Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hampton Roads)   280 ships, ah-ah-ah. 271 ships, ah-ah-ah. (Scribble scribble.) 283 ships, ah-ah-ah   (hamptonroads.com ) divider line
    More: Silly, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Budgetary Assessments, Randy Forbes, navies  
•       •       •

7782 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-12 05:48:43 PM  

squidgod2000: brandent: squidgod2000: brandent: I'm pretty sure the article indicates the opposite.  The number of actual ships is decreasing but they are saying it isn't by adding in ones they never counted before.  This enables the Navy to say they still have 280 ships even after budget cuts so that people don't use the 'we have fewer ships than any time since the Barbary Pirates incidents' since people are stupid and equate number of ships with effective power.

They're also trying to dodge the "more admirals than ships" talking point. There are currently 275 admirals, but the pace of shipbuilding is slowing down faster than the pace of new admirals being promoted (beyond replacing retirees).

Actually that's new to me.  It is a bit embarrassing to say you have more chiefs than Indians.

In WW2 it was closer to 130 ships per admiral. The problem these days is that, much like the other services, so many of the "brass" positions are administrative. There have been some thoughts/weak proposals in the Army about creating two career paths for Soldiers--one that focuses on combat and one that focuses on administration--for the simple fact that a great battlefield commander doesn't make a great base commander and that many Soldiers in many positions throughout the ranks would be better served by business and administration training than combat training.


I was briefly a driver for a couple of colonels, "Hey, look over there.  (Pointing at a multistory barracks)  That's a good example. I would have never 'hired' the officer in charge of housing, but the troops love him.  He got all the raw materials and they built themselves a gazebo.  He's always doing stuff like that.  I would have never hired him, but he's been great for morale."

Also:  "Here's a good example of our long range planning.  They paved what used to be a gravel parking lot.  Now a parking lot's purpose is to keep vehicles from sinking into the mud.  Gravel did that, but we paved it anyway."

Nothing so emasculating as the rank SP4.  "What's that rank?" "It's a spec 4."  "What does it mean?"  "That I'm a corporal without command authority."  "What does that mean?" "I'm not sure, I still tell people what to do."

/Attacks gazebo
 
2014-03-12 06:59:00 PM  

squidgod2000: brandent: squidgod2000: brandent: I'm pretty sure the article indicates the opposite.  The number of actual ships is decreasing but they are saying it isn't by adding in ones they never counted before.  This enables the Navy to say they still have 280 ships even after budget cuts so that people don't use the 'we have fewer ships than any time since the Barbary Pirates incidents' since people are stupid and equate number of ships with effective power.

They're also trying to dodge the "more admirals than ships" talking point. There are currently 275 admirals, but the pace of shipbuilding is slowing down faster than the pace of new admirals being promoted (beyond replacing retirees).

Actually that's new to me.  It is a bit embarrassing to say you have more chiefs than Indians.

In WW2 it was closer to 130 ships per admiral. The problem these days is that, much like the other services, so many of the "brass" positions are administrative. There have been some thoughts/weak proposals in the Army about creating two career paths for Soldiers--one that focuses on combat and one that focuses on administration--for the simple fact that a great battlefield commander doesn't make a great base commander and that many Soldiers in many positions throughout the ranks would be better served by business and administration training than combat training.


Part of the reason we don't have that is because the people doing the fighting don't like being told what to do by people that don't fight. Let's look at the Air Force. Wing Commanders are, as far as I know, all pilots because pilots don't like being told what to do by someone who may have never even flown a plane. Pilots don't want anybody else in charge because a pilot Commander will have more realistic expectations and ideas. Just looking until I got bored, on the Wikipedia list of AF Wings, 4 of the first 5 listed have pilots in command.
 
2014-03-12 07:03:33 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Part of the reason we don't have that is because the people doing the fighting don't like being told what to do by people that don't fight. Let's look at the Air Force. Wing Commanders are, as far as I know, all pilots because pilots don't like being told what to do by someone who may have never even flown a plane. Pilots don't want anybody else in charge because a pilot Commander will have more realistic expectations and ideas. Just looking until I got bored, on the Wikipedia list of AF Wings, 4 of the first 5 listed have pilots in command.


