Author Topic: US Navy Woes  (Read 4996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2018, 23:56:52 »
My point is that 10 hours will never equal 10 hours in the logbook.

As far as money is concerned, it is not the solution; it is part of the solution.  At least in the private sector you get compensated for your overtime....  I feel if the government was paying for military overtime, our time would be better utilized... 

Offline dapaterson

    - a scruffy-looking nerf herder.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 424,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,973
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2018, 00:05:33 »
All military pay includes an overtime factor.

That said, because COs never see Reg F pay, it's assumed away as a sunk cost, and people's time is treated as worthless.  So you end up incentivizing saving $75 on TD flights that take six hours longer - because we assign zero value to the six hours of wasted time.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2018, 00:20:46 »
All military pay includes an overtime factor.

That said, because COs never see Reg F pay, it's assumed away as a sunk cost, and people's time is treated as worthless.  So you end up incentivizing saving $75 on TD flights that take six hours longer - because we assign zero value to the six hours of wasted time.

Does it account for 10-15 hrs of overtime every week?  Because that's what most fighter pilots do.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,054
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2018, 00:24:19 »
Does it account for 10-15 hrs of overtime every week?  Because that's what most fighter pilots do.

Come sail with an MH Det sometime, princess.

We will show you what "overtime" really means...

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2018, 00:29:19 »
Come sail with an MH Det sometime, princess.

We will show you what "overtime" really means...

I like how you resort to naming to get your point across.   Very mature.   I can play who has the bigger penis too....  but I am better than that.  I was responding to a claim that there is overtime taken into account in our pay.  I was asking if that was meant the overtime I am used to.  Not suggesting we have it harder than anybody...  but I guess you do.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,054
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2018, 01:00:59 »
I like how you resort to naming to get your point across.   Very mature.   I can play who has the bigger penis too....  but I am better than that.  I was responding to a claim that there is overtime taken into account in our pay.  I was asking if that was meant the overtime I am used to.  Not suggesting we have it harder than anybody...  but I guess you do.

My point is: you consistently trot out the line of just how hard fighter pilots have it.

Guess what: lots of people have it hard in the CF.

I am not suggesting, BTW, that MH folks need special treatment. It is, what it is...

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 105,994
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,946
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2018, 05:52:02 »
Alright both you fine folks, I think both your jobs are equally cool!  Now be nice  8)

Here is a funny story about time wasting.  2011 MAPLE GUARDIAN/RESOLVE (can't remember if they changed the name yet or not).  It's early November in Alberta so the temperature can fluctuate from anywhere to +10 during the day to -20 at night.

We are doing a Battalion air mobile insertion via helicopter to conduct a deliberate attack.  The kicker is the helicopters we were using were American and they had to leave the next morning so what do they do?  They insert us 20 hours before the attack so we can 'exercise' an insertion.  Also, we are under weight restrictions to get everyone in so we had to leave all snivel kit back at P6. 

Well wouldn't you know, it goes from +10 to about -15 that night  :rofl: I had fallen asleep on the ground and woke up to prep my kit and I couldn't move my arms or legs and was shivering uncontrollably.  None of us brought sleeping bags (the big army one doesn't really fit in the day bag when you've got a 522, ammo, water, etc).  The boys and I stood around in a circle hugging each other for a couple of hours before we moved. 

All of that so some Senior Officer could watch a Battalion insert via a helicopter.  The whole scenario was completely illogical as we sat for 20 hours only a few km away from the objective. 

My point, what's your time worth to the CAF?  Exactly Zero  ;D
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 06:05:37 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,028
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,768
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2018, 05:56:32 »
Come sail with an MH Det sometime, princess.

We will show you what "overtime" really means...

We love having you guys on board.  You guys can really curtail Sea Training with you're "work-rest ratio requirements". 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2018, 07:40:03 »
We love having you guys on board.  You guys can really curtail Sea Training with you're "work-rest ratio requirements".

Amen to that, brother.   :nod:

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 520,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,647
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2018, 08:38:35 »
..... TD flights that take six hours longer - because we assign zero value to the six hours of wasted professional reading (undisturbed by family, dog, etc) time
   :nod:

(Note: while it may be part of professional reading, airline time may not be the best opportunity for catching up on trends in aviation terrorism   :facepalm:  )

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2018, 08:53:40 »
My point is: you consistently trot out the line of just how hard fighter pilots have it.

Guess what: lots of people have it hard in the CF.

I am not suggesting, BTW, that MH folks need special treatment. It is, what it is...

