Does having two crews on a DDG make sense?

2017-08-21T21:19:44-04:00

In my experience as an OS on an FFG the op-tempo was extremely quick. We went underway on deployment to underway for training, to underway for exercises, underway for certifications, then underway for deployment again. Do you think high op-tempo and no crew down time contributes to at sea incidents that we have seen lately? Would blue/gold crews make our ship crews safer?

Response by LTJG Edward Bangor Jr made Aug 22 at 2017 4:45 PM

2017-08-22T16:45:55-04:00

I think more important than increasing manning is a simple understanding of the limits of human physiology. After 17 hours of awake time, you are as impaired as someone with a 0.05 BAC, which is high enough to go to prison in some states.

Let's imagine a scenario where you didn't get hosed by duty the day before. You got a full night's sleep and woke up at 0500 before the ship got underway. You go through your whole work day and you have the 1700-2200 watch. You are very much legally impaired by the tail end of your watch. nd this is the case more often than not.

What I've seen be the most common watch rotations are both 4-section, with either a rotating 5-hour watch and a short watch over midnight (i.e. 7-12,12-17...) or static 3-on, 9-off (6-9,9-12...). In either case, you are going to end up with people waking up at 0100 for a 0200 watch, who were ordered to not go to sleep before 2200 the night before. The result is a crew that is perpetually exhausted. When you run people down, you need to understand that accidents will happen. Sadly, in the at-sea environment, an accident can easily cost the life of a shipmate.

An on-hull and off-hull crew will not solve this problem. A lot can be done to actually deal with this internal to each ship. Mandatory post-dinner meetings need to be shifted to daylight hours. Understanding that people might need to miss a briefing if attending it means they will be up for 24 hours without sleep. Having people wait outside of a dept head's door for an hour to get a message or report signed must become a thing of the past. The COs needs to flex on how much they'll allow his crew to allocate their own time. Otherwise, tired people will still be a hazard. And contrary to what nearly every NAVSAFCEN report says, fatigue is ALWAYS a factor.

Response by PO1 Charles Gallagher made Aug 27 at 2017 5:08 PM

2017-08-27T17:08:40-04:00

still not an excuse for hitting another ship

Response by PO1 Charles Gallagher made Aug 27 at 2017 5:11 PM

2017-08-27T17:11:24-04:00

having served in port and starboard watch, then going to GQ, man overboard, and what ever drills. the problem is manning levels.

Response by PO1 Charles Gallagher made Aug 27 at 2017 5:12 PM

2017-08-27T17:12:41-04:00

no, it reduces crews for other ships

Response by PO2 Eric Weber made Aug 28 at 2017 3:41 PM

2017-08-28T15:41:31-04:00

Makes complete sense LT, though increasing the size of watchbills will inevitably increase crew size unless there was some serious cross training going on.

This is near and dear to my heart, as I was once kept awake for an entire 5 day underway period. This happened because we were port and starboard in CIC working the mid watch. (0000-0600, 1200-1800). We did drills all morning after watch, then were expected to clean spaces before going back on watch. All evening we tracked live submarine contacts. Since tracking a live sub was rare we squeezed every minute of contact time out of those evolutions. Our OPS refused to let watchstanders sleep during drills (I think this was because we were prepping for FEP). This was repeatedly brought up the chain. We had a guy in our watch section keel over with a seizure in CIC due to lack of sleep, lack of hydration, and too much caffeine & dip. OPS then came into CIC and yelled at us for not sleeping. Saying he didn't understand why we weren't able to sleep. One of the many times I had to hold back my true feelings. I can attest to sleep deprivation being attributable to a high blood alcohol content. I didn't even remember driving home when we pulled back into port. Super dangerous.

Response by SN Daniel Morrison made Sep 5 at 2017 7:13 AM

2017-09-05T07:13:48-04:00

Definitely! Us mushrooms have to develop their heads too! The only way we can do that is to sleep and dream!

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Sep 5 at 2017 11:15 AM

2017-09-05T11:15:59-04:00

Works for bubbles

Response by PO1 William Heinitz made Apr 29 at 2018 8:21 AM

2018-04-29T08:21:18-04:00

I would probably assume that would help, i remember as an OS myself , every command i went to we were undermanned as a Rate ! Recently reading an article i see recruiting is having tough time getting recruits ! 20 years of port and starboard watches seems to have made me older than i really am. God bless the Navy !

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 29 at 2018 10:06 AM

2018-04-29T10:06:46-04:00

So pay people to sit until you dock? Worked I guess with subs- but understand nukes had less dock time needed.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2020 10:16 PM

2020-03-25T22:16:48-04:00

My first tour was 7th FLT on a DDG as an OSSN and honestly there’s no telling how a blue/gold scenario would go over:
- Manning would have to be under control before the idea could even be put into a trial phase.
-Most bases wouldn’t have the space to adequately train the shore status crew without putting big deck crews at a disadvantage.
- At the start each ship would only have one qualified underway crew at a time. Making mission assignment a burden on dual crew qualified ships.
- Use of a B/G crew set up would overload ATG and other certification organizations.

The list is long. But honestly if it’s not working for an LCS which has a crew size that is 3-4 times smaller than a DDG, there would be no hope for the rest of the surface fleet to shift to a B/G crew model.