Posted on 06/19/2018 3:34:19 PM PDT by Rummyfan
An anonymous email came in over the transom this morning:
Hi, Stacy.
During the early weeks after the USS Fitzgerald was speared by a lumbering Philippine container ship, it was noteworthy that the captain and a couple of admirals were publically named, but not the actual officer in charge, the officer of the deck. (OOD) The other person who should have kept the Fitz out of trouble is the person in charge of the combat information center, the Tactical Action Officer. That individual is supposed to be monitoring the combat radar, which can detect a swimmer at a distance of two miles. Not until a year later, when the final reports are made public and the guilty parties have been court-martialed, does the truth come out. The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!! The Tactical Action Officer would normally be in near constant communication with the OOD, but there is no record of any communication between them that entire shift!
Another fun fact: In the Navy that won WWII, the damage control officers were usually some of the biggest and strongest men aboard, able to close hatches, shore up damaged areas with timbers, etc. The Fitz’s damage control officer was also a woman, and she never left the bridge. She handled the aftermath of the accident remotely, without lifting a finger herself!
Look it up: The OOD was Sarah Coppock, Tactical Action Officer was Natalie Combs. . . .
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!
Indeed, I did some searching, and Lt. Coppock pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty. Lt. Combs faced a hearing last month:
In an 11-hour hearing, prosecutors painted a picture of Lt. Irian Woodley, the ship’s surface warfare coordinator, and Lt. Natalie Combs, the tactical action officer, as failing at their jobs, not using the tools at their disposal properly and not communicating adequately. They became complacent with faulty equipment and did not seek to get it fixed, and they failed to communicate with the bridge, the prosecution argued. Had they done those things, the government contended, they would have been able to avert the collision. That two of the officers — Coppock and Combs — involved in this fatal incident were female suggests that discipline and training standards have been lowered for the sake of “gender integration,” which was a major policy push at the Pentagon during the Obama administration. It could be that senior officers, knowing their promotions may hinge on enthusiastic support for “gender integration,” are reluctant to enforce standards for the women under their command.
This was the story of Kara Hultgreen, the Navy pilot who died in a 1994 F-14 crash. Investigation showed that Hultgreen had been allowed to proceed in her training after errors that would have meant a washout for any male pilot. But the Clinton administration was pushing for female fighter pilots, which resulted in a competition between the Navy and Air Force to put women into these combat roles. It is not necessary to believe that (a) women shouldn’t be fighter pilots, in order to believe (b) lowering standards for the sake of quotas is a bad idea. Of course, you may believe both (a) and (b), but it is (b) that gets people killed.
It seems obvious that the Pentagon (and the liberal media) sought to suppress full knowledge of what happened to the Fitzgerald in the immediate aftermath of the June 2017 incident that killed seven sailors, in the same way the details of Kara Hultgreen’s death were suppressed. It took investigative reporters like Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times a lot of hard work to find out what actually happened to Hultgreen. Let’s hope other reporters will dig into what’s happening in our military with the “gender intergration” agenda at the Pentagon now.
Ain’t affirmative action wonderful?
“Because the author may indeed be full of crap on various aspects, that does not mean he or she is wrong to suggest that combat ships should not be coed.”
Well, if he can’t produce facts to support his position, then he is wrong.
“Because you can probably find some woman somewhere who may be able to finish Ranger training does not mean you should open Ranger School and all combat billets to women.”
Women attending Ranger School is a different subject. One needs exceptional strength and stamina to complete the course and even many males drop out. But that’s a level of strength and stamina one doesn’t need to serve on a combat ship.
Women don’t belong in the Navy period.
Aye!
That is UFB. At least make the effort to get to DCC(Damage Control Central). I am gong out on limb here and asserting the bridge in NOT the designated DCC.
Not a coverup
* * *
But this story was published last week. What do you mean?
IMHO, when a ship is entering the busiest sea lane in the world, the Captain should be on deck. A probably an extra set of eyes would help.
“The elimination of SWOS Basic was the death knell of professional SWO culture in the United States Navy,” Hoffman said. “I’m not suggesting that … the entire surface warfare community is completely barren of professionalism. I’m telling you that there are systemic problems, particularly at the department head level, where they are timid, where they lack resolve and they don’t have the sea time we expect.”
Miserere nobis.
I strenuously disagree. Just because it is a push button navy right now does not mean that is the way it is going to be in a shooting war. Have you ever served on a combat vessel in war where the crew is fighting to say afloat and save their own lives and the lives of their shipmates?
But my biggest objection to women on combat vessels is not their lack of physical strength.
It is the logistical aspects including things like segregated berthing spaces and heads to things women need that men don’t ranging from feminine hygiene products to birth control pills, and that isn’t even addressing actual pregnancy on a warship. And yes, it happens and will happen.
And just as important (maybe even more so) is the effect on unit cohesion that a coed crew has. Leftists like to say that men and women will be professional, and that sexual relations won’t occur with all the corresponding morale problems all while in the middle of the water thousands of miles from port.
“But that’s a level of strength and stamina one doesn’t need to serve on a combat ship.”
How much sea duty do you have?
Yes. And that is where the lack of leadership comes in.
He should have probably had the Special Sea and Anchor detail at the stations, though I admit to having never sailed in that area. But to me, it would be like going through the Straits of Messina...I do recall we would set the Sea and Anchor detail there, and that wasn’t anywhere nearly as busy (though I believe the confines were much narrower, IIRC)
9 years on three ships. One DDG and 2 FFGs.
“I know I sound like a crotchety old man here”
We old men are only crotchety because of the aggravated dumbassery that surrounds us.
“but you can’t do it that way.”
Oh, Hell no. No way a new ensign has time to do computerized courses.
What are they thinking, that you work eight hours, then retire to your stateroom and put your feet up?
And what happened to Department Head school? Did they abolish that, too?
Join the Navy, ride the Waves.. Non combat roles are perfect for women. Not good for ship morale
When I was in there was only one ship with split tails on it that I knew about anyway. It was an AD named the Puget Sound. The ship’s nick name was the Pubic Mound. LOL! Sailor humor..
Exactly. You said it far more concisely than I could. It is a fallacy to think that flying a fighter aircraft doesn’t take physical strength. As you seem to know, it does, and if you are in an engagement with another aircraft, that can be the difference.
I recall reading that in aerial combat, a pilot could tell if his adversary was tired or weakened by the way he flew his plane. There was a lack of crispness or control that was visually telling, and could be decisive.
As for the strength one needs to man a combat vessel, one need only read “Neptune’s Inferno” about the naval campaigns around the Solomon Islands in 1942. The physical strength of the men on a ship was often the only thing keeping it above the water. When all the fire mains have been shot out and you have to resort to buckets, upper body strength is everything. And that doesn’t even take into account having to remove men or ammunition from burning compartments to save their lives or the life of the ship.
People make this error of assuming that because the bridge of a ship and her weapons are all electronic, that physical strength is irrelevant and all one has to do is be able to read a computer screen and push buttons is absolutely ludicrous.
P4L
Then I’m surprised that you underrate the stamina required.
Sea duty really takes it out of you.
Please list the jobs that you feel women should be excluded from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.