EB To The Rescue!
Good story from the AP yesterday about a miscalculation by Spanish submarine designers:
A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.Being a 2x Newcon Eng, I worked with EB design guys quite a lot; the ones who were served Submariners were pretty good, but some of the other ones required quite a bit of explaining to understand how their designs translated to issues for the crew. Still, as far as I know all the boats they designed could at least make it back to the surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place.
"It was a fatal mistake," said Rafael Bardaji, who until recently was director of the Office of Strategic Assessment at Spain's Defense Ministry.
The Isaac Peral, the first in a new class of diesel-electric submarines, was nearly completed when engineers discovered the problem. A U.S. Navy contractor in Connecticut, Electric Boat, has signed a deal to help the Spanish Defense Ministry find ways to slim down the 2,200-ton submarine.
Have you ever worked with civilian submarine design engineers?
Update 0855 07 June: For any non-submariners that wander by, here's a quick and simplified primer on submarine buoyancy. Ships in general float because they displace a volume of seawater with weight greater than the weight of the ship. A submerged submarine strives for neutral buoyancy, in which the submerged submarine displaces a volume of seawater equal to its weight.
For the Spanish submarine problem, assuming it's not carrying 70 tons of extraneous equipment, the simplest solution would be to increase the volume of the boat with a new compartment that weighs 70 tons less than the volume of seawater it displaces. I suggest a win/win solution - put in a big-ass berthing compartment. It wouldn't have a lot of heavy equipment, and would give the crew lots of sleeping space. They could increase the length of the submarine by 10%, displacing about 220 extra tons of seawater, and I'm sure they could bring it in at under 150 tons. Everybody wins!
posted by Bubblehead at 8:05 AM
52 Comments:
Ditto on the newcon (and PSA) experiences.
Was at EB during the raging battles with Rickover...think "Running Critical: The Silent War, Rickover, and General Dynamics" by Patrick Tyler.
Still managed to enjoy some of it. Was a shiny-faced Ensign when I took on EB and my own electrical division over one of those "it's designed that way, we have to live with it" grinds.
The problem? If one vital bus went down, the forward DC lights came on, and if the other vital bus went down, the aft DC lights came on. After hearing the "it's designed that way..." argument for the umpteenth time, I finally said "bring me the drawings" despite my own frank dislike of diving in that deep into something 'my guys' assured me had been confirmed by the leading 1st.
Net-net: no...it was not designed that way. Got it fixed the next day.
With no small amount of surprise, my LCPO chewed my ass over this. Reasoning? (And this is a no-hitter): in his eyes, my getting directly involved, as a nub ensign, no less, had embarrassed the leading 1st.
While I'd otherwise have preferred to put my Chief up on a pedestal, I pretty much figured out that day that my chief was pretty much fully capable of being full of shit. We all are.
6/06/2013 9:11 AM
no-"s"hitter...auto-correct now corrected.
6/06/2013 9:13 AM
I was a NEWCON Ship's Diving Officer right after an unnamed boomer on Alpha Trials could not submerge due to being substantially light. As a result, I had to personally prove my Alpha Trials comp, and all of the shipyard incline experiment numbers, to the four star - fun time. In the end, we were about 10K light, which is exactly where you want to be on Alpha Trials.
6/06/2013 10:17 AM
What the public is reading is Spain's cover story. Design is neither the actual source of nor has weight been the crux of Navantia's problem. The real problem has been Spain's fiscal crisis since 2011. Delivery of Spain's first S-80A boat, Isaac Peral (S-81) has been postponed from October 2012 until 2016-17, at the earliest.
Spain's submarine options have become more fiscally serious and political this year. Not only has the EU been on its case, but delayed delivery of its new AIP sub means Mistral may not be replaced on time. That would leave Spain with only one, old submarine, the Galerna, for at least a full year. Molten Eagle
Archer
6/06/2013 2:02 PM
@10:17 AM Anon:
Let me get this straight...you were just 10K light...and yet couldn't submerge? Worse...this was "exactly where you want to be?"
Must've been an interesting conversation with the 4-star, to say the least.
6/07/2013 12:29 PM
During an shipyard overhaul in Pearl in the late sixties, I often butted heads with some shop foremen. I won some and they won some. As I was detaching, one of the shop foreman came to me and said he really enjoyed working with me, "...although we did not always agree, there was never any question about what you wanted. I appreciated that." I took that as high praise and have tried to live up to that standard. As a nub jg on my first sub, I was tasked with the first cut on the sea trial trim compensation as a qual project. I received some fantastic assistance from the yard experts. It was an educational experience and I learned a great deal about lead ballast, its location and how to move it about.
6/07/2013 1:24 PM
@10:17 AM Anon and
@12:29 PM Anon,
As former Ship's Diving Officer (on multiple occasions after the Chop failed open on dive comps), I agree that 10K light is a good place to be.
The whole process of the dive comp is a combination of black magic, a ouija board, a twelve-sided die, a Magic 8 ball, chicken bones, prayers, hope, unicorn tears, and some numbers.
Just a little light was where my DOOWs liked it because they would just flood a little extra on the go and we would get down quickly, but safely.
Being heavy is scary (based on personal experience) as you try to level out after submerging and can't without full rise on the planes and more speed. It makes for a very uncomfortable control room.
6/07/2013 4:57 PM
@12:29 anon,
You read his post wrong. His 10k light comp was after an initial failed dive during alpha trials, and presumably a RTP before trying again.
6/07/2013 7:44 PM
@7:44 PM 6/07/2013 and 12:29 PM 6/07/13
I think you both read the post wrong. The guy was a NEWCON Diving Officer. An unnamed Boomer had just jacked up their dive comp on Alpha trials so when the NEWCON Diving Officer was readying his ship for Alpha Trials, he had to prove the comp to the 4-Star to ensure another issue like the one on the unnamed boomer was not repeated.
Anyway, agree that it is better to be light than heavy, 10K is about right.
6/07/2013 8:27 PM
My first DOOW dive in pacfleet on my last fast boat with the Commodore on one side of me and the SQDN CMC on the other. The fine ship's diving officer had the comp entered when I relieved the watch. COW opened the vents on the dive and we submerged so fast I had the COW spin the trim pump at full speed before we hit 80 feet. Kicked it up a bell at 100 feet, and ordered cavitate as we passed the target depth. I was one twitch away from ordering up the OMFG bell when we pulled out at twice the ordered depth and had enough speed to go back to ordered depth. Once on depth I looked the the LT who was white faced and asked him, WTF did you do to me? I ended up being almost 60K heavy. I was piSSed. Commodore didn't say a word as he left control. Took me forever to fix the trim from that fine young lad.
I think the ship's diving officers should submerge first on THEIR dive comp.
hagar
6/07/2013 10:39 PM
Being on the third shift of the NEWCON boomer class at EB, I recall that the issue of the boomer not being able to dive was the lack of weight in the empty missile tubes. Hymie was not pleased and they cleared the pier when the boat came back in. When we went on Alpha trials we had 12-14 concrete shapes in our tubes, don't remember the exact number but I do remember I was glad that I had not qualified NWSG yet because the Weps decided to use the loading of the cannisters as a training opportunity in Groton in early February...
6/08/2013 5:29 AM
Should have read my post. I was on third SHIP of the class
6/08/2013 5:31 AM
Not newcon but post major overhaul on the Bremerton leaving PHNSY had its own unique problems. During test of EMBT, broke knocker valves on after group after test blow. Rode on the surface back to the yards for repairs. Following that, training in Pearl Oparea, going deep after PD excursion to catch broadcast, chunk of rubber left over from overhaul worked its way into equalizing pipe to sonar done causing implosion of the dome passing 300 feet. Went to San Diego for new dome at reduced speed and depth restriction. Following a year of that yard period, went back to the yards for resin discharge. Two month drydocking for five minute evolution.........
