This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us. We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us. We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:01:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us. We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.

You know one. I preferred being at sea to being in port ... if I
wasn't on liberty. Sitting around on a docked ship is just boring. At
sea they tend to leave you alone to do your job. In port they are
always just trying to find something for you to do.
I was lucky that in the CG we did not have any "union rules" and I was
able to walk around trying other people's jobs. The DC chief thought I
worked for him for a while because I spent so much time hanging out
with his gang but they did the coolest stuff. (welding, machining,
building stuff)
I was in ordinance and we really did not have that much to do.
I pretty much lived in the FT shack in port if I couldn't find
anything fun to do. Nobody wanted to climb up there to screw with me.
I did the 3&2 correspondence courses for several rates just to stay
sane. The only one I mailed back was the GM. I really wanted to change
my rate. They would not let me.
My chief used my connections tho. When we loaded our torpedoes, we
needed some temporary racks for them when we moved them from the depot
in Portsmouth to the ordinance department in Norfolk who loaded them
into the tubes. He told me to get some of my DC buddies to help us
out. We got some "shoring" lumber and built some racks.

On 8/23/2017 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:01:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us. We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.

You know one. I preferred being at sea to being in port ... if I
wasn't on liberty. Sitting around on a docked ship is just boring. At
sea they tend to leave you alone to do your job. In port they are
always just trying to find something for you to do.
I was lucky that in the CG we did not have any "union rules" and I was
able to walk around trying other people's jobs. The DC chief thought I
worked for him for a while because I spent so much time hanging out
with his gang but they did the coolest stuff. (welding, machining,
building stuff)
I was in ordinance and we really did not have that much to do.
I pretty much lived in the FT shack in port if I couldn't find
anything fun to do. Nobody wanted to climb up there to screw with me.
I did the 3&2 correspondence courses for several rates just to stay
sane. The only one I mailed back was the GM. I really wanted to change
my rate. They would not let me.
My chief used my connections tho. When we loaded our torpedoes, we
needed some temporary racks for them when we moved them from the depot
in Portsmouth to the ordinance department in Norfolk who loaded them
into the tubes. He told me to get some of my DC buddies to help us
out. We got some "shoring" lumber and built some racks.



I was referring to type of duty ... shore duty versus sea duty.
I was fortunate. In nine years of active duty only three were sea duty,
being stationed on a ship. The rest were shore duty billets and
schools. One duty station (at a transmitter site in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
was shore duty but counted as sea duty due to the conditions on the
base. My shipboard duty counted as "arduous" sea duty due to the type
of ships (older destroyer escorts). At 314' LOA, they were among the
smallest bluewater Navy ships. For rotation purposes arduous sea duty
counted more towards getting shore duty than sea duty on a larger ship.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:01:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us. We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.



===

It's easy to understand why, especially for the married guys with
families. I know people who are merchant marine officers however who
have rotated on and off sea duty for their entire careers and seem to
do OK with it. Of course they are very well compensated and
completely off duty when not at sea. Maybe the navy should consider
having something similar for a couple of officers on every ship who
would be career watch standers. If our current navy deck officers are
spending most of their time in open water they really aren't getting
enough practice with traffic avoidance. Of course a career watch
stander would have the same issue to a certain extent.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 8/23/17 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/


They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us.Â* We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.


Then why sign up for it? One might think that if one is signing up for
the navy, one relishes the idea of serving on a ship at sea.

On 8/23/2017 5:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/23/17 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/


They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us.Â* We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.


Then why sign up for it? One might think that if one is signing up for
the navy, one relishes the idea of serving on a ship at sea.



Reason number one: It was Navy or the Army.

Actually, the Navy is much, much more than just ships at sea. There's a
vast system for communications, aircraft squadrons, INTEL facilities,
administration, logistics and supply facilities that support the mission
of the Navy and the fleet. I don't know the breakdown but I believe
that far more Navy personnel are assigned to shore duty stations at any
one time than assigned to ships.

Typically, the rotation is three years of sea duty and then three years
of shore duty. But it's more complicated than that because some
overseas shore duty may be counted as sea duty for rotational purposes.
I was actually on ships for three years but had two tours overseas that
also counted as sea duty. My only duty that did not count as sea duty
was time in schools and my last duty station in Annapolis.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/23/17 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/


They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us.Â* We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.


Then why sign up for it? One might think that if one is signing up for
the navy, one relishes the idea of serving on a ship at sea.


Up to a point. I could have gone to the California Maritime Academy. But
decided a life of 9 months a year at sea was not desirable. Family friend
who would have got me the appointment, did not go to sea. Became a harbor
master. Saigon originally. Have an acquaintance who is a CMA grad, as an
engineer, now a Kaiser hospital manager.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 5:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/23/17 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/


They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us.Â* We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.



I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted, who
relished sea duty.


Then why sign up for it? One might think that if one is signing up for
the navy, one relishes the idea of serving on a ship at sea.



Reason number one: It was Navy or the Army.

Actually, the Navy is much, much more than just ships at sea. There's a
vast system for communications, aircraft squadrons, INTEL facilities,
administration, logistics and supply facilities that support the mission
of the Navy and the fleet. I don't know the breakdown but I believe
that far more Navy personnel are assigned to shore duty stations at any
one time than assigned to ships.

Typically, the rotation is three years of sea duty and then three years
of shore duty. But it's more complicated than that because some
overseas shore duty may be counted as sea duty for rotational purposes.
I was actually on ships for three years but had two tours overseas that
also counted as sea duty. My only duty that did not count as sea duty
was time in schools and my last duty station in Annapolis.






My brother spent 3 summers in the Antarctic as a SeaBee. Counted as sea
duty.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:44:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

You know one. I preferred being at sea to being in port ... if I
wasn't on liberty. Sitting around on a docked ship is just boring. At
sea they tend to leave you alone to do your job. In port they are
always just trying to find something for you to do.
I was lucky that in the CG we did not have any "union rules" and I was
able to walk around trying other people's jobs. The DC chief thought I
worked for him for a while because I spent so much time hanging out
with his gang but they did the coolest stuff. (welding, machining,
building stuff)
I was in ordinance and we really did not have that much to do.
I pretty much lived in the FT shack in port if I couldn't find
anything fun to do. Nobody wanted to climb up there to screw with me.
I did the 3&2 correspondence courses for several rates just to stay
sane. The only one I mailed back was the GM. I really wanted to change
my rate. They would not let me.
My chief used my connections tho. When we loaded our torpedoes, we
needed some temporary racks for them when we moved them from the depot
in Portsmouth to the ordinance department in Norfolk who loaded them
into the tubes. He told me to get some of my DC buddies to help us
out. We got some "shoring" lumber and built some racks.



I was referring to type of duty ... shore duty versus sea duty.
I was fortunate. In nine years of active duty only three were sea duty,
being stationed on a ship. The rest were shore duty billets and
schools. One duty station (at a transmitter site in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
was shore duty but counted as sea duty due to the conditions on the
base. My shipboard duty counted as "arduous" sea duty due to the type
of ships (older destroyer escorts). At 314' LOA, they were among the
smallest bluewater Navy ships. For rotation purposes arduous sea duty
counted more towards getting shore duty than sea duty on a larger ship.

I guess I didn't do enough sea duty to learn to hate it.
We did run around in pretty small ships tho. We ran north atlantic
patrols on 311' AVPs and south Atlantic/Caribbean patrols on 210'
cutters.
In the north Atlantic I slept over the shaft alleys and it was
soothing hearing the screws come out of the water on every wave.
If I was going to be ashore, I might as well get a real job. Pays
better.