Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Friday, November 02, 2012

Changes At The Top

Today, ADM Kirkland Donald was relieved by ADM John Richardson as the head of Naval Reactors. Also there's an election this upcoming Tuesday between the current Commander-in-Chief and an opponent who wants to significantly increase defense spending, including increasing submarine procurement to 3 Virginia-class boats a year.

Discuss.

Update 1220 04 November: For those who don't want to discuss national or NR politics, here are a couple of links you might like: A Cold War story about a Northern Run by HMS Conqueror (S 48), and both the official Navy story and an NBC News story about the CO and XO, along with the CHENG and OPS, of USS Vandegrift (FFG 48) getting relieved in response to a drunken port call to Vladivostok a few months ago. ("Party on, Ivan!" "Party on, Joseph!") I just like any story about the Eng getting to have fun on a port visit.

204 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must be slim pickings if you are inviting a political discussion on here that will turn ugly before the 10th post. Well, I guess the 11th since mine doesn't count.

11/02/2012 7:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't wait for more ridiculous metaphors comparing professionals operating nuclear powered warships to high school football players and tangents from a Navy officer speculating about Marine snipers because there's no modern examples of submarine warfare to be had.

ADM Richardson is a clown. God help the nukes.

11/02/2012 7:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not a thread on why Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, CO of the USS John C. Stennis, was sacked?

11/02/2012 7:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread should just be a pool on the next random audit paper project richardson is going to conjure up.

My bet: radcon and qa

11/02/2012 7:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former PCO instructor, I'd guess that he'll get a final vote on the MONTPELIER Fiasco.

It only takes one "Awlll Shit, to erase a ton of atta boys"

ADM Richardson is a great choice to put some reasonability back into the Submarine Force. Great to have him in charge.

11/02/2012 8:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^^^
HUH? He just turned over as SUBFOR for the 08 job dipshit.

11/02/2012 11:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CDR Mathew J. Drag, PCO of the USS BREMERTON died last week on 24 October. Funeral is this Sunday I think. I know RADM Frank Caldwell flew back to the east coast from Pearl to escort his body back to Hawaii for burial. RADM Willy Hilairdes is going to Pearl to speak at the funeral.

Anyone know how he died?

11/02/2012 11:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please don't discuss the personal information about CDR Drag's death, it is not something for public commentary.

11/02/2012 11:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Candidate Romney wants to buy 3 boats a year, but not with multi-year buy contracts. He wants to re-compete the contracts between GDEB and HII-NN every year. Yeah, can't wait for those yearly protests.

11/03/2012 12:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well i heard another CMC bit the dust. This time down in Kings Bay. Have not heard why, has anyone heard the scoop?

11/03/2012 4:25 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would we want to build 3 SUBS a year, we can't man the ones we have now without begging for riders from other Submarines which take away from their inport watchbill and therefore gives them a shitty rotation in port. And they wonder why no one want's to stay in anymore.

11/03/2012 5:56 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Seems to me that if Recruiting did their friggin jobs they wouldn't have such a hard time filling the pipeline with warm live bodies. Even in the 80's with all those extra fast boats and boomers we still managed to get them all manned up and sent to sea. Where did it become so hard?

11/03/2012 6:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re. USS John C. Stennis:

This is a submariner blog, y'know...but give us your address and one of us will send you a few bits so you at least can call someone who gives a shit about skimmers.

11/03/2012 7:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re. CDR Drag's death:

I'd say that if you have the sack to call the family and successfully obtain their permission to have an open dialogue on his death amongst a bunch of dickheads -- some of them actually quite stupid -- who never knew the man, then carry on.

Otherwise, STFU and deal with the crap in your own life, shit-for-brains.

11/03/2012 7:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, we went way off topic here.....

11/03/2012 8:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems to me that if Recruiting did their friggin jobs they wouldn't have such a hard time filling the pipeline with warm live bodies."

The problem isn't filling the pipeline - at least in nuke-land, it's already so full that some enlisted students are spending over a year on hold between arriving from boot camp and finishing prototype.

But that doesn't help if retention is in the crapper. Shoving more people in won't help if they're all six-and-out.

11/03/2012 10:38 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

The submarine world has not lacked controversy. "Claim: CO2 makes you stupid? Ask a submariner that question" Smart Submariners Shall Be Punished, Too?

11/03/2012 1:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re. USS John C. Stennis:

This is a submariner blog, y'know...but give us your address and one of us will send you a few bits so you at least can call someone who gives a shit about skimmers.

This goes well beyond being just about skimmers. Of course, you're probably a coner, so I shouldn't expect too much from you.

11/03/2012 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But that doesn't help if retention is in the crapper. Shoving more people in won't help if they're all six-and-out.

As Sparky said, no trouble manning many more boats in the 80s and 90s - when the economy was great and Op Tempo was high. Me guesses the new kinder, gentler, homo and chick friendly crews, and in general PCBS have much more to do with the "manning" issues.

11/03/2012 5:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 11/03/2012 4:25 AM

Did you say another CMC. How many does that make this year? This is getting old.

11/03/2012 6:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who think topics are "off limits" here haven't been reading this blog for very long.

Oh, and Vigilis...you're blog sucks.

11/03/2012 8:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With more than 1/2 of students in ENG Curriculum at US Colleges as women - how would we avoid "chick friendly" crews and still have access to top officers?

And also, you homophobic sexist asshole Anonymous at 5.32 p.m., what "kinder, gentler" Navy are you pulling out of your ass? People getting fired left and right, retention sucking and death do not describe a kind, gentle workplace. Idiot.

11/03/2012 9:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Gaouette
Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3, not the carrier itself. His bio shows that he was a submariner before switching over, if that's needed for relevance. Regardless, a quick Google search shows that the conspiracy squad is in full swing over what "inappropriate leadership judgment" means.

11/03/2012 9:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding manning, it also doesn't help that they're now taking a hard line on OFT failures. Earlier this year, Kentucky shitcanned nine sailors in one fell swoop.

11/03/2012 9:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, we have shut the fuck up, dickhead, shit for brains, homophobic sexist asshole, homo, chick,and more...

Can I suggest for once in this country we maybe decide to keep this blog focusing ont he issues not immediately degenerating into name calling and who can put in the 'slickest' 150 character attack.

Another example, there was a recent article in Proceedings that suggested it was time to revisit our policies on female retention and fraternization. Not sure I completely understood the author's thesis, but one CDR Michael Junge immediately develed into personal attacks on the author. This same CDR Junge prides himself on being counterculture and complains about how his free thinking garners him ciritcism. But he immediately degraded his comments into person name calling, precisely what he complains about.

We don't have to agree. But, this blog is rapidly going downhill. Lets make it a relevant place for submariners to have serious honest discussions.

Although the good natured nuke versus cone are of course always welcome. One ship one screw.

11/03/2012 10:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking of the suicide, did ADM Donald give himself the same treatment that he would have pressured the squadrons to give us COs if one of our crew committed suicide? I guarantee an O-5 CO would have a microscope up their rear with command climate inspections and visits from the TYCOM for everything they didn't do to prevent the suicide. As his CO during the PCO class, hopefully this same standard was applied.

11/03/2012 10:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And also, you homophobic sexist asshole Anonymous at 5.32 p.m., what "kinder, gentler" Navy are you pulling out of your ass? People getting fired left and right, retention sucking and death do not describe a kind, gentle workplace. Idiot.

Now, now, tell your bunkmate to remove his dick from your ass, then take a deep breath.

You're exactly the type described.

11/03/2012 10:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It so happens Mr. Drag was a close friend of mine from Hawaii and I am extremely saddened and shocked at hearing about his death- may we all have some respect for our fallen comrade no matter the manner of death and we former marines now civilians still pay taxes and are entitled to the entire scoop which I did in fact get from his wife so show some respect please for a very devoted and awesome fallen warrior- seems there isn't near enough respect in todays modern military as in bygone days...amen

11/04/2012 3:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not submarine related but another CO and DH's got sacked following a booze binge in Vladivostok.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/03/navy-removes-top-officers-san-diego-based-frigate-after-boozy-russian-port/

11/04/2012 5:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richardson is a CLOWN! The sub force continues to be in trouble. Retiring was the best decision I ever made.

11/04/2012 6:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suicide is sad no matter the rank of the person who committed the act. My condolences to the family.

11/04/2012 7:23 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

The problem isn't filling the pipeline - at least in nuke-land, it's already so full that some enlisted students are spending over a year on hold between arriving from boot camp and finishing prototype.

But that doesn't help if retention is in the crapper. Shoving more people in won't help if they're all six-and-out.

11/03/2012 10:38 AM


Okay, let's look at those "holds" for a minute. These are nothing new, really--in fact, back before my time, 6-9 months in the fleet between "A" school and NPS was not all that unusual. Only when the NFAS/NPS both in Orlando bit started in 1986-87 did the logjam ease up a bit.

But when you retire a ton of prototypes (Idaho, et al) and replace them with MTS's who are being held together (no offense to those guys being foisted into NPTU duty) with baling wire, spit, and a prayer, you're going to create that logjam all over again. Okay, got that.

Now we're also dealing with more nuke carriers now (11, soon to be 10, but 3 under construction) than we did 25 years ago (5, plus two being built.)

But even 20 years ago we knew that the nuclear-trained force was going to be going from the 75/25 sub/surface split much closer to a 50/50 or even surface-majority split, yet the TOTAL numbers have not changed.

We hear people bitching about lowering of standards and "pump versus filter" in the pipeline, where folks are shitcanned AFTER they get to the boat, not before. THAT is one of the biggest problems where manning is concerned. We look for "X" number of bodies to hit the fleet, not considering the attrition once these kids graduate prototype was close to zero a while back, but now is much higher, to the point manning the boats is becoming a critical issue.

And when manning suffers, so does retention. You're ALWAYS going to have that "PAPERCLIP" group in any organization, just as you're going to have the lifer digits. It's that group of guys on the fence who are either going to make or break you in the long run, and $100K re-up bonuses only go so far when you're looking at 5 years sea and a short-cycle NPTU tour sucking shit on rotating shifts before heading out on another 4-5 year tour.

Where's the incentive to stay in then? PO2 Schmuckatelli knows that the economy may suck now, but staying in and going to sea forever sucks a whole lot worse.

But I digress--when I was recruiting, making NF goal was so much lip service. Yeah, they had a goal, but almost nobody outside the Nuke Recruiters cared, not even the CRFers. They were more interested in overall goal, overall shipping, and minority UMG's because in my experience, field recruiters were far too intimidated by 17- and 18-year old prospective nukes...no lie. I would imagine the situation hasn't much changed.

Instead of doing some "top-down" recruiting where we aim for the cream of the crop, recruiters by and large have gone to the get their PPR of 2 and get the RINC/Zone Sup/CR off my ass mentality. If we DID aim to do better, we'd achieve several things:

--More nukes entering the pipeline.
--Lower attrition in the pipeline.
--MUCH lower attrition (de-nukes) when they hit the fleet.
--Better first-term/second-term retention.

But then again, we already knew this.

