Saturday, June 1, 2013

Fire Retardant Clothing

Honestly, Navy leadership is staffed with absolute idiots.  As reported by the navy.mil website (1), the Navy is revising its clothing to incorporate a degree of flame retardancy.  That’s fine but it’s clear that leadership is doing so only in response to poor PR rather than a belief that it constitutes an actual danger.  Here’s the relevant quote from the article.

“Historical data reviewed by the working group showed the likelihood of a major conflagration on a ship is low, though the consequences could be severe to fatal.  The working uniforms currently in use, including the NWU Type I, are deemed safe when worn properly under normal steaming conditions.”

Other than the entire history of naval warfare and the entire history of peacetime disasters, I guess there’s no real evidence that fire is a major threat at sea.

Uniforms are safe under normal steaming conditions?????   I think that’s the whole point!!!!  Flame retardant uniforms are for when you’re not steaming under normal conditions – like when you’ve collided with a projectile or another ship and you’re on fire.

A professional writer who stoops to name calling, personal attacks, and gutter level trash talking risks their professional reputation.  Recognizing that, ComNavOps is, nevertheless, going to indulge for a moment.  Sometimes there is no other way to properly express an idea than with the most basic language possible.

Navy leaders are a bunch of freakin’ a—holes with absolutely no concern for the men and women in their charge.  Every one of these idiots should be fired.

Sorry, readers.  Nothing gets to me more than leaders violating the trust that has been granted them by the people they command.  Rant over. 


6 comments:

  1. I think this, yet again, shows how ill prepared the Navy is for actual naval warfare, whether steaming (should be 'motoring' these days, no?) or in port, as in the Cole's case.
    russ2146

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've never truly gotten the point of the NWU pattern, it seems to me that it blends in with the ocean, but if you're in the ocean, shouldn't you stick out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one understands why the Navy adopted a cammo uniform. They look absurd. Probably just a PR move to stay as "cool" as the other services.

      Delete
    2. I've heard that one of the reasons was that the camo matches the most common types of stains and paints encountered on board Navy ships - therefore they remain cleaner looking for a longer period of time.

      Delete
  3. Since we're on uniforms in general, it appears that the uniform boys have been trying to get the sailor to look like a soldier/marine for some time. I refer you to the February 1946 issue of All Hands which displays the proposed change of that day, an Eisenhower jacket with garrison cap,
    http://www.navy.mil/media/allhands/acrobat/ah194602.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS: Scroll down to page 6 & 7

      Delete