Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Are Warships Over-Manned? Message-ID: <1990Dec3.050859.3010@cbnews.att.com> Date: 3 Dec 90 05:08:59 GMT References: <1990Nov29.004354.21100@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA Lines: 125 Approved: military@att.att.com 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 ******************************************************************************* Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com