NukeWorker Forum

Career Path => Navy Nuke => Navy:Getting In => Topic started by: latenuke on Nov 24, 2004, 06:26

Title: ET vs. ELT
Post by: latenuke on Nov 24, 2004, 06:26
Hi, Im going to boot camp in February and was wondering which people on here think is better, being an ET or being an ELT. I scored well on the ASVAB and the NAPT (nuke test) and have alot of college behind me, so I think they will let me be an ET if that is what I request. But is it better to be an MM, study real hard, do real well and then hope to get picked up as an ELT?

By better I mean more challenging, more interesting or varied shipboard duties, better job oppurtunities if/when I decide to leave the Navy?

Thanks in advance for any input anyone here has.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Chelios on Nov 24, 2004, 07:16
The answer to this really depends on what you would rather do. If you like electronics, electrical theory, vector analysis, etc, then go for ET. If you like working with wrenches, valves, pumps, welding, etc., then go with MM. Of course, it may ot matter, the Navy is going to fill their needs first. I applied for ET and got EM. There is no guarantee that you will be picked for ELT school. If they don't perceive a need, they might not even have an ELT class when you graduate. Once you get out though, if you have been nuke trained, you can get a job as an HP no matter whether you're an ELT or not. It'll just take a little longer to make senior tech. If you want a job as a control room operator, being an ET/RO will probably open the door a little easier. Another thing they look at when you get out is whether you served in a supervisory position while in the Navy - LPO, ERS, EWS, EOOW, etc. Good Luck
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: LaFeet on Nov 24, 2004, 07:47
Hope for the choice, but be ready to do your best with your assignment.  I elected for Mao Mao when I went in, and "trician" as my second choice.  I retired as a Reactor Operator.

If you chose RO (ET) then I suggest you try to secure a billet at a RADCON tour in your later years-  preferably at a TRF (Bangor or Kings Bay).  This will give you the extra RADCON experience to round out your HP skills before you hit the streets.

Good advice about qualifying those Senioor Supervisory Watches.  They help and allow you to demonstrate leadership skills.

I have been out for only 5 years now.. and the RADCON market is only gettng better... I may even try a few outages this year too boot...  Good luck - Fair Winds and all that naval stuff
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Nov 24, 2004, 08:23
Y'know what?   Just do what you want to do.  Okay?  Just do the thing that looks like more fun.  Being an ELT is not the be all and end all of nuclear power.  My time as an ELT got me nothing more than a ton of duties that I was "allowed" to complete after finishing all my work for Machinery Division.  It got me on the Preventive Maintenance Schedule for two divisions, rather than one.  It got the AEF to wake me up with section one regardless of the fact that I was not in that watch section.

Did I hear someone say that it got me a job as an HP?  I can't stop laughing.  EVERY Navy nuke, and everyone else whom the Navy qualified to use a frisker, can get a job as an HP.  Don't know why you'd want one - it pays $6 per hour less than a laborer and $12 an hour less than a Boilermaker.  Operators START at more money than HP's make after ten years.

Anyone who is willing to admit to the truth will tell you that getting picked up for ELT school had one major determining factor - if you are a Machinist's Mate who displays no aptitude for handling tools, you will get into ELT school.  ELT school is the Navy's way of correcting the mistake of letting people become MM's when they should have been ET's
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Chimera on Nov 25, 2004, 08:58
Speaking (okay, writing . . . okay, key punching) as an ex ET/RO who is now a roadie HP Tech, I would reccommend both equally.  You get more reactor theory and operational theory as an RO.  You get more chemistry and radcon as an ELT.  When I first started in civilian life as a road Tech, I was envious of the ex-ELT's scope of knowledge at HP Techs.  It seemed that nothing I learned as an RO really prepared me for the type of work I was doing or the tests I had to take as an HP Tech.  The only "advantage" I had was the ability to learn and learn quickly.

If your future goals are to go into Operations and Plant Management, stick with the ET/RO choice.  That will help you the most in future civilian License Training classes.  Use your Navy time to finish that degree . . . it gets harder the longer you put it off (too many other claims on your time).

Good luck and remember to always have fun with what you are doing . . . even when you don't feel like it's very much fun.

