7 ms·

After reading the article, no, the Navy probably does not need more overpaid business consultants with powerpoints full of easy answers. It needs to do somethin

After reading the article, no, the Navy probably does not need more overpaid business consultants with powerpoints full of easy answers. It needs to do something about inexperienced, undertrained, overworked crews in its ships. The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane full of behemoth freighters driving on autopilot in the dark.

cjcenizal 8y ago
The author of the book commanded a US Navy nuclear sub. At the time he assumed command, it was one of the worst performing subs in the fleet. The book is about the organizational and management lessons he learned as he transformed it into a top performing sub.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Yeah, well, commanding a US Navy nuclear sub pales in comparison with his years of experience commenting on and criticizing posts on Hacker News.
PhantomGremlin 8y ago
The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane Why aren't these people "the best of the best", to quote the trite line from Top Gun? According to Wikipedia, the US Navy has 282 deployable combat vessels. It employs a total of 325,673 active duty personnel plus 270,265 civilian employees. So out of those 600,000 people, they can't find a few thousand who are willing, able, and capable of commanding a destroyer? The US Naval Academy alone graduates 1000 people a year. Where do they all go? What do they all do? Really? I'm serious. My understanding is that the absolutely most prestigious military assignments are in "command" positions. Those assignments are the key to climbing the promotion ladder. This whole thing makes no sense to me.
- rectang 8y ago
  Even the best of the best need to sleep.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Which is why the post you replied to is suggesting "a few thousand" competent people in these slots for 282 ships. The question isn't why one person is asleep, it's why there's nobody filling the role.
    - watwut 8y ago
      There is exactly one CO and one XO for ship.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        If most of their subordinates are on a 12-on/12-off schedule, two people who don't do physical work can be on the bridge whenever necessary.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's why I said "the role" instead of specifically that job title. Either they're slacking or there aren't enough, and you can fix either problem with 10 quality candidates per ship.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        watwut 8y ago
        The role here is supposed to be that the big boss watches so that everyone behaves. Plus so that big boss takes blame. It is not like that person would be required for something active.
- sebcat 8y ago
  Maybe the environment does not allow for good people, and/or for people to be good?
- cschep 8y ago
  Don't underestimate how effective a bureaucracy can be at making the best of the best.. completely mediocre.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    From my readings of US Navy of WW2 and personal experience in modern day tech companies, I think it's not just the bureaucracy that's at fault. Rather, the organization (actually any organization) by default favors those who manage their superiors well for more/faster promotions. So a lot of times, the best of the best doesn't necessarily rise to the top, but rather those who are good at self promoting. 1. IN WW2, US Navy admirals learned painful lessons to trust captains who manage subordinates well, not the superiors. When US was suddenly pulled into WW2, the submarines of US navy in WW2 did not achieve much at beginning. For months, US navy submarines failed to sink enemy ships. One big factor was faulty torpedoes. US navy had recently finished developing a new type of torpedo with a magnetic detonator. It was supposed to be a very effective weapon. But due to budget restrictions before WW2 (in the Great Depression), not enough testing was done. If I recall correctly, after spending the precious budget to develop a new type of weapon, not one complete torpedo with live warhead was actually fired in a realistic manner. But I digress. The real reason US submarines did not achieve much initially at beginning of WW2 in the Pacific theater was the captains on the submarines. A captain in a WW2 submarine disproportionately influences how well or badly the submarine's crew performed. The captain's aggressiveness, skill, carelessness, excessive cautiousness, and etc all directly determined what the crew in the submarine achieved. When the US submarines in Pacific theater finally began to sink Japanese ships at a satisfactory level, it was discovered not a single (or very few) US Navy captain who had reached the rank before the war was still in command of a US submarine. They had failed to achieve results, and were replaced with proven captains who knew how to actually manage the crew below him on the submarine, not manage the higher officers in officers' club. Basically, before WW2, a US navy officer who was competent enough, projected image fit for a captain, AND managed his superiors well got the promotion. Well ok, previous statement is my own assumption. But the fact is when a shooting war began, it was discovered the officers who got command of a submarine prior to the beginning of WW2 couldn't find the enemy or shoot straight when it really mattered. US navy finally began promoting officers who knew how to manage the crew below him well and had a killer instinct, not the ones with superior social skills. US navy brass learned that the enemy did not care how good a US Navy officer was at self marketing/promoting. 2. My own managers who moved onto bigger firms. I've been in US tech scene (IT), about 15 years. Of the managers I had during that time, 2 managers (at separate firm/time) who were above me went on to work at globally well known tech/entertainment firms in tech VP roles. I mean really well known firms. Not Google or Facebook but older, established firms. Top of the heap. Because I worked in small companies with these managers, I got to observe them in close proximity. What I remember the most of them 2 is how incessantly they visited/chatted/hung-out with the CEO. Sure a lot of it was work I'm sure, but I also know it was a lot of befriending, kissing up, using one's social skill. I as a staff member was given slices of their time, but nothing like the attention given to the CEO. And sure enough, both firms were closed down. Of course a LOT of it was beyond their control. But it also shows they as managers couldn't find the right project to tackle or manage their subordinates effectively so the company could make $ to survive. Well, maybe or maybe not. But I do know they spent a lot of time and energy befriending the higher-ups above them. And, I trust the hard lessons US Navy admirals in WW2 learned, that were paid for with lives. The lesson that you should avoid those who spend much energy at self promoting, as they don't actually deliver when it matters.
- drblast 8y ago
  The top grads of the academy get their pick of jobs and most of them pick aviation or nuclear surface/subs. Surface warfare officer is not the most desireable job for most people. And it sucks so bad most people have much better options and leave after the initial five year commitment.
  - dmurray 8y ago
    Why is that? Battleships are badass and you don't have to spend the whole time in a tiny metal box underwater. If you're joining the Navy, don't you want to be in command of a big ship in the open seas?
    - wbl 8y ago
      Top Gun vs Master and Commander.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Not sure if it's true, but I heard that smaller than aircraft carrier surface vessels feature microwaved meals instead of a full mess (cost savings). This was from a younger Navy guy and older Navy guy swapping stories. The older guy was horrified.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      This was a destroyer though. Pretty small compared to a battleship or a carrier. Not really a high prestige command.
      - JohnBooty 8y ago
        Battleships were phased out decades ago. Really, the advent of military aviation made them more or less obsolete in WWII. There were almost no ship-to-ship battles involving battleships in WWII; they were used almost exclusively to shell inland targets close to shorelines, but there are much more efficient ways to do that and those ways aren't limited to striking targets within gun range of the shoreline. So it's pretty much carriers and destroyers as far as combat ships on the surface these days. (Not sure the term "destroyer" is used much these days, but the non-carrier surface combat ships are roughly comparable in size to what would have been called a destroyer in the old days) And then of course you have the many amphibious assault ships, support ships, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Unite...
- Haga 8y ago
  Office job never got somebody stuck in the middle of the ocean for a month
- gaius 8y ago
  The US Naval Academy alone graduates 1000 people a year. Where do they all go? What do they all do? In the Star Trek reboot Kirk goes straight from Academy sophomore to commanding a capital ship in a matter of days. It is not like that. It takes many years. Only a small percentage of Academy graduates will ever get there. And many have no ambition to either, there are lots of other challenging and prestigious jobs in the Navy. You could be a fighter pilot or a SEAL platoon commander, neither of those career paths leads to commanding a destroyer.
  - bkohlmann 8y ago
    But being a fighter pilot (and now, very rarely, a helo pilot), is the only way to command an aircraft carrier. Which is a pretty cool command!
- TheCondor 8y ago
  Are there any active members of the US Navy that remember our last real boat fight? I think some really big fights and even a bit of an ass kicking has some rejuvenating powers for big military apparatus. The military likes to really teach from mistakes, they make lots of noise about what does and doesn’t work after a big fight, they change. I’m not saying the navy hasn’t seen action but they definitely have t seen WWII style battleship to battleship action in 70 years, we don’t even have battleships anymore...
rectang 8y ago
> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping The Navy deliberately understaffs their vessels to meet unrealistic budgets. Overwork, fatigue, mistakes, and catastrophe are the inevitable consequence. The only thing more predictable is the scapegoating of ship personnel and the untouchability of those who create the conditions which guarantee eventual disaster.
- kevinskii 8y ago
  My experience in the navy was the opposite: Ships were typically crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed. I always suspected this was partly because lots of sailors means a big navy base, and a big navy base means a booming local economy in that congressional district.
  - 0xffff2 8y ago
    You're literally the only person I've ever seen make this claim. Why do we get so many stories of sleep deprived sailors if ships are over-crewed?
    - kevinskii 8y ago
      An over-crewed ship can still have an overworked crew. It’s just that much of the work isn’t really necessary.
    - stoolpigeon 8y ago
      In my time on a ship we were always undermanned. All the development I've seen in new systems to replace those I worked on (arresting gear and catapults) focus heavily on reducing required manning. We never did busy work or work that was unnecessary when we were under way and flying aircraft. In port - yeah sometimes. Most current sailors I talk to are overworked, training gets gundecked, following safety procedures and impede advancement - what's reworded is a "can do" approach that takes large risks. I don't know anyone currently serving, in any command, who says they have too many people.
dctoedt 8y ago
> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane full of behemoth freighters driving on autopilot in the dark. That was certainly how it worked 40 years ago aboard the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier, not the starship). Day or night, the CO would always come to the bridge whenever another ship got to within about two- to four miles and was predicted to come within one mile. And in traffic, e.g., transiting the Strait of Malacca, the skipper would be on the bridge pretty much continuously. (Not the XO; his full-time job was basically running the ship's internal operations.)
- ethbro 8y ago
  It makes you wonder if this is a Nasa / Challenger situation, wherein the captain decided not to come to the bridge during one incident, nothing happened, and so that rapidly became SOP on this ship. Or, as the broader lesson goes, taking a risk without it blowing up doesn't necessarily mean the risks are less. It might just mean you were lucky.
- hansthehorse 8y ago
  Floated alongside the Enterprise in the 70's on a nuclear cruiser. In engineering we didn't change watch getting underway on entering port until past the sea marker or tied up.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    Yeah, I was a nuke SWO on the Enterprise; it was the same in engineering as on the bridge. (I was there '76 to '79, so this is probably not the first time you and I have crossed paths <g>.)
- JohnBooty 8y ago
  Would that have been feasible (in terms of the captain being a human being that needs rest) on a ship like the Fitzgerald that operates pretty much 24/7/365 in busy waters? I'm not asking rhetorically -- honest question.
  - 8y ago
gpm 8y ago
> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping ... If the CO and XO are so critical that the ship needs one of them during normal operations I think there is a bigger problem. What happens in a conflict that lasts more than 24 hours? They alternate schedules and just don't talk to eachother much? What happens if one of them is incapacitated? The ship is ineffective for half of every day?

