Brett Crozier, Captain of aircraft carrier fired

In summary, the captain of the USS Theodore Roosevelt was fired for sending a letter seeking help with the coronavirus to the Navy. He was relieved of command and his prospects for future career advancement are basically gone.
  • #71
The head of the Navy, Admiral Michael Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, is recommended to the Defense Secretary Mark Esper that Capt. Brett Crozier be restored to command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier.
CNN story here (original report from the NY Times).
Crozier remains in isolation due to getting infected.

The story also reports that:
The number of Coronavirus cases aboard the Roosevelt have skyrocketed in recent days, with 856 sailors testing positive as of Friday, and four sailors have been hospitalized in Guam where they are being treated for Coronavirus symptoms.

In addition, another Navy vessel (USS Kidd, a destroyer) has at least 18 Coronavirus infections.
CNN story.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #73
BillTre said:
The head of the Navy, Admiral Michael Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, is recommended to the Defense Secretary Mark Esper that Capt. Brett Crozier be restored to command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier.
CNN story here (original report from the NY Times).
Crozier remains in isolation due to getting infected.

The story also reports that:In addition, another Navy vessel (USS Kidd, a destroyer) has at least 18 Coronavirus infections.
CNN story.

IMO more proof that top Admirals morph into politicians instead of warriors. He was fired from a position of military leadership for a militarily justifiable reason. Should we bring all ships into port and quarantine the majority of the crews because eventually most ships will have at least one infected crewmember?
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #74
nsaspook said:
Should we bring all ships into port and quarantine the majority of the crews because eventually most ships will have at least one infected crewmember?
If that number would remain at one of course not. But on an aircraft carrier if there is one, there will soon be hundreds. Then what is your plan?? Just turn them all loose into the next port of call?? Leave them at sea until the infestation subsides?
Good luck with recruitment...
 
  • #75
hutchphd said:
If that number would remain at one of course not. But on an aircraft carrier if there is one, there will soon be hundreds. Then what is your plan?? Just turn them all loose into the next port of call?? Leave them at sea until the infestation subsides?
Good luck with recruitment...

Recruitment won't be a problem as Carriers routinely do 100+ continuous days at sea even in peacetime and have done those long duration deployments for decades. I did it on a much smaller ship in the 70's. People are injured and unfotunally killed on every routine deployment. 100% continuous testing of the crews would be part of my plan with a tender or smaller ship as the fleet COVID-19 medical center and afloat carrier group quarantine. Life will find a way.
2UBQUOAM6ZHATOXBFMXBJ6ZKUI.jpg
One advantage is that most people on ship are young and in good health so the percentage of serious effects are so far, thank goodness, low.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/coro...are-asymptomatic-flattop-still-wartime-ready/
A majority of the sailors assigned to the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt who have tested positive for COVID-19 — at least 350 crew members — are asymptomatic, according to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

“What we’ve found of the 600 or so that have been infected, what’s disconcerting is a majority of those, 350 plus, are asymptomatic,” Esper said in an interview with the “Today Show” on Thursday. “So it has revealed a new dynamic of this virus that it can be carried by normal, healthy people who have no idea whatsoever that they are carrying it.”
Aircraft carrier personnel mishap and injury rates during deployment
This cohort study assessed all reported injuries experienced by the personnel of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier during two consecutive 6-month deployments. These nondisease injury cases were collected by the ship’s Safety Department from ship’s Medical Department reports and showed 291 total injuries (3.05 injuries per 10,000 person-days) and 412 total injuries (4.39 injuries per 10,000 person-days) among 5,101 personnel during two cruises, slightly higher than the recordable mishap rate for general U.S. industry (which uses a different metric). Junior personnel experienced one-half of the mishaps but represented only 31% of the manpower. Slips, trips, and falls were the most common causes of accidents on the ship, similar to general industry. The incidence densities and causes reported should be similar to and representative of those for other large deck ships in the U.S. Navy and can be used in developing risk-reduction strategies for targeted populations, to meet the Secretary of Defense requirement to reduce injuries by 50% in the next 2 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes BillTre
  • #77
@phinds a friend of mine (now deceased a few years) who was a Forward Observer (FO) on the DMZ (he called it the z) said that he thought that the 'Nam was the hot part of the cold war, and although I think that it was horrible, I think that maybe my friend was not wrong -- boots on the ground may have saved us from missiles in the sky.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #78
Ships are an interesting situation WRT communicable diseases.

Spread is favored due to the high density of people, often in confined spaces, with a lot of shared facilities.
On the other hand, they (at least the ships I've been on, NOAA ships, largely crewed ex-navy or merchant marine types) are acutely aware of this and have well practiced procedures to keep things clean and reasonably sanitary.
Now, if the problem with availability of test with a quick turnaround is ever solved, the Navy (using its authority over sailors) could easily test people, sort them accordingly, and put them on isolation ships as @nsaspook mentioned.
A useful number of tests, with a useful turnaround rate, would seem to be the important factor in making this scheme work.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #79
sysprog said:
@phindsboots on the ground may have saved us from missiles in the sky.
Why? How? North Vietnam did not need missiles to defeat South Vietnam. We tied our armed forces hands to avoid WWIII and so the North didn't even need missiles to defeat us AND South Vietnam with all our "boots on the ground". Where do you think missiles were going to come in?
 
  • #80
nsaspook said:
As you can see, being relieved of duty is not uncommon.

Some stories are better than others, though. Six years ago a skipper was relieved of command and subsequently found guilty of what the Navy calls fraternization with his chief engineer, an officer named, and I am not making this up, Destiny Savage. A name right out of a romance novel.

The captain and his engineer, now married (well, they were married then too - but now they are married to each other) denied the charges.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters, Klystron, nsaspook and 2 others
  • #81
nsaspook said:
being relieved of duty is not uncommon

I don't think I would say it's "not uncommon". The Navy has about 500 warships, so from the article you referenced plus Capt. Crozier, we have two COs and two XOs relieved in about a year. Thats about 4/10 of a percent of the CO/XO cadre (since there is one CO and one XO per ship).

It would be interesting to see if that rate has changed significantly over time.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and BillTre
  • #83
PeterDonis said:
The Navy has about 500 warships

254. Of course there are shore commands as well. but your point is well taken: the rate of removal is probably between1% and 2%. Rare (as it should be) but not super-rare. I suspect looking at the rate vs. time is an exercise in chasing statistical fluctuations. The two-point correlation function might be more interesting than the rate, as it would pick up events like Fat Leonard.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #84
sysprog said:
@phinds a friend of mine (now deceased a few years) who was a Forward Observer (FO) on the DMZ (he called it the z) said that he thought that the 'Nam was the hot part of the cold war, and although I think that it was horrible, I think that maybe my friend was not wrong -- boots on the ground may have saved us from missiles in the sky.
phinds said:
Why? How? North Vietnam did not need missiles to defeat South Vietnam. We tied our armed forces hands to avoid WWIII and so the North didn't even need missiles to defeat us AND South Vietnam with all our "boots on the ground". Where do you think missiles were going to come in?
I understand this to reference the concept of proxy wars. I remember as a ten year old child searching the sky for incoming Soviet missiles as the situation deteriorated in 1962 Cuba. President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev avoided direct conflict but proxy wars persisted.

The USSR flooded North Vietnam with sophisticated electronic warfare equipment, missiles and aircraft far out of proportion to South Vietnam's military capabilities. The USA and allies responded in kind, though neither faction committed their most advanced systems.

The Vietnam war dragged on for year after dreary year providing a testing ground for 'conventional' warfare with few goals in sight beyond furthering professional military careers with combat experience, testing new ordnance and technology such as low-light cameras and radar directed saturation 'carpet' bombing and cozy assignments in allied countries for politically connected adventurers and committed, if naive, patriots.

Comparisons to the Afghanistan Wars; first the Soviets then the USA and allies emphasize the thesis.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook, sysprog and BillTre
  • #85
@Klystron great post, Sir -- in '62 I was 4 years old -- my Dad had a TV set that he would pull out once a week and let us watch Disney -- when JFK got shot late in '63 I was 5 years old and Dad put the TV news on and left the thing on all day long -- desperate times and extraordinary measures ##\cdots##
 
  • Like
Likes atyy and Klystron
  • #86
kent davidge said:
I was reading this news
https://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-...ore-roosevelt-who-begged-for-coronavirus-help

As I'm far from good when it comes to understand english terms... what do they mean by fired? Does it mean just that he is no longer the ship captain or was he fired from the navy?

This one
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ired-over-leak-of-letter-asking-navy-for-help

mentions 'relieved of command', so I'm inclined to think he's still with the navy (?)
I'm still getting over the fact that the navy has its own Air Force. Maybe the Navy's Air Force has an Army, Navy of its own, etc?
 
  • #87
sysprog said:
@Klystron great post, Sir -- in '62 I was 4 years old -- my Dad had a TV set that he would pull out once a week and let us watch Disney -- when JFK got shot late in '63 I was 5 years old and Dad put the TV news on and left the thing on all day long -- desperate times and extraordinary measures ##\cdots##
Now, your 61 years old, and ...Isn't that a pop song?
 
  • #88
WWGD said:
I'm still getting over the fact that the navy has its own Air Force.

