View non-flash version
manning policies applicable to large com- batants do not carry over to small warships. In their design, small combatants have already taken steps to minimize manpower requirements to such an extent that any further policy-based reduction will directly result in loss of mission eectiveness. Further challenges in small combatant manning are complicated by the fact that crew members must be qualied in multi- ple duties and systems in order to make the manning concept viable. The personnel assignment system must be able to provide fully-qualified crew members who have received all requisite training on the myriad systems for which they will be responsible. It cannot be incum- bent upon the ship to see to the training and qualification of those assigned after their arrival. Personnel must report onboard ready to perform their duties, without the benet of either on the job or further o-ship training. In a small combatant, every billet can be deemed critical to the ships mission. ere is simply no room to carry additional personnel who are being trained or quali- ed in the ships systems. is also means that when a crew mem- ber departs the ship in the course of normal rotation, a direct contact relief with all the requisite skills must be available to step onboard simultaneously. No other process will ensure that the ship is fully capable of performing its mission. Other factors that aect small combatant manning include unplanned losses for reasons such as sick- ness, injury, family emergency, and so forth. ese events are not predictable and can have a severe impact on mission readiness. In some models, it has been proposed that a pool of trained and qualied personnel be maintained to cover such unplanned losses. is may represent an additional expense associated with small combatants, but a single pool could cover requirements for multiple ships, given commonality of sys- tems and associated training. Another possible concept is the provi- sion of more than one crew for a single hull (two crews for one hull, or three for two, or ve for three, etc.). Such a concept can max- imize the availability of a given hull while providing the skilled expertise needed to ll in when an unplanned loss occurs. It also provides the o crew(s) with the opportu- nity for routine leave, medical care, and so forth, without impacting their ship. More complications Further elements complicating small combatant manpower requirements and manning include crew seniority and assignment policies. Due to the need for fully-trained personnel in a small com- batant, the manpower requirements will probably be determined in such a way that they can only be lled by relatively senior personnel. ere is no place for a junior trainee in a small ship, and as a result, these combatants will generally have very senior crews. is means that junior per- sonnel will have to be assigned elsewhere, and it may also mean that once a sailor is qualified as a small combatant crew member, repeated tours in small com- batants will become routine. It would be very expensive to invest all the resources needed to create a procient small com- batant crew member and then only use that expertise for one tour. A nal consideration in dening man- power requirements for a small combatant is how to build the model that results in the proposed crew composition. Two approaches have been taken in the past, either bottom up? or top down.? In a bottom up? methodology, crew design starts with a blank sheet and each system, component, and watch requirement is ana- lyzed to determine the exact workload, quali- cations, and expertise required to fill every billet on board. In a top down? methodol- ogy, a target number is established using expe- rience and current best practices, and the crew design is then built to stay within the prescribed target, allocating resources proportionately to the workload and combining functions as necessary to meet the goal. eres no doubt that manning a small combatant poses significant challenges and the process can be more stringent than that used in determining requirements for a larger ship. Manpower requirements plan- ning must be adapted to t the needs of the small combatant, with emphasis on the Human Systems Integration aspects that will enable small crews to perform their assignments effectively, without undue fatigue, within the time periods established by the ships operating concept. James J. McTigue is a retired navy surface warfare of- ?cer who commanded USS Simpson and USS Philippine Sea . He now serves in the Naval Sea Systems Command and exercises technical authority for manpower and personnel ? ships. ere is no place for a junior trainee in a small ship, and as a result, these combatants will generally have very senior crews. Manning Small Combatants continued April 2011www.sname.org/sname/mt (mt notes)