Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface

Author Topic: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface  (Read 11744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tylor

Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« on: Feb 07, 2015, 12:26 »
I'm still on the fence about volunteering for subs after speaking with a few of the chiefs up here at NY prototype. I've heard that advancement to E-6 is a little quicker on subs, (apparently 80 percent vs roughly 65 percent for surface) but I've always heard that it's faster to pick up chief on a surface ship. I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on the factors affecting these statistics. Can you qualify EWS faster on surface? Or do you spend more time as a second class, so by the time you put on first class you can start in EWS qualifications? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-EM3 Buchanan
"There are no extraordinary men... just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with." -Admiral William Halsey

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #1 on: Feb 07, 2015, 02:09 »
I'm still on the fence about volunteering for subs after speaking with a few of the chiefs up here at NY prototype. I've heard that advancement to E-6 is a little quicker on subs, (apparently 80 percent vs roughly 65 percent for surface) but I've always heard that it's faster to pick up chief on a surface ship. I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on the factors affecting these statistics. Can you qualify EWS faster on surface? Or do you spend more time as a second class, so by the time you put on first class you can start in EWS qualifications? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-EM3 Buchanan

That is because there is more room for the mobile crane and rigging ;)



On-topic: Making rank depends upon getting good evals from a fair chain-of-command. Quals and work habits should affect that more than the type of vessel. YMMV.

Offline GLW

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #2 on: Feb 07, 2015, 08:38 »
Sea Warrior: Maximizing Human Capital

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2003-06/sea-warrior-maximizing-human-capital

The foundation of "Sea Power 21" is our people. Navy men and women—here, returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom—will be asked to deliver unprecedented offensive power, defensive assurance, and operational independence to joint force commanders with a level of responsiveness never before achieved. It is imperative they be prepared—either on station or poised to surge—to immediately employ combat capability. Sea Warrior is how we are going to build the sailor to run the Navy our nation demands.

Nobody Asked Me, But. . . - Is ‘Warrior’ the Right Word?

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-12/nobody-asked-me-%E2%80%98warrior%E2%80%99-right-word

In 2006, the Naval Institute Press published Joseph Callo’s John Paul Jones: America’s First Sea Warrior ... for discussion of the Sea Services. The themes have changed with the times, in terms of threats, technologies, ... . Then in the past decade the term “warrior” began to appear in articles, commentaries, ...

and then this,...



somehow "Sea Warrior" just seems so,.....................wrong,...

"Chief" works just fine,...

I think "Sea Warriors" are more like this:



I'm jus' saying,.... [coffee]



« Last Edit: Feb 07, 2015, 08:58 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #3 on: Feb 07, 2015, 09:20 »
somehow "Sea Warrior" just seems so,.....................wrong,...

"Chief" works just fine,...

I think "Sea Warriors" are more like this:



I'm jus' saying,.... [coffee]

Whether it was Iron Age or the Twitter age....,either way it involves lots of partially dressed dudes, paying homage to Neptune in various less-than-completely-hetero forms, some things never change? ::)

« Last Edit: Feb 07, 2015, 09:21 by HydroDave63 »

Offline GLW

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #4 on: Feb 08, 2015, 04:35 »
 ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline spekkio

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #5 on: Feb 08, 2015, 01:13 »
I'm still on the fence about volunteering for subs after speaking with a few of the chiefs up here at NY prototype. I've heard that advancement to E-6 is a little quicker on subs, (apparently 80 percent vs roughly 65 percent for surface) but I've always heard that it's faster to pick up chief on a surface ship. I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on the factors affecting these statistics. Can you qualify EWS faster on surface? Or do you spend more time as a second class, so by the time you put on first class you can start in EWS qualifications? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

First, instead of going by 'I heard' (famous last words in the Navy), why not use Google? The advantage of being in the military is that all this stuff is open-source:

http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/documents/Active%20PAO%20Cycle%20223.pdf

EM1 sub advancement opportunity: 83%
EM1 surf advancement opportunity: 32%

EM2 sub advancement rate: 25%
EM2 surf advancement rate: 8%

The main reason for the discrepancy is that people in the sub community tend to leave a lot more often than people in the surface community. This creates more openings for E-6 and thus more advancement opportunities. At the E-5 level, there are so many STAR reenlistments that advancement via the normal pathway is very difficult.

The punchline: If you are thinking of making E-6, I hope that serving 8 years of AD is in your plans because it's going to be tough to make E-5 otherwise.