cjcenizal 8y ago

The author of the book commanded a US Navy nuclear sub. At the time he assumed command, it was one of the worst performing subs in the fleet. The book is about the organizational and management lessons he learned as he transformed it into a top performing sub.

jplayer01 8y ago
Yeah, well, commanding a US Navy nuclear sub pales in comparison with his years of experience commenting on and criticizing posts on Hacker News.

PhantomGremlin 8y ago

The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane Why aren't these people "the best of the best", to quote the trite line from Top Gun? According to Wikipedia, the US Navy has 282 deployable combat vessels. It employs a total of 325,673 active duty personnel plus 270,265 civilian employees. So out of those 600,000 people, they can't find a few thousand who are willing, able, and capable of commanding a destroyer? The US Naval Academy alone graduates 1000 people a year. Where do they all go? What do they all do? Really? I'm serious. My understanding is that the absolutely most prestigious military assignments are in "command" positions. Those assignments are the key to climbing the promotion ladder. This whole thing makes no sense to me.

rectang 8y ago
Even the best of the best need to sleep.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Which is why the post you replied to is suggesting "a few thousand" competent people in these slots for 282 ships. The question isn't why one person is asleep, it's why there's nobody filling the role.
  - watwut 8y ago
    There is exactly one CO and one XO for ship.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      If most of their subordinates are on a 12-on/12-off schedule, two people who don't do physical work can be on the bridge whenever necessary.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      That's why I said "the role" instead of specifically that job title. Either they're slacking or there aren't enough, and you can fix either problem with 10 quality candidates per ship.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - watwut 8y ago
        The role here is supposed to be that the big boss watches so that everyone behaves. Plus so that big boss takes blame. It is not like that person would be required for something active.
sebcat 8y ago
Maybe the environment does not allow for good people, and/or for people to be good?
cschep 8y ago
Don't underestimate how effective a bureaucracy can be at making the best of the best.. completely mediocre.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  From my readings of US Navy of WW2 and personal experience in modern day tech companies, I think it's not just the bureaucracy that's at fault. Rather, the organization (actually any organization) by default favors those who manage their superiors well for more/faster promotions. So a lot of times, the best of the best doesn't necessarily rise to the top, but rather those who are good at self promoting. 1. IN WW2, US Navy admirals learned painful lessons to trust captains who manage subordinates well, not the superiors. When US was suddenly pulled into WW2, the submarines of US navy in WW2 did not achieve much at beginning. For months, US navy submarines failed to sink enemy ships. One big factor was faulty torpedoes. US navy had recently finished developing a new type of torpedo with a magnetic detonator. It was supposed to be a very effective weapon. But due to budget restrictions before WW2 (in the Great Depression), not enough testing was done. If I recall correctly, after spending the precious budget to develop a new type of weapon, not one complete torpedo with live warhead was actually fired in a realistic manner. But I digress. The real reason US submarines did not achieve much initially at beginning of WW2 in the Pacific theater was the captains on the submarines. A captain in a WW2 submarine disproportionately influences how well or badly the submarine's crew performed. The captain's aggressiveness, skill, carelessness, excessive cautiousness, and etc all directly determined what the crew in the submarine achieved. When the US submarines in Pacific theater finally began to sink Japanese ships at a satisfactory level, it was discovered not a single (or very few) US Navy captain who had reached the rank before the war was still in command of a US submarine. They had failed to achieve results, and were replaced with proven captains who knew how to actually manage the crew below him on the submarine, not manage the higher officers in officers' club. Basically, before WW2, a US navy officer who was competent enough, projected image fit for a captain, AND managed his superiors well got the promotion. Well ok, previous statement is my own assumption. But the fact is when a shooting war began, it was discovered the officers who got command of a submarine prior to the beginning of WW2 couldn't find the enemy or shoot straight when it really mattered. US navy finally began promoting officers who knew how to manage the crew below him well and had a killer instinct, not the ones with superior social skills. US navy brass learned that the enemy did not care how good a US Navy officer was at self marketing/promoting. 