Pentagon's Own Report Suggests Troops Stretched To Limit

[gblowfish]

I'd think it's going to go one of two ways:
1. We get the Hell outta Iraqistan...with as much oil in tow as possible; or
2. Crank up Selective Service: Welcome to Iran, you High School Seniors!
Could go either way IMHO.
Story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/av3js

[memyselfI]

No it's not. The WH says so. We know what they say is always the truth as they know it.

[Loki]

what did you expect?


the military was drastically downsized after gulf war1, and never
properly bounced back.
they also reduced the amounts of active duty divisions. stupid
move.

thinking that rapid deploy brigades are they way to go?
looks and sounds great on paper, but trying to get it all
restructured and deployed during a war?

call me a skeptic.

anyone remember the 82nd airborne holding the "line" before gulf war1
kicked off? yeah, they deployed rapidly, and held the line, but if saddam
had wanted to roll into saudi arabia, he could have. the 82nd was rapidly
deployed in force, but lacked proper air/armor/arty, support, supplies
etc etc etc etc... the 82nd would have bloodied their noses for sure,
but if saddam's armor had some specific objective and a timetable, they
wouldn't stop to play with the infantry. the "rapid deploy" would only
serve to delay the armor. rapid deploy can do 1 of 2 things. either
assault or delay. (notice how i didn't say 'defend')

this rapid deploy thing is something that takes a sh*tload more planning
IMO before they try to restructure the whole thing during a WAR.
couple that with the fact of reduced amounts of active divisions and
the fact that some to most of these divisions are somewhat trained for
specific tasks or specific theatres of operation (ie: mountain, forest,
desert, europe, south america, asia)... now let's make them ALL rapid
deploy forces just like the airborne!! ok lets get some european forest
infantry, put them in desert vehicles and tanks and stick them in this
airplane and.... ooops, this tank doesn't fit in this plane and oh dear
this soldier has never used this artillery piece and...
messy, but our soldiers are the best. they will adapt and they will kick
maximum ass for us.

i have always thought the drastic downsizing our military and intelligence
communities suffered after gulf war1 was a serious mistake.
i have always maintained that we should have had more boots on the
ground when iraq2 kicked off. (250,000 minimum)
i believe the United States needs to fight this war, but i don't believe
this war has been run properly at all times, (and this war has been run
pretty f*cked up in some instances). but i have faith in our troops and
know they are doing a good job despite all the negative press. i'm very
poud of them and thankful for their service to our nation.
:rockon:


again though, a bit late in the game to be figuring THIS info out...:shake:

[Laz]

don't forget the troops needed for Iran

[Radar Chief]

Right. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051212-110459-3810r.htm) :rolleyes:

[Adept Havelock]

Right. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051212-110459-3810r.htm) :rolleyes:


Perhaps it's too subtle a distinction for you, but didn't you notice that the issue being discussed is not recruitment? It's if the current military commitments are too much of a strain on the overall established strength of the US military. Nice attempt at obfuscation, though. ;)

Recruitment isn't going to up that number one bit. Only congress can.

[Radar Chief]

Perhaps it's too subtle a distinction for you, but didn't you notice that the issue being discussed is not recruitment? It's if the current military commitments are too much of a strain on the overall established strength of the US military. Nice attempt at obfuscation, though. ;)

Recruitment isn't going to up that number one bit. Only congress can.


Lets see. Be’n “stretched to thin” would indicate that there aren’t enough, correct? So, increasing the size of our forces isn’t going to “effect that one bit”? And I’m the one “obfuscating”. :rolleyes:
But then I guess this is just too complex of an elaboration for you. ROFL

[Adept Havelock]

Lets see. blather...blather...blather...

Ok, for the slow kid....(though I doubt it's worth the effort)

1) "Established troop strength" refers to the total manpower of the US military as decreed by congress.

2) "Recruitment" is an attempt to fill that "Established Troop Strength".

A simple analogy- ETS is the size of the glass, recruitment fills it.

The Pentagon report being discussed is if we have sufficent ETS in order to fulfill our current military commitments. The report states we do not.

The link you provided is about recruitment, which has no effect on the congressionally authorized size of the military forces.

Continuing the analogy, the glass is deemed insufficently large by the report. All that you pour into it won't increase the size of the glass. Only a decree of congress (and the appropriate levels of funding) can.

So yes, you are the one obfuscating. It's either that, or you are just too ignorant to discern the difference between having an insufficent total troop strength to fulfill commitments, and recruitment levels aimed at maintaining that insufficent total strength. ROFL

I guess it's just too difficult a concept for you. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Ok, for the slow kid....(though I doubt it's worth the effort)

1) "Established troop strength" refers to the total manpower of the US military as decreed by congress.

