How would you fix the NNPP

[withroaj]

Wow!  The author here is able to craft what sounds like some very convincing arguments, while simultaneously being WAY off the mark.  (And just who is this "Galrahn" character, anyway?)

Regardless of who he is, the author obviously has a next-to-zero understanding level of the capabilities of an SSGN or a Virginia-class submarine.  Don't assume that the DoN or DoD are going to lay bare their true and exact plans/intentions.  (Sorry if that sounded rude or snippity, it wasn't meant to be but I can't think of how to reword it. )  Anyway, the 'policies' cited in the article have been dumbed down considerably - and we're also probably missing a lot of context in the cut-and-paste clippings of the references cited.

Regardless of what the DoN says (or doesn't say) in the Press Box, I know that I sleep pretty well at night knowing that the SSGN's & VA-class boats are out there on our side.  You and I will probably never know the real plan, but whatever it is I'm glad that we have these submarines working for us.

So I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle when two pre-processed (for the Press & general public) national defense policy statements don't mesh completely.

Peace,
- Greg

You make a damn good point.  I think the author of that blog is some never-been-in-the-navy computer nerd with a hard on for navy strategy.  A bit wacky but good reading from time to time.

[nagerjaeger]

I was a Nuke Submarine electrician way back in 1979 and stumbled across this forum a few days ago.  I note that the concerns about retention and frustrations of the job are the same they were 29 years ago.  Back then I think the re-enlistment bonus was 30K and very few were staying in.

Since little has changed in 29 years I wonder if the "problems" are just part of the nature of the business.  Perhaps the role of NNPP is to train technicians for private industry.  The industry doesn't have to be civilian nuclear power.  For example, I've heard that Intel Corporation hires a lot of Nukes.   I'm a computer geek and the thinking processes I learned in NNPP have benefited me and my employer greatly for almost three decades.

Just my two cents.

[PapaBear765]

I was a Nuke Submarine electrician way back in 1979 and stumbled across this forum a few days ago.  I note that the concerns about retention and frustrations of the job are the same they were 29 years ago.  Back then I think the re-enlistment bonus was 30K and very few were staying in.

Since little has changed in 29 years I wonder if the "problems" are just part of the nature of the business.  Perhaps the role of NNPP is to train technicians for private industry.  The industry doesn't have to be civilian nuclear power.  For example, I've heard that Intel Corporation hires a lot of Nukes.   I'm a computer geek and the thinking processes I learned in NNPP have benefited me and my employer greatly for almost three decades.

Just my two cents.

I had a similar thought a little while ago, that perhaps the navy could market itself as "join the navy and get prepared for commercial nuclear power."  With the allure of a stable job and the GI Bill for college, and other things, it would be effective at getting people in for at least the first 6 years.  The navy could even change the requirement to 8 years that would include an way engineered into the enlistment to attain a Thomas Edison like degree.  Like at the end of the 8 years (or whenever your time is up) have 9 months in which the member is no longer "active"—but not separated—and continues to get their base pay while taking online classes.

Something along the lines of enticing enlistees via the possibility of being put in a competitive position for a commercial nuclear job post-navy would be a definite way to get people in initially, then there would be some people who choose to stay in because they like it.

[G-reg]

We should come up with a slogan:

"The Naval Nuclear Power Program - it's a great stepping stone!"

[PapaBear765]

We should come up with a slogan:

"The Naval Nuclear Power Program - it's a great stepping stone!"

It would increase enlistments, which invariably would increase retention without the navy having to really improve on itself.

[G-reg]

Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back.  (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)

Good for the NNPP, good for the Navy, and good for those individuals who make it through.

The only problem is that "The Donald" would never go for an advertising campaign which took such a heretical view of his program.  (I wonder, who would get the first phone call from the Donald after he saw such a commercial...)

[PapaBear765]

Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back.  (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)

Good for the NNPP, good for the Navy, and good for those individuals who make it through.

The only problem is that "The Donald" would never go for an advertising campaign which took such a heretical view of his program.  (I wonder, who would get the first phone call from the Donald after he saw such a commercial...)

My opinion of The Don is vastly different than of Ricky.  If you switch the names in your post to use Ricky's, then I'd agree with you, but the other guy still hasn't figured out how to do his job.

[nowhereman]

"Re:How would you fix the NNPP" would seem to be in moot court territory......Some   nuke JO's are thinking about recharging their batteries on shore duty only to be "temp assigned" to IA slots in the big sandbox (how much longer till IA slots are available for nuke enlisted?)(say ...you have a falling out with command about not reenlisting, so instead of going on a  west-pac, they temp assign you to squadron, you help cast off the lines, then head over to the squadron office, and they say, "what are we supposed to do with you"......)    .........with Iran pushing their limits and Israel flexing their muscle , tension in the middle east would seem to be not falling off  for the near future..........so the question might be better suited to be Re:How would you fix the DOD........

[withroaj]

Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back.  (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)

Don't we need to work on first term retention as well?  I'm a huge fan of pumping enough people into the pipeline to weed out the little sick ones, but I get irritated when folks make first class and complain about having to take a leadership position.  It would be just swell to have enough sea returnees in sea going commands that first term folks have a lower likelihood of being put into a leadership position (I know a guy who became LPO with less than two years on board his first boat).  It might even be better if it took longer to make first (I wouldn't like it, but oh well), making people old enough to take a leadership role and willing to accept it when the time comes.

In fact, I think I would rather have better retention than a larger influx of new people.  Imagine sea-returnees on submarines having people of the same age in their divisions!

[PapaBear765]

I assume that due to the lack of a or a that you're trying to pick a fight.  You seem to do that whenever someone speaks a little too much on the FTN side of the spectrum.  You're old, you remember the saying about judging a book by its cover?  Rank has zero bearing on someone's insight; if they've had the right experiences, then they have the right insight.  Come on down off that high horse.

When I was on watch in off-hull Maneuvering when Bowman visited, he walked in, glanced around while never breaking stride as he went directly to the SRO and asked him what he was looking at on the little TV monitor that had pressure and VOWF level on it, and some questions about the various temporary control switches in front of him.

Later in that availability when Donny visited, he came down the weapons shipping hatch, grabbed the flashlight out of the COB's holster, and proceeding to look for dust bunnies.  He requested to enter Maneuvering, asked the SRO (me) some inane questions about the new Type II equipment like "What do you think of the color graphics?  Is the equipment easy to do maintenance on?"

So one guy cared about how his primary watch stander was standing watch in this abnormal condition of being in off-hull Maneuvering; the other guy cared about how effective our field day was.  I learned in the shipyard that supervisors enforce what they know.  So if you don't know jack about the plant, then you enforce cleaning.

PM me, Gamecock, if you want to hear my other thoughts.

[Preciousblue1965]

I am gonna have to side with PB here on a couple of things. 

As much as we pride ourselves on being great operators, we all know there are some nukes that are in higher places of authority based entirely on being "Yes-Men/Women" or by virtue of being in for so long that they pick up rank. 

As a prime example, and there will be people on this forum that know who I am talking about very quickly, at the Protohell we got in a 25+ year Master Chief who was slated to be an LCC.  He was placed into EOOW quals as per S.O.P. and went about his quals in a manner that was more like a PXO than a Staff in training(for those who don't know, PXO are Pilot CDRs that are going on to carriers to be the XO, basically they get the royal treatment).  Well it comes times for this guy's Final Watch Board with NRRO and he bombs it royally.  No big deal, it happens.  #2 comes up and he bombs it again.  #3(special permission required) comes and he finally passes it, barely.  Most comments are about his watchstanding ability are very poor.  However, like PB said about The Don, he was all over cleanliness, stowage, and other aspects outside of perveyance of nuclear power specifics.  I fully believed that the plant could be melting down, and as long as all the foxtails were lined up properly and all the watchstanders had a SAT haircut and shiny boots, his world would be nothing but roses.  This is just one of a few examples I know about that proves that not all those in the highest levels of leadership(this particular guy went on to be the master chief for the MTS) are techincally compentent in the arena of nuclear power.  We see it all the time with Politics, why would we expect anything less from the highest levels of brass, you know the ones that frequently have to deal with politicians. 

