tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post352677876484547413..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Constellation Class Frigate - Success or Just Not Failure?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73307802312668684962021-07-22T06:40:27.763-07:002021-07-22T06:40:27.763-07:00"Our sailors have enough problems with weight..."Our sailors have enough problems with weight control as is."<br /><br />You deal with weight issues by working people so hard that they don't have time to gain weight. You work them by giving them MEANINGFUL, combat related exercises and worthwhile challenges. The Marines proved that this approach works. The SEALs prove that this approach works. The Rangers proved that this approach works. The Green Berets proved that this approach works. Sports proves that this approach works. And so on with an endless list. You don't want the people who won't respond to hard work and challenges. The people who do respond won't have weight problems.<br /><br />If you need a workout space on a ship then you aren't running the ship and navy correctly.<br /><br />The Navy/military is not (or should not be) a run of the mill civilian company competing for the scraps of low-motivated workers. The Navy/military is a life and death endeavor that REQUIRES only the best people that we have. Offer a worthwhile challenge, patriotism, and possible combat and the best of the best will line up for the chance to be part of it. This is what our leaders have lost sight of in their quest to be socially equitable.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7481760812033232292021-07-22T06:19:45.758-07:002021-07-22T06:19:45.758-07:00Habitability. I think you keep the workout spaces....Habitability. I think you keep the workout spaces. Our sailors have enough problems with weight control as is. But I think we could take a hard look at whether we need everything else. Sarcastically, looking at an Italian design, we could probably go with one pizza oven and one gelato machine instead of 2 or 3 of each. <br /><br />I don't think we can go back to hammocks and have a reasonable chance of competing with other branches or the private sector for competent personnel, but I think we do need to ask how much is enough and how much is really needed.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73085429084153444302021-01-15T09:49:54.890-08:002021-01-15T09:49:54.890-08:00I disagree! :)I disagree! :)ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87819996865085752722021-01-15T09:38:34.892-08:002021-01-15T09:38:34.892-08:00We're just going to have to agree to disagree....We're just going to have to agree to disagree. CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19023104055650068362021-01-15T08:51:59.634-08:002021-01-15T08:51:59.634-08:00" I see them reality checking the ideas again..." I see them reality checking the ideas against their practical experience."<br /><br />That only requires one or two people per project and, typically, there are only one or two projects active at any given moment. So, that would require a total manning of 2-4 such reality engineers. That's not exactly an active career. If you want to go to that degree of effort to have a couple guys sitting around and offering an occasional thought, that's fine, I guess, but what a waste. Alternatively, and logically, the thing to do would be to bring a few fleet engineers in for a day when you have a design at the appropriate stage for comments and let them comment away for a day. Again, no need to try to create an entire career path that could be accomplished by a one day visit.<br /><br />You're creating a complex solution to a very simple, nearly non-existent problem. I'll repeat, the BuShips organization would have all the INSTITUTIONAL knowledge it needs from continuous fleet feedback. There really is no need for a dedicated 'BuShips Helper' career path.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3044588426152898662021-01-15T08:18:45.348-08:002021-01-15T08:18:45.348-08:00I think you are arguing against a couple of positi...I think you are arguing against a couple of positions that I am not taking, so let me clarify:<br /><br />1) I’m not arguing that BuShips (or whatever we call it) should consist exclusively of fleet engineers. What I am saying is that we need a cadre of officers with experience and advanced education in engineering, operation, and maintenance of ships and equipment for several functions, including shore-based repair, maintenance, and construction facilities, and design bureaus. I don’t see engineering officers pushing pencils across a drafting board or running a CAD/CAM terminal. I see them reality checking the ideas against their practical experience. We currently don’t have a career path to produce more than a trickle of such officers, and a bifurcation of line officers into deck/warfare and engineering would be a way to do that. Engineers are not going to be eligible for command at sea, so senior engineers would staff and command sore facilities related to ship construction, maintenance, and repair. <br />2) My understanding is that the Royal Navy concept of an