I relate to what I know.  I am not going to give MH, LRP or transport examples simply because I am not part of the communities.  But yes, keep calling me names..

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,271
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2018, 11:14:21 »
I relate to what I know.  I am not going to give MH, LRP or transport examples simply because I am not part of the communities.  But yes, keep calling me names..

Kind of like your RMC days here. ;D

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2018, 11:54:56 »
I relate to what I know.  I am not going to give MH, LRP or transport examples simply because I am not part of the communities.

And that is, of course, perfectly reasonable.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,054
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2018, 15:16:40 »
I relate to what I know.  I am not going to give MH, LRP or transport examples simply because I am not part of the communities.  But yes, keep calling me names..

I apologize for hurting your feelings.

Nobody who is posted to an Op Sqn of any flavour should have any expectation of an 8-4, 40hr work week.

It just does not work that way.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2018, 16:31:37 »
The issue at hand is what drives people - who require effort and money to recruit and train - out of the CF (and US Navy, etcetera).

"Expectations" or not, things eventually become dissatisfiers, and people with marketable skills will, in many cases, bail when dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers. And who can blame them? Who should expect anything otherwise?

I enjoyed the two police helicopter trials that I flew in 1999 and 2000. Peel Region was the hardest work that I've ever done in a cockpit - mainly due to the operating environment (most of our patrol area was within Toronto International's control zone) - but very satisfying. I came in, checked weather, briefed, and flew three two-hour patrols in a ten-hour shift, was paid 1.7 times as much as my Class A pay, had no responsibilities outside of the cockpit, and no real irritants. It was a pretty good deal.

I can certainly understand others leaving for better things.

Many of those people would, however, elect to stay if their conditions were improved - which would likely be much cheaper than paying to train replacements (especially as newly-Winged Pilots will take many years of operational flying to become as effective and useful as the ones that we are losing.

What is wrong with somebody pointing that out, using his community as an example?

My first three flying tours - 427 Squadron, 444 Squadron Lahr, and 400 Squadron Downsview, were all very good postings (except the ignoranus "running" 444 Squadron during my last two years there). We flew one or two (and sometimes three) trips daily, left work at a reasonable time each day, and had comparatively little BS make-work/PC crap to do. Life was good in those days - but we were not as short of people then as we seem to be now, either, so unpaid overtime was not necessary.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,136
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2018, 15:01:47 »
This might cause some woes--start of lengthy piece:

Quote
Is Secretary of Defense Mattis planning radical changes to how the Navy deploys?

A typical carrier deployment from Norfolk goes like this: A tearful goodbye on the pier, a trip across the Atlantic, then one or maybe two port visits in Europe before heading through “The Ditch” and into U.S. Central Command territory. There you will stay for the bulk of the cruise before returning the way you came.

Those days might be coming to an end.

The Navy and Pentagon planners are already weighing whether to withhold the Truman Carrier Strike Group from deploying to U.S. Central Command, opting instead to hold the carrier in Europe as a check on Russia, breaking with more than 30 years of nearly continuous carrier presence in the Arabian Gulf. But even more fundamental changes could be in the works.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has made clear as the military’s top civilian that he has a very different vision for how the military will be used in the future. And recent comments have hinted at big changes on the horizon for the Navy and how it deploys.

In testimony last month, Mattis twice compared that kind of predictability to running a commercial shipping operation, and said the Navy needed to get away from being so easily anticipated.

“That’s a great way to run a shipping line,” Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee. “It’s no way to run a Navy.”

But as Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford drive towards new ways of employing the fleet, changing the way that fleet deploys will put pressure on its existing deployment model, forcing the Navy to rethink a structure that governs nearly everything it does — from manning and training to its maintenance cycles.

In an era of great-power competition with China and Russia, Mattis describes the Navy showing up where it’s not expected, making deployments less burdensome to the fleet and its families but more worrisome to a potential adversary.

“The way you do this is [to] ensure that preparation for great power competition drives not simply a rotational schedule that allows me to tell you, three years from now, which aircraft carrier will be where in the in the world,” he told House lawmakers. “When we send them out, it may be for a shorter deployment. There will be three carriers in the South China Sea today, and then, two weeks from now, there’s only one there, and two of them are in the Indian Ocean.

“They’ll be home at the end of a 90-day deployment. They will not have spent eight months at sea, and we are going to have a force more ready to surge and deal with the high-end warfare as a result, without breaking the families, the maintenance cycles — we’ll actually enhance the training time.”

