BACKGROUND - Download Now DOC by iUvB502



                                       AUTHOR’S SERVICE BACKGROUND
                                 Daniel S. Appleton, PhD, Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret)

US Naval Academy
Engineering Watch and Division Officer, Battleship
Main Battery Gun Control Officer, Battleship (WWII)
Naval Postgraduate School (Ordnance)
Weapons Officer, Heavy Cruiser
Weapons Officer, Light Cruiser
Staff, Commander Battleship-Cruiser Force (Aide and Flag Secretary)
Staff, Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force (Force Weapons Training and Readiness Officer)
Underwater Ordnance Division, Bureau of Ordnance
Armed Forces Staff College
Commanding Officer, Destroyer
Strategic Plans Division (Nuclear Weapons), OPNAV
Naval War College (Naval Warfare)
Commander, Destroyer Division (4 ships)
Staff, Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force (Force Training and Readiness Officer)
Asst Chief of Staff (Operations and Plans), Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force
Commanding Officer, Amphibious Assault Transport
Commander, Destroyer Squadron (8 ships)
Originator Fleet Training and Readiness Division, OPNAV
Director, Navy Readiness Analysis System OPNAV
Director, Readiness Measurement Improvement Program, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Manager, Integrated Logistic Systems, Litton Ship Systems (for design of crew of LHA)
Associate Director, Public Policy Research Organization, Univ of California
Independent Research, Warship Management Systems
Consultant, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (Rdns Assessment Technology)

                                         AUTHOR’S SERVICE INITIATIVES

Planned Maintenance System (PMS)
Personnel Qualification Standards (PQS) system
Concept of Required Operational Capabilities (ROCs)
Concept of Warfare Areas (ASW, AAW, etc,)
Concept of Levels of Training (Basic to Advanced)
Management Systems Development Ship
Navy Readiness Analysis System
Invented inflatable surface target

                                             SUPPORTING RESEARCH

Supplemental to the foregoing experience, research for the recommendations in this document has involved corre-
spondence or interviews with over 500 Navy professionals including Fleet training instructors. Recent visits have been
conducted to 20 commands concerned with surface warfare training. Procedures have been methodically examined in
approximately 87 ships, including 13 under the author’s command. Extensive theoretical research has been conducted
in the areas of Naval leadership, team-building, goal setting and feedback, and assessment of military organizational
effectiveness. Nearly all recommended concepts have been implemented for trial in active Navy ships, including one
unit under the author’s command called out for emergency deployment (Cuban Missile Crisis). Approximately seventy
relevant professional papers have been circulated for comment, including four to all ships of the Fleet and fifteen
through the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings or official Navy publications.

                                               PREVIOUS WRITINGS

53 The Gunnery Drill Guide (Independently conceived and drafted. Published as NAVPERS 10885. This publi-
    cation further developed the concept of the Personnel Qualification Standards (PQS) system.)
55 Combat Readiness (U. S. S. John A. Bole DD-755 Instruction 9030.1 Feb 55. This procedure employed and
    further developed the concept that later became known as the PQS system.)**

56 Combat Training in Ships (Naval Training Bulletin (OPNAV–Sep 56. Introduced the concepts of Qualifica-
    tions of the Expert Man o’Warsman and of shipboard chains of authority and responsibility, held by middle
    rank petty officers, for development of expert ability to fight. See also “Combat Training in Ships Earns an
    E” by LCDR W. B. Althoff, USN, in Naval Training Bulletin, Winter 1959.)**
57 Combat Organization in Ships (Combat Readiness Magazine (OPNAV–Jul-Sep 57. Develops and explains
    the concept of shipboard responsibilities for combat readiness based on organizational Combat Units.)
58 Brief on a Fighting Ship (“Heartland City”): the Effect of Management Procedures on the Combat
    Power of Ships (Memorandum to the Chief of Naval Operations describing a hypothetical warship embody-
    ing advanced management techniques, Apr 58. Approved for Fleet implementation in an experimental ship.
    Ultimately implemented in USS SHELTON and designated as the Ships Readiness Improvement Plan.)**
59 Morale, Management, and the Combat Readiness of Ships (Naval War College study,1959)
62 USS SHELTON (DD790) Organization and Regulations Manual. (Complete manual of organizatiion and
   responsibilities for maintenance and battle control for adaptation and test as part of ComCruDesPac’s ex-
   perimental Ship’s Readiness Improvement Plan-10 May 1962.)
62 Interim Progress Report on the Ship's Readiness Improvement Plan for Development of Improved
     Shipboard Training and Maintenance Procedures (SRIP). (Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force, Pacific
     Fleet, Notice 01500 of 26 Jul 62. This project was a forerunner of today’s SmartShip programs. The SRIP
     originated the concept of the Navy’s Planned Maintenance System. The project was followed by implemen-
     tation of an experimental Battle Efficiency Competition in a flotilla of one cruiser and 12 destroyers, in which
     awards were based on achieved levels of readiness regardless of ship type.)**
62 Ships’ Readiness Improvement Plan. Encl to COMCRUDESPAC INST 1500.5 of 8 Dec1960 subj “Ship-
    board Maintenance and Training Procedures.” (Forerunner to later “smart ship” programs.)** Final report in-
    cludes summary of Principal Conclusions of Significance to the Service (July 1962).**
64 DCR: Procedure for Description and Communication of Readiness (Commander Destroyer Squadron
    ONE report to Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force, Pacific Fleet, 1964. This project introduces the con-
    cepts of Warfare Areas (AAW, ASW, etc.) and Levels of Readiness (Basic to Advanced). Encloses com-
    prehensive set of descriptive cards describing “essential elements of readiness” with evaluation criteria for
    all surface warfare areas)**
64 DCR: Readiness Standards Manual. (Manual detailing every operational skill needed by a fleet desstroyer,
   as a basis for evaluating overall battle readiness by statistical sampling. Resulted from one year test involv-
   ing seven deployed destroyers.)
64 Expert Man o'Warsman (Combat Readiness Apr-Jun 64). This exposition introduced the concept of individ-
    ual “warfare qualifications” and wearable insignia.)
64 Measurement of Combat Readiness (Combat Readiness special issue Oct-Dec 64. This article reproduced
    a presentation to the Secretary of the Navy and emphasized the importance of providing readiness infor-
    mation as feedback to sailors in combatant units.)
65 Expression and Communication of Readiness (Proceedings of the 15th Military Operations Research So-
    ciety Symposium May 65.)
65 Inflatable Surface Gunnery Target. (Combat Readiness Date unk. Item designed for emergency practice
     against small surface craft, approved as Navy standard stock.)
65 Military Titles-of-Address for Petty Officers. (Memorandum for SECNAV Task Force on Military Retention
    13 May 65. This memo led to uniform procedures for using “petty officer” as a standardized title of ad-
63 Procedure for Controlling Ship-to-Shore Amphibious Operations under Combat Conditions Without
   Visible Light, Radio, or Radar. (USS BEXAR (APA-237) report on completion of amphibious refresher
   training June 63.)
66 Navy Readiness Analysis System (Chief of Naval Operations ltr to the U. S. Naval establishment of 1 Jun
    66. This program initiated the concept of Required Operational Capabilities. Led to establishment of new
    Fleet Readiness and Training Division OP-37 within OPNAV.)
66 Shore Activity Readiness. (Civilian Manpower Management Winter 66-67.) (Explains application of the Na-
    vy Readiness Analysis System to shore activities and civilian employees.)**