Michael
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: rc41 on Nov 25, 2004, 02:07
I think Beer Court flunked out of ELT school.  Personally, I get paid as an HP a little better than a Laborer or Boilermaker.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Nov 25, 2004, 05:33
I think you're dreaming.  The Contract HP's here get $23/hr, with time and a half for all overtime.  Journeyman Boilermakers earn $35/hr, with double time on Sundays, Health insurance, and Pensions.  Laborers run at about $29.
Any HP who thinks he's well paid compared to other plant workers would be really heartbroken if they started asking around.  House HP's are paid much better, but not nearly what house operators are.  They're about equal to Instrument techs, and a little lower than QC/QA/QI type people.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: latenuke on Nov 25, 2004, 07:35
Thanks for your points of view. Im decided, I am going to ask for ET and then give 110% to whichever rating Im assigned to.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: dav8 on Nov 25, 2004, 07:48
Quote
It got the AEF to wake me up with section one regardless of the fact that I was not in that watch section.

I think that has to be the best quote I've heard in awhile, one that only ex-underway ELT's would understand.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 01, 2004, 03:18
I think Beer Court flunked out of ELT school.  Personally, I get paid as an HP a little better than a Laborer or Boilermaker.

I agree with Beer Court about this but I turn wrenches just fine (built 2 cars as a hobby) and it got me lots of extra work in the engineroom when I didn't have samples to do.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Harshman on Dec 03, 2004, 01:55
Beer Court may not have made thru ELT school, may have. His descriptor is the clue..."crumudgeon at large..."

Each of the rates has pluses and minuses. ELT was a collateral duty. However, duty ELT on a Boomer was the end all if you wanted rack or movie time. More than a human could handle.

IMHO, latenuke, you have chosen the correct path.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 03, 2004, 03:19
I otta schmack ya fer that.  ELT was absolutely not a collateral duty.  Only the lazy non-ELT's in M-Div. thought so.  They expected us to carry the same share of M Div. watches, PM's and training as they did.  But, my PRIMARY NEC was 3366.  (ELT)  It was my primary duty, and I was lucky if the MLPO gave me half a day a week to do it.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 03, 2004, 07:05
Hey back in the old days (1988) I passed my last chiefs exam in 30 mins. and my Personnel officer on Swordfish told me that their were at least 22 MM's going to be promoted to E-7 because LELT was made a chiefs billet to separate M and RL divs. so I guess that tells me that ELT was not a collateral duty but ELT's that did M div. work were doing a collateral duty. I stood sonar operator and ERS watches as underway ELT and also had to change demin resin cause that nasty old M-div chief told me that the demin were my gear.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 04, 2004, 01:13
I otta schmack ya fer that.  ELT was absolutely not a collateral duty.  Only the lazy non-ELT's in M-Div. thought so.  They expected us to carry the same share of M Div. watches, PM's and training as they did.  But, my PRIMARY NEC was 3366.  (ELT)  It was my primary duty, and I was lucky if the MLPO gave me half a day a week to do it.

I hope he meant  from an M-divver point of view. I know that's how mine thought (being an ELT was a collateral duty). My ELT's were also 3 of the 5 M-Div QAPO's and, at one time, 4 of 6 were E-6 (M-div had 2).

I don't know what boomer he was on, but our ELT was busy (usually the junior guy had it). Expected to be up at midnight, drills on the morning watch, training/maintenance on the afternoon. Mix in a few MO watchstation quals. He also got most all the pm's. The rest of us only had a very few. I was only the ELT for 1 of 6 patrols (the first). After that, it was all M-Div watchstanding.

T'was nice though. I was the LELT after 3 patrols and qual'd EWS. Got to spend the last 2 patrols as mid EWS/Ships Drill Coordinator. (i.e. no rubber suckin'  :D)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Marlin on Dec 06, 2004, 09:39
   I experienced all of the above as an ELT. On a typical patrol (SSN) I was continuously busy during transit with operational plant chemistry and the ever present drills. On a number of occasions I went a day or more without seeing my bunk. When we arrived on station the reverse was true I had about one hour of work each day as there were no drills, no maintenance, and NO NOISE. This was a boon to the junior man on board as you are probably a Non-qual at this point and it gave you an opportunity to work on the myriad of qualifications that you must complete on schedule (Basic Engineering Quals, Ships Quals, Watch station quals). Non-quals where a burden to your division or department which meant giving up your seat at movies to those wearing thier Dolphins and the periodic checks of your ever present qual cards by your "Sea Daddy" assigned to monitor your qualification status (Can you say Dink?). Being delinquent on your quals made you lower than whale manure.
   My M-division work tended to be linked to being an ELT. We performed more of the primary plant work for maintenance and stood watches on mechanical watch stations that had collateral chemistry functions. When I qualified EWS I still was required to perform a minimum of ELT watchstanding functions to maintain my ELT qualifications.
   As far as becoming an ELT the selection was made from MM volunteers. It was made clear that if requesting one of the instructor billets from the graduating class it looked better if you also volunteered for ELT.
   As with any military job the needs of the service will always prevail. Three months prior to a ship yard overhaul all of the ELTs on board were handed the ship yards version of our Rad Con manual and were told to qualify. The next 10 months we took control of the ship, drydock, and supporting barge radiologically ever weekend (I still dread the thought of bottle checks).
   As for the choice of MM and ET, I had the highest electronic scores of the nukes in my bootcamp company and was still selected for the MM rating (alas higher mechanical scores too). Once you enlist they own you. With that said I do not regret having enlisted. Go in with your eyes open, fight for what you want and accept what happens. I believe that most got what they requested, but not every one will. Poor morale is not in the Navy's interest but the needs of the service will prevail.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 06, 2004, 09:49
Marlin is correct, once on station the non qual has plenty of time to get quals done I was underway ELT my first deployment and got my Ships qual done in time to drink my dolphins in Yokosuka as we did 3 spec ops that deployment
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 06, 2004, 10:40
Most of my time underway was ELT, Engineroom Forward, or ERS.  (ERF had the secondary sample sink , and the ERS was free to go to it if there was no ELT there)  The way that worked out was that I did almost no secondary chem when ELT, and all of it when not.

At one point, ELT's followed by M-Div. were the first Silver Dolphin divisions on board.  We could sign about a third of the SS qual card, which meant we never had to wait long for someone to bring us coffee on watch.  It also made the ELT duty about as lazy ass as it gets.
Here is my schedule as underway ELT after I got my quals:

1700  Wake up, shower eat dinner.

1800  Do routine rad surveys or pm's

2000  Watch movie

2200  Close out day's logs, finish any surveys already started, start new logs for next day, goof off or work on other quals ( I was the only MM on my boat to qualify as throttleman.)

2300  Eat midrats

0000  Start background check on one scaler, sign out of old day's log.do daily turbidity and conductivity analyses, buffer check sec. pH meter

0020  Switch to other scaler, start background check, buffer pri. pH meter, do daily contam survey of valve op areas.

0030  do source check on scaler, set up lab for primary sample, source check all friskers, count smears from daily survey

0100 watch SS movie.

0300  start primary sample

0400  clean up nuc lab, graph everything for the day, get graphs reviewed, do pm's on that day's schedule

0500  eat breakfast, put wake up call in COW's book.

0600  Read a book until I fall asleep
SLEEPZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ until 1700 or until that $%#%^#$% AEF wakes up section one - whichever comes first.

I never had to qualify EWS.  By the time I was ready to, I got transferred to another boat and the same thing happened again.  Then I got out and joined the human race.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 06, 2004, 10:59
I stood sonar operator and ERS watches as underway ELT and also had to change demin resin cause that nasty old M-div chief told me that the demin were my gear.

According to the Enginnering Department Orgainization Manual, "...(the ELT) shall have no other duties."  Standing Sonar or Planesman watches for the fun of it was OK, but being ERS was not.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: moodusjack on Dec 06, 2004, 06:12
When I was on the Long Beach in the 70's the only thing ELTs did was ELT.  They did scoop a couple of us for throttle watch.  But that was it.

Hey, hell on board this ship was defined as the color of purple in a white little bowl.  Master-o-arms ccollecting all the shower valve.  And talk about hideout...and hideout return and rapid blowdown following a scram.  Yowsar.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Flooznie on Dec 06, 2004, 08:12
Who your M-div chief played heavily on how the elt's got screwed on the boat.  Esp if your LELT was a 1st.  We had this bad M div chief for a long time that said that "being an ELT was a collateral duty", and all elts worked for m-div.  If you had a M-div chief that was an ELT, you really didn't have to worry about much.

ET1 (SS)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: LaFeet on Dec 06, 2004, 09:39
Come On Beer Court.....

Either you were flogged daily, or your boat was one of the unusual ones.

I RETIRED as a RO....EWS...BCE...RCSS....etc,etc.. and the "Duty ELT" was only second to the ship's Corpsman with regards to "Rack Burn" severity.

If you had it that hard.. I feel sorry for you... on my first boat we ALL pitched in.  I rigged out many a MSW or ASW pump underway as well as replaced MG bearings at PD.  And yeah... I qualified as secondary chemist to help out the beleagured ELT Division personnel.  i  guess it all came down to which boat and which crew you managed to draw....it sounds like you were on the troubled Greenling crew....

Any how -  it seems you have done well and are happy with where you are at. 
Me too -

BTW   they did not come up with the term SMAG for no reason.... ;D
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 06, 2004, 09:58
You need to go back and redo the math.  I got all my work done every day with enough time for two movies, three meals, and thirteen hours in the rack.  I read hundreds of books while underway.

It was in port that they stuck it to us.  Since the MLPO was an EWS, and in SIX SECTION rotation, he was never out of the goat locker long enough to bother us at sea.  Besides, stuff rarely broke on the newer boats.  But, put a mooring line one turn around a cleat, and they had us standing 12 hours on watch and doing maintenance all night every duty day.  I never used the rack in port for over five years.  Only coners, RO's and officers got to sleep on their duty day.  Then they kept us the next day until 5 or 6 p.m. to do training, PM's, loading oil and water, or just waiting for them to let us go.  Only the LELT and one other ELT were cut loose on weekdays to do all the RL Div. stuff.

I always preferred being on land, but needed to get out to sea just to get some rest.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 07, 2004, 08:18

If you had it that hard.. I feel sorry for you... on my first boat we ALL pitched in.  I rigged out many a MSW or ASW pump underway as well as replaced MG bearings at PD.  And yeah... I qualified as secondary chemist to help out the beleagured ELT Division personnel.  i  guess it all came down to which boat and which crew you managed to draw....it sounds like you were on the troubled Greenling crew....

What Navy was this? I never saw (nor would I have wanted to see) a white stripe snipe rigging a pump.

On second thought, we did all pitch in together when it was time to replace the SCRAM breakers at PD on mod alert (whoda thunkit? We got the first polarity sensitive scram breakers in the sub fleet, and they were wired in backwards!) I guess we all pitched in when the rubber REALLY met the road.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 07, 2004, 05:24


According to the Enginnering Department Orgainization Manual, "...(the ELT) shall have no other duties."  Standing Sonar or Planesman watches for the fun of it was OK, but being ERS was not.
 

What year was this, cause in the early 80s that was the way it was and the engineering dept. org. man. got thrown out the window if your chem radcon asst. was a kiss ass from the academy and wanted to make points I didnt stand sonar for my health and once I qualed ships my MLPO thought I had way to much time on my hands to just do my ELT routine. I did alot of maint. and other watchstanding when underway as the ELT.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 07, 2004, 06:07
You just got screwed by a spineless LELT, among others.  The Eng. on my first boat could quote any procedure or regulation from memory.  Nobody was going to violate one and get away with it.  As far as the CRA goes, they were always the most green officer on board.  The day they got promoted to a "real" division officer job, we got them into the nuc lab and pantsed 'em.  We'd let tham keep the belt to wear the TLD on, but they had to go to maneuvering and retrieve their trousers from the EOOW.  Ssome of those boys were big and it took about five or six of us to do it, but we always got the pants.  Whether they were tough or tiny, every one of them put up a good fight, and they were all good sports about it.
I came to believe that the CO put them with the ELT's just so we could toughen them up a little.  Nobody was as bad as ELT's for irreverence.  We made them earn our respect, and let them know when they were screwing up.   Most of them came aboard looking like deer in the headlights, but by the time they got away from us, they were pretty well broken in.

