The Navy's experiment to reduce manpower on surface ships has been terminated for failure.
It was a bad idea to begin with. It takes people to keep a ship maintained and clean. Which is why I have been skeptical of the real-world ability of a 40-man crew to sail and maintain a LCS. Oh, it's one thing to maintain a brand-new ship, when the gear mostly works. It's quite another thing to maintain a ship that is over ten years old, when the gear needs more maintenance.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
1 comment:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Dear Miss Fit:
ReplyDeleteThe other aspect of reduced manning that's scary is the impact on damage control. I've long contended that one of the U.S.N.'s most notable strengths is superior damage control. But it takes a lot of troops to (a) keep operating the ship, (b) keep fighting the ship, and (c) put the fire out and stop the flooding.
I suspect that there are technical work-arounds to ameliorate the maintainability issues inherent in reduced manning, but the damage control issues seem to me to be less tractable.
Regards,
Frank