Team,
My Personnel Serial (here) transitions the discussions we've had over the last two months to an action plan that will:
1) Accelerate the progress we've made in shifting our staff from an "administrative staff" to a "command staff."
2) Redistribute personnel (and resources) down echelon from "tail" to "tooth."
3) Reestablish the virtuous cycle between training (school house), tactical (platform) and technical (maintenance activities and program offices) with the focal point/end user being the deployable unit - ACHIEVING AND SUSTAINING THE REQUIRED OPERATIONAL READINESS OF OUR SHIPS, SUBMARINES, AVIATION SQUADRONS AND EXPEDITIONARY UNITS MUST COME FIRST IN OUR ACTIONS AND BE THE FOCAL POINT OF ALL WE DO.
Although all of the action discussed in the Serial is directed at my staff, we will all need to pull together to ensure the policy changes we're putting in place achieve the intended effects and the personnel/resources that move down-echelon hit the critical targets.
All the best, JCHjr
ADM J. C. Harvey, Jr.
5 comments:
Admiral, I've read the Serial five+ times. I get part I and part II, but I was completely lost in the relationships and associations descibed in part III. I hope to have an "Ah Ha moment or two" as this plan unfolds. Vr/
I had to read it a couple time too, but I understood part III the best. However, I do have a question on how deep your staff is diving in the "fleet training" section of part III. Could be very detailed and time consuming for both tasks (N7 & N1). Perhaps you could get those answers fast thru NETC.
I think everyone would like to see more 'on-hands' training, but if the current training is meeting "the requirements", it will be tough to get it changed. Instructors (manning), time (instructional overhaul) and dollars go into changing "A & C" schools. Not impossible by any means, but not an overnight change, that's for sure.
Again, love the initiative and fortitude Sir! We're with you.
V/R,
Admiral,
A few months back I said to you that in four years I had never seen a bad idea go away. Now, I am starting to see some go away.
I've served aboard an optimally a manned platform. Those extra bodies will be a God send!
I'm eight months into my deployment. I've been with three Army units and will serve with one more before I redeploy. I am proud to serve with those I serve with and am proud of serving my Country/Navy where deemed best. But, my personal opinion is that I'd rather be serving with my Ship--taking care of her. My Ship needs me more than the Army needs me to write awards.
For what an E-5's opinion is worth: What you're doing as USFFC is better than anything I've seen BIG Navy do since I enlisted. You get it, Sir. You really get it, as does your Staff.
V/r
BATTLE YEOMAN
Admiral,o
Optimal Manning is neither optimal, nor manning to requirement. Adjusting NMP down to meet "availability" is not the answer a ship wants when sending an EMIR, but this happens.
90% FIT still does not allow for sufficient depth in ships effective manning. Too many ship's are left with "1 of 1" NEC or NOBC billets after the NMP is "shared." Realistic manning would be 3 - one arriving, one seasoned, and one prospective loss. Watch team replacement program sound familiar? We are graded on it, but must fall back on "prospective gain," when there are no names, have unplanned losses, or IA - which is worse than a DUI loss since they are carried on the ship's roster without being able to contribute anything. A possible solution would be to PCS anyone detailed IA/GSA/OSA to a new command - combat replacement pool if you will - and given new PCS orders when completed. In the meanwhile, ships can REQ a new Sailor to fill the loss. Returned IA/GSA/OSA Sailors could augment ships needing plus up manning before INSURV, etc. If anyone whines about "too much deployment time," then consider we've ignored ITEMPO since 2002, and nothing is noted about Sailors cross decking from a ship that just completes a deployment to one that is starting one. Battle Yeoman's comment about the Army is spot on. How can an organization thats grown 2 whole divisions still need 10K Sailors to back them up - filling make work jobs and collateral duty needs? They don't. Sailors need to be on ships, fixing ships, training other Sailors, and growing the Navy, not outdated RFFs in CENTCOM.
The Revolution in Training is another dismal failure. Having web enabled training to augment hands-on and classroom instruction is nice, but we can get buy without it. Layering on requirement after requirement of NKO delivered content (e.g. Safe Driver, Trafficing in Persons, the Level-III OCONUS ATFP class that hasn't been updated since 2002) become detriments to training. How we train our Sailors is the key to our success. Setting the requirements to NMETLS, coordinated and deconflicted for cost (time, dollars, readiness) and mission value is also critical. Does anyone really think that being qualified to carry OC spray is vital to being able to carry a 9mm pistol in a security watch? Crazy but true - my ship's CSW watchstander has to carry OC spray while on watch. It's more than 12 feet to the water or anywhere else in his AOR, so it's a bogus requirement. Please have someone look at these requirements and HOW they are propogated in the Navy. What my Sailors want most is to do their jobs, maintain their ships, and grow in their ratings, not be saddled with a 2-month long indoc curve once arriving to their ship, and then off to FSA and/or DCPO duty, off the ship for more "required schools" which they should have gotten en-route.
FSA is a concept that should have died when the GENDET program did. Everyone has to eat, but why not have more S-2 Sailors to start with and use them to flush out our DC lockers and other needs? Many get tapped for low-viz and other watches that take them out of the Galley. An FSA on the foc'sle for Sea and Anchor can't clean or serve. Further, S-2 has a lot of maintenance and by the SORN, FSA's shouldn't be doing that. Maintenance time should include the admin requirement - the spot check, and allowing a couple extra minutes to get the DIVO, XO or CO to observe. Things always come up, and time is still spent by that maintenance man that he can't get back - unless he gun decks the check - so lets set them up for success. If the stubby pencil set at N-1 argue this will "create too many new billets," no problem. Recognizing the true requirement is always the hardest part of any solution set.
All ahead full.
v/r
HMCS(SW/AW) John Mooers
NVYGUNZ, we are indeed working these issues with NETC, but we also need to ensure a specific Fleet focus is applied as we work through to solutions to the problems we face. So my N1 and N7 will stay heavily engaged to help improve our "A" and "C" School training (ex, I was just up at Dahlgren yesterday doing my own due diligence for our FC schools and preparations for our growing BMD mission).
Senior Chief Moores, balancing shipboard manpower requirements with the exploding costs for people has been a central issue for the Navy since 2002 - we took some big steps in both manning and training that went too far in certain directions and need to be corrected; we're going to make those corrections.
But the fundamental issue remains unchanged, and it is central to our future - as our budgets decline, our people costs will take a larger and larger share of the funding that remains. And that will occur just as the cost of everything we're buying - replacement subs, ships, a/c, expeditionary platforms - continues to rise at a rapid rate. We haven't got this one figured out yet, in the Navy or in OSD. All the best, JCHjr
Post a Comment