While I have never met "The Don" in person, I have heard accounts from others that have while in Chucktown, that he does seem to harp more on non-nuclear stuff such as cleanliness.  Whether that is just one of his pet-peeves or shows more about his level of competence I do not know.  So feel free to add to this or agree or disagree. 

[PapaBear765]

Perhaps all of the Navsea 08's were the same when they took command.  I can't recall exactly without researching it, but I don't think that Donny had a nuke intensive track record prior to his current position, so it's partly not his fault.  Maybe Bowman was the same and it took him along time to figure it out.  I met him at the very end of his 8 years and Donny in his first year, so...

I'll get to know him a little better this week when he comes for a friendly visit.

[War Eagle]

I can't recall exactly without researching it, but I don't think that Donny had a nuke intensive track record prior to his current position, so it's partly not his fault. 

Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters.  He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.

[Preciousblue1965]

Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters.  He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.

WarEagle, thank you for that information.  Honestly it does make me feel better knowing that he really does know what he is talking about.  Alluding to PB's post about him not knowing how to do his job may just stem from that unfortunate tendency that the higher a person gains in rank the more disconnected he gets from the deckplate level sailor. 

[PapaBear765]

Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters.  He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.

From: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=96

"He served as Commander, Submarine Development Squadron 12 from August 1995 to July 1997. From June 2002 to July 2003, he was assigned as Commander, Submarine Group 8; Commander, Submarine Force 6th Fleet (CTF 69); Commander, Submarines Allied Naval Forces South; and Commander, Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Force (CTF 164) in Naples, Italy. Most recently, he served as Commander, Naval Submarine Forces; Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Commander, Allied Submarine Command; and Commander, Task Forces 84 and 144 in Norfolk, Va."

It's not very good at giving a specific timeline, but it looks like he had a lot of non-nuke time in there...how often did he stand watch or oversee the shutdown maintenance plan for an engineering/reactor department as CTF 164 in Naples, Italy?  Not very often...

He "was Commanding Officer, USS Key West (SSN 722), from October 1990 to February 1993," that's a lot of down time until he took N/S 08 in 2004.

[withroaj]

It's not very good at giving a specific timeline, but it looks like he had a lot of non-nuke time in there...how often did he stand watch or oversee the shutdown maintenance plan for an engineering/reactor department as CTF 164 in Naples, Italy?  Not very often...

I would say that his resume full of submarine experience keeps him joined at the hip with the NNPP throughout his career.  As the Admiral responsible for the program I don't think he needs to have recent watchstanding in his training jacket.  While no one can get to a high position without playing the political game, I don't believe a person could become NAVSEA 08 without a great deal of technical competence.  The fact he has a great deal of command experience in other areas doesn't diminish his ability to lead the NNPP.

Maybe if someone who worked directly under him had something bad to say about him I could take the disgruntled point of view on this one.  For now I am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for getting his job.

[JustinHEMI05]

I would say that his resume full of submarine experience keeps him joined at the hip with the NNPP throughout his career.  As the Admiral responsible for the program I don't think he needs to have recent watchstanding in his training jacket.  While no one can get to a high position without playing the political game, I don't believe a person could become NAVSEA 08 without a great deal of technical competence.  The fact he has a great deal of command experience in other areas doesn't diminish his ability to lead the NNPP.

Maybe if someone who worked directly under him had something bad to say about him I could take the disgruntled point of view on this one.  For now I am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for getting his job.

I agree, technical ability/experience while nice, isn't a requirement to hold a job such as his. My company's CEO is the CEO of several companies, all having nothing to do with the other. To do his job requires more business like skills and a sense of the political arts. I am quite confident that an admiral that has never set foot on a nuclear powered vessel could do his job. Although I don't see that that could ever happen. My last site VP never actually operated a commercial plant. So what? Doesn't take the ability to physically operate one to macro-manage the facility.

Be that as it may, this guy does have nuclear experience. I wouldn't discount his ability/experience/knowledge so easily. If it is one thing I learned in the Navy, is that nuke COs are pretty much what I consider geniuses. They know scary amounts of scary information and I give them all the credit in the world for it. Now of course that doesn't lend anything to their abilities as a CO. But, good or bad, all of my CO's knew a lot of crap about a lot of crap. Besides, I don't care if the admiral knew the nitty gritty details anymore (but I bet he does), because that isn't his job. Its yours.

