[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Or a valid case could be made that the experience gained in joint duty gives US submariners a better understanding of other platform capabilities, operations, strengths, and weaknesses and how they can be exploited thus making them better submariners.... so that example could be viewed either way.

I guess that was the theory behind the joint stuff, but as I understand it, "joint" does not mean an operational tour on say a surface warship to broaden experience. It means a staff assignment, and not even a Navy assignment - its more like a Pentagon assignment. It is highly unlikely you will get any kind of insight about say surface ship weaknesses that you shouldn't have gotten by self-reading or tactical education.

So the gains are dubious and the loss is definite - a loss of 3 whole years (JDA tour length) of experience, a 3 year gap in which your shiphandling goes to corroded rust and your tactical instincts are dulled.

I guess the only thing worse will be to an Air Force officer doing his JDA - he doesn't fly, or fly minimally to keep his flight status, and his proficiency goes to the toilet.

Regarding sailing times. What are the sailing time differences between the navies?

Not sure about the Brits. I heard that the Belgians spend 280 days/year at sea, and the US about 200. I suspect the average Brit rate is somewhat lower than the American due to their lesser commitments, but the Brits probably do go out more than the Poles, thanks to money.

Try going to RAND and search for an article called Finding the Right Balance: Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units. The article's real value is stating some of the differences b/w American, British and French training. Training methods do vary b/w navies, and so do personnel policies. Each may only have a small difference, but added together, combined with the fact there are no 2nd place prizes in sub warfare, makes a huge difference.