OCS type training for all Naval Officers?

[Steve Wilkins]

Just got done reading the article http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/9_31/commentary/30632-1.html found in the Good Article thread. I thought it was an excellent article and caused me to put down some thoughts I've been thinking about for a few years now.

Personally, I like the way the Marine Corps makes officers. We can sit here all day long and debate the merits of producing Naval Officers in much the same way. I'm sure many people would get wrapped around the axle about how the Navy's mission is not the same as the Marine Corps and that there would be no purpose served in training our "leaders of Sailors" in the same way "leaders of Marines" are trained. My belief is that if we took a step back and looked at the big picture, the goal of any commissioning source and follow-on training should be geared toward producing high quality officers who are ready to lead men and women and are ready to take the fight to the enemy. Remember, the military's goal is to fight and win our nation's wars. Period. With this in mind, we should be producing Naval Officers who are ready, committed, and motivated to do just that if called upon by the POTUS. My experience with newly commissioned Naval Officers is that some of them meet this criterion while some don’t. That simply isn’t good enough. I’m not naïve enough to believe some people who should not be officers won’t slip through. This happens and will always happen no matter how difficult we make it. However, the bar for getting a commission in the Navy should be set higher.

Additionally, I am probably in the minority in that I feel all Naval Officers, regardless of community, should attend a program of instruction that is centered upon naval warfare. My initial thought is that this school would resemble a lot of what SWOS Division Officer Course used to be. After this, officers would move on to their community specific training. Nukes go through the nuclear power pipeline; aviators through their pipeline; Intel through theirs, etc. For SWO’s, I think our initial pipeline should be a combined Officer of the Deck and Tactical Action Officer school. If you think about what a Naval Aviator or Flight Officer does, it revolves around flying; a submarine officer would bring about images of using the sub tactically. An image of a SWO though I think brings about images of people managing programs, projects, and admin. Yes, that is part of what we do, just like any other community. A SWO should be just as tactically proficient in driving and fighting his ship as a pilot is in tactically flying his plane.

If the bar is set higher in order to earn a commission, what I mention above is entirely possible. I say “earn” because that’s exactly what the process should entail. Currently, our only requirement to “earn” gold bars is to survive whatever commissioning program we are in. NROTC is not difficult, and it is spread over the course of 2 to 4 years. Making OCS (as it is currently administered) mandatory for all prospective officers would be a step in the right direction. However, I do believe it should be modeled after the Marine Corps version, if not outright consolidation of the two altogether. This is not to denigrate the many years of effort already required for some folks to get commissioned in the Navy. Its meaning would lie in the belief that all officers, Navy and Marine Corps alike, should prove themselves through a focused and intense training program that they are ready for the responsibility of leaders of Sailors or Marines.

 

[nittany03]

Agreed, with qualifiers. Looking back in A-pool, even, I was amazed at some of the people who were managing to wash themselves out of flight school before they even got started. Granted, they were a very small minority, but the fact that these few individuals could still have called themselves military officers was disturbing. I was stashed with a Marine squadron right after commissioning and remember getting into this with one of the JOs there. If every Marine is a rifleman, why isn't every Navy officer a provisionary shoe? I thought he had a good point, actually. Why shouldn't every Ensign know the basics of driving a ship? At least it would seperate the whiny mids who claim they won't accept a commission if they select SWO, or anything besides pilot for that matter . . .

Speaking of "focused and intense" training, I have also been amazed by the disparity in indoctrination programs between ROTC units. I think that this is the only commissioning source in the military where you can theoretically get through without a significant exercise in yelling/screaming/et cetera. My unit had a 1-week indoc session before classes started at a nearby Guard base. However, I've heard of others having just 3-day sessions or none at all, due to CNET not supplying any official funding for these programs. Why is this? If the Academy gets money to do a 7-week plebe summer and give every mid a free computer, and OCS runs a 13-week scream-ex, why is ROTC getting the short end of the stick?

 

[Thisguy]

Another thing to consider: The marines can do TBS the way they do, because they're the smallest service. Also, their officers are commissioned in a more predictable pattern: they only have a few OCS classes a year (plus ROTC/USNA), whereas Navy OCS pumps out 40-50 new officers every two weeks or so. The backlog would be a nightmare.

 

[jg5343]

I have to agree fully, Steve. Leadership ability usually varies with the individual regardless of program, but the OCS grads stand out considerably in the military related areas such as uniforms, customs and courtesies, ability to wake before noon, etc..
Good post.

 

[zab1001]

I have to agree fully, Steve. Leadership ability usually varies with the individual regardless of program, but the OCS grads stand out considerably in the military related areas such as uniforms, customs and courtesies, ability to wake before noon, etc..
Good post.