67 Naval Operational Readiness (Naval War College Review Jun 67. This article publishes the text of a War
    College lecture describing the Navy Readiness Analysis System.)**
67 Recommendations Regarding Administration of the DoD Output Information Improvement Program
    (Report of special Joint Service study group to ASD (Comptroller) Jun 67, of which this writer was chair-
    man. This report resulted in establishment of the DoD Output Information Improvement Program.)
68 Output Measurement System (Dept of Defense Directive 7000.4 of 13 Apr 68)
69 Department of Defense. Address reproduced in “Final Report—1969 Projects Conference, March 24-26,
    Output Information for Planning, Programming, Budgeting in Federal Government Departments and Agen-
    cies” (conference conceived and chaired by this writer).**
69 Description and Communication of Capabilities (Report submitted to DoD Blue Ribbon Committee, Sep
    69.) (Argues that military outputs in peacetime should be described in terms of capabilities rather than re-
    source levels.)
69 Generation, Transfer, and Usage of Capabilities Information (Presentation to Wkg Grp on Operational
    Readiness, 24th Military Operations Research Symposium, Nov 69.)**
69 Output Measurement in the Department of Defense (In Final Report, 1969 Projects Conference on Output
    Information for Planning-Programming-Budgeting in Federal Government Departments and Agencies Apr
    69. Overall conference initiated and report edited by this author.)
70 Actions Needed to Improve Information Describing the Outputs of Defense Organizations and Sys-
    tems (Memorandum to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 27 Apr 70.)

72 Damage Control: Before, Not After. (Comment on article by LCDR C. F. Fischer II. Emphasizes need for
    combat uniforms, coordination between DC and medical personnel, vulnerability of ships to heavy shock,
    need for advanced design of procedures for emergencies in port, importance of establishing a central
    agency to system-design shipboard management.)
79 Potential Contributions of Feedback on Goal Achievement to the Effectiveness of Naval Organiza-
    tions (Preliminary proposal from Univ of Cal Irvine to Secretary of the Navy Feb 79.)**
80 Potential Contributions of Team-Building Technology to Organizational Effectiveness (Research pro-
    posal from the Univ of Cal Irvine to the Office of Naval Research Apr 80.)
80 Relating Personal Goals to Service Goals (Navy Times 7 Apr 80.)
83 Lack of Management Tools Limits Ship Effectiveness. (Navy Times 22 Aug 83.)**
83 Shipboard Training: The Team's the Thing (Training and Education essay contest winner US NavInst Pro-
    ceedings Oct 83. This article introduced the concept of visible feedback to ships’ crews of the results of
    team training (“Team-based PQS”). Following publication, requests for feedback display materials were re-
    ceived from, and provided at no cost to, officers and senior petty officers in 188 ships. (Ship’s comments
    and responses in Proceedings Nov 84 p.176ff). See also comment by LT Jeffrey R. Sander Proceedings
    Jan 84 p. 26, “Where has Captain Appleton been hiding?”)**

85 Endgame (Arleigh Burke general essay contest winner US NavInst Proceedings Apr 85.) **
85 Strengthening of Ability of American Warship Crews to Perform Expertly in Battle (Letter to Secretary
    Dalton, Admiral Boorda, all major commanders, and all members of the Readiness Subcommittees of both
    Armed Services Committees of the Congress, dated 20 September 1995. This letter summarized recom-
    mendations for strengthening of shipboard management procedures as developed over the past fifty
86 Organizing Ships for Battle (Article for Arleigh Burke contest. No award, but published in US NavInst Pro-
    ceedings Jul 86. This article presented and explained the concepts of Combat Teams and Watch Teams
    and offered a prototype shipboard Instruction for establishing a Battle Readiness Organization paralleling
    the standard administrative organization.)
87 IRIS: Design for an Integrated Readiness Information System. (Submitted to Naval War College Review
    3 March 1987. Not accepted then , but later accepted by Proceedings, then withdrawn and resubmitted to
    NWC Review in March 1998.)
88 The U. S. Navy is in Trouble (Pearl Harbor-Gram and Stars and Stripes 25 Jan 88.)**

88 Warship Battle Training (Two-part serial US NavInst Proceedings Jun and Jul 88. These articles integrated
    the concepts of Battle Organization and combat training feedback.)
88 Warship Self-Training for Battle-Tools to Help Prepare for Refresher Training or Imminent Warfare.
    (Reprint of “Warship Battle Training” distributed as a gift to ships’ commanding officers and wardroom offic-
    ers Mar 88.) (Reprinted in substance with permission of NavInst Proceedings June and July 1988. Favora-
    ble comments received from all major commanders.)**
89 America's Next Naval Battle: Either Decisive Victory or Disaster for the Nation (US NavInst Proceedings
    July 1989.) (This article emphasized need for establishment of centralized responsibility for whole-system
    approach to ship design including management resources.)**
89 Letter to the President of the United States (Bush). (Dated 4/20/89. Concerns “critical deficiencies in the
    state of battle training of U. S. Navy ships and consequent jeopardy to the security of the Nation.” Copies to
    senior members of Congress and major Navy commanders.)**
89 The U. S. Navy and the Prospect of Sudden War. (Preliminary book proposal submitted to NavInst Press
    2/4/89. Did not fly.)**
90 A Shipboard Battle Training System (A Team-Based Personnel Qualification System). (Submitted to US
    NavInst Proceedings Nov 90.)
91 Bravery Will Not be Enough. (Article for Arleigh Burke contest. Failed to win award, but accepted for publi-
91 A Shipboard Battle Training System (SBTS): Book-length circulation paper distributed to all major com-
    mands March 91. Addresses decentralized responsibility for results, participative advance planning of battle
    drills, visual feedback of changes in fighting capabilities, and strengthening of physical and psychological
    toughness. This treatise was submitted to the NI Press and carefully reviewed to effect that the subject is
    important but the solution impractical, since American ships historically do not prepare for battle in advance.
    Review is included in Archive as potentially interesting to future researchers on subject of warship man-

91 Shipboard Visual Display of Status of Team Training. (Sample ltr dated 8 Feb 91 addressed to CO USS
    BOWEN FF-1079 listing 151 ships that had requested materials including 22 sample qualification cards,
    preceded by similar requests from 95 ships, and concluding that concept of visual display of results of team
    training was being perceived by ships officers as potentially useful.)**
91 Warship Self–Training for Battle: Design for a Shipboard Battle Training System (SBTS) (Submitted to
    the Chief of Naval Operations, April 1991.)**
92 A Shipboard Battle Training System (SBTS): A Team-Based PQS. (Abbreviated 4-page pamphlet to all
    ship COs summarizing procedures for establishing team-based battle organization and providing visible
    feedback of training progress.)**
92 A Tour of Kings Mountain—Description of an Experimental TQL Warship (Accepted by U. S. Naval In-
    stitute Proceedings Oct 92 as a TQL feature.)
90 Emergency Combat Training for American Naval Ships. (Circulation paper delivered to major commands,
    1990. Focuses on Organization for Battle Training, Team Training Feedback Procedure, and Planning Bat-
    tle Drills.)**
93 Letter to Hon Sam Nunn, Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services. (Subj: Human performance
    in US Navy ships under extreme conditions. Addresses aspects of management, training, equipment, and
    structure that need to be addressed in the process of strengthening the fighting ability of US Navy surface
    warships through Total Quality Leadership.)**
94 Thirteen Statements to the U. S. Secretary of the Navy on Topping Off Warship Fighting Abilities
    Through Total Quality Leadership (Submitted to SECNAV and circulated to commands and ships during
    1994-5. Full texts requested by 10 major commands and 16 ships.) Contents (53,000 words, pamphlet
    format): 1. Overview 2. Pressures of Peacetime 3. Bravery Will Not Be Enough 4. The Warship Environ-
    ment in Battle 5. From Challenges Toward Solutions 6. Organization for Fighting 7. Protecting Sailors in
    Battle 8. Planning Battle Drills 9. Feedback on Progress 10. On-Board Implementation 11. Help From
    Above 12. A Tour of Kings Mountain 13. Leadership and Culture 14. Measuring Battle Capabilities.)**
94 TQL For the Lives of U. S. Sailors (Accepted by US NavInst Proceedings, Feb 94.)

