| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kapitan wrote: | When the royal navy trains its crews they train them in one area, as a specialisation.
In the russian navy your trained throughout so you are not only efficent in repairing one station but 3 or 4, i know guys who work primarily on the reactor but can repair sonar or radar, and they do make repairs at sea but they do like to return home and let the techs take over. |
Isn't that the opposite of the usual story on this subject? 
Anyway, I suppose 62 crew means all of them are officers or michmen. Looking at the crew rosters, these guys do virtually everything of any importance. The seamen are bilgemen, cooks - the most responsible being "turbine operators".
I suppose if you kept only the senior enlisted and officers on an American sub, dumping out all the guys who are still earning their dolphins and all (who won't be that much use other as extra backs in damage control), you can beat the number down to something similar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bubblehead Nuke
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kazuaki Shimazaki II wrote: | | I suppose if you kept only the senior enlisted and officers on an American sub, dumping out all the guys who are still earning their dolphins and all (who won't be that much use other as extra backs in damage control), you can beat the number down to something similar. |
Nope. This is not true. Most of the crew shows up being rather highly trained to begin with. They have completed at LEAST an 'A' school and some even complete their ratings 'C' school before ever seeing the boat. Except for the nukes, they have completed Sub School and therefore are of some use to the boat in damage control, as well as the operating and maintaining their divisional equipment. What they LACK coming to the boat that first time is EXPERIENCE. That will come fast and hard when you get there or you will be GONE.
About the only ones that MIGHT be not as useful are the non-rates that come to the boat. However, they STILL have to complete Sub School to get to the boat and therefore are of some use to the boat. They would be the 'extra backs' so to speak.
I was a watchstander in the engineroom LONG before I got my Dolphins. I was an intergral part of the engineering department and the crew within a week of being on-board.
There is NO room on board for a, as we called it: Air Breathing, rack filling, food eating, san filling, load on my air conditioning system. AKA: NUB - nom-useful body |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bubblehead Nuke wrote: | | About the only ones that MIGHT be not as useful are the non-rates that come to the boat. However, they STILL have to complete Sub School to get to the boat and therefore are of some use to the boat. They would be the 'extra backs' so to speak. |
Let's start with how many there are of those on the boat. Yeah, any extra back would be "of some use", but if you are ever going to get manpower savings you have to work on marginal utility.
| Quote: | | I was a watchstander in the engineroom LONG before I got my Dolphins. I was an intergral part of the engineering department and the crew within a week of being on-board. |
Does that mean you were a "Turbine Operator"?
Since you were there, they could hardly let you just lie in the bunk. Besides, since junior EMs IIRC hot bunk, if you were allowed to lie in the bunk it means someone else can't get his sleep. Furthermore, you are there to learn and do what you can.
If one keeps insisting too easily that everyone is an "integral part" of the team and "useful", one never can cut any manpower. While the other guy cut out enough to fill a whole new sub with their manpower savings.
Seriously think about what you did back then as a junior watchstander with training that was measured in months without even your dolphins. Think whether you could have done some double-duty without killing yourself, or whether there were any linked procedures that could have been automated.
If you can't do double-duty, could you have if you had been more experienced or received more thorough training? Could the petty officer/chief above you actually have handled both your panel and his own without serious effects? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henson
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a difference in philosophy here that came directly from God Himself, The Admiral Rickover. He was deeply distrustful of computers and electronic machines, especially when it came to the operation of HIS reactors. Many functions that COULD be centralized or automated are not simply because he trusted a human set of eyes more than he ever did some dumb machine. We obsess about safety, and we always have a 'backup to the backup'...even for the coffeemaker (which in my boat came from the primary power bus; if there was power AT ALL, there was coffee. Some trivia for you)
That backup to the backup includes people. There is a concept we try to avoid, which is the phenomenon of "single point failure.' That is where ONE individual can do smoething to kill the boat and its crew. I guarantee you that on a US boat if even the CO himself tried to do something that was considered unsafe there would be a hue and cry in control like you'd never believe, because our enlisted guys are trained to observe and question.
Getting back to the distrust of automation, not only did Rickover have these feelings, but he also personally chose every submarine skipper, and interviewed a lot of officers before he allowed them to be nucs. His philosophy has guided our force for decades, and only now are we starting to get into a place where we can have an automated torpedo room (seawolf) or a more highly automated maneuvering room. Virginia has taken the standard and run with it by integrating electronic logs, as someone mentioned before. No more dangling off of ladders looking for the right guage.
I personally would rather have the people. The more sets of intelligent, highly trained eyes you have on a task, the safer you are. No one on board doesn't stand a watch...even the unqualified deck seaman-type guys (of which there are usually MAYBE 3 or 4) drive the boat or stand watch in sonar.
We already work more than our surface fleet friends. I can't really conceive having a smaller crew for the boats we currently operate without a change in philosophy so drastic that it would render our force unrecognizeable...and less safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Henson wrote: | | There is a difference in philosophy here that came directly from God Himself, The Admiral Rickover. He was deeply distrustful of computers and electronic machines, especially when it came to the operation of HIS reactors. |
That explains your reactor. That does not explain everything else. Furthermore, this attitude actually may even impair the development of reliable automation, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
| Quote: | | That backup to the backup includes people. There is a concept we try to avoid, which is the phenomenon of "single point failure.' That is where ONE individual can do smoething to kill the boat and its crew. I guarantee you that on a US boat if even the CO himself tried to do something that was considered unsafe there would be a hue and cry in control like you'd never believe, because our enlisted guys are trained to observe and question. |
If 60 guys can't catch the Captain's dreadful mistake, I hardly see how another 50 would make any difference. And I bet that 99.9% of the time, if the hue comes it'd come from someone important and experienced like the Chief of the Boat, not from some PO3c.
Avoiding "single point failure" is one thing, but at some point one has to call a certain amount "good enough".
| Quote: | | I personally would rather have the people. The more sets of intelligent, highly trained eyes you have on a task, the safer you are. No one on board doesn't stand a watch...even the unqualified deck seaman-type guys (of which there are usually MAYBE 3 or 4) drive the boat or stand watch in sonar. |
Great. But wouldn't you think automation would allow a whole series of options such as:
1) Manning two subs instead of one. That by definition eliminates a "single point failure" point - one hull and one crew.
2) SSBN style manning - Blue and Gold for the price of one, allowing more hours at sea = greater combat ability for the nation?
3) Same complement with automation - if your boat does perfectly well on 55 guys and you cram 110, you can use the other 55 in many ways. Yet more damage control backs in combat because damage control beyond a basic team would involve all the spare backs. Or you can alternate the crews in a multi-hour tracking. Everybody is more alert due to more resting time, which of course improves ... safety! Or you can let the extra crew waltz into the rooms from time to time to check briefly on gauges. The point being, if I still cram 110 guys on, it is because I want to add cherry on pie, not because I don't/can't use automation.
4) Improving some other factor. Like fewer guys = eliminating hot bunking = more comfortable sleeping = more alertness = more safety. Or maybe put in another computer in the space. Or two more torpedoes. There are surely any number of ways to utilize space that was saved by cutting crew (and thus quarters) in half - subs are not known for having tons of space to spare.
| Quote: | | We already work more than our surface fleet friends. I can't really conceive having a smaller crew for the boats we currently operate without a change in philosophy so drastic that it would render our force unrecognizeable...and less safe. |
No doubt about that. I did notice that you have only half the numbers of say a frigate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bubblehead Nuke
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kazuaki Shimazaki II wrote: | | Let's start with how many there are of those on the boat. Yeah, any extra back would be "of some use", but if you are ever going to get manpower savings you have to work on marginal utility. |
Actually we did not run a get extra bodies and then lose the older crewman. Generally speaking we would run short in a division, thus requiring port and starboard watxchstanding till the new crewman was brought aboard and got watch qualified. That made it a GREAT incentive on BOTH sides to get the lucky person spun up and on the watchbill.
| Quote: | | Does that mean you were a "Turbine Operator"? |
Initially.. yes. But rather soon you start to gather colladeral duties. In my time I was Training OP, RPPO, QA writer, QA checker, Sound Silencing PO, and a few others I can't remember. Note: there are divisional and then department positions. At the end, I was a EWS qualified, doing QA packages (writing the LONG DETAILED procedures for maintennce for just about anything mechanical, Repair parts PO (dovetailed nicely into writing QA packages), Ship Sound Silencing PO for ALL Engineering spaces (basically the WHOLE boat).
