Sunday, June 15, 2014

Career Day

ComNavOps is always trying to mentor young people and offer career advice.  To that end, here are some career aptitude guides that may be of use to you.


Does this snippet of conversation make sense to you?

Stealth …  Gotta have it!

Why?

Don’t know;  just do.

If so, congratulations, you may have a career in aircraft design!

__________



Do fewer ballistic missile tubes, smaller crews, increased automation, and smaller reactors suggest to you the need for a larger submarine? 

Does an airwing half the size of the original Nimitz airwing suggest to you the need for a bigger carrier than the Nimitz? 

If you answered "yes!" or "hell, yes!" to the above, you may be a naval ship designer!

__________



Do you believe

  1. The Marine Corps is a drain on naval construction funding.
  2. The Marine Corps needs to stop their whining and learn how to conduct assaults from 500 nm offshore.
  3. The Marine Corps gun support needs are being met perfectly well by 5” guns.
  4. All of the above.

If you answered d., congratulations, you’ll make Admiral!

__________



Do you suffer from a debilitating, almost paralyzing, fear of making a mistake?  If so, you'll make an exemplary ship's Captain!

__________ 



If you prioritize the following naval issues – new uniforms, new ship construction, sexual assault, humanitarian assistance, gender integration, combat readiness,  – somewhat along these lines,

1. Sexual Assault
2. New Ship Construction
3. Gender Integration
4. Humanitarian Assistance
5. New Uniforms
6. Combat Readiness (shouldn’t be that high but you had no other options!)

Congratulations, you’re next in line for CNO Greenert’s job!

18 comments:

  1. "Do fewer ballistic missile tubes, smaller crews, increased automation, and smaller reactors suggest to you the need for a larger submarine? "

    What is the extra space gained for crew comfort, if the method is to create mor cmfort for the submarines crew and extra space why not ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Umm... Because it's not a civilian cruise ship? You're kidding, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If only this was humor, and NOT today's reality in the services.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ummm... Because way back in the soviet union during the 70ties they realised that crew comfort for submariners ( and ships in general) was somehow important .. Typhoon class , anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My poin was that If the richest and most powerful nation on earth can afford to build bilion dollar submarines .
    Why should crew comfort be a luxury. You said it :
    Bigger sub, less people on bord, smaller weapon systems and more automatisation..
    So what is the problem of the crew getting more space on the boat.. Typhoons were no luxury liners but the extra space was appreciated.
    So if the next US sub has a mini golf course or a small swimming pool will this be bad or good for the crewman .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that we can't afford the ships we want now and adding cost for crew comforts beyond a reasonable point is simply unaffordable.

      I'm not sure you appreciate just how much smaller the SSBN(X) will be in terms of requirements. It will have 33% fewer missile tubes, smaller reactors, more automation, smaller crew, reduced food storage, reduced berthing, reduced heads, smaller galley, reduced laundry, reduced waste handling, smaller electronics, and consideration is being given to eliminating the torpedo spaces. All of that in a sub the same or slightly bigger than the current Ohio! I'm estimating a total 30%-40% internal volume reduction with no actual construction size reduction. That's truly baffling. The Ohios weren't cruise ships but they weren't Gatos, either. A little extra crew comfort is fine but this just seems excessively wasteful in a time of severely constrained budgets. The best crew comfort would be to reduce deployment lengths by building a few more subs - we're dropping from the original 16 to 10.

      Similarly, the new Ford has several hundred fewer crew, much greater automation, all the reductions mentioned above, and an airwing half the size of the original Nimitz and yet the ship is larger. There's a logic disconnect at work, here.

      Delete
    2. The Typhoon was only around 14 ft longer than the Ohio and had a slightly bigger crew, by the way.

      Delete
    3. Yeah but it had a double hull and was a lot heavier, so there was more space for people.

      Anyway i keep wondering, where is that extra space on that new SSBN (X) going .
      How can you have less room for the crew when the vessel is the same size as an Ohio, but with less crew , less weapons and more compact equipment and electronics... Where is that extra space going?
      I mean , they can do without a mini bar or a small bowling hall :)
      But it just doesn't add up.. Big sub ,small crew = less space for the crew ?

