How would you fix the NNPP

[imthehoopa]

As someone who still has yet to leave for boot camp, I can't say that I look forward to dealing with the d-bags. The only thing that makes a d-bag worse is one with power. The only thing that makes a d-bag that has power worse is when that power comes from the government (I'm a Navy civilian in an engineering office now so I know the type). I've learned it is inevitable. Not what I wanted to post about though.

I've read through this entire thread and I've come down to a few problems with some suggestions. It does sound like it is WAY too easy to get through the pipeline and this is letting in some pretty dumb people into the nuclear fleet. So boot out people that are stupid... fine. That makes sense, but you guys are more familiar with this than I am. The Navy is going to get what they want (Yes, I am already pretty cynical about that). If they cannot get the numbers from the program that they want, they will throw more people at it. It just doesn't seem (and remember I'm basing this argument on things I've read from you all) like there is the capacity to handle more recruits. The number of students to instructors would go way up and the quality of training per recruit would be drastically reduced bringing you right back to having insufficiently trained people reporting to their carrier/sub. Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment, but logically it doesn't seem possible to meet these "good recruit" ideas by kicking people out of the pipeline. At least not with the limitations of current facilities and staff. This is just one part of the problem that was posted about and I felt like addressing. Feel free to ridicule anything said above.

I can speak from first hand experience.  I'm spending 15 mo of my 2 yr shore duty on IA.   

I have respect for any man or woman that has to put his/her boots in the sand. Get back to a boat safely, Narmy.

[93-383]

As someone who still has yet to leave for boot camp, I can't say that I look forward to dealing with the d-bags. The only thing that makes a d-bag worse is one with power. The only thing that makes a d-bag that has power worse is when that power comes from the government (I'm a Navy civilian in an engineering office now so I know the type). I've learned it is inevitable. Not what I wanted to post about though.

I've read through this entire thread and I've come down to a few problems with some suggestions. It does sound like it is WAY too easy to get through the pipeline and this is letting in some pretty dumb people into the nuclear fleet. So boot out people that are stupid... fine. That makes sense, but you guys are more familiar with this than I am. The Navy is going to get what they want (Yes, I am already pretty cynical about that). If they cannot get the numbers from the program that they want, they will throw more people at it. It just doesn't seem (and remember I'm basing this argument on things I've read from you all) like there is the capacity to handle more recruits. The number of students to instructors would go way up and the quality of training per recruit would be drastically reduced bringing you right back to having insufficiently trained people reporting to their carrier/sub. Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment, but logically it doesn't seem possible to meet these "good recruit" ideas by kicking people out of the pipeline. At least not with the limitations of current facilities and staff. This is just one part of the problem that was posted about and I felt like addressing. Feel free to ridicule anything said above.


I have respect for any man or woman that has to put his/her boots in the sand. Get back to a boat safely, Narmy.

You have a fairly good grasp of the problem

We don't have enough good people

We have too many bad people, if we kicked out all the bad people either we would not have enough people for the job or the good people would get so overworked they will just get out or crack

The only solution the Navy is using right now is to throw money  at the problem

[withroaj]

Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment

[
Hey now, folks.  Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid.  Sometimes new, objective opinions (I guess an opinion derived from a gripe thread isn't too objective, though) are needed to keep the organization on track.  I think that discounting opinions that come from those that are new to the game has lead to the Program's stagnant thought processes.

[imthehoopa]

Hey now, folks.  Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid.  Sometimes new, objective opinions (I guess an opinion derived from a gripe thread isn't too objective, though) are needed to keep the organization on track.  I think that discounting opinions that come from those that are new to the game has lead to the Program's stagnant thought processes.

No worries. I was expecting that. At least I was aware of that before I spoke.

[withroaj]

You're right.  It is by far the most powerful naval force in the history of humanity, but we want warm fuzzy feelings while we serve in the program. 

[withroaj]

The kid's basis for telling us how to fix the program comes from reading a thread on a website which features more disgruntled ex-navy folks postings then people currently serving.  

Very good point.  I worried a bit about posting my own little complaints here because I didn't want to demonize the program in front of new people and discourage them from joining.  I have an idea, though.

[arduousartifice]

The Navy may not be broke, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some fixing.  Do you wait until you car doesn't start to address its problems?  Same principle applies.  There is always room to improve the process.

Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals.  Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning.  Of course, from the stories I've heard of surface ship manning, they could spare some people for us submariners.  Perhaps larger submarine incentives and a shorter nuke chain of command on surface ships.  Plus, defense spending could be reduced, unless the Chinese are really such a formidable threat that we need all the boats we have, in which case, what about bringing back diesel boats?  Coners would probably love a chance to go to a boat where no one tells them they're dumb. 

Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident.  We must be doing something right.