For about a year. Maybe.

Find me 3 random Fleet guys and odds are you won't be able to discern their commissioning source.

Not arguing, you make a good point, just noting what I've experienced.

Since I can't get Steve's article to open, I guess I'll ask everyone in general, what would this "OCS" entail?

 

[USN99]

Not arguing either

Find me 3 random Fleet guys and odds are you won't be able to discern their commissioning source.

Not arguing, you make a good point, just noting what I've experienced.

- The differences between commissioning sources could take up to 3 years to become virtually invisible but my experience was that it was somewhat less than 3 years.
- When I was the Skipper I did not care where a JO came from. I cared a great deal about what they were doing for the squadron from the first day they arrived.
- Once upon a time, all USNA grads reported aboard a ship for about nine months before they could proceed to the aviation pipeline. This practice was discarded after about two or three years. It was widely disliked because the ships wardroom knew that the prospective flyer was just biding time; the prospective flyer knew the same thing.
-- The concept, however, is solid. All naval officers should have a somewhat detailed appreciation of surface warfare or at least surface ships. But I assert that is what a solid summer cruise program should achieve.
- Also once upon a time, NROTC CORTRAMID had many of the same components of USNA Plebe Summer - the duration was the same. The major difference was that instead of a cadre of Firsties running the asylum; Marine NCOs ran the show. I have significantly more confidence in the latter than the former.
- My opinion is that all this commiseration about OCS-type (sounds like a hybrid GMT & Boot Camp) training is symptomatic of a lousy NROTC summer training program, a program that is robbed of resources and a hostage to the academic calendar.
- I maintain that if the Navy can own its own 4 year college that fully integrates military and academic preparation in a 48 month package, why can't the Navy resuscitate the NROTC summer training program to about 24 - 32 weeks total; incorporating an elongated 1/c cruise (perhaps skipping Youngster Cruise but adding the weeks into 1/c cruise) of about 12 weeks minimum.
- Mids belong on surface ships a significant number of weeks (or months) before commissioning. The fleet is too small for 1800 mids, USNA & NROTC, from two classes to get adequate shipboard experience when forced to fit it in within the confines of the academic calendar. The USNA has a safety valve - YP cruises - to take some of the scheduling pressure off. If NROTC mids could be freed of the traditional sequence of 1/c cruise - graduation - commissioning and substitute it with a different sequence: graduation - 1st class cruise - commissioning then NROTC mids could get a much better chance at some quality shipboard time.
-- I think some significant shipboard/SWO savvy is entirely more meaningful than marching and polishing shoes.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I guess this begs the following question then. What is that makes a Surface Warfare Officer? Is this the guy who knows how to drive the ship? Or, is this the guy who knows his ship inside and out (systems, components, procedures), and is proficient in surface warfare tactics (simply put, fighting the ship)? I contend that simply qualifying as OOD does not make an officer ready to be a Surface Warfare Officer no more than getting your wings makes you ready to be a PPC on a P-3. If all Marines are a rifleman, then why would it be so hard to imagine that every Naval Officer should know (at least early on in their career) how to drive ships? I offer the following question up for discussion. What is that defines a SWO?

Another thing to consider: The marines can do TBS the way they do, because they're the smallest service. Also, their officers are commissioned in a more predictable pattern: they only have a few OCS classes a year (plus ROTC/USNA), whereas Navy OCS pumps out 40-50 new officers every two weeks or so. The backlog would be a nightmare.

I’m not doggin’ on you, but this is merely an excuse. I personally think that with a little prior proper planning and sorting out of all the details, my idea is fully implementable.

The differences between commissioning sources could take up to 3 years to become virtually invisible but my experience was that it was somewhat less than 3 years.
- When I was the Skipper I did not care where a JO came from. I cared a great deal about what they were doing for the squadron from the first day they arrived.

Sir, thanks for taking the time to respond. From reading many of your other posts, I know you’re a strong advocate of a better/stronger summer training program for prospective officers. To an extent I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I think overhauling the summer cruise program is only addressing the symptoms and not a cure for the disease.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that it would be difficult for all of us to discern what an individual officer’s commissioning source is, 3 weeks after the fact or even 3 years later. Why? Because in my opinion, they all produce good, excellent, outstanding, lousy, and sh!tty officers. All of them, the Naval Academy especially included. For all that it’s cracked up to be, the quality of officers “earning” their commission via the Academy is not consistent. I wish it was, but it’s not. My belief that all prospective Naval Officers (less the Warrant and LDO types) should undergo (less the Academy, but that’s another issue) a Marine Corps style OCS has more to do with knowing the officers serving with you or under you have what it takes to lead sailors and take the fight to the enemy. Additionally, it would provide a common experience for Naval Officers they currently don’t have. I joined a fraternity in college. There is a huge similarity between a college fraternity and the Marine Corps. I’m not trying to equate the two, but I am trying to point out that both require something of its prospective members to become accepted members of the organization. At this point, the Navy lacks this quality among its cadre of officers.