95 Bibliography of Literature on Defining and Measuring Naval Readiness (Final Report to U. S. Navy Per-
    sonnel Research and Development Center (NPRDC) under Contract No. DAAL03-91-0035, November
95 Dated Procedures Endanger Ship Crews. (Navy Times, issue of 6 November 1995. (This article duplicated
    the text of a 20 Sep 95 letter to SecNav.)**
95 How Warship Management Systems Can Impact Fighting Abilities (Accepted by US NavInst Proceed-
    ings, June 1995; released for publication by Navy Times.)
96 Combat Leadership Before Combat. (US NavInst Proceedings August 1996. Comments on seven recently
    published leadership articles, stressing needs for leadership in (1) establishing a “master goal” for Navy
    combat leadership; (2) creating a standardized shipboard battle readiness organization; (3) providing im-
    proved personal protection against violence; (4) providing means to furnish combat training feedback to
    ships’ crews; (5) developing understanding by new ship designers of importance of systematic examination
    of factors affecting human performance in combat.)
96 Let Us Lead Toward Ability to Fight! (Accepted by U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings Feb 83, later released
    for publication in 1996 by the Naval Doctrine Command.)
96 Let Us Lead Toward Ability to Fight! (U.S. Naval Doctrine Command Technical Report No.1-00-003, Janu-
    ary, 1996.)**
96 Naval Combat Readiness: A Conceptual Model and Research Plan (With B. C. Tatum, D. M. Nebeker,
    and G. Laabs in NPRDC Final Report under above-cited research contract, forthcoming 1996.)
96 Twenty-three Experimental Concepts to Enhance Warship Combat Effectiveness. (Recommendations
    submitted to CNO, COMNAVSURFLANT, and COMNAVSURFPAC for consideration in connection with
    SmartShip programs, April 1996. Also submitted to US NavInst Proceedings.)
96 No Time to Rest. (Published comment on article by CDR G. D. Roncolato. Argues that U. S. sailors urgently
    need five kinds of leadership help: a master goal for leaders (progress toward expert ability to fight); a
    standardized shipboard battle readiness organization; an adequate combat uniform; a training feedback in-
    formation system; understanding that these elements are interrelated. In NavInst Proceedings Aug 96.)**
98 Bravery Will Not be Enough. (Submitted to Arleigh Burke contest. Published in Proceedings Sep 98.)

98 Letter dated 21 May 98 to Ch Floyd Spence of House Natl Security Committee subj “Military Readi-
    ness”. (Forwards copy of article “Measuring Changes in Fighting Abilities” prompted by feature in Navy
    Times citing renewed congressional interest in measring military readiness.)
98 Measuring Changes in Fighting Abilities. (Ms submitted to Naval War College Review, March 1998.The
    work has focused on development of improved techniques for use by warships crews to aid in withstanding
    stress and violence, defining team training goals, organizing for battle and battle training during all readi-
    ness conditions, and providing feedback to all hands on what skills have been achieved. Rejected with sug-
    gestion to resubmit to Proceedings.)
98 Waship Battle Training—How to Measure Goals and Progress. ( Description of Team Training Feedback
    Procedure. Submitted to Proceedings Nov 98.)
99 Strengthening the Fighting Abilities of United States Warships. (Letter to Secretary of the Navy Danzig
   dated May 1999 calling attention to needs for upgrading shipboard management procedures as tools for on-
   board leadership in conjunction with modern ship designs.)
99 Comments on Proceedings articles “DD21’s Fatal Flaw” and “Can Minimum-Manned Ship Survive
   Combat?” (Vining). Published by Proceedings April 99.
99 Planning Shipboard Battle Drills. How to conduct effective battle drills for GQ and Condition Watch teams
   when opportunities are limited. Published by Proceedings Nov 99.


To top