Interesting squabble about training on Yank boats

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by AfterSSE, Dec 29, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Source

    Some of the comments are from people who actually sailed with the guy who wrote the piece..;)
     
  2. And he ended up teaching at the Submarine School after "not qualifying" ? Jesus H Christ ??
     
  3. Well that was certainly a tense comments section :p
     
  4. It's a reflection on the power that Hyman Rickover had/has on the USN Submarine Fleet. He claimed that it was to be a requirement to be perfect if you were working with one of his reactors....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickover
     
  5. The yanks have, to my thinking, a strange progression for their officers. They have junior Lts, not even PtIII qualified, as OOW in the control room, something we don't allow ours to do until they are reasonably experienced, and a job that even experienced 2½s can struggle with at times. They do not distinguish between engineers and seaman officers, which means that there is as much a chance of the MEO being a dabber as there is of the skipper being a technocrat - neither of these a good thing. In short, I think that they put people into positions that they have neither the training nor the experience to competently fulfil their role, and am surprised at how few incidents they have.
     
  6. You can almost guarantee that a CO will have been an Engineer first. It's the way that the entire USN works - a concept called the "Unrestricted Line Community". They are aware of the disadvantages of it, however it does have some positives - a broader knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of their units as a starter.
     
  7. I think you have missed the subtlety of my point. Some of their officers have the technical expertise of dabbers, some have the seamanship skills of engineers. If the Skipper, Jimmy, et al are all not professional seamanship officers first and foremost, then they must, as a team, be weak. (This, by the way, is not an isolated opinion of mine, but is informed by the thinking of someone who has first-hand experience (pun intended) of the way yank boats run.)
     
  8. Joe - I understood the subtlety of your point. However, every USN Submariner has passed through their Nuclear training programme (similar to, but not an exact equivalent to MESM SEMC)*, therefore by definition they all have the seamanship skills of engineers - they are all engineers. Whilst some may be able to take a more warfare-orientated career (i.e. their Departmental Head tour as "Weaps"), ORSE, and it's attendant checklists**, is a real drumbeat for junior Submarine Officers.

    As to the relative weaknesses of the USN/RN Submarine services (and their career management systems), I would suggest that that debate could continue until well into the night, with probable ad hominem banter along the way....

    * http://www.navy.com/navy/careers/nuclear-energy/submarine-warfare-nuclear.html
    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Reactor_Safeguard_Examination
     
  9. I would dispute the use of the word Engineer, and am surprised that you have not baulked at using the term yourself.

    They seem to spend precious little time gaining an in-depth knowledge of the systems belonging to them. The term 'Jack of all trades' springs to mind - not ideal for someone who is to be 'Master' of a vessel which carries such inherent risks. As for ORSE, whilst I personally cannot comment on the ability of USN officers, what I have heard from people who can does not paint a rosy picture.


    I dare say it could.
     
  10. They're probably better engineers than am I these days!

    USN vs RN is always amusing, but lets be honest, if it came to an arsekicking contest they'd win every day of the week, and twice on Sundays!

    Interestingly, there are (nearly always) rumblings regarding their specialist vs generalist Officer corps, more pertinently on the wider operational/strategic levels and their Foreign Area Officer scheme. I don't think it's a great secret that I have some issues with our Career Management systems, including our ability to broaden in every sense of the word. We might have some alright ship-drivers, but they're god-awful in the wider Joint and inter-Departmental battles; spin it the other way, if we really care about ship driving, why aren't Capt RFA the CO's of all our ships, they're generally much more experienced than any Naval Officer in ship handling.
     
  11. If you are talking of their fleet taking on our fleet, you would be right purely on strength of numbers, but in a one-on-one contest between two SSNs, I would say that, in my experience, you are wrong.
     
  12. I honestly have no experience in the USN SM Community. If they are a similar capability to their Surface Fleet, I think it would be at best a damn close run thing, but we both know that you shouldn't fight on fair terms....
     
  13. I do have some experience, and (as stated) have listened to people with a lot more intimate knowledge than I have, and I stand by my assertions.
     
  14. An aside....USS Thresher loss was the driver for Rickover's quality programme....we all benefited from that....even when called in from home, to QA an 'O' ring
     
  15. alfred_the_great:
    USN vs RN is always amusing, but lets be honest, if it came to an arsekicking contest they'd win every day of the week, and twice on Sundays!

    Joe Crow
    If you are talking of their fleet taking on our fleet, you would be right purely on strength of numbers, but in a one-on-one contest between two SSNs, I would say that, in my experience, you are wrong.


    Crept up on their boats a number of times and blasted them with a water shot and played"Rule Britania" on the 185 in the 70/80s. :D dont know what the result would be now, probably similar.
     

Share This Page