• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USS Fitzgerald collision in C7F

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
That said, he did predict this readiness crunch when Clark was busy "optimizing" crews and focusing on transformation.
I too predicted the readiness crunch, albeit just a couple years after Clark retired, but I was just an LT doing JPME. Let me clarify that, I was a LCDR(sel). I even used the phrase "hollow force" in my 15-20 pages!

But in all seriousness, good on Sal for putting pen to paper on that early on, considering he has a wide audience.

Too bad the guys several paygrades above me misjudged (or ignored) the warning signs and punted on readiness like Ray Finkle.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor

Taking his ball and going home after realizing, fairly late in the episode, what anyone with a brain already figured out. His blaming the situation, in part, on the election of Democrats has a Scooby Doo “if not for those meddling kids,” ring to it.

The country needs new “navalists” with the barrier to participation being higher than mere ownership of a blogspot account.
 

UInavy

Registered User
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
The country needs new “navalists” with the barrier to participation being higher than mere ownership of a blogspot account.
Seriously, none of these guys have any legitimacy. They don't articulate their arguments with any second or third level details. Just "I said 355 early, now I say it's not going to happen. Commenters, deliver me affirmation." They all get paid to write, whether it's clicks on a blog or as an author for various blogs and magazines.

Two points I think are germane:

1.) There is a difference between "commentator" and "analyst". These guys like to brand themselves as analysts, when in reality they are the former. Analysis implies some sort of rigor and in-depth research supported by math. None of their pieces can be described as much more than strongly-worded opinion pieces disguised as analysis.

2.) It's important to know who pays the think tanks: https://fair.org/extra/who-pays-for-think-tanks/

Additionally, it's important to know the difference between an FFRDC or UARC (RAND, CNA, Johns Hopkins APL) and a think tank such as Heritage, Cato Institue, etc. https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/ffrdcs-uarcs/ . The former are entirely (or mostly) gov't funded, while the latter are generally privately funded. If you look into their donors, you can generally get an idea of which side of the spectrum their views will come down.

So, if you are a commentator who writes for a privately-funded think tank with big political donors, it's valuable to able to blur the lines on the difference between your 'opinion' and the impartial, fact-based analysis of, say an analyst at RAND. If you can erase the distinction, you've gained all the credibility with none of the rigor or constraints.
 

ATIS

Well-Known Member

Lots of talk here in this thread on how these events happened, I thought this was a decent look into the various players in the Navy acq world and how sometimes need Vs what is actually delivered can vary. Being someone that works so both sides of this (Reserves still doing the mission, and a civi in the acq world), it’s a complicated relationship for sure.

ATIS
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
"Those were tragedies, but what about the other 280 ships that didn't collide?"

Seems like the Navy is employing the "but you f*** one sheep" defense.
 

scoolbubba

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
"Those were tragedies, but what about the other 280 ships that didn't collide?"

Honestly thought that was a duffelblog headline. Wow.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Imagine a Sailor coming to mast for a DUI, and he tells you, "well you know sir, I think it's important to consider all the times I didn't drive drunk." Now imagine having a staff of senior officers whose purpose in life is to help prepare you - a four star - for testimony on the Hill, and basically saying the same thing...
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
Trying to wrap my head around it. By making that argument ("At least 280 didn't collide..."), you completely undermine the rationale for increased manpower and dollars from Congress to make the fleet safer.
 

scoolbubba

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
‘But sir, think of all the times I didn’t have a class A.’

Our GOFOs are laughable...it’s like they aren’t even trying to hide incompetence anymore.
 
Top