Military AI Works

The skipper and XO of the USS George Washington have been relieved due to lack of leadership and failure to ensure the safety of their ship. The incident that sparked this was a fire... and lax supervision of on ship regulations concerning fire hazards.

Also, an F-15 crashed at Nellis today... 1 crewman survived, the other didn't.

The F-15 is from 65th AGRS. It was on a Red Flag mission today.

Good grief, our country and our military are falling apart.

Ford Friendly wrote:The skipper and XO of the USS George Washington have been relieved due to lack of leadership and failure to ensure the safety of their ship. The incident that sparked this was a fire... and lax supervision of on ship regulations concerning fire hazards.

Also, an F-15 crashed at Nellis today... 1 crewman survived, the other didn't.

This shows how CO's and XO's have ultimate power but ultimate responsibility. They have to rely on their department heads and other senior leadership telling them "good to go" when the question "Are we ready" is asked. There are plenty of others who will fall due to this incident.

Ford Friendly wrote:The skipper and XO of the USS George Washington have been relieved due to lack of leadership and failure to ensure the safety of their ship. The incident that sparked this was a fire... and lax supervision of on ship regulations concerning fire hazards...

In fairness, the USN fires skippers like most people change underwear. At least within the last year or so.

SMOC wrote:In fairness, the USN fires skippers like most people change underwear.

Not really sure I can or would agree with that. I certainly can't be quite so "flip" about it.

In this specific case, $70 million dollars worth of damage requires some sort of significant action by the Department of the Navy. Someone definintely needs to "hang" and/or be held accountable --- the obvious one is the CO. His right hand is the XO. I have zero problem with cashiering both regardless of any others whose hands might be slapped (or worse).

Not only is the damage to the CVN significant, there's the issue of having to delay a planned ship rotation/assignment as the new/permanently assigned to Japan CV due to the necessary repairs. This can have significant political ramifications in US-Japanese relations vis-a-vis homeporting and visits by nuclear warships.

Ford Friendly wrote:Not really sure I can or would agree with that. I certainly can't be quite so "flip" about it.

2 FEB 2007 -- Destroyer Halsey skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

20 APR 2007 -- Commander of Electronic Attack Squadron 140 fired. Loss of confidence... one week after assuming command.

21 APR 2007 -- Commander of Navy recruiting in NY Metro fired. Loss of confidence.

8 MAY 2007 -- Destroyer Higgins commander fired. Loss of confidence.

11 MAY 2007 -- USS Constitution skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

16 MAY 2007 -- Fast-Attack Submarine Helena skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

28 MAY 2007 -- Destroyer Arleigh Burke skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

25 OCT 2007 -- USS Hampton skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

13 FEB 2008 -- HSL 40 commander fired. Loss of confidence.

4 MAR 2008 -- Frigate Thach skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

8 MAY 2008 -- USS Kitty Hawk Strike Group commander fired. Loss of confidence.

Sensing a theme yet?

SMOC wrote:Sensing a theme yet?

I didn't dispute any facts. Only commented about the manner in which such were referred to.

Rather than the Navy merely "changing underwear", it seems to me that senior leaders are being held accountable.

Put this in perspective. A carrier skipper has authority over some 5000-6500 people at a time. This latest incident resulted in his replacement.

A USAF base commander may command that many. Fire on the flight line/weapons loading area/etc. - rarely does a base commander get cashiered for it.

Just a difference in perspective... certainly not worthy of a derogatory reference.

End of commenting on this by me.

A good debate, for sure, certainly one worth keeping civil.

Don't forget about the incident with the nukes being flown across the country and the technology being shipped to Taiwan.

Personally I think the media is so thirsty for blood that our senior leadership is going to great lengths to protect the integrity of the armed services right now. Almost has the appearance of a "house cleaning" sort of thing.

Ford Friendly wrote:I didn't dispute any facts. Only commented about the manner in which such were referred to.

Rather than the Navy merely "changing underwear", it seems to me that senior leaders are being held accountable.

Put this in perspective. A carrier skipper has authority over some 5000-6500 people at a time. This latest incident resulted in his replacement.

