Fixing the Navy will take far more than money

While plans have been announced to increase the US Naval fleet to 350 ships, it will take a lot more than money to fix what's wrong with our current Navy. As it stands now, almost 2/3rds of Navy F-18s are grounded, as many as six submarines are facing decertification, maintenance is being canceled on ships, or is running long when it's done.

As bad as that is, there's a far bigger problem with the Navy. Ethics. The problem is being seen in all services, but in the last 20 years, the Navy has taken its increasing lack of ethics to staggering new heights.

One only has to see how many commanders have been relieved in recent years to see something is going on. But then the 7th Fleet, and Naval Surface Warfare Medical Institute cheating scandal truly drove home how bad the situation has become.

During the cheating scandal, 31 students were kicked out of the school, 13 were discharged, and two leaders were fired. Investigators uncovered text messages between students involved talking about corrupting students not involved, to prevent them from blowing the whistle.

Until the Navy fixes their ethics problems fixing the fleet is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

taskandpurpose.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow.
I had no idea things were this bad.

a reply to: butcherguy

Everyone has been so focused on the more visible maintenance problems that they've been able to keep the scandals, as bad as they were, relatively quiet.

It's expensive to run a Navy in the modern world.

First: Ship Maintenance. This is the everyday equipment from power generation to propulsion to air conditioning.

Second: Detection systems. This is all the radars and electronic detection suits. They have to be maintained, maintenanced, repaired when broken, and kept up to date.

Third: Weapons Systems. Everything from Guns to Missile Launchers, all require extensive maintenance, repairs and also upgrades.

Forth: Training. Not any Joe can walk in off the street and work on these systems. People need to be trained, given experience and have that training kept up to date. And: They need to be retained to help train the newer people.

I can remember the 80's when we were working towards having a 600 ship Navy.....then the Cold War died, and so did our ships, as they were decomissioned one after another. Ships that had been pulled out of mothballs, converted and modernized (some still had old coal fire boilers), hand new systems put on were used for just a few years, and were then decommed and mothballed again, or scrapped, or sold off to some other country.

I also remember when training was serious.....no one cheated. If you did, out you went.

a reply to: eriktheawful

There was a recent article I'll try to find on our down time about an alumni visit to the Air Force Academy. It was pathetic. They walked into quarters of a group of fourth year cadets, and they didn't even stand up. The guy that wrote the article said it was UCLA with a uniform.

There are 2 other major problems.

1.Cost over runs for example there were supposed to be 32 Zumwalt destroyers but as the price ratcheted up to 4 billion a piece there will now only be 4,and even at that ammunition costs 800,000 a round so they cant shoot at anything to practice.

2.Poor design or suitability,whether the Navy has too much input on as to what they want these days or whether they are just wined and dined by contractors these days taking what they offer I dont know but new categories of vessels often pose major concerns about combat lethality and survivability when subjcted to independant analysis the $360 million dollar Littoral combat ship being an example

a reply to: khnum

Fixing the other problems is important, but until they fix the ethics and personal responsibility issues cited, fixing those problems will result in ending up in the same situation or worse.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My younger sister is in the Naval Academy at Annapolis. She's a third year cadet, and I'm not sure if she is familiar with all these ethics problems you have mentioned.

I'll make a point to ask her about it the next time she's in town. This should make for some interesting conversation.

She usually greets my military conspiracy convos with a quizzical smirk as if to say 'where on earth did you hear that?'

a reply to: Zaphod58

Last year they had to increase the acceptable body fat percentages to 26 per cent body fat for men and 36 per cent for women,10 per cent in the last few years have failed the physical theres more HR dramas than ethics,but er yes we have an interesting 4 star General choice and many other interesting appointments to replace those dismissed

I'm surprising myself by thinking this way, but just lately, in the light of what has happened to the US and Russian fleets since the end of the cold, I am starting to think that the Royal Navy's strategic plan for its fleet is the way forward.

Despite its size the Royal Navy is number four in the world in terms of power. The six Type 45, Defender Class Destroyers, designed with a specifically tailored "Air Defence" capability are proving effective. Queen Elizabeth, the first of two of its class is nearing the end of its construction phase. Along with The Prince of Wales, the two largest vessels ever built for the Royal Navy at Sixty Thousand tons, are both scheduled to enter full service. With the planned Type 26 Frigates (The Global Combat Ships) and the Trident Renewal Programme the Royal Navy, although perhaps not ruling the waves, looks set to be able to punch well above its weight in terms of projecting naval power globally.

There have been set backs and hold ups, such as with the F35 of course, but I am more optimistic regarding Britain's naval future than I have ever been in my lifetime. I am hopeful for the future of the Royal Air Force and would like to think the issues facing the Army are not insurmountable.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Some of the things I've seen people get away with in the last 10-15 years is mind blowing.

