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, February 18, 2012

NPTU Charleston To Get Newer Moored Training Ships

From the Charleston Post and Courier:
Over the 10-year span, the USS Daniel Webster and the USS Sam Rayburn, both built in the early 1960s, would be replaced one by one with the 1970s-era USS La Jolla and the USS San Francisco...
...Here's what's coming
Expansion plans
Renovate X-Ray piers to hold two larger submarines
Replace the USS Daniel Webster and USS Sam Rayburn with the USS La Jolla and USS San Francisco
Remove older office, classroom and storage barges, replace with shoreside buildings
New gate, fencing and other security improvements
Nearly double parking to 1,900 spaces

Training plans
2012 -- 1,200 students per year
2015 -- 1,500 per year
2022 -- 1,800 per year
2020-2022 -- 2,800 per year*
*Temporary assignments while the school at Ballston Spa, N.Y., is refueled
The draft assessment mentioned in the story is here, and says, not surprisingly, that the new training ships will be designated MTS 701 and MTS 711. With Charleston Naval Shipyard closed down, the conversion work will obviously be done elsewhere; I'm guessing Norfolk. When I was a Shift Eng on MTS 626 in '93-'95 and half of our trainees were going to skimmers, I always wondered why they didn't bring of the the cruisers that was decomming during that time in as an MTS; it could have provided lots of office space as well. I think the ship's sailed on that idea...


Anonymous mark/MM1(ss) said...

Interesting. I wonder why they're doubling the size of the shore establishment, while still maintaining just two MTS units. Doesn't seem like the throughput will change, other than longer life cores, so maybe less downtime. Norfolk sounds like a good bet, though Portsmouth is the lead yard for 688 refuelings - presumably conversion will coincide with refueling.

2/18/2012 12:49 PM

Anonymous mark/MM1(ss) said...

Ah - I see by Joel's link to the EA that the MTS units will be supplemented by two simulators. Looks like they'll have quite the op tempo there...

2/18/2012 1:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fleet is shrinking, why the increased throughput numbers?

2/18/2012 1:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

They have to build a second Training Support Building because the 516 Barge that has been there since they opened the site, and was the initial TSB, is literally falling apart sitting pierside. It is so antiquated that they can't even find anyone to do the necessary repairs on it. Over the last 4 years they have been steadily increasing class sizes while streamlining the qualification process to see how many baby nucs they can pump to the fleet. The only thing they haven't done is increase the number of instructors. That wouldnt make any sense! In reality prototype still remains the biggest fuck job a nuc can get for shore duty. The only saving grace for a sailor is that if you come there with the right attitude and do your job instead of whining about how bad you got boned by the Detailer, you will most likely put on the anchors. Then you can go back to the fleet and reap what you have sewn by running a division full of your students.

2/18/2012 1:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fond memories of the La Jolla when I was on her while she was the hot boat in San Diego during the 80's.
It's nice to see that she will avoid being turned into razor blades for at least another decade.
Charleston has to be better than riding the bus from Pocatello and camping out in the bunk room in the middle of the Idaho desert.

2/18/2012 2:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My guess is the increased throughput is partially due to decomming MARF at some point in that time frame.

2/18/2012 2:54 PM

Anonymous CommentGuy said...

Just for example the Rayburn was originally scheduled to operate as an MTS until 2018.

Obviously this new schedule is yet another deviation from announced planned policy.

2/18/2012 2:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Understand that in 2012, the vast majority of submarines are S6G, but that won't be the case 20-30 years from now. I can't understand why the training facility wouldn't "future proof" itself by putting two S9G plants there (or S9G and S8G). If the renovations need to be done, do it so that it lasts.

2/18/2012 3:02 PM

Anonymous CommentGuy said...

Interesting to hear you served in 'Old Funny Fins'.

I am sure you know what that means.

2/18/2012 3:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

La Jolla "hot boat in San Diego?"

LOL. My boat was boned on more than one occasion by the La Jolla when she couldn't leave pier-side.

2/18/2012 7:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fleet is shrinking, why the increased throughput numbers?

Because the fleet is undermanned and has been, as indicated by the fact that there is more work to do than people to do it.