2) "Recruitment" is an attempt to fill that "Established Troop Strength".

A simple analogy- ETS is the size of the glass, recruitment fills it.

The Pentagon report being discussed is if we have sufficent ETS in order to fulfill our current military commitments. The report states we do not.

The link you provided is about recruitment, which has no effect on the congressionally authorized size of the military forces.

Continuing the analogy, the glass is deemed insufficently large by the report. All that you pour into it won't increase the size of the glass. Only a decree of congress (and the appropriate levels of funding) can.

So yes, you are the one obfuscating. It's either that, or you are just too ignorant to discern the difference between having an insufficent total troop strength to fulfill commitments, and recruitment levels aimed at maintaining that insufficent total strength. ROFL

I guess it's just too difficult a concept for you. :rolleyes:

The Army's "2005 recruiting slump" was specifically mentioned as evidence offered by the report's author that the Army is in danger of being "broken" if the current pace of deployments is maintained. The fact that the Army is having more success in recruiting as of late is evidence that the breaking point has not yet arrived. The overall force size is important only because of it's impact on difficulty faced in terms of recruitment and reenlistment. If recruitment and reenlistment were guaranteed, the reports concern about force size and deployment demands would be completely unwarranted. I'm confident you already know this, but I think you are being unfair to RadarChief.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That report also states that the Army cannot maintain the troop levels needed for a long enough period to break the back of the insurgency. Recruiting slump or not, if this indeed proves true, then the army is in real danger.

[patteeu]

That report also states that the Army cannot maintain the troop levels needed for a long enough period to break the back of the insurgency. Recruiting slump or not, if this indeed proves true, then the army is in real danger.

If there is no recruiting slump, there is no problem. That particular conclusion is based on the assumption that recruiting will eventually be catastrophically impacted by the current demands being placed on the Army.

[memyselfI]

If there is no recruiting slump, there is no problem. That particular conclusion is based on the assumption that recruiting will eventually be catastrophically impacted by the current demands being placed on the Army.


USA > Military
from the December 15, 2005 edition

Short of recruits, Army redoes its math

It trims enlistment goals for the coming months in hopes of a big influx next summer.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – This week, the Department of Defense reported that for the second month in a row, the service hit hardest by the recruiting shortfall - the Army - exceeded its monthly recruiting goals.

Yet both this month and last, there has been hardly a peep about that success. The reasons have more to do with math than media bias.

Even within the Defense Department, few suggest that the Army has seen its way through the crisis. Instead, what the Army has done is backload the goals for its recruiting year, which runs from October through next September.

For instance, last fiscal year, the Army's October recruiting goal was 6,935 recruits; this year it dropped to 4,700. To make up the difference, the Army will look to sign up more recruits next summer: Last July it sought to bring in 7,450 soldiers; next July it is seeking 10,450, an extra 3,000.

Relying more heavily on the summer months is a logical step on many fronts. First, the months after high-school graduation are the best recruiting months. Even last year - when the Army finished 6,627 recruits short of its goal of 80,000 - it exceeded its recruiting goals each month from June through September.

Moreover, backloading the recruiting calendar prevents the Pentagon from having to explain missed quotas throughout the year. Perhaps most important, it also allows time for events on the ground in Iraq to change.

The recruiting shortfalls have corresponded with growing public criticism of the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already said that a successful election in Iraq this week would lead to a drawdown in the number of troops - and that more could soon follow.

That said, the hope of luring 38,900 recruits - nearly half of the entire year's goal - in the last third of the recruiting year is a challenge. "I know there is concern," says Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command.

Most analysts express doubt that the Army can make up the difference. Now, with reenlistments slipping for the first time since the war began, the numbers game is becoming a major concern. The Army eased the problem somewhat in October by accepting more than its usual allotment of Category 4 recruits, who received a substandard score on the Army aptitude test.

But some see that as a sign of desperation. Says Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of Defense for manpower: "You can't sustain this level of ground troops indefinitely without breaking the force."


SOURCE: US ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND/SCOTT WALLACE - STAFF

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/csmimg/p2c.gif

[CRONUS]

what did you expect?


the military was drastically downsized after gulf war1, and never
properly bounced back.
they also reduced the amounts of active duty divisions. stupid
move.

thinking that rapid deploy brigades are they way to go?
looks and sounds great on paper, but trying to get it all
restructured and deployed during a war?

call me a skeptic.

anyone remember the 82nd airborne holding the "line" before gulf war1
kicked off? yeah, they deployed rapidly, and held the line, but if saddam
had wanted to roll into saudi arabia, he could have. the 82nd was rapidly
deployed in force, but lacked proper air/armor/arty, support, supplies
etc etc etc etc... the 82nd would have bloodied their noses for sure,
but if saddam's armor had some specific objective and a timetable, they
wouldn't stop to play with the infantry. the "rapid deploy" would only
serve to delay the armor. rapid deploy can do 1 of 2 things. either
assault or delay. (notice how i didn't say 'defend')

this rapid deploy thing is something that takes a sh*tload more planning
IMO before they try to restructure the whole thing during a WAR.
couple that with the fact of reduced amounts of active divisions and
the fact that some to most of these divisions are somewhat trained for
specific tasks or specific theatres of operation (ie: mountain, forest,
desert, europe, south america, asia)... now let's make them ALL rapid
deploy forces just like the airborne!! ok lets get some european forest
infantry, put them in desert vehicles and tanks and stick them in this
airplane and.... ooops, this tank doesn't fit in this plane and oh dear
this soldier has never used this artillery piece and...
messy, but our soldiers are the best. they will adapt and they will kick
maximum ass for us.

i have always thought the drastic downsizing our military and intelligence
communities suffered after gulf war1 was a serious mistake.
i have always maintained that we should have had more boots on the
ground when iraq2 kicked off. (250,000 minimum)
i believe the United States needs to fight this war, but i don't believe
this war has been run properly at all times, (and this war has been run
pretty f*cked up in some instances). but i have faith in our troops and
know they are doing a good job despite all the negative press. i'm very
poud of them and thankful for their service to our nation.
:rockon:


again though, a bit late in the game to be figuring THIS info out...:shake:

Though I completely disagree with the occupation, I completely agree with your post. If we are going to fight wars we should be properly equipped and staffed to do the job. Then we must be properly deployed with good planning. Nice post Loki.

[CRONUS]

Lets see. Be’n “stretched to thin” would indicate that there aren’t enough, correct? So, increasing the size of our forces isn’t going to “effect that one bit”? And I’m the one “obfuscating”. :rolleyes:
But then I guess this is just too complex of an elaboration for you. ROFL

If I can intercede I am not sure either of you are correct when it comes to determining where the problem lies. Adept is correct when it comes to our stated troop force is inadequate (which is a main component of why we are stretched too thin). Radar you are correct that if we are understaffed to the allowable limits set by congress then we are stretched even thinner. The real problem is due to Rumsfeld specifically not requesting more troops be authorized by Congress thus not creating a need for adequate troop staffing and simultaneously lowering recruitment goals and thus the budget for recruitment.

[patteeu]

USA > Military
from the December 15, 2005 edition

Short of recruits, Army redoes its math.

...

I'm not surprised. I kind of wondered if there was some number manipulation going on.

[penchief]

On a similar note, did anyone catch Rumsfeld's news conference yesterday?

One thing struck me. He kept repeating how the navy is more effective because the number of deployable days has doubled. He said that the ships in the navy are now deployed twice as much as before. Now I don't know how you interpret that but it sounds no different than what the soldiers are going through. It sounds like they're at sea twice as much as they were before. All that means to me is that they are working around the clock twice as much and seeing their families half as much.

Any way you slice it, that's spreading the forces thinner not making them more effective, IMO.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

On a similar note, did anyone catch Rumsfeld's news conference yesterday?

One thing struck me. He kept repeating how the navy is more effective because the number of deployable days has doubled. He said that the ships in the navy are now deployed twice as much as before. Now I don't know how you interpret that but it sounds no different than what the soldiers are going through. It sounds like they're at sea twice as much as they were before. All that means to me is that they are working around the clock twice as much and seeing their families half as much.

Any way you slice it, that's spreading the forces thinner not making them more effective, IMO.

I agree. Did any of the media call him on that or did they simply nod their heads like good puppets?

[Radar Chief]

On a similar note, did anyone catch Rumsfeld's news conference yesterday?

One thing struck me. He kept repeating how the navy is more effective because the number of deployable days has doubled. He said that the ships in the navy are now deployed twice as much as before. Now I don't know how you interpret that but it sounds no different than what the soldiers are going through. It sounds like they're at sea twice as much as they were before. All that means to me is that they are working around the clock twice as much and seeing their families half as much.

Any way you slice it, that's spreading the forces thinner not making them more effective, IMO.

You skipped over the part where he explained that the reason for the down time was because of ship maintenance. “For every ship at sea, we had four in dock being worked on”, is how I believe he put it.

[Radar Chief]

Ok, for the slow kid....(though I doubt it's worth the effort)

1) "Established troop strength" refers to the total manpower of the US military as decreed by congress.

2) "Recruitment" is an attempt to fill that "Established Troop Strength".

A simple analogy- ETS is the size of the glass, recruitment fills it.

The Pentagon report being discussed is if we have sufficent ETS in order to fulfill our current military commitments. The report states we do not.

