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.
I admit upon reading the article, that was the first thought I had simply because of the way it was worded, which I believe was done intentionally.
I don't agree with that if it was. There is enough here without making stuff up.
When someone says "This happened because those two weren't talking to each other" that means something quite different than "They were not following established communication protocols".
If it were true they were having a disagreement and weren't on speaking terms, I would have them both jailed for a minimum of 20 years. That would put me over the edge. But unless someone has proof of that, I think it is a slander.
https://www.stripes.com/fitzgerald-officer-of-the-deck-pleads-guilty-at-court-martial-1.525888
SMH... for 7 dead... half pay for 3 months. Unreal.
USNA ‘89 here. Am I understanding you correctly when you say “My Academy class graduated a bunch of female OODs, and they all had to pass the same classes and boards the men did. “
Are you saying your class got their OOD letters BEFORE being on a ship? Or are you saying that a bunch of same class graduates eventually got their OOD letters in the fleet?
In my time OODs were required to be on the ship for a period of time and once the CO was ok with them - then and only then did they get an OOD letter and it was only for that specific command and that specific CO. Prior OODs were more quickly qualified than new JOs of course (which could take up to 3 years depending on the CO/command)
An interesting but bullshit article. Never in the history of the United State Navy did a male OOD place the ship he was in charge of in jeopardy! Hell, Fleet Admiral Nimitz, as an ensign, ran the USS Decatur aground in 1907 and was convicted at a court-martial for hazarding a ship. This statement alone blows the authors credibility out of the water:” 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 DCO isn’t the guy who runs around closing hatches, shore up damaged areas, etc.. He was in DC Central receiving reports from and giving orders to the damage control parties.
“Cassin Young’s damage control crew was prepared for mitigating all manner of damage to the destroyer. At
General Quarters the Midships Passage (B-107CL) served as Damage Control Central, the point from which
repair and damage control were orchestrated. Here damage control diagrams were posted and phone lines
could connect the Damage Control Officer with all the critical points in the ship. He and his assistants record-
ed any damage on the damage control diagrams. Like a fire chief, the Damage Control Officer directed the
repair of damage, putting out fires, controlling flooding, or correcting the listing of the ship due to too much water on one side.”
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/bost/cassin_hfr.pdf
As one can see, you didn’t need to have much strength at all to be a DCO.
Prosecutors laid blame at Coppock’s feet, saying she “chose to be blind,” never sought help from the information center, did not respond properly when she saw the Crystal on the radar 12 nautical miles from the ship and lost situational awareness. She failed to sound blasts alerting the Crystal or attempt to contact it, nor did she alert the commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Paul Hochmuth said.
When it became clear that impact was inevitable, she “failed to give the crew notice, a chance to get out of their racks, a chance to brace themselves.”
What was she doing? Sleeping?
Just goes to show, women just can't make proper seamen.
Hehehe... I see what you did there. ;)
I am working with ex Navy and one of them is female.She is the most useless piece of sht I wver worked with
We called this one on FR just as soon as it became apparent what was being disclosed and what was not. There is nothing in the conning of a ship that a woman cannot accomplish given sufficient training and experience. It requires a talent for visualization, for incorporating multiple and occasionally conflicting data sources, and the ability to manage a team of people who are there all for one purpose: the safe navigation of the ship entrusted to them. These incidents were the consequence of a severe failure of training putting unqualified and incompetent officers in a place they shouldn't have been. That they were female is irrelevant in itself; that they were there for their sex rather than their qualifications is very relevant. Seven sailors are dead for a systemic failure that reaches all the way through command to the very top.
But it's more than just an affirmative action failure. The training pipeline used to include classroom instruction at Surface Warfare Officer School, as well as an apprenticeship onboard that could last years (mine did). This is no longer the case. These young officers, male and female, are no longer receiving the training necessary to address corner issues (and collisions are always corner issues) such as this. This has to change.
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.
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.
Probably texting. Or surfing the Internet.
Or sleeping.
Yeah, I have no idea — but have seen women act that way before. Just being humorous. Though the situation is obviously serious.
The fact that she was a woman should not be ignored with respect to her failure to wake the Captain.
Men alone have plenty of pressure NOT to be the one to needlessly wake the Captain when there is something amiss under their bridge watch. I think it is safe to speculate that a woman may feel an even greater reluctance to do so because she may feel the need to prove herself even more, which is saying a lot.
I have heard it said (and it applies to many more things than being an OOD at 0300 with a sleeping and grouchy Captain) that if you find yourself wondering if you should wake up the Captain...you are probably already behind the eight ball if you haven’t done so.
I have watched for 25 years the acceptance of lower standards for females.
JoMa
Are you kidding? They’re not sending JOs to SWOS before they go out to the fleet?
Words fail.
I would agree...I have seen women do this before as well (and men too, to a lesser degree) but I cannot imagine it in this instance.
Just saying what if...what if they were lesbians at odds in their relationship? What if they were both pursuing the same man and each took exception to it? Not saying that is the case, but is it at all outlandish to broach the subject? I say no...one can EASILY imagine this kind of thing.
There are a lot of things in interpersonal relationships that can be problematic, but sexual issues are, in my opinion, a giant potential wrecking ball.
When you consider that men will sacrifice their family, their marriage, their job, their money, their reputation, and even the security and well being of their country for a single hop in the sack with a woman, is it too hard to imagine what kind of bad things could happen to a combat team or a combat vessel when sex is thrown into the mix?
Leftists like to say “Oh, there are rules and regulations to prevent it, and everyone will be professional...” and I can only shake my head...they HAVE to know that cannot be true. There are few things stronger to a male between the ages of 12 and 60 than the sexual urge.
It is a little off topic, but even imagining it is enough evidence to avoid having women or open homosexuality in combat or aboard a combat ship.
The concept shouldn’t even be there.
Air Force officers received a letter from the secretary of the air farce. In the letter SHE said that any officer who did not full EMBRACE the diversity agenda would not be considered for promotion. Participation and agreement have not been considered adequate. Only active promition and support of the diversity agenda could keep you out of hot water and allow you to be considered for promotion.
The young men at a large oil company have mostly all but given up on promotion to leadership positions. The standard understanding is that if you are not female or minority don’t bother or hope for promotion to leadership. The boys club is being killed off.
The vengeance of minorities and women’s rights have easily gone over the top. The response to neglect of minorities and women is viscous retribution.
This world is not my own. I’m just passing through and am ready to move on from what it has become.
Good job ladies
You Ma’am are a rare breed.
<I don’t buy the gender angle. Too many incompetent Naval mishaps. Gender has no relevance except maybe in how the defense is handled and how these are buried.<
I do buy the gender (or more accurately sexual) relevance.
I have seen too many instances of “gender” corruption in the US Navy not to have some valid opinion based on personal experience.
Women do not belong in the military anymore than they do in the Boy Scouts. Women have ruined both, and a bucket of tears will not wash that fact out.
‘
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.