2/18/2012 7:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The old cruisers were fairly "hot" so I'm not surprised they never used them for MTS. The San Fran becoming an MTS was exactly what I thought they would do with her. Should have done that before welding the front half of ex-Honolulu to it

2/18/2012 8:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

SFO's conversion to a MTS before adding the Hono section was brought up. I'm pretty sure, just like the Cole, big Navy wanted the warship back to prove a point.
Both SFO and LAJ have been refueled already during their first over haul.
Glad to see the San Fran sticking around longer!


2/18/2012 8:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ummm... those cruisers were no more (if not less) "hot" than current prototypes - besides, as I recall we only made one RC entry as part of our prototype qual cards.

2/18/2012 9:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know where you would fit the required fill system or the other creature comforts that the 616's had. I did the conversion overhaul on the 626 at Charleston NSY and to this day (approaching 27 years), it is still the worst experience of my career. I liked Joel.

2/18/2012 9:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the Rayburn get pulled apart while I was on the Stonewall Jackson and in the drydock next door. Interesting watching the missile deck get hacked to itty-bitty pieces of steel.

It was interesting when I heard why the MTSs are staying on the ship's registry. Apparently, Navy has oversight and statutory authority over nuclear operations when they are vessels (i.e., they can go to sea, albeit with tugs.) If they couldn't go to sea and were struck, the NRC would have oversight and statutory authority over the reactor operations.

2/19/2012 6:25 AM

Anonymous Mark MM1/SS said...

If that's the case, why doesn't the NRC have regulatory authority over the prototypes at Ballerina Spa?

2/19/2012 7:29 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 7:04....yes. She was the "can do" boat in SD into the late 80's. She was the first 688 class in SD and we took quite a few ops that others couldn't.

BTW....I'm not anon 2:07 but I was there too.

2/19/2012 8:48 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"renovating X-ray pier to hold to larger submarines"

The 688's are the same beam and 65 feet shorter than either of the two boomers. Am I missing something?

2/19/2012 9:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did the conversion overhaul on the 626 at Charleston NSY and to this day (approaching 27 years), it is still the worst experience of my career.

Ditto this on the 635 conversion. I arrived around a year before it was completed. Morale was in the tank, many khaki fuckwads onboard, zero leadership just push push push to get it done....all while on "prototype" shift work, plus pre and post-shift briefs, extra hours on swings for "training"...basically zero quality of life for anyone except those lucky enough to be a "daystaff puke". Fast forward 3 years and it wasn't nearly as bad, but man did it ever blow in the beginning. My advice: stay the fuck're better off getting a job with Radcon on some tender.

2/19/2012 10:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"renovating X-ray pier to hold to larger submarines"

The 688's are the same beam and 65 feet shorter than either of the two boomers. Am I missing something?

You may want to recheck your math. A 688 is indeed 65' shorter than a 616 class SSBN. That includes a Missle Compartment, which the MTS boats no longer have...

2/19/2012 10:51 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prototypes are a drain on the USN and the US taxpayer.

2/19/2012 1:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

She was the "can do" boat in SD into the late 80's. She was the first 688 class in SD and we took quite a few ops that others couldn't.

Actually, no. A 637 out of San Diego was the quietest and capable SSN on the West Coast from 87-90. Thus, the crew was boned accordingly.

2/19/2012 1:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 1:10. She won 4 Battle "E"s and 3 Engineering "E"'s. I don't recall a single op she didn't make (admittedly, I left in 87 so I can't speak for after that). How many did your 637 win?

2/19/2012 1:22 PM

Blogger Thomas said...

Love the hate towards NPTU. I was an ASE at the 635 '93-'95. (Would have been an SE but not after turning in my letter).

20 years later and I still to this day enjoy the hell out of being able to have dinner with my wife on Friday. EVERY Friday nowadays is Friday of day shift. I think I'll go get myself another beer now just 'cause I can. A plus side of doing 2 years of shift work in the butthole of the nuclear Navy was that graduate school afterwards was a hell of a lot easier! Seeing NPTU in my rear-view mirror was fantastic.

2/19/2012 5:14 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

oooo, poor lil Thomas had two whole miserable years at NPTU on eight hour days. FYI - the hate is directed by hackers who served on boats and had it far worse. You never earned the right to bitch about it. Sniveling, whining pieces of shit get no sympathy here.

2/19/2012 6:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

2800 at the MTS's alone...a baffling throughput. 7 classes per boat at 200 students each...

Maybe the MTS's can do it, NY cannot...5 classes of 130 per kicks our asses.

2/19/2012 8:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I would have stayed in, I would have asked for a second sea tour before I went to NPTU. It's a real bone job. Not many good shore billets for nucs, and that is why a lot choose to leave. I will take the extra pay every month instead of getting blueballs from the tease of shore duty that NPTU is.

2/19/2012 11:41 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must be one of the few that actually preferred NPTU over sea duty. I was a RO Staff Pickup back in 1990. I really enjoyed the teaching.

My favorite story from MTS 635 was when a student was field daying under one of the ESF diesels when we lost shore power. The engine roared to life and the kid pissed his pants.

PB Sterling xET1/SS

2/20/2012 7:18 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As one of the guys (as posted earlier) who did the 626 conversion overhaul, we did a huge transition from overhaul to rotating shiftwork. For my first 9 months in Charleston at the SY, I was mid shift, seven days a week. When we could man up a fourth crew, we thought we were in heaven with days off. Five crew was a pipe dream that eventually came true. I guess if you start with a severe beating, getting punched less over a period of time feels like a good deal.

I got to spend my last 18 months on day staff on the little white barge before heading off to the 683.

2/20/2012 3:28 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always thought they should convert SSN-21 and 22 into prototypes - thier systems are far closer to S9G, and all the forward parts could come out to service SSN-23.

2/21/2012 10:20 AM

Anonymous mark MM1/SS said...

Oh right-the two fastest and most heavily armed SSNs in the fleet. That makes sense...

2/21/2012 11:17 AM

Blogger FastAttackChief said...

Are Prototypes really needed in this day and age? Why not build a couple FIDES and and Engineroom simulator. If we can train marines to go into combat with virtual reality weapons then why can't we do the same thing with today's nuke. Given the fact the average nuke only retains probably 20% of what he is taught in nuke school and prototype, I think converting the La Jolla and San Francisco is big waste of our Nation's assests. Rickover must be rolling over in his grave for this crazy thought.

2/21/2012 11:27 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@fastattackchief - Actually Rickover would roll over in his grave for what you are proposing. His distaste for simulators is well documented hence the reason all trainees were to operate a living breathing no kidding nuclear reactor prior to hitting the fleet. While I don't doubt he would probably have better ideas than the current plan of record I would argue that this would be prefered to what you propose.

2/22/2012 2:47 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think adding the 2 S6G subs is a good idea. Tehre are still alot of them in the fleet. Also hands on training is still the best. But some accidents you could only run (effictivly) on a simulator - like loss of coolant accident.

2/22/2012 8:50 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

That's probably because simulators back in Rickover's day were about as advanced as something out of the Flintstones compared to what we can generate using even a desktop computer these days, let alone a decent server farm.

If they're good enough for civilian plants, they're good enough for Big Navy.

And I don't care if I needed prototype duty back in the 90's to make CPO. No way, no how. Spent 7 1/2 years at sea and didn't want to play "pretend we're at sea" for another 3 before going back for another 4-5 years on an SSN.

With all the crap going on with retirement benefits, Tricare, etc., not to mention the pay differential, I'm that much happier with the decision to get out when I did.

2/22/2012 11:05 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm under the impression that the new training site they are building next two the two new MTS's will include two engine room simulators.

That's the only way to make the numbers work. Think about it.

2/22/2012 5:31 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are closer than you think. The reason they are dropping to 3 prototypes (2 in chas 1 at ballston) is engine room simulators are currently in development and should be ready about the same time as the new MTSs.

The reasoning for using S6Gs is fairly straightforward. The hulls are fairly worn yet the cores are not. Its a whole lot cheaper to convert an S6G to an MTS than build a whole new S9G core and engine room. S6Gs using more modern I&C aren't that far away from the S9Gs. Have to do something will all the old S6G spare parts.

Ex-Nuke (ss)

2/22/2012 5:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only retain 20% of what they learned in nuc school and prototype?!

Please tell me you are kidding me.

Please tell my that NAVSEA08 has not dumbed the program down THAT much. That they have not allowed the standards to drop that far.

Any less that 75% and I would consider that nuke an idiot.

I learned S5W in nuke school. NEVER saw the plant.Never touched one. I can STILL draw it, tell you all the limits they taught me over 20 YEARS AGO. That is both the primary and secondary and related subsystems.

2/22/2012 6:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an idea:

Prototype would be split up into 2 tracks, surface and submarine.

you would spend the first 6-8 weeks "offhull" studying the respective plants.

Then you would move "inhull" and qualify on your watchstations. That would consist of simulators for A4W, S6G, etc. You would also have a carrier engineroom simulator - ( real engineroom - steam from non nuke source) and a submarine engineroom.

When i went through the nuke pipeline I learned S5W in nuke school, went to A1W prototype then to a S6G sub. I had to unlearn everything i learned at prototype.

how about we teach teh new nukes waht theya re going to actually operate - or close to it.

2/23/2012 10:18 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

went from the 626 to a 688i boat, engineroom diagrams and schematics were easiest transition possible. been on both 688i and VA platforms, biggest problem will likely be the Electric side of things.. but the mech and rx side shouldnt be too bad.

Concur with above on not having enough instructors at prototype. Simulator while okay can not replace hands on response. After operating hands on and then training on a FIDE in port your notice significant differences in both procedures, response, and equipment. the NAVSEA 08 under his DOE has must certify certain "civilian" reqs. at the protype that would prevent full simulator training.

for the skimmers at prototype, they always thought their job was so bad; and for my sub compadres, either in two categories, one trying to get back to the fleet, and the other came from bad commands and just happy to see their family for a change.

2/23/2012 11:56 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Went to prototype at S1C, nothing like it in the fleet, but principles were the same, and that is the function of the training. To teach students hands-on, operational principles, not the nuanced details of their sea duty plant. If you started confusing students with all of the plants out there, they would learn nothing.

2/23/2012 4:46 PM

Anonymous Mark mm1/ss said...

Exactly - anon at 1018 has a GCE, the function of prototype is to teach how to qualify on a plant, not to qualify them on any plant in particular.

2/23/2012 5:25 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Add to that the fact that detailers aren't about to detail people to boats or carriers in NPS, 7-8 months before (IF) they hit the fleet.

I agree with all the above--you don't go to prototype to learn a particular plant or qualify a specific plant before you hit the fleet, you go to put what you learned in NPS into practice.

2/23/2012 6:53 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with the above, learned S5W in Orlando, qualified S1W in IF went to the 626 G in Holy Loch.

NPS in Orlando taught the basics of nuclear reactors and the steam plant, same principles regardless of the plant, how the reactor produces power, how that power is transferred to the secondary side, how that power is converted to Elect and Prop.

Prototype taught valuable hands on how to qualify, how to learn the specifics of a plant. how to react to casualties. Not how to operate the particular plant you would be on for the rest of you time.

Those above who advocate the MTU being what you will work on in the fleet are pigeon holing people for a career. do you really want to condemn people to one hull for their entire time. People already complain about the lack of shore duty what would happen then.

2/24/2012 9:45 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keeping prototypes around just so students can "learn how to qualify" is the biggest load of BS ever. You can teach someone 'how to qualify' in 5 the tech manual, learn to draw the system, read the "basic description" section, learn all the setpoints, go physically look at it/trace it, go relentlessly harass people for your checkout, get your lookups, memorize your lookups, turn in your lookups, get signature. Wash/rinse/repeat until you can stand watch.

We don't need to spend millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars in order to teach Sailors the qualification process. That's what the Navy has First Class Petty Officers for. After all, A-gangers seem to qualify on their systems just fine, and they don't go to prototype.

2/25/2012 10:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure there are 'other' factors which must be considered as to why Navy Nukes must be trained on a prototype.
The state of Hawaii was once appalled at the idea of constructing a nuclear reactor plant to answer their energy woes.
Someone (?) pointed out the fact that they had numerous nuclear reactor plants operating in Pearl Harbor.
I would have liked to experience the reaction from the statement.
Nuff said.

2/25/2012 3:55 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{After all, A-gangers seem to qualify on their systems just fine, and they don't go to prototype.}

Wow. Juzt, Wow. A-Gang doesn't run a bloody nuclear reactor, you genius.

Let me guess - cone?

2/25/2012 11:20 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is good news. Having just graduated from there a few months ago I can say without a doubt that this is definitely something that needed to be done. These old boats had too many issues.

2/26/2012 2:34 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the Navy needs to work harder to retain current members rather than throwing bodies at the situation?

It only works to address one end of the problem IMO.

I still to this day can not fathom why any elisted guy would stay beyond a 6-8 year stint from a financial standpoint.

One thought is why do Army enlisted helo pilots get CWO while a nuke on a sub is an E4. How does that make sense?

That would certainly have impact on retention.

