In the current flurry of fleet reviews and investigations, one process that continues apace is the new program to overhaul the Navy’s training process, under the moniker of Sailor 2025. A recently released overview by U. S. Fleet Forces, “Vision and Guidance for Ready Relevant Learning,” cites the strategic imperative for this initiative, quoting a recent analysis that around 10 percent of the force is in training at a given time, and during this process, 4,000 man-years are lost because of congestion and delays, putting the cost at $400 million per year. This definitely calls for change, but while these numbers are daunting, they are not new; I can recall attending school in Dahlgren in 2000 and Great Lakes in 2010 and meeting young sailors who had been awaiting “class up” for several months, spending the days either shoveling snow or picking up pine cones (these are true stories!). Worse, they were not eligible to attend college classes because they were in a student account, and could not be sent on temporary assignment to ships on the waterfront while awaiting the next class session because of travel regulations while already executing orders.
The paper also notes that many sailors are taught skills that atrophy before they get to the ships—something evident (and noted in the paper) in the long pipelines for new ships like littoral combat ships and the Zumwalt class (DDG-1000). Much of the training has been improved, but part of the challenge is throughput and a dated travel/student process to control flow. Sailor 2025 looks to address these issues—and more.
The strategic paper is well organized and clear, with both a vision and plan to execute it. Reading it, left me with questions it would be good to keep in mind. In summary, Sailor 2025 consists of three major efforts, all taking place at the same time:
- Personnel system modernization
- Ready relevant learning
- Career readiness
For this discussion, I will focus on the second pillar. Ready relevant learning (RRL) has three stages, each one overlapping the other:
- Stage 1: Block learning
- Stage 2: Enhanced, accessible learning
- Stage 3: Modernized, on-demand, fleet-responsive training
Because Stages 2 and 3 are further in the future (although Stage 2 is slated to begin in 2018 and does seem to be almost a necessary parallel development), I will focus on stage 1: Block Learning.
Figure 1: Comparison of Legacy and Block Learning Model.
In this context, the separate Secretary of the Navy Strategic Review strikes and ominous note (their words; my emphasis added in bold):
“Relevant Learning recognizes that Navy’s training still does not take full advantage of technology and the science of learning. It is another attempt to establish a career-long learning continuum of delivered integrated content. Ready Relevant Learning is also intended to shift portions of initial accession training to later in a sailor’s career when it is more relevant thereby minimizing knowledge decay. If fully funded, Ready Relevant Learning has the potential to markedly improve training Navy-wide. However, it is important to emphasize, as described in the Vision and Guidance for Ready Relevant Learning, this “will require significant effort over a sustained period of time by multiple stakeholders, so it is important that we are clear about the reasons why we are doing this, and we must keep these operational imperatives continually in mind as we work through the challenges of execution. As in the previous training reform, the Navy has already reduced the number of instructors based on the planned shift in training delivery. Further, while the Vision and Guidance articulates a need for commitment, the funds made available by those instructor reductions are not being protected for reinvestment into Ready Relevant Learning. The Navy removed $70M from Ready Relevant Learning’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget in a re-phasing that will slow the program. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress recently proposed additional cuts to the initiative totaling approximately $400M over six years. Failure to preserve the resources required to implement and sustain Ready Relevant Learning will inevitably recreate and exacerbate the shortcomings experienced with Revolution in Training.”
The above notwithstanding, the process does seem to be clearly conceptualized, have a process for senior oversight and regular progress reviews, and provides for discrete tasks and timelines. Rather than pontificate on the possible challenges, I would like to offer some key questions and encourage engagement by those who will be affected—the Fleet:
- What is the real cost? (The paper intimates that this process will “save money.” But if so, it would be a first; the last time we made this a priority, and we got the “Revolution in Training.” Anecdotally, the initial funding for Sailor 2025 came from savings realized by cuts in the current training budget, so there is likely no turning back.
- What is the cost to the fleet? Sailors must travel several times to execute “block learning”—is this funded by the ships, because they are permanent changes of station (PCS)? If so, it would compete with other requirements and force tough decisions. Navy Personnel Command seems to run out of funding and postpone PCS orders each year from August to October; would sailors that miss opportunities because of lack of funding be disadvantaged down the road if there are no convenings in the near future?
- How long are sailors gone? Many of the blocks seem to be several weeks—or months—long and occur midtour. Who covers the sailors’ duties when they are gone? We are talking about not only the primary duties (planned maintenance systems, corrective maintenance) but collateral duties such as antiterrorism force protection, damage control, etc. This could result in fewer watch sections under way (and increase fatigue and stress) or less duty sections in-port (more family stress).
- Does the burden of tracking fall on the ship? It appears that as sailors progress through the stages of RLL, they will gain “digits” of a final Navy enlisted classification (NEC), one at a time. Thus, there are four variations of each current NEC, which means four factorial possible combinations instead of a binary (present or absent) choice.
- How many sailors will be gone at once? If there are 20 ratings on a ship with an average of five sailors each—i.e., 100 trips per sea tour—on any given day there could be 5–10 percent of the ship away on travel and/or block learning. This could have impacts listed in Question 3 as well, but more important may impact the ability to perform core functions. If new sailors arrive without the full NECs and the ability to perform certain functions like PMS or standing watch, who will carry the load?
- When in the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) do they go? What is the best time for key technicians to leave the ship for several weeks or months? The basic phase of this plan is not good, because certain sailors need to be on the ships to have them certify. Integrated training phase is not good, because key sailors have to be there to train. Neither is deployment nor sustainment. That leaves the maintenance phase. But the resulting larger number of sailors away during this period could impact the ability to complete the maintenance phase on time, leading to follow-on effects.
- Are there any offsets? The current process still leaves significant gaps, especially for non-forward deployed ships and off-cycle or non-OFREP ships, where chief petty officers and critical NEC gaps are common. It may be that manning increases are required to account for RLL.
- What will be the impact on advancement? It seems feasible that sailors who may, through no fault of their own, miss a block learning event and thus enter a promotion window without the required “final” NEC, and could be at a disadvantage.
- What is the impact on transfer eligibility? If sailors fail to achieve full NEC status, there may be no way to get the last portion on shore duty, so they would need to extend—or risk not being eligible to fill a second sea tour billet when ready to return. This could also place the burden of the supporting travel for the next block on the new ship.
- Is attrition accounted for? Not everyone who left my ships for any reason came back. Some got ill, some got pregnant, some got in trouble, and some failed out of school. Without some offset, this is another potential marginal cost that will be borne by the parent ship or transferred to another ship which would be tasked to provide a replacement.
Figure 2: Simplified Diagram of RRL Physical Layout (First Sea Tour).
Many of my own “graybeard” generation look at Sailor 2025 and see a return to Revolution in Training – I do not. There is great merit in many of the precepts of this plan, including a more scientific approach to training and focusing resources where they have the greatest impact. I have good friends in uniform who have an eye on it, and I trust them to fold in the lessons of the current reviews as well. Years ago, I recall being in a room of relatively senior officers discussing a new program and being given direction that: “this train has left the station and the PowerPoint has been approved at the highest levels, so we don’t need dissent; we need you to find a way to YES.” That was then, and times are different now for those in uniform – I hope. That said, I don’t have to live with the results—you do. My advice: ask the questions.