11/04/2012 8:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 3;04

If you are in fact a close friend of Matt's you would know that the last thing he would want is for one of his "close friends" to be discussing his death amongst strangers, allowing this tragedy to be blog fodder. "Close friends" would know the deep pain that his family and actual close friends are going through and would not want to perpetuate that pain by getting on the internet and talking about it amongst people that did not know him. If you did in fact "get the scoop" as you so indelicately and insensitively put it (which further proves how out of touch you must be with how difficult a time it those who are actually closest to him are having) imagine how disappointed his wife will be when she reads your post and realizes who you are and knows that during an extremely painful and vulnerable time she shared something with you, apparently the retired Marine, close friend of Matt's she thought she could trust, and that she assumed the conversation she was having was in confidence (which again, if you are a close friend you would already know without having to be told) only for to turn around and write publicly on a blog that you spoke with her and "got the scoop" referring to the details that she shared with you in the same manner you would high school parking lot gossip. Anyone who is actually close to the family would never do that. She will be hurt and disappointed to know that you are someone that she can no longer trust when she speaks with you for fear you may let the world know. If you are close with Matt and "got the scoop" from his wife then you also know that they have a child who is old enough to use the internet, old enough to google her father's name. Out of respect for the family and friends of the Drag family who are going through this very difficult situation, I would ask that you think about his wife or child reading this blog. Put yourself in their shoes. For just a moment. Think about someone other than yourself and the commentary you can't wait to get up here. I implore those of you who are close to the Drag family to remember his child. Remember his wife. Remember his Mother. Imagine them reading your comment. How will they feel? Truthfully, we can't do anything about the people who post here who are strangers to the family and don't know any better, but someone who purports to be a "close friend" should know better. Shame on you.

11/04/2012 8:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An Admiral escort and Admiral speaking at the funeral speaks volumes about what a guy he was.

11/04/2012 12:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey fuck you if any of you think they are lowering the standards in the pipeline compared to when you old farts were in. MARF is a 40 year old brokeback piece of shit that is falling apart, it is a wonder anyone can complete their quals on that POS before their 24 weeks is up. When the class honorman with a 3.96 from NPS still has not finished his quals yet, and neither has anyone else in his section, with only 3 weeks left before "graduation" what does that tell you old fucks. Don't go bitching about academic standards, when the fucking equipment is falling apart. If you think you had to work any harder than the current crop to get it done, you have rocks in your head.

11/04/2012 12:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With more than 1/2 of students in ENG Curriculum at US Colleges as women - how would we avoid "chick friendly" crews and still have access to top officers?

This is not a true statistic. It was trotted out as a justification for the for NEEDING to have women in the Sub Force, but the study that this statistic referenced said
1) TECHNICAL majors (not engineering and
2) included such female-heavy (but not really engineering) majors as Environmental Science and Psychology)

In actual engineering schools, the vast majority is still overhwhelmingly men. For example, Georgia Tech only has about 36% female students.

There are other reasons to include women on submarines... but this is not one of them.

11/04/2012 1:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the class honorman with a 3.96 from NPS still has not finished his quals yet, and neither has anyone else in his section, with only 3 weeks left before "graduation" what does that tell you old fucks.

Well, since I had one of those in my class and he didn't qualify until the very last week, I s'pose it could tell me any number of things. For example, maybe the whole class is "book smart," but can't wipe their ass without help. Or maybe all of the instructors suck. Or maybe a combination of both.

11/04/2012 2:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, and Vigilis...you're blog sucks." - anon 11/03/2012 8:52 PM

You are telling TSSBP readers more about yourself than why you alone think Vig's blog sucks.

Your G.E.D. should have taught you that "you're" is NOT the possessive case of the pronoun 'you'.
Vig's blog is particularly fact-laden and enjoyed by his preferred audience who enjoy reading outside traditional paradigms, those who can appreciate his research and form their own conclusions.

On the plus side you seem able to form and spout your ("you're", as you like to say) without the inconvenience of considering facts or forming conclusions. Good luck to you, and please try to read more often as it would help with your quals if you ever decide to go that route.

(written at the 9th-grade level)

Chauncey Thompson (SS)

11/04/2012 3:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correcting grammar on the internet. Good job, Chauncey.

11/04/2012 4:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous @ 1:23 pm,

To add more fuel to the fire, the nuke program does not require a technical degree for entry. It only requires 1 year of calculus and 1 year of calculus based physics, so the amount of women in engineering is a moot point. There are plenty of qualified people across a multitude of degree fields without opening up the job to women.

As you said, there are arguments to allowing women on submarines (and also many compelling arguments against it), but finding enough qualified people isn't one of them.

11/04/2012 4:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I was a "Group III" major at USNA (History, to be precise), and I got into the program with the proviso I attend some refresher courses before going to NPS. Made it through no probelm.

As for this whole "Drunken Russian Port Visit" flap, that's a shame to see. I can tell you from experience, though, that attempting to drink the Russians under the table generally qualifies as "Bad" on the ol' Good-Bad scale.

11/04/2012 5:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Submariners would never get drunk and out of hand in a foreign port!.....

P.S. To my fellow submarine brethren. You all sound like a bunch of whinny bitches. Cant we all just get a long?

11/04/2012 7:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Me guesses the new kinder, gentler, homo and chick friendly crews, and in general PCBS have much more to do with the "manning" issues.

anonymous @ 9:15 Me guesses you can't recognize nor handle a little sarcasm: "the new kinder, gentler," Yeah, and in the words of your hero Bill we are now stronger than ever: http://youtu.be/tJlPIveT-VY
You need to go back to reading 101 and try to digest 5:32's comment again son, and too bad America can't go back to the time when a person could call evil, evil and not get attacked for calling a spade a spade.

homophobic? you probably don't even know the real definition, e.g."extreme and irrational aversion", i.e.in other words any negative reference no matter how slight where you are concerned. Give me a break...

11/04/2012 11:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The submarine leadership is being run by the same type of DB's that were in charge when I was in the Navy.

Boats will continue to run aground, morons will find new and creative ways to violate remote operability, coolant will continue to be discharged overboard violating proximity to shore limits, Asshole Co's will continue to get promoted and will drive retention in the crapper, arrogant pricks (COs, XOs and COBs) will continue to put their peckers in holes that shouldn't be plugged and finally leaders will think themselves above the rules and continue to be dumbasses.

I can't believe the profession doesn't have more groundings, collisions and people killed.

Holy friggin crap the only thing that changes is the names of the new assholes in charge

11/05/2012 2:58 AM

 
Anonymous k said...

"With more than 1/2 of students in ENG Curriculum at US Colleges as women"

[citation needed]

11/05/2012 3:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, the things you guys write, hurling insults over EVERYTHING, even when talking about a suicide. I thought sumbariners were supposed to be the smart ones. If this website is any indication of submarine brain power, we are in big trouble.

11/05/2012 6:17 AM

 
Anonymous former SSN Eng said...

^^^ I agree with you 100%, but the real issue is "asshole-iness"...not intellect.

And I say this with direct knowledge, but of the submarine force and, most regrettably, suicide.

Ask a guy in prison if he was 'wrong' for what led up to his being incarcerated, and you'll hear nothing but excuses. Ask a submariner if he's being an asshole (when he's undoubtedly being one), and he'll say he's being an outspoken defender of others and/or the 'right' thing. People can rationalize anything.

A former submariner, I've lived the loss of a family member who was in the service from suicide. It's a gut-punch. But having his death discussed by a bunch of full-of-themselves know-nothings on a public blog is something I thankfully did not have to endure.

Hat tip and fair winds to the CDR's family. God's peace to you.

11/05/2012 6:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Gaouette

"...he was a submariner before switching over..."

Looks like if you don't pass the NR Eng exam, you can be an admiral!

11/05/2012 7:31 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the class honorman with a 3.96 from NPS still has not finished his quals yet, and neither has anyone else in his section, with only 3 weeks left before "graduation" what does that tell you

The top nerd in my class never did qualify at prototype. He had a 3.9+ score from Orlando could never transfer it to his hands. BTW I qualified at S1W in the 80's she limped along just fine to allow us to qualify

11/05/2012 8:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spot the submariners: 500 generals and admirals just signed off publicly on support for Romney.

11/05/2012 9:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spotted one: a certain Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni, (USN-ret)

11/05/2012 9:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another much-respected submariner: Princeton-educated Rear Admiral Henry C. ("Hank") McKinney, (USN-ret)

11/05/2012 10:19 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, old white men support Romney?

Breaking News!

11/05/2012 10:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ You can disparage these men's service to our nation all you like, but at the end of the day you're still just a Kool-Aid drinking liberal troll...and they're national heroes, sung and unsung.

Fact.

One of the facts I became aware of back in the day was that the selection rate for Navy Captain (O-6) to Rear Admiral was pretty much exactly the same as the percentage of Ensigns (O-1) who eventually become a Captain.

Net-net: in the aggregate, these are exceptionally good men, and your attempt at disrespecting them only disrespects you.

11/05/2012 10:33 AM

 
Anonymous Trpdr said...

"Fact.

One of the facts I became aware of back in the day was that the selection rate for Navy Captain (O-6) to Rear Admiral was pretty much exactly the same as the percentage of Ensigns (O-1) who eventually become a Captain."

Okay, what your point??? Let me applie your method above using the smarts yuou showed above. Same logic: So I notice you must have boils all around your rectum hole by the stains on your jocktrap you left on the kitchen table.

Or are they cum stains?

11/05/2012 12:00 PM

 
Anonymous Opus Dei said...

^^^ Just for you:

"Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei Patris omnipotentis, et in noimine Jesu Christi Filii ejus, Domini et Judicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus Sancti, ut descedas ab hoc plasmate Dei (anonymous, disrespectful coward on Joel's blog), quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum, qui venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.

"Amen."

Be well.

11/05/2012 12:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would certainly not go so far as to call every general that served a "Hero". There is something disgusting about military hero worship that makes me feel like I am in Soviet Russia. I am sure many of the men on the list are great guys, some are probably great leaders, some were in the right place at the right time, but to a large extent they are just people doing their jobs, and are deserving of no special recognition or consideration. They certainly don't have special insight into the 2012 election, due to their cloistered perspectives.

I think that the young sailors who give up time with their loved ones for a pittance are much more deserving of our recognition than a bunch of politicians in uniform.

I also find it particularly hypocritical that a bunch of guys who went to school on the government dime, were employed by the government for 30+ years, collect a government pension that they paid nothing into, get heavily subsidized government health care, and likely work (or worked) as government welfare military contractor after retirement want to lecture the rest of the country about the dangers of socialized benefits and the taxes that paid their high salaries and now pay their extravagant benefits.

I bet you every one of these guys is against Obamacare but somehow thinks TRICARE for life and military retirement is sancrosanct (at least for the people that are CURRENTLY retired, i.e. themselves).

11/05/2012 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Dude, what you find "particularly hypocritical" doesn't even exist...so perhaps you can skip that next Midol after all. Strawman much...?

The 500 admirals and general that you so casually dismiss said they endorse Mitt Romney over Obama. Period. That these guys individually and collectively performed on a level of 1-in-1, 000 in comparison to their peers matters to those who know what it's like to play at those levels, regardless of your own personal opinion.

11/05/2012 1:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another former Obama supporter calls it for Romney.

11/05/2012 2:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the love of god, can we not turn this into another political circlejerk. I think there's one or two places on the internet that specialize in that topic.

11/05/2012 2:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you are suggesting that perhaps they support Romney but don't support his policies (to the extent that anyone can figure out what they are?) From what I can tell, the only things that he IS concrete about are cutting government benefits and decreasing taxes while increasing military spending. That is essentially his entire platform. So if you support Romney, you de factor support MOST of those policies or at least think people should vote for them.

It strikes me as naive that you necessarily think that because someone is picked for flag that they are definitely the best choice for the position. In some cases that is true, but it is not definitely true in all or even most cases. It doesn't take an incredible amount of interaction to realize that the spine of your average flag officer is about as stern as paper, and they toe the party line much more than they fight for the men under them. I have heard plenty of dumb things come out of flag officer's mouths, and have seen little evidence that they provide significantly better value than the next 900 guys that were qualified. There are lots of capable people in the military, and only a few positions at the top, luck and knowing the right people have at least as much to do with being selected for flag as superior performance.

Even if we accept the premise that being selected for flag means that you are the cream of the military crop what special insight does that give them into who makes a good President? Why should anyone even care who they endorse? Would you switch your vote because Admiral Konetzni is voting for Romney? I wouldn't, and he is the one name on the list I can say that I respect (there are probably others, I did not read through it completely). It's just a dumb endorsement, and I personally feel that just like active duty military, retired military should pay some respect to their positions and stay silent on elections, particularly because the cake is already baked, and it's a pointless political gesture.

11/05/2012 2:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ It's the day before the election. I think you can handle it some key information.

Be tough. Unless, of course, you're a boomer fag...in which case you can go ahead and bitch all you want. It's what you girls do so well.

11/05/2012 2:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nctimes.com/blogsnew/news/politics/hundreds-of-former-military-leaders-push-for-romney/article_44791e16-d53c-5c9a-bc26-26e82486e4f9.html

From the mouths of Vice Admiral Hekman (one of the signees):

“Romney knows what this country needs to get back on its economic feet and also its moral feet,” said Hekman, who is listed in the ad. “We have to get back to individual responsibility and less of this dependence business.”

This from a guy who spent his entire adult life in the military and then went to go work for the government... I say it again. Hypocrite. Feel free to send back the multiple government checks you collect every month.

I tend to agree with General Jackson on the topic:

“Displaying your political bent, particularly collectively like this, is not what we should be about,” said Jackson, 63 of Fallbrook. “I don’t think it’s a healthy path for retired generals to unite against a sitting commander-in-chief.”

He was a General => infallible, so I think this is a winning argument.

11/05/2012 2:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Breaking news: Obama enjoys 80% support...in France.

11/05/2012 2:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone said (besides yourself) that generals are infallible?

Where did you learn all this non-reality, strawman bullshit when it comes to trying to make an indefensible point?

Is that what they teach all DC-area boomer fag JOs on their way out the door?

11/05/2012 2:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montpelier collision with San Jacinto.

Navy reported today that San Jacinto entered an emerging drydocking period until at least February of 2013. Sucks to be them.

For the taxpayers - initial 10 million dollar contract. Sucks to be us.

Haven't heard word about Montpelier, other than she'll have to be towed to whichever drydock gets the business. No estimate for repairs, but I'd guess that the above bill for San Jacinto will be a bargain by comparison.

Will be interesting to see when the investigations are completed - sucks for all involved.

11/05/2012 2:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montpelier collision with San Jacinto.

Navy reported today that San Jacinto entered an emerging drydocking period until at least February of 2013. Sucks to be them.


SJC is in Drydock AWAY from their homeport. Suck-Level increases exponentially.

MON: Ax hasn't swung yet. Hmmmm...

11/05/2012 3:07 PM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

@ Anon 11/04/2012 12:42 PM Hey fuck you if any of you think they are lowering the standards in the pipeline compared to when you old farts were in.

And do they still require NPTU instructors to be upper half in both NPS/NPTU when they were students? No?

Mmmmkay, have a nice day, thanks for playing.

And yes, this "old fuck" has seen the degradation of standards both at those "pieces of shit" you deride. Some of us qualified on plants nearly as old (one poster alluded to S1W, I was S5G, which wasn't much better.)

Methinks he doth protest too much.

11/05/2012 4:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama campaign to its minions: Don't Panic.

11/05/2012 4:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UNINSTALLING OBAMA............ █████████████▒ 99% complete...!

11/05/2012 4:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snark aside, since you clearly can't recognize sarcasm.

I think that it is unprofessional for retired flag officers to make political endorsements, particularly when they have not served in public positions. Career military should be just that... career military. Just like Active Duty people are not expected to openly campaign in uniform, retired military should be expected to not openly campaign for candidates using their official titles. It does not help the military to look like it is picking sides against a sitting President. I am not certain that distinction between retired and Active Duty is fully appreciated by the general public.

I will give leeway to ex-military who have since been in Cabinet, Congressional, or Senate positions (McCain, Powell, etc) since those are legitimately public offices.

I will also submit that at least some of them are hypocrites. Out of the two former flag officers that tried to explain their endorsement, one is complaining about government "dependence" while continuing to collect at least 2, maybe 3 government checks per month. The other one served up some warmed-over, debunked Benghazigate/International Apology Tour crap. They are one step away from hanging tea bags from the sleeves of their Service Dress Khakis and singing the national anthem with Meat Loaf at a Romney Rally.

I also don't see evidence that suggests that retired flag officers deserve any special recognition over everybody else that served in the military, for much less pay, much less glory, and sure as shit smaller retirements. I don't give a shit who ANAV is going to vote for, so why should I give a shit who Admiral Konetzni is going to vote for? More importantly, why should anybody else who hasn't served (and probably doesn't recognize a single name on this list)?

This endorsement has no purpose, the cake is 99.9% baked. This is especially true because it barely even has any mention in the press outside of right wing news sites and the print edition of The Washington Times.

And yes, they teach straw man arguments in TAP class at boomer sub bases. In Groton, they teach how manly it is to perform arcane S&M rituals on nubs with EB Green and grease guns.

11/05/2012 5:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you guys really think this election is in the bag for Romney?

He might win, but it's definitely an uphill climb for him.

11/05/2012 5:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Admiral Konetzni...

Al Konetzni...

"Sailor's Pal" Konetzni...

Hmm...who was that again?

Was he someone very well-respected, and who now signs his name along with about 500 other former admirals and generals who endorse the candidacy of Mitt Romney?

Should we be panicked?

Signed,

Boomer Fags for Obama

11/05/2012 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote Brietbart and scared old retired white guys all you want. Here's some rational data for you to enjoy:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

11/05/2012 5:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny thing about that breaking news regarding Obama's popularity in France. It's also true everywhere else except Pakistan. For some reason those guys just love Mittens.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

11/05/2012 5:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, I am certain the Obama campaign is freaking out over the no-name Flag Officer endorsement. There are millions of Americans everywhere who were just waiting for the 11th hour endorsement of a bunch of geriatric military guys they have never heard of.

Let me know if this sounds plausible to you:

"Hmm, I have been reading WND.COM, Free REpublic, Redstate, and The Washington Times for the last 8 months but STILL don't who to vote for... And the election is tomorrow! Oh wait, these Admirals whom I have never heard of say vote for Romney! That seals the deal!"

Hey, by all accounts Big Al was a great guy, I bet I would have loved to serve with him! I still don't care who he is voting for in 2012, and I am one of the 0.1% of the American population that even knows who he is.

Even big name endorsements are pretty stupid. Colin Powell has roughly 1,000,000x the name recognition of everybody on that list COMBINED, yet I still think his endorsement doesn't really matter.

I think that tomorrow night is going to probably be a long night of watching Fox News for you!

11/05/2012 5:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bring it, boomer fagggg. We'll compare notes tomorrow!

11/05/2012 5:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Example: Anon @ 11/05/2012 5:55 PM

To: Lawyers, gypsies, tramps, thieves and assorted social outcasts

Subject: Identification

Either claim to be qualified in submarines (hull number(s) and 112X, or identify your academic justification for pontificating your b.s., here.

What a bag of sh$t lawyer you must be!

11/05/2012 6:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 5:55 anon is a boomer fag. Does that count?

11/05/2012 6:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course I am an 1120. Why else would I be here? If I just wanted to troll wingnuts, I'd go to Free Republic. I want to troll SUBMARINER wingnuts! Sometimes there are even some interesting comments here.

Here's my proof:

Dolphin Code 69 (that's the one that means I DP'ed your mother with a valve stem in Lube Oil bay)

11/05/2012 6:51 PM

 
Anonymous Daniel Boone said...

Political endorsements don't work well in National or large state campaigns unless they're newsworthy or coming from highly popular public figures.
The endorsement of 500 retired admirals and generals, many of whom are supplementing their retirement years with taxpayer funded defense contracts is surprising only because so few, similarly situated, agreed to sign the letter.
Perhaps these were the only ones that got the 'vote romney or you're fired' letters.

11/05/2012 6:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually... I think that comment is somewhat prescient. Romney may be the one thing that could save some of the dead weight at the top of some of the contracting firms, many of whom are former Captains and Flags. Management doesn't bill any hours...

11/05/2012 7:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL. Gotta love a Joe Biden quote when it counts:

"It's all over but the shouting."

Oh, yeah. You've finally got one right, Joe. LOTS of shouting.

11/05/2012 7:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11/05/2012 5:11 PM,

We got it, you're a die hard lib and Obama is your boy. Now please take a deep breath and get off his cock.

Ps. I want to know who the ANAV is voting for...especially if it is Dirty Dave!

Vote early, Vote often, Vote right!

11/05/2012 8:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I served on USS KEY WEST (SSN 722) while now RADM Willy Hilarides was CO. I was an E-6 and Ens/Ltjg Matt Drag was the best JO on the boat. Didn't realize he was PCO of Bremerton, but I'm not surprised. Mr. Drag was a total professional, even at such an early stage in his career. He was intense, driven, fair , and a good ally, as far as the E-6 to O-2 relationship went. He was a strong leader way ahead of his time and peer group. I can't imagine what would drive him to this.

He was also the Ship's Duty Officer when I was the Section Leader on the worst duty day of my life: the jug-o-piss incident in the wardroom head. Ugh.

Very sad. Thanks RADM Hilarides for speaking at his service. He deserves it.

STSC(SS)

11/05/2012 9:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To you three Ohole supporters here:

FUCK YOU, BITCHES!

Ohole is a lame duck in less than 24 hours.

11/05/2012 9:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's just ONE Obama supporter here...some asshole boomer fag former JO living in the DC area.

But you're right about him LOSING on Tuesday. And it is going to be SWEET!

11/05/2012 11:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously nukes don't have much probability training. I know, having been one.

But look a this consortium from Princeton and the meta-analysis doesn't look good for Mutt Robme.

