Europe under extreme duress

[Max the Mad Russian]

This is one thing that I trust Max with implicitly.

Should I say "thanks"? Thanks;-)

The fate of this CG Moscow resembles the case of DD Otvazhny in 1974 every bit of events. Evidently similar damage (AA missiles magazine blew up, reason is unknown till today), same course of disaster (fires dividing the hull in two almost amidship), same "professionalism" in DCFP, even almost the same place of sinking. 1975 investigation papers contain the phrase: "Ship's CO on duration of all his career stayed essentially the specialist in his initial MOS and had no clear SA as to DCFP. Same situation is sadly common for majority of COs of DESDIV."

Half-century since then changed nothing, as we can see.

 

[Random8145]

It didn't sink, it was promoted to submarine

Seriously though, I had to Google all those acronyms, but they led me to two questions?

CO's in Western navies must have experience in DCFP? And if so, why wouldn't Soviet/Russian CO's require it?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

CO's in Western navies must have experience in DCFP? And if so, why wouldn't Soviet/Russian CO's require it?

In USN yes. You couldn't fill 9222 billet (ship's CO) if you didn't go through rigor DCFP course, aside many URL officers have JO time in the ship's bowels heading Black Gang and damage control personnell. Not so in another paternal pattern: Royal Navy - there the surface community officers are strictly divided into three separate bands: warfare, weapon engineering and maritime engineering. Warfare officers (they don't have to have even college degree) become COs and admirals, two other branches work with weapon and ship's machinery (they must have a degree compulsory). But warfare officer have to almost inevitably pass the courses of Principal Warfare Officer, the longest and most demanding in surface Royal Navy, and about 40% of training time there devoted to DCFP.
Russians, as usually, chose worse plus worst: they divided all naval trades into even narrower specializations and handed DCFP job entirely to Eng DH, who by trade is usually either propulsion spec (turbine/diesel) or electric engineer. On large ships he has DCFP DivO but this junior officer is naval architect by trade and training and almost always barred from becoming CHENG, so he usually continue and finish his service ashore as naval rep supervising shipyards. The COs and XOs are navigators or weapon engineers by trade and there's no special surface DCFP course for them, so the ultimate person who has to run the DCFP, a CO, is utterly dependent of CHENG/Eng DH and has to be constantly adviced by him. Imagine CHENG is KIA, MIA or really unqualified, or simply moron (not unheard of). Here you will have the answer why "she sank".
This all is inevitable outcome when navy as such is rooted in something other than national merchant marine history. Russian navy was born and grown as the "sea army", essentially military ethos and not naval one. Russia hadn't have its own merchant fleet up to XX century, while its navy had been created in XVIII. This navy, aside of submarine branch entirely built on captured German naval ideas and technologies, is still "a tank\APC which can sail". Tank crew, if the tank is hit and set afire, has to abandon it and then, if and when the battle situation allows, return and assess the damage. I'm afraid the core ethos of RU navy concerning DCFP is almost the same. Floating tank...

 

[Flash]

Not so in another paternal pattern: Royal Navy - there the surface community officers are strictly divided into three separate bands: warfare, weapon engineering and maritime engineering. Warfare officers (they don't have to have even college degree) become COs and admirals, two other branches work with weapon and ship's machinery (they must have a degree compulsory). But warfare officer have to almost inevitably pass the courses of Principal Warfare Officer, the longest and most demanding in surface Royal Navy, and about 40% of training time there devoted to DCFP.

Having worked with a some PWO's they take their damage control very seriously, often mentioning the Falklands. Then again they seem to take their SWO'ing stuff much more seriously in general.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Then again they seem to take their SWO'ing stuff much more seriously in general.

PWOs are glorious breed since, as one of them told me, Situational Awareness is their religion. BTW he told me that trained and seasoned observer from RN Fleet Air Arm helicopter squadrons has the best chances to become outstanding PWO in surface community and many observers are taking this career way, while FAA pilots are quite rare birds and usually not welcomed by PWO courses board as too impulsive

 

[Random8145]

In USN yes. You couldn't fill 9222 billet (ship's CO) if you didn't go through rigor DCFP course, aside many URL officers have JO time in the ship's bowels heading Black Gang and damage control personnell. Not so in another paternal pattern: Royal Navy - there the surface community officers are strictly divided into three separate bands: warfare, weapon engineering and maritime engineering. Warfare officers (they don't have to have even college degree) become COs and admirals, two other branches work with weapon and ship's machinery (they must have a degree compulsory). But warfare officer have to almost inevitably pass the courses of Principal Warfare Officer, the longest and most demanding in surface Royal Navy, and about 40% of training time there devoted to DCFP.
Russians, as usually, chose worse plus worst: they divided all naval trades into even narrower specializations and handed DCFP job entirely to Eng DH, who by trade is usually either propulsion spec (turbine/diesel) or electric engineer. On large ships he has DCFP DivO but this junior officer is naval architect by trade and training and almost always barred from becoming CHENG, so he usually continue and finish his service ashore as naval rep supervising shipyards. The COs and XOs are navigators or weapon engineers by trade and there's no special surface DCFP course for them, so the ultimate person who has to run the DCFP, a CO, is utterly dependent of CHENG/Eng DH and has to be constantly adviced by him. Imagine CHENG is KIA, MIA or really unqualified, or simply moron (not unheard of). Here you will have the answer why "she sank".
This all is inevitable outcome when navy as such is rooted in something other than national merchant marine history. Russian navy was born and grown as the "sea army", essentially military ethos and not naval one. Russia hadn't have its own merchant fleet up to XX century, while its navy had been created in XVIII. This navy, aside of submarine branch entirely built on captured German naval ideas and technologies, is still "a tank\APC which can sail". Tank crew, if the tank is hit and set afire, has to abandon it and then, if and when the battle situation allows, return and assess the damage. I'm afraid the core ethos of RU navy concerning DCFP is almost the same. Floating tank...

I see, that's actually quite fascinating, thanks.

 

[Random8145]

Having worked with a some PWO's they take their damage control very seriously, often mentioning the Falklands. Then again they seem to take their SWO'ing stuff much more seriously in general.

The U.S. Navy isn't as rigorous regarding SWO's?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

The U.S. Navy isn't as rigorous regarding SWO's?

Beware asking that on aviators' forum

 

[Flash]

The U.S. Navy isn't as rigorous regarding SWO's?

From what I know and saw, no. My last active duty command had UK, US and Aussie SWO's and the Brits seemed to take SWO'ing and their profession a lot more seriously than my fellow Americans with the Aussies seeming to take the British lead. Here is an excellent article from a US Navy SWO who did a foreign exchange tour with the Brits highlighting the differences and the higher standard he had to meet with the RN.

Interestingly many of the the Brit and Aussie SWO/PWO's had just as disdainful view of flight suits as American SWO's, and they were just as blatantly ignored by the Aussie and US aviators who wore them.

 

[number9]

From what I know and saw, no. My last active duty command had UK, US and Aussie SWO's and the Brits seemed to take SWO'ing and their profession a lot more seriously than my fellow Americans with the Aussies seeming to take the British lead. Here is an excellent article from a US Navy SWO who did a foreign exchange tour with the Brits highlighting the differences and the higher standard he had to meet with the RN.

Interestingly many of the the Brit and Aussie SWO/PWO's had just as disdainful view of flight suits as American SWO's, and they were just as blatantly ignored by the Aussie and US aviators who wore them.

That article was a fascinating read; thanks for posting it. I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite dudes:

"We should remember that one man is much the same as another, and that he is best who is trained in the severest school." --Thucydides

 

[Griz882]

From what I know and saw, no. My last active duty command had UK, US and Aussie SWO's and the Brits seemed to take SWO'ing and their profession a lot more seriously than my fellow Americans with the Aussies seeming to take the British lead. Here is an excellent article from a US Navy SWO who did a foreign exchange tour with the Brits highlighting the differences and the higher standard he had to meet with the RN.

Interestingly many of the the Brit and Aussie SWO/PWO's had just as disdainful view of flight suits as American SWO's, and they were just as blatantly ignored by the Aussie and US aviators who wore them.

Back in my day the training was all by paper PQS books and there wasn’t a serious SWO school of any type. Years later I taught for a short time at the US Merchant Marine Academy and those kids could do what the Brits do as all them graduated with a degree and a mariner’s certificate. I was astounded to see they were far superior (real) sailors compared to USNA grads - but the USMMA kids spent an entire year at sea before graduation.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Real navy is always rooted in merchant marine. They know what the insurance is. Insurance as such is a means of merchant marine fleet, historically. From it the navy knows since it cannot use financial insurance as such it should build enough moderate naval units instead of a couple of super-units which are extremely hard to substitute, hence applying the insurance as doctrine. Your Reagan 600-units Navy and current 350 are just proof of what needs no proof for those who know naval history. Japanese and German navies in XX century were unable to understand this simple logic since they weren't rooted in common merchant marine practice, as well as Russian navy just now learning this simple lesson. Just now, as they are rooted in army inheritance as no other navy in history of civilization as the whole.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Real navy is always rooted in merchant marine. They know what the insurance is. Insurance as such is a means of merchant marine fleet, historically. From it the navy knows since it cannot use financial insurance as such it should build enough moderate naval units instead of a couple of super-units which are extremely hard to substitute, hence applying the insurance as doctrine. Your Reagan 600-units Navy and current 350 are just proof of what needs no proof for those who know naval history. Japanese and German navies in XX century were unable to understand this simple logic since they weren't rooted in common merchant marine practice, as well as Russian navy just now learning this simple lesson. Just now, as they are rooted in army inheritance as no other navy in history of civilization as the whole.

Interesting point. Have you looked at my post in the Energy Discussion thread, Max? I was just over there commenting how not only do we, the USA, roundly ignore our Merchant Marine, we seem actively bent on destroying it.

 

[Random8145]

From what I know and saw, no. My last active duty command had UK, US and Aussie SWO's and the Brits seemed to take SWO'ing and their profession a lot more seriously than my fellow Americans with the Aussies seeming to take the British lead. Here is an excellent article from a US Navy SWO who did a foreign exchange tour with the Brits highlighting the differences and the higher standard he had to meet with the RN.

Interestingly many of the the Brit and Aussie SWO/PWO's had just as disdainful view of flight suits as American SWO's, and they were just as blatantly ignored by the Aussie and US aviators who wore them.

Interesting! But I am curious, why would the SWO community not have standardized training if the aviators and submariners do?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

our Merchant Marine, we seem actively bent on destroying it.

You would have point in it if the Maersk Alabama had not been the case. The glory of democracy is in it - the merchant marine role became evident, neither economically nor politically but culturally. It made the difference for all who understand.