engineering officer is broader than ours and is not confined to main propulsion and standing engineering watches, and that is the approach I would have in mind. From Wikipedia:<br />Engineer officers are responsible for the material condition of the various aspects of maritime platforms: ships, submarines and naval aircraft and as such lead teams of naval ratings to conduct preventive and corrective maintenance. Engineer officers are responsible to the captain for the operational capability of the platform and as such form part of the command team. Engineers are also widely employed in the Defence Equipment and Support engaged in logistic support, procurement or capability development and in the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, supporting the fleet or other elements of the British Armed Forces. Engineer officers specialise in one of four sub-branches:<br /><br />a. Marine Engineer Officers are responsible for the fabric of the ship or submarine, including its propulsion and steering systems, hotel and domestic services and damage control/firefighting equipment. (These are our engineers today.)<br />b. Weapon Engineer Officers are responsible for the performance of onboard weapons, sensors, combat systems and communications systems. <br />c. Air Engineers are responsible for the performance of fixed and rotary wing aircraft afloat and ashore.<br />d. Training Management Officers are responsible for the management of training activities across the Royal Navy. <br /><br />With this much broader definition of engineering officers, and with a career path that includes advanced engineering and naval architecture degrees, I would think this would provide a useful cadre. You would have marine engineers and weapons engineers on the design team for any ship, and air engineers for any air-capable ship.<br /><br />So I think I may be looking at things on the one hand from a narrower perspective that you are arguing (in that engineering officers would just be part of the BuShips team, along with the other personnel you propose) and on the other and from a broader perspective (in that engineering comprises a much broader spectrum of duties). <br /><br />I think we have beaten this horse enough.<br />CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21841069719328100522021-01-14T07:24:46.736-08:002021-01-14T07:24:46.736-08:00You hire people out of school, bring them into BuS...You hire people out of school, bring them into BuShips, and have them make a career of ship designing. They don't necessarily have to even be Navy. They could remain civilian employees. The choice seems irrelevant.<br /><br />Have you considered just how many areas of knowledge your approach would have to cover to be truly effective? Being an engineer covers just one small part - the propulsion system - of an overall ship design. Would you also have them serve several years each in a weapons/fire control posting, radar/sensor posting, amphibious assault Marine posting, nuclear propulsion posting, galley posting, pilot posting (they'll have to design carriers, you know), logistics supply ship posting, and so on? That would require several lifetimes to come up to speed.<br /><br />Engines are just one small portion of a ship design. Your approach would hinder true ship design career path excellence while only providing exposure to one aspect of the hundreds of ship design areas of knowledge. I'm sorry but it's just not a viable means of developing truly good ship designers.<br /><br />You wouldn't send an architect out for several years to learn how to operate dump trucks and cement mixers, pour foundations, learn wiring, become a pipefitter, etc. would you? Those are someone else's responsibility. Over time, the architect will get feedback about what worked well and what didn't and that will be incorporated into future designs. Similarly, a BuShips will get continual feedback from the fleet about what works and what doesn't and will incorporate it into future designs. This is yet another argument for limited ship production runs and short ship service lives. That way, feedback can be fairly quickly incorporated into new designs. <br /><br />I understand that you want to try to capture 'working' knowledge in your ship designs by having the designer go work in the fleet but the way to capture that knowledge is not by impairing the career and effectiveness of each designer but by collecting the feedback in BuShips AS AN INSTITUTION. The captured knowledge, derived from feedback, is held as institutional knowledge and is available to ALL the designers, as needed, and such a mechanism will cover ALL design areas instead of just engineering, as you propose.<br /><br />Think this through carefully and you'll see the wisdom of this approach.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62691046841680978052021-01-14T06:21:54.721-08:002021-01-14T06:21:54.721-08:00So what is your right way?So what is your right way?CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16151494376452523932021-01-13T17:59:59.779-08:002021-01-13T17:59:59.779-08:00I'm sorry but this isn't really debatable....I'm sorry but this isn't really debatable. You simply can't produce top flight ship designers on a part time career path. This isn't a point of disagreement. This is a pretty clear case of a right way and a wrong way to produce fully qualified and experienced ship designers.