![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:55:33 -0500, in rec.aviation.military.naval Penta
wrote: Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment? Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average time on station is two years. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:11:56 -0600, William Hughes
wrote: Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average time on station is two years. Why do we do that, anyway? Actually, I'm pondering starting a new thread on this. Hold on. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:11:56 -0600, William Hughes
wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:55:33 -0500, in rec.aviation.military.naval Penta wrote: Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment? Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average time on station is two years. All, William Hughes's reply brought a number of thoughts to mind, from the inane to the complex. Eventually, however, I settled on something. As an exercise for the group, let me lay out multiple scenarios. 1. The US Navy, or a fictional copy thereof, is (on a whim, basically) scrapping everything. RAMN contributors have been directed to produce a replacement. Cover all issues, from uniforms to living conditions to regulations, including every aspect of personnel policies and general "cultural" stuff, as well as force structure and equipment buys. However, limits a Pay changes must keep in mind Congress. Cultural stuff: Do keep in mind the general society. 2. The navy of a major NATO ally or an important regional country* is doing the same thing. Describe the projected local security situation, also, and keep it in mind. In this case, nothing is off-limits. 3. A small country is looking at the same thing. Examples: Panama, Philippines. No limits, just describe and remember the projected security situation *Definition: flippable. Basically, say who you're using, then run with it. Thoughts: 1. To organize this and allow for filters, let's try to agree on a common subject header? [RAMNEX 1: topic, RAMNEX 2: topic, and so forth?] 2. Sources are, as always, a good idea. 3. Does anybody have free, non-ad-filled webspace we could compile and host this on? It'd be a cool thing to keep around, but I dunno how to get access to my school's webserver. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |