Opportunities For Savings In Personnel Cost In The Fleet Ballistic Submarine Program UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UNITEDSTATESGENERALAcc0~4~4G OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 DEFENSE DIVISION B-171681 Dear Mr. Secretary: The General Accounting Office has made a review of the gffectiveness,.. I Ballistic Missile -~~~~ldw~~;--1*-'11 submarines ' ~~TE%Treview, identified by our Code 7.4423, was made at the following Naval activities: ^- -U.S. Naval Submarine School, New London, Connecticut , - it/ -Fleet Ballistic Missile Training Center, Charleston, South Carolina ~ -' -Headquarters, Submarine Force, Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia .5 -Naval Guided Missiles School, DamNeck, Virginia - I -Fleet Submarine Training Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii -Headquarters, Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet, Pearl Hartir, Ijawaii -- .'*' _.' Our review included an examination and analysis of the submarine refit and patrol cycle and the readine_sri!-~~~s.a~~~a~~~~~~~-~-~~. igzg&nes. Specifically, we reviewed the patroxrefit cycles to deter- mine whether the 60 day patrol-30 day refit was maintained by submarine and for groups of submarines assigned to the fleets. We also reviewed readiness ratings to determine whether deficiencies had been reported as a result of personnel or training problems. Data furnished by crews on shore at the three training sites for rehabilitation, leave, and training (off crews) were evaluated to deter- mine the emount of time utilized for training and other activj.ties during the off-crew cycle. In addition, we obtained information about the types of training offered and the participation of off crews in training at these activities. Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of the Navy and to the Commandersin Chief, United States Atlantic and Pacific. Fleets, for their information. Wewould appreciate receiving scour commentswithin 60 days. Sincerely yours, Director The Honorable The Secretary of Defense B-171681 REPORT OXfRTBIFMOF !i%EiRE'FRCTIVRRRSS OF MARUING FimTBAxLISTIcMISs1LRs- w1TRTw0cREws The mmniug of each Fleet Bsllistic Missile submarine with two cunplete, well-trained crews is achieting the Ravy's objective of main- taining each submarine at sea 08 patrol at a high level of readiness for 8 months of each year, excluding the time required for overhaul or modification. w having an alternate crew take over each submarine as it returns from patrol, the EJavyhas been able to conduct more patrols with fewer submarines than would be possible if only one crew was available for each submrine. The present Racy policy,of pmvifling two crews for each Fleet RsJlistic Missile submarine assigued to the Fleets permits each crew to rotate between the same submarine aud a shore installation within/ a 18041ay period: On shore at the crew's homeport 90 days For rehabilitation and leave 30 says For off-crew training 60 days At the submrine's homeport for refit prior to patrol 30 sass 0x3patrol at sea 60 days Readiness data and reports prepared by submarine c-ding officers upon ccmpletiou of patrols indicate that their crews are capable of per- forming their assigned duties. The favorable readiness posture .ef the crews appears to be attributable to the initial and advauced tra&ning programs conducted at Bureau of Naval Personnel training facilities rather than the off-crew training program. This view is supported by information obtained relatiug to training of new persouuel assigned to the crews aud the overall experience of the crews. To illustrate: --After each patrol at sea approximately one-fWth of the crew is replaced, with most of the new personuel being received fmm Rureau of Raval Personnel training schools. --The new personuel do not join the crew as a group, bat arrive one-by-one throughout the! off-crew period. Training of these meniberswith their new crew before going on patrol varies significantly. B-171681 --Although the Navy is not always able to provide each submarine crew with personnel trained in the specific skills authorized for operating equipment and systems, the personnel provided have been trained in related skills and have been effectively utilized. --Although the Navy does not consider that personnel received directly from training schools or from other submarines are "qualified" until they have been on two or three patrols, Navy reports do not indicate any adverse effects on readiness. As shown above, during each 180-day cycle each Blue and Cold crew spends 90 days at a submarinels homeport for refit operations or at sea on patrol, and 90 days at the crewls home port which is also the location of one of three off-crew training centers. In testimony be- fore Congressional committees the Navy has stressed the need for the Blue and Cold crews to spend 60 of the 90 days at the training facili- ties after each patrol to obtain training. Thirty days of this period is used for rehabilitation and leave. For the crews included in our review we found that, on the average, only about 30 days of the 60 day period designated for training could be accounted for in formal end informal training. Although some crew memberswere used for military or administrative duties, the Navy's re- cords--or lack of records--indicated that Blue and Cold off-crew per- sonnel actually are not used an average of about 60 days each 180-day cycle, or about four months of each 12 months. Eoen though the Navy is achieving its objective of maintaining the Fleet Ballistic Mssile sumnes on patrol at sea through the use of two crews for each subansrine, we believe improvements can be made in the utilization of personnel and training resources with substantial. savings to the Government. This could be accomplished by --improving the organization and managementof off-crew training, and --developing and implementing specific plans for the effective. utilization of off-crew personnel not engaged in training actually needed to maintain proficiency in their skills. The bases for our observations on opportunities for improvement are discussed below. -2- Oooortunities for imorovements in the organization and managementof training Because the Navy has not established uniform requirements and standards for off-crew training, the nature and extent of trailing varies significantly amongcrews and amongpersonnel assigned to like functional areas of the same crews. Fleet Ballistic Missile training facilities as now established, equipped, and staffed for, off-crew training are not being effectively utilized. Classroom space, equipment, and instructors are not being used to capacity. Definition of realistic requirements and standards for off- crew training actually needed to maintain an acceptable readiness posture and use of a centrally managedprogram of off-crew training for all Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine crews should enable the Navy to substantially reduce training costs. Training facilities could be consolidated, and more effective utilization could be made of equipment and personnel. /- Optimum requirements and minimumstmdards for off-crew training for Atlantic Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine personnel have been prescribed by the Commander,Submarine Force, Atlantic. Opti- re- quirements and minimumstandards for Pacific Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine personnel have been prescribed by the Commender,Submarine Force, Pacific. The requirements and standards are not coordinated and applied on a Navy-wide basis. There are no requirements within the two Fleet commandsthat crews and individual crew memberspar- ticipate in the sameoff-crew training programs. At present, the commandingofficer of each submarine determines, within the framework of courses offered by the training centers, the type and amount of training needed during the 60-day off-crew training period by those crew members --about four out of five--who till return to the submarine for the next patrol. New personnel joining the crew one-by-one during the off-crew period have had training in Navy schools of sometype--some have had experience in a special skill--and may . receive some refresher training. This results in significant differences in the extent to which various crews and departments participate in fefresher training even though personnel with comparable previous train- ing and experience are assigned to the crews. -3- / 1 B-171681 We attempted to determine how the 600day period designated for training actually is used by off-crews. The time that could be accounted for was used for a variety of activities, including: --Formal training, i.e., courses conducted by the Fleet Submarine Training Facilities or other Navy schools. --Informal training, i.e., training conducted by ship personnel, including lectures, seminars, discussions, qualification training, cross-crew training, and self-study correspondence courses. --Military end administrative duties, i.e., standing watch, musters, personal and depsrtmental administrative activities, dental and medical treatment, and barracks cleaning details. We analyzed the time used for both formal and informal training by two crews at each Fleet Ballistic Missile training facility. As shown below, the crew average total time accounted for was only 30' days of the 60 days available: Averape davs -oer msn New Lond n Charleston PearlHarbor 6-G 619~ 6~lG 640C 642~ AveraPe Formal training 9 11 13 19 11 12 12 Informal training 26 -10 -15 -14 -23 - -17 -18 Total Days i35 21 =28 33 31 2 g = = Submarine is identified by hull number. @Cold Crew; B=Blue Crew As shown above, the time used for training and the type of training varied amongthe crews. Also, certain activities considered to be informal training did not directly or indirectly relate to matters that would assist the individual in improving or maintaining competence in his assigned skill. These are discussed in the next paragraphs. Formal training Formal training includes classroom instruction as well as team and individual training in the actual use and maintenance of shipboard equipment and systems. -4- 1 .' B-171681 There were significant variances amongindividual crews and functional groups participating in the formal training. Attachment I shows the number of enlisted men aboard four submarines who engaged in formal train- ing. There were significant differences in the average number of days used for training amongindividual crews and functional area teams of individual crews also. Attachment II shows the number of personnel available and the number participating in formal training for the two crews included in our review at the Charleston off-crew training facility. Informal training Informal training includes time used by crews attending lectures and engaging in self-study. As in formal training, we found significant differenoes amongcrews and crew membersin both the number participating and the days used for informal training. Officers and key enlisted per- sonnel scheduled lectures which included subject matters such as mi$,itary courtesy and customs, personal insurance and benefits, and subjects which related to the specific systems aboard the submarines, such as diesel engine controls and ventilation systems. The lectures usually took from 1 to 4 hours on a given day. Crew membersare permitted to use their free tims for completing correspondence courses, which vary in subject matter. For example, course subjects identified for us in our review included basic statis- tics, international relations, basic electricity, geography, naval orientation, and leadership. Crew membersparticipate in such courses on their own initiative and there are no organized study times. Often the study is accomplished in their barracks or at their homes. The membersof two crews included in our review at Charleston estimated the average number of days they used for informal training during an off-crew period, as shown in attachment II. Militarv and Administrative Duties Crew membersreported a variety of military and administrative duties performed during their off-crew training period, including watch, cleaning, clerical, mail, and telephone detail. Whennot attending classes, crew memberssometimes were required to report for muster (roll call). These varied from once a day. for some crews or departments to once a week for others. During this training period some crew members took care of personal matters, such as medical or dental appointments. -5- 1 I1 * B-171681 One crew included in our review reported military and administrative duties during one off-crew period as shown below. Estimated Number of number of days &jor Denartment personnel per individual duties Office work Executive Engineering 5; ‘i Watch and cleaning details Medical 18 Administrative work SUPPlY 13 Cleaning details and work at base galley Navigation 15 5 Watch, working party, and cleaning details Weapons 21 7 Watch, guard, mail, and cleaning details Operations 9 Watch, working party, and cleaning details Total Facilities for refresher training for the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine.off crews are provided at the U.S. Naval Submarine School, New London, Connecticut; the Fleet Ballistic Missile Training Center, Charleston, South Carolina; and the Fleet Submarine Training Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. At New London and Pearl Harbor, the Fleet Bal- listic Missile Departments are part of Navy training facilities used to train both Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine,off-crews and crews from other types of submarines. The Training Center at Charleston is intended for use primarily by Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine off-crews for refresher training. Each of these training centers has been furnished equipment and systems that are identical with those contained in the submarines, in- cluding complete missiles and the related systems. In many instances equipment at these installations duplicates equipment installed at the Navy Guided Missiles School at DamNeck, Virginia. Data obtained from the Navy showedthat through June 30, 1971, missile systems and related equipment costing more than $156 million will have been installed at the three training centers. Like missile systems and related equipment costing almost $198 million will have been installed at DamNeck. The Navy has a large investment in other equipment at these locations which is used for training for both the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine program and other submarine programs. -6- B-171681 In our review we were not able to determine the cost of Fleet Ballistic Missile off-crew training. No central office in the Navy is responsible for funding of or accounting for training costs. Navy training centers generally conduct more than one type of training program, which may be funded by more than one organization from more than one appropriation. Complete training costs are not segregated by training program. One major organization did furnish us a cost figure. The Navy Strategic Systems Project Office in Washington--which has responsibility for the missile systems and related equipment--informed us that the current cost of Polaris and Poseidon equipment alteration and repair, hardware installation, and development of training curricula is about $10.5 million a year. Also, at the Charleston Training Center, which is engaged primarily in off-crew training, records and reports showed that personnel and other operating costs are more than $5 million a year, exclusive of the pay and allowances of trainees. At the time of our review, enrollment of off-crew members at the New London center in formal training courses was about 76 percent of capacity. At the Pearl Harbor center, the enrollment was about 65 percent of capacity, and at the Charleston center about 40 percent of capacity. This indicates that more training facilities have been established than are needed. The New London training center offered 51 comses related ex- clusively to the Fleet Ballistic Mi::sile submarine and 135 courses cormnonto both the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine and other vessels. For the 3 months ended March 31, 1970, the center graduated 105 classes exclusive to the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine. The average en- rollment was 6.4 individuals per class. Of the 678 personnel enrolled in these classes, 643 were from Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine crews. We examined the records relating to 12 of the 135 other courses for which Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine personnel were eligible. The average enrollment for the 29 classes conducted during the 3 month period was 9.8 individuals per class. Of 283 personnel enrolled in these classes, 211 were from Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine crews. At the Charleston center, of 212 classes scheduled for January and February 1970, 81 classes had an enrollment of three or less students and 33 classes had no enrollees. Navy officials attributed the low enrollment to the fact that Charleston was, at the time of our review, the home port for the crews of only three submarines. They predicted that utilization of the Charleston training center will increase when it becomes the home port for crews of submarines converted to carry the Poseidon missile. -7- B-171681 At the Pearl Harbor center, 1,154 classes were scheduled during calendar year 1969 in which the majority of the enrollees for the year were Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine personnel; 385 classes had 3 or less enrollees and 117 had no enrollees. In February 1970 the Commander, Submarine Force,Pacific Fleet, issued instructions that selected courses with low utilization would be scheduled on a request basis. These courses were subject to cancellation when the enrollment was less than 50 percent of capacity. The average ratio of enrolled off-crew members to instructors at the training centers as of April 30, 1970, was as follows: Officers Enlisted Personnel New London 2.40 to 1 4.80 to 1 Pearl Harbor 5.35 to 1 4.25 to 1 Charleston 5.75 to 1 0.89 to 1 .- Since the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines are standardized to a large extent, it would be.expected that the same refresher training courses would be provided at the three training centers. Apparently this is not the case. At the time of our review the New London center offered 186 courses and the Charleston center offered 152 courses; we could identify only 48 courses that were the same even though the Charleston center serves Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine personnel almost exclusively. We noted also that in some cases the time required for the same course offered by New London and Charleston differed. We were not able to compare the courses offered at the PearlHarbor center with those offered by the New London and Charleston centers because course titles and descriptions were different. It seems apparent that more extensive training facilities for Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine off-crew refresher training have been established than are needed as the program is now conducted. Definition of actual training needs and organization of a uniform, centrally managed program to satisfy those needs should permit the Navy to plan the effec- tive use of both the off-crew personnel and the costly training facilities. -8- , ” F - i: /Lx -. , ,I , B-171681 Once an effective program is established, it might be possible to utilize Fleet Ballistic Missile training centers for some advanced training of missile personnel as well as off-crew refresher training. This should enable the Navy to use somefacilities now engaged in specialized training-- e.g., the DamNeck facility--for other purposes. Onoortunities for imurovement in the utilization of Dersonnel Definition of realistic requirements and standards for off-crew training, and improvements in the organization and managementof off- crew training, should make available a substantial amount of personnel resources to the Navy. Development and implementation of specific plans for effective utilization of off-crew personnel not engaged in training actually needed to maintain proficiency in their skills should make possible significant savings in personnel costs. The information obtained in our review indicated that the full: 60-day off-crew training period is not needed--and is not used--to maintain the readiness posture of the Fleet Ballistic Missile crews. If effective utilization were madeof the 30 days of the 60 day period designated for off-crew training that, on the average, is not actual1 being used, we estimate that approximately 1,500 man-years (1,500 men3 would be available to fill other needs of the Navy. This estimate is based on the assumption that 33 of the 41 Fleet Ballistic Missile sub- marines are either being refit for patrol or on patrol at any given time. We suggest that the Navy develop a program for effective utiliza- tion of these off-crew personnel. -9- SUMMARY OF OFF-CREW FORMAL TRAINING BY ENLISTED MEN FROM FOUR SUBMARlNE$ 164i~I015l61111617/5111211 I 44 I 2 613 1 0.. 46, 600G 1 1 3 4 3 10 1 10 0 0 23 611 G 13 2 8 9 4 1 10 0 0 28 619 B 0 014 5 8 2 010 0 0 19 641 G 1210 12 1 612 3 3 21 TQTAL. 5 7 16 f 18 24 5 18 600 G 2 2 1 .o ' A I c) 611 G I 0 / 2 3 4 0 Ill1 619 B lol2!lpppp 611 G 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O”0 3 619 B 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0’ 0 5 641 G 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 r TOTAL 7 2 0 0 0 0 olI’o3 611 G 7 23 23 15 8 2 4 21 1 111 LND ’ 619B 22 14 18 16 13 7 4 0 1 0 107 ‘AL 641 G 10 10 TOTAL 64 59 !.’ E n g’ rnesring Dept. consists of five divisions: Reactor Control Div., Auxiliary Div., Communications Div., Machinery Div., and Electrical Div. 2/ - Operations Dept. consists of two divisions: Sonar Div., and Radio Div. 3/ - Navigation Dept. consists of two divisions: Quartermaster Div., and Navigation Electronics Div. 4/ - Supply Dept. consists of two divisions: Supply Steward Div., and Commissary Div. - 10 - , . .., ATTACHMENT II h'uxbcr AVCilhblQ Avsra&e l3:;s hverapz Toto.l &ys to Participnte Number Participating In Self+tvdy Per Trainillg md Shlf-zjtudy In 'Ti-rdninu -n&%a--- Avail,able Km -- l'cr A-x<lrb?~ _ 2---_' i'an 641 619 h&l Cold 619 Elue w m Fcmml Inl-omal Self-Stud x ibmal Tnfox?mL ~elf-stud~ IL4 15 14 14 14 10 15 15 15 10 6 25 43 5 6 5 5 4 6 6 12 24 12 12 12 1: 12 12 12 199 13 I.4 6 i 27 7 9 9 : 16 3 11 3 31 2 L 3 3 z z 37 7 7 xl :: 5 4 6 12 17 i 2: 2 26 t ;a i 67 7’ x 23 2 z 4 11 9" 30 15 1; 6 : 16 6 1; 6 9 19 6 1:: 6 20 2'; 2 5 : 2R 24 1 1 1 : 2 3 7 2 1 0 :: 0 0 3 0 7 0 2 13 Total Average per man 19 l? e 6 6 3 34 27 &IThe nvoraces ware corqmtod cn Ihe basis of tbc hours of t?sjning reportsd for irdivjduals oosigmd tcj "the crew during tho last patrol mid also at;cipod to the crew for tbo wxt patrol. -11 -
Opportunities for Savings in Personnel Cost in the Fleet Ballistic Submarine Program
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-01-27.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)