They are calling is 98.4% chance of Obama retaining the Presidency.

http://election.princeton.edu/

Going to be a painful day for those poor white guys who vote against their own interests ;)

11/06/2012 12:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ You, and the "poll"-smoking twerps, are going to look pret-ty stupid when Obama loses in a landslide.

Garbage in...garbage out. You can't place any confidence in statistical probabilities that are based on bullshit 'data' from polls.

Watch and learn, sonny boy.

11/06/2012 1:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You lack reading conprehension as the meta analysis and that site is not a poll. Its a mathematical analysis of the electoral college so read and weep when your car salesman wannabe prez gets sent home.

you never got past junior high with the poll smoker comment I see. Typical repuke statement.

Oh and since you think your an Internet tough guy, I'm 42, can run just under 40 min 10ks and can still press 8 rep of 235 at 6'1. If you want to run your mouth, fine but I'll bet my odds are good I can whip your ass.

11/06/2012 2:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my! You are such a manly man. I want you to bend me over and pump my 41 year old 260 lbs 6'3 corn hole.

Love,
Internet tough guy

11/06/2012 5:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your cornhole is 6'3?

That IS impressive!

11/06/2012 5:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Ah, the mating call of boomer fags in rut...must be that DC magic in the air.

11/06/2012 5:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fat boy. I'm sure you're one of those idiot who opposes improved health insurance for the masses while you walk around as a diabetic.

Hope you aren't vying for a job as I won't hire slobs like you.

11/06/2012 5:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And do they still require NPTU instructors to be upper half in both NPS/NPTU when they were students? No?"

Ehh... so having less capable instructors but the same required level of knowledge makes the school easier? I don't think so.

(Instructors at NNPTC still need to be top half/top half. Wasn't aware that it had ever been a requirement for staff at NPTU, though - since I've been in, it has always been a "career-enhancing" shore duty that everyone avoided like the plague unless they couldn't get orders anywhere else. Who wants to do the same rotating shift work as on the boat, but with broke old gear, more civilian oversight, and the only port you pull into is Charleston?)

One thought on retention - were there female enlisted nukes when you were in, NHSparky? From just my anecdotal experience, the attrition rate of enlisted females is upwards of 50% (primarily "going sad" or getting dependency or hardship discharges) and retention after the first six years seems to be below 5%. (There was one female enlisted instructor out of my entire 11-section NPS class, and not a single female instructor in my NPTU section.)

11/06/2012 6:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ The American people oppose Obamacare. Only a dictatorial Demoncrap party jammed that one through...entirely to their demise in 2010, when the non-homo, non-abortion, sanctity of marriage party gained about 60 seats.

Expecting much more of the same today. Stand by.

11/06/2012 6:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to interrupt the Election Day flame war, but here is a piece if actual submarine related news:

http://nation.foxnews.com/russia/2012/11/05/russian-submarine-detected-near-east-coast

Looks like a good opportunity to practice some theater ASW.

11/06/2012 6:38 AM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

Removed some comments. Families that suffer tragedies that don't make the news don't need to have some of this stuff pop up on the first page of a Google search.

11/06/2012 7:03 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Good on ya, Joel. Was hoping you'd see it that way as well. From all of us with any common sense, decency, and sense of family compassion left -- even if we were once submariners -- we thank you. I'm sure the family does as well.

11/06/2012 8:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of family, see this article in today's NYT.

Small excerpt that speaks volumes: "But as this study — the Grant Study — progressed, the power of relationships became clear. The men who grew up in homes with warm parents were much more likely to become first lieutenants and majors in World War II. The men who grew up in cold, barren homes were much more likely to finish the war as privates."

Live & learn.

11/06/2012 10:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What could be more appropriate on election day than "Changes At The [Very] Top"? As an independent who detests the self-serving bumbling of lawyer-politicians, this election comes town solely to character and decency for me. Others submariners seem to harbor less objective perspectives.

11/06/2012 10:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet this shit is called for Obama by midnight! Your boy Romney is about to lose!

11/06/2012 7:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should seriously follow this: http://election.princeton.edu/

It's much more empirical analysis of electoral vote probabilities than many, many sites. Left leaning but very objective in the analysis.

With OH looking like it's going to Obama as of right now, Romney's got almost no chance to get too 270.

VA leaning towards Robme, PA going to Obama. Fla will be the only real toss up but may not matter....

It's math.

11/06/2012 7:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Up in the DC Area of Virginia, where I, the former Boomer JO, and military contractor bottom-feeder extraordinaire reside, there are still lines of people voting because turnout was so high. This is not a good sign for Romney. He may lose Virginia, he also may lose FL. He's basically already lost Ohio. Obama's got this.

All you wingnut idiots hopefully realize that nobody wants your zero-sum racist nihilist government. To sum up the election night:

1) Lifers are Republicans
2) Republicans are stupid
3) The military is not very representative of the real world
4) The polls were not skewed
5) Nate Silver is smart
6) So is Sam Wang
7) Nobody gives a shit what 500 no-name flag officers think

11/06/2012 8:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/06/2012 8:08 PM

I was a fast boat weenie and I'm not one of the aholes who call people boomer fags.

There's a reason most of us leave and it's because it sucks for everyone.

Some of these idiots act like sub life was some great lifestyle. It actually jaded me AGAINST the military and how fucked up it is. And most of them are of the "R" variety.

Barring a miracle, any chance for an election win is OVER for Robme.

And you're right, Sam rocks the house.

Awesome day for America!

11/06/2012 8:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Comment. I could have wrote that.

Like you being in the Navy is what TURNED me liberal.

Sub Life blows, and submariners blow. It doesn't have to, but it's ran by a bunch of idiots that couldn't lead a pack of of Cub Scouts if they weren't legally required to do what they said.

I voted for Bush twice, and then I realized that 90% of the people I worked with (well mostly for, the other JO's were mostly ok) were idiots, and they also voted for Bush. So... I stopped.

If they sequester the entire submarine force away I wouldn't shed a tear.

11/06/2012 9:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI, soon there will be a commenter that claims all of those comments were written by me.

I predict this just like I predicted the Obama win.

11/06/2012 9:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing the nuke program does is provide a government funded feeder program for civilian nuke and convention power plants.

The vast, vast, majority of submarine operations is insignificant to national defense.

Of course noone will want to admit it but submarines are just not that important. But we spend oodles of money on what are a bunch of toys....

Meanwhile, you have over-tired guys on watch on boats and ships around the world

11/06/2012 11:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what submarine operations ARE important?


Cough, cough. Ahem


Deterrent Patrols!


Also, where is NHSparky? I remember him gloating about how red NH was in 2010... It's not looking so red today!

11/06/2012 11:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that was sarcasm about the "deterrent" patrols.

Do they really do anything for peace or national defense? Nope.

11/07/2012 12:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NHsparky too me is the epitome of what's fucked up about the nuke program.

Imagine having his mouth around on the boat all the time. His big mouth would drive everyone crazy.

11/07/2012 12:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OBAMA! You dig it the most baby. I just hope Biden isn't too old to get two terms in when it's his time.

11/07/2012 4:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Facts...just the facts; you can come to your own conclusions:

United States age/sex structure:

0-14 years: 20% (male 32,050,686/ female 30,719,945)
15-64 years: 66.5% (male 104,156,828/ female 104,442,302)
65 years and over: 13.5% (male 18,424,785/ female 24,052,919) (2012 est.)

2012 presidential election gender facts:

* As in 2008, this year’s exit polls indicated that women represent 53 percent of the electorate, compared to men’s 47 percent.

* 54 percent of women cast their votes for President Obama on Tuesday, compared to 44 percent for Romney

* 53 percent of men cast their vote for Romney, compared to 45 percent for Obama

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
-- cartoonist Walt Kelly in Pogo

11/07/2012 6:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So AMERICA has spoken. No longer will we the people be governed by old white male religious zealots. Women, minorities, homosexuals, and yes even atheists are redefining the culture of our great country. You are now the minority and if you do not embrace the diversity of our great nation you will be forgotten. So keep up your hateful ways and we will weed you out of positions of power in our America.

11/07/2012 6:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One possible conclusion (admittedly, among many), in non-hate language:

Obama won by 2 points.

The male/female voting difference is 6 points.

So even the women -- by and large -- get it. But the sheer lack of male voting is killing us as a country.

-- We have met the enemy, and he is us.

11/07/2012 6:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men think with their crotches.

Women vote with their crotches.

Can't we just meet in the middle...? ;-)

11/07/2012 6:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turnout NEVER benefits Republicans. This is a proven fact. The more voters you have, the better the chances are for the Decomcratic party. I suspect that the male voters that DIDN'T turnout also have a higher propensity to vote for Obama.

Also... a lot of the low turnout is due to people living in states that are not really in contention. Swing state turnout is usually much higher.

11/07/2012 7:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repeating, for the reading-impaired (emphasis added):

* 53 percent of men (real men...not boomer sailors) cast their vote for Romney, compared to 45 percent for Obama

11/07/2012 7:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's your point? That Old white men are stupid? Here's where the Democratic party did well:

1) Young People
2) Women
3) Non-Whites

Old White Men are declining as a portion of the population. Between now and 2016, the Non-White portion of the population will grow, and the Old White Portion of the population will continue to shrink. Long term, today's Republican party has no future. It will change to something that can appeal to a more progressive crowd, or it will serve in a permanent minority status.

Democratic Party = The Future
Republican Party = The 80's

11/07/2012 7:31 AM

 
Anonymous Daniel Boone said...

Highly ironic that Gov. Romney, who promised to bring his MBA and business skills to the White House, got trounced by a community organizer who brought a more tightly focused management & data driven centric business like approach to the campaign.

11/07/2012 8:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Demoncrap Party vision for the future.

11/07/2012 9:10 AM

 
Blogger tennvol said...

I like the retards calling out everyone in the sub force...anonymously. That tells me all I need to know.

11/07/2012 9:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume your real name is tennvol...?



11/07/2012 10:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CNN ran a story citing anon navy sources that the US detected a Russian Sierra off the east coast. What is more likely...actually picking up the boat off the east coast (needle in a haystack)...or shadowing the Sierra as it left its homeport?

11/07/2012 12:20 PM

 
Anonymous Dardar the Submarian said...

Shadowed by a boomer?

11/07/2012 1:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was Fox News's lame attempt to create fear and emphasis our need to have a 600 ship fleet.....

11/07/2012 1:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting fact:

Barack Obama is the first President since Reagan to win over 50% of the popular vote twice!

Sounds like a mandate to me.

11/07/2012 1:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like a "man date" to me, too...i.e., don't do that too much to yourself, or you'll go blind.

On second thought...just keep on spankin' it.

Signed,

The United States Congress

11/07/2012 4:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reagan's re-election map.

Just a tad different from Obama, who is one of three presidents to win re-election with a declining percentage of the popular vote.

11/07/2012 4:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 11/07/2012 4:02 PM

Look at what the nuke program puts out with the same regurgitated comments over and over again. Every chance you get, sophmoric comments.

"Man date": is this a Freudian slip on your part to the inner you?

Subs are relics of eras long gone by. You hate to admit it but it's true.