Also, rather than some useless shore billet, why not allow someone to get a degree? Again, another incentive to stay in.

Career growth in the nuke Navy amounts to moving up in rank to just tell guys to do the PMs that you used to have to do. Leadership and management is a horrible afterthought. Maybe a CWO program where it's built into the pipeline makes more sense.

2/26/2012 7:11 PM

Anonymous Mark/MM1(SS) said...

Sorry, but comparing an E4 ERLL watch to a combat chopper pilot strikes me as more than a little ridiculous. Your thoughts on college for shore duty are interesting, though - that might be worth looking into. CWO being built into the pipeline is a thought, but not until second sea tour, IMO. Finally, to the anonymous coner @1012 - maybe if A-gangers had prototype, then maybe stupid shit like leaving vent covers installed on a boat getting underway wouldn't happen. Just a thought.

2/26/2012 7:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think another important aspect of prototype training is showing the students the right way to do things, so they can tell the difference once they get to the boat. Nubs are very impressionable, and can easily make bad choices.... with the assistance of a handy I-don't-give-a-shit attitude of his new shipmates. Obviously not all commands have issues like this, but I still think it's worth the expense of prototype. After all, nuclear power is serious shit.

2/27/2012 8:26 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{One thought is why do Army enlisted helo pilots get CWO while a nuke on a sub is an E4. How does that make sense?}

There was a semi-serious proposal to do this at the EWS-level of knowledge/experience (second sea tour), ten or so years ago. OMB paper. I don't think anything happened with it - the shift to an Army-style CWO program was a stretch.

While it would make a lot of sense, a big part of my civilian business is hiring hot enlisted nukes, getting out after 6 or 8 years. So, from self interest, I hope they don't ever consider this :)

2/27/2012 11:15 AM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

I could see going to Warrant, provided they're hot-runners who are E-6 and CPO eligible, qualified EWS/EDPO. God knows there's enough Warrant Officer programs out there for surface types.

To me, prototype was an opportunity to do real-world theory to practice in a safe, controlled environment. IOW, a place to learn to do things very similar to what you'll be doing on the boat/carrier--but more importantly, DO IT RIGHT. Yeah, it's a crap job for the instructors, which is why they'll be far more likely to put on khaki compared to guys like me who only did recruiting or other "basketball issuance" jobs for their shore duty.

2/28/2012 9:42 AM

Anonymous dirtyblueshirt said...

Rickover wanted CWO for all nukes when he started the program up. The powers that be said "HELL NO!" because they thought he was creating his own power base of officers/CWOs to challenge the non-nuclear status quo. Rickover was eventually able to seure the E-4 requirement for all nukes with the statement that anyone qualified to run a reactor was FAR ABOVE the mundane E-1 to E-3 "Striker" level of training.

3/01/2012 4:10 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you can bust your ass through the nuke pipeline as an enlisted guy and get E-4. Depending on how long your time is between class man-ups and rate, you are looking at 3-6 months of A-school, 6 months of nuke school, and 6 months at prototype.

OR, got to Army Boot camp and within a year become a CWO as helo pilot.

So, it makes total sense for nukes to be CWO. Had this pipeline of college be part of the mix, I probably would have considered staying in.

I still don't understand any reason for an enlisted guy to stay in with the current (and past) pay and advancement structure.

3/01/2012 10:11 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Anon--not all of us have perfect vision either. See the Class 1/1A requirements.

3/02/2012 6:45 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{{After all, A-gangers seem to qualify on their systems just fine, and they don't go to prototype.}

Wow. Juzt, Wow. A-Gang doesn't run a bloody nuclear reactor, you genius.

Let me guess - cone?}

The initial argument made is that prototypes exist solely to teach Sailors how to qualify. This was stated because prototypes other than S8G don't have submarine or surface relevant plants, so they clearly don't exist to saturate Sailors' knowledge in the plant which they will operate at sea.

My counter-argument to that is that if an A-ganger can qualify within his SSORM timelines, surely a nuke with his far superior intellect can 'learn to qualify' on a submarine without spending 6 months and millions of taxpayer dollars wasting time at an antiquated nuclear power plant. It's not a difficult process to learn, and has existed in the Navy long before nuclear powered warships.

As far as reinforcing concepts from power school, learning to operate a submarine would reinforce the theory just as well as learning to operate a prototype. The only difference is 6 months of piddling around not doing anything useful to national security.

