crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) (11/29/90)
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
Many of the descriptions of warships posted to this group read like:
2 engines, 4 missle launchers, 1 cannon, 1 radar, 1 sonar, 300 men
What are all those men doing? The ships seem grossly over-manned for their
capabilities. This imbalance appears to worsen as the ship size increases.
I cannot see a need for more than 50 men on a ship, unless it carries
aircraft (including helicopters). The jobs I can imagine are:
commander (whoever is in charge for the shift), helm,
weapons control (2), weapons loading (2), radar/sonar operators (2),
cook, and janitor
This is 10 men, for 3 shifts, plus the captain, giving 31 men. I'll add
another 6 men per shift, just because I'm sure I'm missing something. That
gives 49 men. Make it 50, just because round numbers are more scientific :-).
I'm still way below what the ships carry.
Yes, I know you may need fire fighting and damage control, but in battle
you can call on the other two shifts to perform these duties. Most of the
time, the ship will not be in battle.
The benefits of smaller crews (for the same capability) are substantial.
- There are fewer men between the captain and the hardware.
- The command structure should react faster.
- The ships can be substantially smaller.
- The ship is more maneuverable and therefore harder to hit.
- The navy can have more ships for a fixed budget.
- You can loose a larger number of ships and still have a fleet.
- You can "show the flag" to more places at less cost.
Of coarse, we cannot ignore the political effect within the navy.
- Each command involves fewer men, and is therefore less prestigous.
- You have more command opportunities for officers.
- You may have a higher officer to enlisted ratio.
Are current ships over-manned? If ships are not over-manned today, can we
reduce the manpower requirements for future warships through automation and
proper systems design?
--
Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester
crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department
...!rutgers!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (11/30/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Warships are in no way overmanned. Surface ships operate four six-hour watches a day. Just in the CIC of an Ticonderoga class CG you'd have 15-20 men (Sonarmen, Radar Operators, Fire Control Techs, Telephone Talkers, Tactical Action Officer, CO, Plot and Threat Board Operators, etc.) on duty at any one time. Right there, you need anywhere from 60-80 men just to man CIC for normal sailing. Damage Control is the higest-priority activity (except fighting) on board a naval vessel. The DCO (Damage Control Officer) is usually the fourth to the sixth man in line for command. (CO, XO, Engineer, TAO, DCO usually) Controlling battle damage is not a job for 20 men, it is a job for 200 or more. If the USS Iowa hadn't had as effective damage control and crew response (about 1/4 of the crew, about 275 sailors), the consequences of the #2 turret explosion could have been a lot worse. If it wasn't for effective damage control on the part of the USS Stark's crew, those two Exocets would probably have sunk the ship. Same goes for the USS Samuel B. Roberts when she struck a mine. Both of those frigates are available for duty today because the entire crew effort for damage control saved the ships. How would you like to handle a Class Charlie fire in the engine room, flooding, potential magazine explosions, and crumbling bulkheads with 20 men??? The size of ships is governed by the fuel they need to carry, the size of the propulsion plant, the ordnance load, and the sea-state you want the ship to be maneuverable in. If you make ships smaller, you will reduce range, weapons load, and seaworthiness. Don't forget the need for crewmen who know how to operate all the weapons and detection systems but crewmen who know how to repair all the weapons and detection systems. They are different specialties. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLC-JR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Come on you sons o'bitches, do you want to live forever?" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are they intended to, reflect the official policies/positions of DOD, DON, USMC, USN, NROTC, or CMU. Any information in this posting was obtained using unclassified material and/or personal intuition, analysis, or extrapolation.
zimmer@cod.nosc.mil (Thomas L. Zimmerman) (11/30/90)
From: zimmer@cod.nosc.mil (Thomas L. Zimmerman) >From article <1990Nov29.004354.21100@cbnews.att.com>, by crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl): > > > I cannot see a need for more than 50 men on a ship, unless it carries > aircraft (including helicopters). The jobs I can imagine are: > > commander (whoever is in charge for the shift), helm, > weapons control (2), weapons loading (2), radar/sonar operators (2), > cook, and janitor > Hmmm, you've obviously never spent any time on a ship underway. Even during normal peacetime conditions if my ship is working with anyone else (say maybe another frigate nearby, the rest of our squadron further away and our helo up in the air) we fully utilize two officers on the bridge to maintain communications, track other traffic in the area, decode communications signals, give orders to the helm, keep the captain informed as to what's going on, control use of the ships alarms and announcing system and a few other details. Now down in CIC we need at least a CIC watch officer to supervise and handle the rest of the communications chores (everyone always seems to want to talk at the same time), an enlisted air traffic controller for the helo, a couple operators for the NTDS system to keep track of the other ships/planes/subs in the area, and a couple sonar operators if we're tracking subs. Let me see, now we still need a helmsman on the bridge, a navigator to check things now and them to make sure we're where we should be, a signalman to do any close in communication using flags, flashing light, etc. Prudent seamanship requires at least a bow and stern lookout too. That's 12 so far. Now I still need at least one engineer on duty in Central Control and one enlisted guy to do the sounding and security watch (actually visit the spaces to see problems before they become serious), at least one duty radioman to handle the non-realtime communications, and a cook (two or more in reality, but I'm trying to keep this small). The above was a very bare minimum. If we were at actual combat conditions I do needs things like weapons console operators, people to load and fix the weapons, damage control teams, more officers in CIC to handle the increased level of communication, data flow and decision making (yes this sometimes makes the problem worse, but there is not enough automation on a small ship to afford any alternative). In all of this I still have not considered the trained technicians to maintain and repair everything, the supply folks who take of food, pay, laundry, haircuts, the ship's store or the admin folks who take care of the unavoidable paperwork. Now, lets say we do go with only a three section watch - so we only have to multiply the above personnel by three for those that are needed on duty all the time. After a week or so at sea people are going to start getting real tierd and maintenance, administrative functions, etc are going to slide. A three section watch typically means that I spend 4 hours on watch and the 8 off. At first that doesn't sound too bad until you realize that the off time has to cover sleeping, eating, personal care, training, maintenance and repairs that require more than the normal watch section to complete, getting ready for inspections, writing evaluations, taking care of discipline problems, writing operations plans, conducting required tests on equipment, etc. None of the above even considers the pertibations introduced when you go to flight quarters to launch or recover the helo or set the special sea and anchor detail to enter or leave port. I know that to the casual observer you wouldn't think it would take that many bodies - but it does. Oh yea, I almost forgot the rarely mentioned but necessary need to provide some degree of redundancy in case of losses during battle. Its a bit difficult to just call up reenforcements when a ship is two-thousand miles away from the nearest land. Lee Zimmerman, Scientist, Naval Ocean Systems Center In my other life - LT Lee Zimmerman, USNR of the USS Mahlon S. Tisdale (FFG-27) zimmer@nosc -- Lee Zimmerman, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Code 421, San Diego, CA, 92152 {arpa,mil}net: zimmer@nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!zimmer
budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (11/30/90)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) You hit a hot button...I deal with very much this problem on Coast Guard cutters. You left out damage control parties, the second highest consumer of manpower on ships (both grey and white ones). And you forgot CIC entirely. That's the biggest consumer on cutters, and it's not much better on Navy ships. Military ships tend to be conservatively manned. By that I mean that they tend to eschew potentially risky automation -- people have historically been considered more reliable. That's the perception, whether true or not. For Coast Guard cutters, you've also forgotten the boat lowering detail, the boat crew, the boarding party. Kinda difficult to do our job without those. Ships are crammed with equipment; equipment breaks. So you have a lot of organizational level maintenance folks -- repairmen built into the crew. Another driver, when in port, is that cutters are supposed to have enough people in the duty section to handle damage control situations -- a minimum fire parts. Since cutters frequently perform rescue & assist in port, this also requires a minimum number of warm bodies in the duty section. A great deal of activity in larger cutters and Navy ships can be characterized as dealing with information systems -- sound powered phone talkers, messengers, damage control investigators, plotters, sensor operators, ... On the surface, each of these jobs looks automatable -- computers and local area networks,...and the job is solved. Oops, forgot salt water and survivability. Non-trivial considerations that we're working right now to overcome (wire for details). An 82 foot patrol boat sails with a crew of 11, and that includes enough for a boarding party. Cutter calls away the boarding party with everyone standing to some station -- nobody's in the sack for the next watch. So WPBs have a few days endurance at most. Rex Buddenberg
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) (12/03/90)
From: schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) In article <1990Nov29.004354.21100@cbnews.att.com> crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes: > >Many of the descriptions of warships posted to this group read like: > > 2 engines, 4 missle launchers, 1 cannon, 1 radar, 1 sonar, 300 men > >What are all those men doing? The ships seem grossly over-manned for their >capabilities. This imbalance appears to worsen as the ship size increases. >From Norman Polmar's "The Ships and Aircraft of the U. S. Fleet, 14th Edition" regarding the Spruance class destroyer: Propulsion: 4 gas turbine engines, 2 shafts Missiles: NATO Sea Sparrow with 1 8-cell Mk 29 launcher Harpoon SSM (2 quad Mk 141 cannisters) Tomahawk (either 2 quad Mk143 Armored Box Launchers or 61-cell Mk 41 Vertical Launch System for use with both Tomahawk and vertical launch ASROC) ASW Weapons: ASROC (1 8-cell Mk 16 ASROC launcher or VLS) 6 torpedo tubes Mk 32 (2 triple) Guns: 2 5-inch/54-cal Mk 45 mounts 2 20mm CIWS Mk 15 Search radars: SPS-40 or SPS-49 air search SPS-55 surface search Fire control systems: SWG-2 or SWG-3 for Tomahawk Mk 86 Gun Fire Control System with SPG-60 and SPQ-9A radars Mk 91 FCS for Sea Sparrow Mk 116 ASW FCS Sonars: SQS-53 SQS-18 or 19 Electronic Warfare: SLQ-25 Nixie SLQ-32 Helicopters: 1 or 2 SH60B LAMPS III Manning: varies around 334 (19 officers, 315 enlisted) >I cannot see a need for more than 50 men on a ship, unless it carries >aircraft (including helicopters). The jobs I can imagine are: > > commander (whoever is in charge for the shift), helm, > weapons control (2), weapons loading (2), radar/sonar operators (2), > cook, and janitor I think you're being a little bit facetious here. In any event, you've completely left out engineering. My experience onboard ships of the size of destroyers and cruisers is rather limited, so I hope others with appropriate experience will jump in here. I was ship's company on a carrier, however (serving as Tactical Action Officer for a while). In any event, you can start off with a _minimum_ of three officers on watch at a time: the Officer of the Deck (OOD) on the bridge, the CIC Watch Officer/ Tactical Action Officer (TAO) in combat, and the Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) in engineering. Also looking at the limited equipment list I posted above, would suggest a lot more operators per "shift" might be required. In actuality, the only time all positions are manned is during General Quarters ('battle stations'). On the bridge, in addition to the helm, there's usually a lee helm, a petty officer of the watch, messenger of the watch, quartermaster (navigation) personnel, lookouts, etc. > >This is 10 men, for 3 shifts, plus the captain, giving 31 men. I'll add >another 6 men per shift, just because I'm sure I'm missing something. That >gives 49 men. Make it 50, just because round numbers are more scientific :-). >I'm still way below what the ships carry. >Yes, I know you may need fire fighting and damage control, but in battle >you can call on the other two shifts to perform these duties. Most of the >time, the ship will not be in battle. Only in part. Most of your equipment operators are with their equipment during battle stations. In addition to engineering, you've also left out the technicians/maintainers for the electronic equipment, the deck department (although you may have included them to some extent with the bridge watch standers), the supply department (and other admin support), medical, communications, etc. > >The benefits of smaller crews (for the same capability) are substantial. > >- There are fewer men between the captain and the hardware. The Captain can get as close to the 'hardware' as he wants :-) > - The command structure should react faster. >- The ships can be substantially smaller. > - The ship is more maneuverable and therefore harder to hit. > - The navy can have more ships for a fixed budget. > - You can loose a larger number of ships and still have a fleet. > - You can "show the flag" to more places at less cost. > >Of coarse, we cannot ignore the political effect within the navy. > >- Each command involves fewer men, and is therefore less prestigous. >- You have more command opportunities for officers. >- You may have a higher officer to enlisted ratio. > >Are current ships over-manned? If ships are not over-manned today, can we >reduce the manpower requirements for future warships through automation and >proper systems design? For the equipment requirements of the present ships, they are not over manned. Determining a ships manning plan is a very meticulous effort, the end result of which usually leaves the ship with less personnel than they would like. Automation is being considered in warship design to decrease the amount of manning necessary to do the job. The Farragut (DDG 37) class Guided Missile Destroyer has a full load displacement of about 6000 tons and carries a crew of around 400 (25 officers and 375 enlisted). The new Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class DDG has a full load displacement of 8300 tons with a crew of 325 (23 officers and 302 enlisted). Hopefully, some others will jump in here to fill in the fair amount that I've missed. -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/03/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) >What are all those men doing? The ships seem grossly over-manned for their >capabilities... I don't know