Everyone of these losers the Navy is canning was selected by the Navy to command in the first place. HMMMMM?!?!

Regardless the Navy is playing with their boats, while the rest of the forces are hard at work in OEF and OIF - except when getting relieved by the POTUS for mouthing off.

Hunter, after writing the above I thought I would hear from you! :-)

You were probably waiting for it in the other thread to about the Army's biggest enemy too....

Mostly just trolling a bit. But you have to admit, the rampant firings seem to indicate the Navy has plenty of problems too.

All the services have their issues. The Navy has been reliving ship, sub and aviation commanders continuously ever since the first USN vessel's keel touched water in 1775. That is their historical inheritance from their parent service the Royal Navy in its glory days of the 18th Century. They both developed a reputation for having a low tolerance for screwing up. As you know one really doesn’t know how an officer may perform until he assumes his command. The Navy assumes that a certain percent will be duds and try to pull them as quickly as possible. As WW says, when it comes to ships, subs and aviation they require satisfactory performance 100% of the time.

JPWREL - My perception based on my distant experience as a Marine sea going detachment commander aboard a carrier is that my favorite Navy has a duel standard of sorts: surface warfare officers were held to a higher standard than aviators, specifically those that fly jets, for both mishaps involving horsing around and conduct ashore.

Funny story: a squadron commander flying off the deck home for end of deployment had classified documents in the belly tank and hit the wrong button or lever and jettisoned it into the Pacific. He got a pass on that, but was upbraided by the group commander for losing all the booze that was contained therein.

“Nimitz had graduated 7th out of 114 Midshipmen when he graduated from Annapolis in 1905. Assigned to the battleship USS Ohio, he traveled to the Far East. Remaining in the Orient, he later served aboard the cruiser USS Baltimore. In January 1907, having completed the required two years at sea, Nimitz was commissioned as an ensign. Leaving Baltimore, he served on several destroyers during 1907, including USS Decatur. While conning Decatur, Nimitz grounded the ship on a mud bank in the Philippines. Though he rescued a seaman from drowning in the wake of the incident, Nimitz was court-martialed and issued a letter of reprimand. Returning home, he was transferred to the submarine service in early 1909.”
Here is young Ensign Nimitz, super smart, saved a seaman’s life and had only been in the active Navy for two years. I see this incident in no way comparable to Cmdr. Herman Pfaeffle situation who has been in the service since 1983. Yes, the Navy does look at the whole service record in relations to the gravity of the incident under review.

I see an guy who has been in the Navy for 27 years and came up from the ranks. Using today's set of references I see the Navy protecting the exalted Academy graduate vs. defenestrating a ranker.

Of course, you can't judge that Navy with this Navy's set of references. That Navy was more tolerant of honest errors and was better for it.

The skipper of the Hall was a Commander (O5). Nimitz was an Ensign (O1) when he ran aground. I think an Ensign would be given a second chance in today's Navy.

On a US Navy ship, if a junior officer runs the ship aground on their watch, it is much more likely for the skipper to be relieved for failing to train them right than for the junior officer to be relieved for the incident. That has been true since time immemorial, and is well understood by every naval officer. There is room for a lapse of judgment when you are early in your career, but by the time you get to command, the accountability is swift and terrible.

Nimitz was the skipper of the Decatur when he grounded it and he was relieved. The point of course is That Navy didn't kick him out and he went of to great things.

The accident happened 2 months ago. Ample time for an investigation.

Jimmy Doolittle wiped the gear off a Jenny playing around once. They kept him and he did great things.

How many times in the last 20 years has a Navy skipper had his ship bump into something like a dock and not been relieved after an investigation? If there are a few examples I might be more inclined to believe the Navy's actions aren't just a kneejerk.

The Stars and Stripes article states $160,000 damage was done to the ship none to the pier. How damaged was that ship anyway?

A better contra-example would be the destroyer skippers that intentionally grounded off of Omaha beach, to provide fire support to the poor survivors there. Dunno how that was ruled.

An investigation is supposed to be run by an officer of higher rank than those whose actions are being looked into. Hard to do with the hard luck master of the vessel still aboard. I agree the $160K might be a dented plate, but it was a port docking, not an op. 100% is the acceptable score for a USN vessel, for warping in with no damage. Unless a boat driver can tell me different.

Pranging an obsolete Jenny trainer wouldn't count, back when pilots were expendable and engines unreliable. But a pilot had better be sure he can land, before he takes off. That's how the FAA looks at it, even without crew and passengers. A war mission has different rules, but the military is unforgiving about losses not covered by procedure and duty in this day and age. The days of scaring livestock and flying under bridges are over.

WW, those RN and USN destroyer captains did not take much of a risk since it was low tide and by early afternoon the tide would come in and free their ships. .

Taking casualties from shells or bombs after intentional grounding posed considerable risk to a tin can drivers prospects, in a navy run by battleship-minded admirals and their desk-bound assistants.

I never heard that any flag officer took the initiative to order the tin cans to charge the beach, to save the trapped troops from destruction in detail. Wasn't it skipper initiative off of Omaha, officers willing to risk their men and lose their command?