We are.  What we do right keeps taking longer though.  The amount of supervision required to do anything keeps increasing, the watch officer is being given ever more control over all aspects of plant operation, and, during a casualty situation, especially a life of ship threatening one, that has the potential to be disastrous.  People need to have initiative, the best way to do that is not to take it away, to give more responsibility to the operators, making it truly their watchstation, rather than having a JO with 3-12 months of experience trying to play puppet master.  I have always felt that officers should only have to give one order for an evolution to happen, and after that just say very well or wait, rather than splitting things up into several orders that don't need to be.  But, as soon as someone causes a critique the corrective actions make that impossible.  Maybe sometimes it really is just a stupid mistake, and not a flaw in the way things are done.  If nothing broke, then retrain and be done with it.

[93-383]

Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident.  We must be doing something right.

You're right, however with the intelligence of some of the people I have worked with in the last couple of years makes me wonder if someday that counter will get reset.

[withroaj]

The Navy may not be broke, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some fixing.  Do you wait until you car doesn't start to address its problems?  Same principle applies. 

Dude, I've seen the tires on your car.

[HydroDave63]

Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid. 

But it helps.

[kp88]

before you act on that idea,...

"Kid,.............. Have you rehabilitated yourself?,.....

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant.

[PapaBear765]

How would you fix the NNPP?  Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that.  I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk.  Fun time.

[JustinHEMI05]

The kid's basis for telling us how to fix the program comes from reading a thread on a website which features more disgruntled ex-navy folks postings then people currently serving. 

Not to go BZ on someone, but if you don't know firsthand what you are talking about, then remain silent.  Make it through Boot camp, then NFAS, then NNPS, then NPTU.....then you might have some credibility with me when you tell me how to fix the program. 

Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident.  We must be doing something right.

Oh I was somewhat agreeing with you up until the last sentence. That last sentence and the attitude it conveys sums up in a nut shell ALL of the problems with the nuclear navy. Are you one of the officers that believes that the only thing wrong with the navy is blue shirts complaining too much?

Justin

[cincinnatinuke]

Ding, Ding.....we have a winner.

So much for being more of an "Unforgiving Nukeworker", eh?

Was their a particular part of his post you disagreed with or just the fact that he hasnt completed boot, A, power school, or prototype?  Given that rationale it seems many of us would have a problem with you posting about commercial power.  Yet no one tells you to shut it or discounts anything you say.  At least until you start preaching about blankets of freedom.

Hoopa, for someone who is just a nublet you seem to grasp a large part of the problem.  My advice is when you get there be part of the solution.

[JustinHEMI05]

So much for being more of an "Unforgiving Nukeworker", eh?

Was their a particular part of his post you disagreed with or just the fact that he hasnt completed boot, A, power school, or prototype?  Given that rationale it seems many of us would have a problem with you posting about commercial power.  Yet no one tells you to shut it or discounts anything you say.  At least until you start preaching about blankets of freedom.

Hoopa, for someone who is just a nublet you seem to grasp a large part of the problem.  My advice is when you get there be part of the solution.

What is the saying?? DING DING DING we have a winner!!! 

Justin

[JustinHEMI05]

How would you fix the NNPP?  Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that.  I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk.  Fun time.

Oh thats right. A buddy of mine who just made MMC down there was telling me about yinz being on 12s. Luckily for you though, the Admiral is going to make it worth while.

Justin

[mlslstephens]

How would you fix the NNPP?  Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that.  I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk.  Fun time.

What happened down there???  I left and the whole place went to hell in a handbasket?  PB, you've let me in on some of the nightmare and others have shared what a mess there is right now.  I feel your pain for the 12's. 
It sounds like the Admiral is bringing the hammer for some of the senior O-gangers on site and if I know him right, he's gonna swing a heavy hammer. 
Good luck PB, and all my other NPTU warriors.
Peace,
Mike

[JustinHEMI05]

When have I ever posted about what was wrong with the commercial nuclear industry???

I don't think I ever have.

Cincinnattinuke......I said I would ask folks to not be so condescending about telling folks to use a search on the site.

Man, you need to lighten up a bit. This ----->  -----> means I was having a bit of fun. Twice in one week you skipped the smiley.    <---- see this one???

Justin

[HydroDave63]

How would you fix the NNPP?  Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that.  I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk.  Fun time.

Prrraps the Admiral has been reading this humble website, and has incorporated some of our folksy wisdom...

Or maybe he's gonna yank web access for the nublets!

[NukeLDO]

before you act on that idea,...

"Kid,.............. Have you rehabilitated yourself?,.....

AHHH.....Good old Arlo!  Classic!

[G-reg]

Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals.  Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning.

I always get leery whenever I hear "reduce the number of ships/subs/planes/Marines/etc.".