11/07/2012 4:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And seeing's how the vote shifted toward Republicans this year from the last election cycle, here is a county-by-county map of just how that happened.

Looks like your "man date" may get stood up for a while...pending an actual shift toward the evil that Democrats are.

Oh...and Reagan's re-election map again...just because it is so cool to observe what real support from the American people looks like.

11/07/2012 4:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 7:31 AM, Remember the good ole days when it was safe to go out and get drunk with the boys, and you didn't have to worry about waking up with your rear all greased up and your pants down around your ankles.

One thing for sure, this new Navy isn't your daddy's navy.

Better be careful who you get drunk with and to what extent boys. But then we live in a new America, so that may be right up your alley.

11/07/2012 4:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a bunch of straight guys, you sure do like to talk about gay sex. I'm sure nothing could be inferred from that.

11/07/2012 5:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ But...homosexuality is 'okie dokie' in the Democrat Party, yes? So how to you, as a Democrat, justify trying to ridicule others for their sexual orientation on any grounds? Is it that you, too, think homosexuality is an absurd abomination? Maybe we do have something in common after all.

11/07/2012 5:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing we have in common is that we both agree you sure do like to talk about the gays.

11/07/2012 5:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But...haven't you been the one to bring this up now. Twice?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

11/07/2012 5:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And seeing's how the vote shifted toward Republicans this year from the last election cycle, here is a county-by-county map of just how that happened.

HAHAHA, THAT is your argument?

Republicans:
"Well, in 2008 we got routed, but in 2012 WE JUST GOT OUR ASS KICKED!!! HAHAHAHA. In 2016 we are aiming for 'just barely lost'"

And Jesus who gives a shit about Reagan.

1) One reason he was popular is because he was much more moderate than the current crop of knuckle draggers out there.

2) Republicans really DO live in the past. Why don't you talk about modern Republicans like Bush, or McCain, or Akin, or Allen West. Oh yeah, because they are all FUCKING EMBARASSMENTS. To the T they are a bunch of whiny old men with no plan, no charisma, and no leadership ability.

That said, I actually respect Christie now. Would you vote for him if he ran in 2016?

P.S. I thought it was pretty cool that Boehner said he was ready to be led on taxes. Elections have consequences, I guess!

11/07/2012 5:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back on topic (unless 5:43 PM anon wants to talk about gays again):

It's pretty impressive as to just how much the country moved towards Republicans in yesterday's election.

I mean...from California to New York, of all places, things are looking up.

11/07/2012 5:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. You can't make the argument that Obama somehow compares to Reagan in his re-election results and not suffer THOSE consequences. Look at the top of the page, dolt: TSSBP.

11/07/2012 5:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey numb nuts, let me clue you in on electoral math.

If a republican county becomes more republican, it does not help to gain electoral votes unless that county gains population......

But, the country is fast becoming a "minority-majority" country with more minority babies being born.

You don't have a grasp of math and demographics. Don't you have some logsheet to mindlessly fill in for the 1000th time?

11/07/2012 6:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you think the country moved towards the Republican party since 2010? Didn't you just lose seats in the heavily Gerrymandered House and Senate?

Oh wait, no, you are just choosing the somewhat abnormal 2008 because it makes an almost ok story. Yeah... the country is moving TOWARDS the Republican party...

You know what the problem is? You were not conservative ENOUGH!

11/07/2012 6:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey beltway boomer fag,

I'm done running your idiotic statement regarding an Obama "man date" into the ground for this evening. Just wanted to say goodnight.

But do try and compare Obama to Reagan again, please. This has been fun.

11/07/2012 6:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. Didn't the Dums LOSE SIXTY-THREE (63) seats in Congress in 2010? I'd say you have some catching up to do...losers.

11/07/2012 6:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take your whiny ass ball and go home then.

Funny that many of the people in the military are part of the 47% that Romney doesn't care about.

I know when I was in, there were married guys in the pipeline who were getting WIC because their pay was so low.

Military demographics show many who enter on the enlisted side are lower middle income but would lean right.... and will vote against their very own interests.

Meanwhile, we have subs cruising the ocean with missions to nowhere that serve no purpose for national defense or world peace..... boy wouldn't I like to have those years of my life back.

11/07/2012 6:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama has been much more productive than Reagan.

Ended two Wars: Check.

Fixed Economy: Check.

Universal Health Care: Check

Killed a terrorist that was trained by Reagan and ignored by Bush: Mega Double Check!

Reagan couldn't complete Star Wars, avoid getting shot, or remember his name.

How long are you dipshits going to jerk to that fuck anyway? Until you finally have a successful President?... I guess it's going to be a while...

11/07/2012 7:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh wait, Reagan did nominate Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, so I guess he's not fully worthless

11/07/2012 7:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attaching a Google Document (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6c_F0cRLqE-WVd2WkpUV0pVQ00/preview?pli=1) that displays the affect Ron Paul had on this election.

Anyone who says the Republicans are "headed in the right direction" after nominating Rmoney has their head in the sand.

It's time to realize that the GOP is DOA.

11/07/2012 9:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone who wants a sense of what submarine life it like, look at the very title of this blog.

Sub life is predicated on negativity.

And the very people who bitch the most onboard are the one's creating the problems within the ranks.

I still have 3 very good friends from my boat days.

And I also swear to God if I ever ran into one of my former COs and a JO, I'll bash their faces in. Unfortunately unlike civilian work where you can quit when you have a shitty boss, you're stuck with them and your coworkers.

Like I posted above, NHsparky is the classic example of how one dickhead can screw up morale on a boat, especially in the small divisions on subs.

The nuke program needs to be revamped and it's been overdue for a long, long, time.

11/08/2012 2:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the US Navy is phasing out dolphins in favor of AUVs:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121108-final-dive-for-us-navy-dolphins

11/08/2012 8:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ANON 2:04 AM

Do you find it ironic that you criticize the sub force for being negative but you mention "bashing their faces in" if you were to ever run into a former CO and JO?

You also called someone a dickhead. That’s also not very positive.

To rebut your Boss comment: In the civilian community, if you do not like your boss, you can quite but the consequences are extreme. No job, no paycheck, no income, etc... Not an ideal situation if you have a family.

Hint: You get a new CO (boss) every two years. As an enlisted sailor, you do not work directly for/with the CO so it shouldn’t be end of the world if he sucks.

P.S. You sound ignorant. Perception is reality.

Signed,
JO

11/08/2012 9:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^^
Quitting is a good deal with Obama in the big house. You can sit at home, bitch, and collect a bigger pay check you do working. What a f**ked up country you bastards made.

11/08/2012 9:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USS Miami in the news: man pleads guilty (duh!)

11/08/2012 10:03 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al-Qaida leader Zawahiri in today's news:

"Their awe is lost and their might is gone and they don’t dare to carry out a new campaign like their past ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

"They were defeated in Iraq and they are withdrawing from Afghanistan, and their ambassador in Benghazi was killed and the flags of their embassies were lowered in Cairo and Sana’a, and in their places were raised the flags of tawhid [monotheism] and jihad."

Funny-odd that Zawahiri is only taunting the U.S. after Obama's election.

Or...maybe not so funny.

11/08/2012 10:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah man, we never got taunting videos from those guys when W was in office. Oh wait, we got a crapload of them.

Of course, most of the guys who did it then are dead now.

11/08/2012 10:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of them are very apparently not as dead as our ambassador to Libya.

You Obama-blowers really can justify anything, can't you?

11/08/2012 10:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even the liberal media got on Obama's case about lack of transparency and truth when it comes to Benghazi. Too little, too late, of course...but even they drew a line when it comes to our national security.

11/08/2012 10:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even Condi Rice says there's no conspiracy in Benghazi. This is just some fake conspiracy crap cooked up by nutjobs in the House and Fox News.

And all this from the party that skipped several security briefings with specific warnings of 9/11 before it occurred.

I recommend reading the 9/11 report sometime so you can see just how incompetent the Bush Administration was... or Richard Clark's book.

I recommend impeaching Obama over Benghazi so the Republican party can further embarass itself as the party of hicks and morons.

P.S. Dems also won the House of Representatives Popular vote. Thank God for Gerrymandering, amirite?

11/08/2012 11:02 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which 9/11...? The Benghazi 9/11 is the one of concern NOW.

11/08/2012 11:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Benghazi 9/11 is the one of concern NOW.

Of course it is. Let's see if Fox is still banging this drum in two weeks. They'll find something else to keep you rubes outraged in no time.

But keep watching. They sure didn't steer you wrong this election, did they?

11/08/2012 11:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/08/2012 9:21 AM,

If you think the CO doesn't have DIRECT impact on every person's life on the boat you need your head examined.

1. CO had rules and plans that ignored common decency and I could list 50 issues where that former CO made mine and everyone elses life a living hell. Two years is a loooong time.

2. The JO who was from the USNA and was full-in on the enlisted swine bullshit. I'll never forget how that motherfucker talked to us.

3. Are you going to tell me that onboard submarines the negativty is not prevelant? It reeks of it!! The entire boat is counting down to something other than being on the boat.....

Since you don't understand how things work, if you don't like your civilian job you can find another one. You don't have to quit on the spot. What a concept, eh?

In the civilain world when turnover becomes a problem usually the person up top isn't around for very long. It's measured and tracked because human capitial is expensive. In the Navy they keep throwing people in the pipeline to replace the losses and never addressing why people leave. Now tell me who's ignorant?

In the Navy, guys are given free reign to be tyrants because the audience has no say in the matter. Big Navy refers to that as "leadership".

I've got more to lose than most people and I still stand behind my comment that I have a former CO and JO who'd I would beat their asses in a New York minute. I got taken to mast (with several others) for what amounted to a no-win situation (think: tag-out) and may be one of the few people in the history of the Navy to walk out with no charges, fines, or penalties. But it came it cost the ward room dearly with that dog and pony show.

One thing the Navy taught me was how not to run an organization. I've got way too many years of academia under my belt than I'd care to admit but the one life lesson I learned after being on a boat is how important it is to earn the respect of your entire organization. And how you have to work at....

It pays me dividends far greater than anything else I do in the professional world and I'm proud of it.

11/08/2012 3:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You claim to understand the entire workings of an organization from your one 'tough' tour as (clearly) a young man. I'm sorry you had a bad experience in the Navy. A lot of us have not, or were mature enough handle it better than you did.

It's tragic that you are still traumatized by your time with a few bad apples. One day I hope you get over it and look back with a different lens.

My submarine force looks nothing like the villain you have conjured and embellished over the years. Move on, stop hanging out on submarine blogs (if you truly hated us the way you claim, this is the last place you would troll) and try to come to grips with how your time was spent in the Navy.

11/08/2012 4:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic submariner reply. You don't like the message so try and kill the messenger. Marginalizing

One thing about here is the truth can be spoken.

After reading this blog, it's quite clear that nothing has changed. Look at how people eat their young on here...

I don't know a single nuke who loved the job. I know people who stayed out of convienience and accepted misery.

Conjured up? I, along with my shipmates, lived through it. The sub force is no different than when I was in.

And my boat wasn't an outlier, unfortunately.

I could and would never recommend submarines or the nuke pipeline to anyone.

