• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

17 Sailors and Six Marines Died in Avoidable Accidents. Congress Asks: Are the Problems Fixed?

j brown's body said:
We were defeated by an army in Vietnam that was practically out of the Stone age.
Click to expand...

No, we weren't. We never lost a single battle in that war. Not one.
 
Harshaw said:
No, we weren't. We never lost a single battle in that war. Not one.
Click to expand...
Victory is not about winning battles but wearing down the enemy and winning the hearts and minds of the people. You are mistaken if you believe the Americans won the Vietnam War.
 
Jean-s said:
Victory is not about winning battles but wearing down the enemy and winning the hearts and minds of the people. You are mistaken if you believe the Americans won the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...

The point was in military, not political, terms.

As for poltically, it was North Vietnam who sued for peace.
 
j brown's body said:
We were defeated by an army in Vietnam that was practically out of the Stone age.
Click to expand...

Actually the North Vietnamese had plenty of advanced weaponry, including many SAMs and an Air Force which was rather good.
 
Harshaw said:
The point was in military, not political, terms.

As for poltically, it was North Vietnam who sued for peace.
Click to expand...
So the North Vietnamese lost? No kidding!
 
Jean-s said:
So the North Vietnamese lost? No kidding!
Click to expand...

Militarily, against the United States, yes. Against South Vietnam, after we withdrew, no.
 
beerftw said:
Budget has much to do with training, I remember training on vietnam era radios in 2009 because tradoc budgets were already stretched thin, and using starlight nightvision decades after being phased out because of budget for training as well as practicing army dismounts on a vietnam era deuce and a half.

Point is in 2009 we were still relying on a crapload of gear that had long been obsolete. Budget plays a large role, especially when you are training soldiers on tactics and gear from vietnam for modern wars because budgets are low, now imagive epic budget cuts, training would be hell.

Now a former cowroker of mine was a vietnam vet, he griped about the m-16 not because he though it was garbage, but because he trained and zeroed on an m-14 and was shipped to theather with an m-16 he had no training on and was never zeroed.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your overall point where were you at in the Army that was using such crap. I used more modern equipment in basic training and that was well before 2009.
 
joko104 said:
The problem is not about training combat troops or officers. It is about having enough brainiac geeks and others willing and capable to rapidly learn massive amounts of high technical knowledge. Like your message even, they are completely taken for granted basically by everyone. Obama eliminated 50% in one swift move - then did a double take massively increasing missions - while assuring they nearly all were wasted missions because he didn't any of the enemy harmed.

This forced working those who remained to death. On one base in the ME it was so bad that to stop the suicides the prohibited anyone ever being alone - ever. They reach a point that they don't give a damn, dangerously cut corners, and QUIT anyway they can as fast as they can while trying to avoid a dishonorable discharge.

The military can recruit all the combat troops they want. There certainly is no shortage of people who want to be officers. Finding people willing to learn 10,000 pages of technical information working 16 and 24 hour shifts in 110 degree heat - with more thrown at them as more bail out - is not so each to recruit or then train. Even of those that do sign up and they think are willing and capable, if 25% of them make it to the first stage is is the exception rather than the rule.

Technical people in the military just got hit with a MASSIVE new set of emergency tasks on top of everything else when it learned that the insanity of buying military computer components from China had resulted in have a military with computers and even keyboard that all has spy chips in them - all required to be replaced and then all the complex software, encryption, etc installed.

But people think of aircraft and tanks only in terms of pilots and tank crews. They don't think about the people who keep them flying and up to date.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to Obama eliminating 50% as you claim. I would like to see that.

And who exactly are these technical people in the Army and what emergency tasks are they being hit with. Let's hear some specifics. What units are you talking about. What MOSs are effected.

And you understand that a lot of the work that is done too keep our equipment, like tanks and planes, is not done by the military but by the defense companies.
 
j brown's body said:
We were defeated by an army in Vietnam that was practically out of the Stone age.
Click to expand...

We were defeated because we didn't have either the political will not the public support to win.

Virtually every major operation conducted by the NV Army ended up as a failure.
 
Royal PITA said:
Wow. I can see there is no point in trying to explain why you are wrong. However, by quoting you, I hope others can use critical thinking and decide for themselves if they believe you are as wrong I as believe you to be.
Click to expand...

It doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny more for a ship to keep the crew trained.

Fire fighting drills cost the ship nothing.

Mass "conflag" drills cost the ships nothing.

Navigation exercises can be carried out during regular underway periods or work up's.

Ships going to sea undermanned is what leads to the malaise.

I would love to see how well you would do standing 6 x 6 watches for months on end while trying to maintain sleep, and still putting in a days work on a ship.

The pentagon has been lying for years on the issue of manning ships properly, and they say they won't send ships to sea undermanned. It's been a operational joke since the day I left boot camp back in "77"
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
It doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny more for a ship to keep the crew trained.