At any given moment, there is a submarine on station in each of at least four different geographical areas.  (And sometimes more than four areas, and sometimes many more than just one submarine in a given area.)  In addition to this, there are a number of submarines in drydock at any given point in time.  And in between drydock and deployment periods, a submarine has a whole host of training/inspections/certifications that it has to accomplish.  And golly, every once in a while, it's nice if a submarine actually gets to pull in and sit in home port for a brief little bit so its sailors can spend time with their families.

So just how many (or more to the point, how FEW) submarines do you believe it takes to cover all of these bases?  Try playing the role of Admiral on this, and see how many chess pieces are really required just to stay in the game here.

Or should we maybe just draw down to the size of, say, the Iranian Navy?  Or maybe the French Navy would be a 'good enough' model?  I'll spare the long and detailed rant on this and get straight to the point: there is a definite (and often forgotten) deterrent value in the size of our Navy.  As a pertinent analogy, remember that criminals look for soft targets that they're confident they can beat; nobody wants to get into a fight where they know that they're just going to get their *** kicked.  [Their "asterisk" kicked, get it?]

But the bottom line is that cutting the number of ships isn't really a viable option.

Of course, from the stories I've heard of surface ship manning, they could spare some people for us submariners.

As an MMC(SS/SW), I've seen the surface Navy - and thank you, but I'd rather be short handed...  

what about bringing back diesel boats?

The debate on this is on-going.  My personal line of thought is that a handful of diesel boats for close-to-home defense is probably worth some merit.

I'm still a big fan of the theory back in the Ronnie Reagan Cold-War-Spending days - bring four Nukes into the program for each job vacancy you have, and let the best one out of those four pull himself to the top and reach the fleet with a Nuclear NEC (and an enlistment bonus) of his very own.

Just my own thoughts...

Peace,
 - Greg

[Preciousblue1965]

I'm still a big fan of the theory back in the Ronnie Reagan Cold-War-Spending days - bring four Nukes into the program for each job vacancy you have, and let the best one out of those four pull himself to the top and reach the fleet with a Nuclear NEC (and an enlistment bonus) of his very own.

Just my own thoughts...

Peace,
 - Greg

Well one problem with this is that there aren't 4 people for ever vacancy trying to sign up for the program that are initially qualified to attempt it.  That leaves two options:  Allow less qualified people to attempt the program or find a way to lure more qualified people to the program.  I am sure most of us would agree that option 1 is not the best one(even though that is the apparent direction the Navy has decided to take).  That really just leave option two.  How do we bring in more people that would actually make it through if we returned to to the attrition rates of the 70s and 80s?  Well(as unpopular this is going to be) I would suggest that we make it more difficult to go to college.  Nowadays, just about anyone can go to college either through Lottery scholarships, specialized scholarships, and federal loans and grants(this also leads to many other problems when schools realize that if they raise their tuition, the government will just give the student more and more money when people complain about the high cost of school, which just repeats the cycle).  If it were more difficult for people to pay to go to college, they would more than likely look at other ways to get it payed for such as the MGIB.  Hence recruiting goes up and we start getting more and more recruits to choose from.  We still wouldn't get the super steller types that get free rides for academics, but we would at least get those low A/high B students that weren't offered that free ride.  Right now the only way we get them is if they fail out of college from partying too much and lose their scholarships or their parents cut them off or in rare cases they join for other reasons like family tradition, see the world, or something to that effect. 

Well that is my 3 cents worth.

[withroaj]

Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals.  Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning. 

At any given moment, there is a submarine on station in each of at least four different geographical areas.  (And sometimes more than four areas, and sometimes many more than just one submarine in a given area.)  In addition to this, there are a number of submarines in drydock at any given point in time.  And in between drydock and deployment periods, a submarine has a whole host of training/inspections/certifications that it has to accomplish.  And golly, every once in a while, it's nice if a submarine actually gets to pull in and sit in home port for a brief little bit so its sailors can spend time with their families.

So just how many (or more to the point, how FEW) submarines do you believe it takes to cover all of these bases?  Try playing the role of Admiral on this, and see how many chess pieces are really required just to stay in the game here.

I think arduousartifice's suggestion might have to do with current U.S. foreign policy and whether or not we need all of those ships everywhere.  I don't really know if I want to put my two cents into this.

[withroaj]

Those sort of decisions are made by folks who wear stars on their collars. 

The current 30 year ship building plan calls for a 313 ship navy.  I don't know if we'll get there, but that is the plan.

Let's throw some reactors into IOWA-class!  I will gladly go there.

I do have a question here that comes from a part of my daily reading:  http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html ran an article on USN Maritime Strategy vs. DoD National Defense Strategy issues. While it is not an official US Navy site, it does offer published documents from DoD and DoN.  It looks like DoD's strategy is counterinsurgency/anti-terrorism while DoN's strategy is Cold War II/World War III.  Why the difference and does it mean anything?

[G-reg]

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html

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