11/08/2012 4:43 PM

 
Blogger Harold said...

I find th voter breakdown intersting in what is and isn't broken down. Men voted R heavily, women D heavily. But, married women voted R, single women more heavily D. But nowhere have I yet seen a link that shows the breakdown of single men/married men. Maybe becasue there is no statistical difference. For single women, government is the provider and the daddy figure. For single men, government is most often the bad guy.

Government subsidizes single motherhood, and as Sen. Moynihan pointed out many years ago, you get more of what you subsidize.

If any of you happen to read something with a breakdown of married men/single men in the vote, provide a link.

11/08/2012 5:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As someone who has been on the outside for a few years, the submarine force is definitely mostly worse. The leadership is often terrible in comparison to the civilian world. I am not saying that everything is roses, the pay and government benefits are great in the Navy.

The leadership in the sub force is truly terrible though. The biggest separator between JO to CO is frankly that you just decide to stay in, which doesn't give you a great pool of talent to select from. The sub force basically just self-selects its way to (mostly) crappy leadership. There just isn't a lot of room in the organization for doing anything other than toeing the company line.

I honestly think that, long-term, the introduction of women will be the best thing for the sub force. It should cut down on some of the arrogance and asshole geeks that think leadership is "I tell you what to do and you do it".

That attitude would not last long in most corporations. The sub force TALKS about leadership a lot, but does little to actually teach or mentor it. The great leaders that are there are great leaders in spite of the culture, not because of it.

11/08/2012 5:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, 11/08/2012 5:19 PM

Spot on post.

I'd just like to add that as a culture, the subforce is barkwards thinking.

When a new guy comes to a boat, he's denigrated, called nub, given the worst "deals" because the guy who's been there a whole year longer is so much more senior, etc.

And this kind of behavior breeds bad attitudes and negativity. People try and sell it as normal but it's not.

You take kids and train them to run plants and be responsible and to have integrity only to turn around and refer to them as lowly E4's and E-5s and setting low expectations (and pay) rather than building them up.

I had one good chief who "got it" and was the only thing that held together my division while I was on board.

And just to dispel the vitriole crowd, I graduated near the top of my NPS class and qual'd first of everyone (enlisted and officer) at NPTU......

Let's be real about the sub force. It's under manned and turnover kills moral with non-stop replacement and retraining. And the pay sucked...

My hope is someone from the top will read this and get the damn message. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!!!

11/08/2012 5:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here is some perspective for the haters above:

the sub force is the best trained force in the military outside of SPECOPS

nuclear trained personnel are more likely to get a good job outside the navy based on the training they received.

the sub force has the best acquisition and budget management system in the military by far

the sub force dominates the undersea domain more than any other community on he world scene

etc, etc, etc

there are absolutely problems with leadership and institutional issues that should be addressed, but if you think the sub force is headed for decline and irrelevance, then that is an indictment of the ENTIRE military.

one tour on one boat a sub culture expert you are not.

11/08/2012 6:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go ahead, cling to those ideas. War College attendess have it all figured out (sarcasm).

The sub force is largely an irrelevant part of our military defenses.

So we dominate the underwater domain? MUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA
Watch out, flipper may toss his fecal matter onto our shores.

I'm not a hater, I'm a realist.

The Navy spends money to train nukes to leave. How dumb is that?

Good jobs? Unless you obtain a college education, an enlisted nuke has very limited ttle use outside of shipyards skill set builders. The training is so applied that is has very little value.

My friend, I lived the experience. Just read all the posts in this blog discussing misery and "bone jobs".

Openly discussing the suckage is the only way to fix it. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is: ____________.

11/08/2012 6:55 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

"...there are absolutely problems with leadership and institutional issues that should be addressed, but if you think the sub force is headed for decline and irrelevance, then that is an indictment of the ENTIRE military."

As some astute observers have noted before I, the propagation of news in the internet era has exacerbated the notion of poor leadership. Quite the contrary, sub COs are among the navy's best just for their proven capacities to operate not only in relatively arcane advantages of nuclear propulsion, but their equally demanding abilities to operate in 3D (the deep).

By far, the gentlemen dismissed for loss of confidence have failed only in tertiary aspects (the kind overlooked during actual war) of political correctness.

Keep up your inconsiderate badmouthing of our best, you f&*^%ing communist, and we may start (no doubt to your delight) sending spineless nerd officers to sea with draftee crews.

Just a thought.

11/08/2012 6:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@harold...here's the stats:

"Non-married women supported Obama more strongly (67%) than did non-married men (56%). The not-married portion of the population is growing. "

"The marriage gap in this election was 41 points. The gender gap was 18."

11/08/2012 8:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone'

11/08/2012 8:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real skinny on military "experience".

Most employers consider it be very, very specific experience. That can be good... or it can be bad. I would definitely NOT say that submarine experience has been incredibly valuable to "me" but that is highly dependent on my chosen career path.

If you go to work in Nuke power (to a point), get a government job, or a contracting job where you need a clearance, then submarine work is great! If you want to step out into Fortune 500 world, you will likely start a few steps behind your age group. In fact, Department Heads and JO's will generally start on roughly equal footing (I wasn't enlisted, so can't really comment on that side of the house), and you will most likely take a pretty decent pay cut at first. It's not subsistence wages, but you don't realize how big O-3 over 8 pay is with your bonus, and medical, etc until you don't get it anymore.

Obviously you don't have to go out to sea... so there's benefits too.

I haven't really seen anything out of submarine CO's that makes me think that they are any more equipped to handle real-life jobs than their peers in the corporate sector. In some ways, they deal with challenges that are much greater, but at the same time too many fall back on the "I am your boss therefore you have to do what I say" style of leadership. This translates EXCEEDINGLY poorly in the outside world.

I am not saying they don't have a great set of skills... In some ways they do, but the skills that the submarine force emphasizes are mostly irrelevant.

It's great to know everything in the RPM, or know all about the Periscope Employment Manual, or what the ORSE board is looking for. Unfortunately, none of those things will help you build consensus in an organization and organize an effective, motivated team.

On a poorly run ship, the culture is more along the lines of "Grind everybody into the ground because they are legally obligated to work however long I tell them to."

Unfortunately, I think poorly run ships are more common than most of us would like to admit, mostly due to some poor retention in the past and a focus on "Creeping nukeism" rather than developing leaders.

11/08/2012 9:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was enlisted EM and had absolutely no desire to want to continue with the world of nuke or military environment.

I saw the gamut while in on my boat. Several runs, extended DMP, resin discharge, all the fun stuff. Saw many shipyard STE's get burned out and quit.

Got out and worked in a waste to energy plant burning trash.

When applying for jobs I quickly realized just how limited a nuke skill set is.

And nukes, be warned that several states require a license for operator positions. And without a degree you may not qualify to sit for more than a low level boiler operator's license. It's a real wake-up call depending on what state you live in.

Another secret: without a degree your upward mobility in the civilian nuke work is also contructed with a glass ceiling. I have two friends who work shift work at civvy nuke plant and they're miserable but know they're trapped. I make way more money then they do too. I'm chilling out right now in the "Hawaii of China" too waiting for wife to arrive for vacation as I sit here typing away :)

Until I went to college, only THEN did the doors open. Now two degrees later I have the ability to look back and see just how ridiculus the entire pipeline was. If you don't go get a real degree, from a real university a nuke will be relagated to technician duty forever.

The Navy needs to revamp the entire pipeline. I'm mean gut it and get rid of every shred of negativity, properly staff boats, shorter rotations, and put nukes on CWO tracks.

You want to fix the entire program? Make it worth staying in.

Instead, on a boat, you get treated like dirt, have a ton of responsibility, understaffed, the hammer comes down 20X greater than any rewards, away from home, and last but not least, you're perpetually tired. Hmm, why don't I miss it?

Add in CO's and below who aren't really management material as the "leadership" and you get what is the current Navy.

The boats themselves should get to critique and have secret balloting on CO/XO performance every 6 months that is part of their record. It's a two-way street.

But old school Admiral's don't have the spine to rock the boat and do anything drastic.

You guys seem to relish a crappy environment.

11/08/2012 9:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good jobs? Unless you obtain a college education, an enlisted nuke has very limited ttle use outside of shipyards skill set builders. The training is so applied that is has very little value."

Partially true.

I was an ELT, LELT on a boat, LELT and 3M coord. on a skimmer. Left after 8. Every employer I have had since has commented that one reason they hired me was because of Nuc school. I have been the lead foreman (hired as) in a custom ag. equipment shop, worked at a civy nuc plant and left because I could not stomach the union, worked in many QA facilities. It is true that my opportunities for advancement were very limited. But this was because I was hired in at a very advanced step to begin with not because job opportunities were limited. It is not true that I was only a tech. I was usually hired into what amounted to low to middle management positions. I returned to school and was able to get a 40 hr a week position with the university as a full time student again because of nuc school. My supervisor made the agreement that if I maintained a 3.5 gpa. I finished a masters in applied physics in 7 years and am now the RSO at a major research lab. While it is true that the promises of high paying jobs did not materialize immediately after my service ended that was not the purpose of either nuc school or NPTU.

BTW my brother recieved a medical discharge due to a blown out knee before he could hit the fleet after NPTU. His experiences have been similar to mine. Currently he works for a company designing and installing kitchens for restaurants and institutions such as schools and hospitals (one prison) around the country.

So Nucs are not limited to the ship yards or government contractors, and their opportunities for advancement in the civilian world are no more limited than in the military. The days of the mustang without a college degree are long gone and never existed in the nuc field anyway.

11/09/2012 8:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow this conversation became productive again. It's almost like it's 0500 on the midwatch...

The reality is that in today's job environment, you need BOTH a college degree AND job experience. A look at the classifieds for any job over $40k/year will require 3-5 years of experience.

The military won't give you the college education while you're still in (at least not unless you get accepted for a commissioning program), but it will give you the technical job experience that many employers are looking for. It's up to you to sell that experience and transfer that ability to apply to your new chosen career field. At the end of the day, the Navy's job isn't to provide a vocational training program so you can make six figures after going 4 (or 6) and out; it's to produce Sailors capable of operating warships in theater to destroy enemy assets.

It is also true that in today's service, business oriented economy, the transferrable skills of being able to make a presentation to market a product, shake hands on a deal, optimize a budget, or write a report are much more in demand to high paying jobs than 'hands on' skills like the ability to re-wire a motor controller. Most of the former skills are performed by Chief and above in the Navy. But if your passion was for business/marketing, and your goal for enlisting was to obtain job experience to transfer elsewhere, then I have to ask: why did you decide to enlist or commission in a highly technical field like nuclear power in the first place?

Changing careers usually means taking a step back before you take a step forward, and this is no different when transitioning from the military to private employment. The average servicemember takes a paycut through his first 5 years of civilian employment (when adjusted for benefits and allowances) but after that he typically starts earning more. However, this is an average, and can be complicated when one wants to transition from something highly technical, e.g. nuclear power, to something non-technical like business. If you are someone who used your GI bill after being a nuke to get a Mech E or EE degree, your hands-on experience is certainly valuable in understanding how to design products that work, since you've undoubtedly had plenty of "why in the world do they make these like this?" moments.

11/09/2012 1:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enlisted nukes have limited skills needed by most companies.

Get your degree or you WILL be severly limited in career choices.

Fact.

11/09/2012 4:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, you need a degree in the 21st century American economy if you want to make more than $10/hr, period. Being a nuke does not exempt you from this, but it does significantly enhance your ability to make money after you have the piece of sheepskin.

Dunno what smoke the recruiters are blowing up people's asses these days if you think being a nuke for 6 years is all you need to make 6 figures.

11/09/2012 5:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is the recruiters' (and active duty mentors') fault for not setting up particularly good expectations nor providing good access to outside resources that could help sailors plan their lives. I see a lot of guys that got out without getting good advice and end up not being set up for success.

If the Sub force was more proactive in realizing that it's "OK" if people choose not to stay in for life, I think more sub vets would come out with a positive experience. I landed on my feet, and am set up for a good career, but if I had known what I do now, I would not have stayed in for shore duty. Overall that just hurt me in my civilian career. It was 2 years of extra time that I could have been using to build my civilian resume.

For those that are considering getting out (nuke, officer, or otherwise), unless you are going to go work for the government or a contractor, corporations will tend to see your Navy experience as a singular experience. I don't find that I get much credit for either shore duty or sea duty in the outside world because so little of the experience is transferable. Most of what you do as a JO or E-6 or below is basically minutia, and what isn't is a very specific skillset. The only thing I ever find that is applicable is my leadership experience and conflict management experience. In my experience, most companies don't seem to value that leadership experience the same way as they do my leadership experience in the outside world.

There are companies that hire for that specific skillset, but I found that they did not make particularly competitive offers for it. Sub experience is better to augment your other experience, and does not stand particularly well on its own outside of those specific fields.

So for enlisted guys my advice is this: Set yourself up to go to a full-time school utilizing the GI Bill if you don't think you are going to make a life of it. Suck it up for a few years and go to the best school you can manage and achieve the best degree you can, the hardship will pay off down the road.

For officers, DO NOT DO A DH TOUR unless you think you are going to do it for life. It will be quite difficult to adjust to the pay cut after getting O4 + bonus pay. I would also recommend against shore duty unless you think you will be able to pick up a quality advanced degree concurrently.

For the Navy, I think they should reach out to vets who have left the service at around the same rank and time-in-service to provide mentorship advice to sailors that have put in their letters or who are considering a career on the outside.

If you are hungry, there is a lot of opportunity in CIVLANT, but TAP class is not really enough to make you an expert at navigating it. That's one of the reasons that something like 60% of sailors shift jobs within two years of leaving the service.

11/09/2012 6:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I went to undergrad after the Navy, I became the IEEE student president so I ended up meeting every person in the EE/CS program.

Needless to say the ROTC program did not get a single nuke volunteer. Damn I'm proud of that.

Most of the ROTC guys from my Univ went Air Force. Obviously they were smarter than other guys. lol

In two years I could solve the Navy's retention problem.

1. Set up testing (ie, SAT/ACE) that significantly reduces the attrition in school. Higher standards to enter but with higher rewards incentives to enter (ie, AS degress and CWO)

2. Make the course work a legitimate, accredited 2 year degree program with soft skill course work such as psychology/sociology/geography/writing coursework, on top of the applied engineering classes. Nukes lack any rounding and that is a major mistake IMO.

And someone would not feel like they put their life on hold having two years of schooling already completed so they're not as far behind their college bound peers.

3. Make the enlisted track become a CWO program upon NPTU graduation.

4. The reduction in turnover will lead to better moral and overall higher caliber of people. Dump the negative nelly bad apples out the TDU.

5. Revamp the review process so advancement is not essentially a matter of what you got on a review. A 3.6 eval on a review is a death sentence and once someone realizes that, motivation is GONE. Even with a near perfect rating exam score, advancement is blocked....

6. Once someone graduates the pipeline, it's a crappy sea/shore rotation. Make it no more than 2.5/2.5 MAX. That's right, a one termer should get shore duty before they get out as the break from the grind can be all the difference in the world. I also know some people who were able to scam the system with "sea duty" tours that amounted to shore billets. I'd eliminate it and spread the love around...

7. Completely revamp the personal conduct methods of dealing with problems. Nothing worse than seeing someone dumped from a program at 19-21 years old for petty BS and costs a lot of money. Unlike the Army training guys to shoot rifles and drive tanks, the Navy investment for nuke training is steep.

The program has significant structural issues. The Navy approach to indexing re-up bonuses to staffing needs is horribly short-sighted (see above items).

Think about this. The Navy advertises to enlisted members before they go in that a major incentive is going to college when you LEAVE the military. Does anyone else look at that and see the irony? Why not make it happen while IN the service so they STAY? Duh.

I don't once, in my entire time remember any member surveys asking what is wrong and right with the nuke structure. My bet is the brass doesn't want to hear the truth.... just keep throwing bodies at it.

11/09/2012 10:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The military is not a vocational school for people to leave. No other career will give money and classes to people looking to transition to another career, but somehow the military doesn't do enough? The GI bill, TAPS, and other programs are perks, but some of you sound like you're owed it for your service. The only thing you are owed is a paycheck. Go wtell some fortune 500 companies that they don't spend enough money to send their employees to school and help them get new jobs with their competition.

I do agree that the first enlisted sea tour is gruelingly long... have to reenlist for shore duty, and that's unsat. I also think that there should be college and graduate opportunities on shore duty for enlisted servicemembers, in return for another sea tour. But gearing NNPS to be a college degree will not help retention, it will just attract more people who want to join the Navy to get the free degree and leave. Additionally, two year degrees are relatively worthless.

Finally, the CWO provram will never happen. NR wants the CO of the submarine to understand nuclear power and take full ownership of the reactor, and that requires years of training (I know carrier COs are aviators but they also jave a O6 reactor officer). Just look at how many items require CO permission in the sub RPMs. It's part of what allows NR to say that there is full accountability and senior oversight, and that won't change unless we have a reactor accident.

11/10/2012 11:29 AM

 
Anonymous 3383 said...

I was hired by Owens Corning as an "Advanced" Manufacturing Engineer, to the chagrin of a recent grad who didn't have the "Adv" and made less.

I didn't want to work rotating shifts at one of the 104(?) (and shrinking) US nuclear plants, but rotating equipment, piping systems, and electricity are functionally the same even when not painted black/ haze gray/ highly polished. And passing intense oral boards helps with confidence in job interviews.

And it isn't just former nucs. There aren't many torpedo related positions in CivPac, but there's gotta be something that you can apply to some job.

School might be problematic. If you have to work during the day, it will be tough finding a real school that can accommodate you.

The bottom line is the individual. It depends on you to take your skills and experience and present yourself well in the real world.

11/10/2012 12:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I work at a Fortune 100 company. We have tuition reimbursement (not as good as GI Bill obviously) and an independent Career Development Center, that is paid for by the company but staffed with external contractors. It's entire purpose is to guide you on the best career path for YOU, and will help you make contacts at other companies or in outside entities.

I know you may not have private sector experience, but those types of perks are not as crazy as you think.

The Navy is not a Fortune 500 company, and whether it intends to be or not, is effectively viewed as a vocational program by a significant portion of its members. Why not make it a good one? There is a large portion of the military that joins to get experience or to just pay for college.

11/10/2012 12:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My company pays 100% tuition for undergrad courses of B or better.

For grad courses they pay up to $5280 (Federal limit) and after that they still pay 100% tuition but it become taxable income.

I did my undergrad as full-time student but my company paid for my MBA. Note: MBA not all the useful but partly because of my interests. Consider that choice wisely :)

And you only have to stay 2 years from completion of degree to not have any repayment obligation.

And to the poster above who has the name "engineer" in his title. That may make you feel good but you lack the education to be an engineer. Try and get a PE stamp with your nuke education and see how far you get. Let me introduce you to Mr Glass Ceiling. They probably make that at Owen's. :)

11/10/2012 4:13 PM

 
Anonymous 3383 said...

4:13 PM Anon-

I'm not trying to blow my own horn, I'm saying that you aren't doomed, even at a Fortune 500 company, without a degree. Military experience can give the veteran an advantage.

But to answer you- that isn't a title, it's on my paystub, which is why the grad who had been there 2 years longer (a good guy) was unhappy when he found out. And no employer has ever found my education or experience or performance lacking.

And EIT/ PE wasn't that hard.

11/10/2012 7:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your companies pay these college and graduate school perks because they want to develop home grown managers and executives. They do this because it's more efficient to have middle managers who have experience doing what the people they manage do. They do not provide these perks so that you can jump ship to another company or career entirely.

Contrast that to the Navy, where you are expecting Uncle Sam to provide funding for training and education so that you can leave the organization.

11/10/2012 8:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/10/2012 7:59 PM,

I'm an Engineering Fellow at a large company. I used to be a an enlisted nuke. I know exactly what the skill sets come from the Navy sub program.

Without a true engineering degree, you lack the skills and training to do any advanced level work. Go through a classifieds of a major newspaper such as the Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc. and look at the acronyms of systems, programs, or standards that employers are looking for. Like reading a foreign language isn't it...?

You have ZERO design, simulation, modeling, or experience. An enlisted nuke has no research experience. Where do I stop with this?

Not trying to bash you but manufacturing jobs are mostly repetitive functions and lower level engineering. I know because I work in the semiconductor industry which is everything from volume manufacturing to MEMS design. We Have many material science guys who would run circles around you.

Not one former enlisted nuke qualifies sans eng. degree for a true engineering role. Think you have what it takes, go apply to BOSE, Intel, AMD, Micron, Cree, Maxim, Analog Devices. Don't limit it to semi companies, go for a design or applications position. Tell them you want to be an "advanced" engineer too.

We have an exam to test competency and you would have ZERO chance to do well on it. And I'm talking about an entry level exam for a lower level position.

And to finish, I hire people directly. An enlisted nuke, without an accredited degree, would not even get an interview or even past the HR screen to forward a resume to me.

You may not need a degree to find a "job" but to get to advanced (relative term I guess) positions and move up, it's essential. Teh glass ceiling is very real.

If an enlisted nuke thinks the skys the limit upron leaving, be prepared for frustation.

11/10/2012 10:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/10/2012 8:56 PM,

I'm curious if you are still in and/or enlisted/officer?

They Navy can vastly improve the program so people stay. Go read above about ways to change the incentives but that also means some higher standards to enter.

An AS degree is far more valuable than a DD214 that says, "NFAS/NPS/NPTU/Dolphins/GCM/NDSM/MUC, etc".

Unlike many other jobs in the military, the professional expectations of enlisted nukes are far greater than just about any other enlisted program I can think of. And that costs $ to the Navy and ultimately the taxpayers.

The Army trains chopper pilots in 10 months and gives them CWO.....

I listed above the way to fix it. Those items are precisely what I'd do if I was in charge.

And I'd bet a lot of money I'd get people to stay (officer and enlisted) and cost less money to the Navy overall in doing it and those that stay would be happy doing it.