The link you provided is about recruitment, which has no effect on the congressionally authorized size of the military forces.

Continuing the analogy, the glass is deemed insufficently large by the report. All that you pour into it won't increase the size of the glass. Only a decree of congress (and the appropriate levels of funding) can.

So yes, you are the one obfuscating. It's either that, or you are just too ignorant to discern the difference between having an insufficent total troop strength to fulfill commitments, and recruitment levels aimed at maintaining that insufficent total strength. ROFL

I guess it's just too difficult a concept for you. :rolleyes:

I’m sorry, I guess I assumed knowledge you obviously don’t posses.
I assumed you knew the military was in the process of expanding, particularly combat units, and that these higher recruiting goals are being met and in some cases even exceeded, the reason for post’n the article. See’n as how it’s been posted here in DC before, I assume it was common knowledge. :shrug:
Guess I should’ve also assumed that such a claimed expansive intellectual prowess, as yours wouldn’t need to actually read and retain information outside your established knowledge bubble. My bad.
Now please continue explaining the intricacies of ETS and it’s effects on our military size to the Gulf War Vet. It’s such a compelling read.
And just so ya know, ETS to a vet means “Estimated Time of Separation” or when that soldier is leaving the military.

Oh, and one last thing. Before attempt’n to belittle others intelligence, it’d probably help if you at least tried use’n Spell Check.
It’s “sufficient” not “sufficent”. Just FYI. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

On a similar note, did anyone catch Rumsfeld's news conference yesterday?

One thing struck me. He kept repeating how the navy is more effective because the number of deployable days has doubled. He said that the ships in the navy are now deployed twice as much as before. Now I don't know how you interpret that but it sounds no different than what the soldiers are going through. It sounds like they're at sea twice as much as they were before. All that means to me is that they are working around the clock twice as much and seeing their families half as much.

Any way you slice it, that's spreading the forces thinner not making them more effective, IMO.

It's not a linear relationship, penchief. If the navy has zero deployable days, it's easy to see that they will get rusty and be poorly prepared for a deployment and therefore ineffective. If the navy has too many deployable days then the burden and the stress can impact effectiveness negatively. The maximum effectiveness is somewhere in between. During the Clinton administration(1), live training was below optimal levels. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a doubling of deployable days has improved the navy's effectiveness.



----------
(1) this is not a jab at Clinton, he just happened to be President during the time when the country was trying to cash the so-called "peace dividend" in a bipartisan manner

[Radar Chief]

It's not a linear relationship, penchief. If the navy has zero deployable days, it's easy to see that they will get rusty and be poorly prepared for a deployment and therefore ineffective. If the navy has too many deployable days then the burden and the stress can impact effectiveness negatively. The maximum effectiveness is somewhere in between. During the Clinton administration(1), live training was below optimal levels. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a doubling of deployable days has improved the navy's effectiveness.



----------
(1) this is not a jab at Clinton, he just happened to be President during the time when the country was trying to cash the so-called "peace dividend" in a bipartisan manner

It’s also worth noting that sailors can rotate on and off ships without those ships needing to return to port. The number of days a particular ship is “deployed” doesn’t necessarily mean that all the sailors aboard have been deployed for that same amount of time.

[penchief]

You skipped over the part where he explained that the reason for the down time was because of ship maintenance. “For every ship at sea, we had four in dock being worked on”, is how I believe he put it.

Down time wasn't the point. He basically said that all of the ships of the navy have had their deployable days doubled. That means away from home twice as much and working around the clock twices as much.

[penchief]

It's not a linear relationship, penchief. If the navy has zero deployable days, it's easy to see that they will get rusty and be poorly prepared for a deployment and therefore ineffective. If the navy has too many deployable days then the burden and the stress can impact effectiveness negatively. The maximum effectiveness is somewhere in between. During the Clinton administration(1), live training was below optimal levels. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a doubling of deployable days has improved the navy's effectiveness.


----------
(1) this is not a jab at Clinton, he just happened to be President during the time when the country was trying to cash the so-called "peace dividend" in a bipartisan manner

Point taken, however, while I was in the navy we had no shortage of deployable days or training, partly due to the fact that our captain was kiss-ass that volunteered us for everything that came down the pike. But if you were to have doubled our deployment time we would have been to sea probably 95% of the time.

The bottom line is that if recruitment is not up then the existing service members are spending more time at sea, either during their sea duty tours our having their shore rotations shortened.

[Radar Chief]

Down time wasn't the point. He basically said that all of the ships of the navy have had their deployable days doubled. That means away from home twice as much and working around the clock twices as much.

Um, no. “Down time” was exactly the point he was try’n to make. Maybe not the point you wanted to hear, but since he’s using it as an example of how the military is growing more efficient it was exactly the point he was making.

[penchief]

It’s also worth noting that sailors can rotate on and off ships without those ships needing to return to port. The number of days a particular ship is “deployed” doesn’t necessarily mean that all the sailors aboard have been deployed for that same amount of time.

If that's true that is something new that didn't exist when I served. If you were assigned to a ship you went everywhere that ship went.

Are you talking about every four years when a sailor can rotate between sea duty and shore duty? Because if you are, that's different. Still, I'd be interested to see how the sea duty/shore duty rotation has been affected.

Unless they've changed things in the last few years, the number of days a particular ship is deployed DOES mean that all the sailors aboard have been deployed for that same amount of time.

[penchief]

Um, no. “Down time” was exactly the point he was try’n to make. Maybe not the point you wanted to hear, but since he’s using it as an example of how the military is growing more efficient it was exactly the point he was making.

What are you and Rumsfeld considering down time? Is down time considered time that something is broken and needs to be fixed or time not spent at sea?

A lot of training gets done in port and/or close to home. Just because a ship is not deployed doesn't mean that things are not getting done. I suppose finding the right balance is the key. But I will tell you that too much sea time will not help reenlistment.

[Radar Chief]

If that's true that is something new that didn't exist when I served. If you were assigned to a ship you went everywhere that ship went.

Are you talking about every four years when a sailor can rotate between sea duty and shore duty? Because if you are, that's different. Still, I'd be interested to see how the sea duty/shore duty rotation has been affected.

Unless they've changed things in the last few years, the number of days a particular ship is deployed DOES mean that all the sailors aboard have been deployed for that same amount of time.

I was in the Army, not the Navy, so without conflicting information I’ll defer to your experience.
However, since I currently work with a few Navy vets, and this is where I got this information from, I wonder where the conflict is. Surely two prior “swabies” turned electronic engineers aren’t lying to me. Why is your experience so different from theirs, or the other squids I’ve worked with in the past?

[penchief]

I was in the Army, not the Navy, so without conflicting information I’ll defer to your experience.
However, since I currently work with a few Navy vets, and this is where I got this information from, I wonder where the conflict is. Surely three prior “swabies” turned electronic engineers aren’t lying to me. Why is your experience so different from theirs, or the other squids I’ve worked with in the past?

Like I said, unless things have changed since 2000 I'll bet you're getting sea duty/shore duty rotations confused with just being able to say "I don't think I'll go with my ship this time." That just doesn't happen.

Sea duty/shore duty rotations go pretty much like this. At the end of an enlistment you can reenlist for shore duty. It's not always a guarantee and they could probably screw you if they wanted but traditionally sailors enlistments rotate between sea duty and shore duty. New enlistees are almost always assigned to sea duty for their first tour. It is an enticement to reenlist knowing that your next enlistment will be shore duty.

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing if that traditional sea duty/shore duty rotation has also undergone changes.

[Radar Chief]

Like I said, unless things have changed since 2000 I'll bet you're getting sea duty/shore duty rotations confused with just being able to say "I don't think I'll go with my ship this time." That just doesn't happen.

Sea duty/shore duty rotations go pretty much like this. At the end of an enlistment you can reenlist for shore duty. It's not always a guarantee and they could probably screw you if they wanted but traditionally sailors enlistments rotate between sea duty and shore duty. New enlistees are almost always assigned to sea duty for their first tour. It is an enticement to reenlist knowing that your next enlistment will be shore duty.

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing if that traditional sea duty/shore duty rotation has also undergone changes.


That’s not a claim that I’ve ever heard or attempted to make, though it seems to me that your try’n to assert that for every sailor that’s rotating “on shore” on, say, a carrier requires that carrier to return to port and it’s my understanding that is just not the case.

[penchief]

That’s not a claim that I’ve ever heard or attempted to make, though it seems to me that your try’n to assert that for every sailor that’s rotating “on shore” on, say, a carrier requires that carrier to return to port and it’s my understanding that is just not the case.

Now I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Bottom line is this. If you've been assigned to a ship for two years (which is usually the case), that's your ship. You go where that ship goes. When you get transferred to another command for the next two years, that's different. There are no rotating crews for a ship. Now each crew is continually evolving as sailors come and go. But for the length of time that person is assigned to that ship he goes where that ship goes, period.

I need to ammend one of my previous posts. I believe after your first enlistment that sea duty/shore duty rotation is every two years. Usually a sailor stays at one a command for two years. My experience may have been unique because I was part of a commissioning crew so I spent my entire four-year enlistment with the same ship. I believe that most of the time a sailor spends two years at any one command.

[patteeu]

I suppose finding the right balance is the key. But I will tell you that too much sea time will not help reenlistment.

The right balance is the key. Nothing in Rumsfeld's press conference suggests that our navy personnel are experiencing "too much sea time." In fact, his statement suggests that effect that the amount of sea time currently being experienced is having is a more efficient navy.

[Radar Chief]

What are you and Rumsfeld considering down time? Is down time considered time that something is broken and needs to be fixed or time not spent at sea?

A lot of training gets done in port and/or close to home. Just because a ship is not deployed doesn't mean that things are not getting done. I suppose finding the right balance is the key. But I will tell you that too much sea time will not help reenlistment.

You skipped over the part where he explained that the reason for the down time was because of ship maintenance. “For every ship at sea, we had four in dock being worked on”, is how I believe he put it.

I didn’t think I was be’n evasive ‘bout it. :shrug:

[patteeu]

Now I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Bottom line is this. If you've been assigned to a ship for two years (which is usually the case), that's your ship. You go where that ship goes. When you get transferred to another command for the next two years, that's different. There are no rotating crews for a ship. Now each crew is continually evolving as sailors come and go. But for the length of time that person is assigned to that ship he goes where that ship goes, period.

I need to ammend one of my previous posts. I believe after your first enlistment that sea duty/shore duty rotation is every two years. Usually a sailor stays at one a command for two years. My experience may have been unique because I was part of a commissioning crew so I spent my entire four-year enlistment with the same ship. I believe that most of the time a sailor spends two years at any one command.

I don't know how this program is working out (I've seen differing opinions), but apparently the Navy HAS changed since you got out. Sea Swap Program: (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea-swap.htm)

Crew Rotation (sometimes referred to as “Sea Swap”) is an initiative to extend ship deployment length while swapping crews in mid deployment. This appears to offer significant potential for improving on-station time without increasing either OPTEMPO, PERSTEMPO or, to a great extent, ship wear and tear. Rotational Crewing/Sea Swap is a variation on the multi-crewing themes referred to as “Horizon” suggested by the CNO Strategic Studies Group, Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), and others. The primary difference is that where most multi-crewing options involve more crews than ships; for example 3 for 2 (CNA), 5 for 4 (Horizon), 2 for 1 (SSBN) (Blue/Gold”), or several for 2 (MCM-1), the basic unit of Crew Rotation (1 for 1) is two or more similarly configured ships with an equal number of similarly trained crews.

The Crew Rotation scheme would extend individual ship deployments from six months to a nominal 11.5 months or longer while holding crew deployments at 6 months. At the 5.5-month point in the cruise, a relief crew from a sister ship is flown into theater to man the deployed ship. After turnover, the relieved crew is flown back to CONUS where it mans the non-deployed unit of the operational pair. The deployed unit remains deployed for a total of 11.5 months or longer before being relieved on station in traditional fashion. Essentially, sea-swapping crews reduces ship transit—using instead airlift to replace the crew. The six-month PERSTEMPO limit is not exceeded for any crew.

...

[Radar Chief]

I don't know how this program is working out (I've seen differing opinions), but apparently the Navy HAS changed since you got out. Sea Swap Program: (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea-swap.htm)

For my part, the “former squids” I work with were in the Navy long before Penchief, one is Viet Nam era. So I’ll e-mail them when I have time ask'n them ‘bout there experiences and post their reply’s here.
Never know, maybe I’m way off in how I interpreted what they’ve told me. :shrug:

[penchief]

I don't know how this program is working out (I've seen differing opinions), but apparently the Navy HAS changed since you got out. Sea Swap Program: (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea-swap.htm)

Interesting. Is the program fully operational or is it still in the testing phase? I couldn't tell by reading that article. Hey. If it works, I think that's great. If you can make better use of the ships without significantly increasing the amount of time a sailor spends at sea I can see how a program like that could be a benefit.

[patteeu]

Interesting. Is the program fully operational or is it still in the testing phase? I couldn't tell by reading that article. Hey. If it works, I think that's great. If you can make better use of the ships without significantly increasing the amount of time a sailor spends at sea I can see how a program like that could be a benefit.

I don't know the answer to that. I read an article a while back that said it was a pilot program and that there were some problems with it. But as I was googling today to find it again, I found an article that indicated it was going pretty well. Both were old articles though so I decided to link to this neutral description instead. I agree with you that it sounds like a reasonable concept if they can get it to work. I'd imagine that one of the potential pitfalls is the possessiveness that crews might feel toward "their" ship and the difficulty they might have sharing that ship with a second crew.

[penchief]

I did a search on Yahoo for some more articles about the sea swap program. I stopped looking after about 7 or 8 pages because they were all older stories. This is the most recent one I could come up with.

Apparently, it's still an experimental program and the jury is still out but I can see the merit in it, though.

http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2005/mar242005_3.shtml

[jAZ]

2. Crank up Selective Service
I don't know if this is anything new or just me noticing that we've landed on the moon, but I've started to hear regular radio commercials on the sports networks reminding parents and kids about the need to register for selective service.

[mlyonsd]

I don't know if this is anything new or just me noticing that we've landed on the moon, but I've started to hear regular radio commercials on the sports networks reminding parents and kids about the need to register for selective service.

It's a new covert NSA campaign. Kids that fulfill their duty are automatically put on the 'Don't bother to spy on' list.

[jAZ]

It's a new covert NSA campaign. Kids that fulfill their duty are automatically put on the 'Don't bother to spy on' list.
Awesome! Where do I sign up?

[Donger]

It's a new covert NSA campaign. Kids that fulfill their duty are automatically put on the 'Don't bother to spy on' list.

Heh. I almost got arrested last week for giving the TSA goons at the airport sh*t for patting down two young soldiers. I couldn't f*cking believe it.

[go bowe]

I’m sorry, I guess I assumed knowledge you obviously don’t posses.
I assumed you knew the military was in the process of expanding, particularly combat units, and that these higher recruiting goals are being met and in some cases even exceeded, the reason for post’n the article. See’n as how it’s been posted here in DC before, I assume it was common knowledge. :shrug:
Guess I should’ve also assumed that such a claimed expansive intellectual prowess, as yours wouldn’t need to actually read and retain information outside your established knowledge bubble. My bad.
Now please continue explaining the intricacies of ETS and it’s effects on our military size to the Gulf War Vet. It’s such a compelling read.
And just so ya know, ETS to a vet means “Estimated Time of Separation” or when that soldier is leaving the military.

Oh, and one last thing. Before attempt’n to belittle others intelligence, it’d probably help if you at least tried use’n Spell Check.
It’s “sufficient” not “sufficent”. Just FYI. :rolleyes:i thought it was spelled safishant... :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Radar Chief]

i thought it was spelled safishant... :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

And you can spell it that way all ya want. I understand what’cha mean.
But you make yourself an easy target for spell’n it that way while deriding others as “slow” or beneath the energy expended on a reply. :hmmm:

[go bowe]

I didn’t think I was be’n evasive ‘bout it. :shrug:evasive?

if you were shot down over kansas, i bet you couldn't even evade capture by fred phelps...

heck, you probably couldn't even evade taxes if you tried...

evasive? :p :p :p

[go bowe]

And you can spell it that way all ya want. I understand what’cha mean.
But you make yourself an easy target for spell’n it that way while deriding others as “slow” or beneath the energy expended on a reply. :hmmm:i know, i was just funnin' ya...

but it is kinda ironic to have someone who is posting a reply (expending energy) make that claim (that the other poster was beneath the energy required to make that very post)...

wouldn't that suggest that the person making that claim is at the very best, confused, if not outright mistaken or otherwise innaccurate?

shit, this is too hard...

the other guy is basically fos...

there, that is much better... :D :D :D

[Radar Chief]

evasive?

if you were shot down over kansas, i bet you couldn't even evade capture by fred phelps...

heck, you probably couldn't even evade taxes if you tried...

evasive? :p :p :p

:spock:

Main Entry: eva·sive
Pronunciation: i-'vA-siv, -ziv
Function: adjective
: tending or intended to evade : EQUIVOCAL <evasive answers>
- eva·sive·ly adverb
- eva·sive·ness noun

Main Entry: evade
Pronunciation: i-'vAd
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): evad·ed; evad·ing
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French evader, from Latin evadere, from e- + vadere to go, walk -- more at WADE
intransitive senses
1 : to slip away
2 : to take refuge in evasion
transitive senses
1 : to elude by dexterity or stratagem
2 a : to avoid facing up to <evaded the real issues> b : to avoid the performance of : DODGE, CIRCUMVENT; especially : to fail to pay (taxes) c : to avoid answering directly : turn aside
3 : to be elusive to : BAFFLE <the simple, personal meaning evaded them -- C. D. Lewis>
synonym see ESCAPE
- evad·able /-'vA-d&-b&l/ adjective
- evad·er noun

evasive?

if you were shot down over kansas, i bet you couldn't even evade capture by fred phelps...

heck, you probably couldn't even evade taxes if you tried...

evasive? :p :p :p

And I’d take ya up on that bet. Don’t assume just cause I’m an admitted Gear Head that I’ve never hunted, stalked, camouflaged. I’ve lived in this area for a few, cumulative, decades now. ;)

Main Entry: cu·mu·la·tive
Pronunciation: 'kyü-my&-l&-tiv, -"lA-
Function: adjective
1 a : made up of accumulated parts b : increasing by successive additions
2 a : tending to prove the same point <cumulative evidence> b : additional rather than repeated <cumulative legacy>
3 a : taking effect upon completion of another penal sentence <cumulative sentence> b : increasing in severity with repetition of the offense <cumulative penalty>
4 : formed by the addition of new material of the same kind <cumulative book index>
5 : summing or integrating overall data or values of a random variable less than or less than or equal to a specified value <cumulative normal distribution> <cumulative frequency distribution>
- cu·mu·la·tive·ly adverb
- cu·mu·la·tive·ness noun

[Radar Chief]

i know, i was just funnin' ya...

but it is kinda ironic to have someone who is posting a reply (expending energy) make that claim (that the other poster was beneath the energy required to make that very post)...

wouldn't that suggest that the person making that claim is at the very best, confused, if not outright mistaken or otherwise innaccurate?

shit, this is too hard...

the other guy is basically fos...

there, that is much better... :D :D :D

Oh, I’m with ya go bo.
Guess your just not used to see’n me be so verbose.

Main Entry: ver·bose
Pronunciation: (")v&r-'bOs
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin verbosus, from verbum
1 : containing more words than necessary : WORDY <a verbose reply>; also : impaired by wordiness <a verbose style>
2 : given to wordiness <a verbose orator>
synonym see WORDY
- ver·bose·ly adverb
- ver·bose·ness noun
- ver·bos·i·ty /-'bä-s&-tE/ noun

And agreed, all ‘round. ;)

[go bowe]

you don't play fair...

using an acutual dictionary to back yourself up is just, well, undignified...

and i was kidding about the phelps thing, really...

weird things sometimes come to mind and i just go right ahead and post them...

i've been taking lessons from [inset nut job of choice]...

[Radar Chief]

you don't play fair...

using an acutual dictionary to back yourself up is just, well, undignified...

and i was kidding about the phelps thing, really...

weird things sometimes come to mind and i just go right ahead and post them...

i've been taking lessons from [inset nut job of choice]...

You didn’t think it was funny? Guess I’ll have to try harder next time.
I thought it was at least slightly humorous, but then I’m in a good mood. Yesterday was my birthday and the company I work for gives a day off for a “birthday holiday” and I’m take’n tomorrow off. Gonna spend the day with muh boy. Hopefully the weather’ll cooperate so I can take’im to the park to play.

[go bowe]

You didn’t think it was funny? Guess I’ll have to try harder next time.
I thought it was at least slightly humorous, but then I’m in a good mood. Yesterday was my birthday and the company I work for gives a day off for a “birthday holiday” and I’m take’n tomorrow off. Gonna spend the day with muh boy. Hopefully the weather’ll cooperate so I can take’im to the park to play.enjoy... :toast:

[Loki]

You didn’t think it was funny? Guess I’ll have to try harder next time.
I thought it was at least slightly humorous, but then I’m in a good mood. Yesterday was my birthday and the company I work for gives a day off for a “birthday holiday” and I’m take’n tomorrow off. Gonna spend the day with muh boy. Hopefully the weather’ll cooperate so I can take’im to the park to play.

happy b-day radar.

[CRONUS]

Like I said, unless things have changed since 2000 I'll bet you're getting sea duty/shore duty rotations confused with just being able to say "I don't think I'll go with my ship this time." That just doesn't happen.

Sea duty/shore duty rotations go pretty much like this. At the end of an enlistment you can reenlist for shore duty. It's not always a guarantee and they could probably screw you if they wanted but traditionally sailors enlistments rotate between sea duty and shore duty. New enlistees are almost always assigned to sea duty for their first tour. It is an enticement to reenlist knowing that your next enlistment will be shore duty.

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing if that traditional sea duty/shore duty rotation has also undergone changes.I cannot speak for all Navy ship types but according to my Dad (a retired Chief Petty Officer) the Carriers and Nuclear subs have two complete sets of crews rotating on and off on typically a 6 month rotation since the ships stay at sea something like 95% of the time. The number of the months of the rotation can vary but a rotation does occur according to him.

[Adept Havelock]

Radar Chief,

I was reviewing this thread, and I owe you an apology for both my tone and my condecension. Chalk it up to being a bit in my cups on a bad day. Mea' Culpa.

I'm pretty sure we are still talking Apples and Oranges. I do understand that the army is being reorganized to help out the shooter/support ratio, as well as the number of troops in special operations.

I also am fairly certain that these are currently only plans, and that Congress is yet to vote on any increase in the over all manpower of the military establishment. Any link you could provide to contradict this would be appreciated. I've searched, but have been unable to find one.

Have a good one, and hope it was a happy b-day.

BTW- I would like to hear your opinion on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/defense_budget