Navy Struggling to Retain Surface Warfare Officers

Devil Doc

Devil Doc

Teufel Doc
5-Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
5,520
"Surface warfare officers are leaving the Navy at a higher rate than other unrestricted line officers despite reforms in training the service has instituted since two fatal collisions in 2017, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office."

news.usni.org

GAO: Navy Struggling to Retain Surface Warfare Officers; SWOs Want More Training, Specialization - USNI News

Surface warfare officers are leaving the Navy at a higher rate than other unrestricted line officers despite reforms in training the service has instituted since two fatal collisions in 2017, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. Compared to aviators, submariners...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Tough job with many difficult issues to solve. This is getting discussed pretty heavily in a couple of places that I frequent. Many of the issues are very long standing and would be difficult to change without some major influxes of $$'s. Once example is that SWO sends young officers to ships without qualifying them on anything first. The idea of having some Surface training platforms to qualify them initially as OODs has been put forward many times on an informal basis but the cost to do so is a huge obstacle. And that's just one issue (major one though).
 
OldRetSWO said:
Tough job with many difficult issues to solve. This is getting discussed pretty heavily in a couple of places that I frequent. Many of the issues are very long standing and would be difficult to change without some major influxes of $$'s. Once example is that SWO sends young officers to ships without qualifying them on anything first. The idea of having some Surface training platforms to qualify them initially as OODs has been put forward many times on an informal basis but the cost to do so is a huge obstacle. And that's just one issue (major one though).
Click to expand...

Aye.

www.forbes.com

As The U.S. Navy Sheds Small Boats, Junior Officers Are Losing Chances To Take Command. The Coast Guard Could Offer A Solution.

As early career naval officers lose opportunities to gain valuable command experience on small vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard has expanded early leadership opportunities for its for junior officers. Can a joint approach generate more command opportunities for early career naval officers?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
I spent the day with a USNA sponsor family alum, a SWO and now a captain herself, with two at-sea commands to her credit and headed to squadron command. We touched on many of the same issues. Hard to tease out the root issues.
 
Noticed on those charts that SWO numbers dropped off after 5-6 years and the aviators dropped off after 8-10. Those also align with the minimum service requirements for each community.

One potential reason SWO numbers are probably higher is that they can get out after 5 years. After 5 they can get better paying jobs outside and are 15 years out from military retirement. Pilots on the other hand are pretty much locked in for 10 years. They could also get better paying and better quality of life jobs outside. However, it is a little more enticing to stay in once you realize that you are already halfway to retirement pay. Doing another 10 doesn't seem as bad as 15, especially when they're throwing DH and reenactment bonuses at you too.
 
I have read in numerous articles that one possible cause for this is the Navy's loss of smaller platforms that provide leadership, early command, and experience for younger SWO's. It has to be difficult to simply serve as a department Head and try qualifying as a DWO or SWO part time being a JO (O-1 thru junior O-3). The Navy by phasing out PB's, Mine Sweepers, and now the Mark VI's have removed the leadership and experience of commanding smaller units, prior to moving up to "major" combatants. JHMO, but the USCG has to right mix, all JO's (deck types) serve a two year tour as Department Head and learn navigation and ship handling, often under stressful conditions. After this first tour, the majority of senior O-2's are assigned as XO's of small cutters, and some as CO's. Great opportunity for leadership, experience, and learing from senior enlisted with a lot of experience. Then as O-3's and above they become eligible for command of larger and more complex units with more responsibility. But they have the basis for succeeding based on their early leadership responsibilities.

IMO, If the Navy truly wants to retain SWO's at the point of end of service obilgation, they need to figure out how to give their junior SWO's the ability to earn command. They need to bring back units that offer younger JO's Command opportunities, or figure out a way to give them the early experience and training to be successful and motivated early on, where they learn how to command and manage a unit. Look back to Vietnam, tons of JO's had command, and they mostly all went on the very successful careers and were happy and satifsfied and motivated. Now it seems IMHO that SWO's are fustrated and unable to learn early on what is needed to be a successful commander.
 
Last edited:
Impulsive said:
I have read in numerous articles that one possible cause for this is the Navy's loss of smaller platforms that provide leadership, early command, and experience for younger SWO's. It has to be difficult to simply serve as a department Head and try qualifying as a DWO or SWO part time being a JO (O-1 thru junior O-3). The Navy by phasing out PB's, Mine Sweepers, and now the Mark VI's have removed the leadership and experience of commanding smaller units, prior to moving up to "major" combatants. JHMO, but the USCG has to right mix, all JO's (deck types) serve a two year tour as Department Head and learn navigation and ship handling, often under stressful conditions. After this first tour, the majority of senior O-2's are assigned as XO's of small cutters, and some as CO's. Great opportunity for leadership, experience, and learing from senior enlisted with a lot of experience. Then as O-3's and above they become eligible for command of larger and more complex units with more responsibility. But they have the basis for succeeding based on their early leadership responsibilities.

IMO, If the Navy truly wants to retain SWO's at the point of end of service obilgation, they need to figure out how to give their junior SWO's the ability to earn command. They need to bring back units that offer younger JO's Command opportunities, or figure out a way to give them the early experience and training to be successful and motivated early on, where they learn how to command and manage a unit. Look back to Vietnam, tons of JO's had command, and they mostly all went on the very successful careers and were happy and satifsfied and motivated. Now it seems IMHO that SWO's are fustrated and unable to learn early on what is needed to be a successful commander.
Click to expand...
The Navy has not had significant numbers of small units with early command opportunities since at least the 60's. There have generally been a small number - maybe 20 to 30 small units with LT or junior LCDR COs during that time but the numbers of those units and the opportunities to get assigned to them have been very sparse sine way before I wore the uniform.

I'd like to see more of them but I just don't see the strategic need overtaking that of the more capable (and larger) units in this budget constrained environment.
 
OldRetSWO said:
The Navy has not had significant numbers of small units with early command opportunities since at least the 60's. There have generally been a small number - maybe 20 to 30 small units with LT or junior LCDR COs during that time but the numbers of those units and the opportunities to get assigned to them have been very sparse sine way before I wore the uniform.

I'd like to see more of them but I just don't see the strategic need overtaking that of the more capable (and larger) units in this budget constrained environment.
Click to expand...
I unfortunately agree with you. The budget priorities and needs are just not at this time towards smaller ships. But I think the Navy has to find some sort of "happy medium" where O-1's thru junior O-3's can get some sort of Quasi Command or Command experience. Taking a 27 yr old junior LCDR with minimal leadership running a unit or ship and suddenly placing him or her in charge of a 350-400ft Combatant with a 40 man crew (like the LCS) is asking for trouble. Unless I am out of touch, the normal tour is 2 yrs afloat as an O-1, O-2 then a shore tour for three or so years, then they are O-3's and back to sea as a Department Head (and likely not OPS or NAV) except for LCS's, then another three years ashore before being selected for command as an O-4. If this is incorrect please feel free to correct, but this is 4 years afloat (with only minimal time conning or being in charge of navigating a ship), and six or seven years (maybe more) ashore. Then they are suddenly (after a shoreside training program) responsible for the total operation and training of a Combatant of medium size. This is a recipe for disaster, Merchant Mariners, and USCG Officers get far more afloat time and "in charge" time before being eligible for command of medium sized cutters, or merchant vessels.

I understand budget and priorities, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for hands on and junior command experience! The Navy will keep losing the best SWO's to other services or jobs unless something is done to provide job satisifaction...JMHO :)
 
I think this is a fascinating discussion. It led me to this brief account of Fleet Admiral Nimitzes' junior officer commands:

Nimitz, Chester William

Chester William Nimitz was born on 24 February 1885, near a quaint hotel in Fredericksburg, Texas built by his grandfather, Charles Nimitz, a retired sea captain. Young Chester, however, had his sights set on an Army career and while a student at Tivy High School, Kerrville, Texas, he tried for...
www.history.navy.mil www.history.navy.mil
 
Impulsive said:
I unfortunately agree with you. The budget priorities and needs are just not at this time towards smaller ships. But I think the Navy has to find some sort of "happy medium" where O-1's thru junior O-3's can get some sort of Quasi Command or Command experience. Taking a 27 yr old junior LCDR with minimal leadership running a unit or ship and suddenly placing him or her in charge of a 350-400ft Combatant with a 40 man crew (like the LCS) is asking for trouble. Unless I am out of touch, the normal tour is 2 yrs afloat as an O-1, O-2 then a shore tour for three or so years, then they are O-3's and back to sea as a Department Head (and likely not OPS or NAV) except for LCS's, then another three years ashore before being selected for command as an O-4. If this is incorrect please feel free to correct, but this is 4 years afloat (with only minimal time conning or being in charge of navigating a ship), and six or seven years (maybe more) ashore. Then they are suddenly (after a shoreside training program) responsible for the total operation and training of a Combatant of medium size. This is a recipe for disaster, Merchant Mariners, and USCG Officers get far more afloat time and "in charge" time before being eligible for command of medium sized cutters, or merchant vessels.

I understand budget and priorities, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for hands on and junior command experience! The Navy will keep losing the best SWO's to other services or jobs unless something is done to provide job satisifaction...JMHO :)
Click to expand...
Typical career path is approx 3 yrs/sometimes 4 yrs as a Division Officer - generally two tours and coming ashore as an LT. After shore duty TWO tours as a Dept Head - the usual SWO dept heads are Ops, Combat Systems, Engineering and (somewhat new) Plans and Training Officer (PTO). Cruisers have an additional Weapons Officer under the Combat Systems Officer. FYI, Nav is usually a 2nd tour Div O. These two tours are approx 3 to 4 yrs so when coming ashore after Dept Head, you have approx 7 yrs of sea exp. The "shore" tours are sometimes on Staffs that go to sea as well.
After those 7 or more yrs of sea experience, the next step in the normal career progression is XO, not CO. The selection for both is at the same time but the typical XO tour is about a yr and a half or so followed by CO so the sea experience at the start of a CO tour is usually 8.5 or more and almost always as a Commander, not an LCDR.
 
OldRetSWO said:
Tough job with many difficult issues to solve. This is getting discussed pretty heavily in a couple of places that I frequent. Many of the issues are very long standing and would be difficult to change without some major influxes of $$'s. Once example is that SWO sends young officers to ships without qualifying them on anything first. The idea of having some Surface training platforms to qualify them initially as OODs has been put forward many times on an informal basis but the cost to do so is a huge obstacle. And that's just one issue (major one though).
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't this the purpose of the BDOC (Basic Division Officer Course) and JOOD (Junior Officer Of the Deck) training courses now in place? DS is at BDOC now (Day 3), then will follow on with JOOD before reporting to his first ship. These course run through the beginning of October.
 
ProudDad17 said:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't this the purpose of the BDOC (Basic Division Officer Course) and JOOD (Junior Officer Of the Deck) training courses now in place? DS is at BDOC now (Day 3), then will follow on with JOOD before reporting to his first ship. These course run through the beginning of October.
Click to expand...
Which ship will he report to, if you don’t mind me asking?
 
ProudDad17 said:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't this the purpose of the BDOC (Basic Division Officer Course) and JOOD (Junior Officer Of the Deck) training courses now in place? DS is at BDOC now (Day 3), then will follow on with JOOD before reporting to his first ship. These course run through the beginning of October.
Click to expand...
IMHO, Training is needed and good, but NOTHING replaces experience! I know the budgetary and logistical needs right now are on large combatants, subs, and the new "unmanned surface combatant". But again IMHO there is NO substitute for early command at sea, it teaches so much and allows for a much more confident and seasoned Command structure on larger combatants. The accidents the Navy has experienced in recent years, collisions and groundings tells me that something with the commands are not right, and maybe it's the lack of junior commands to help season the more senior commanders. It is one thing to succeed on a simulator, quite another to experience trouble on a watch on an actual ship.
 
ProudDad17 said:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't this the purpose of the BDOC (Basic Division Officer Course) and JOOD (Junior Officer Of the Deck) training courses now in place? DS is at BDOC now (Day 3), then will follow on with JOOD before reporting to his first ship. These course run through the beginning of October.
Click to expand...
Neither one qualifies a SWO candidate as an actual OOD which generally at least takes 4-6 months and often more.
 
Back "in the day" in the USCG when an u/w OOD qualified, there was an extensive "checklist" and workbook that had to be completed (usually took 4-6 months like @OldRetSWO mentions). And prior to any XPO or OinC orders, the candidate had to pass the appropriate USCG License Examination for the tonnage involved, AND pass a oral examination Board for Certification as OinC Afloat. This usually involved attending "Seamans Church Institute" or another "Advanced Navigation" school then taking the USCG Exam prior to acceptance of orders. I remember the Radar Observers Certification Exam, the Rules or the Road Exam, the First Aid Exam, and the Ship Handling Simulator exam. Definitely made me more proficient in EVERY aspect of command.
 
I’m no expert on USCG matters although I have a couple CG ribbons in my stack.

Question: Is the reason for the extensive CG requirements related to the CG mission area of enforcement of shipping laws and regulations?
 
Devil Doc said:
I’m no expert on USCG matters although I have a couple CG ribbons in my stack.

Question: Is the reason for the extensive CG requirements related to the CG mission area of enforcement of shipping laws and regulations?
Click to expand...
Not that I am aware..:) Back in the 80's, if you wanted to sit before the Officer in Charge Review Board as an enlisted sailor, you needed that license (even though you could not get the actual paper) or the Board generally would not consider you. As far as I remember there was a "waiver" for drivers of US Government vessels that did not require a Merchant Mariners License (I encountered many fellow U/W OOD's who were not licensed), but at the time the different "Disrtict" Commands had differing requirements as to licensing. Some required the appropriate tonnage endorsement for the ship, others just required a basic "6 Pack License", and some did not require a license.

As I understand it today, Midshipman at the CGA study for, train for, and take the USCG License Exam (If this is not correct please feel free to correct me). This is second hand info, from a good friend (retired Coastie) who had a daughter graduate last year. Active Duty USCG are not allowed (for some unknown reason) to "hold" their license, but it is there and as long as kept current, when someone leaves the CG they can then receive their "papers" and get a job in the Maritime Community.

My point is that EVERYONE who operates a government vessel should be licensed and experienced, and the best experience is Command or being an XO early on in your career, then having the confidence, experience, and training needed to safely and successfully operate and command larger and larger units. If the Navy is intent on its' current direction, maybe giving young JO's Command of landing craft, security vessels, or harbor tugs could help with development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top