WARNING!!!!!  All you baby nukes out there better not try to repeat this.  It is punishable by court martial to assault a commissioned officer.  You may not get ones as easy going as we did.  You aren't supposed to address them by their first names, and it is also not advisable to acknowledge an order by saying "blow me", but I've seen that happen too.  You really really really have to be sure about the officer to whom you are speaking before you attempt such familiarity.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 08, 2004, 11:15
"The day they got promoted to a "real" division officer job, we got them into the nuc lab and pantsed 'em"

we put their mattress in the freezer after we soaked in with water got several admonishments from the XO when he could keep from from laughing and you dont even want to know what we did to midshipmen
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 08, 2004, 12:00
is it better to be an MM, study real hard, do real well and then hope to get picked up as an ELT?

By better I mean more challenging, more interesting or varied shipboard duties, better job oppurtunities if/when I decide to leave the Navy?

Thanks in advance for any input anyone here has.

To help get back to the point of this thread, I have included the original question.

My input is that you are better off with an IMA (tender, NSSF, TRF, LMLOP) RADCON tour in the middle of any of the options. You will have the opportunity to perform RADCON or Nuclear Repairs (maybe even both!) in a different environment than the sub. The CVN's have their own IMA, so you could get an assignment there but it wouldn't be my advice.

An EM / MM / ET with a RADCON tour is in good shape for transfer to commercial HP. Just make sure you are getting out soon afterwards, or you will get stuck in that billet again for your next shore duty!
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: darkmatter on Dec 10, 2004, 04:59
To the original question by latenuke, I was a ELT, so I'm slanted toward that way as a career choice.

A far as the dispute between scruffy and beer court. I see a Temporal Rift in their perspective. I date from the 70's in the Nuke Navy fast attack sub and we worked more like scruffy's description then beer court's lounge around sluggo lifestyle. (sorry beer court, that just the way I see it, no real malice intended)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 10, 2004, 07:21
I don't know if I'd call it lounge-around sluggo lifestyle that I got to slack off ONLY when everybody else was, and had to carry the same M Div. load as all the other MM's before they let me do my primary duty.  I didn't consider it a vacation that I spent most weeks in-port getting no sleep at all every third day and working from 0600 to 1900 the other two.

I wonder who was cleaning the ERLL bilges while scruffy was sitting in the sonar shack.  On my boats that was the prerequisite to doing any RL Div work.  I can't figure out why he had to be ELT and ERS at once when the ERS watch (a total waste of manpower except for startup and shutdown) was secured most of the time.

I didn't choose to be a MM or an ELT.  I was simply told that I would be.  At the time, it didn't really matter.  But, anyone who is given a choice should not be biased by the opinion of this (predominantly HP/RP) forum.  We all went one way, but that doesn't mean that it is the best way.  After all, ET's "stood" most of their watches in a chair.  Their uniforms didn't get too dirty.  None of their equipment was under a half a foot of oily water, and didn't contain any dead marine creatures.  When they get out, they can fix computers instead of surveying reactor cavities.  The only civilian job that ELT "qualifies" you for is a job that any Navy nuke can get because essentially anyone who can operate a Masslinn mop is already on this career track.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 10, 2004, 09:54
I don't know if I'd call it lounge-around sluggo lifestyle that I got to slack off ONLY when everybody else was, and had to carry the same M Div. load as all the other MM's before they let me do my primary duty.  I didn't consider it a vacation that I spent most weeks in-port getting no sleep at all every third day and working from 0600 to 1900 the other two.

I know my schedule as ELT was a lot different than yours. No way we could get that much sleep in a day. We were up at 2300. Primary, source checks, morph add on the 00-06. Drills on the 06-12 (every day except Tues (field day), Sat & Sun), Training, surveys or quals on the 12-18. 18-23 was for sleep. Sometimes he could catch some extra sleep or a movie on sat or sunday if we weren't doing ORSE or TRE workups (the last half of every patrol).

I couldn't wait to get off ELT & stand an MO watch. Best time I had was standing the 00-06 EWS every night and running drills on the 06-12 (ships drill coordinator) my last 2 patrols.