6/08/2013 7:07 AM
WTF does that mean "Have you ever worked with civilian submarine design engineers" ? All of the fraternity of submarine designers are civilian. Asshole. We put together machines that make the space shuttle look like Lego and we watch submariners run them aground, collide with their own navy, smash them into sea mounts and bend periscopes. Have respect. The pay is crap, the hours are long and the management types have some seriously unbalanced personalities. And yet we still get you to sea. EB isn't God in this world and the Spanish stupidity is an aberration.
6/08/2013 5:21 PM
Lighten up, Francis....
6/08/2013 5:56 PM
I have been reading this blog for 3 years (1st comment), often see Chop bashing; fair enough. But after spending almost 4 yrs in the mid to late 90's as the Chop on a Sturgeon class, in Pearl, there were only 2 DOOW the CO trusted to do SEAL Ops, the COB (#1)and me, (no one else; JO or CPO). And my Department still managed to earn 2 Supply 'E's during my tenure.
6/08/2013 10:05 PM
"Anonymous said...
I have been reading this blog for 3 years (1st comment), often see Chop bashing; fair enough. But after spending almost 4 yrs in the mid to late 90's as the Chop on a Sturgeon class, in Pearl, there were only 2 DOOW the CO trusted to do SEAL Ops, the COB (#1)and me, (no one else; JO or CPO). And my Department still managed to earn 2 Supply 'E's during my tenure."
Most of the Chop's I dealt with were good people. But my first while on the NYC was positively a class A idiot. While standing pier watch while at West Loch in Pearl loading some particular weapons. Chop pops out of the forward escape hatch with PT gear on. He was on the Fat Boy program and he said he was going wjogging. I informed him no unauthorized personnel topside while the loading evolution was in progress. He brushed me aside and started jogging around the perimeter. Topside watch calls down to control at about the same time a bush moved. Next thing I see are 3 Marines with the Chop flat on his back with 3 M-16's rammed up his nose. CO comes topside and collars the wayward Chop, bringing him back in tow by his ear. To top it off, he forgot his ID card. Funniest thing I ever saw.
6/09/2013 10:15 AM
The pay is crap, the hours are long and the management types have some seriously unbalanced personalities.
Ever been to sea as an enlisted nuke? Do you really wanna talk about long hours and poor pay? Didn't think so.
6/09/2013 4:45 PM
Seriously, Polaris, lighten up. I didn't see YOU staying awake on a northern run while I chilled on shore... And I'm SURE that the E2 and E3 homies hot-racking in the torpedo room would love to hear your sob stories.
EM1(SS) Tugboat
6/09/2013 6:27 PM
Yea, so poorly paid.
E-5 over two: $2081/mo
E-5 single BAH in Groton (only KBAY is significantly lower, but so is the cost of living): $1140/mo
E-5 over two sea pay: $160/mo
E-5 over two sub pay: $155/mo
Nuke pro-pay: $150/mo
E-5 BAS: $324/mo.
Total: $4010/mo = $48,120, before any bonuses.
Yea, I know some enlisted live in the racks and most if not all get comrats, but nothing is "free" in life so that's the equivelant of what you're getting.
Then, when you get out, the government will fund your college education up to $18,800/year for four years, plus E-5 BAH.
You don't have a college degree and were hired with absolutely no work experience outside of a couple of part-time jobs you held in high school, plus the tax advantage on BAH/BAS.
Income of someone with a high school diploma and no significant job experience making $8/hour: $18,000/year
Have a college degree? Not my fault you wasted your time pissing away your money by partying inbetween classes for some liberal arts degree, and decided to enlist in one of the hardest jobs in the Navy to make up for it.
Long hours? Yes. But you're paid almost 3x someone with your experience and education, and you don't work 120 hours/week, even if you spend that long on the boat you are not working the whole time. The whole attitude that military servicemembers are in poverty thing pisses me off. You are fairly well paid for what you do and the fact that the government pays you to obtain 1.5 years of technical training to even do it.
6/09/2013 7:48 PM
Oh and if you have a pulse and make E-6, what you'll make the year before your EAOS/shore duty:
E-6 over 4: 2819
E-6 BAH single: 1326
Sea Pay: 300
Sub Pay: 300
Pro-Pay: 150
BAS: 324
Total: 5219/mo = 62,628/year
Oh, forgot free healthcare and dental which no one in civvy land gets anymore.
6/09/2013 7:59 PM
Life is tough all over.
I suppose we should all pause to recognize anyone whose self-esteem is so low that it's become a point of "pride" to be the most pathetic person around.
Congrats pal, you're the worst!
6/09/2013 9:00 PM
To Anonymous @ 6/09/2013 10:15 AM
I was on the NYC when that happened. That chop didnt ahve a clue. Another story about him. For maneuvering watch i was the shaft alley phone talker and the chop was the "supervising officer". Well shaft alley is pretty boring so the chop fell asleep. A little while alter teh XO came by and chewed him out.
6/10/2013 9:41 AM
I have a fubar dive sea story. I was the NAV on a 637 in the med in the mid 90s. We had just performed a BSP in Augusta Bay, Sicily and completed a transit to the dive point heading east for follow on operations. When we tried to submerge the ship, one set of forward MBT vents failed to open. We aborted the dive and in short order the QMC and I had layed down a track on the surface not back to Sicily but onward to Souda Bay, Crete for repairs. When we got there we had to steam at anchor for a couple days waiting for pier space to open. I felt a little sorry for the aft watch standers (nukes) who remained in a 3 section watch bill while the ship was at anchor. But, not too bad since I also remained onboard supervising the Nav party making sure we stayed in our assigned anchorage. When we finally got pierside I did get some fantastic liberty in Souda Bay. The nukes got their liberty then as well. I was thankful I was not the ENG or DCA because both got very little time on the beach while the MDSU fixed our boat.
6/10/2013 5:24 PM
Long hours? Yes. But you're paid almost 3x someone with your experience and education, and you don't work 120 hours/week, even if you spend that long on the boat you are not working the whole time. The whole attitude that military servicemembers are in poverty thing pisses me off. You are fairly well paid for what you do and the fact that the government pays you to obtain 1.5 years of technical training to even do it.
Lemme guess, a zero?
I'll admit, I got some good training. I then got out as an E-6 at six, went to school and got my degree, and now make 5X what your E-6 example makes. Good deal for me, but it sucked while there not, cough, cough, working 120 hours per week.
6/10/2013 6:45 PM
Over $300k/year, eh? Well, that's really great for you. I suppose you should be on the recruiting poster for nukes, and include the fine print "results not typical."
Nukes don't have it nearly as bad as they think they do, and people need to keep things in perspective. The hardest thing you do is sit at a panel for 6 hours trying to stay awake on a midwatch, while a PVT/PFC in the Army making 1/2 your pay and benefits with no fancy sign-up bonuses has to worry about if that Iraqi/Afghani eying him is gonna put an RPG through his humvee on his 18 month deployment, and he's not allowed to engage until shot at.
What makes nukes leave is the general lack of job satisfaction and culture of expecting perfection to the point of nitpicking at stupid bullshit. You train for armeggedon that hopefully never comes, and when things break you get fucked out of sleep or liberty to fix it. No amount of pay or bonuses will fix that, but let's not pretent like you're poorly paid relative to your peers.
6/10/2013 7:05 PM
I find it abysmal that people have stooped low enough to start bashing young sailors who have chosen to enter the service - for whatever reason - and then volunteered for the submarine force. Thankfully, someone still has the stones for this tough job. It may not be as hard as it was for the diesel boat sailors - but I don't see a huge influx of people with dolphins - so we'll call it the elite club that it is. As for the shipyard, I'm pretty sure that very few people volunteer to ride a boat into the shipyard, let alone, join a new construction crew.
Anyone who has been in the yards, whether public or private knows that the SY uses the ship as cheap labor for setting work boundaries with tagouts and conducting retests. It's amazing that the only voice the ship has is their CO to attempt to push against the shipyard and their "fantasy schedule." Sometimes even ISIC doesn't provide the ship the additional backup they need to tell the shipyard that their needs and wants don't work - just because the yard can throw bodies at a problem doesn't mean that all of the sudden the Navy can find the 3 section support to assist - so we just get dumped on for "holding up work."
