12 ms·
The Navy Electricity and Electronics Training Series (1998)
- andrewxdiamond 6y agoWhy is this labeled (1998)? All of these books look to be from 2013. Great find either way. I'll add these to the collection of books I want to read but probably never find time for
- jonsen 6y agoIt clearly says “September 1998” on the front page and “1998 edition ...” after the preface. 2013 could be the year it’s archived?
- kjs3 6y agoThe Navy is good at training; I assume the other branches are as well. The Navy took both of my grandfathers, one urban, one rural, both very poor, both of very modest education but apparent potential, and in months turned them into electricians. They both made careers of being in the Navy based on that training, one as an electrician and one moving into logistics, both becoming Master Chiefs. They had the 1940s versions of these books and I learned a lot from them.
- phaus 6y ago>I assume the other branches are as well. I have got some rather sad news for you. Joking aside, I was in the Army for 16 years. Almost all of the technical training is complete garbage. In fact, the best part of my training in Satellite Communications (at the time one of the longest and supposedly "toughest" technical courses the Army had) used the Navy's Electronics program from OP. We only used about 20 pages worth of it and that was our introduction to electronics. The only technical training I did that was actually pretty good was run by the National Guard in Utah. It was a basic Information Technology course. The instructors were all really into what they were doing and had professional careers outside the Army before they volunteered to teach full time.
- readme 6y agoThings have changed since you were in. The Army leads the other branches in infosec training now. Other branches send their people to gordon for it.
- jabedude 6y agoI don't think this is true. The gold standard of entry-level infosec training in the US military is the Joint Cyber Analysis Course in Pensacola, FL, taught by the Navy.
- phaus 6y agoI got out a couple of years ago. Their Cyber program is much better than most of their other technical training but it was heavily influenced by what other branches were doing. Maybe they changed it but another thing is that their cyber training was mostly SANS courses and the joint course someone else already mentioned. So it was good because it was some of the better training offered by the private sector. I have met some ex NSA guys from the Army that were amazing. Not really sure what kind of training they got. Their experience isn't really a good representation of IT as a whole in the Army. There are exceptions to everything. There are small teams/groups within every branch of the military doing really cool stuff. Some of them have many more opportunities for excellent training that the average person in a similar role in the Army will have. >Other branches send their people to gordon for it. Also, a lot of the technical schools at Gordon had instructors from the Air Force and the Navy teaching alongside the Army.
- kjs3 6y agoSo you had a bad experience. Seems specific to you, or maybe the Army.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y agoI was an electronics technician in the Navy and concur with their excellent training. The NEETS series is great, I have the entire set in hard copy and still refer to them from time to time.
- phaus 6y agoAs a guy that spent a long time in the Army doing telecommunications we interacted with electronics techs in the Navy and they were almost always really really knowledgeable. We didn't have the same level of confidence when talking to our counterparts in other Army units.
- sitzkrieg 6y agoI find this curious as a civilian exposed to PQS and gundecking
- scrapcode 6y agoI was an Avionics Tech in the USN. I remember my initial electronics training being very accelerated and intense. I still remember much of it and use it from time to time even after not using it for many years - so I guess it worked!
- dkhenry 6y agoMy first job out of college was working for the navy as a civilian engineer. At the time I read through all these and found them on par with the education I got at my university. With the training found in these books a sailor could understand and repair almost any analog system on the ship. They did not keep up this training for the digital age, and its a shame because on a modern naval ship almost everything is done via computer control and the current training is swap out the digital parts if anything breaks.
- vonmoltke 6y ago> They did not keep up this training for the digital age, and its a shame because on a modern naval ship almost everything is done via computer control and the current training is swap out the digital parts if anything breaks. I have a fair bit of experience with this from the civilian contractor side. The main problem with these modern Line Replaceable Modules (LRMs) and Line Replaceable Units (LRUs)[1] is that they require specialized tooling and equipment to properly troubleshoot, repair/rework, and test. They also each require some parts that are specific to the LRM/LRU. Shipboard technicians could be given the training to do the work (mostly), but there would be no space for all the other physical elements required to actually do it. At first the DOD pushed all this back on the contractors (any failed LRM/LRU was shipped back to the factory), but when I left that world they were moving towards a model where branch depots could receive the failed LRM/LRU, test it, and perform basic repair/rework without contractor intervention; they would only ship the hairy cases back. That's about as good as they can get, because it just in feasible or cost effective to spread that capability out to every base and ship around the world. [1] Those are Air Force terms, but the Navy as similar concepts.
- jki275 6y agoNavy CVNs have micro miniature repair shops onboard, and no Depot level repairable leaves the ship without screening by them to see if they can repair it. They have a significant incentive to do so, as the money they save is something they can take credit for, and the ship's budget is significantly helped out by their repairs.
- notadev 6y agoI spent nearly two decades in the Navy as an IT. The "NEETS modules" were always required study material for portions of the IT/ET/IC, etc. advancement exams.
- Ahmd72 6y agoRecommended for people wanting to learn about this subject, I still keep this as my go to reading whenever I want to check something again. Though there is an updated version too which you can find at: https://www.fcctests.com/neets/Neets.htm https://www.fcctests.com/neets/Neets.htm
- jwithington 6y agoThese training materials are supremelyyyyy underrated. So much of what people are looking for is training--not education. And there's a difference! The Navy is best-in-class in training. Excited to see these materials made their way to HackerNews.
- jkhdigital 6y agoYep, I was trained by the US Navy to perform electronics calibration, and basically learned how to troubleshoot and fix almost any electronic device (given schematics and a manual) in about 9 months of training, total.
- supernova87a 6y agoThere is something about how the military used to be a huge repository of technical talent as we entered WW2 and the incentives were still there for people to build their careers in the military as experts. Think about all the stories of experts who developed technology for the military, solved interesting problems for the military, public defense, all the aircraft and vehicle/vessel designs, systems that came out of that domain. And spun off useful companies that created whole industries of their own. And then over time, we as a country lost the desire to pay for that expertise (and lost an urgent need for it), and just like other areas of government, the expertise that was no longer being rewarded migrated to contractors to the point that the government agencies themselves do not know how to measure what they want to happen -- and have to ask the contractor to do that assessment for them... Just think of the FAA and Boeing lately...
- indymike 6y agoWas in the Navy in the early 90s and concur with everyone on the quality of training being incredible. The NEETS Modules were designed for independent study and were incredibly useful. The last one wasn't on electronics... it was on Blueprint Reading has been outrageously useful in life for me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- killjoywashere 6y agoMy first job out of college with a degree in Physics was electrical officer on a Navy ship in 1999. I remember flipping through these because my guys had them to study for their rating exams and thinking they were surprisingly good.
- graycat 6y agoMaybe from, say, 1950 to 1970 or so, some of that Navy training in electronics was in Millington, TN, in particular at the NATTC, Naval Aviation Technical Training Center, with about 40,000 students at a time?
- christophergray 6y agoI was there in '79.
- graycat 6y agoDad worked there 1948 to 1964 as the main education theory and organizing guy -- Educational Consultant to the Director of Training. We lived in Memphis. Starting in 1964 he was at the Pentagon for the rest of his career. So, by '79 he was in DC!
- untangle 6y agoThey are available directly: http://www.compatt.com/Tutorials/NEETS/NEETS.html http://www.compatt.com/Tutorials/NEETS/NEETS.html