# The Kingpost is Dead! Long Live the Vertrep!



## FSTO (20 Oct 2021)

When I was DeckO in VAN, I recall only rigging for it once. And that was for WUPS. 
Anyone with more recent experience, are you sad to see this go? Do you think they'll pull them out or just leave them in? Is the weight saving an issue in the Frigates?

SUBJIVESTMENT OF HALIFAX CLASS KINGPOST

REFS: A. NAVAL BOARD 01-21

PAGE 3 RCCPUVA3008 UNCLAS

B. DISC CAPT(N) FORBES (DMEPM MSC)/CDR PIERRE (DMEPM NC 3)

14 OCT 21

C. TELECON CDR PIERRE/C. MACKAY (NFR) 18 OCT 21

1. NAVAL BOARD HAS DETERMINED AT REF A THAT IN ORDER TO REALIZE COST

AND MAINTENANCE SAVINGS, THE RCN WILL DIVEST

THE KINGPOST CAPABILITY FROM THE HALIFAX-CLASS. THE OPERATIONAL

CAPABILITY PROVIDED BY THE HALIFAX CLASS KINGPOST IS NO LONGER

REQUIRED.

2. AN ENGINEERING CHANGE HAS BEEN INITIATED BY DGMEPM IN RESPONSE TO

THIS DIVESTMENT DECISION. IN ORDER TO MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE NAVAL

BOARD DECISION, SYSTEM AUTHORITY INTERIM DIRECTION FOLLOWS AND IS

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:

2.1. REPAIR AND OVERHAUL LINE FOR THE KINGPOST AND ANY OTHER TASKINGS

WITH INDUSTRY SERVICE PROVIDERS RELATED TO THE KINGPOST ARE TO BE

TERMINATED IAW ESTABLISHED CONTRACTUAL PROTOCOLS.

2.2. ALL KINGPOST RELATED PREVENTIVE AND CORRECTIVE WORK ORDERS SHALL

NO LONGER BE SCHEDULED OR ACTIONED BY FMFCB/CS.

2.3. SS ARE TO CEASE ALL PREVENTIVE AND CORRECTIVE KINGPOST

MAINTENANCE ONBOARD HFX CLASS SHIPS, AS WELL AS ANY FURTHER TESTING

AND CERTIFICATION ON THE KINGPOST BY FMFCS/CB.

PAGE 4 RCCPUVA3008 UNCLAS

2.4. LOCK OUT AND TAG OUT PROCEDURES SHALL BE INITIATED FOR THE

KINGPOST ON ALL HALIFAX CLASS SHIPS UNTIL PERMANENT DISPOSITION

DIRECTION IS DEVELOPED THROUGH ENGINEERING CHANGE PROCESS AND

PROMULGATED. THIS LOTO

DIRECTION APPLIES ALSO TO SHIPS HOLDING CURRENT PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE AND A VALID

CERTIFICATION ON THEIR KINGPOST.

2.5. SUPPLY DEPOTS SHALL NOT ISSUE A HALIFAX CLASS KINGPOST OR ANY

SPARES RELATED

TO THE EQUIPMENT TO ANY BASE/UNIT/SHIP. STORES DEMANDS ARE TO BE

CANCELLED.

2.6. STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN TO UPDATE DRMIS INFORMATION TO STOP THE

GENERATION OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ROUTINES

2.7. NATO PUBLICATION ATP-16 IS TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE

IN RAS CAPABILITY FOR THE CLASS

2.8. QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THIS PARAGRAPH

MAY BE DIRECTED TO DAVID.HERON AT FORCES.GC.CA OR

MICHAEL.DIAMOND-MASSE AT FORCES.GC.CA

3. FURTHER TECHNICAL DIRECTION FROM THE LCMM REGARDING REMOVAL OF

EQUIPMENT AND SPARES FROM SHIPS WILL BE COMMUNICATED ONCE THE

PAGE 5 RCCPUVA3008 UNCLAS

ENGINEERING PROCESS AND DISPOSAL PLAN HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

4. IAW REF C, OPERATIONAL AUTHORITIES WILL PROVIDE DIRECTION SEPCOR

REGARDING DOCTRINE AND TRAINING, AND ASSOCIATED POLICY, DIRECTIVES,

AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2021)

Yeah. Good plan. Because helicopters are always serviceable…


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yeah. Good plan. Because helicopters are always serviceable…


In my cynical mind, the Navy have divested from the kingpost due to the brilliant plan of amalgamating the Marine Engineering Department and therefore having no pers left to service the kit!


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2021)

Historical question I guess, where would the kingpost be stored when not rigged?