In fact the Navy's Air Force existed before the Air Force did. In fact, if you go back to Curtiss' original landing on a ship in 1910, I believe U.S. naval aviation is older than any other military aviation in the U.S.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, Vanadium 50 and 2 others
  • #89
The world's largest air force is the US Air Force.
The world's second largest air force is the US Navy.
 
  • #90
WWGD said:
I'm still getting over the fact that the navy has its own Air Force. Maybe the Navy's Air Force has an Army, Navy of its own, etc?
Essentially correct. The US Navy has a dedicated aviation branch/department/system with its own procurement schedules, aircraft requirements, and even its own terminology. For example: pilots are aviators. The USN also operates under water and in space.

While naval aviation contains many unique missions such as aircraft carrier operations, many USN air operations such as land based anti-submarine patrols are not distinctly naval. The US Navy, Army and Air Forces often share technology such as radios, radars, computer systems, handheld weapons and many other devices.

Traditionally, going back to ancient times; navy ships transport army soldiers but command their own soldierly fighting force called Marines. At sea marines fight alongside sailors. On land marine forces often cooperate with US Army forces. For examples study recent wars such as the invasion of Iraq. Maps show land-locked Marines, usually with lighter armor and weapons, operating several kilometers from US Army troops with the USAF providing fixed-wing air support to both.

The US Army Air Force (AKA Signal Corp) following successful conclusion of WWII created the USAF in 1947; for the record always an aeronautical and space force since inception. The US Army retained many forms of flight capability including helicopters and later STOL fighters; also operated by the US Marine Corp to their unique specifications.

So, yes, the USN contains its own aviation force and also commands the US Marine Corp. USN also contains Intelligence and other types of forces not mentioned in your post. The USAF maintains fleets of air and space vehicles meant to cooperate with and support the US Army and Navy missions. The US Coast Guard handles naval operations in home waters comprising the fifth branch of the Pentagon -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, Coast Guard.

Duplication and waste remains enormous. A 1978 paper describing only duplicate 'comfort' facilities including land based bathrooms and unclassified procurement (supply) to avoid even the hint of classified data, decried the unnecessary duplication across the military branches. Every military branch includes duplicate facilities and procurement plus a gigantic panoply of non-military expenditures while marines, sailors, airmen, specialists and soldiers face war without proper equipment and homeless veterans still die unsupported in the streets.

Attempts to consolidate operations and organization meet staunch opposition from those who profit from the redundant divisions. Attempts to combine missions such as 'joint' fighter aircraft designs become mired in competing requirements, tradition and outright avarice. I strongly agree that civilians must command and control our military but those leaders must be held to high standards of service, knowledge, commitment and responsibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes sysprog, wukunlin, PeterDonis and 1 other person
  • #91
kent davidge said:
I was reading this news
https://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-...ore-roosevelt-who-begged-for-coronavirus-help

As I'm far from good when it comes to understand english terms... what do they mean by fired? Does it mean just that he is no longer the ship captain or was he fired from the navy?

This one
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ired-over-leak-of-letter-asking-navy-for-help

mentions 'relieved of command', so I'm inclined to think he's still with the navy (?)
If someone is removed from military service, we use 'discharged', rather than 'fired'. In the case of a commissioned officer, his commission could be revoked, but that would be unusual. It might impair the President's authority to recall him to service.
 
  • #93
kent davidge said:
I was reading this news
https://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-...ore-roosevelt-who-begged-for-coronavirus-help

As I'm far from good when it comes to understand english terms... what do they mean by fired? Does it mean just that he is no longer the ship captain or was he fired from the navy?

This one
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ired-over-leak-of-letter-asking-navy-for-help

mentions 'relieved of command', so I'm inclined to think he's still with the navy (?)
Yes,media beat up! Most likely just demoted or shifted sideways to a nice quiet office job
 
  • #94
LT Judd said:
Yes,media beat up! Most likely just demoted or shifted sideways to a nice quiet office job
You must not be keeping up with the news. The Navy has recommended reinstating him to his position.
 
  • #96
  • #97
Just yesterday the TR had two aviators eject from their F/A-18.
 
  • #98
Vanadium 50 said:
Just yesterday the TR had two aviators eject from their F/A-18.
Why? Do you have a link?
 
  • #100
Huh. Not a clue why they had to eject or where the plane went (into the drink, one assumes).
 
  • #101
They realized they forgot their masks and couldn't social distance correctly. No choice but to pull the handles and hope the parachutes didn't come too close... o0)
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
  • #102
Vanadium 50 said:
Just yesterday the TR had two aviators eject from their F/A-18.
phinds said:
Why?

Oh, I'm sure they had their reasons. :wink:

Seriously, they won't announce why until there's been an investigation, if ever. But this is not something that's done lightly.
 

Similar threads

News Russian Nuke Sub Crew Prevented ‘Planetary Catastrophe’
Replies
5
Views
1K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top