seals and papers

[the500000]

<li><p>Does anyone know, like a percentage rate, of how successful midshipmen are at BUDs? And if they fail BUDS, where do they go, within the Navy?</p></li>
<li><p>Has anyone recieved their paperwork for Naps yet?</p></li>
</ol>

[CJohnson2013]

<p>1: It’s about 80%. If they fail, I have no clue, it is a toss up for Enlisted so it is probably the same for Officers. They usually get either XDivision, EOD, Diver, SWCC, or Naval Infantry (whenever it is finally implemented).</p>

[2011marine]

<p>Naval Infantry… what’s that?</p>

[CJohnson2013]

<p>Naval Infantry is a plan that the Navy is trying to push forward (the last I heard about it, was maybe 6 months ago) to replace the Marines onboard ship as they are busy in Iraq/Afghanistan. They were planning on taking the BUD/s dropouts and putting them in the Naval Infantry, and the training would be similar to that of an Army Ranger I believe in quality. Atleast that was the goal. If you look at the ranking structure like this Army:Infantry>Rangers>SF;Navy:Infantry>SEALS. They would fit that second slot for Army. Though their mission would be slightly different, as they would be on ship, and would be similar to Marines in their duties (I believe).</p>

<p>I don’t know what the deal is with it yet, but the Military and Government can be very slow when it comes to some things, and even if it was implemented 6 months ago, it could take 4-5 years or even a decade for it to become fully operational. I wouldn’t count on it until it is up and running, but I just throw it out there as it could become functional at any time in the future.</p>

[USNA69]

<p>

Naval Infantry is a plan that the Navy is trying to push forward (the last I heard about it, was maybe 6 months ago) to replace the Marines onboard ship as they are busy in Iraq/Afghanistan.

</p>

<p>Do we still have Marines on ships? I don’t think so. Marines have never been assigned to ships in great numbers, anyway. Maybe a small detachment on carriers but I think they have gone away. Not too sure.</p>

[USNA69]

<p>Far at sea, the Navy rules. Far inland, the same for the Army. It is along the vast coastal area which comprises a lot of the world, that confusion rules. The Army wants to be in charge. The same can be said for the Navy and Marines. It is the area of the “brown water” Navy. This group, in the past, has been comprised of both Army and Navy units. Presently, in Iraq, it is primarily the USMC. The Navy feels left out and, with the USMC and Army being overextended, sees an opening for some additional funding and responsibility. A year ago, they established the Naval Expiditionary Combat Command:</p>

<p><a href=“http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=98139&ran=183893[/url]”>http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=98139&ran=183893&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>However, officials were quick to point out that they were not stepping too far into traditional Army and USMC roles:</p>

<p>

The unit “is not about a naval infantry,” said Fleet Forces Commander Adm. John B. Nathman. Infantry will continue to be handled by the Marines, with Navy forces following, he said.

</p>

<p>There has been some discussion about Navy desires to create a small naval infantry of a couple of thousand individuals comprised of “light” SEALs. However, I think they can anticipate greater congressional resistance creating a duplicate brown water Army than they had receiving funding for a brown water Navy.</p>

<p>Don’t hold your breath. Don’t base any career decisions on a desire to be in a naval army. Additionally, anything to do with this would probably not be a great career move, at best postponing one’s career pursuits and should be looked at carefully to ensure that it is not a career terminator.</p>

[itlstallion422]

<p>Mids have a much better success rate than their NROTC counterparts. I can’t quote the exact percentages, although I’ve heard from friends that, although varying every year, its usually around 90%. This year they actually increased the number of seal selectees from the academy because of their success rate. 25 of the 36 or so officers will be academy grads… anyway, as far as afterward, most probably go surface line, although In would bet that they could probably go restricted line without a problem as well.</p>

[2011marine]

<p>USNA69, thanks for the link. By the way, does the Navy maintain a ‘brown water’ fleet today, or has that largely been phased out?</p>

[CJohnson2013]

<p>

After September 11, 2001, when the navy sought to increase its security force for ships in port, it did not turn to the marines (who long had taken care of that sort of thing), but greatly expanded the number of “Masters at Arms” (previously a job category, not a force). Now comes the ECG (expeditionary combat battalion) of high quality sailors who could fight on water or land in coastal operations. The ECG would obtain its manpower from those who apply to join the SEALs, but don’t make it. The SEALs are a very selective organization, accepting less than one in ten of those who apply. Now the navy wants to do something with those high quality rejects. The recent navy announcement that it is putting together a “brown water (coastal and rivers)” force mentioned an infantry component, and that these troops would be sailors, not troops from the Marine Corps. This new force also makes it clear how much the navy and marines have grown apart. </p>

<p>But the ECG is expected to be higher quality than the marines, something close to U.S. Army Special Forces. The ECG would be trained in foreign languages and cultures, and be part of the force that provided training to foreign navies. But the ECG would also take over some SEAL functions, like providing boarding parties for dangerous interdiction missions. Most of these boarding operations are not dangerous, and are handled by specially trained sailors and Masters at Arms. These folks are also doing a job that has traditionally belonged to “marines.” But since the U.S. Navy no longer has control of the U.S. Marine Corps, and needs marines, it has to rebuild the force under a new name. Or, rather, several new names. </p>

<p>The new marine force will be only a few thousand strong, which is more in line with the proportion of marines in other navies. The U.S. Navy lost its original marine force because the U.S. Marine Corps got so large during World War II that it was no longer a part of the navy, but a truly separate entity. This new force of naval infantry also revives another old navy tradition; infantry training for sailors. Until about a century ago, infantry training for sailors, and even infantry exercises on land, were a regular feature of navy life. All this had faded away by the 1930s. The navy stopped issuing field manuals for naval infantry in the 1960s. But the war on terror, and increased emphasis on brown water operations, has returned many sailors to the old ways. The new naval infantry will perform many of the traditional marine functions, without being called marines.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAMPH.HTM[/url]”>http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAMPH.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>One of the two articles that I have found on the subject, the other one USNA69 posted, his is the more recent.</p>

<p>But yeah, like I said, don’t count on it happening anytime soon, and USNA69 is correct in the fact that it could be a career killer if it ever did get started. I just mention it because most people who are looking into USNA, will have another 4-5 years to go, and by then maybe it will be up and running. But I wouldn’t make a decision to join the Navy because you want to be Naval Infantry…just hope if you want to go SEAL and you fail, that they have that up and running by then, or you could end up doing something you really do not enjoy.</p>

[USNA69]

<p>They are deploying, both the riverine forces and the ground combat element:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6197770&nav=ZolHbyvj[/url]”>http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6197770&nav=ZolHbyvj&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;