----------



## Weinie (20 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Historical question I guess, where would the kingpost be stored when not rigged?


WTF is a kingpost?


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Historical question I guess, where would the kingpost be stored when not rigged?


It's retractable and telescopes into the deck behind the gun mount when not in use.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2021)

If this doesn't go down in history as the RCN's Cromwell message...


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2021)

Weinie said:


> WTF is a kingpost?


I had that exact same question 🙋‍♂️


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2021)

Weinie said:


> WTF is a kingpost?


This is.


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2021)

Weinie said:


> WTF is a kingpost?


Imagine a clothesline pole, where you use said clothesline to send stuff back and forth between 2 ships at sea.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2021)

So stby for VLS X 1? 😆


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2021)

A kingpost is necessary in order to effect ship-to-ship transfers of unpopular officers in order to dunk them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Oct 2021)

When the helicopters stop flying due to lack of spare parts, crews, maintainers , etc. We have another option


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> When the helicopters stop flying due to lack of spare parts, crews, maintainers , etc. We have another option


OOOOOHHHHH can we have one to fling unrepentant criminals over the river?


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2021)

We hardly ever use it so I have no issues getting rid of it. The ships that have to cold move at NB to make room for King post trials will thank you.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2021)

"We hardly ever use it" is not in and of itself a reason to divest it.


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2021)

dapaterson said:


> "We hardly ever use it" is not in and of itself a reason to divest it.


When I say "hardly" ever use it, I mean it was used years ago. Its not needed anymore as the message says and saves the RCN a significant chunk of money.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2021)

dapaterson said:


> "We hardly ever use it" is not in and of itself a reason to divest it.


Hmmm…maybe we could divest CF-18 ejection seats?


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2021)

Stoker said:


> We hardly ever use it so I have no issues getting rid of it. The ships that have to cold move at NB to make room for King post trials will thank you.



Agreed I havent seen it used in a very long time.  Last time I think I saw it in action was in 2006 during a RAS with the German tank Spessart.  

Even in 2019 when we were resupplied by ASTERIX we did it via light jack stay from the port RAS position.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Even in 2019 when we were resupplied by ASTERIX we did it via light jack stay from the port RAS position.


Do you Navy people speak English? Joking


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Hmmm…maybe we could divest CF-18 ejection seats?


We've already divested CF-18 pilot humility, so...


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Oct 2021)

We used it in 2015ish, but only because the Turkish ship couldn't do a RAS off one of our port/stbd RAS positions (something to do with the geometries and what they had working). It was the first time anyone had every seen it used for real, and there was a lot of gold anchors on the bosn and Mars side.

I was happy because we had to do the Sat morning trial on NB when we were leaving Mon to get the cert done, so felt better about missing spending a bit of the weekend with my wife and kid for that trial. But yeah, it cost a fortune and we don't have money to maintain it.


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Do you Navy people speak English? Joking


That's pretty English compared to some of the other things I've heard.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2021)

Clearly they're talking about Rear Area Security in New Brunswick.


----------



## MJP (20 Oct 2021)

_*SUPPLY DEPOTS SHALL NOT ISSUE A HALIFAX CLASS KINGPOST OR ANY*_
_*SPARES RELATED
TO THE EQUIPMENT TO ANY BASE/UNIT/SHIP. STORES DEMANDS ARE TO BE*_
*CANCELLED.*

Depots as a general rule have no idea what equipment belongs to what.  They are merely orders in the system to them, this should be directed at/to the KingPost SM & LCMM

Minor quibble as the right people likely know....


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2021)

I was just wondering if any of you are divesting yourselves of stocks and pillories? We could use a few here.....  😈


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2021)

They clearly didn't talk to us when they made this decision.

Used the Kingpost 3 times on my recent deployment.  Did two point RAS every time, with both USNS Wally Schirra and with USNS Carl Brashear.

Once was just to test it to confirm it worked and the other two were because we actually needed supplies, namely quality fresh vegetables and other food.  

It is a fairly dangerous evolution and one of our dump workers was almost taken out by a pallet a couple of times.

I don't see why we would get rid of it, it's not complex piece of equipment and the US Navy is quite good at it?  COVID laid bare our requirement to be able to supply ourselves on operations.  The Navy ATT relies exclusively on contracted support in foreign ports and we had trouble getting a lot of things because of this.  