And the Navy doesn't have a perfect nuke record either.....

11/10/2012 10:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your solution is a narrow minded TED proposition. NNPS is a two year degree, and that's supposed to keep nukes past their first tour?

Every submariner works harder than the rest of the Navy, but it would be absurd to make every submariner CWO. That's the life we choose when we decide to volunteer for permanent 3-section duty and chronic manning issues.

Likewise, RC and RL Div rarely work late in-port on non-duty days. It's 3-section duty along with chronic manning issues from training pipeline clogs and unplanned losses that plague the submarine force in all ratings and cause 90 hour work weeks, not the fact that they actually "do more." M and E div tend to suffer from poor senior enlisted leadership since their chiefs are on their second tour and their leading first is some dude picked out of a hat on his first tour or the shitbag on his second tour who didn't make chief. This leads to piss poor maintenance planning and an inability to organize their divisions in a way that efficiently accomplishes the day's work. RC and RL div would also suffer from this, but their maintenance load is so light that it doesn't matter.

Nukes already benefit from pro-pay and faster advancement than probably every other rating. The faster advancement actually hurts them overall... the Navy should compensate through higher nuke pay rather than promote to instant E-4 and then instant E-5 with a STAR reenlistment, and then many guys make E-6 on the first eligible advancement exam.

You want to make someone a CWO because he shifts LO strainers or cleans salinity cells on a midwatch and equate that to flying a multi-million dollar helo with no built-in interlocks to prevent you from destroying it. They are not the same, You could make an argument that CWO might be warranted for EWS/EOOW, but that's going to be past a guy's first or second enlistment.

11/11/2012 5:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/11/2012 5:56 AM

You're missing the big picture and have a massive paradigm.

Officers get incentive to enter on the front side (tuition paid, medical paid in school for NUPOC, etc). Enlisted have to hope it works out on the back side (GI bill and assume personal sitation works with family, etc).

You have to bring up the whole organization. Yes, a nuke should be a CWO and get a more rounded education while in. I could fill a book on why this makes sense.

And since everything is so safe and interlocked, tell that to the next guy who goes to XO screening or mast for making a mistake. That same M-div guy who puts a valve out of position isn't important, right?

Education is the key. My previous posts addressed everyone of the issues you mention directly or indirectly.

Holding back a nuke advancement and just give higher pay? That's the absolutely WRONG way to solve the problems.

As for the unplanned losses, in many cases when you break it down the guy should not get tossed (barring legit medical) but the boat and command often puts things into a no turning back situation. Sometimes the best thing would simply be swapping teams...

The shitbag comment highlights another problem in the nuke pipeline as far as attitude (yours). Who trained that leading first? Oh wait, there is no training but mostly battlefield promotions when someone leaves the boat and voila, he's it. See my previous comment about nukes not being rounded.

That training would be handled as part of the degree program via soft skills. But that would be crazy, right? It's exactly where the Navy misses the target with nuke retention.

I see a lot of excuses within your post. Manning issues were chronic before I was in and continue to this day. Going to take drastic changes to the program to fix it but you, like others, won't listen.

My group has less than 2% turnover but what do I know? It costs way more to replace and retrain talent then proper selection and keeping them.

11/11/2012 7:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your solution is a narrow minded TED proposition. NNPS is a two year degree, and that's supposed to keep nukes past their first tour?"

This sums up everything that is wrong with submarine leadership in a nutshell. What you are really saying is "If we give them a good deal... THEY MIGHT LEAVE!"

In reality, organizations that take care of their employees, keep their employees. Period. In fact, I would say that's probably more important than pay. Credit towards an associate degree would get more people in the door and help prepare them for a future inside or outside of the Navy. Potentially, this could improve attitudes and give the impression that the Navy gives a crap. Considering that probably 90% of the complaints I hear about submarines are some variation of Crappy Leaders/Don't respect my time/get treated like a 5 year old/etc, maybe actively mentoring sailors might help.

11/11/2012 8:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, missing the big picture, and that's because your inputs are from your world as a junior 6-and-out Sailor. You felt like you were ignored, crapped on, and spat out (which all might be true, and I'm sorry for that), so you think you can fix it with money and rank.

You can give nukes a college education, make every nuke a line officer, and they will STILL leave in droves. Why? Because the job sucks. It's not hard, it just sucks. You live inside a 300' tube. You breathe stale, amine doused air. You don't have your own rack. You don't have any privacy. You stand 6 hour watches taking logs on things that never, ever change. If something breaks you are up for 24 hours straight trying to fix it. NR flogs you over and over again about minutia. And when you return to port, you're 3 section duty because there simply isn't enough manpower for more than that. There's no fixing any of this. Submarines are not a cushy place to live, and nuclear power is a really, really boring career.

Nothing that you mentioned will make any of that go away. Now pack on the following:

-"senior" enlisted leadership is actually relatively junior, so they don't know how to plan their work centers and manage their people.
-As a result, they can't take care of their guys (send them home because the wife is sick, days off for good performance) because they are always 1 step behind and can't spare the manpower.
-Manning is in the shits. Always has been, and always will be. See above about the job being shitty, and then add the aptitude requirements for nukes.
-The middle enlisted ranks eat their own by constantly hounding and outcasting the "nubs" as second-rate citizens until they are qualified, and senior enlisted condone it. Those "nubs" didn't create a system that makes them show up to a ship completely unqualified, but they pay the price for being in it, even if they are qualifying on time. By the time they finish the process, they're already disgruntled.

The harshest treatment of enlisted Sailors comes from other enlisted Sailors. That's how they were treated when they were nubs, so that's the only way they know to lead. There are some tyrant COs, but the daily life of John Q. Sailor is most affected by whether his Chief can balance managing personnel with accomplishing the mission. And most can't. A good Chief will get his Sailors good deals every chance he gets, no matter how bad the CO is. And yes, there is a real leadership issue in the Officer corps for looing the other way and allowing this culture to develop and continue in the 21st century. I don't know why there aren't senior enlisted leadership courses in the Navy that are worth a shit, but it would go a long way in fostering a culture where junior enlisted servicemembers are actually treated like humans.

But you think that making these guys even higher ranking and college educating them as an E-3 is going to fix all that? You're out of your mind. You're simply looking at the picture from "what would've made my 6-and-out enlisted tour better... I know, I should've been a CWO and paid more! And goddamnit, the Navy should've sent me to college for two years so I was better prepared for civilian life! Think of all the times as ERLL/RT/AEA I had to employ advanced managerial skills to accomplish my midwatch PMs. I was completely unprepared for the nuances of planning my sailinity cell C/I with my log round!" That's not what's going to fix the endemic cultural issues in the submarine force that treats people like meat.

"Maybe actively mentoring Sailors will help."
The Navy has people for that. They're called Chiefs. There is a systemic problem of Chiefs not doing this, and Officers not making them do this, and it's something the Navy needs to fix. But it's not college education that's the cause, it's the culture and inexperience in the nuclear Navy.

11/11/2012 9:14 AM

 
Anonymous 3383 said...

Engineering Fellow:

I have done design work for Applied Materials, so ha ha, you condescending Debbie Downer.

If you want the last word, go ahead. Or reread xkcd.com/386/

11/11/2012 10:13 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you like a medal or a monument?

11/11/2012 1:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/11/2012 10:13 AM,

I'm not trying to be condescending. Having been on both sides of the coin, I'm speaking from experience about the education requirements in the civilian engineering world.

The best advice anyone can give an enlisted nuke upon getting out after 6 or 8 years is to suck it up and go right into a University.

11/11/2012 3:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 11/11/2012 9:14 AM, you're contradicting yourself.

You denigrate the value of certain positions but then those same guys are supposed to be professionals? So which way is it?

You mention higher aptitude requirements then refer to the ERLL/AEA as near useless. Those paradigms are hard to shake, aren't they?

Do you really think Chiefs are the answer? They don't have any leadership training either.

Raise the bar coming in, make it a more professional program, and have nukes on CWO track.

Do people have the courage to buck the status quo, or to even recognize the major shortcomings of the program? Nope.

Manning levels are an excuse. It could be solved quickly.

Here's a thought: you have undermanned boats at sea while people are stacking up at prototype waiting for hands on experience. Hmmmm....

Shake out the, "well when I went through BS". Change is possible.


11/11/2012 3:39 PM

 
Anonymous Dardar the Submarian said...

I wasn't going to chip in to the state of the submarine force, because I am old and nobody wants to hear what the old farts have to say, but I kinda still care.

First and foremost, the submarine force taught me more than electronics, valves and movies,meals and mattress (Navet). It taught me to be on time - if you are not 15 minutes early, you are late - and it taught me that a guy with a chip on his shoulder isn't necessarily pissed at me, so I shouldn't automatically take offense. Believe it or not, these are qualities that companies are looking for. They want to know that you are adaptable, and have the ability to learn quick. If submarines don't preach that, I don't know what does.

As for retention; I have said it before, get rid of the fucking retards. Not everyone is an "American Idol", and not everyone is supposed to be a submariner. That would be a great start. If 2 guys have to do the work of 3, because little Billy is too fucking stupid to know that the same thing he did the last 4 times before got somebody hurt, it is going to effect moral. And not just the moral for the 2 guys. Everyone will feel that stupidity.

No, submarines aren't fun, and yet they were. Long hours of work, and mind-numbing tedious hours of stupid drills (usually in a face gagger) can drain the energy out of anyone. But some of the best times I can remember were with the guys on the boat. Age has a way of erasing the bad memories, and the good ones emerge more often. I don't think this blog would be as popular if that weren't true.

11/13/2012 6:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://news.msn.com/politics/general-investigated-for-emails-with-petraeus-friend?gt1=51501

Looks like George Allen is going down too.

Anyone want to start defending our flag officers as heroes with unquestionable values again? Or can we pretty much accept that there is nothing special about them?

PS I was right about the endorsement

11/13/2012 7:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Really? And your proof is...?

Most MEN voted for Romney.

Most Women voted for Obama.

Most Boomer Fags voted for whomever would provide them with free tampons.

11/13/2012 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My proof is that Romney lost.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/general-demoted-lavish-travel-spending

Another Four-star taking it in the chin today. What a great American, living high on the taxpayer dime. These guys are true role models.

11/13/2012 12:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

C'mon anon @ 12:33, he "deserved" to spend taxpayer money for those hotels and vacations. As typical, the guys at the top are some of the most entitled, even more so when they think someone isn't watching...

11/13/2012 2:25 PM

 
Anonymous James Drag said...

I'm CDR Matt Drag's brother. (You never know who's reading your posts) The police stated his death was an "apparent suicide". I am told there is an investigation underway. Let's certainly hope so. Furthermore, I hope they take all the time they need, being VERY thorough. If you put on your thinking caps, you realize there are people in this world who don't like us. Both abroad and within our "borders". The reality is, we are not at peace with everyone in this world. Let's hope this investigation is carried out by people courageous enough to follow these evenues. I'm still not convinced Vince Foster's death was a suicide. (Just one man's opinion) If you knew my brother at all, you would be dumbfounded by a quick conclusion of suicide.

11/13/2012 3:09 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home