2. My own managers who moved onto bigger firms. I've been in US tech scene (IT), about 15 years. Of the managers I had during that time, 2 managers (at separate firm/time) who were above me went on to work at globally well known tech/entertainment firms in tech VP roles. I mean really well known firms. Not Google or Facebook but older, established firms. Top of the heap. Because I worked in small companies with these managers, I got to observe them in close proximity. What I remember the most of them 2 is how incessantly they visited/chatted/hung-out with the CEO. Sure a lot of it was work I'm sure, but I also know it was a lot of befriending, kissing up, using one's social skill. I as a staff member was given slices of their time, but nothing like the attention given to the CEO. And sure enough, both firms were closed down. Of course a LOT of it was beyond their control. But it also shows they as managers couldn't find the right project to tackle or manage their subordinates effectively so the company could make $ to survive. Well, maybe or maybe not. But I do know they spent a lot of time and energy befriending the higher-ups above them. And, I trust the hard lessons US Navy admirals in WW2 learned, that were paid for with lives. The lesson that you should avoid those who spend much energy at self promoting, as they don't actually deliver when it matters.
drblast 8y ago
The top grads of the academy get their pick of jobs and most of them pick aviation or nuclear surface/subs. Surface warfare officer is not the most desireable job for most people. And it sucks so bad most people have much better options and leave after the initial five year commitment.
- dmurray 8y ago
  Why is that? Battleships are badass and you don't have to spend the whole time in a tiny metal box underwater. If you're joining the Navy, don't you want to be in command of a big ship in the open seas?
  - wbl 8y ago
    Top Gun vs Master and Commander.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Not sure if it's true, but I heard that smaller than aircraft carrier surface vessels feature microwaved meals instead of a full mess (cost savings). This was from a younger Navy guy and older Navy guy swapping stories. The older guy was horrified.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    This was a destroyer though. Pretty small compared to a battleship or a carrier. Not really a high prestige command.
    - JohnBooty 8y ago
      Battleships were phased out decades ago. Really, the advent of military aviation made them more or less obsolete in WWII. There were almost no ship-to-ship battles involving battleships in WWII; they were used almost exclusively to shell inland targets close to shorelines, but there are much more efficient ways to do that and those ways aren't limited to striking targets within gun range of the shoreline. So it's pretty much carriers and destroyers as far as combat ships on the surface these days. (Not sure the term "destroyer" is used much these days, but the non-carrier surface combat ships are roughly comparable in size to what would have been called a destroyer in the old days) And then of course you have the many amphibious assault ships, support ships, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Unite...
Haga 8y ago
Office job never got somebody stuck in the middle of the ocean for a month
gaius 8y ago
The US Naval Academy alone graduates 1000 people a year. Where do they all go? What do they all do? In the Star Trek reboot Kirk goes straight from Academy sophomore to commanding a capital ship in a matter of days. It is not like that. It takes many years. Only a small percentage of Academy graduates will ever get there. And many have no ambition to either, there are lots of other challenging and prestigious jobs in the Navy. You could be a fighter pilot or a SEAL platoon commander, neither of those career paths leads to commanding a destroyer.
- bkohlmann 8y ago
  But being a fighter pilot (and now, very rarely, a helo pilot), is the only way to command an aircraft carrier. Which is a pretty cool command!
TheCondor 8y ago
Are there any active members of the US Navy that remember our last real boat fight? I think some really big fights and even a bit of an ass kicking has some rejuvenating powers for big military apparatus. The military likes to really teach from mistakes, they make lots of noise about what does and doesn’t work after a big fight, they change. I’m not saying the navy hasn’t seen action but they definitely have t seen WWII style battleship to battleship action in 70 years, we don’t even have battleships anymore...