Any Ships we deploy to the MENA should have access to our own tanker support.  Given our desire to PROJECT ships across the World continuously, I personally think we should keep a Tanker permanently stationed in the Asia-Pacific Theatre.  Base it out of Guam and have it rove between there and the Gulf of Aden to supply our ships as required.  It could also be used to supply our Allies, a WIN WIN for everyone.  If we had four tankers, you could rotate them annually.  Year long deployment for those involved and it would be a good go that I would volunteer for.

We were starved for gas halfway across the World, meanwhile the CAF was posting photos on social media of the ASTERIX doing RAS with the Harry DeWolf.  Why would we deploy our tanker with our expeditionary units?  Nah lets use it to fill up an AOPV that is a 100 miles from shore 😄.


----------



## Stoker (21 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yeah. Good plan. Because helicopters are always serviceable…


That's why we have boat transfers.....


Humphrey Bogart said:


> They clearly didn't talk to us when they made this decision.
> 
> Used the Kingpost 3 times on my recent deployment.  Did two point RAS every time, with both USNS Wally Schirra and with USNS Carl Brashear.
> 
> ...


I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2021)

Stoker said:


> That's why we have boat transfers.....
> 
> I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.



Do we use Harpoons, ESSM or Torpedoes all time?  No, but they are capabilities we need IOT to maintain our capability to fight wars.  This is the same logic that lead the Army down the path of divesting critical Combat Support Capabilities.  

"We don't need Anti-Armour because we have Tanks, we don't need Kingpost because we have a Helicopter."

Likewise, being able to replenish yourself at sea with more than just fuel is a vital capability for any Military that professes to be Expeditionary in mindset. 

My cynical mind tells me the RCN is getting rid of the capability because  A. We lack the capability to maintain them now  B.  We lack the skills with respect to Seamanship to be able to maintain the capability.

Any of the Bosns that are intimately familiar with the Heavy Jackstay/use of the Kingpost are all Chiefs and Senior POs now with time on the old Tankers.  That knowledge base is being eroded.

As for using helicopters for all our pallet needs, the US does this but usually only for their Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships because they have the deck space to do it and they have Helos that can lend a hand.  I witnessed a Konga Line of Helos resupply USS America while sitting in a screen, kind of neat to watch.


----------



## Stoker (21 Oct 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Do we use Harpoons, ESSM or Torpedoes all time?  No, but they are capabilities we need IOT to maintain our capability to fight wars.  This is the same logic that lead the Army down the path of divesting critical Combat Support Capabilities.
> 
> "We don't need Anti-Armour because we have Tanks, we don't need Kingpost because we have a Helicopter."
> 
> ...


If you have that much of an issue get hold of the LCMM and state your case. You are right as mentioned before by someone else the skill fade is significant in this capability. I don't know if you noticed but to keep these ships at sea for the next 20 years in some form or another is going to take a shit ton of resources, this is saving money for something we simply don't use that much and is very expensive to certify and maintain.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2021)

Stoker said:


> That's why we have boat transfers.....
> 
> I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.


Wow.  

Any organization that fails to get feedback from those that directly conduct operations seems to be setting itself up for constraining such operations in the future. 

I guess that’s how things are these days in the senior service. 

It’s strange, from an outsider’s point of view…this ‘cease and desist’ almost has an Avro Arrow quality to it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2021)

I forget (because it has been a looong time), but what is the difference in load limits between the light and heavy jackstays?


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Wow.
> 
> Any organization that fails to get feedback from those that directly conduct operations seems to be setting itself up for constraining such operations in the future.
> 
> ...


No, this was approved by the RCN with input from both coasts. It was cut this or lose another capability. These things have high 3rd line costs and if you've seen it used IRL you are a unicorn. Shit is busted and we're out of money.


----------



## Stoker (21 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Wow.
> 
> Any organization that fails to get feedback from those that directly conduct operations seems to be setting itself up for constraining such operations in the future.
> 
> ...


They did get feedback that's the point, unfortunately no town halls were held on this issue...do you really think the RCN didn't get feedback from the stakeholders.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2021)

Stoker said:


> They did get feedback that's the point, unfortunately no town halls were held on this issue...do you really think the RCN didn't get feedback from the stakeholders.


It would appear so. 

Forensically (it would seem necessary, now), I’d be interested to see what the engagement with CAL and FRE was.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> They clearly didn't talk to us when they made this decision.
> 
> Used the Kingpost 3 times on my recent deployment.  Did two point RAS every time, with both USNS Wally Schirra and with USNS Carl Brashear.
> 
> ...



Very good counter!  Thanks for that. 