OFRP under pressure

Experts contend that what Mattis is describing, a concept he’s labeled as “Dynamic Force Employment,” would necessarily create tension with the Navy’s current deployment model known as the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, an iteration of similar plans that have been in place since the Cold War.

Under the plan, introduced in 2014 by then-Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Bill Gortney, ships operate in a 36-month cycle that carves out 16 months for training and maintenance, a seven-month deployment and 13 months where the carrier and its escorts are to maintain a high level of readiness in case it needs to deploy again.

Around that model the Navy builds everything from when it brings in new recruits to boot camp to when an aircraft carrier needs to come out of its years-long reactor overhaul. It’s also a system that builds in a significant dip in readiness where, during maintenance phases, ships lose sailors with critical skills to other commands and shore duty assignments.

The dip in readiness is deliberate and informs both manning levels on the ship and the Navy’s overall end strength. Simply put, there are not enough trained sailors in the Navy to fill every job on every ship, and that’s all built into the plan.

The key to the whole plan working, however, is at least a degree of predictability...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/05/02/is-secretary-of-defense-mattis-planning-radical-changes-to-how-the-navy-deploys/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,136
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2018, 16:24:36 »
Yikes!  PLA Navy must be chuckling hard:

Quote
The US Navy’s ships are getting old. They might be getting a lot older.

The U.S. Navy is eyeing extending the service life of all its ships according to an internal document produced by Naval Sea Systems Command that outlines the outer limits of each of the hulls currently in the fleet.

The analysis, first obtained by the military blog CDR Salamander, shows that as part of the Navy’s effort to grow the fleet to 355 ships, the service is eying extending the lives of the non-nuclear surface ships currently in the fleet to as much as an average age of 49 years, with some platforms being extended to as old as 53 years.

The letter, which qualifies that the extended service lives are contingent on following class maintenance plans, proposes extending the early Arleigh Burke destroyers to 45 years and the Flight IIAs to between 46 and 50 years. It also proposes cruisers could be extended to between 42 and 52 years; littoral combat ships to between 32 and 35 years, up from 25 years; and the amphibious assault ships to as long as 53 years up from 40 [emphasis added, really out-doing RCN].

The document raises questions about how exactly the Navy would accomplish the extended service lives on its heavily used surface combatants and amphibious ships, especially platforms such as the cruisers that the Navy has proposed in recent past be decommissioned citing burdensome maintenance and upkeep costs. The average cruiser, for example, is almost pushing 30 years old. The oldest destroyers, the Fight I Arleigh Burkes without a helicopter hanger, are between 21 and 27 years old.

The costs of owning the aging platforms is only going to increase every extra year the ships are in service. But foremost among the concerns to consider, experts say, is what it would take to keep the combat systems functioning and relevant into the future.


...

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/07/the-us-navys-ships-are-getting-old-they-might-be-getting-a-lot-older/

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,136
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US Navy Woes
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2018, 16:00:18 »
Lessons for RCAF?

Quote
Navy Working Through Plan to Hit 80 Percent Hornet Mission Capable Target

The Navy is working through how it will try and hit the ambitious readiness target set by Secretary of Defense James Mattis for Hornet and Super Hornet fighters, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition James “Hondo” Guerts said on Tuesday.

In a September memo, Mattis told the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force those services needed to have their fleet of fighters to meet an 80 percent mission capable rate by the end of Fiscal Year 2019. The Navy’s current rate is 53 percent for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet and 44 percent for the service’s reserve fleet of F-18C Hornets [emphasis added].

Leading the effort for the Navy will be commander of Naval Air Forces, Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller III, Guerts said.

...Miller is looking to commercial aviation for tools and techniques, Naval Air Forces spokesman Cmdr. Ron Flanders told USNI News last week.

“One of the main efforts involves adopting commercial best practices to modernize maintenance depots and streamline supply chain management,” Flanders said. “By adopting these proven practices, we will rapidly attain the ability to sustain increased numbers of full mission capable aircraft and achieve SECDEF’s readiness vision.”

Both Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan have promoted commercial aviation maintenance practices as a model to improve how quickly the services can repair their aircraft.

In a roundtable with reporters in August, Spencer sent the Navy and Marines to Delta airlines to see how the company had reduced its maintenance backlog...

In the shorter term, the Navy and Marines are also considering shedding older aircraft to focus repair efforts on newer aircraft that don’t require as much maintenance...
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/17/navy-working-plan-hit-80-percent-hornet-mission-capable-target

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.