Around 2005 or so, we got word at Hickam we were getting a brand new C-40 assigned to the base, to join the C-37 that had recently been assigned. The only thing was, no one knew anything about the C-40.

It turns out, the Admiral in charge of Pacific Fleet at the time had decided he didn't like the C-37, because he couldn't take as much luggage or support staff, etc. He told the Pentagon he wanted a larger C-40. Pentagon said no. He back channeled through Boeing to order one for Hickam for him to use, totally bypassing everything.

His punishment? Retirement with full benefits.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yah, things like that were starting before I got out in the 90's.

Had some new guy telling me about "Time Out" in boot camp.

I was like: Whut?? What the hell are you talking about?

His answer: if a recruit was having a hard time adapting in boot camp, they could call for a time out, and are pulled from their company and allowed a couple of weeks off from boot camp in a special company.

My mind was spinning at that. In my day, if you couldn't adapt, you did more push ups, more sit ups, more running, more DI in your face screaming at you. If you still could not "adapt", you were shown the door with a Entry Level Release, meaning: You're not military material.

No idea what it's like now. I know my oldest son went through AF boot camp in Texas, and he didn't recall any of that crap. All he could remember was: lots of push ups, marching, running, and getting yelled at.

a reply to: eriktheawful

In Great Lakes RTC in 1980, I remember recruits that had issues with authority and they were sent to a special company where they got drilled and 'mashed' extra hard to clear that problem up. If it didn't clear up, they were discharged.

US military is nothing like the past where just peasants join up, build and fight. They expect everyone to know everything, so the rest can sit back and not do a thing to help. Mind as will replace engineers with robots.

a reply to: Zaphod58

partisanship in the military is not going to help things either. i can almost smell the scandals coming...

a reply to: khnum

I always had issues with the Navy body fat standards. I went into boot camp at 6'-2", 170 lbs. By the time that I got done with it, aircrew school and Search and Rescue school I was 234 lbs. I was always in the top 10% in PT, but because my neck, chest and waist measurements didn't match up with their chart I was out of shape. According to their chart in 1985 over 65% of professional athletes were "out of shape".

One thing that isn't mentioned is that the original intent of the Body Fat standard was to eliminate senior enlisted personal before they reached retirement. The wanted to change the look of the Navy and save money, so they got rid of the experienced senior enlisted and promoted younger people who fit the image that the Navy wanted. That loss of experience was the beginning of the discipline problem.

It used to be enough to be good at your job, now it is the "complete sailor" that they want at the expense of doing the job.

I'll definitely agree. Even the last 9 years that I've been in, theres been a huge downturn in the people were getting. Right now I'm an instructor at one of the nuke school prototypes, and the kids showing up are garbage. Theres such a push for maintaining fleet manning that stuff that I wouldn't have dreamed possible when I went through the program is happening. I just blame the generation that were in. Everyone seems like they are entitled to something. I've made it my personal goal to squash that mentality, and everyone in my division is onboard. Overall good thread though zaph.

To note, I think the problem lies not so much with the higher up ethics either. A lot of it is the Navy trying to trim the manning of a lot of ships by installing a lot of systems to make everything easier, and make it so one person can do what would have taken 5 people to do. Look at the LCS program. They made all these self sufficient systems that were supposed to make it so they could man them with a quarter of the crew and then as fate would have it, those systems sucked and those guys were pulling 19+ hour days to keep everything running. So to go along with ethics, I think they need to reevaluate their priorities and stop trying to cut corners.


Edit: None of the subs are up for decertification. They've extended a couple hulls for a bit due to the Miami fire.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I also remember when training was serious.....no one cheated. If you did, out you went.

Ultimately, that's the only thing that'll fix this problem. Cheat, get caught, out you go, dishonorable discharge at the least.

Enlisted or Officer, junior or senior, matters not in the slightest. No ring-knockers saving your ass. You act dishonorably, you're gone. Retirement? **poof** what retirement? College? **poof** what college?

Draconian. No second chances. Ultimately, we're talking about the lives of not just their fellow sailors and marines, but the civilians who rely on them doing their jobs correctly.

a reply to: truttseeker

They're talking more towards the end of the year if it happens for the subs, not the immediate future. But that's according to higher, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're pushing things.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: eriktheawful
Enlisted or Officer, junior or senior, matters not in the slightest. No ring-knockers saving your ass. You act dishonorably, you're gone. Retirement? **poof** what retirement? College? **poof** what college?

Draconian. No second chances. Ultimately, we're talking about the lives of not just their fellow sailors and marines, but the civilians who rely on them doing their jobs correctly.

When an officer or senior enlisted can be removed because of an anonymous complaint, it is never going to happen.