tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3357393167714902025..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: The Optimal Manning ExperimentComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10481121216211218432019-06-22T19:50:37.229-07:002019-06-22T19:50:37.229-07:00I'm guessing you're referring to the NATO ...I'm guessing you're referring to the NATO Frigate Replacement (NFR-90) program? Was there a particular aspect or point about it that you wanted to make?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-912206991685760092019-06-22T16:33:29.335-07:002019-06-22T16:33:29.335-07:00Anyone hear about the NRF FFG?Anyone hear about the NRF FFG?seaairmarinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12579320781696590013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41910530566209593032018-09-24T06:40:28.169-07:002018-09-24T06:40:28.169-07:00We already have the technology to reduce manning t...We already have the technology to reduce manning to zero, if we want. However, reduced manning comes with drawbacks. Do you see the problems with reduced manning? Assuming you do, where do you set the manning target?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22360537875371081082018-09-23T18:01:47.945-07:002018-09-23T18:01:47.945-07:00It seems like there are 2 gradual, not sudden, m o...It seems like there are 2 gradual, not sudden, m oves you can make to lessen manning. 1 Proven technology breakthrough. 2. Personnel management where you tighten up communities within a community. There seems to be a need for communities within the surface community. Those who drive and navigate the ship stay at it. A general common community that is going to keep the ship out of trouble.AndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23167410537951377942018-03-07T17:38:41.382-08:002018-03-07T17:38:41.382-08:00Youre right that you cannot really cut aircrew in ...Youre right that you cannot really cut aircrew in a squadron. But most of the manpower in a squadron are maintainers, not aircrew. <br /><br />You could (theoretically) cut the number of maintainers per squadron. As far as I can tell, that was never seriously considered.<br /><br />I suspect it's because the aviation community 'did their homework' to figure out how many hours and people were needed to ensure aircraft maintenance was done right. And put it in writing.<br /><br />The aviation and submarine community are both very focused on human systems integration (HSI). They rightly recognize you can only work so many hours in a day before you start to make mistakes. <br /><br />The surface community simply doesn't think that way. They don't recognize any practical limits with respect to fatigue. Just work harder is their attitude. As a result, they are more willing to take manpower cuts.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90542535374201143762018-03-07T10:45:06.249-08:002018-03-07T10:45:06.249-08:00Something similar was proposed in the 1970s. IIRC ...Something similar was proposed in the 1970s. IIRC it was to have each enlisted person hold two grades--a technical (T) grade and a leadership (E) grade, with pay dependent on a combination of the two. Each individual's T grade had to be equal to or greater than the E grade, but one could be a T9E4 and make more money than the T6E6 in charge of the work center.Bill the Shoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252893633504534165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-434259485059549732018-03-07T09:51:19.749-08:002018-03-07T09:51:19.749-08:00I suppose you never tried that.
For the answer is ...I suppose you never tried that.<br />For the answer is that there's an entire second watch for damage control - half of the crew.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36191932142817066062018-03-07T04:19:31.053-08:002018-03-07T04:19:31.053-08:00Excellent observation about the inherent inefficie...Excellent observation about the inherent inefficiency of training.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46147226928703165652018-03-07T04:18:30.841-08:002018-03-07T04:18:30.841-08:00That's an interesting observation. The questi...That's an interesting observation. The question is, is it true or just an artifact? For example, you can't really downsize or optimally man an aircraft. The manning (pilot) is fixed. You can cut on the maintenance side, of course. I don't know if that's happened or not.<br /><br />I note that the nominal Virginia class crew size is slightly larger than the LA class so the sub community, apparently, didn't optimally man. Assuming they didn't, I wonder why not?<br /><br />Interesting observation.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80131099603633536742018-03-06T14:36:27.884-08:002018-03-06T14:36:27.884-08:00One argument witch you can ask every proponent of ...One argument witch you can ask every proponent of the so called minimal manning <br /><br />What do we do with a major fire on board ? <br /><br />Ask then and see they're reaction . Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57649286652122964792018-03-06T06:07:31.272-08:002018-03-06T06:07:31.272-08:00My only quibble with your assessment is the idea t...My only quibble with your assessment is the idea that Big Navy had no idea how this would play out. As you stated;<br /><br />"presumably, to the associated lack of bonding between ship and crew and the natural human tendency to put off dirty jobs knowing that the crew would be leaving shortly and the problem would be the next crew’s responsibility."<br /><br />The same is true for the ADM's that conceived of min-manning requirements. The results and failures would be someone else problemJay Nixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031750833658933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89026618245058398682018-03-06T06:05:42.910-08:002018-03-06T06:05:42.910-08:00"The truly stunning aspect to this is the com..."The truly stunning aspect to this is the complete absence of common sense exhibited by the Navy in their minimal manning experiment."<br /><br />for me this hits the nail on the head. If this was just an 'expiriment' then I'm fine with it. Honest.