What makes the most sense is for the Navy to invest in maintenance crews - guys that really enjoy this crap so that the rest of us who would prefer to be on a sea-going submarine doing God's work can get our real job done. That's probably just as big of a pipe dream as one of shipyard's schedule's, so I guess I'll have to stow it for now and hope that someday a ship meets the yard timeline without having to force personnel to work 7 - 12 hour days while the yard workers stick to their 5-6 8 hour days.
-Ships Force (obviously)
6/10/2013 8:53 PM
A non-traditional shore duty as overhaul crew with promise of choice follow-on orders would be a good way to go. Turn over the boat to a sea-going crew after sea trials.
Problem is, besides working the manpower aspect of it, is that the Navy wants its Sailors to work in-rate. It does no good to send a nuke to do non-nuke work, so what can the Navy do to entice someone to do it besides choice follow-on orders?
6/10/2013 9:24 PM
My commentary was not so much whining about how little submariners in general are paid. The geniuses who can add up salary numbers should also be smart enough to know that the percentage of nukes who are E2 and E3 hot-racking in the torpedo room hovers around 0-1% fleet-wide. Thanks for playing. Next time, please RTFQ before answering.
My post was more to illuminate how pathetic your civilian engineer friend sounded bitching about how hard HE has it. Sorry if you read into it that I personally felt robbed by my time in subs.
EM1(SS) Tugboat (verifiably has a pulse at the time of writing, thanks for the concern!)
6/11/2013 3:31 AM
@6/9/2013-1948
"Long hours? Yes. But you're paid almost 3x someone with your experience and education, and you don't work 120 hours/week, even if you spend that long on the boat you are not working the whole time."
If you're done talking out your stern tube, I'd like to share something with you. Our compensation isn't based solely on what we do in the yards. Sounds like maybe yours is, though.
You are absolutely right about not working 120 hrs/wk. My last 2 years in, I was port and starboard. Just me and my senior chief, the same with his E-7 relief. That's 84 hrs/wk on watch. Between watches, I spent 2-3 hr's on PM's, conducted training/quals (2x/day), plus ancillary duties. So that's another ~35 hrs/wk, totaling 119+ hrs/wk.
Grabbing chow twice a day was roughly an hour, but that wasn't work (most of the time). Forget movies. Not a factor. Did I forget to mention drills? Adding those up at an average 1.5 hrs per for a conservative 5 times/wk brings us to? 125 hrs(+) per week. My favorites were fire drills immediately followed by battle stations. That way I got to drop the hose and go stand an 8 hour watch.
Depending on evolutions, I WORKED MY BUTT OFF anywhere from 125 to 133 hrs per week. I averaged about 5 hours (hardly ever all at once) in the rack per 24 hrs while underway. Six on, six off, repetend. For the better part of a year.
Various drills/actual casualties plus battle stations really cut into my beauty sleep, let me tell you. Did they run drills during the Chiefs' rack time? Ever? NO. Did I consider that work? YES.
Try doing that on a Med, then straight to a Northern - back to back - without passing go. That works out to more than 7000 hours "on the boat". I wasn't a nuc, so no nuc propay. I once figured what my effective hourly rate was, and found myself just a tad "nonplussed" at the result.
And when we tied up after being away those 10 and a half months I got a good look at the real cost: 7 divorces, and 22 "dear Johns", in less than a week. (More followed). Adios muchachas! Didn't take me too long to realize the math wasn't working out so great.
Dollars and sense. It ain't just the dollars. It needs to make sense, too. You make it sound like everyone just breezes through on 3 or 4-section duty. Didn't always work out that way, believe me.
You want to talk poverty? I knew E-4's and E-5's over 4 with kids that needed food stamps just to scrape by. (Most of them had that indignity "resolved" when we got back). They ended up living on the boat.
The lucky ones got to see their kids a few times a year. The ones who made E-6 saved their marriages, oddly enough. I wonder why that was? <---Rhetorically sarcastic. (Take as much time as you need with it).
You want to talk about how easy we had it? While raking in the "huge" bucks? Why don't you try bringing in some of those $8/hr, 40hr/wk wonders you were using as a comparison and see how that works out for you? Since we're all so interchangeable and all. How very modular.
