Download
Download eBook for Free
Full Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 1.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Summary Only
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback116 pages | $33.50 | $26.80 20% Web Discount |
U.S. Navy surface combatant ship crews require extensive training. Especially rigorous training is required for the ship's engineers, who are responsible for operating, maintaining, and repairing the main propulsion and auxiliary equipment to keep the ship ready to go to sea. Much of the training for the engineering watchstanders of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that is currently done underway could be done in port. Training could also be done on simulators at considerable savings in time, money, fuel, and ship wear and tear. And, given constraints on underway training, there is a limit to the number and type of drills a ship can practice at sea. The use of simulators can improve proficiency for engineering casualty control training that requires a great deal of repetition and drills to master. This monograph discusses how simulators could improve engineering watchstanders' proficiency before ships go to sea, so that time at sea could be used to fine-tune the training. The authors recommend that full mission console trainers — exact duplicates of the consoles onboard destroyers — be installed at fleet concentration areas, such as Norfolk and San Diego, so they could be used by senior engineering watchstanders to: (1) gain proficiency before ships go to sea, and (2) sustain proficiency during extended inport periods. In addition, desktop trainers can and should be used as lead-in engineering trainers for advanced operations.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
DDG-51 Engineering Watch Organization and Training Requirements
Chapter Three
Engineering Training Performed by DDG-51s During Unit-Level Training
Chapter Four
What Simulators Are Available?
Chapter Five
Pros and Cons of an Engineering Simulator
Chapter Six
Resourcing and Policy Changes Needed
Chapter Seven
Findings and Observations
Appendix A
List of EOCC Drills and Evolutions Required for DDG-51-Class Ships
Appendix B
Engineering Equipment Contained in DDG-51 Engineering Spaces
Appendix C
How Commercial Industry and Other Navies Use Simulators for Engineering Training
Appendix D
List of PQS Line Items Satisfied by PEO Gas Turbine Class of Instruction (COI) (A-4H-0064) at Surface Warfare Officer School
Research conducted by
The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Navy. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.