<br /><br />But it was an idea that we just pulled out of our arse and made design decisions for ships currently starting production without knowing how it would work. <br /><br />I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY SANE HUMAN BEING THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. <br /><br />It's design and planning by wishful thinking. <br /><br />In my job helping to design workflow and systems one of the key, unavoidable steps, is bringing in the users and having them work the workflow in a production like lab. You always find out what in your glorious plan works, what doesn't, and sometimes that you might need to scrap it entirely. <br /><br />Nowadays though I run into more and more people who want to skip that and just dump tear up the carpet, put down astroturf, and call it good. <br /><br />I dont' know much about NAVSEA nowadays, But I seem to remember reading about the Navy spending a lot of time, and work on test ships, designing new systems. Internal armor; Dahlgren guns, Radar, turbines, hybrid electric... a lot of this stuff got a lot of test work done in the yard before they started designing classes of ships around them. <br /><br />I'm so angry at this because the Navy is taking billions and just pi$$ing it away on untested ideas. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74198418396346269652018-03-06T03:40:15.584-08:002018-03-06T03:40:15.584-08:00The aviation and submarine communities never reall...The aviation and submarine communities never really bought into the minimal manning craze. I suspect it's because they did their homework and recognized that any savings was ephemeral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64860507932795906312018-03-05T15:13:24.534-08:002018-03-05T15:13:24.534-08:00When the calculations are done as to the number of...When the calculations are done as to the number of productive hours per person it invariably doesn't account for the extra time it takes someone above to train the person below them. What this leads to is that those who should be spending much of their time training others to be their replacement don't because it is simply more time efficient to DIY. This has been observed in many industries where productivity gains have been enforced without thought about the long-term consequences.<br /><br />Accountants invariably place little value on the time and cost taken to train people for future opportunities because it inflates the costs in the present for no gain in the present. The long view is needed if this is to work in the long term.<br /><br />I worked for a fast food chain in my teenage years. As a key trainer for more junior personnel, when I was on shift my "productivity factor" was set at 0.8, with the understanding that I would be focussing my energies on developing the newbies into fully productive crew. It could be worthwhile thinking through how much productivity can be extracted from the crew if you want them to learn. The fleet model that says that crew are fully trained on shore and arrive at a ship ready to go is completely false, and only leads to issues down the track with poor or patchy training that leads to inevitable spectacular failings as all the small deficiencies add up.buxt0010https://www.blogger.com/profile/00041156576526775110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52535318206823698992018-03-05T13:40:38.088-08:002018-03-05T13:40:38.088-08:00In WW2 the Army had Tech grades for some enlisted....In WW2 the Army had Tech grades for some enlisted. The old "TEC4". Maybe something along those lines. Let the pay increase for time in grade increase up to 10 years or so. A guy competent in his job, but with no ambition. You are always going to get some churn, always some E1s to clean the head. Robtzuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537926709999412242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56384046812152206802018-03-05T11:42:04.998-08:002018-03-05T11:42:04.998-08:002 ranks above* their real ranks2 ranks above* their real rankskillyekfaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299593000975210668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8888674202747498622018-03-05T11:41:17.110-08:002018-03-05T11:41:17.110-08:00Maybe creating internal and external prestige for ...Maybe creating internal and external prestige for the experienced job. Just trying idea, I expect most of them being bad, but I like the challenge.<br /><br />Having elite fleet maybe (not just commando). Honor and the socials status going with it is a strong motivator, especially in the army (the marines as you said, used to use it to attracts people). more title/ranking for seniorship in privates.<br /><br />Also germany in between ww1 and ww2 planning for expansion trained their every NCO and officier for 2 ranks about their real rank. Granted infantry is easier to scale (especially if you have vast reserves), but in war, many bad NCO/CO are fired, and if the lower ranks are already trained, all the better. And it goes with the elitism motivation of before <br /> (USA have no more mass conscription, so it can compensate, and if USA had the industrial base, it could help expend the navy quickly in a few years arms race/war of attrition).<br /><br />But the prussian system was granting lot of independence to NCO/CO(with had its good and bad side, more flexiblity but less unity of command, the opposite of Napoleon system in a way). More autonomy for experienced NCO might be a hybrid of the system of highly centralized, decentralized.<br /><br />Maybe a system a la google of experiment time. You talked many times about doing more experiment with ships. It could be a reward for the most creative/best worker crew to man such ships. We want the smartest feedback of such experiment. And having to try new tactics, new tools, give feedback, help R&D, can be a motivator.