Once upon a time, all USNA grads reported aboard a ship for about nine months before they could proceed to the aviation pipeline. This practice was discarded after about two or three years. It was widely disliked because the ships wardroom knew that the prospective flyer was just biding time; the prospective flyer knew the same thing. The concept, however, is solid. All naval officers should have a somewhat detailed appreciation of surface warfare or at least surface ships. But I assert that is what a solid summer cruise program should achieve.

I can see why this type of program would fail. We (SWO’s) don’t want to be babysitting prospective aviators waiting for their time to roll to flight training any more than an aviator would want to baby-sit prospective SWO’s before we went to our “SWO training”. Sending a bunch of officers or even prospective officers to 250+ different ships does nothing to provide an experience similar for all officers.

My opinion is that all this commiseration about OCS-type (sounds like a hybrid GMT & Boot Camp) training is symptomatic of a lousy NROTC summer training program, a program that is robbed of resources and a hostage to the academic calendar.

This is part of the reason. However, each ROTC unit runs their program in the manner they see fit. ROTC is a great conductor of Navy and Marine Corps academic knowledge. But they are a poor testing bed for who is “worthy” of a commission and who is not. Marines who participate in NROTC are still required to go to OCS. I am of the opinion the same should hold true for Naval Officers.

I maintain that if the Navy can own its own 4 year college that fully integrates military and academic preparation in a 48 month package, why can't the Navy resuscitate the NROTC summer training program to about 24 - 32 weeks total; incorporating an elongated 1/c cruise (perhaps skipping Youngster Cruise but adding the weeks into 1/c cruise) of about 12 weeks minimum.

I see no problem with this as long as they all go to the same place/location (sounds like OCS to me). However, sending them to 250+ different ships is not the answer. My job as a DH on a ship is not to train/screen prospective Naval Officers, nor is it my Div Officers’ job. Sending Midshipmen or Officer Candidates to already overburdened ships for training is definitely not the answer. And even if it was, you will end up with 250+ different training programs. Our priority as a sea going, combat ready ship IS NOT to train Midshipmen/Officer Candidates.

If NROTC mids could be freed of the traditional sequence of 1/c cruise - graduation - commissioning and substitute it with a different sequence: graduation - 1st class cruise - commissioning then NROTC mids could get a much better chance at some quality shipboard time.

I like this line of thinking. To me, it means that a Mid/OC must prove themselves on that 1/C cruise in order to be commissioned. However, I still believe the 1/C cruise should be at OCS and their initial follow on training should mirror TBS in that all Naval Officers are mariners.

 

[highlyrandom]

Steve,
What about a 2-year DivO tour with associated OOD and SWO quals before being allowed to apply for Air? It works with the Coast Guard, and since we have too many SWOs we could have dedicated boarding officers who do a training course with the Singapore Navy.

http://www.transmariners.com/tvc.html

 

[highlyrandom]

Oh, and as a half-assed rebuttal: what's the responsibility difference between the PPC of an EP-3 and a DivO on your average destroyer? I thought we were all just "mariners of the sky". Arr.

 

[zippy]

Steve,
What about a 2-year DivO tour with associated OOD and SWO quals before being allowed to apply for Air? It works with the Coast Guard, and since we have too many SWOs we could have dedicated boarding officers who do a training course with the Singapore Navy.

http://www.transmariners.com/tvc.html

This year the coast guard started to send some officers directly to flight school without having a prior tour at a station or on a cutter.

 

[A4sForever]

....Find me 3 random Fleet guys and odds are you won't be able to discern their commissioning source. ......

Unless one of them keeps knocking that ring on the bar ....

 

[A4sForever]

.... ROTC is a great conductor of Navy and Marine Corps academic knowledge. But they are a poor testing bed for who is “worthy” of a commission and who is not. Marines who participate in NROTC are still required to go to OCS. I am of the opinion the same should hold true for Naval Officers.