a definitive answer, but I know two or three factors that contribute. One is that navies tend to distrust automation (US submarines spend most of their time holding a specific speed, heading, and depth... on *manual* control, not even a servomechanism autopilot). Another is that they have to be capable of continuing effective combat even if all the wonderful electronic gizmos break. A third is that the automation they already have takes a *lot* of maintenance. >Yes, I know you may need fire fighting and damage control, but in battle >you can call on the other two shifts to perform these duties... What if the ship is on combat alert for several days running? Ships, unlike aircraft, seldom get a chance to withdraw to a known-safe area for a rest every day. >Most of the time, the ship will not be in battle. Ship design is driven by the worst case, not by "most of the time". -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fred@uunet.UU.NET (Fred Brooks) (12/03/90)
From: sma2!fred@uunet.UU.NET (Fred Brooks) In article <1990Nov29.004354.21100@cbnews.att.com> crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes: >I cannot see a need for more than 50 men on a ship, unless it carries >aircraft (including helicopters). The jobs I can imagine are: > > commander (whoever is in charge for the shift), helm, > weapons control (2), weapons loading (2), radar/sonar operators (2), > cook, and janitor > you forgot the guys who man the engines(electricity,steam,air air-conditioning,refrigeration,water,main propulision,motors,shipfitters), supply-admin(disbursing,mail,personnel,adp), weapons-operations(gunners,deck, boats,refueling,missiles,small-arms,ew), staff(ok you can cut these people), security-communications (signal, radio),doctors(medical, dental), and more. >Are current ships over-manned? If ships are not over-manned today, can we >reduce the manpower requirements for future warships through automation and >proper systems design? Sure, but most of the ships in the fleet are 15 to 20 years old with plants that run on the edge of explosion to get max power trying to keep up with the gas-turbine,nuke fleet. Most of the people are down below the water line so you don't see them or know they exist until the lights go out. -- Defend your 2nd amendment rights. Fred Brooks Portland Oregon Life is too too short to live in California
ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) (12/03/90)
From: ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) > From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) > > Are current ships over-manned? If ships are not over-manned today, can we > reduce the manpower requirements for future warships through automation and > proper systems design? > > -- > Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester You've answered your own question. The ships aren't so much over manned as they are under-automated. Then again, you have to include trainees, and provision for manual operation of broken automated systems. And from my experience, EVERY system will break and sometimes several of them will be broken at one time. Ron Miller ex-Lt. USN USS CINCINNATTI SSN-693 (1979-1983)
cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo) (12/03/90)
From: "Christian M. Restifo" <cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> Surface ships usually do not stand 6 hour watches. They man 4, 8, or 12, depending on the watchstation, the current state of readiness, and the number of people qual`d to stand that watch. For example, OOD's usually stand 4 hour watches when just steaming out on the ocean blue. During flight ops, the flight deck crew might work up to 20 hours to get the job done. It also doesn`t take 60-80 people to man CIC underway. If you've ever been inside CIC on something like a DDG, that would be pretty crowded. Now, it does get cramped during general quarters. Concerning the number of people needed for DC, you've got to remember that when GQ is sounded, there are many, many DC teams that simply suit up in their equipment, muster in a specified area (such as the crew`s mess), and wait. Why? That way, if damage does occur, they can respond immediately. Plus, you've got to have back-ups. After donning a fire-suit and an OBA, going to the scene, and fighting the fire, one can become exhausted after a short amount of time. You wouldn't want to waste all you man power in the first 30-45 minutes of the battle, now would you? -Chris Restifo cr2r@andrew.cmu.edu
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (12/05/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) *>From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) *>Many of the descriptions of warships posted to this group read like: *> 2 engines, 4 missle launchers, 1 cannon, 1 radar, 1 sonar, 300 men *>What are all those men doing? The ships seem grossly over-manned for their *>capabilities. This imbalance appears to worsen as the ship size increases. *>I cannot see a need for more than 50 men on a ship, unless it carries *>aircraft (including helicopters). The jobs I can imagine are: *> commander (whoever is in charge for the shift), helm, *> weapons control (2), weapons loading (2), radar/sonar operators (2), *> cook, and janitor Hmmm... damage control, general muscle (lifting and carrying) work? Who mans the light weapons (machine guns etc.) and searchlight? Maybe a few electronics technicians? Computer programmers? Boarding party? What about "engineering" (i.e. Scotty and his bairns).. changing spark plugs, refueling, etc.? And who winds up the anchor? Hehehe Star Trek people have been wondering about this one for years- why ARE there 420 crew aboard the Enterprise? After all, even the "away teams" are made up of the Captain, a couple of bridge officers, and a couple of "security" (ah.. there's another cate- gory for the crew..) personnel.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !