|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Integrated Deepwater System and Modernization Navy ships & the NSC|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?" - Gordon Lightfoot |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DCCSUSCG:
The top looks like the disigners had sea keeping in mind something lacking on modern war ships. WarShips have no need for an air castle which comes in handy when rescueing poeple from the water, we had a heck of a time doing it on the 270, at least the top ship has a partial air castle. QUOTE] Very interesting point...I remember we loaded and unloaded the MSB many times at the rail of the main deck on the 378' (Chase) as opposed to the 01/boat deck. Don |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Ex CG GM: I did not make the comment about "fair weather" ships in the Navy. So please direct your advice about that to the poster who made that comment. Yes I agree, there are those that join the Coast Guard because it is a military service. I think many are attracted to the law enforcement mission and perhaps the environment protection side as well. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Then of course, you are a "military enthusiast" who doesn't really have a full grasp on what the Coast Guard's missions are or how we fulfill them.
While we were conducting the operational evaluation and assessment of NSC 1, the point was brought up that there are currently some very proven hull desings that we could have gone with. Someone mentioned the 378. That's a great idea, except I'm not entirely sure that hull would have had the sufficient beam for a double hanger. And there would be NO WAY they could get the machinery plant into a 378 hull. But changes could have been made to what they wanted to install. One of my biggest beefs with the ship isn't what she looks like or how she's desinged. It's the manning that concerns me. As the ETC for hull 2, I have 6 ET's working for me. And not only ET's, but all rates are hurt (except for OS's which are over represented IMHO). Hell, there won't even be enough deckies to keep up with running rust. The technology keeps advancing, but they take away the number of people who are capable of repairing it. That's going to bite someone in the tucus. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
My response was to comments made by two posters. Easier then posting two responses. |
|||
|
Basic Training |
XSHIPRIDER: (or anyone)
What is the operating cost of a 123 compaired to a cyclone class? |
|||
|
No good deed goes unpunished |
Interesting onceanft, 6 ETs?  How will you manage a full Repair VIII organization during GQ? Who will be the CSTT then when you don't have enough bodies in the Repair Locker to properly respond to casualties in accordance with CSOSS? How is the USCG going to comply with the Afloat Training Organization's Tactical Training Process (TTP) which all USN and USCG ships are required to comply with to pass REFTRA/TSTA with so few people? |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Interesting questions Mr. 1110. I would say that there could only be three repair lockers, one in the engine room/main control station (5 people) and the other 2 somewhere else (50 people). There would need to be an electronics repair party as well (4 people). There would need to be gun operations party (6 people). There would need to be a medical rescue party (5 people). There would need to be emergency steering party (2 people). There would need to be a bridge and combat info center watchstanding groups (15 and 7 people respectively). A total of 94 people at minimum, right? |
|||
|
|
No good deed goes unpunished |
Don't forget people fully manned at GQ outside the Repair Lockers as well: E.g, crew-served weapons (.50 cals/25mm), SRBOC, CIWS, CIC/Radio Watchstanders, Bridge, Engineering spaces (your Repair V people cannot be part of the normal Engineering watch). That brings the numbers up to over at least 130.
Again still not enough onboard to comply with the current TTP, or for that matter to take any casualties. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
That is your opinion.... and as a Lt (jg) that is no longer in the service... according to YOUR profile... I will take your comments with a little more than a grain of salt.
You anonymous people crack me up... you want us to believe you, but your credibility level is at zero. Maybe you should think about that & work on raising it. Wray...  |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Wray, what is it that you disagree with 1110? what do you disagree about in what he said? Do you agree about the 50 cal manning concept, etc.? please be specific on what he said that you disagree about. |
|||
|
|
No good deed goes unpunished |
Taking the typical "regular" forum member line though I see: ignore the point and make irrelevant snarky, I'm better than you remarks. The level of arrogance and outright hostility to those of differing backgrounds displayed here is unreal, but amusing enough for me to want to stick around for the sheer entertainment value. Who brought up this issue? Sure wan't me. On what basis do you doubt my SWO qualification and the fact that I was a LTJG in the USN? For the purposes of this board my identity is Surface Force, that's all you need to know. Now go get yourself another drink. 1110...  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Let me spell this slowly for you.....
C R E D I B I L I T Y It has nothing to do with one being "better" than another... Hint: cred·i·ble /ˈkrɛdəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kred-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement. 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. Why the big opposition of sharing your past experiences with us? Wray... P.S. Another hint: I certainly didn't start this topic.... |
|||
|
|
No good deed goes unpunished |
Excellent word, and I am reasonably certain you are utterly oblivious to the irony.
But, thank-you anyway. 1110... |
|||
|
|
No good deed goes unpunished |
Jones, reading the level of personal animosity that cuts through this thread and others makes it perfectly, 100% obvious that certain people on here go out of their way to create conflict on a personal level, just to play a particularly adolescent form of "gotcha." |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Well, I certainly don't want my questions to cause any conflict so I will bow out, and let you two debate this all you want.
Have fun.....  Wray.... |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Wray, I was not arguing with 1110. I was asking you what is it that you disagree with 1110's statements. So please don't bow out and defend your arguments and points against 1110's statements. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Let me clairify my point, as we all know Coast Guard Cutters operate in the most dangerous waters in the world, the ship should be designed to operate under those conditions. My comment about Navy Ships being fair weather vessels was a bit of a joke, although as usual some folks took it wrong. However the fact remains that modern Warships are not designed for heavy weather, just look at them, way too top heavy and too little draft. Warships are made for war, Coast Guard Cutters have a dozen other missions one of which is to be a Warship if neseccary. The Navy has plenty of WARSHIPS we would not be able to add a whole lot to a fleet on fleet engagement anyway so why try lets design our new ships to be able to affect rescues even under the most adverse weather conditions.
That was my point, war fighting should not be the primary concern when designing a Coast Guard Cutter it should be one of many. Feel Free to disagree of course then go down to the Navy recruiter and sign up. Just my humble opinion. The point is mute because they already decided on a Warship minus the warfighting equipment. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Chief; You are on the right track, even though you made a couple of errounious statements. You do not have 6 ETs working for you. You should - but you don't, the ETs are split up in two different divisions! Secondly - not even close to being too many OSs. There are significantly more requirements for watchstations on here and there are less OSs than a 378. That said, with out getting all of the ETs in one shop, and having more of them, there might as well be less of my folks, becuase you are gonna have one hell of a time keeping up with PMS and Casualties. Good luck! (oh yeah - you are the ETC for CREW TWO - not neccesarilly hull 2,  ) |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Military.com Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da047 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Front Door" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