Sometimes this works, sometimes you get General McPeak.
 
2014-03-12 07:05:57 PM  

Boojum2k: Tobin_Lam: Part of the reason we don't have that is because the people doing the fighting don't like being told what to do by people that don't fight. Let's look at the Air Force. Wing Commanders are, as far as I know, all pilots because pilots don't like being told what to do by someone who may have never even flown a plane. Pilots don't want anybody else in charge because a pilot Commander will have more realistic expectations and ideas. Just looking until I got bored, on the Wikipedia list of AF Wings, 4 of the first 5 listed have pilots in command.


Sometimes this works, sometimes you get General McPeak.

You, sir, shall never again pay for a drink if I'm around.
 
2014-03-12 07:06:44 PM  
So the moral is we can't trust the Navy to accurately list the number of ships it has.
 
2014-03-12 07:20:17 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: You, sir, shall never again pay for a drink if I'm around.


Fellow veteran of the early 90's I take it?
 
2014-03-12 07:23:25 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: Boojum2k: Tobin_Lam: Part of the reason we don't have that is because the people doing the fighting don't like being told what to do by people that don't fight. Let's look at the Air Force. Wing Commanders are, as far as I know, all pilots because pilots don't like being told what to do by someone who may have never even flown a plane. Pilots don't want anybody else in charge because a pilot Commander will have more realistic expectations and ideas. Just looking until I got bored, on the Wikipedia list of AF Wings, 4 of the first 5 listed have pilots in command.

Sometimes this works, sometimes you get General McPeak.

You, sir, shall never again pay for a drink if I'm around.


You were in for a lot longer than me, I was one and done but appreciated what I got out of the USAF. Which also included a learned dislike for certain brass. Have a few fun stories from my time in.
 
2014-03-12 07:50:41 PM  

Boojum2k: AtlanticCoast63: Boojum2k: Tobin_Lam: Part of the reason we don't have that is because the people doing the fighting don't like being told what to do by people that don't fight. Let's look at the Air Force. Wing Commanders are, as far as I know, all pilots because pilots don't like being told what to do by someone who may have never even flown a plane. Pilots don't want anybody else in charge because a pilot Commander will have more realistic expectations and ideas. Just looking until I got bored, on the Wikipedia list of AF Wings, 4 of the first 5 listed have pilots in command.

Sometimes this works, sometimes you get General McPeak.

You, sir, shall never again pay for a drink if I'm around.

You were in for a lot longer than me, I was one and done but appreciated what I got out of the USAF. Which also included a learned dislike for certain brass. Have a few fun stories from my time in.


78-98.  McPeak's guiding principles were a desire for revenge upon those he felt had crossed him (including the Aggressors) and a desire to put his mark on things....which he accomplished in roughly the same way my dog puts his mark on the corner of the couch.
 
2014-03-12 07:58:47 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: McPeak's guiding principles were a desire for revenge upon those he felt had crossed him (including the Aggressors) and a desire to put his mark on things....which he accomplished in roughly the same way my dog puts his mark on the corner of the couch.


89-93. I remember hearing horror stories about his time commanding PACAF, particularly from family friends who were in (born AF brat), and then he was Chief of Staff and suddenly officers looked like airline pilots, among other things.
 
2014-03-12 08:33:15 PM  

Seraphym: Stinkyy: codigo: doesn't everyone use the +2 inches method when giving out dick length?

The Navy farking likes to measure everything.  It's all about metrics.  You could be boiling in a pot of water and they'd give you the exact temperature, heat rating, number of rivets and barometric pressure before they'd get around to the qualitative assessment.  ("Oh, you are boiling alive."

The qualitative assessment monitoring module was axed from the final system build due to funding... so they threw in a backup rivet counter to keep the integrated systems metric constant.


Haha, nice!

/subby
 
Displayed 10 of 60 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report