[cva66snipe]

Typical work day at sea on a carrier 1977-80. 7:00am Muster on Station go to work. Two men have been on watch in the shop since 0400 that morning. Work till about 6:00pm including time for lunch. The typical 24 hour routine was working and standing 2 four hour watches. The morning 0400-0800 watch would likely also stand the mid watch 0000-0400. Next morning your watch time rotated. You'd likely get the 4:00pm-8:00pm watch and hit the rack at 9:00pm. That was under ideal conditions nothing broke down requiring extra time working. It was more likely you'd get at most 6 hours sleep in 24 at sea.

The snipes in The Hole {Boiler Rooms} did 6 on and 6 off. Only 6 hours in 24 was sleep the another 18 was work and watch or you did 4&4 of same.

Ship readiness evaluations on some days off of GITMO you got an hour of sleep. That was 30 days of whatever the inspectors wanted to do like General Quarters at 2:00am till noon the next day.

Due to Murphy's law I believe an undermanned ship is begging for trouble and an automated combat shipis just that. Undermanned except in ideal conditions.

There are other serious considerations besides just the work. Breakdowns requiring extended at sea repair times, Fire, mass causalities, illness, God forbid taking a hit requiring Repair Teams {Damage Control Teams}. The numbers mentioned in the article seem too low. Several losses of critical skill persons could put the ship in trouble. Cross training does not replace experience.

[DariusBane]

They don’t have enough people to service the turbines and clean the heads at the same time. God forbid cleaning up the chow hall (or whatever the navy calls it) and working the sonar suite at the same time.

[PieterCasparzen]

A submariner told me that our sub strategy has always been the opposite of this. Said the Ruskies (back in the day) were trying to automate more and have fewer men, that the US realized that thinking was critical to operating a nuke sub, so they had more men on board relatively speaking. They said the “more human brains” strategy worked far better, since you’re dealing with complex equipment and potentially complex situations.

Now we’re going completely in the opposite direction ???

My tech background tells me the reasoning is simple: vendors who sell hardware are always trying to get you to buy more expensive hardware. Way more than you need, features you don’t need, complexity that winds up being more expensive, etc., etc.

The revolving door is so pervasive, and lately political corruption and ties with socialist elite financiers is so out in the open, that FedGov seems to think that any wacky idea they embark on will be largely unreported and thus unchallenged by Congress or anyone else.

It’s like the spending at NSA for data storage to store every email, phone call, etc.

Do you know how computer FAST hardware depreciates in value - and becomes completely obsolete ?

Buying that much storage is doomed to looking like a ridiculously old-fashioned computer museum within a decade.

But it’s the sheeple’s money, and the vendors are inviting us to all those parties and what not, so...

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Well, you're certainly NOT "MBA material" ... after reading that mean-spirited and judgemental critique of yours ...


In other words, "Well Done", Sailor !!!


.