Needs to be raised on this:
SurFor chief: Manning needs mean new duties
Posted : Monday Jan 18, 2010 8:01:05 EST
He also said ships will be shifting to more independent deployments, which will create smaller carrier and amphibious groups.
Vice Adm. D.C. Curtis, who spoke to reporters at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium in mid-January outside Washington, D.C., acknowledged that the size of surface ship crews has declined steadily over the past several years, but added commanders have always tried to be mindful of the toll that manning cuts can take on sailors and their gear.
Despite the cuts, Curtis, who commands the San Diego-based Naval Surface Forces, said the Navy is not trying to reach a minimum crew size.
“It is not our mission ‘to do more with less.’ It’s not our mission to see how many jobs one person can do or two people can do. … Yes, we have reduced our manning because we had to.”
In a word-bull sh*t.
The Surface Force and the Navy in general, chose to reduce manning as a “guns or butter” choice to accomplish what Uncle Vern wanted-showing Don Rumsfeld that he was “transformational”.
Oh and it freed up money that paid for the war-and never went for the so called “re-capitalization” of the Navy.
Furthermore-there is a mixed track record when you start to try to shuffle around jobs traditionally formed at a certain paygrade. Certainly the recent rash of operational accidents and CO firings (the wicked witch of the Far East being an exception) that the Navy has witnessed to date-is a sign you have to be careful. Although a fair argument can be made its not the paygrade-its the refusal to invest in training because that two has been raped to feed the IA monster.
The better question to ask is why no one banged on the desk and said that the cuts had gone into the bone-not just the flesh a long time a go.