier to thump the new guy, engineer a nice press release for the local press and then start working on the miraculous improvement we'll read about. So much for NNSY CO being the auto-promote spot to O-7 regardless of your performance.

So the real interesting piece is the appointment of a Rear ADM as the NNSY CO. When was the last time anyone saw a flag officer take over the helm of a shipyard? If one man was to blame for this mess, why take such drastic measures? And the real question is why did Corporate Management sit back and watch this train wreck. Who's accountable? Or is that just a buzzword meant for subordinates in your program?

I estimate Kiestler's new salary and military retirement will be $200K within 12 months. Who wins and who loses? Nothing to see here folks. Just another day in the NNPP.

7/18/2010 6:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said!

9/19/2010 11:03 PM

 
Blogger Shipping News said...

Honolulu-based Pasha Hawaii announced the MV Marjorie C’s first steel plate was cut, launching the official start of construction for the company’s second vessel.Ship Construction

8/13/2011 4:36 AM

 
Blogger greg3325 said...

i spent 16 years and 44 days on active duty in the us navy and first i want to thank all those sailors that serve when i was in service and for those after i was discharged. my career was being a mess management specialist. most times i worked as night baker and did breakfast 7 days a week underway. when i was called to duty on board a ship in groton ct, a device was brought on the ship that had something to do with ground detection. being chosen to do various tasks like, damage control petty officer etc, i learned some ships functions and the logic behind some maintainance-what happened to doing a red tag and shutting off power to the equipment being serviced. a chief being cooked by hot current by live lines/wires should have been avoided. even test equipment should be used to make sure the item is truly dead since tagging out stuff can produce bad results if the wrong breaker is tagged. over these years those kind of accidents do still happen with very bad results. it is everyones business on a ship to check and double check. somebody dropped the ball and the c.o. is where the buck stops. my commanding officer was fired when some knuckle heads used the wrong equipment on our ship and the c.o. was notified the main circuit board had to be totally repaired due to some ground values discovered on the ship. while the ship was in homeport and had to use extension cords to provide lighting while the main power board was totally rebuilt and it took weeks. some commitments were not done and my c.o. was fired. the c.o. had gotten screwed since he was in charge and authorized the repair. only one problem came up after the rebuilt main circuit board was done. using the same ground detection unit provided the same value before this repair was done. both values were the same. this unit was built to do tests on sub equipment. my c.o. was a good man that never was a dickhead. the man did his job and earned the respect of all in his command. i felt bad when he left, he told those on the quarterdeck not to announce him as ships name departing. the boss will always carry to heavy burden. this story i read before i wrote this email is nothing but a lose/lose-females on a sub, females serving in a war torn country is a reality. i wish the sex thing would just go away, since that is a lose/lose as well. stick to your military bearing and look at these female as officers and enlisted and give them the respect they earned. do not date, buy meals, gifts, hit on them etc. if you are not professional you will find yourself in front of the green tablecloth. ms1 g. fedorowicz

6/05/2013 1:00 PM

 
Blogger greg3325 said...

i spent 16 years and 44 days on active duty in the us navy and first i want to thank all those sailors that serve when i was in service and for those after i was discharged. my career was being a mess management specialist. most times i worked as night baker and did breakfast 7 days a week underway. when i was called to duty on board a ship in groton ct, a device was brought on the ship that had something to do with ground detection. being chosen to do various tasks like, damage control petty officer etc, i learned some ships functions and the logic behind some maintainance-what happened to doing a red tag and shutting off power to the equipment being serviced. a chief being cooked by hot current by live lines/wires should have been avoided. even test equipment should be used to make sure the item is truly dead since tagging out stuff can produce bad results if the wrong breaker is tagged. over these years those kind of accidents do still happen with very bad results. it is everyones business on a ship to check and double check. somebody dropped the ball and the c.o. is where the buck stops. my commanding officer was fired when some knuckle heads used the wrong equipment on our ship and the c.o. was notified the main circuit board had to be totally repaired due to some ground values discovered on the ship. while the ship was in homeport and had to use extension cords to provide lighting while the main power board was totally rebuilt and it took weeks. some commitments were not done and my c.o. was fired. the c.o. had gotten screwed since he was in charge and authorized the repair. only one problem came up after the rebuilt main circuit board was done. using the same ground detection unit provided the same value before this repair was done. both values were the same. this unit was built to do tests on sub equipment. my c.o. was a good man that never was a dickhead. the man did his job and earned the respect of all in his command. i felt bad when he left, he told those on the quarterdeck not to announce him as ships name departing. the boss will always carry to heavy burden. this story i read before i wrote this email is nothing but a lose/lose-females on a sub, females serving in a war torn country is a reality. i wish the sex thing would just go away, since that is a lose/lose as well. stick to your military bearing and look at these female as officers and enlisted and give them the respect they earned. do not date, buy meals, gifts, hit on them etc. if you are not professional you will find yourself in front of the green tablecloth. ms1 g. fedorowicz

6/05/2013 1:01 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home