Having said that, your decision tree is a little screwed up. You stand a better chance of being promoted if you do are doing a job that you enjoy more, as well as the job that affords you more time to study for the advancement exam. You should not choose a community based on your opportunity to make Chief. If you separate, your chances of making Chief are 0%.

To your other questions, it's difficult for people to give you an accurate comparison of surf vs. sub because few people have served on both platforms. I can only tell you what I've heard second hand about carrier life, and it's probably out-dated because most people I talk to were serving during the height of the surge in OIF and OEF, which meant deployment, fix-er-up in 4-6 months working round the clock, deployment. According to them, carriers do 8-10 month deployments instead of 6. According to high ranking officers, carriers are moving permanently from a 32 to 28 month deployment/maintenance cycle with a surge period before/after to increase time on station.

What I can tell you is that you should consider things like:
"Can I take leave to go to my cousin's wedding when we are in-port, or is my CO going to deny it because the watchbill can't support it?"
"Do I enjoy having my own rack and locker space?"
"Do I mind sleeping in someone else's funk?"
"Do I want to spend my entire in-port time on deployment fixing a deep fat fryer when everyone else is out having a pint with the Scotts?"
"Do I like being constantly tired from 14% oxygen?"
"Do I like having 'working hours' with taps and reveille?"
"Do I want to be on a vessel with several different mess areas, or one with a tiny mess area that can't fit everyone?"
"Do I want to be on a ship that has to share mess/recreation/training space, or one that has separate spaces for all 3?"

Offline Tylor

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #6 on: Feb 08, 2015, 01:37 »
I appreciate your thorough response. I do know a few people who have served on both, after being disqualified from subs. They've advised, with no real reason why, that I should go subs. I really love my job, and I want to be the best I can at it, but I would hate to be working my ass off, consider myself the best electrician on my ship/boat, and constantly get snubbed for advancement or LPO positions. My huge career goals are doing staff pick up here at prototype, getting qualified EWS/LPO on my first sea duty, and coming back as an instructor at A-School/Power School. I haven't seen any proof that one platform would help me achieve those more than the other as of yet.
"There are no extraordinary men... just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with." -Admiral William Halsey

Offline spekkio

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #7 on: Feb 08, 2015, 01:46 »
I appreciate your thorough response. I do know a few people who have served on both, after being disqualified from subs. They've advised, with no real reason why, that I should go subs. I really love my job, and I want to be the best I can at it, but I would hate to be working my ass off, consider myself the best electrician on my ship/boat, and constantly get snubbed for advancement or LPO positions. My huge career goals are doing staff pick up here at prototype, getting qualified EWS/LPO on my first sea duty, and coming back as an instructor at A-School/Power School. I haven't seen any proof that one platform would help me achieve those more than the other as of yet.
Well, the gist of my post in a roundabout way was that the platform is not going to provide any of that for you. The job is going to be very similar either way. You're going to stand some watch, do some maintenance, do lots of cleaning, etc. The biggest difference is the daily quality of life, and if the promotion rates tell any story it's that surface EMs stay in for the long-haul more than sub EMs.

It's good that you have long term goals, but don't lose sight of the short game. You still have to get qualified on a ship and get some experience before you start thinking about being a first-tour EWS qual.

If you do get picked up for staff pickup, consider that you're probably smart enough to eventually score in the 70th percentile or better in the E-6 exam.
« Last Edit: Feb 08, 2015, 01:48 by spekkio »

Offline GLW

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #8 on: Feb 08, 2015, 07:54 »
I appreciate your thorough response. I do know a few people who have served on both, after being disqualified from subs. They've advised, with no real reason why, that I should go subs. I really love my job, and I want to be the best I can at it, but I would hate to be working my ass off, consider myself the best electrician on my ship/boat, and constantly get snubbed for advancement or LPO positions. My huge career goals are doing staff pick up here at prototype, getting qualified EWS/LPO on my first sea duty, and coming back as an instructor at A-School/Power School. I haven't seen any proof that one platform would help me achieve those more than the other as of yet.

I served on both, albeit I was surface 34 years ago and subs 28 years ago,...

And yet the threads have been consistent here and at other forums over all the decades,...

Subs make a bit more money, subs advance in rate a bit quicker, subs put in longer hours (particularly painful when in port), subs seem to have a less desireable practical outcome on sea / shore rotation, I did and still suspect that is mostly due to the high rate of separation in the sub community trickling through and impacting the sailors still on forces afloat,...