rectang 8y ago

> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping The Navy deliberately understaffs their vessels to meet unrealistic budgets. Overwork, fatigue, mistakes, and catastrophe are the inevitable consequence. The only thing more predictable is the scapegoating of ship personnel and the untouchability of those who create the conditions which guarantee eventual disaster.

kevinskii 8y ago
My experience in the navy was the opposite: Ships were typically crewed with about 1.5X the number of sailors that were actually needed. I always suspected this was partly because lots of sailors means a big navy base, and a big navy base means a booming local economy in that congressional district.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  You're literally the only person I've ever seen make this claim. Why do we get so many stories of sleep deprived sailors if ships are over-crewed?
  - kevinskii 8y ago
    An over-crewed ship can still have an overworked crew. It’s just that much of the work isn’t really necessary.
  - stoolpigeon 8y ago
    In my time on a ship we were always undermanned. All the development I've seen in new systems to replace those I worked on (arresting gear and catapults) focus heavily on reducing required manning. We never did busy work or work that was unnecessary when we were under way and flying aircraft. In port - yeah sometimes. Most current sailors I talk to are overworked, training gets gundecked, following safety procedures and impede advancement - what's reworded is a "can do" approach that takes large risks. I don't know anyone currently serving, in any command, who says they have too many people.

dctoedt 8y ago

> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping while their ship is crossing a busy sealane full of behemoth freighters driving on autopilot in the dark. That was certainly how it worked 40 years ago aboard the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier, not the starship). Day or night, the CO would always come to the bridge whenever another ship got to within about two- to four miles and was predicted to come within one mile. And in traffic, e.g., transiting the Strait of Malacca, the skipper would be on the bridge pretty much continuously. (Not the XO; his full-time job was basically running the ship's internal operations.)

ethbro 8y ago
It makes you wonder if this is a Nasa / Challenger situation, wherein the captain decided not to come to the bridge during one incident, nothing happened, and so that rapidly became SOP on this ship. Or, as the broader lesson goes, taking a risk without it blowing up doesn't necessarily mean the risks are less. It might just mean you were lucky.
hansthehorse 8y ago
Floated alongside the Enterprise in the 70's on a nuclear cruiser. In engineering we didn't change watch getting underway on entering port until past the sea marker or tied up.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  Yeah, I was a nuke SWO on the Enterprise; it was the same in engineering as on the bridge. (I was there '76 to '79, so this is probably not the first time you and I have crossed paths <g>.)
JohnBooty 8y ago
Would that have been feasible (in terms of the captain being a human being that needs rest) on a ship like the Fitzgerald that operates pretty much 24/7/365 in busy waters? I'm not asking rhetorically -- honest question.
- 8y ago

gpm 8y ago

> The CO and XO shouldn't be sleeping ... If the CO and XO are so critical that the ship needs one of them during normal operations I think there is a bigger problem. What happens in a conflict that lasts more than 24 hours? They alternate schedules and just don't talk to eachother much? What happens if one of them is incapacitated? The ship is ineffective for half of every day?