NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Navy Nuke => Navy:Getting In => Topic started by: Marlin on Sep 07, 2017, 04:34
-
I have seen a lot of posts on sub versus surface Navy. Many focus on lifestyle or career, this article intended to analyze the recent collisions is a good representation of the difference from an operational standpoint. Hope this helps those who may be trying to make that decision if that matters to you.
Collisions: Did Culture Trump Technology?
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-did-culture-trump-technology (https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-did-culture-trump-technology)
-
Very good article. Thanks for posting it.
When I was on a surface ship, I knew how to get from my rack to the head, to the mess deck and to my duty station. That was about it. My awareness of the ship was vastly different when on a submarine. I concur with the Captain who wrote the attached article.
-
The submarine force has had its share of mishaps, most recently a string of them in the 2010-2012 timeframe.
The biggest difference is the way in which submarines practice organizational control. The entire service has adopted the nuclear power model, which means that supervisors have heavy involvement and frequent monitoring of the operation of the ship. This is to keep standards high and to mitigate the risk that the article talks about - ensuring we keep the surface:dive ratio at 1:1. For example, the SWOs I know were surprised to hear that we tour the entire ship prior to relieving as OOD/SDO.
The qualification and proficiency process is also more stringent. I don't know how many QM3s or STG2s get qualified their senior watchstations by a surface CO, and I'm not sure how often he watches a GSM conduct a routine evolution, but it's probably a lot less than a submarine CO does.
The biggest surprise to me is that, according to Navy Times, the crews reported that they did not have time to train because they were underway too much. A submarine with a high optempo will very easily be 'green' in all those CTQS attributes.
I'm curious if the surface force has the same deployment preparation period cycle where the ISIC is certifying the ship at every step.
-
To be fair, there's a huge difference between doing a ship tour on a sub and a carrier. A carrier would make that 4 hour watch into a 6 hour watch, plus the OOD would be too exhausted to think straight. Maybe on cruisers or destroyers, though.
-
These were conventional SWOs serving on small boys. Carriers are a different animal.
-
What I got out of the article was a difference in culture and I cannot speak for the surface culture other than a Sub Tender and the tender sailors who worked on our boats. Simply put there are no life boats on a sub and we called the escape trunks "Mama Factor" because we operated in waters much deeper than they could be used. The sense of urgency for the maintenance, drills, and qualifications we did would seem to be more real to us than to someone who thought they could get into a lifeboat or dive over the side. The drills on the tender were more checking a box off on a to-do list than really preparing for emergencies. When he spoke of a more rigid formality in operations and less so in off watch culture that is some thing that made sense to me and I could see it in what little interface I had with "skimmers". There were also not as many people to do the wide variety of work so wearing many hats was common on the boats. Were the people better on subs? My personal bias would say yes but the environment that formed the culture difference would be the right answer.
"That's just my opinion I could be wrong" Dennis Miller
[coffee]
-
No difference at all
-
No difference at all
You mean there are life boats on subs ??? [devious]
-
I thought we were discussing people
-
I thought we were discussing people
Yes and the environment that shapes their culture.
-
Thats a bunch of BS. A nuke is a nuke
-
Thats a bunch of BS. A nuke is a nuke
That is quite a debating style you have. ::) No one mentioned nukes, if you read the article he refers to submarine vs surface in general not any particular rating and I did not mention any rating either.
-
Thats a bunch of BS. A nuke is a nuke
That is quite a debating style you have. ::) No one mentioned nukes, if you read the article he refers to submarine vs surface in general not any particular rating and I did not mention any rating either.
Come to think of it much of what he talked about was the relationship between officer and enlisted.
-
It's a nuke page. I have never once seen anything outside of Engineering affect Engineering.
-
It's a nuke page. I have never once seen anything outside of Engineering affect Engineering.
That would be mostly true for an enlisted career path one tour and out but not for officers. The current Chief of Naval Operations is a submariner.
-
That would be mostly true for an enlisted career path but not for officers. The current Chief of Naval Operations is a submariner.
We are drifting from the original subject of Sub vs surface culture and the article by a retired Navy Captain who spent time on both. My comments later were from my experience and those whose opinion I respect. The basic premise of difference in culture because of operational realities beyond operation of the nuclear plant as it would apply to someone seeking a naval career would seem relevant.
-
It's a nuke page. I have never once seen anything outside of Engineering affect Engineering.
you've lived a fortunate life,...
to wit: Engineers being affected by things outside Engineering:
-
Good day to all. After reading the attached article, recollection of the many posts I have read over the years, and taking a small bit of time to ponder, the obvious solution to the dilemma is relatively easy. The first qual on all individuals destined to command and/or navigate a vessel on the high(or low) seas qual card, would need to be that of - yes , you guessed it, the ELT. The problem I would see with this approach, would obviously be finding enough personnel worthy of that first sig on their card.
-
Good day to all. After reading the attached article, recollection of the many posts I have read over the years, and taking a small bit of time to ponder, the obvious solution to the dilemma is relatively easy. The first qual on all individuals destined to command and/or navigate a vessel on the high(or low) seas qual card, would need to be that of - yes , you guessed it, the ELT. The problem I would see with this approach, would obviously be finding enough personnel worthy of that first sig on their card.
I remember how the ELTs treated the junior officers trying to complete their Engineering Qual Cards. There wouldn't be a qualified officer in the Navy using their standards.
-
I remember how the ELTs treated the junior officers trying to complete their Engineering Qual Cards. There wouldn't be a qualified officer in the Navy using their standards.
If only they applied those same standards to themselves.