Letters - Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

For core and country

I do not think the Navy should get rid of sit-ups [“Last call for sit-ups?” May 3]. Without sit-ups, the core of your body wouldn’t support everything you do — running, stretching and activities of that nature. Also, it can be a safety issue for sailors on the boats during drills that involve using your whole body to get through scuttle or maintain positive control of other shipmates for a fire.

Either way, you can’t have upper and lower body control without midsection core control. To take out sit-ups is like taking out the third leg of the tripod.

— AZ2 (AW/SW) Joanne Mitchell, Norfolk, Va

NAVY WAY IS RIGHT

In reference to the letter [“Let petty officers lead,” Letters, July 26], all I can say, shipmate, is that perhaps you need to spend some time on a ship before you have opinions on that matter.

I applaud your sentiments when you say petty officers need to step up to the plate, but you need to realize there are many valid reasons why the Navy operates the way it does.

— OSC (SW) Mario Majors (ret.), Virginia Beach, Va.

TOO LEAN, NOT SMART

In the 1990s, Big Navy put to sea some “smart ships.” Somehow, embarked technology took the place of manpower — a good idea in many respects, but not all. Change the name to “lean manning,” and you get similar results [“The end of lean manning?” June 28].

I was fortunate to witness smart-ship operation aboard [the destroyer] Thorn. [We conducted] several exercises that involved various NATO elements. For the most part, these exercises validated smart-ship thinking.

However, when it came to mooring this ship in a windy channel in Split, Croatia, it became obvious that 6-inch mooring lines were just a dumb as they ever were. And when it came to hauling in a messenger line for an underway replenishment, that messenger was just as dumb as the mooring line.

Detaching and positioning a section of anchor chain for at-sea towing? The anchor chain was dumb as well.

I watched sailors with excellent physical readiness test scores get yanked and beaten by mooring lines, messengers, etc. I didn’t envy the leading petty officers.

A couple of decades earlier, life was much easier for me as a boatswain’s mate second class. Not only did I have an adequate number of line handlers, I had the added benefit of a few very large sailors — none of whom would have come remotely close to today’s body weight standards. But they could routinely deal with dumb mooring lines, messengers and a bunch of other physically demanding deck-related evolutions.

Smart ships or lean manning, it doesn’t matter. Reduced manning and smaller sailors make no sense when size matters.

— BMCM (SW) J.E. Foster (ret.), Arundel, Maine

END UNIFORM MADNESS

The uniform changes and uniform rules that I have seen in the Navy Times over the past few years are enough to make any enlisted sailor question the mental capacity of those within the Pentagon’s hallowed walls [“GAO: Navy uniform spending outpaces other services,” June 14]. To spend $8.39 million on a camouflage-type working uniform when the Marine Corps already has developed a proven utility uniform second to none? So what is the problem with changing the color to blue and saving $8.39 million?

Now, about the color — why would any deckhand want to wear blue camouflage utilities in the middle of the ocean? Are we trying to make the man-overboard problem more difficult? Who are we hiding from, air-sea rescue? How about the hunter orange camouflage outfits in the local sporting store — they are less expensive than the blue [Navy working uniforms], which would save the troops money.

— EOC Rich Rawlings (ret.), Christiansburg, Va.

ACADEMY TOO PRICEY

I read with concern the article regarding extravagant, inappropriate and perhaps illegal spending at the Naval Academy. [“Academy supe shown the door,” July 26]. Call me biased and ignorant (I received my commission through NROTC), but your article reinforced my perception that the academy is no longer a cost-effective way of producing junior officers for the Navy and Marine Corps.

My experience on active duty and in the Navy Reserve showed me there is little difference in the quality of officers entering through the academy, ROTC or Officer Candidate School — some were great, some mediocre and some poor, regardless of the source program. The difference is in the cost to the taxpayers. The Navy is able to procure junior officers from ROTC and OCS who are virtually equivalent to Naval Academy graduates, but at a much lower cost.

And while we’re talking about costs, why do we need a vice admiral to run the Naval Academy? Why couldn’t the job be done by a two-star or even a one-star?

— Capt. Paul Ryan (ret.), Jenison, Mich.

UNSURPRISING STORY

In regards to your article titled “Study: White sailors advance at higher rate than minorities,” [July 12] — duh.

You want me to think the upper echelons are surprised with these stats? A sociologist would have come up with the same statistics. It is not rocket science; it’s called the in-groups and the out-groups of society. It was worse before the 1980s.

— YN1 (SS) Juan Ernesto Molina (ret.), San Antonio