<br /><br />In the opposite of less staff, have more reservist, and overmanned ships where the senior crew trained the reservist. (but that depends if staff or crew is seen as the bigger constraint in expanding quickly the navy, after if ships is a bigger constraint, a small reserve would still give some marginal jobs with more rewards). On the plus side, it also allow more redundancy on personal.killyekfaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299593000975210668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63974464956823029832018-03-05T10:17:31.928-08:002018-03-05T10:17:31.928-08:00To expand on your football analogy, the football p...To expand on your football analogy, the football player can become the best at his position, command incredible salaries, make all-star teams, retire after five years and be financially set for life, and, most importantly, can become a free agent and go where he wants - none of this would be possible under your concept. I think what you'd see is a massive voting with the feet and retention would plummet for all but the few that started on top.<br /><br />As I said, your concept is interesting but it needs some refining.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43719816634338886862018-03-05T08:11:24.291-08:002018-03-05T08:11:24.291-08:00I tell his superior that professional footballers ...I tell his superior that professional footballers play the same game on about the same position for 20 years of their life and I only demand five from his subordinate.<br /><br />There's no all-round perfect hybrid, ever. <br />We always end up with the same question when there's a proposal to leave the status quo, to shake off the path-dependent outcome in favour of an alternative:<br /><br />Do we reform when there's a net benefit in reform or do we complain about the downsides and stay conservative, missing out on the greater benefits?<br />Armed services are most of the time under very little pressure to improve themselves, and end up being very conservative, reform-unfriendly or do fake reforms.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7703144059165354402018-03-05T07:49:52.523-08:002018-03-05T07:49:52.523-08:00You kind of touched on the main problem. People g...You kind of touched on the main problem. People generally want to do more and more as they gain experience. They want new challenges. They want more responsibility.<br /><br />What do you tell the guy who initially comes on board as the toilet cleaner and, after five years, because there is no significant turnover, he's still cleaning toilets? No amount of money is going to make that a satisfying job.<br /><br />One aspect of becoming good at a job and then moving on is that the person should be identifying talent among people who would replace him so that when he moves on there is someone equally talented to replace him.<br /><br />As I said, your concept of extended crew associations is intriguing and I wonder if we can find a hybrid version that addresses the problems but retains the benefits?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83162887673372624192018-03-05T07:40:25.651-08:002018-03-05T07:40:25.651-08:00It's actually a widespread problem that applie...It's actually a widespread problem that applies to programmers and developer engineers (just examples) as well. They learn teht heory, they learn on the job, they become real good at it - and then they move on (to team leadership, project leadership, management, or becoming self-employed which means much of the time doing something else but their core skill).<br /><br />That's because of the stupid idea that you need to rise up, climb up the ladder to improve yourself economically.<br />A smarter organisation can keep people at the job they're great and very much needed at by making it attractive in the long term.<br />A rise in pay, a rise in prestige, emphasis on teambuilding up to the point where the expert doesn't want to leave his friends etc.<br /><br /><br />Ideas - I wouldn't bet on good ideas coming from newbies, though I see that an expert coming from another ship may import a good idea. I would rest the drive to extremely high competence rather on free play exercises and competitions in relevant matters.<br /><br />In wartime you lose more ships than crews. I don't see personnel problem for conventional navies there because I don't think wartime shipbuilding will matter.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44522725646689112732018-03-05T07:24:50.215-08:002018-03-05T07:24:50.215-08:00"A navy may save on fleet personnel if it sto..."A navy may save on fleet personnel if it stops behaving like a navy and more like the cost-driven civilian shipping lines."<br /><br />Okay, you got me on that one. I thought this was going to be another bad "lets run the Navy like a business" comment but you then offered up an intriguing idea. <br /><br />I can see a few problems with the concept, though. <br /><br />-People have to have somewhere to go as they advance in rank. Otherwise, to take it to the extreme, after several years with no turnover all the enlisted would be Petty Officers and you'd have PO's cleaning toilets.<br /><br />-Turnover also allows new ideas to come in to the group. Without it, nothing new occurs (sometimes a good thing, sometimes bad).<br /><br />-In war, unlike civilian shipping, losses occur and you have to shuffle personnel around to make up losses. A broader base of experience for the average sailor would be beneficial.<br /><br />On the other hand, you outlined some benefits to your concept.<br /><br />Maybe there's a hybrid solution that can combine the best of both approaches?<br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34590097203651332102018-03-05T06:55:51.473-08:002018-03-05T06:55:51.473-08:00A navy may save on fleet personnel if it stops beh...A navy may save on fleet personnel if it stops behaving like a navy and more like the cost-driven civilian shipping lines.<br />It could treat jobs on board of ships as a career instead of a step in a career.<br />Imagine a crew that works together for five years, with almost no fluctuations (and 40% of the year at sea, 10% of days on-shore work) - and then 80+% re-enlist to do the same job for another five years.<br /><br />You'd have a crew of experts with much higher competence, productivity and versatility.<br />40% of the time at sea would be plenty, for the average sailor would have completed all standard exercises a couple times already and hardly anyone would be green.<br />The cohesion, identity and esprit de corps would be gigantic.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.com