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22196324365219774142021-01-13T15:47:34.983-08:002021-01-13T15:47:34.983-08:00OK, we are just gong to have to agree to disagree ...OK, we are just gong to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think having operational experience is useful. As for you comment about designing a command center, wouldn't it be useful to have somebody on the design team who understood the information that you are bringing in the operator to discuss?<br /><br />My larger point has kind of gotten ignored which is that if we want to recreate something like BuShips, we need a source of officers (and technicians) to staff it. Right now we don't have those people. Building an engineering specialty career seems one way to build up that cadre, and also to build up repair and maintenance expertise. I'd expect some engineering types to go the repair/maintenance route and some to go the design route, and possibly others. If someone demonstrates a significant aptitude and interest in design early on, there could be a path to get into design early.<br /><br />One interesting point is that the career path I laid out basically tracks pretty closely that of CAPT Talbot Manvel, who was the lead on the early design of the Fords. That's not a stirring recommendation, except <br />1) he was probably one of very few officers with that background, and if we had more of them perhaps we could have assembled a better design team; looking at that photo of the inside of an EMALS tube, I have to believe that some officer who had served in carriers would look at that and say, no way are SN Jones and FN Smith going to be able to maintain this; <br />2) a lot of the major issues were forced down from on high; if you had a whole bureau full of officers saying there's no way things will work, they might have been able to get someone's attention and get some changes made (although from CAPT Manvel's account, that someone appears to have been one Donald Rumsfeld, who was never particularly interested in listening to reason).<br /><br />We agree on one thing. We need a design bureau like BuShips so the Navy doesn't just cave to the LockMarts and HIIs of the world. How to get those people is where we differ. I've laid out one path and you disagree. So how are you going to go about getting them?<br />CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89207469359797528282021-01-13T09:27:32.081-08:002021-01-13T09:27:32.081-08:00"I think we are just going to disagree about ..."I think we are just going to disagree about the importance of hands-on experience versus book learning "<br /><br />You're confusing design knowledge with operating knowledge. Operating knowledge, while mildly useful in small doses, does not confer design capability. Spending years learning how to stand watch, fill out reports, or even maintain one specific type of equipment does not increase one's design knowledge. An operator can, in a one hour visit, provide the necessary input to a design team. It does not require designers to become operating experts. That's just a waste of time, dilutes the useful career years, and produces substandard designers.<br /><br />Aircraft designers are not required to become pilots.<br /><br />A building designer does not need to become a Wall Street broker to design a building for brokers.<br /><br />A tank designer doesn't become a tank crewman in order to design tanks. The Army will tell him what the design criteria are.<br /><br />A ship designer can't possibly serve long enough in the Navy to become an expert on nuclear propulsion, gas turbines, propellers, weapons, sensors, computers, and the thousand other things that a designer will have to include in a ship design so why would you want to single out one area and disrupt and dilute a design career for an almost insignificant gain in one small area of ship operations? If you have a question about how best to set up a shipboard command center, you bring in an operator and have him explain it. You don't send all your designers out to become ship captains so they'll know the answer.<br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56326142836064054642021-01-13T09:01:53.505-08:002021-01-13T09:01:53.505-08:00I think we are just going to disagree about the im...I think we are just going to disagree about the importance of hands-on experience versus book learning and theory. <br /><br />Yes, at 14 years you are not ready to lead a design team. But at 14 years you are a LCDR, and last I checked, LCDRs don't lead major design teams. You would be ready to be a significant participant in a design team, with considerable practical experience. And no, I don't think your two years in a design bureau would be limited to bringing the coffee, and I am quite certain that your years in the fleet would not all be spent standing engine room watches. Besides, if your junior officer years in a design bureau were spent bringing the coffee, wouldn't you be better off getting operational experience actually doing something?<br /><br />You seem to be arguing that taking a LCDR with 6 years in the fleet and putting him in charge of a major design effort would be a mistake. I would agree. But I'm not proposing that.<br /><br />It's certainly debatable, with points that can be made either way. What is not debatable is that we don't have either trained designers or experienced engineers today, and adding either would be an improvement. CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71045287899065169272021-01-13T04:28:00.193-08:002021-01-13T04:28:00.193-08:00"At that point you have 14 years in, are comm..."At that point you have 14 years in, are committed to stay for 10 more, have a Ph.D. with 2 years design experience"<br /><br />You just identified the failure with your approach. At 14 years in, you have 2 years design experience. Major warship designs take 2-4 years (or more!) today. So, by your career path and your statement, after 14 years you would have PARTICIPATED in one design and it may well not have been completed yet. Also, as your first design PARTICIPATION you would have been the lowliest, most junior PARTICIPANT - the guy who got coffee for everyone else and tried to help out where possible. You would NOT be a ship designer. As I said, ship design requires CONSTANT practice. You cannot spend most of your first 14 years playing navy officer. It is pure fantasy to be able to be a part time ACCOMPLISHED ship designer.<br /><br />After you've PARTICIPATED in four or five major, multi-year design projects then, maybe, you're ready to take the lead on a project but four or five major projects encompasses around 15+ years of CONSTANT design practice, not part time playing around.<br /><br />This is symptomatic of our current thinking that there's always a short cut to progress. There isn't! You have to do the hard work. You can't be a combination engineer, pilot, designer, sailor, etc. You have to pick one and live it in order to be good at it. <br /><br />"I’d turn your doctor example around and ask whether you’d rather have a doctor who aced med school or one who had actually done a few surgeries of the kind you need."<br /><br />Again, you reinforced my point! Of course I want a doctor who's done the surgery. Surgery is the end product of training! I want a ship designer who's actually designed ships, not one who's been standing watch in an engine room. Surgery isn't a side excursion, surgery IS THE JOB!!!!!!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59492389644016447952021-01-12T19:40:18.704-08:002021-01-12T19:40:18.704-08:00"I don't know about you but I want only t..."I don't know about you but I want only the very best, the most accomplished designers designing my warships and there's only one way to become such a person and I described it. You need continual experience actually designing, not a part time portion of a career."<br /><br />Probably a poor choice of words on my part, meant it more to suggest that you need a more well-rounded skill set than just pure design.<br /><br />I’d turn your doctor example around and ask whether you’d rather have a doctor who aced med school or one who had actually done a few surgeries of the kind you need. Given a choice, I think somebody who has actually sailed a few ships is going to be better than somebody who has just designed a bunch. For optimum results, I think you need both. Expanding the engineering duty officer program seems to me a way to get more officers with both.<br /><br />I think being the very best means that you also need some practical deckplate experience. If all you do is live in the theoretical design world, then things like the Fords and the LCSs and the Zumwalts make sense. You need people to ask the questions that you only know how to ask from practical experience.<br /><br />I'm talking about a career path something like this:<br /><br />2 years at sea (junior engineering division officer)<br />2 years shore duty in ship maintenance/repair or construction facility<br />2 years at sea (senior engineering division officer)<br />2 years getting M.S. in naval architecture (with 10-year commitment in exchange for the degree)<br />2 years at sea (chief engineer)<br />2 years as staff officer at design bureau<br />2 years getting Ph.D. in naval architecture (again with a new 10-year commitment in exchange for the degree)<br /><br />At that point you have 14 years in, are committed to stay for 10 more, have a Ph.D. with 2 years design experience and 8 years practical operational experience, 6 at sea and 2 in ship maintenance. You’d then go to senior billets at either design bureaus or maintenance/repair/construction facilities. <br /><br />The 10-year commitment is the payback for getting a degree that sets you up for fairly lucrative livelihood paid for by the taxpayers, and is intended to prevent you from getting the degree, giving a cheery, “Aye, aye,” and heading off to work for LockMart or HII. You can flesh this out a bit but that is the conceptual framework.<br /><br />I don’t see anything part time about the career experience and expertise you would develop. I think that is a better background to make the decisions that need to be made than just going straight through to the Ph.D. and then doing theoretical design stuff. I think the problem now is that the Navy has punted too much ship design to contractors who are too theoretical. <br /><br />If you’re going to put a system on a warship, then it better be something that SN Jones or FN Smith can maintain. And if you’re going to design that system, or spec it for somebody else to design, it is helpful to have worked with a few SN Joneses and FN Smiths to understand what they can and cannot do.<br /><br />In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn’t. <br />CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87031932865445718822021-01-11T04:21:28.510-08:002021-01-11T04:21:28.510-08:00Would you want to go to a doctor who picked up his...Would you want to go to a doctor who picked up his degree on a part time basis and only practiced occasionally? I wouldn't! I'd want a doctor whose entire life and career was the practice of medicine.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15222575070974258682021-01-11T04:18:50.856-08:002021-01-11T04:18:50.856-08:00"I'm not proposing that they become truly..."I'm not proposing that they become truly accomplished professional ship designers"<br /><br />Are you proposing that they become poor or mediocre ship designers???? I don't know about you but I want only the very best, the most accomplished designers designing my warships and there's only one way to become such a person and I described it. You need continual experience actually designing, not a part time portion of a career. <br /><br />If you want the best designers then that has to be their career, totally and completely. Nothing else will produce the best.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55227896941965266222021-01-10T20:36:16.376-08:002021-01-10T20:36:16.376-08:00Perhaps I should clarify my expectations a bit. I&...Perhaps I should clarify my expectations a bit. I'm not expecting these engineering officers to be God's gift to ship design. What I am expecting is that they would have enough formal education plus enough practical experience in the fleet (understanding things like if we put this piece of equipment on a ship, can SN Jones or FN Smith maintain it).<br /><br />I am envisioning a 20-year career path that would include something like 3 at-sea tours (3rd Engineer, 2nd Engineer, 1st Engineer) totaling 6-9 years, 4-6 years in postgraduate schools (with a contract to serve X years for each advanced degree), and 5-10 years in shore ship design billets doing that learning ship design that you describe. At the end of that 20 years, you'd have that expertise around for so many more years based on how the contracts for education are structured.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10785652240447031872021-01-10T18:50:54.441-08:002021-01-10T18:50:54.441-08:00"You don't become an accomplished, profes..."You don't become an accomplished, professional ship designer by picking up a few courses while you're pursuing your real career of being an at-sea ship's engineer. You become a ship designer by going to college and getting an advanced degree (so, there's the first 6+ years of your career), working for several years learning the real world ship design business (there's the next several years of your career), and then taking the lead on ship designs (there's the next several years of your career). At that point, you're an accomplished ship designer. It's not something you fit into an engineering career. There simply isn't time.<br />Actually, the reverse would have a better chance of working. Hire actual degree'd ship designers and give them an occasional few months of shipboard exposure to broaden their experience."<br /><br />Reread my proposal. I'm not proposing that they become truly accomplished professional ship designers, just that they have a better understanding than we have now. And I'm not talking about picking up a few courses. The current line officer career path includes time frames for picking up master's and even doctorate degrees. Engineering officers would simply pick up those degrees in fields related to naval architecture and engineering. As you get past LT or LC DR, the shipboard opportunities would decrease and the emphasis would shift to shore-based positions such as those involved in ship design. Somebody with a graduate degree on naval architecture and actual shipboard operational time should bring a very useful perspective.<br /><br />I would also see the value in your alternative approach. I see no reason why we can't have some of both.<br /><br />Also,I'm not thinking of this just from a design bureau standpoint, but also from an operational standpoint, where having engineers who understood engineering and OODs who new the Rules of the Road could be beneficial.<br /><br />Worst case, I think we'd be a heck of a lot better off than we are today.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7163142183130523652021-01-09T05:39:35.041-08:002021-01-09T05:39:35.041-08:00"those senior engineering officers would have..."those senior engineering officers would have the expertise to turn it into a truly professional design bureau."