Had to love that 8 section EDPO duty in port too. ;-)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 10, 2004, 10:32
It's all about time management, my friend.  The trick is to never be doing one thing when you can be doing two.  Never pass by one job on the way to another.  If you're going to do a weekly survey, catch the daily at the same time instead of doing them in sequence.  Efficiency can cut the daily routine of the ELT down to about two and a half hours.  The rest is for periodic stuff like surveys, reading TLD's, PM's etc.  That should take less than four hours per day (on average).  Quals doesn't take any time when you're already qualified.  For some reason, I must have been on the only three subs that didn't qualify everyone as EWS.  It was not an option.  You didn't get to start the EWS card until you were given one.  Since there were already too many, we had to wait in line for someone to transfer off.  I always hated those jerks who refused to stand the other watches after they qualified EWS.  There were plenty of dog-tired lower level watches and a lot of rack back EWS's.

Not that this is aimed at you, but if every ex nuke who claims to have been an EWS actually was one, there would have been nobody in the whole fleet standing Engineroom Lower Level, AEA, or Reactor Technician. (As I said above: once an EWS, never stand ERLL again.)  Since most of us did six and out, less than half of us were ever senior enough to get the EWS card.  And still there were too damned many of them.

Running drills four days a week, six hours a day is one hell of a good way to piss off the crew.  It is also not practical when you're too busy sneaking up on a Russian to be making all that noise. I guess if you're doing nothing but turning circles, and you have the fast attacks to protect you, you can thrash about all you want.  It's not like Ivan would have been able to find you anyway.  (The people who make Polish jokes never heard of the Soviet Navy)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 10, 2004, 11:48
Being on an FBM meant a few extra surveys associated with those things that may or may not have been there.  ;-)
Missle compartment surveys (weekly) tended to take a couple hours. We also were responsible for all the hot line equimpent inventories.

Like I said, we gave the ELT to the newest guys. That was the first thing we qualified. It was expected to be qualified BEQ, ERLL &, ERF by the end of the first patrol (not to mention SS). Not a lot of extra time. Once the guys were fully qualified, it tended to be better. I never wanted to stand it again though.

The CO's policy on our boat was all LPO's and leading 1st's were to be EWS qualified.  Being the LELT meant I didn't have a choice. We were only 4 section anyways. The only person who (sometimes) came off the watchbill was the bull (and he stood his fair share considering his other responsibilities). The LPO's were the only ones standing EWS at the time I did.

As for drills, nothing noisy when on alert. FI's, Emer. RC entrys, spills, dump half the ER, stuff like that. But we had to do it since we only had 2.5 months to get ready for a major inspection. We had either an ORSE,r TRE  or TRE/TCP at the end of every patrol.

And we didn't need any fast boat. You couldn't hear us anyways. I recall one instance on a Super Bowl sunday. Playing games with some SSN, CO got tired of it & put us shallow with a wire out so we could catch the game. Meanwhile, there's an SSN below us going all over the place trying to find us (but can't) since we're not running pumps. They were not happy, but couldn't do anything since our CO was so senior.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Marlin on Dec 11, 2004, 09:42
   Well Latenuke it seems you have more information than you really need. We had a term for this kind of disparity in experience... "Ustafish". Tours on a ship lasted about three years then you were transfered, there was always comparisons made to someones last assignment. It was better, it was worse, and then of course nothing ever changes. (Sounds like a break room during an outage come to think of it).
   My experiences spanned 1970 to 1978. When I enlisted they were offering M-16s and a swamp to new high school grads, we were always fully manned. When I qualified EWS in 1975 which is normally a more senior watch station with more perks, the draft had ended and retention dropped. I found myself dragging my feet on completing my EWS quals until the M-Div chief threatened to make me port and starboard EWS trainee under his instruction. I found myself on a three section watch bill or less for most of the rest of my service. Well thats my "Ustafish" story you will hear plenty more.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: taterhead on Dec 11, 2004, 01:11
If I am not mistaken, this whole thread has only covered the sub side of MM-ELT and ET.

In my carrier experience, the ETs and ELTs only compete in one area...the time they spend in the rack.

A RO qual'd ET had a fat watch rotation, while there were always plenty of ELTs (you only needed one per plant, per watch anyway).