Happy Niobe day, mate!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2021)

Stoker said:


> If you have that much of an issue get hold of the LCMM and state your case. You are right as mentioned before by someone else the skill fade is significant in this capability. I don't know if you noticed but to keep these ships at sea for the next 20 years in some form or another is going to take a shit ton of resources, this is saving money for something we simply don't use that much and is very expensive to certify and maintain.



I'm not arguing it's expensive to maintain this capability.  Navies are expensive, period.  

The Navy needs to rationalize/come to grips with its appetite to "sail the crap out of the fleet" and actually focus on core business, aka operations.

It needs to actually complete it's Preventative Maintenance, it needs to really take a look at it's sailing program and decide what it can and can't live without.  Right now, it's not doing that.


----------



## Lumber (21 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> It would appear so.
> 
> Forensically (it would seem necessary, now), I’d be interested to see what the engagement with CAL and FRE was.


None. FRE's was and is broken. 

There is a good reason to have this b 2-point RAS. If a you ever found yourself in an actual combat area, being tied to a tanker would be an uncomfortable and unsound position to be in. You want to get in and get out as quickly a spossible. Being able to replenish both fuel and provisions at the same time is critical, otherwise you have to do them sequentially and end up tied up alongside the tnaker for much much longer.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2021)

Lumber said:


> None. FRE's was and is broken.
> 
> There is a good reason to have this b 2-point RAS. If a you ever found yourself in an actual combat area, being tied to a tanker would be an uncomfortable and unsound position to be in. You want to get in and get out as quickly a spossible. Being able to replenish both fuel and provisions at the same time is critical, otherwise you have to do them sequentially and end up tied up alongside the tnaker for much much longer.


Again, my memory is getting poor but I did not think it was possible do both fuel and stores into the same dump station at the same time. Thanks for confirming.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2021)

Once upon a time, a Canadian warship was refueling from a US tanker when something burst at the head of the tanker end of the line (where it was well-elevated above the deck).  From the Canadian vessel, the view was of a multitude of ant-like figures frantically scurrying (in vain) to avoid the deluge.

Once upon a time (not sure if it was the same incident), a Canadian warship was refueling from a US tanker when the tanker was unable to either push or pull the remaining fuel out of the line.  Thus on the Canadian end, a volunteer stood forth and stripped naked and manually uncoupled the line and dumped it over the side.  He was proficient, and did so quickly, but not quickly enough to avoid being blackened from head to toe - except for two things that were highly, pinkly obvious as he marched off to the showers.

[Add: from the same source, the story of the fairly senior officer dunked due to, apparently, poor station-keeping.}


----------



## Underway (21 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> It would appear so.
> 
> Forensically (it would seem necessary, now), I’d be interested to see what the engagement with CAL and FRE was.


You don't engage the ships directly.  You engage the LCMM (equipment manager/expert for those who don't know the acronym) and other stakeholders from the coasts, look at the operational records and make a decision using a business case.  Money, time, and operational impact are all weighed using data, not someone's personal experiences or "feelings".  There is a risk analysis done on losing the capability as well.  Are there other ways to do the same thing or some of the same thing?

It is also weighed against "how fast can we re-implement the capability should we need it again".

The real question is, are they still training heavy jackstays/kingposts to the Bos'n.  I suspect that they will be because JSS will have that capability and other navies may want to use it.  AOPS retains their kingpost (though it's deployed manually, not sure if it can do a heavy jackstay or not).  The new drill hall in STADACONA is set up as a RAS trainer and will have a send and receive side to it, so both ends of the skill will be at least retained by the trade.

This means this is an equipment issue on one platform type, not a "lost skill" issue.

For me, given all that, easy decision.  Cut the equipment, save money, invest in corrosion protection instead, and if we _really_ need a kingpost again then quickly fix up and reinstall on the next ship during a pre-deployment Short Work Period.


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Oct 2021)

We went through something similar years ago when money was tight and capabilities were cut down on the 280s so that we could keep the *platforms* operating. This is the same idea, and we're already doing it ad hoc on different systems anyway by just never reactivating it. This just made it official because the DWPs are now in the 18 mo+ plus and many tens of millions of dollars range, to get ships back that still need a massive amount of work to just meet SOLAS levels.

You want king posts? Tie up ships. You want all platforms? Cut currently supported capabilities. I don't think this is the last one to go either.

Fortunately our crewing levels will probably push ships off line soon anyway and hopefully restore some sanity to the fleet tempo and let us bring our safety baseline back into a non-rectal puckering zone, but our ice cube already has a baby-butt smooth shave, so something had to give. I'd also say brace for shock and prepare for further hits (don't forget to lift your heels off the deck and bend your knees, makes a massive difference)


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2021)

Underway said:


> You don't engage the ships directly.  You engage the LCMM (equipment manager/expert for those who don't know the acronym) and other stakeholders from the coasts, look at the operational records and make a decision using a business case.  Money, time, and operational impact are all weighed using data, not someone's personal experiences or "feelings".  There is a risk analysis done on losing the capability as well.  Are there other ways to do the same thing or some of the same thing?


Wasn’t expecting direct to ship comms, however, I would have expected to see some kind of process to get the latest operational feedback. Kind of rings hollow when Naval staff says “no one uses it anymore, so not worth keeping an ‘un-used’ system.”


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Oct 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Wasn’t expecting direct to ship comms, however, I would have expected to see some kind of process to get the latest operational feedback. Kind of rings hollow when Naval staff says “no one uses it anymore, so not worth keeping an ‘un-used’ system.”


Every single fueling is reported and tracked, which includes which RAS station. Pretty easy to poll the data and figure out how many times it gets used, and when multiple ships can deploy without it operational over a period of a decade or more, it's hard to argue that you should fix that when the work being cut is choosing between what safety items you'll fix. The 3rd line repairs for these can be in the $100s of thousands to low millions, and then usually can take hundreds of hours of work to get the certification done. It's also one of those ones that can only be done off a specific location in the dockyards and shuts down the jetty and any other work, so you generally have to do it on weekends (which the MSED/bosn's love).

The engineering community looked at the demand/costs and competing priorities, and presented the case to the operational side for options. No one wants to cut capabilties, but it's the least bad option. A working kingpost will do SFA on a ship that can't go to sea, and that's the point we're hitting trying to keep these ships running (even without considering the impact of only having skeleton crews, with a lot of really juniour people, and the failing Martech trade model).

Not trying to be a rain cloud here, but this didn't come out of nowhere. The material state of the CPFs has been getting worse over the last decade, so this is just the culmination of a number of sunny day fleet scheds coming home to roost, and even the operators can't pretend things are still rosy.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2021)

Well I suppose more than one functioning DG is more important… 👍🏼 

Perhaps I misinterpreted a sailor describing what I thought was non-fuel recent provisioning with a Jack stay off the kingpost during a real op. My bad.  Back to listening/learning stations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2021)

Lumber said:


> None. FRE's was and is broken.
> 
> There is a good reason to have this b 2-point RAS. If a you ever found yourself in an actual combat area, being tied to a tanker would be an uncomfortable and unsound position to be in. You want to get in and get out as quickly a spossible. Being able to replenish both fuel and provisions at the same time is critical, otherwise you have to do them sequentially and end up tied up alongside the tnaker for much much longer.



And if you ever see the US Navy conduct a Strike Group Replenishment, it's a bloody operation.  Ship's will form in to a Massive Screen and put a gigantic security bubble around the HVUs.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Every single fueling is reported and tracked, which includes which RAS station. Pretty easy to poll the data and figure out how many times it gets used, and when multiple ships can deploy without it operational over a period of a decade or more, it's hard to argue that you should fix that when the work being cut is choosing between what safety items you'll fix. The 3rd line repairs for these can be in the $100s of thousands to low millions, and then usually can take hundreds of hours of work to get the certification done. It's also one of those ones that can only be done off a specific location in the dockyards and shuts down the jetty and any other work, so you generally have to do it on weekends (which the MSED/bosn's love).
> 
> The engineering community looked at the demand/costs and competing priorities, and presented the case to the operational side for options. No one wants to cut capabilties, but it's the least bad option. A working kingpost will do SFA on a ship that can't go to sea, and that's the point we're hitting trying to keep these ships running (even without considering the impact of only having skeleton crews, with a lot of really juniour people, and the failing Martech trade model).
> 
> Not trying to be a rain cloud here, but this didn't come out of nowhere. The material state of the CPFs has been getting worse over the last decade, so this is just the culmination of a number of sunny day fleet scheds coming home to roost, and even the operators can't pretend things are still rosy.



I have no issue with this explanation, in fact, I think it makes a lot of sense and is pragmatic.  

The issue I took is with those saying, it's not a valuable capability from an operational standpoint.  It clearly is and I think the realities of COVID and supply chains should prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem with data and trends taken from the time periods you described is that they are taken from a peacetime and benign operating environment.  I think if you went back to the early 2000s, where Ships were spending a couple of months without a Port visit, you would see a radically different data trend.  

I do get it though, the Navy is at the point that we just need to try and hold on to what little we have and are going to need to make hard decisions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2021)

So will the CSC have such capability? Have they wrapped their heads around RASing a CSC yet?


----------

