NEW vs OLD

[Square Knot]

WELL, I might as well get this one started. I notice there are several members with rates that have been consoladated into the "OS", especially

the RD.  Of course there's no comparing the RD rate in the post Korean era with what it evolved to in the latter part of the 20th century. With

the advent of the computer age, it's amazing what CIC has made of itself. Yet, from what I've seen, one thing hasn't changed and that's the

SPS surface search radar. Of course there's versions that enable the operator to do many more things, but basically the same unit.  NOW, I've

seen many discussions about the work load within the OS rate, where some of the other rates that are incorporated within the OS, it has become

somewhat of a stumbling block to some.   What does everyone else think?   Was this a good move on behalf of the CG or should they have left

some of the rates "OUT" of  "OS"?

Old Scope Dope

  No.71

[vftb]

Even though several people have tried to explain it to me, I'm still not really sure I know what all an OS is  .  Are there specialists within the OS rating, for instance RD, or navigation or whatever 

[CGRDCS]

SK

While I was of the era from Ocean Stations, to Shore based Vessel Traffic Systems, it would seem to be the death knell of the sole speciality rating.    I didn't see then and still don't see the connection with the communicators, other than voice radio work.  I would have thought that we (RD's) would have gone more QM.  Stood more under way QM watches, that I ever did Radio.   Did do a lot of voice comms, in Nam and on Ocean Station, a lot of helo ops, in the Bearing and Caribeanan . 

Also0 with the lost of major at sea platforms,  378's to NSC's, 270's and 210's all with no subsurface sensor or plans to refit if necessary, the chance of combined ops as part of a task force, seems, nil to non existance to me.

So where do we go from here?   Beats the **** outta me.

Let's go have a beer.



Hawk

[CGRDCS]

V, 

The Navy changed the rating name of Radarman to Ops specialist, just after Nam.  The reasoning was that nwithin the Combat Information  Center, (CIC) the RD's where not just watching radars., They were doing voice radio  communications, electronic warfare ( watching for enmey radars, radios, etc.), plotting ship and shore targets controling aircraft in both anti air and anti sub missions, etc.

With the pending lost of the Ocean Stqation Program, just several years down the road, (Early to mid 70's), there just was not the need to change.  With the lost of the 327's, 311 and 255's, the RD rating took ma major hit in numbers.

The Vessel Traffic System program, kept a lot of the number billets, in the rating and for a while there was a pretty good sea,shore rotation period.     The 270's where never billeted heavy for RD's, because the platform, had no practical naval force potentional.  ( too slow, no naval warfare suite, sensora, weapons, etc)

So until the NSC arrives, whether 8 or 12 or whatever, the Coast Guard, has no platform that can do Naval warfare operations.  LAW Enforcement, yes, Naval Task Force, involving sub, No.  In fact in My HO, the NSC / 378 has about as much business in that kind of furball, as a little old lady in  a bar fight.  She's only gonna get hurt.


HAWK

[EX-CG-GM]

As a side note on the ratings mergers, I recently saw a post on mil.com where a person made reference to "Deck" BMs and "Nav" BMs.

I suspect that there will always be some that are better at one aspect of their rating then at other aspects.

The QM/BM merge really made no sense to me.  Might work on smaller units biut on big white ones I figure the overall headcount would still be the same as when both ratings were in place.  I doubt that the OS merger would see  much headcount reduction either.

better hope they don't put sonar back on CG ships.....it will REALLY get confusing then.  

And I think merging ET and FT was flat out stupid.   Yeah, they both need to understand how to repair electronics, but WTF does an ET know about gunnery?  

[EX-CG-GM]

So until the NSC arrives, whether 8 or 12 or whatever, the Coast Guard, has no platform that can do Naval warfare operations.  LAW Enforcement, yes, Naval Task Force, involving sub, No.  In fact in My HO, the NSC / 378 has about as much business in that kind of furball, as a little old lady in  a bar fight.  She's only gonna get hurt.

The *******s emasculated my ships!   

[Square Knot]

It was understandable that, because of the nomanclature of the early ships (Warships), it was understood that each billet section required a certain number of each rating to operate the ship as such (Warship).  These ships that were still in service in the Coast Guard much later, 255's - 311's - 327's, retained most all the old rates, but the job of the Coast Guard changed dramatically and did not need that type of vessel any more. It's my opinion that the decision to eliminate the rates, some of which were obsolete (SO, FT, etc), was a good one, "BUT" combining some others into OS just didn't make sense, like BM's.

But on the other side of the coin, being a vet of WPB's, I think smaller crews require nearly everyone knowing everyone else's jobs.  At least, that's the way we operated on the 83 boats. I was as much BM and GM and EN as I was an RD. Nearly every sailor knew enough about the 83 to start and get it underway and navigate it. Perhaps this led to the thinking of today's Coast Guard to combine lots of the ratings. The Coast Guard is the most versatile military service of them all, mainly because of the jobs they have to do, so it makes "some" sense that more sailors need to know more jobs.  And so it goes, as we start picking our way into the 21st Century.  As we have cutters crossing the 40 year threshold, what will the next 40 years bring?

  No.71

[Salba]

Okay.... I'm going to bite and weigh in here with an opinion...

Disclosure:  Currently teaching OS A School as technical trainer under contract to CG, and as most of you know, a former RM, RM School Chief.  I teach communications, but know a little something of navigation/radar etc from OCS/O Corps days.  (emphasis on little... lol).

Did combing TC (former RM), RD, and other ratings  (QM, some BM) into OS makes sense?  Ans:  Don't know.  Perhaps.

Currently - it seems like a blended family where multiple branches of the family are trying to get along, not as much in common as they'd like, and still more connection to old ratings then new ratings (i.e. legacy jobs).  But longer term, future orientation - it might make more sense and here's why I think that way.  {BTW - nothing new... was around when MK rating was formed and many of the blending problems seen then... I see now... a MK (who was a BT) stayed true to legacy far longer than most desired}


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Envision the paradigm (sic?) of "Command, Control, and Communciations"...  what are we talking about?  The flow of information and decision making in operations...  So whether CIC, Comm Central, Command Center, Sector Ops, et al... the linch pin in that information flow leading to operational decisions are those folks who are the "eyes, ears, and voice" of the Coast Guard.

On the bridge of a ship - the Radar operator in CIC?  He/she is looking at OP Pic and relaying what they see to decision makers right?  (Monitoring data and relaying data)

In the Sector Office - either as Watchstander or SMC - we are collecting data (SAR info, L/E info, Maritime Domain Awareness info) from varibable sources and relaying data to decision makers and then decsions/taskings to operational assets.  Who is doing that?  The voice/ears of CG right?

All jobs are important... I'm not bashing any specialty.  Eating is important. Pay is important. Having the right supplies at the right place is important.  Being well to do the job is important.  Firing the gun correctly is important. etc etc etc.

But tying all the parts together... collecting the data from assets, sensors, and other tools - and, relaying the data to the folks who need it to make decisions; and relaying the decisions made to the folks who need to execute it... is critical to making the mission (whatever it is) successful.  Who are those folks?   The OS - hopefully today but certainly tomorrow and in the future as Command, Control, and Communciations move forward.

That's my take.  I miss code and amver and obs etc... but that was then..  different world today.

Hope that makes some sense.

Best Wishes

[EX-CG-GM]

It was understandable that, because of the nomanclature of the early ships (Warships), it was understood that each billet section required a certain number of each rating to operate the ship as such (Warship).  These ships that were still in service in the Coast Guard much later, 255's - 311's - 327's, retained most all the old rates, but the job of the Coast Guard changed dramatically and did not need that type of vessel any more. It's my opinion that the decision to eliminate the rates, some of which were obsolete (SO, FT, etc), was a good one, "BUT" combining some others into OS just didn't make sense, like BM's.

But on the other side of the coin, being a vet of WPB's, I think smaller crews require nearly everyone knowing everyone else's jobs.  At least, that's the way we operated on the 83 boats. I was as much BM and GM and EN as I was an RD. Nearly every sailor knew enough about the 83 to start and get it underway and navigate it. Perhaps this led to the thinking of today's Coast Guard to combine lots of the ratings. The Coast Guard is the most versatile military service of them all, mainly because of the jobs they have to do, so it makes "some" sense that more sailors need to know more jobs.  And so it goes, as we start picking our way into the 21st Century.  As we have cutters crossing the 40 year threshold, what will the next 40 years bring?

  No.71

SK,   Philosophically we are about 180 degrees apart on some of what you posted.  For a start, it wasn't the nomencltaure that mattered, it was the equipment.  The 378's were built as High Endurance Cutters.  255's and 327's were Patrol Gunboats, 311's Seaplane Tender,  Small.  At one point they all carried the same weaponry.  5", 81mm, anti sub torpedos and .50 cal.  earlier the 255, 311 and 327 had 40mm and various ASW equipmen, and even earlier had 20mm, etc.


I'll stick with the Ordnance side.
 
Patrol boats typically had some pretty unsophisticated weapons.  You might be able to perform some of the functions of a GM on a patrol boat, but would be completely lost in the role of a GM on a big white one.  The 5" (yeah, LTGunner, I know, it's gone   ) and today's 76mm and 57mm are complex enough that very specialized training was/is necessary to maintain those weapons.  A bit tougher then fieldstripping a .50.

I do not believe the FT rating became obsolete, merely inconvenient.  I suspect today's ET's are only trained in swapping out PCB's and know very little about  the nuts and bolts of gunnery (i.e. ballistics, etc.)

Although the CG's role has once again shifted, I do not believe it is the best interests of this country to assume that a CG vessel will never have a need to act as a warship again.  There was a pretty good stretch of time between WW II and Viet Nam.

Although it might be advantageous from a cost perspective, I believe it to be short sighted to send a military service out to protect our coasts with ZERO ASW capability and relatively minimal anti aircraft capability.  Hell, even your 83's had mousetraps!

I've posted this before, but if you were to go to Haze Gray and look at other countries you would see that their patrol boats, not their ships, but their patrol boats, are significantly deadlier then our 378's and even the new NSC.

Ok, rant over.....

Carry on.....

[Square Knot]

Hey Salba, very good post.    Eluding to combining jobs, collecting data, making sense of that data and passing it on to people who use that data to make
their decisions:  That pretty much sums it up in today's world, no matter what field we talk about.    Looking back to the days of old, we were good, very good,
at what we did.    What we did, though, did not encompass the broad spectrum of jobs that the Coast Guard does today.    Example: OSV. Although there
was plenty to do, it was a pretty boring cruise.  Compared to a cruise through the Caribbean or eastern Pacific today, OSV was childs play.

Now, I think, probably a lot of the discontent with the consolodation of rates is ones pride in what their job is.   BM comes to mind more than some of the others
because I can just imagine one of the hard nose BM's I've known doing some of the maneuvering problems in CIC. That is, one that has spent most of his career
working the deck, boat handling, buoy work and assorted routines that keeps a ship from just going out in the Burmuda Triangle and never coming back.  And all
of a sudden add to those duties standing watch in the Ops Center of a modern ship and expect him to perform as good as the others. 

From what I've read on the boards and threads, the transition period has lasted quite a time and, in a sense, still going on.   BUT, the end result will be a superior
operation of the unit, like you said, Salba, gathering the info, sorting it out, making sense of it and sending it on to the ones who make the decisions and pass on
a remedy to a given situation. Although similar to our day, it is more complex and demanding today.  At any rate, still the best military service of all.

Come on, everybody, especially you active duty OS's, give us some ensight as to the goods, bads and indifferent. We're interested to know.

  No.71

[Square Knot]

Hey, Ex.    Touche' my friend.   That's what this is all about, differences of opinion and fact.    Although the WPB's, in my time, were pretty inefficient as
a war machine, they were at one time pretty lethal.    Of course they couldn't use the forward rocket powered depth charges because they set the pilot
house on fire when launched. (all wooden boat)  The wooden decks got scorched pretty good too.   Back to the larger ships, it took a certain number of
each of the old rates to run them, no matter what they had been designed to do. The 255's were steam operated, thus BT's. Some were Diesel and some
were diesel electric.    My point was that those old ones were made to do what they weren't necessarily built to do, but did in war, then later
changed to do something entirely different, still each rate had a distinct job.  Those sailors being required to change presents probllems. Kinda like me
making the transition from truck driver to Railroad engineer. Ugh.

  No.71

[RetET1]

When was the last time an FT had to do the math to shoot the main gun?  During the Falklands war, a British ship took out an inbound Exocet with a Mk 92 FCS with a 5" gun.  Computers are faster.  This does bring up the question, how would you do a fire support mission if tasked today?  Can you even aim and shoot the 76mm without the FCS and expect to hit a target?

For the most part, ET's for a long time have been taught a system approach to anything, they replace the board of the system that is broken.  This allows the system to be placed back into operation faster.  The CO wants to hear that system X is up and running, not that it will take a couple more hours to find the bad part on this board, or that the tech accidentally destroyed the only board while trying to fix it.

Someone else does the "actual" repair.  Is it cheaper, yea, do we get better techs out of it, no.  While I worked for HP/Agilent, I got to help hire new techs, the story I got out of some Navy electronic type chiefs was, that they (the Navy) needed X number of bodies to fulfill watchstanding duties.  Well you can't sell someone on watchstanding say a radar/sonar/FCS for 6 years.  So you send them to school, giving them a skill that they can use outside the service.  The payback is that they watch a scope, etc. for the rest of those 6 years.  Lots of the junior enlisted that we interviewed were less than thrilled that they spent lots of time watching scopes, vice repairing stuff.  The Coast Guard has followed.

Our host while in Russia, were a Krivak-III and a Pauk-I.  The availability of small ships with lots of toys should worry any skipper.  We still have too many folks out there that would like to repeat the USS Pueblo or something like that just to piss the USA off.   

[EX-CG-GM]

LTGunner, an ex-FT, made a post in the "Fading (if not lost) Arts" thread here that can better explain the difference between an FT and an ET then I can. 

[LTGunner]

When was the last time an FT had to do the math to shoot the main gun?  During the Falklands war, a British ship took out an inbound Exocet with a Mk 92 FCS with a 5" gun.  Computers are faster.  This does bring up the question, how would you do a fire support mission if tasked today?  Can you even aim and shoot the 76mm without the FCS and expect to hit a target?

Mea Culpa for getting off topic; but RetET1 highlights the New vs Old issue by perceived duties of ratings.  RetET1, note I'm responding to your message in the interest of making a point (but I do appreciate the dialog).

You're really dating yourself with the "math" reference; however, yes a Ballistic Computation Sheet to determine Initial Velocity does require some basic math skills (as well as understanding a nomogram and how its applied to compensate for ammunition temperature).  These sheets are still used as part of Pre-Action data placed into the total evaluation page on the Mk 92 GFCS (and the Brits have NEVER used the Mk 92 with a 5" gun or any other gun, its not in their inventory).  As part of Pre-Fires, the FT is also responsible for insuring range safety.  A fundamental understanding of Ballistics Range Tables for a specific gun is needed too (fall of shot). 

Once rounds are being fired, the FT also needed to correct for fall of shot, or Mean Point of Impact (MPI).  MPI data collection starts WAY before the first round is even fired.  My crew on BOUTWELL collected MPI data and knew even before the first round was fired that we shot long on one side and short on the other.  The crew would dial in a spot prior to firing based on solid understanding of naval gunnery principals and pre-action data (interior & exterior ballistic data, bore erosion, etc).  We knew where the round was going to land even before we fired.  Its called Fire Control. 

As an FT, we also needed a understanding of other countries weapons systems and capabilities of those systems.  We attended a course (as did the RDs & OSs) called Enlisted Tactical Applications or ETAC.  We had to memorize potential threats, platforms and their weapon systems in order to make recommendations to the TAO.  Knowing when to shoot is part of the job as well.

Warning and disabling fire is even more crucial.  Believe it or not, predicting a fall of shot, ahead of a running target takes skill too.  Yes, the computer does calculate lead angles; but its the offset for a warning shot that has to be manually compensated for.  Known MPI data reduces that error.

I could go on for hours; but hopefully I've made my point.  Being an FT was more than repairing the electronics equipment and expecting the computer to do all the work.  A solid grasp of Naval Gunnery and Combat Systems is part of the job. 

Just my $.02 worth & we can discuss further in the "Fading Arts" thread (Lost Ratings Board) Ex-CG-GM referenced.   

[Square Knot]

I had a lot of fun watching the shells leave the ship and arrive at the target, on the PPI scope.  The 5" wasn't that rapid fire, so there was a delay between shots. The quad 40's was a different thing altogether.  Too bad they took them off and just had two.  The pattern from a set of quads, watched from the scope, was awesome.  At least, I thought so at the time.

On our way back from the yard in 1959, we made a stop at Charleston Navy Base to pick up our ammo.  During that time we used the Navy's CIC Mock Up to play a few war games, mostly convoy duty with air and submarine attacks.  Lots of fun, and we had a high score, too.  No doubt, it wasn't like the real thing, resulting in a more relaxed and calm situation.  I can only imagine what it would be like if the other side is shooting back.  Our most practiced drill was "Ditch and Rescue" during those days of old.  The team in CIC had the Conn and run the whole show.  Great making the old 255 do a few hard turns, backing down and getting in position to pick up survivors.  Amazing how a bed of foam can calm a rough sea enough to have an aircraft come down in it.  Of course the maneuvering of the ship helped, too.

I've wondered that, since the transition began to OS, weather there are any situation drills such as the "Ditch and Rescue".  No doubt there are for the Helo's and Rescue Swimmers, but if they have retained any of the stuff from the old days.  They could concievably still use the practices for small craft having to ditch at sea. Not so much for the large jet commercial aricraft.   Anybody have any input in that regard?

  No.71