This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: NHSparky

  • Submarine Officer Alleges Cheating in Nuclear Fleet

    Jonn asked me to put in my .02 about a story he was sent from THE DAILY BEAST about a former submarine officer by the name of Christopher Brownfield, who has just had a book published called“My Nuclear Family”, detailing his experiences and growing disillusionment with the submarine force and what he saw as the growing irrelevance of submarines.

    But more disturbing to me are his allegations of widespread cheating, or at the very least the “wink and a nod” regarding qualifications within the submarine force at large and nuclear power community specifically.  To his credit, he did manage to finish his JO tour on USS Hartford, do an abbreviated tour at Submarine School in New London, CT, and even did a year in Iraq, although his biography and book description by Knopf/Doubleday would be embellishment to say the least.

    He graduated the Naval Academy as an English Literature major and chose a program where the vast majority (over 80 percent) of the officer candidates are Engineering, Math, or hard sciences majors, and wonders why he has difficulty passing BASIC Engineering Qualifications (BEQ)? What disturbs me greatly is his claim that the other officers on board turned a blind eye, and after MULTIPLE failures of the BEQ Exam, and they basically gave him the answers to the exam; i.e., allowing him to take it “open book”.  In 12 years in nuclear power, from A-School, through Nuclear Power School, prototype, qualifications on two submarines and as radiological controls (radcon) on a tender, I NEVER saw an “open book” test, even for a training quiz.  In submarines and particularly in nuclear power, this is a sin of unforgivable magnitude, to the tune of senior officers and enlisted going bye-bye without so much as a chance to explain themselves. While examinations are political in nature to the point where comments have been made on Operational Reactor Safeguards Examination (ORSE) evaluations if the average scores are too high, too low, or too many/too few fail, to admit to basically GIVING AWAY an exam is not, and never has been an excusable action.

    Then he goes on to claim that the submarine force is that of a “white elephant”, irrelevant to the GWOT. Really, “sir”? I know I’m just a former blueshirt dumbass, but even I can find plenty of examples in which submarines would be of particularly high value, especially in terms of covert surveillance of enemy coastline and ports, insertion/extraction of SEALs and other special operators, and as a last resort, launch of Tomahawks against targets inland or Mk-48’s against bad guys with ships (read: Iran). Then again, this is the same mental giant who wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times claiming that we should have used explosives (even suggesting nukes) on the BP oil well, using at best dubious “facts”.

    I’m being kind when I say that Mr. Brownfield was a less than stellar officer. I’ve heard from others who have served with him who speak about him in less than flattering terms. It would be a shame for Mr. Brownfield to become the voice of the submarine community and of Naval Nuclear Power.  Joel Kennedy over at milblog The Stupid Shall Be Punished has some good submarine/nuke takes on this subject.

  • Social Engineering, Navy Style

    Despite the overwhelming majority of posters and comments here being from an Army or Marine perspective, all services have been subject to one form of social engineering or another during our careers.

    Some have been good changes, such as eliminating segregation within the ranks, although elimination of some forms of discrimination didn’t occur until the 1960’s and 70’s, and racial tensions were present. Yet now, African-Americans in the military occupy a greater percentage of senior leadership positions than do their civilian counterparts. Drug testing, at first regarded as a waste of time and resources, has become de rigueur, even in most civilian companies as a condition of employment. The policies of sexual harassment common to civilian HR departments in many cases were first developed in the military, some in response to such episodes as Tailhook, and others.

    But as a nuclear-trained submariner, the ghost of Admiral Rickover raises his crusty skinny head from the grave to remind us that change, simply for change’s sake, isn’t always good. People are surprised when they learn that most of the nuclear instrumentation and machinery isn’t the latest “whiz-bang” stuff, but rather decades-old tried-and-true technology.

    Two major changes have come about in the submarine community, that while on the surface may seem like great steps forward, but in reality are simply knee-jerk reactions to other pressures for social change. First is the CNO’s decision to allow women on submarines, the second is the ban on smoking effective the end of the year.

    Oh, boo-frickin-hoo, Sparky, you might say. Fair enough. But there is reasoning behind the rationale which fuels my feelings on both decisions. Both come down to a question of morale.

    A typical fast attack submarine (I’ve served on two) has a crew of about 130, of which 120-125 go on deployment, with the others in an “augment” status, attending schools or other training they might not fit in otherwise. If a division is short-handed, however, augments get canceled. I’ve been the beneficiary of such a screw-job when one of my fellow RO’s broke his collarbone a week before a Westpac deployment. Now consider what happens when women are thrown in the mix. Lose a woman due to pregnancy or other issue, someone has to take their place. Training is lost. The others in the division have to take up the slack. That’s one thing in an Army company of 120. It’s quite another in a submarine division of 8 or less. Then there are habitability issues. Anyone who has ever set foot on a submarine knows first-hand how crowded it is. But few outside those who have lived on one for any significant length of time know just how little privacy exists, which could lead to a whole host of other issues, both sexual and non-sexual. Bottom line, it’s not that women can’t do most, if not all, of the jobs on a submarine–it’s a question of can they perform them IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

    Next, smoking. As an ex-smoker, I’m as down on smoking as anyone, but the argument of the contained atmosphere of a submarine being contaminated by second-hand smoke is just so much bullshit. Cigarette smoke is somehow killing us all, but it’s okay for us to suck up diesel fumes, graphite dust, amine, and paint fumes, despite there being a specific ban on things like painting underway? Pick a side, guys! And the last time I checked, tobacco is still 1–legal, 2–doesn’t impair one’s ability to perform a job; i.e., it’s not an intoxicant. But more importantly, most of the military’s current smoking-cessation courses can involve taking prescriptions such as Zyban and Chantix, which have side effects that prevent submariners from taking them. Pretty soon, smoking a pole will be okay, but not a Marlboro? Sorry, but I’ve no desire to ever smoke the former to relieve stress.

    Pressure in situations such as submarines (and other combat units) is a delicate balance where good order and discipline runs headlong into good morale. The need to complete the mission is paramount, and distractions which endanger that completion have no place in any branch of the military. It’s hard enough getting good, qualified people into difficult-to-fill positions without putting more bullshit minutiae on them. It sends our people a mixed message that the senior leadership can pick and choose which rules they want to enforce, and which they can blow off at their need or convenience. But again, as Rickover said, “If you have to choose whether to sin against God or the bureaucracy, choose the latter. God will forgive you, but the bureaucracy won’t.”