And now looming on your event horizon is a new source of sub sailors unexpectedly being unavailable for deployment on that 6 month WestPac that you were gonna miss a good part of because you had orders to various schools and C schools in Papa Hotel,...

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,25368.0.html

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=37996.0

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,38586.0.html

If you're qualified, available and ship's force, you will be making that deployment and the unavailable sailor will be attending your schools,...

This scenario has happened every now and then, over many decades, to undeserving sailors, so we're not discussing a new paradigm here, we're just pointing out the percentage chance of you being the unhappy recipient of that unhappy cancellation of a "sweet deal" will assuredly go up by some percentage,...

Submarines have smaller crews, these specific changes of plan will always impact a small pool of qualified specialists harder than a large pool of qualified specialists, that's just how it is and how it will play out,....

The reason to be on a submarine is becasue because you want to be on a submarine,...

After that, everything else just goes with the job,...

Any misery index you incur will be much easier to bear if you are doing what you want to do,...

I converted to nuke machinist mate because I wnated wanted to operate the engineering spaces of a submarine,...

Everything else was gravy with a few dough balls thrown in,...




you'd think I could take the time to hit spell check every now and then  :P ;) :) 8)
« Last Edit: Feb 08, 2015, 11:33 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline spekkio

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #9 on: Feb 08, 2015, 10:03 »
I served on both, albeit I was surface 34 years ago and subs 28 years ago,...

And now looming on your event horizon is a new source of sub sailors unexpectedly being unavailable for deployment on that 6 month WestPac that you were gonna miss a good part of because you had orders to various schools and C schools in Papa Hotel,...
If the EDMC is doing his job, no qualified watchstanders will be scheduled to attend schools during deployment.

Offline GLW

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #10 on: Feb 08, 2015, 10:54 »
If the EDMC is doing his job, no qualified watchstanders will be scheduled to attend schools during deployment.

Well, things do change,...

in another day, decades ago, sailors could be and were left in Pearl Harbor to attend several career specific and career enhancing schools at the SUBASE, they would then fly out to the boat and meet it in say Subic or Yokosuka (or San Diego for an "EastPac"),...

most typically ETs, ICs and EMs as MMs were chronically undermanned at all times,...

and typically, just as often, the same number as met the boat overseas would fly back to PH in a reverse scenario,...

but then, things do change,...

.............no qualified watchstanders will be scheduled to attend schools during deployment.

as an afterthought, back in the day, non-quals would never get this deal,....

the deal was essentially a reward for hard chargers and those who had "paid their dues",...

perhaps, back in the day, the EDMCs were allowed a different discretion in motivating personnel and maintaining morale,...

perhaps, those days before Big Navy pushed much of the Rickover Effect into the deepest recesses of the collective memory,...

which is all good for the OP to know, so the OP can understand that the harder the OP works, and the more capable the OP becomes, the more and more the OP will be expected to shoulder the full burden all the time, with little to no (intangible but deeply appreciated) nod to the OP's efforts with a bit of what we used to trope as "nuke RnR",...
« Last Edit: Feb 08, 2015, 11:22 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

HeavyD

  • Guest
Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #11 on: Feb 09, 2015, 09:06 »
Expanding the pool of competition for submarine advancement.

http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2015/NAV15021.txt

http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2015/NAV15020.txt

To echo everyone else, you volunteer subs because you want to.

Best of luck and thank you for your service!

Offline Tylor

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #12 on: Feb 09, 2015, 05:40 »
I'm pretty level headed, and although I believe subs are awesome, and I like the idea of the job that sub EMs have more than surface, I can't bring myself to sub vol. When I think surface EM I think load dispatcher in a very industrial setting. When I think sub EM I think doing lots of maintenance, having a deep intimate knowledge of your platform, and knowing everyone you work with. If I knew subs would be better for my career goals, I would volunteer in a heartbeat. I like subs, I've talked to some great submariners who love their jobs. I like to think I would make a good match with the sub community. Every time I think about volunteering for subs I can't because it seems like I'm shooting myself in the foot. I feel that if I apply the same submariner work ethic to my job on a surface ship, that it would be much easier to stand out and get advanced. For me the navy is all about learning as much as I can and getting those upper level qualifications to set me up for civilian life.
"There are no extraordinary men... just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with." -Admiral William Halsey

BetaAnt

  • Guest
Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #13 on: Feb 10, 2015, 11:43 »
Research the billet availability. Back in the 80's, they separated nuke from non-nuke E7 billets. That resulted in glut of E7 nukes (most E6 nukes will destroy a non-nuke in knowledge, testing and evals). [SadPanda]

I PNA'd E7 three times due to a lack of billet availability (2 E7 billets and 2500 applicants). Sometimes you will have a command pad your evals (4.0+, you signed off God's qual card to create life on earth and you instructed Jesus on water walking) O:) O:) O:)

Becoming E6 is easy on a sub (once qualified, few distractions). Targets give you more social skills (ability to draw a golf ball through 1" braided tygon tubing). ROFL

But, then again, having both SS/SW pins are kinda cool. [navy sub]

Do what you like, get EXTRA schools, get out and work for a utility. Military life ain't what it used to be. With political draw-downs looming, the Navy will start early retirement on some units and the submarine service will be next. :'(

Good Luck,

BA  8) 8) 8)

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13527
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #14 on: Feb 10, 2015, 12:50 »
   When I enlisted part of what motivated me to join the Navy instead of the Army as a helicopter pilot was the fact that most nukes went to submarines at the time (70). I was an avid SciFi reader and Star Trek fan. Life on submarines seemed to reflect life on a spaceship or in the case of Arthur C Clarke's Deep Range about a future where we lived farmed and ranched in the sea with subs. Reality came later  ;). There is a legacy I was not aware of that I really did not learn much about until I was out of the Navy. We had the WWII battle flags of the two namesakes of my boats and it was cool that we had them but I did not know anything about them. We can thank Rickover for naming boats after cities and states,"Fish don't vote". My SubVets chapter has a model of the USS Barb that we display at events it's battle flag is the only one that has a train on it's battle flag. The crew went ashore and planted explosives on a bridge and waited for a train to ensure the bridge was destroyed to detonate it. On a couple of the Star Trek episodes Captain Kirk would tell his crew to forget about me save my ship. In reality two WWII submarine captains made that decision John Cromwell and Howard Gilmore. All of this is a romanticized reason to be in submarines to wear the breast insignia with a long tradition. A more practical reason is the same reason many do not go to subs. There are longer hours and fewer people to do a spectrum of work and responsibilities. You will wear more hats and gain more experience (YMMV) that has more to do with personal growth instead of Navy career growth. Small crews of any kind of military unit make for a tighter interdependent group. Most of the missions of the boats today is not that exciting for a nuke we are "power and light" department someone has to be a "Red Shirt"  ;D. It is not that there are not some very vital missions done by the boats the most decorated submarine in US history was the USS Parche 1974 to 2005. I wish I could have done an IceX or something like that but standard Fast Attack patrols was all my boat did when I was on them I just missed an under ice north pole surfacing on one of my boats.

None of this perspective occurred or mattered to me until years after I was out but if the eventual BTDT is of any value it may be something to consider.



http://www.ussnautilus.org/undersea/gilmore.html

http://www.ussnautilus.org/undersea/cromwell.html

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Parche_(SSN-683)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/03/20/navy-commences-participation-in-icex-2014.html

Offline GLW

Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #15 on: Feb 10, 2015, 08:48 »
..... I wish I could have done an IceX .....

PACSUBICEX 1-82 (IIRC) was the deployment highlight of my eight year, three months and six days in the USN,....

Unfortunately it occured around days 200 through 220 of my 1293 days underway on nuclear power,...

Which means the other 1000 days or so were a bit blase,...

ah well,.... [coffee]

wanna know my most visceral hangover from the canoe club?!?!?!?

coffee,...

yup, I am an inveterate coffee drinker, probably 48 ounces per day on a time weighted average,...

do you know how hard it is to keep pearly whites pearly white with a coffee obsession?!?!?!?

well, it's not easy,.... [coffee]

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13527
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Making Chief: Subs vs. Surface
« Reply #16 on: Feb 10, 2015, 09:20 »
wanna know my most visceral hangover from the canoe club?!?!?!?

coffee,...

yup, I am an inveterate coffee drinker, probably 48 ounces per day on a time weighted average,...

do you know how hard it is to keep pearly whites pearly white with a coffee obsession?!?!?!?

well, it's not easy,.... [coffee]

I drink a pot a day and sometimes two.  :o

  [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee] [coffee]





 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?