      Delete
    4. Storm, "less space for the crew"??? Where did you get that? Who said less space for the crew? Did you misunderstand what I said? I said that the automation and various other reductions in equipment would result in a smaller crew. The implication of a smaller crew is that there will be less of a requirment for all the things that support a crew like berthing, galley space, food storage, water generation and storage, laundry, heads, and so on. Given that the sub will be slightly bigger, there will be, proportionately, a huge amount of additional space for the crew, far beyond any reasonable improvement in crew comfort. Where that additional space is going and what it will be used for is the question.

      As an aside, the Typhoon double hull (if it had one, I'm not sure off the top of my head) would reduce the available internal volume, not increase it.

      Delete
    5. "Given that the sub will be slightly bigger, there will be, proportionately, a huge amount of additional space for the crew, far beyond any reasonable improvement in crew comfort"

      Well that answers my question.
      What if they decide to add crew compartments for females , that would solve partialy the problems with long deployments ( just joking :)

      Delete
    6. Storm, well, I've speculated that the additional space would be used for female crew shoe storage, based on my wife's closet!

      Delete
    7. Well jokes aside, but based on what is out on the internet when comparing the new US boomer specifics with the Borei class, based on size and armament there is not much difference.
      That is data form the internet of course.
      Not counting the chineese "Delta-ish" Boomer, and France and Eangland have fairly new boomers they wont replace anytime soon.

      Delete
    8. Errrrr Britain is co developing the next gen missle compartment with the US, and is ahead on the Vanguard replacment contract "SSBN Successor class"

      Yes Vanguard came in in the mid 90's but we dont like to keep our stuff to long, as the shine wears off !

      Though if you want to talk about bigger hull \ less crew you have to see the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier, headed upward of 70,000 tonnes and same crew size as the Invincible class at 22,000. ( i.e just under 1000 )

      Obviously its futureproofing, for when all the F35's arrived in large shiney boxes covered bubble wrap delivered by UPS, those packing chips GET EVERYWHERE !

      Also I suspect we may need to room to put the spares and the broken bits off F35 ?

      Beno

      Delete
  6. Just to prevent an unfortunate mistake, and I tear a stripe from your back unnecessarily, are you suggesting that you can build a SSBN with a smaller crew, that is automated, and reduced reactor power, without increasing that hull volume?

    And are you stating that the size of an air wing control the combat effectiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ok, it look as if I going to have to explain why you assumptions about reduced manning levels, increased automation, smaller reactor size, will result in smaller submarines.

    First, reduced manpower my require less space for a crew, but there is a downside to consider, less manpower mean less man hours to performed maintains and repair. These are things that automation can not replace people. The only way to handle this is to design to reduce the hours needed to preform the maintains and repair. This it turn require a larger volume for the equipment to easy access to it.

    A second point is the fact that while automation reduces manpower requirements, automated equipment are larger than manual systems, and need more maintains and repair because they are more complicated. So you back adding more volume for larger size and increased access.

    As for reactor size, I not sure how much reduction can be accomplished by using smaller reactors. The volume of the reactor is a small percentage of the submarine space requirement of propulsion.

    The only thing I saw in your less that automatically reduce volume requirement is cutting the number of missiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh ... I see, now. If we want a smaller ship we need to increase the crew size and reduce the degree of automation. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. "Ahh ... I see, now. If we want a smaller ship we need to increase the crew size and reduce the degree of automation. Thanks!"

      Yes, that basically how things stand today.

      Delete
  8. Part of the larger and larger ships even with smaller crews is the crews.

    All dude crews means the same heads and such. Mixed means separate bunking area's, separate supplies for the women, heads, etc.

    But he that money is well spend on making our crews more diverse! Diversity equals VICTORY!

    BTW I think separate ships for women would be a better idea BUT then the crews would need to be a bit larger.

    ReplyDelete