U.S. Navy Provides Details of Surface Fleet Review In Wake of 'Disturbing Trend' of Accidents –...

I believe we missing some things here. We have been at war for over 17 years and yes the Navy has been helping and participating in all realms, by supporting at Sea with Combat Ops, Security, and Intel operations, also ground operations from NSW and NECC forces (Seabees, EOD and Riverine) fighting and support in all phases. The Navy has also had sailors involved in GSA and other IA missions, that I believe has taken a toll on the over all fleet. We have sent Navy rates such as electronic warfare personnel from Surface fleet to submarine fleet, also the Phalanx weapons systems used on ground for Forces, also the Expeditionary Logistics part has been big, from Cargo Handling and custom units, and LS's having to fill IA jobs all from SOF SUPPORT to supporting all operations. The one thing most of these IA jobs had been filled by Junior all the way up to Admiral. I had two Navy Captains and a one star Admiral in my IA class.

I also believe that we became complacent on the Sea side of things, because most felt they would not be in the fight.

This is my observation, but it comes from a Chief who has been fighting and supporting the fighting on the ground from the start.

60 days to do all this? Seems like, if we have any top leadership left in the U. S. Navy with successful operational experience, should be able conduct an investigation with the bridge crews and senior officers and enlisted on these ships and determine the root cause for our loss of professionalism.

Response is classic Gov't thinking. Entire directive could be written in one sentence. "Next ship that comes within 500 feet of another ship by accident, the entire enlisted crew will be assigned to a terrible place and all the officers will be kicked out of the service".