Have you ever been to sea? Professionally? For more than 120 hours at a time? Seems to me you haven't thought it out all the way through.
Your score: Transparently glib managerial doubletalk. Hint: The dismissive tone lacks enhancement qualities or value. Need to brush up on the leadership approach. You got a ways to go before I'd buy what you're trying to sell.
All things considered, after 2 years in the yard for refueling overhaul and all the nitpickin' mickey mouse BS that goes with it (in spite of which we accomplished some outstanding divisional work), I'd still take the underways over the yard each and every time. And that's mainly because I was single, no family.
Fast Attacks (Black&Blue crew)
6/12/2013 5:27 AM
"You are absolutely right about not working 120 hrs/wk. My last 2 years in, I was port and starboard. Just me and my senior chief, the same with his E-7 relief. That's 84 hrs/wk on watch. Between watches, I spent 2-3 hr's on PM's, conducted training/quals (2x/day), plus ancillary duties. So that's another ~35 hrs/wk, totaling 119+ hrs/wk."
Your anecdotal evidence of standing port/stbd for two years straight being u/w is not the norm (and I waive the bullshit flag and say that you are exaggerating). Most people stand 3-section U/W, which amounts to between 56 hours of watch. And while deployment workups can tally up the hours doing drills and training, while on mission it's not nearly as intensive.
"And when we tied up after being away those 10 and a half months I got a good look at the real cost: 7 divorces, and 22 "dear Johns", in less than a week. (More followed). Adios muchachas! Didn't take me too long to realize the math wasn't working out so great."
Yea, going u/w and spending time away from the home puts a strain on marriage. But you chose to get married. Do you think people deserve higher compensation because some servicemembers choose to marry uncommitted women?
You volunteered for adventure and excitement, and you got it. The pay and compensation you'd receive is public knowledge. Stop whining about it like you're a victim.
"You want to talk poverty? I knew E-4's and E-5's over 4 with kids that needed food stamps just to scrape by."
Anyone who has children on an E-4 salary needs their heads checked. Ditto for four children on an E-5 salary. I don't feel bad for them; they should have done some math before popping out some little ones instead of going on food stamps to make up the difference. Does it really make a difference if that $45k/yr salary and compensation comes from the military or a private company? Bottom line is that a couple decided to have children that they couldn't afford on their salary.
I will go one step further and detest the fact that they went on food stamps. They are milking the system; a person working in a private corporation for compensation equal to an E-5 ($45-50k/year) would not be eligible for food stamps and pays more taxes.
"Your score: Transparently glib managerial doubletalk. Hint: The dismissive tone lacks enhancement qualities or value. Need to brush up on the leadership approach. You got a ways to go before I'd buy what you're trying to sell."
I'm not trying to 'sell' anything. I'm saying that being paid an E-5 salary as a 20 year old nub nuke 2 years into his service whose only job is to waste oxygen beats the snot out of an 18 month deployment toting around 50 lbs of gear in the desert on an E2/E3 salary wondering if the next IED attack is going to dismember or kill you. And it certainly pays more than what you'd find with similar education and skills on the outside.
Want a family? Do the sensible thing and get out of the military after your enlisted 4-6 years, use the GI bill for a marketable degree, and get a good paying career. Is it really that hard to wait until you're 22-26 years old to pop out children?
6/12/2013 10:21 AM
^^^ You're "that guy" everyone loves to fuck with, only you're too fucking stupid to know it.
6/12/2013 9:00 PM
anon@1021 - brilliant job laying down the 411; anon@2100 - your retort is comically pathetic, whether you realize it or not
6/12/2013 9:20 PM
your retort is comically pathetic, whether you realize it or not
That's what your mother said about your penis.
6/12/2013 9:40 PM
NEWS: NAVY NOW PERMITS MESSAGES TO NO LONGER BE ALL-CAPS.
"That is all."
6/13/2013 9:07 AM
@Anon 1021 - He didn't say anything about the E5 having 4 children. He said E5 over 4, as in more than 4 years in service. RTFQ. Same for your fellatiating fellow traveler, Anon 2120.
Additional point: No one is doing 18-month deployments and haven't been for a while. Do try to reign in your hyperbole. The Army bubbas have been doing 9-monthers for a while, and currently have been pulling units home up to 3 months 'early'. Doesn't make those 9 months any better, and they are demonstrably less pleasant/more dangerous than sitting in the AC doing 5 knots to nowhere. Which is why you sound ridiculous trying to make it worse than it is.
V/R,
EM1(SS) Tugboat
6/14/2013 4:01 AM
According to the Washington Post, the House passed a bill ordering the services to have the same camo uniform by 2016. SECNAV criticizes 'blueberries' publicly.
6/14/2013 10:49 AM
"Do try to reign in your hyperbole. The Army bubbas have been doing 9-monthers for a while, and currently have been pulling units home up to 3 months 'early'. Doesn't make those 9 months any better, and they are demonstrably less pleasant/more dangerous than sitting in the AC doing 5 knots to nowhere. Which is why you sound ridiculous trying to make it worse than it is."
It's not hyperbole. Any field grade infantry/artillery/armor Officer or SNCO currently serving has likely done multiple tours in the sand in excess of 12 months, which was the 'standard' at the onset of OEF/OIF. I agree it is no longer the standard, and rightfully so.
It is very easy for submariners to become isolated from what the rest of the military does, particularly when stationed at a base in Groton where the only things there are submarines. I encourage people to have some conversations over some brews with their guys in Green...you might find your experience wasn't quite as bad as you think it was, all things considered. Fun fact: poo stories unite the services.
6/14/2013 10:57 AM
I think it's bullshit that army grunts are doing 9 month deployments and the Navy is leaning on reservists to activate for 365 days boots on the ground (more lik 450 days total) to play Kabul dog catcher.
I realize there are probably not many reservists around here... But I don't agree with sub sailors going to Iraqistan, ing general. You spend thousands of dollars to go send a limited a resource to sub training and however many years of sea time experience, and then go send that guy to waste his time being a glorified secretary to some army unit.
6/14/2013 11:33 PM
It's a good thing no submariner ever spent a year or more in Iraq or Afghanistan... between sea tours of course. Every single person in this community has had it easy, and no one should ever imply otherwise.
We're basically underworked and overpaid; that's why our retention rates are historically so much higher than lousy career fields like infantry.
6/15/2013 7:23 AM
Now THAT is hyperbole.
6/15/2013 11:08 AM
To the poster at 6/15/2013 7:23 AM, there has been a submariner who was in Afghanistan for longer than a year and was killed by an IED. LT Jeffrey Ammon killed in May 2008.
I know plenty of submariners who went on IA's for longer than year to Iraq and Afghanistan.
6/15/2013 8:02 PM
And CDR Phil Murphysweet killed by an ied in Iraq about a month before coming home to his family fuckoff you armchair sealawyer wanna be... tucking douchebags shouldn't be allowed access to the Internet... you tucking people that have opinions and haven't stood the watch can go tuck yourself and get out of the way from real adults....
6/15/2013 8:15 PM
T's purposefully used in place of F's....
6/15/2013 8:19 PM
@anon-6/12/2013(1021)
You ever serve? Didn't think so.
@anon -6/12/2013(2120)
Nice try. Posting a reply to yourself is beyond pathetic. And please... Don't bother denying it. Way too obvious - get a life.
@ Tugboat - When I saw he didn't know what an E-5 over 4 was (on top of the other noise he was putting out), it confirmed for me he's just some know-nothing kid talkin' sierra. Thanks for the backup, though. Appreciate it.
Fast Attacks - (Black&Blue crew)
6/16/2013 12:51 AM
6/15 @ 7:23
What Navy have you been in for the last 10 years?
See above? MANY submariners have spent 365+ days boots on ground on "shore duty" and a few have lost their lives over it.
In two years, all this GWOT BS will be over, and the Army will go back to staring at their dicks and camping for a week every other month. The submariners will still be going out to sea.
I do kind of agree that military people, in general, are overpaid, comparably to what they can earn on the outside. However, the job truly sucks... so there is that.