Justin

[withroaj]

...all of my CO's knew a lot of crap about a lot of crap.

To a scary degree, now that I think about it.  How do they know all that stuff and still do the CO job?  Someone check for plugs in their heads like on the Matrix.

Besides, I don't care if the admiral knew the nitty gritty details anymore (but I bet he does), because that isn't his job. Its yours.

And that there was the knockout punch.

[PapaBear765]

And that there was the knockout punch.

Yeah, I'm on the floor convulsing.

So if he's so well-equipped for the job and the deficiencies that I've pointed out are invalid, then why are we discussing in a forum called "How would you fix the NNPP?"  He's doing a bang-up job.

Who here is posting about the differences between the two has met both of them?

[hand is raised]

[JustinHEMI05]

Yeah, I'm on the floor convulsing.

So if he's so well-equipped for the job and the deficiencies that I've pointed out are invalid, then why are we discussing in a forum called "How would you fix the NNPP?"  He's doing a bang-up job.

Who here is posting about the differences between the two has met both of them?

[hand is raised]

Like I said, technical knowledge doesn't = ability to lead. That said, the program is what it is and saying he is responsible for the state of affairs as we see it is like saying my CEO is responsible for the state of affairs at my plant as I see it. Sorry, I just am not buying it. They are in fact far removed from the deck plate, that we agree on. But I don't have a problem with that because like I said, it isn't their job.

I have met both. Bowman on several occasions.

Comparing one to the other has nothing to do with anything.

Justin

[War Eagle]

I've met both. I interviewed with Demars.  At dinner, my wife asked Bowman if he'd ever met Elvis.  True story.

[DDMurray]

When I was on watch in off-hull Maneuvering when Bowman visited, he walked in, glanced around while never breaking stride as he went directly to the SRO and asked him what he was looking at on the little TV monitor that had pressure and VOWF level on it, and some questions about the various temporary control switches in front of him.

Later in that availability when Donny visited, he came down the weapons shipping hatch, grabbed the flashlight out of the COB's holster, and proceeding to look for dust bunnies.  He requested to enter Maneuvering, asked the SRO (me) some inane questions about the new Type II equipment like "What do you think of the color graphics?  Is the equipment easy to do maintenance on?"

So one guy cared about how his primary watch stander was standing watch in this abnormal condition of being in off-hull Maneuvering; the other guy cared about how effective our field day was.  I learned in the shipyard that supervisors enforce what they know.  So if you don't know jack about the plant, then you enforce cleaning.

I think you are assuming way too much.  Are you saying that ADM Bowman didn't use a flashlight to inspect the spaces?  Try this one on:

ADM Bowman was quizzing the SRO because he wanted to sample the knowledge of the guy in charge of the plant.  ADM Donald asked one of his prototype instructors for feedback on a system that the program is putting a lot of faith and dollars into.  They both demonstrated different styles of leadership.  I don't think you can say one is better than the other.

You could have just as well said ADM Bowman was asking me inane questions on plant status and ADM Donald had the gumption to ask a fleet operator for feedback on equipment the navy is using.

Having been subject to walkthroughs by ADM Donald, Bowman, and Demars, I can tell you there is virtually no difference on their expectations for cleanliness.  I'd say it's probably worse on the prototypes because they show students what the fleet standard is supposed to be.

I think questioning ADM Donald's credentials is barking up the wrong tree.  ADM Bowman was in charge of the detailers prior to being NAVSEA 08.  Your utter contempt of Admiral Donald is obvious.

Are you saying, if you know the plant, then enforcing cleanliness standards is not required?   I do agree that there are some who fall back on the easisest thing to look in charge about - cleanliness.  I think that more deckplate leaders, lead based on what the CO/COB/EDMC/ENG told them was a priority or needed a round turn taken on.

DM

[withroaj]

I think it is probably easy at this point with, er, MTSs becoming hot-fill billets to blame the guy at the top for being a bad leader; but we should probably take into consideration what would have happened to operators in a commercial plant if similar stuff happened.  As far as I've heard from some old proto-pals, everyone is still drawing a paycheck, even if that paycheck might not come from nuclear duty.

I think that when we get in trouble as blue shirts, we spend so much time worrying about how bad we got screwed compared to other people who messed up that we don't appreciate the fact that we still have a job.  I've been busted down in rank and put on restriction, and I spent probably six months being pissed that the next guy to stand in front of the green table got a suspended bust.  I actually got mad at the command for the situation.  It took some time to realize that the pain I experienced was nothing compared to trying to find a good job while explaining what I did to get fired from my nuke job.

Fact is, sometimes we get put in really bad situations in the Navy (even when OTHER people screw up), but the paychecks keep rolling in and we still have work to do.  Many of the problems we see in the NNPP come as a result of command response to isolated incidents, and it doesn't make any sense to blame the guy with stars on his collar for the mess.

[Preciousblue1965]

I think that when we get in trouble as blue shirts, we spend so much time worrying about how bad we got screwed compared to other people who messed up that we don't appreciate the fact that we still have a job.  ... It took some time to realize that the pain I experienced was nothing compared to trying to find a good job while explaining what I did to get fired from my nuke job.

Yes but remember by that same logic, it prevents us from "firing" those that truely deserve to never operate a plant ever again.  I know that we have the option of "denuking" a person, but I have never seen it done, and if it is still done it is not done nearly enough.  Case in point:

A young EM2(STAR baby) is sitting throtlle man on #2 Main Engine during an Ammo Onload alongside with all that entails with that evolution.  Well long story short, he gets the bright idea to DISASSEMBLE the throttle control handwheel.  Well he goes to see the captain a few weeks later, which just so happens to be the same time that half of RX department is going up for a massive drug bust.  Guy gets suspended bust and ends up an E6 6 months later.  Was still a nuke after all that. 

So while Justin is correct that it isn't the ADM's job to know the nuts and bolts of everything that goes on, it is his job to set policy and when his policy becomes "get as many through as you can, no matter what" and also "keep as many as you can, no matter what", then it does have resounding repercussions that resonate down to the deckplate level(alliteration aside). 

[Preciousblue1965]

That most definitely is NOT the policy.  That is your perception of the policy.  Did you ever hear the ADM say that?  How about the CO?  XO?  Shift ENG?  CMC?  LCC?

In fact I did, on several occasions.  One of the former PMC's at Charleston said "We are no longer a filter, we are a pump.  I control the outlet valve and it is wide open."  So yes there is the mentality that get as many through as possible on several levels.  You can see it in everything that goes on there.  From the mentality that you aren't allowed to give a student less than a 2.4 on anything other than a test.  You know why?  "It might dishearten them."  I got a stern talking to because I gave a kid a 2.3 on a final board.  This was a mechanic that didn't even know pump laws or that oil flows through bearings in parallel not series.  The Training Manager told me that we don't give students less than 2.4 if they fail.  When I told him that my interpretation was that 2.4 was close to passing and this kid was no where close, he reiterated his point.  Same thing happened when our division was "informally" told that we couldn't fail a kid on his final watch after the 3rd time.  When our LPO flat out refused to obligue the SIT and our LCC, they put him in ERLL and ran 3 drills that never affected him and put him with an ELT watchstander doing a proficiency. 

Everyone has seen the shift over the past few years.  It used to be two subject failure and you are out of the program.  When I was a staff guy at Prototype, we were getting kids that failed two Academic boards and hadn't passed comp yet.  So how is that NOT "get everyone through, no matter what".  Yea we had 2 people fail out on academics, in the 3 YEARS I was there, and that was only after the kid failed 3 comps and it was found out he couldn't be book complete before his class graduated.  That is compared to countless others that should have. Yea I stayed for hours on end after shift helping a guy out.  I even stayed on site for over 18 hours just to sit a guys FOB re-board as his EWS guy.  But it was because I believed the kid would make a decent operator over time.   

This was on the local level.  During CMC calls we were told that Bowman said "you will lower your non-academic attrition rates"  by the CMC.  So thus began so many policy changes that were rediculous.  We actually spent several hours a day going to students apartments and doing inspections to ensure they weren't living in cardboard boxes.  This wasn't Navy housing either.  Although this was started on Bowman's watch, I have yet to see any change in this thought process by Donald.  I am sure that there are others that will attest to this.