Evidently things have changed ... obviously the duration and quality of Midshipman summer cruises has ... but in general, OCS grads used to finish a distant second to NROTC grads (4 year NROTC AND 2 year program) in every yardstick one cared to use: Military bearing, naval knowledge, physical fitness, "fleet" savvy and experience, pick a number. Many 4-year guys got commissioned with jump wings and a couple of ribbons (ND, Expert Rifle and/or Pistol) on their chest. No more got commissioned from NROTC that didn't "rate it" than from any other commissioning source. My 4/C had 132 Mids in it ... my graduating 1/C had 45 Ensigns and 7 USMC 2/Lts --- I believe they call that separating the wheat from the chaff. And to add insult to injury for those who were kicked out or DOR'ed, that was during a "hot" Navy/Marine war in SE Asia.

We all got a few years worth of "naval warfare" study and theory. History, current S&T, and future possibilities. We ran annual ASW competitions complete with WW2 style sonar, plotting tables, etc. We learned plotting/maneuvering boards, naval gunnery, missiles, air and subsurface warfare, mine warfare, celestial navigation, small boat sailing, became Dutton's experts, you name it. No computers ... and all the while carrying 16-19 quarterly credit hours which was the norm for most Midshipmen.

The NROTC program has been diluted over the past two decades, probably because of $$$, a smaller Navy, our kinder, gentler society, and the relative difficulty of obtaining a Bachelor's degree in 4 short years. USN99 mentioned the shrinking fleet as contributing to the problem of hand's on NROTC and USNA Mid summer training --- that's possible also, I had not thought of that. I don't buy academic schedules dictating summer cruise, however --- how has that changed ??

The NROTC curriculum and military requirements used to be standardized across the board. No units did it "their way". It was not up to the individual unit to channel and direct their own program, as was evident every summer when Mids from all over the country converged on the Fleet --- we were all "even" in our Naval knowledge and preparation. The summer cruise program used to provide a 4-year NROTC Mid with at least 15-17 weeks at sea and another "cruise" with about 8 weeks total with the Marines (4) and Aviation (4). It worked ... Navy OCS had nothing to compare with it. I'd rather trend back toward what worked instead of trying to re-tool a Navy OCS on steroids into a form of Marine TBS.

Drop back in time 30-35 years (for guidance) and take that as the template to improve and standardize NROTC and prepare new Ensigns for the Fleet --- Air, Sea, or Sub. But again, I'm not a theorist nor a manager; I don't have the big picture .... I'm just an operator.

 

[webmaster]

A little too SWO centric for my tastes.... do not follow the dark path young jedi...

Additionally, I am probably in the minority in that I feel all Naval Officers, regardless of community, should attend a program of instruction that is centered upon naval warfare. My initial thought is that this school would resemble a lot of what SWOS Division Officer Course used to be.

Naval Warfare eh?

Gee Steve, which community is that? Ah, SWOdom. I can tell you one thing that I have learned on from working with a numbered FLT staff, the interrelationships of all "things Navy", that being the deck plate SWO is not the be all and end of all of our force structure. Many parts comprise "Naval and Marine Warfare" that go beyond each communities backgrounds.

Reading your threads (novels I should say ), pass the limes A4s, it seems you are just for a centralized training/indoc, or fleet time, can't figure out which your stance is.... anyways, MY THOUGHTS, and I will keep them short and simple:

What are we trying to make here? Warriors... Consumate professionals that know their TACTICS and know their enemies, to get the job done, and done right. Whether it is the PPC, TAO, OOD, Lead, or the resepective Battle Watches back at the staff commands. Two, three years extra to indoctrinate the masses to "SWO thinking" and methodology? God help us... I personally feel one of the strengths of the Navy are the diverse backgrounds (attitudes and approaches to handling a problem) the SpecOp, Sub, Surface, Helo, Prop, and Jet drivers have.

No, I am not on this bandwagon. I applaud SWOs and Submarine Officers for the jobs they do (yes, I have served on submarines), but get that ENS into flights school and make them the best damn pilot/NFO possible. Scrap BOLTC, and provide better training for future Branch and DivOs, after winging, and prior to reporting to the Fleet.

And, who the heck wants 2 more years of SWO time on top of say, an 8 year commitment from Winging?

One final jab... Steve I think you are a great officer, but what was YOUR commissioning source? Ah, basic training, BOOST, NROTC.... And you STILL turned out all right... As for the leadership part of it, you managed to avoid most of the "worst" traits of your respective SWO DH's (micromanagement, backstabbing, oh my!) that you have commiserated with me about over the years...

Steve, go grab a beer, and bring me one while you are at it...

 

[Brett327]

Naval Warfare eh?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Brett

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Naval Warfare is SWOcentric? I see. So I'll ask the question again. What is it that makes up a SWO? Or maybe I should rephrase. What is "Naval Warfare" comprised of?