6/17/2013 12:36 AM
Don't agree that you're overpaid.
Ok, on a 3-month deployment, hotbunking on top of a Mk48 Mod 3 (shows my age), trying not to get in the way of actual submariners... observing what happens in an attack, and asking lots of stupid questions to try to make the next generation of kit better.... 10 years of university, masters, all so I can burn my clothes at the end of the sea-ride....
And getting paid less than the 25 yr old senior sailors...
But you know what? At any time I can say "I quit". I don't get gigged for hair 1/4" too long, or have to go paint rocks white.
No Avian Excrement.
If I work a 120 hr week (been there done that) I can just say "no".
Not that I do. You guys trust people like me to make kit that won't kill you, that will not just keep you alive, but help you win.
The only downside is the nightmares, the "7 years ago, did I screw up in the design and have I killed someone" stuff.
You guys, overpaid? Not from where I'm standing. You couldn't pay me nearly enough to stand censorship of familygrams and all the rest involved in being in the service, as opposed to merely wearing a poopie-suit and smelling of diesel and salt water.
Signed, your friendly neighbourhood scumbag civvie contractor, "Naval Combat Systems Are Us"
Zoe
(sometime architect of ISUS-90, CSU-90 and other kit)
6/17/2013 3:25 AM
Oh yes, nearly forgot. The whole "getting shot at" thing.
It's over-rated as a life experience.
Last time for me was 2006, Haifa Naval base. I don't miss it.
The first killed on board the Kursk were the contractors like me. My opposite numbers. Being on subs is never risk free.
It takes an unusual kind of person. Bubbleheads.
Here's to you.
6/17/2013 3:38 AM
I wrote the post about the pay. There seems to be a misunderstanding -- I never said the word 'overpaid' and I never implied it. I simply stated that a nuke doing 6-and-out has no right to bitch about "shitty pay" when his brothers in green had a more risky, arduous experience in their first tours for lower pay. Being paid double the median salary for a high school graduate when your only job is to suck down oxygen, qualify, and clean a bilge isn't a bad deal. Then, when it's all said and done, you get a hefty sum to go to college.
If you went to the sandbox on shore duty, then good for you. Thank you for your more direct contribution to the GWOT. However, that comes after your initial commitment is up and wasn't what I was talking about.
6/17/2013 6:06 PM
Also if you did a tour in the sandbox and actually went outside the wire, there's a good chance you raised your hand for it.
6/17/2013 6:56 PM
That might be true in the last few years, but most of the submariners that I know who filled GWOT billets 2008 and earlier went outside the wire and neither volunteered to go outside of the wire nor volunteered for the billet.
It took the Navy an inexcusably long time to unscrew their billeting process for GWOT billets.
6/18/2013 8:59 PM
@anon 6/17 (1806).
"Being paid double the median salary for a high school graduate when your only job is to suck down oxygen, qualify, and clean a bilge isn't a bad deal".
Um, is your name Private Benjamin by any chance? I think you mean well, but I got to tell you bud - you do not know what you are talking about, so quit while you can. Believe what you want, fine with me.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but I think maybe you forgot a few items on your list there. Last time I checked, even our messcooks (FNG's) did waaaaay more than just those three things.
Still, maybe, (just maybe now - not promisin' nuthin'), if I could get my Chief to go for it... Hey, I know! I"ll show him your list and let him know I'm on to him now.
Boy, I tell ya! First the recruiter, now this. Can't trust anybody anymore. I'll let you know how that one goes, alright? Thanks bro, you just saved me a TON of work.
"Hey Chief! Check this out! This army guy says I only gotta do these three things! What kinda dirty lousy stinkin' con job you been pulling all this time? So whattaya got to say for yourself, huh? WELL?"
"C'mon, Chief! Whatcha laughing so hard for? Knock it off, I'm SERIOUS here. I'm telling ya, this army guy said...
Uh-oh. He's not laughing anymore. (So that's what a map of the vascular system looks like...)
Where's your Moses now?
The Shithouse Mouse
6/19/2013 10:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home