Fire fighting drills cost the ship nothing.

Mass "conflag" drills cost the ships nothing.

Navigation exercises can be carried out during regular underway periods or work up's.

Ships going to sea undermanned is what leads to the malaise.

I would love to see how well you would do standing 6 x 6 watches for months on end while trying to maintain sleep, and still putting in a days work on a ship.

The pentagon has been lying for years on the issue of manning ships properly, and they say they won't send ships to sea undermanned. It's been a operational joke since the day I left boot camp back in "77"
Click to expand...

Understaffing is due to funding. Agreed shipboard drills don't cost extra money but flying F-18s does. So does a ship being at sea. I remember when our training budget was cut because the Navy was burning a lot more oil for President Clinton. First in Bosnia then in Haiti.
 
Royal PITA said:
Understaffing is due to funding. Agreed shipboard drills don't cost extra money but flying F-18s does. So does a ship being at sea. I remember when our training budget was cut because the Navy was burning a lot more oil for President Clinton. First in Bosnia then in Haiti.
Click to expand...

Under staffing is, and always has been too many ships and not enough sailors regardless of the money available..

As far as the carriers go, I agree with the funding issues.

Obama did cut spending to the point where having more than a couple carriers was made useless. 60% of Navy fighter jets sat at the airbases without the parts to maintain them.

Regardless of funding, ship board accidents will occur more frequently and usually have more severe consequences when the senior leadership takes it's eyes off of the main goal of training. Ship board Captains have a very fine line to tread when ships are undermanned because it is all too easy to run a crew right into the ground. They, along with the junior officers have to juggle the ships schedule, watch standing, drilling, maintenance time, transferring sailors, and training up the new sailors. This is very hard to do when a 400 man ship only has 350 men to meet the ship's mission.

I was on (2) LST's that had a required compliment of 230 Officers and crew. The most I ever saw was a 185. LST's were nothing but modern meat grinders as far as retention goes. Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Under staffing is, and always has been too many ships and not enough sailors regardless of the money available..

As far as the carriers go, I agree with the funding issues.

Obama did cut spending to the point where having more than a couple carriers was made useless. 60% of Navy fighter jets sat at the airbases without the parts to maintain them.

Regardless of funding, ship board accidents will occur more frequently and usually have more severe consequences when the senior leadership takes it's eyes off of the main goal of training. Ship board Captains have a very fine line to tread when ships are undermanned because it is all too easy to run a crew right into the ground. They, along with the junior officers have to juggle the ships schedule, watch standing, drilling, maintenance time, transferring sailors, and training up the new sailors. This is very hard to do when a 400 man ship only has 350 men to meet the ship's mission.

I was on (2) LST's that had a required compliment of 230 Officers and crew. The most I ever saw was a 185. LST's were nothing but modern meat grinders as far as retention goes. Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out.
Click to expand...

"Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out."

This is a real problem on several fronts all at once.

Losing experienced manpower after spending the time to train them is a cost. You have to start from square one with recruiting replacements, then basic, then MOS specific, and finally deployment. I imagine it is only after the first or 2nd deployment when the freshly minted recruit is seasoned and experienced enough to be significantly valuable.
 
eohrnberger said:
"Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out."

This is a real problem on several fronts all at once.

Losing experienced manpower after spending the time to train them is a cost. You have to start from square one with recruiting replacements, then basic, then MOS specific, and finally deployment. I imagine it is only after the first or 2nd deployment when the freshly minted recruit is seasoned and experienced enough to be significantly valuable.
Click to expand...

My Senior Chief son in law, is supposed to be enjoying his last duty station before he retires early next year. But his everyday routine is dealing with not having the parts to keep the jets in the air, and doing it with 1/2 of a normally manned ground crew. The crew he does have are mostly E-3's fresh out of A schools.

Instead, my daughter brings him food, snacks, and fresh uniforms every couple of days......................and their house is only 6 miles away from the Jet Base.
 
RetiredUSN said:
My Senior Chief son in law, is supposed to be enjoying his last duty station before he retires early next year. But his everyday routine is dealing with not having the parts to keep the jets in the air, and doing it with 1/2 of a normally manned ground crew. The crew he does have are mostly E-3's fresh out of A schools.

Instead, my daughter brings him food, snacks, and fresh uniforms every couple of days......................and their house is only 6 miles away from the Jet Base.
Click to expand...

Aww geez. That simply doesn't seem right in any way, shape, or form.
 
braindrain said:
Do you have a link to Obama eliminating 50% as you claim. I would like to see that.

And who exactly are these technical people in the Army and what emergency tasks are they being hit with. Let's hear some specifics. What units are you talking about. What MOSs are effected.

And you understand that a lot of the work that is done too keep our equipment, like tanks and planes, is not done by the military but by the defense companies.
Click to expand...