<br /><br />That's not even remotely realistic. You don't become an accomplished, professional ship designer by picking up a few courses while you're pursuing your real career of being an at-sea ship's engineer. You become a ship designer by going to college and getting an advanced degree (so, there's the first 6+ years of your career), working for several years learning the real world ship design business (there's the next several years of your career), and then taking the lead on ship designs (there's the next several years of your career). At that point, you're an accomplished ship designer. It's not something you fit into an engineering career. There simply isn't time.<br /><br />Actually, the reverse would have a better chance of working. Hire actual degree'd ship designers and give them an occasional few months of shipboard exposure to broaden their experience.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91061736634394074462021-01-09T05:03:25.912-08:002021-01-09T05:03:25.912-08:00Chiming onto that, I would even go as far as recru...Chiming onto that, I would even go as far as recruiting defense engineers outside the military who could be fast-tracked into the Navy, similar to the Cyber Direct Commission program. It should provide a necessary band-aid at least for now. lpnam9114https://www.blogger.com/profile/11976981950593478526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23575136973466631102021-01-09T04:02:30.834-08:002021-01-09T04:02:30.834-08:00We really do need a new BuShips or something simil...We really do need a new BuShips or something similar. <br /><br />My thought would be to borrow a concept from the Royal Navy. They split what we call line officers into two groups--deck/warfare officers and engineering officers. As I understand it, engineering officers run the ship and deck/warfare officers navigate and fight the ship.<br /><br />Deck/warfare officers would be eligible for command at sea. They receive intensive training in navigation, rules of the road, strategy, and tactics. They would have the equivalent of a merchant master's knowledge of seamanship. This would almost certainly make incidents like the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions and the Port Royal grounding less frequent.<br /><br />Senior engineering officers command shore establishments--naval bases, shipyards, repair facilities. Education during their careers could include advanced degrees in naval architecture and engineering. Senior engineering officers would form a cadre for a new BuShips. We could restart a BuShips, and those senior engineering officers would have the expertise to turn it into a truly professional design bureau.<br />CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17268819240942076632021-01-08T17:13:38.918-08:002021-01-08T17:13:38.918-08:00"Exactly what does NAVSEA do and why do we ha..."Exactly what does NAVSEA do and why do we have them?"<br /><br />They approve acceptance of incomplete, damaged ships.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87610320373993517602021-01-08T17:07:04.272-08:002021-01-08T17:07:04.272-08:00Exactly what does NAVSEA do and why do we have the...Exactly what does NAVSEA do and why do we have them?CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26280962085859790572021-01-08T13:29:24.671-08:002021-01-08T13:29:24.671-08:00"NAVSEA is supposed to design ships."
A..."NAVSEA is supposed to design ships."<br /><br />Actually, Navsea doesn't design ships. We've farmed that responsibility out to industry.<br /><br />In olden times, we used the General Board to set requirements and general characteristics and then BuShips would design the ship. In our infinite wisdom, we eliminated both those groups and now we have no in-house ship design capability. This is one of our major problems.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23252928655572615182021-01-08T13:04:54.179-08:002021-01-08T13:04:54.179-08:00Might consider matching performance characteristic...Might consider matching performance characteristics of all our historical frigates since the mid 60s:<br /><br /> endurance speed 20 knots (FREMM only 16) note that all our amphibs and combat logistics have endurance speed of 20 knots. This ship should escort without slowing them down.<br /><br /> maximum speed 28+ knots (FREMM only 26+) at 28+ marginally able to participate in carrier ops; at 26+ much more problematic.<br /><br /> SQS 53 for open ocean ASW (FREMM maybe SQS 56 equivalent) Every us frigate and destroyer ever built has had our top of the line hull sonar (except FFG 7, purposely very austere).<br /><br /> Forget eliminating risk or saving engineering dollars. By the time all Italian combat systems are removed and replaced with (mostly significantly heavier us systems) ship will require complete redesign.<br /><br /> OPNAV is supposed to conceive ship requirements. NAVSEA is supposed to design ships. Is it too much to ask these organizations to do their jobs? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com