So as you can see, while I might have been a 'turbine operator' it was a small part of my job. In fact, I did a LOT of my other jobs while on watch between log rounds and evolutions.
| Quote: | Since you were there, they could hardly let you just lie in the bunk. Besides, since junior EMs IIRC hot bunk, if you were allowed to lie in the bunk it means someone else can't get his sleep. Furthermore, you are there to learn and do what you can.
|
Mmmm..I had my OWN rack when I was a third class about a year after I was aboard. So for 12 hours of the watch rotation I HAD someplace to rack out. There was a saying the captain had. 'There is NOTHING more dangerous than a bored Nuke'. HE made sure we were not bored.
| Quote: | | If one keeps insisting too easily that everyone is an "integral part" of the team and "useful", one never can cut any manpower. While the other guy cut out enough to fill a whole new sub with their manpower savings. |
I never insisted that it can not be cut. I however know how the equipment was operated on my boat and while you COULD operate the boat with reduced manning, the combat effectiveness would have been effected. When we were in combat ops we would basically DOUBLE the watch up and go into a modified port & starbord rotation to gain MAXIMUM efficency.
Without going into MAJOR automation which most bubbleheads would NOT like you really could not cut it down to less than 100 or so. Us Bubbleheads, we are a strange lot. We like to have things under POSITIVE control and don't trust a little light on a panel most of the time
| Quote: | | Seriously think about what you did back then as a junior watchstander with training that was measured in months without even your dolphins. Think whether you could have done some double-duty without killing yourself, or whether there were any linked procedures that could have been automated. |
Read above. NOBODY was just 'simple watchstanding'. We all did 'double duty'. Things like getting your Dolphins was something that you did in you OWN time, not department time.
| Quote: | | If you can't do double-duty, could you have if you had been more experienced or received more thorough training? Could the petty officer/chief above you actually have handled both your panel and his own without serious effects? |
Senior PO's/Chiefs were in rotation, making sure that everything was coordinated and nothing was missed. Could they have watched our board?? Sure. But it was better to have him available for head breaks and to bring you coffee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henson
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bubblehead Nuke wrote: |
I never insisted that it can not be cut. I however know how the equipment was operated on my boat and while you COULD operate the boat with reduced manning, the combat effectiveness would have been effected. When we were in combat ops we would basically DOUBLE the watch up and go into a modified port & starbord rotation to gain MAXIMUM efficency.
Without going into MAJOR automation which most bubbleheads would NOT like you really could not cut it down to less than 100 or so. Us Bubbleheads, we are a strange lot. We like to have things under POSITIVE control and don't trust a little light on a panel most of the time
|
This is the best explanation of the US submariner mindset we've seen yet in the thread.
We are not saying that the boat cannot run on less people, we are saying that it cannot run safely and as effetively on less people, especially when you look at the big picture.
We could just man up our submarine with about 90 people (no less....it's just not possible with our current boats), but we would lose a lot of focus on what we call 'collateral duties.' There are several types of jobs one can (and wil) have in the US Navy, and those include regular watchstanding, divisional maintnance, departmental evolutions, ship-wide working details (such as 'field day' or cleaning the boat), temporary duties (such as working in the galley as an assistant), and collateral duties, which are little things like ordering supplies for the division, or acting as workcenter supervisor.
The typical submariner will come to the boat as a NUB, and his first job will be two-fold: he will stand watch, and he will qualify, both for other more senior watches and working towards submarine qualifications. He may also work as a Food Service Attendant for 30 or 60 days as well, over and above all of that. As he settles into the division he will be assigned maintenance tasks, both preventive and corrective, as well as continue to stand watch. As he gains experience and seniority, he is assigned collateral duties that help the division, department, or ship run smoother. All of this is a continuum that is designed to make each submariner a well rounded expert in his rating before he leaves for another command. We don't get our training from schools, we get it from being on the boat. Because of the way this process works, we need more people available to do all of these little tasks which are ingrained in our culture.
Applying all of this to manning, I will admit that thi is a slightly more manpower-intensive way to run things. I will also assert that it is a safer and more effective way to run things. I would prefer to keep what we have over the miniscule savings we would see in cutting 20 men. This isn't corporate america or a business, it is a warfighting vessel. Points of effectiveness and safety trump minor savings benefits. Cutting our manning on a 688 would cost us more in basic submarining effectiveness and knowledge than it would save us financially.
Can Virginia automate more and bring aboard a smaller crew because of it? The answer is yes and yes, and she does both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hm... more good info, thanks. Question for anyone interested, I've read that the Tango Bravo program is attempting to reduce submarine manninng requirements (as size, cost, etc) by experimenting with all electrical internal systems.... but are hydralic systems that much more maintenance heavy than electrical? I mean, last time I checked, my car shocks and steering system were a whole lot less likely to breakdown than my air-conditioning or electrical system... doesn't seem like "electricifying" a sub would really be that beneficial.... :hmm:  Or am I mistaken.... if they are that much better how much crew reduction could one expect, a couple of sailors?
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Tango,,00.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200502/ai_n10298185 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henson
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hydraulic valves keep water out of the people-tank, which is the closest a lot of bubbleheads get to a religion.
We take hydraulic systems pretty seriously, along with any hole in the boat (induction valves, etc.)
But to answer your question, the electricians in a submarine are running a full-powered nuclear power plant. There's a lot more to it than your car's electrical system. What the electronics there is referring to is electronic monitoring systems than can be used instead of people to 'keep an eye' on what the major mechanical systems and subsystems are up to.
The US does a lot of Preventitve Maintencance, which we call "fix it til it breaks.' That takes up most of the labor and man-hours on board. Because of that it seems like the machinists and mechanics work a lot more and own more systems which they then have to monitor. If we can cut down on their monitoring requirements then we can cut down on man-hours needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bubblehead Nuke
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deathblow wrote: | | Hm... more good info, thanks. Question for anyone interested, I've read that the Tango Bravo program is attempting to reduce submarine manninng requirements (as size, cost, etc) by experimenting with all electrical internal systems.... but are hydralic systems that much more maintenance heavy than electrical? |
Electrical is easier to control and maintain but hydraulics are just about bulletproof. Another thing to consider is WHAT is being operated. An electric motor can only provide so much torque. Yes, I know that a bigger coil, motor, etc can give you more torque but it also increases the SIZE of the operating head. Space is at something of a premium onboard a sub you know. Hydraulics can be nice and small and provide TONS of operating force.
Critical ship safety things, hull valves for one, and engineering space valves, will probably NEVER be electical operated. They may have a remote electrical operation, but you can ALWAYS manually override the electric controls. Imagine a seawater leak right at the electrical operated valve and it shorts out the operating head. That would make for a HUGE pucker factor. Hydraulics do not care if it gets wet for the most part, it will still operate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was lucky enough not to crank because we were short in the sonar division.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bubblehead Nuke
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sonar732 wrote: | | I was lucky enough not to crank because we were short in the sonar division. |
When I first got to the boat nukes didn't crank. Period.
After 9 months, and a new captian, I had the honor of being the first nuke to crank on my boat, for all of 6 weeks.
About a year after that, the captain got sneaky. We had just finished an ORSE and had a TRE coming up. He put 4 nukes in the mess cranking. He had the belief that we were better at DC that most of the forward folks. I think is due to me and 3 buddies running a firehose to the torpedo room from SHAFT ALLEY faster than the forward guys could from the midlevel passageway. Thus we got the honor of being cranks for 4 weeks. Needles to say, the TRE team was IMPRESSED at how fast the forward guys could respond to a casualty. I don't think they realized what was happening.
We snookered them good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okiedokie then...
... so lets look at SSKs then, all of the same *basic* (and thats a very loose *basic*) systems on a SSN are on an SSK.... however, SSKs can routinely run with as little as 50-70 crewmembers... for example the Upholder is reported to operate with 50-55 men... where is the difference? Is it the reactor thats drawing so much more crew requirement? :hmm:
Another way of asking it is... is we were to take an SSK crew and transfer the exact crew to a SSN with the same jobs... where would be personell gaps lie? :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henson
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We already have a division on a nuc boat that runs the diesel and associated systems, Auxilliary Division, made up of the non-num MM's. They are one of the largest divisions on board because they own almost everything (all hydraulics, the diesel, all non-nuc valves, the sanitary tanks/pumps, the trim and drain system, the air processing equipment, etc.)
Without a reactor we could cut out almost everyone we have in the engine room with the exception of a few MM's (who would fold into A-div) and a few EM's to run the power plant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bubblehead Nuke
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deathblow wrote: | | Is it the reactor thats drawing so much more crew requirement? |
All other operatioal systems being equivelant I would say the answer is yes.
The propulsion plant needs that many people to operate efficently. Of the 120 or so on my boat at any given time I remember engineering being about 55 or so effectives. I know the Engineer has the largest department on a 688. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