A USAF base commander may command that many. Fire on the flight line/weapons loading area/etc. - rarely does a base commander get cashiered for it.

Just a difference in perspective... certainly not worthy of a derogatory reference.

End of commenting on this by me.

It's just a difference of opinion. I don't use the expression "... like most people change underwear" in a derogatory fashion, I use it to reference the frequency in which something occurs. And there isn't much in way of dispute that the USN frequently(compared to other services: USAF, USMC, USCG, and all entities within such as Guard and Reserves) changes bosses.

That's their prerogative to make changes as they see fit, I was just saying that a skipper getting fired in the USN is nothing new these days... which is something of a commentary in and of itself.

To hold senior leaders accountable shouldn't they be firing people who continue to put skippers in place that are getting fired?

Don't stop commenting because we simply disagree.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that for the last 10-20 years all of the services (USMC less so) have been putting the emphasis on "Management - as in business management" for Officer training instead of "Leadership - as in military leadership".

In recent years (at least in the USAF) this has even devolved to the Senior NCO Corps.

Although management skills are necessary in the military, it is Leadership and Military Science that makes the career different from being employed by IBM.

Now we find those officers have advanced in rank to leadership positions and we find serious deficiencies in their leadership skills. I think many would agree that the vast majority of our military personnel are well trained and motivated people who put service before self, but because of past policies in training and "people programs" we will continue to see a growing number of these incidents.

This reference to management training vs leadership training is, I believe, a cyclic thing in the military. Whenever we have a period of peace, the main motivator is manage your career and rise as high as you can. However, at the end of a peace cycle you have leadership that has reached the higher levels that concentrated on management (in otherwords relying on other good men to take care of the details, while you politic your way up the ladder) and have little or no skill in pure leadership.

Leadership is a very difficult skill to get right, and is very time intensive to exercise.

The men/women who are managers are not bad people, but not really good for top level positions in the military. When they make their mistake of relying on others to do what they should be doing themselves, they end up paying the price. This has been a recurring theme in the US Military, for most of it's history, not just recently.

Good leaders are by nature good managers of time, material and personnel. They rise by virtue of their deeds, and not by politics.

However, far too many rise by the exercise of politics. I believe they enter the military with the penchant to exercise politics to achieve success, and never absorbe the military ethos. Again, I say that these are not bad men per se, just not good for the military.

We tend to lose sight of the cycles of war and peace, because not all wars are momentious, and not all periods of peace are so obvious or long lasting. But in the span of a man's career, the cycles don't have to be so very long to have such great effect.

Ron

Great post Ron, really well said.

The F-15D pilot killed was identified as 65th Aggressor Squadron Commander, O-5 type. GIB is a RAF exchange pilot in stable condition.

SMOC wrote:
2 FEB 2007 -- Destroyer Halsey skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

20 APR 2007 -- Commander of Electronic Attack Squadron 140 fired. Loss of confidence... one week after assuming command.

21 APR 2007 -- Commander of Navy recruiting in NY Metro fired. Loss of confidence.

8 MAY 2007 -- Destroyer Higgins commander fired. Loss of confidence.

11 MAY 2007 -- USS Constitution skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

16 MAY 2007 -- Fast-Attack Submarine Helena skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

28 MAY 2007 -- Destroyer Arleigh Burke skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

25 OCT 2007 -- USS Hampton skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

13 FEB 2008 -- HSL 40 commander fired. Loss of confidence.

4 MAR 2008 -- Frigate Thach skipper fired. Loss of confidence.

8 MAY 2008 -- USS Kitty Hawk Strike Group commander fired. Loss of confidence.

Sensing a theme yet?

Loss of confidence is the Navy's catch all phrase. For example the Arleigh Burke's CO was fired for running the ship aground while returning to port here in Norfolk. They were doing like 20-25 kts in the channel when they ran aground.
Just my 2 cents

I dealt with this first hand in my Navy helicopter squadron after a class A mishap which killed 2 aviators and 1 SEAL. We were deployed as well making matters worse.