3/03/2012 8:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pilots deserve more pay because their job is harder and more dangerous. Navy nuclear plants are so over-engineered with automatic safeguards that you'd have to purposefully attempt to sabotage the plant to do any appreciable damage.

3/03/2012 8:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think a pilot has a harder job than standing watch on a nuclear power plant while port and starboard duty with drills and maintenance tossed into the mix and non-stop sleep deprivation?

Were you a nuke or just trying to stir up debate?

I can give a large number of scenarios where an EO or RO can cause serious issues for a boat given the right time and circumstances.

I don't know about surface ships but on a submarine there's plenty of opportunity to compromise a boat's safety.

For anyone to compare the training of A-gang to nukes is just absurd.

As for prototype, my class had 1-2 people from all rates that did not make it to qualification. Several failed comp and a couple did not make it at final boards. One guy was more from his attitude than his education but I think in the long run they did him a favor.

I think prototype is highly valuable training or the boats would all have to get more staffing as it would really extend the qualification times IMO. On an operational boat/ship, where are you going to see all those evolutions?

Do you want the first time going through a scram in manuevering to be after doing a "talk-through" checkout?

Simulators make a lot of sense and can certainly reduce the cost compared too operational reactors. It also should allow for someone who makes a mistake to have to re-do it until they get it right with immediate actions.

3/04/2012 8:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joel, I am impressed. You have clearly set up a NOOK whine thread and A'gang was dragged into it. So
NOOKS, nibble on your cheese, whine about your bonus's and vote with your boots, if not, then STFU?
Mark/MM1: "maybe if A-gangers had prototype, then maybe stupid shit like leaving vent covers installed on a boat getting underway wouldn't happen. Just a thought."
How does that keep M-div from flooding the battery with seawater from the lp air system. Go piss up a roap boot. You were talking about trident sailors. I did that tour and couldn't swallow.


3/05/2012 12:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction to my last post, it was 688 sailors, so it was obviously a prototype problem on flooding the low pressure air system with seawater.
Damn, couldn't blame a'gang on that one, shucks.


3/05/2012 2:13 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a nuke falls asleep on watch, 99% of the time the reactor plant will be totally fine.

If a pilot falls asleep while flying, he will crash a multi-billion dollar airplane and die.

It's about the responsibility. Being the only guy making sure that gravity doesn't destroy a military asset warrants more pay than sitting in a chair for 6 hours shooting the shit about Star Trek and filling tanks. Standing watch as a nuke is an easy job. Don't confuse long hours created by over-engineered process safeguards combined with poor planning with "hard." Get over yourself.

3/06/2012 5:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you want the first time going through a scram in manuevering to be after doing a "talk-through" checkout?"

It might as well be. You're taught to shut the main steam stops at prototype in a lot of cases where it would be catastrophic to a submarine.

Besides, that's why U/I drill watches are required by the EDM.

3/06/2012 5:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 5:45, if being a nuke is such an easy billet to fill and retain then why does the Navy have trouble keeping people?

Sorry but I can go down a whole list of cases where a nuke could fuck the boat over with boneheaded moves.

I guess you think the plants run themselves. Maybe everyone should just stay in the bunk then.

The "get over yourself" makes me think you're either cone or nuke waste. I never got a re-up bonus as I did my time and got the hell out of dodge.

Sorry but running a reactor plant requires a level of education far beyond that of most any rates in the US military.

I guess running a nuclear reactor plant on a combat ship that carries nuclear or cruise missles is childs play. Spec ops? What's that?

Once guys become educated it's stupid for the Navy to let that human capital just walk down the pier. Think of how much time & money is spent to get a guy from boot to fully qualified on board and on watch on the plant.

Look at the accidents and issues that result in damage to the boats and they're almost exclusively related to dumb ass moves upfront.

Scary to think someone relys on fail-safes as a surrogate for not fucking up to begin with.

All I can say is thank GOD I got out. From what I read, it's the same BS. The Navy could make it so people fight to stay in and get a better breed of people.

College opportunity for all nukes after certain time points and CWO are incentives I think the Navy should consider for retention.

3/07/2012 1:42 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Former MM1 on the MTS-626 from 94-97.
Served on 644 as a boomer and 624 as a slow approach. NPTU was not the best shore duty you could draw but what is that old saying about pick your rate...

I am now on the commissioning committee for USS Minnesota. Was at Newport News Shipyard last May for the Hull Authentication Ceremony. In talking with the Huntington Ingalls Engineers, they told me about the 688 conversions and they were putting together the bid package for the shipyard to submit. Unbeleivable amount of work due to all of the DOE regulations that have been passed since the previous conversions.

Just want everyone to remember the 635 and the 626 are the last two 41for freedom boats that helped keep our country safe through some of the most challenging times in history. All of us part time sailors should ensure they are sent off with full millitary ceremony

3/13/2012 3:24 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If pilots were that bad-assed, they'd have their own blog, vice posting on a Submarine blog. #wannabe

3/31/2012 7:50 PM

Blogger aloalo said...

A small circus described by Leake proved to be a theatre-like building constructed soon after AD 200 around the altar and in front of the temple of Artemis Orthia. Here musical and gymnastic contests took place as well as the famous flogging ordeal (diamastigosis). The temple, which can be dated to the 2nd century BC, rests on the foundation of an older
intercom repairs

powerpoint search

5/09/2012 3:42 AM

Blogger aloalo said...

Aratus was forced to turn to Antigonus III Doson of Macedon and request that he assist the Achaeans' efforts to defeat the Spartans. Cleomenes eventually invaded Achaea, seizing control of both Corinth and Argos. When Antigonus arrived in the Peloponnese, however, Cleomenes was forced to retreat to Laconia. He fought the Achaeans and the Macedonians at Sellasia, but the Spartans were routed.
El Dorado Hills Real Estate

voyages vietnam

5/09/2012 9:18 AM

Blogger aloalo said...

is mountainous, 49% is hilly, while plains occupy only 9% of the region's territory. It is separated from Sicily by the Strait of Messina, where the narrowest point between Capo Peloro in Sicily and Punta Pezzo in Calabria is only 3.2 km (2 mi).
Toronto Condos For Sale


5/09/2012 9:33 AM

Blogger aloalo said...

They are the current European football champions, and have won 21 La Liga, 25 Copa del Rey, 10 Supercopa de España, 3 Copa Eva Duarte and 2 Copa de la Liga trophies, and are the record holder for the latter four competitions. In international club football Barcelona have won four UEFA Champions League, a record four UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, four UEFA Super Cup, a record three Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and a record two FIFA Club World Cup trophies.
Holiday apartments in Madeira

outdoor TV

5/11/2012 3:17 AM

Blogger aloalo said...

Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801, had given the new state the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain before 1801 is occasionally referred to as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain".[20][21][22][23] However, Section 1 of both of the 1707 Acts of Union declare that England and Scotland are "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".[24][25][nb 6] The term united kingdom is found in informal use during the 18th century to describe the new state but only became official with the union with Ireland in 1801
Descargar Programas Gratis

Coursework writing

5/12/2012 6:36 AM

Blogger aloalo said...

In 2006, a new design British passport entered into use. The first page of this passport showed the long form name of the state in English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.[39] In Welsh, the long form name of the state is "Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon" with "Teyrnas Unedig" being used as a short form name on government websites.[40] In Scottish Gaelic, the long form is "Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainne Mòire is Èireann a Tuath".

blu ray

5/12/2012 6:40 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading this blog and looking back its great to see that we collectively still care about the greatest fighting force in the world. Nuc School was hard (class 7901)EM2/SS but the Navy gave us a great start in a technical field that could be used to build careers in and out of the Navy..for me leaving after 6 years for College to become a ME.(A college option would have been a consideration for me but the detergent patrols were the counter) The nuc life was hard but the memories over time make it are less harsh. I will not hesistate to tell a young man or women to think long and hard about is a great honor but it does not have a reset option like COD. We all went in for different reasons and I think all could agree worked together to serve our country. - SubSailor636

7/23/2012 8:15 AM

Blogger Jeny said...

Very informative blog, contain very nice information. Thanks for sharing.
X-Ray Simulator Training

12/24/2012 4:53 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if the replacement was completed or when it was to be completed?

2/07/2013 9:53 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to let the cat out of the bag, but that conversion and upgrade might be coming a lot sooner than everyone thought... Stay posted...

2/26/2013 9:14 AM

Blogger Jeny said...

Wow, It's a awesome information. Thank you so much for sharing with us.........X-Ray Simulation Training

3/07/2013 4:03 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stay away from NNPI on here. Also, unless you can speed up the flow of time, 701 is not getting on Site any earlier than planned.

4/28/2013 4:30 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home