The Ship Model Forum

Hello watchers!!!

I am introducing a concept for active duty, veterans of the USN, and people who have ideas that can better train sailor to comment upon.

CBT (Computer Based Training)
When I went through A-school in early 2005 they were trying out this new BS called Computer Based Training. This was where the sailors were tasked with training themselves via power-point-type programs.

From personal experience, let me tell you...these procedures failed. They DID NOT TEACH ANYONE ANYTHING about their rate. It was only the follow-on hands on training that they actually learned anything.

My solution to this bean-counter mess the Navy messed around with is simply returning to practical training of the old days. It's a weird concept called: "class room" followed by "hands-on". I know this is crazy to many people, but from trial and error, I have seen the error of neglect. The only useful way to train is through class room followed by hands-on practical application.

Solution: Hands on training

A budget b!tch might ask, "where are we going to get the money to justify the facilities to provide the maintenance and training? Where are we going to get the money, HUH?!"

Lockheed in Moorestown, NJ have set up a SPY training center that trains our FCs:



After refraining from slapping the guy like a hooker, I will respond with: "well, your daddy is saying to decom the USS Shiloh, ruin her, and prepare her for sinking. Why don't you pull the combat systems off her and put them into 2 training centers: one East Coast and one West Coast." In which the bean-counter will respond, "well... *huff* where are we going to get the funding for those kind of facilities?!

In which I will respond, "quit your bitching. Mission first, bro. We need to train our FCs and GMs to do their jobs. Why are you concerned?



To me, the facility would be similar to the Aegis training center in Moorestown NJ, and it would be expanded with 61-cells of VLS, a Mk45 Mod4 5" 62caliber gun, a Phalanx CIWS, a 21-cell RAM mount, and a SeaRAM mount.

A great thing would be if the combat system were fitted, it would be able to defend anything within 100 nm of the site, it would be able to engage with any kind of Mk41 compatible missile.




If you want to know about CBT, PM me, and I will tell you about it...

In reality, the silver lining in the decommissioning of the USS Shiloh is that she is revoking all of her combat systems. All of the combat systems can be harvested and utilized in the training facilities.



The Model PART

Could a model of such a facility be made? What should it look like? Should it be built? Should the facility be able to fire actual missiles? Should it have a 5" gun? Should it have an AGS(L)? Should it have a Mk71 derivative? What kind of mast should it have? What radars should be attached to it? Why?




How could such a model be made in 1/350? What a challenging project!!! Amazing!!! I really look forward to your suggestions!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

CBT was one of the stupidest things ever put into practice by the USN. It abdicates responsibility for the training of our Sailors.

There was this fantastic leadership school, where they would send you for two weeks at various stages of your career, then they phased in CBT - first to 'augment' the course by doing some coursework before class, then eventually 'they' thought it could all be CBT, and eliminated the whole training pipeline. The Leadership courses were invaluable to me and other Sailors as they had INTERACTION with other rates, backgrounds and styles. They gave opportunities to actually solve problems with others, based on their experiences. THAT is what makes an effective CREW, by growing confidence in TEAM, each with their own strengths.

(interesting that you post his so close to the passing of someone who provided a large amount of material for that very course...)

When I am Emperor of the Navy, that course will immediately and irrevocably return.

That is an example of effective training, and it should serve as the model moving forward. I have no issue with CBT for presenting some basic material prior to the training - but different people learn different ways - CBT cannot adapt to its student like an instructor can. One of the most important roles a Sailor can have in their career is as instructor, and nearly everyone has something valuable to teach. Right now, this hard-earned knowledge is being lost due to lack of opportunity to be an instructor.

Note I said INSTRUCTOR, not 'facilitator'. Yep, some of you get that.

Quote from my retirement speech, which I am sure many have said many times in the past:

"Invest all of your effort in PEOPLE.
Trained, motivated, and challenged people are the only thing that can overcome nearly every challenge.
There will never be enough technology, and it will fail. But the right people can and will overcome that.
There will never be enough money, but the right people will overcome that.
There will never be enough time, but the right people will overcome that.
There is no mission which can be accomplished without people, no matter the technology, money, or time."

I like the idea of using available outgoing resources, but I believe this is so important that it should be a top priority budget wise, and at least two 'ashore simulators' should be built based on DDG-51, as that is the most up to date and common combatant in service today. How important do I think it is? More important that two more of the same hull at sea. I would build spaces and equipment as you would see underway, attached to classrooms and training supervisory facilities - in concept not unlike simulators used to train pilots. They should emulate every facet of a problem to be experienced at sea, just as pilot simulators are used to simulate the worst pilots are expected to encounter.

Hands on with and INSTRUCTOR is the proper way to train.

If you fail to train, you train to fail.

You are absolutely right. There is simply no substitute for hands-on training, no matter what the subject. From small arms on up, there is simply no substitute for hands-on.

But you're also right that the problem is funding, somebody thinks it is better to spend $26 a gallon on bio-diesel than it is to spend the money on training devices/facilities. But its been that way for a long time. Navy stevedore battalions were "authorized" land ships like the old mock ups at various naval training stations but for hands on practice in loading and unloading. Trouble was, there was never any funding to build them. So both the Navy and the Army used laid up Marad ships, both pierside and moored in stream to do it. If you weren't on the coast near a lay-up facility , you were SOL.

Its both sad and dangerous

..

I will just say that I was dumbfounded when looking up information on my old radar AN/SPS-48C(v) and founf out the system is still being updated. the G model I think, anyway I read that the c-school is like three weeks long....I about fell out of my chair. When I went to Naval Guided Missle School in Dam Neck Virginia in 91, the course for the C model was six months long. Im thinking they must not really want technicians anymore? A sad state of affairs to say the least

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

My two cents..........

A Schools are intended to be merely an introduction to your rating so that you're not completely illiterate when you get to your first sea or shore duty station. So, however the courses are taught or learned, it is still just the very, basics. It is at that first duty station that you are taught the real ropes of your duties and equipment by the experienced "Sea Daddies", there. Your shipboard watch qualifications are the additional training you get for what you really need to know. And then opportunities for special schools and C Schools become available.

I remember that MM A School was so basic that it starts out with, "This is an Open Ended Adjustible Wrench.'' (i.e. Not a Crescent Wrench.)

Nuclear Field A School and Nuclear Power School was another matter. Instructor-based teaching was the only way to go, there. This, of course, was followed by real hands-on training with an operation land-based propulsion plant with experienced instructors.

_________________
Carl Musselman
(Formerly Back-Aft Models)

Photobucket
https://app.photobucket.com/u/carlomaha

YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcH4XXgrwKkhbIHgFtIYhAg

I understand, and I agree. A-schools these days, however do not even do the most basic of that requirement. A-schools should at least teach gunner's mates how to take apart, fire, and recover from causalities with weapons. They don't. They show you guns and say, "Look. It's a Mk19. Oh, look over here. This is a .50cal. Oh, and this...this is an M-16."

And that's it...they show you pictures of tools on a computer screen and say, "this is an open end box wrench," and "this is a Fluke. It's used to measure resistance and voltage". What does one learn from this? Nothing.

As an active duty sailor who suffers the consequences of know-nothings showing up from A-school, the purpose of Navy A-school needs to be to educate sailors in their rating to where they can walk up to their piece of equipment and be able to:
1) identify it
2) be able to perform basic maintenance on it
3) use it to a limited degree.

None of these things have been taught in the last 7-10 years. The to-be-decommissioned USS Port Royal can change all of this. It can be utilized as a training ship, or it can be disassembled and its systems sent to training facilities like the one I described above.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I understand, and I agree. A-schools these days, however do not even do the most basic of that requirement. A-schools should at least teach gunner's mates how to take apart, fire, and recover from causalities with weapons. They don't. They show you guns and say, "Look. It's a Mk19. Oh, look over here. This is a .50cal. Oh, and this...this is an M-16."

And that's it...they show you pictures of tools on a computer screen and say, "this is an open end box wrench. It's used to turn things with a six to eight-sided shape," and "this is a Fluke. It's used to measure resistance and voltage". What does one learn from this? Nothing. It is all immediately forgotten.

As an active duty sailor who suffers the consequences of know-nothings showing up from A-school, the purpose of Navy A-school needs to be to educate sailors in their rating to where they can walk up to their piece of equipment and be able to:

1) identify it
2) be able to identify a maintenance requirement card and follow its instructions to perform basic maintenance on that equipment
3) use the equipment to a limited degree

None of these things have been taught in the last 7-10 years. The to-be-decommissioned USS Port Royal can change all of this. It can be utilized as a training ship, or it can be disassembled and its systems sent to training facilities like the one I described above.

Oh, and a sailor shoud know how to swim....

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Are you saying that a graduate of GM "A" school does not have actual hands-on experience in field stripping an M-16 or in checking and setting the head space on a Ma Deuce and has never fired either of them?

Nothing will happen until the operational fleet makes a stink big enough that the training command is forced to change. That's what happened with the Army when OJT needs were so great that it was negatively affecting unit combat readiness and Training Command (Tradoc) had to change its courses so that its graduates could physically perform to a minimum standard acceptable to the operational units.

" A press release by Finmeccanica dated 04 April 2007 announced that OTO-Melara had been awarded a contract by German BWB, the procurement arm of the ministry of defense, to supply five 127 mm/64 LW (Light Weight) naval systems. Four will be installed on the new F125 frigates while the fifth will be used for training. "
OMG, hands-on training!!! Better tell the Germans to cut it out.

I really need that superstructure to go on a Virginia hull I have to make a 78-82 CGN...

They are shown twice and do it as a group once. As a Gunner's Mate crew served weapons instructor and expert qualifications holder in all USN small arms and crew served weapons, I can tell you it takes 1 week to know the weapons and their components, about 2 weeks of practice to get to become familiar with the weapons, and 3 weeks of practice, range time, and about 10,000 rounds to become proficient with the weapons.

How many rounds of the M9, M4, M14, M60, Mk46, M240, M2, and Mk19 do students in A-school get to fire before they are sent to their first combat capable command? Zero.

Crew Served Weapons Operations and Maintenance school is the first school in the USN that was worth anything to me. It familiarized me with CSW. CSW Instructor (CSWI) course made me intimately familiar with the weapons. CSW O&M needs to be an A-school course.

The US Army blew up 30 .50cal guns in 30 days at the beginning of combat operations in OIF, because they had not taught hands-on training to basic troops...like the Navy does with its sailors today.

That's what I am talking about. Hands on is the most important aspect of training. The USN tried the CBT for almost 10 years, and it took them that long to realize it failed. Thankfully they are finally changing the training back to instructor and hands-on based training.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance