Nuclear Navy Milestone (And A Rant)

Interesting milestone reached: the New York prototype site is honoring their 50,000th graduate; ADM Donald attended the graduation ceremony for 246 graduates. The Kesselring site claims that they have trained over half of all Navy nukes.

[Off-topic rant: What are the odds that the 50,000th graduate just *happens* to be a woman? If it just turned out that way, fine, but if they just chose one of the 246 graduates to be the ceremonial 50,000th graduate and were directed to chose a woman, or if they arranged the qual board schedule such that a woman would be the "correct" graduate, that's bullshit. There are plenty of guy Sailors who I'm sure have parents who would like to see them featured in a news video, too. And why does it seem that about 30% of the various Fleet Sailor of the Year selectees are women when females are only about 16% of the Navy overall? And why does the SecNav feel the need to pull non-qualified women off their boats for a White House Memorial Day photo op with the President and First Lady and fly them in from Kings Bay and Bangor when there were plenty of qualified Submariners just a few miles away in Norfolk who probably would have loved to see the White House? How much money did that publicity stunt cost? And did any boats have to do a PERSTRANS to get their female Sailors off the boat? How does missing at-sea (or even in-port) time help them complete their Submarine Qual Card? Is there a new "Visit the White House and meet the President" required signature they've added since I got out? /rant]

What are your favorite prototype stories? I always enjoyed the "Midnight EOOWs" in the Idaho bunkrooms -- the guys who screamed out orders in their sleep when at the height of preparations for their Final Evaluated Watch. I also remember the nosebleed I got riding home on the bus one night that, exacerbated by the elevation and lack of humidity during the Idaho winters, absolutely refused to stop until my old t-shirt in my bag was sopping wet with blood and I worried I was going to bleed out there on the bus, miles from civilization. Also, meeting my wife, who was going to school at Idaho State and met the only Sailors in our class who were smart enough to live in Pocatello (fewer Sailors and more college students) instead of Idaho Falls (many Sailors and no college students).

USS Illinois Will NOT Have An All-Female Crew

[I really dislike having to post this on Memorial Day, when a more legitimate topic is in order, but this story is gaining too much traction and needs to be addressed.]

The White House announced today that, as predicted, the First Lady will sponsor PCU Illinois (SSN 786), slated to be commissioned in 2015. Several news outlets reported the news correctly. Several others, including most Fox News outlets (along with The Hill, which should know better), decided to report, based on no evidence whatsoever, that this would be the first submarine with an "all female crew".

For those who are researching this incredible claim, let me be clear -- the Illinois is NOT going to be the first submarine with an "all female crew" when she's commissioned in 2015. There will not be any female Submariners with enough experience to be XO, let alone CO, by 2015. Even if the White House wanted to do this for some perverse public relations reason, Naval Reactors would shoot it down, because they would not give approval to a CO who did not have the requisite submarine experience. You can't just take a female surface nuke CDR and make her CO of a submarine; too much submarining is learned by the hard lessons of experience and discussions in the wardroom. Naval Reactors would not in a million years send one of their submarine reactors to sea under a CO without the submarine training you can only get by doing at least two full prepartory sea tours on a submarine. No female will have that level of experience by then.

However, if someone out there believes everything they hear on Fox News and wants to claim that the Kenyan Marxist Communist Muslim Usurper is going to override NR because he's evil and wants to destroy the military, please let me know, and I will bet you $1000 that the Illinois does not have an all-female crew when she gets commissioned. We'll put the money in escrow, winner collects all. And I will win that bet.

Update 2006 28 May: Actually, I posted this too quickly without doing my customary research, and found that the Navy has already not only refuted the report, but says that Illinois isn't even planned to have female crewmembers. Here's a comment from the SUBFOR PAO under the article from The Hill:

Hello, this is the Public Affairs Officer for Submarine Forces. The USS ILLINOIS will not have an all female crew. Today the First Lady accepted sponsorship of the USS ILLINOIS and she met with the group of female Submariners that have already reported to Submarines. This group is the first for the US Navy. Currently we have females serving on some ballistic and guided missile Submarines. The USS ILLINOIS will be a Virginia class Submarine. At this time, we do not have any females serving on SSNs. Tried to call your agency to correct, but received an answering machine.

Update 2223 28 May: It's not just FoxNews and The Hill (who, from all reports, made up the original story) who're making mistakes. In this story, MSNBC incorrectly reports that the Illinois will be the first U.S. submarine to have female crewmembers. While I doubt Illinois will have any female crewmembers for the foreseeable future, we do know that several other submarines already have females aboard as part of the crew.

FY13 Submarine Administrative Board Results

The results of the FY13 Submarine Force Administrative Boards are all out, including CO/XO and DH. Congratulations to all selected! (The Major Command list came out back in November.)

[Personal disclosure: I was a last-look selectee for XO, and was medically-disqual'd before the CO selection process really got going for me.]

Fire On USS Miami

Multiple news outlets are reporting that a fire was seen coming from the area of the dock where the USS Miami (SSN 755) is moored at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Initial reports indicate the fire is located in the forward compartment of the boat, and some firefighters have been injured.

There's not much scarier than a fire on a submarine. What is your submarine fire story?

Update 2252 23 May: Here's an update from Seacoastonline.com. Excerpts:

While the fire - located mainly in the USS Miami's living areas and in control spaces - continues to burn, the situation is improving, said Base Commander Capt. Bryant Fuller in a statement to the media at about 11:30 p.m. Six people were injured fighting the fire and were either treated at the scene or transported to a hospital, he said. One of the injured was a firefighter who suffered heat exhaustion but who was conscious and alert, said Fuller...
Steam was still visible at the scene late Wednesday night, due to intense heat from the blaze combined with firefighters' efforts, said Fuller.
Firefighters were initially called to the Shipyard just before 6 p.m. for a report of a fire on a ship in dry dock. Fire crews encountered heavy smoke and fire, and two firefighters were taken from the scene with injuries, the officials said, adding two more firefighters were later taken from the scene for treatment. At 7:30 p.m., black smoke was visible from Prescott Park in Portsmouth, N.H., billowing from the dry dock and a Portsmouth fire truck was on standby at Peirce Island.
Just after 10 p.m., the fire aboard the submarine, docked at Dry Dock 2, went to four alarms and fire dispatchers were describing the fire as "moderate."
Numerous departments from local communities responded. At 10:45 p.m. a Portsmouth ambulance was called to Gate 1 of the shipyard, according to radio communications. Shortly afterwards, an engine and a foam trailer from Logan Airport in Boston, Mass., arrived at the scene. According to the Boston Sparks Association, a fire buff club founded in 1938, an engine from the submarine base in Groton, Conn. was also responding. Apparatus from Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts arrived shortly after 11 p.m.
Shipyard public affairs specialist Gary Hildreth said the fire is located in the forward compartment of the ship and all nonessential personnel were ordered to evacuate.

Staying at PD...

Update 0710 24 May: RDML Breckenridge is on scene, and reports the fire is out and confirms that two Ship's Force were among the 7 injuries. Here is his statement:

"Late yesterday afternoon, USS MIAMI experienced a fire in the submarine's forward compartment.
"Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Fire Department and Ship's force, along with mutual assistance from several other area fire departments, immediately responded and successfully extinguished the fire on USS MIAMI. I repeat, the fire is out.
"The fire and subsequent damage was limited to the forward compartment spaces only which includes crew living and command and control spaces. The nuclear propulsion spaces were physically isolated from the Forward Compartment early during initial response.
"The ship's reactor has been shut down for over 2 months and remained in a safe and stable condition throughout the event. The propulsion spaces remained habitable and were continuously manned through the night.
"There were no weapons on board in the torpedo room. The fire spread to spaces within the submarine that were difficult to access. The heat and smoke contained in these confined spaces made it challenging for fire-fighters to combat the blaze.
"I want to emphasize that the heroic actions of the firefighting teams averted what could have been a much more severe situation. As a result of their quick and effective response, the fire was contained and brought under control.
"We greatly appreciate the strong support received from our state and local partners who assisted us throughout this event.
"All of USS MIAMI's crew and the personnel supporting work and recovery efforts on the submarine are accounted for.
"Seven people were injured during the fire-fighting response. However, their injuries were minor in nature. The injured personnel included three Portsmouth Naval Shipyard fire-fighters; two ships force crew members; and two civilian fire-fighters providing support. These personnel were either treated on-scene or transported to a local medical facility for further treatment and all have been released. So all injured personnel have been released and are in good shape. There were no casualties in this fire.
"Again, the response of the shipyard and the community fire-fighters has been exceptional. Their efforts clearly minimized the severity of the event. They immediately took actions to stabilize the situation, protect the public, and limit the impact to the environment.
"So we are now moving forward with recovery actions. The shipyard remains open for normal business and the workforce will report to work as scheduled. A full investigation has begun to determine the cause of the fire. We will continue to provide updates later today as more information becomes available. For now I need to get back to my responsibilities in the command center."

Sounds like this was a very serious fire.

Update 1645 24 May: Word on the street is 5' of water in the various FC bilges, 60% of the forward compartment "trashed". With that much water, let's hope the watertight seal for the battery well hatch held.

Update 2232 24 May: Here's a good summary of the events of the last day or so from the local news website.

Update 1715 26 May: The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Facebook page has a short video of the Miami in drydock shot after the fire was out on Thursday. And here's a piece from the Washington Post that discusses (in general terms) the issue of whether or not they'll attempt to repair the boat.

Update 2037 30 May: Here's an AP discussion on issues surrounding possible scrapping of the boat. And here's a message that got sent out forcewide about pictures from the boat:

After a walk-through of the MIAMI, it is clear that the interior of the ship is in a state where normal declassification of pictures and other images is not possible - they simply can't do that properly.
Now that inspections are underway, under NO circumstances should any photos be sent on the UNCLASS network. Minimum classification is Confidential and should only be forwarded by SIPRNET or NR WAN. No exceptions without relief from a higher authority.
Please ensure this gets wide dissemination.

As a result, any link to pictures purported to show the interior of the boat will be deleted from the comments.

Update 1600 31 May: Word on the street is that the cause of the fire may have been something hot getting sucked up into a vacuum by a shipyard worker, which was then left on the boat at the end of the shift.

Update 0851 07 June: Here's an official release that confirms the rumor above, and puts the initial estimate of repair costs at $400 million.

A "Radical Moderate"™ Proposal

[Note to my regular readers: This is an Idaho politics post for which I'm using my blog as a means to disseminate to the Idaho political community.]

Have you ever read a political platform? While some can be interesting, in large they're sleep-inducing documents that are read by only the most committed party loyalists and the most committed party opponents. I think they can be more -- there's no law that says they can't actually say what the members of the party actually think.
I got myself "selected" as a delegate to the Idaho Democratic Party State Convention next month. (I went to my county caucus and volunteered, and there were many fewer volunteers than spaces available.) They said that one of the things the convention would do was write the new state party platform. I had actually read platforms of both state parties in 2010, and while the Republican platform had several idiotic planks, it wasn't boring. The platform for the Democrats, however, was full of platitudes and very short of specifics -- it's as if Idaho Democrats were afraid to put what they were really thinking on paper. (The last time the Idaho Democrats said something remotely interesting in their platform was in 2006, when I made fun of it.)

Although my politics are probably still closest to Bush (41) among recent Presidents (although I have much more of a "get the government out of our personal decisions" libertarian-type bent), the way the Idaho GOP has shifted to the right, people of my belief set are clearly most closely aligned with the Idaho Democratic Party. (For example, I would say that I'm more liberal than the last Idaho Democrat elected to Congress, who lost his bid for re-election in 2010.)

Anyway, if I'm going to be voting on the platform, I figured I'd make some edits to the last one to include some items I'd like to see. Here's what I came up with. Some of the changes and additions are highlighted here:

Idaho Democrats believe that adopting pragmatic solutions to economic and social issues will continue to make Idaho a great place to live. We are focused on solving the problems of the 21st century in a forward-looking manner, and not, as Idaho Republicans seem to want, returning to the policies that existed in the 1850s.

Idaho Democrats support laws that eliminate lifetime catastrophic medical insurance caps, allow young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance policies through age 26, and require insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions and prohibits them from dropping people just when they need insurance most. We recognize that, other than Medicare For All, the only economically feasible method of supporting those goals is an individual mandate as contained in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Unlike the Idaho Republican Party, we recognize that the attempted “nullification” of federal laws by state legislatures is a major step on the road to secession. We support the existing method of letting the courts decide regarding disputes between the states and federal government. Idaho Democrats oppose any efforts to secede from the United States of America.

Unlike the Idaho Republican Party, we support the right of citizens to vote directly for their U.S. Senators, and oppose efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Idaho Democrats realize that the same dynamics that led to the adoption of the Amendment (states going without representation for years when the two houses of a state legislature were controlled by different parties, corporations willing to bribe legislators to get their favored candidate elected) still exist, so taking away the rights of citizens to vote directly for their Senators would cause numerous unneeded problems and solve none.

Unlike the Idaho Republican Party, we oppose legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank and institute a unilateral change to gold- and silver-backed money. Idaho Democrats have an actual understanding of how the world economy works, and recognize that the total value of all the gold and silver ever mined and available for commodity use (let alone what the U.S. government owns) is significantly less than the size of the U.S. economy. A unilateral move to the precious metal standard would result in severe deflation and a tightening of the money supply as overseas investors hold onto their dollars (the world’s only sure inflation hedge) and foreign owners of government bonds cash them in and redeem them for our gold, leaving us with no money in circulation and no gold and silver and reduced to a bartering economy. Idaho Democrats, unlike Idaho Republicans, do not advocate economic suicide in support of a misguided theory that used to kind of work (the Panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1890, 1893, 1907, and the Great Depression notwithstanding) only because the entire world was on the system and there were vast new deposits of gold and silver being discovered and vast quantities of cheap land available to support expansion. As none of these conditions exist today, the Idaho Republican’s support for destroying our economy based on their pet theory is absolute lunacy.

Unlike the conspiracy theorists of the Idaho GOP Central Committee, we support efforts like “Project 60” to bring in foreign investment that provides good-paying jobs to Idaho, and recognize that in the real world -- the one not dominated by the rhetorical black helicopters some Idaho Republicans think are all around them -- such businesses would be subject to all applicable local, state, and national laws, and are not a threat to Idaho’s sovereignty; they are a means of bringing dollars into the state.

We oppose the 2011 state education reforms, and believe that increasingly scarce Idaho education dollars should stay in Idaho and not be sent out of state to buy overpriced computer hardware from contributors to the campaigns of Idaho Republicans. We support the November 2012 ballot initiatives to repeal the “Luna Laws”.

We support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Idaho Constitution guarantees of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble, and oppose any laws adopted clearly for the purpose of limiting or eliminating the rights of any groups of people to peaceably assemble and petition their government.

I also added a section to the 2nd Amendment support plank indicating that we don't believe in a Constitutional right to shoot politicians you think are oppressing you, but I'll probably take that out because the Idaho GOP hasn't officially made "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants" or "2nd Amendment remedies" part of their platform (yet). Well, what do you think? Too harsh? I'm thinking that if the Idaho Democratic Party wants to get any attention at all, we need to make a splash, and forcing the Republicans to own their idiotic "return to the Gold standard" and "repeal the 17th Amendment" planks is just the way to do it, especially a week before their convention. The Idaho GOP is on the verge of fracturing as it is (Reasonable "RINOs" vs. TEA Party vs. Ronulans), and we should do what we can to push it along. 

Anyway, I've sent my proposals to the Platform Committee, and hopefully they'll agree with me; if not, I'm perfectly comfortable with waging a floor fight to put some teeth into the platform. Who's with me?

Officer Duty Section Watchbill Agonistes

Resolved: There is no activity in submarining more likely to cause lifelong grudges than the wife-generated politics and perceived fairness involved in generating an inport duty watchbill for officers. Discuss. (I'll add my take on the issue tomorrow. I find it interesting that the two officer-and-wife couples with whom I served who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with me post-Navy were on the boat where I served as Senior Watch Officer.)

Update 1015 16 May: When I was an unqualified JO on USS Topeka (SSN 754), the CO's philosophy was that the non-qual officers stood 3 section EDO U/I until qualified, then 3 section EDO until qualified Ship's Duty Officer. Since we generally had two EDO-qual'd / non-SDO-qual'd guys at a time, they took two of three days, and that left the other qualified officers in basically 6 section duty. I got qualified just as that CO left, and the new guy ("He Who Must Not Be Named") went the other direction -- the non-quals needed time off watch to work on their quals, so they stood 5 section and the fully qualified JOs stood 4 section SDO. (Obviously, required monthly proficiency watches for the Department Heads made the schedule somewhat flexible.) The SWO on Topeka was the Nav, who came up with an elaborate "point" system to make it "fair" -- he generated a watchbill that gave you 1 point for Mon-Thurs duty, 2 points for Friday, and 3 points for Sat/Sun/Holiday; he even put a handy "point total" table on the side of the watchbill to show everyone how "fair" it was. However, it always seemed to work out that the DHs were assigned weekend duty when the boat was scheduled to be out to sea, so they racked up their "points" that way. One month we broke and had to come back in, so he regenerated the entire watchbill, giving the DHs duty on weekends on days that had already passed on which we were at sea to make the "points" add up (giving the JOs duty on the future days where we would now be in port when the original fictitious schedule had the DHs standing duty) and seemed amazed that anyone would bitch about it.

When I was SWO on the Connecticut, after trying to pawn it off on the Nav but having the XO veto that (he said "you're the senior officer who stands watch, so you're the Senior Watch Officer"), I remembered the lessons from Topeka and tried to make the watchbill as fair as possible, with no special "reduced requirements" for DHs. Inevitably, however, one JO's wife complained about the perceived unfairness and word got back to me, so I did the only thing possible under the circumstances -- I assigned her husband to generate the watchbill for me for the rest of the time I was on the boat. Since he was a decent and fair guy, he ended up generating watchbills that didn't give him the days off that his wife felt he deserved, since jumping through all the school/TAD/special request hoops really is a tough row to hoe. (They're one of the couples that now won't talk to me.)

Counting my time on the Jimmy Carter, I ended up being SWO for 62 months overall, which might be a modern Submarine Force record. (Granted, for many of those months in NewCon, we didn't have any watches manned, so it was a title without responsibility.)

[Off topic: During my two tours as NewCon Eng, I also generated the first draft and training enclosure of about 60 NR Admiral's Letters, which I'm almost sure is a record. Continuing the off-topic aside on NR, anyone have any bets on who will be replacing ADM Donald this year?]

[Off-off topic: My other record is "fastest American submarine Eng on Alpha Trials".]

New FY-13 Submarine Admirals

In ALNAV 036/12, it appears the long-awaited Navy URL Rear Admiral (Lower Half) list has been announced. As near as I can tell, there were three Submariners selected, as follows:

Navy Capt. Robert P. Burke has been nominated for appointment to the rank of Rear Admiral (Lower Half). Burke is currently serving as Director, Submarine/Nuclear Power Distribution Division, PERS 42, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, Tenn.

Navy Capt. David J. Hahn has been nominated for appointment to the rank of Rear Admiral (Lower Half). Hahn is currently serving as major program manager, Submarine Combat and Weapons Control Systems, PMS-425, Program Executive Office for Submarines, Washington, D.C. (Acquisition Professional)

Navy Capt. Charles A. Richard has been nominated for appointment to the rank of Rear Admiral (Lower Half). Richard is currently serving as chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command, Special Activities Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.

If you see any other Submariners on the list, please let me know in the comments and I'll update the post. Having only three Submariners put on a star is a fairly low number; we had four last year and five the year before that.

"Believe Your Indications"

One of the overriding principles pounded into Submariners from the time we start training is the idea that you should, in the absence of overwhelming evidence that there's something wrong with it, "believe your indications". It's not only gauges -- it can be something as obvious as an abnormal noise in the reduction gears that starts very soon after a periodic inspection.

According to an article in Navy Times (not yet online) that's based on their review of the command investigation obtained via a FOIA request, USS Georgia (SSGN 729) somehow ended up with a loose bolt in their reduction gears after an inspection, and then, "(i)gnoring standard operating procedures and common sense, the crew kept turning the engines and shaft at varying speeds over the next two days in a vain effort to find the cause". Repairs efforts by TRF, although lauded for their quickness, still kept Georgia from participating in the NATO efforts in Libya last year, in addition to costing $2.2 million. Excerpts from the article:

But when Georgia was preparing for its Dec. 28, 2010, inspection, none of the technicians or supervisors reviewed the maintenance procedures in detail prior to starting, the report said.
Other findings: Oversight was insufficient, the inspection was performed without a sense of urgency, and participants had not been trained for the procedure.
Capt. Tracy Howard, then-commodore of Submarine Squadron 16, wrote in his review of the investigation: “I conclude the ship demonstrated inadequate sensitivity to the risks inherent with a MRG inspection, as manifested by the inadequate preparations, supervisory presence and imprecise execution, which directly resulted in foreign material introduction.”
The sub’s remedy — continuing to turn the shafts after an abnormal noise was heard — made the situation worse.

The article also says that an officer and a "senior Sailor" lost their jobs, and several others were masted.

When I was Eng, one of the most boring things I did was personally supervising reduction gear maintenance and inspections -- and in the shipyard, there were a lot of those. Still, I recognized that the requirement to have the Eng present when the gears were open were one of those Navy rules that was written in blood and treasure. Some of them seem silly (and I'll admit, I didn't enjoy the catcalls from the crew whenever another officer and I would transport "Two Person Control" material through the ship), but I generally agreed with the rules that, to an outsider, might seem stringent beyond all sense of necessity. The sea (or the enemy) can kill you too quickly if you make a mistake that these rules are designed to prevent.

That being said, which submarine safety and maintenance control "rules" did you think were just too ridiculous? (One of the few I always thought was kind of over-the-top was the requirement to have all references -- even the general "don't piss on live electrical wires" manual -- present at all RC Div maintenance.)

Update 15 May 0503: The online version of the Navy Times article referenced above is here.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

... a picture of a couple of weird-ass skimmers:

These strange looking ships are the first two Littoral Combat Ships, USS Freedom (LCS 1) and USS Independence (LCS 2) exercising together off the coast of San Diego. Normally I don't post pictures of skimmers without periscope crosshairs superimposed over them, but the last thread was rapidly reaching the limit on the number of allowed comments and I needed to post something.

What's the most fascinating thing you've ever seen through the periscope?

Update 1320 09 May: Coming up tonight on TSSBP -- how much does it cost to repair a reduction gear on an SSGN after a bolt gets left adrift inside the housing during an inspection?

Columbia CO, COB Canned

Breaking news coming out of Hawaii that the Commanding Officer and Chief of the Boat of USS Columbia (SSN 771) were fired today due to "shortfalls in professional performance" that led SUBRON 7 to lose confidence in their abilities to lead. Excerpts from the Navy Times article:

The commanding officer and top enlisted on a Hawaii-based attack submarine were fired Tuesday for a loss of confidence in their abilities, Submarine Force Pacific said...
...Onboard attack submarine Columbia, Cmdr. Dennis Klein, the CO, and Master Chief Electronics Technician (SS) Don Williams, the chief of the boat, were relieved by commander of Submarine Squadron 7, Capt. James Pitts.
“The reliefs of Klein and Williams were related to shortfalls in professional performance leading to leadership’s loss of confidence in their ability to serve in positions of command authority,” said SUBPAC spokeswoman Cmdr. Christy Hagen.
Capt. Dennis Boyer and Command Master Chief (SS) Manuel Meneses, both on the squadron’s staff, have temporarily assumed duties as CO and COB, respectively. Boyer has commanded Los Angeles-class sub Miami, a SUBPAC statement said.

No specifics have been released yet, but I'm sure we'll find out the story behind the firings sooner rather than later. As always, please don't put someone's name in your comments attached to some perceived shortfall unless it's already out in the public domain; job titles should be sufficient to get your point across.