ELTs had their own berthing, ETs didn't.  They had to live with the EMs in the cavernous 150 man berthing on the 2nd deck.  The ELTs have their own division, their own division office, own ELT Chief and DIVO.

ELTs had to qualify SIR on mechanical watchstations, but only stood them for proficiency.ETs qual'ed and stood RO/SRO, IW, RT, and 4th deck watch.

Either way, you really couldn't go wrong on a carrier.  IF you like to play Mr Wizard, try for ELT.  If you like to push buttons and stuff, be an ET.  But remember, you can choose ET(sorta), but you cannot choose ELT.  Before you hang your hopes on being an ELT, you better resign yourself to being a plain old mechanic, just in case you don't get picked up.

I feel so sorry for you sub/former subbers.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 11, 2004, 01:34

I feel so sorry for you sub/former subbers.

You got it wrong from me. I loved being busy. I'm the sort that lis always trying to learn something new. Tended to annoy the s*** out of people with all the questions I'd ask (still does <g>). I'd be doing forward surveys, stop off at the sonar shack & spend a couple hours learning about sonar. or go into radio & listen to AFRS for a couple hours (instead of watching a movie).

I liked standing MO watches (even the occasional RO/EO UI). Doing just RP/Chem all the time was boring.

I stood a lot of COW/DIVE UI watches just for the heck of it, could operate any of the fire control/section tracking party stations (but only got to do time-freq for real).

Once I  was assigned as the ship's drill coordinator & turned over LELT , things got a lot busier for me but it was great. Coming up with new & better ways to make the guys suck rubber. ;-)
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 11, 2004, 01:39
Don't pity me.  I had no "workday" hours at sea.  If I stood a midwatch, I could sleep in the daytime.

There were no gangs, drug use, homosexual activity (There were gay men; they just behaved themselves and left that on shore), or any of that surface crap on a sub.

Boot camp ended for us at the gate of boot camp.  We didn't have to relive it for six years like the skimmers.

My Dolphins actually MEANT something.  They were not an imitation of anything that ever went before, and up til now, I've never seen a girl wearing them, and I probably never will.  If that sounds sexist, I'm sorry.  But women were wearing Surface "Warfare" pins long before they were allowed on combatant ships.  Kinda tells you what those things really meant.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 11, 2004, 01:51
Boot camp ended for us at the gate of boot camp.  We didn't have to relive it for six years like the skimmers.

You got that right, some of the stuff I hear about from the target guys where I work had to do....

It says something when you really can just walk up to the Captain (full bird) and say hi . Or even better, he'd walk up to you and say hi and knew who you were.
I was informed of the birth of my daughter while performing the primary analysis at about 0200 when I felt a presence behind me in Nucleonics. Turned around, and there was the CO with his secret clipboard in hand. Thank god I decided to wear gloves that day.   ;D
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: CharlieRock on Dec 11, 2004, 02:43
Just thought I'd add my two cents...'

One of the above posts talked about things like berthing on a CVN.  The fact is that if that's your driver - thing again. First, the berthing assignments varies on every CVN.  When I was an RC DivO on CVN-74, the ET berthing was a nice 50 man just forward of the forward mess decks.  The ELT berthing was a nice space also, just aft of the RIM room.  Both were quiet and comfortable.  On the CVN-75, ELTs and ETs were living in huge 150 man berthings. Noisy, bright and busy.  Berthings vary by ship and even change over the ship's life.

Second, I've never seen much difference between ELTs and ETs, in terms of work load or post-military employability.  These two rates seem to be the most employable.  As an ELT, you'll stand a good number of mechanic.  ETs get sucked into other watches as well.  Just ask the ETs standing Fourth Deck Watch on CVNs.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: scruffy on Dec 11, 2004, 03:37
I don't know if I'd call it lounge-around sluggo lifestyle that I got to slack off ONLY when everybody else was, and had to carry the same M Div. load as all the other MM's before they let me do my primary duty.  I didn't consider it a vacation that I spent most weeks in-port getting no sleep at all every third day and working from 0600 to 1900 the other two.

I wonder who was cleaning the ERLL bilges while scruffy was sitting in the sonar shack.  On my boats that was the prerequisite to doing any RL Div work.  I can't figure out why he had to be ELT and ERS at once when the ERS watch (a total waste of manpower except for startup and shutdown) was secured most of the time.

I didn't choose to be a MM or an ELT.  I was simply told that I would be.  At the time, it didn't really matter.  But, anyone who is given a choice should not be biased by the opinion of this (predominantly HP/RP) forum.  We all went one way, but that doesn't mean that it is the best way.  After all, ET's "stood" most of their watches in a chair.  Their uniforms didn't get too dirty.  None of their equipment was under a half a foot of oily water, and didn't contain any dead marine creatures.  When they get out, they can fix computers instead of surveying reactor cavities.  The only civilian job that ELT "qualifies" you for is a job that any Navy nuke can get because essentially anyone who can operate a Masslinn mop is already on this career track.

Well Beer court I guess I was just too senior to dive the bilge you see I was the only E-5 in my nuke school class and was the senior E-5 on my boat in enginneering had already taken the E-6 exam when their was no one secondary sample qualed then they had to have somebody aft of frame 52 to do them. You guys must of had one boat in bad condition because both of my boats that I was on never had more than 6 to 8 inches of water in the bilge ( except when the Swordfish was sinking then the water was above the ERUL deck) you guys should have taken better care of your boat! Apples and oranges you were in a Navy that was post cold war a different set of rules.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: taterhead on Dec 11, 2004, 03:40
Boy- that got a rise.

Background:  I am a surface (CVN72,76)  MMC working at a shipyard with 6 submariners (First classes)  working for me.  

I have had to go aboard every sub here for one reason or another (QA).

Just based on their comments and my observations, sub life seems a little tougher.

Don't get me wrong, big props to you sub guys.  I just wouldn't want to do it.  Likewise, there are some aspects of surface life that are hard for subs guys to live with.  Just ask my guys...

Again, I wasn't bagging on subs.  There is a job that has to be done and you guys do it/did it.

Hey beer court...no drug use?  Wow.  That's saying something.  Might be the first command I have ever heard of with *0* drug use.  I never saw any gangs , but I have heard stories.  I guess the differences between sub life and surface life are like the differences between living in a small town and a big city.  With the size and convenience goes the crime and traffic.

To each his own.



Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: mattrev on Dec 11, 2004, 03:58

Well Beer court I guess I was just too senior to dive the bilge

Wasn't such a thing on my boat. At one point we had 11 MM1/SS' out of  23 in M-Div (4 of 5 ELT's) . Everybody dove bilges.
Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: Already Gone on Dec 11, 2004, 04:50
Well Beer court I guess I was just too senior to dive the bilge you see I was the only E-5 in my nuke school class and was the senior E-5 on my boat in enginneering had already taken the E-6 exam when their was no one secondary sample qualed then they had to have somebody aft of frame 52 to do them. You guys must of had one boat in bad condition because both of my boats that I was on never had more than 6 to 8 inches of water in the bilge ( except when the Swordfish was sinking then the water was above the ERUL deck) you guys should have taken better care of your boat! Apples and oranges you were in a Navy that was post cold war a different set of rules.

There were four E-5's in my NPS class.  I was one of them.  I made E-6 one week after my 22nd birthday.  I dove the damned bilge just like every other guy who pulled his own weight.  If a MMCM or a Lt.Cdr. can be there with me, then you weren't too "senior" as an E-5 who took the E-6 test.  We had a name for guys who didn't get dirty; we called them "riders" whether they were ship's company or not.  Anyone who didn't clean the boat was a passenger. 
If you never had slimy water in your bilge, you must have had the luxury of going up to PD to pump them once in a while.  We didn't stay up that long very often, and wouldn't risk the noise.
I'm sorry you had the impression that I was "post-cold-war" as you put it.  I guess all those soviets we were tracking were just out for a joy ride.

Title: Re: ET vs. ELT
Post by: RCLCPO on Dec 18, 2004, 03:15
Now, now..........y'all be nice.

There's plenty of feather ruffling to be had between sub guys and surface guys, ETs and ELTs, etc.  I've seen more than one alcohol-induced combat scene due to surface and sub sailors being in the same pub, but we don't need that here.