It was the Air Force hit hardest and it is not done by defense companies. They build the equipment. They don't maintain it. They don't operate it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
My Senior Chief son in law, is supposed to be enjoying his last duty station before he retires early next year. But his everyday routine is dealing with not having the parts to keep the jets in the air, and doing it with 1/2 of a normally manned ground crew. The crew he does have are mostly E-3's fresh out of A schools.

Instead, my daughter brings him food, snacks, and fresh uniforms every couple of days......................and their house is only 6 miles away from the Jet Base.
Click to expand...

^ That is exactly what I'm talking about. The reason they are E3s is because they don't re-enlist. The hours are horrific, the pressure is huge, and once trained the private sector offers vastly more than the military does or can.
 
joko104 said:
It was the Air Force hit hardest and it is not done by defense companies. They build the equipment. They don't maintain it. They don't operate it.
Click to expand...

The USAF took it up the ass under Obama.

They lost a lot of pilots because they couldn't get in the air.

They said the hell with it and got out.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Under staffing is, and always has been too many ships and not enough sailors regardless of the money available..

As far as the carriers go, I agree with the funding issues.

Obama did cut spending to the point where having more than a couple carriers was made useless. 60% of Navy fighter jets sat at the airbases without the parts to maintain them.

Regardless of funding, ship board accidents will occur more frequently and usually have more severe consequences when the senior leadership takes it's eyes off of the main goal of training. Ship board Captains have a very fine line to tread when ships are undermanned because it is all too easy to run a crew right into the ground. They, along with the junior officers have to juggle the ships schedule, watch standing, drilling, maintenance time, transferring sailors, and training up the new sailors. This is very hard to do when a 400 man ship only has 350 men to meet the ship's mission.

I was on (2) LST's that had a required compliment of 230 Officers and crew. The most I ever saw was a 185. LST's were nothing but modern meat grinders as far as retention goes. Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out.
Click to expand...

And this all goes back to funding despite the erroneous claims by others. Running 24/7 high tempo ops at sea with only 80% of a crew for 3-4 weeks straight is a meat-grinder as you pointed out. Even having the bodies but not the resources to send them to "A" school or any other special qualification presents problems.

Going back to the OP; it's funding that is the biggest contributor to accidents due to a lack of training resources (usually fuel and parts ) or personnel. Who's in charge of funding? Congress.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The USAF took it up the ass under Obama.

They lost a lot of pilots because they couldn't get in the air.

They said the hell with it and got out.
Click to expand...

So then this post, would be an suspicion proven to be accurate.

eohrnberger said:
Yeah, I was wondering if this was still some of the fall out from Obama's sequestration, where much of the military fell into disrepair, including the drills and exercises for the troops and their leaders.
Click to expand...

Only it was not nearly recognizing how serious the challenges presently are, and how serious the impact which is still being felt.
 
eohrnberger said:
"Nobody gave a **** after their 4 years and they got out."

This is a real problem on several fronts all at once.

Losing experienced manpower after spending the time to train them is a cost. You have to start from square one with recruiting replacements, then basic, then MOS specific, and finally deployment. I imagine it is only after the first or 2nd deployment when the freshly minted recruit is seasoned and experienced enough to be significantly valuable.
Click to expand...

They'll be seasoned after one deployment....if they survive it. :)

The first half of my career was under Reagan and times were good. Then, due to Reagan's actions, we win the Cold War in 1991 and the Democrats kneejerk about turning "Guns to Butter". All the services took a major hit, almost a third on average IIRC. B-52s that were flying 24/7 were no put on 5 minute alert and many of them sent to the boneyard. Ships were scrapped including two aircraft carrier and their airwing. The Navy P-3 fleet, used for tracking Soviet SSBNs, was cut in half. So many people were sent home that when Desert Shield popped up, the Army and Air Force had to recall some; cobra pilots for the Army and MAC pilots for the Air Force. They did their job for the six months building up to Desert Storm and, when the war ended in week, they were all given pink slips. "Thank you for your service, not GTFO". I was among those forced out, but I went into the Naval Reserve for six years to finish my 20 years. Many others were not so lucky or had no desire.

When the first lying Draft-dodging coward was elected President, he continued the trend of gutting the military and then ordered it to step up operations in Bosnia and Haiti. It was a tough time.
 
Rogue Valley said:
17 Sailors and Six Marines Died in Avoidable Accidents. Congress Asks: Are the Problems Fixed?

After ProPublica wrote about inadequate training and faulty equipment, lawmakers grilled Navy and Marine leaders about the accidents and whether America is ready for war.

defense-large.jpg




Congress needs to strengthen its understandings of military preparedness and safety concerns. With the huge taxpayer layouts, anything less than optimal is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Needless to say we must blame Trump for these tragedies. More proof he doesn't care about our troops,right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom