Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Navy MARS kaput?  (Read 40163 times)
W7TUT
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2009, 08:19:55 AM »

Also, along with the Navy CNO's staff level, is the
Commandant of the Marine Corps whom would also have to
approve or disapprove it.

The GSA sells these "SledgeHammer" hard drive mashers
for $3500, look at what you would save using a real
$20 sledge hammer.  Or how about a replacement canopy
for an F-22, $182,000...Randy...

http://www.semshred.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1205

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20396
Logged
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2009, 08:59:30 AM »

Well, if you read the broadcast,it appears that even if DoD doesn't approve OPNAV's move to get rid of MARS, the program will be reduced to a program totally without military involvement and support.  All of the staff positions will be volunteer, and any personnel matters will be dumped on the Chief.  The Area Directors are going to be gone, along with any equipment, postage support, etc.
So, either Navy MARS will be shut down on 30 Sep, 2009, or it will be left to slowly die on the vine.

The other question is whether Navy's action will eventually impact the other services.  Will Army and Air Force eventually follow the Navy?

I spent 30 years working with DoD resource issues, and believe me, the Navy always has always gone its own way, and always has an agenda behind every move it makes.
Logged
N3ZH
Member

Posts: 23




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2009, 10:28:15 AM »

I found a reliable source on the internet for the complete official message:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MARS-ALE/message/5404

Unfortunately, it is not easy to interperet.

DE NNN0ASA 040
R 162200Z MAY 2009
FM CHNAVMARCORMARS WILLIAMSBURG VA
TO ALNAVMARCORMARS
INFO ZEN/CHIEF ARMY MARS FT HUACHUCA AZ
ZEN/CHIEF AIR FORCE MARS SCOTT AFB IL
BT
UNCLAS
SUBJ: CHNAVMARCORMARS BCST 03-09
A. DOD DIRECTIVE 4650.2 DTD 26 JAN 1998
B. DOD INSTRUCTION 4650.02 (PROPOSED) NOTAL
1. COMMANDER, NAVAL NETWORK WARFARE COMMAND (NNWC) HAS DECIDED TO 'SUNSET' THE MARS MISSION WITHIN NAVY AS OF 30 SEP 2009. NNWC HAS REQUESTED ALL MILITARY BILLETS AND MY CIVILIAN POSITION BE DELETED AND UNFUNDED AFTER THAT DATE. OPNAV HAS NOT YET APPROVED THIS REQUEST.
2. ALL THREE MARS SERVICES HAVE OPERATED UNDER THE MANDATE OF REF A, WHICH IS STILL VALID. REF B IS A PROPOSED UPDATE TO REF A AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING COORDINATED BETWEEN DOD AND THE THREE SERVICES. REF B INCREASES THE SERVICES REQUIREMENT TO SUPPORT THE MARS PROGRAMS WITHIN THEIR SERVICE. ARMY AND AIR FORCE HAVE AGREED TO THE CHANGES BUT NAVY (OPNAV) HAS ASKED TO BE LET OUT OF THIS REQUIREMENT. THIS NEGOTIATION IS STILL IN PROCESS AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN IT WILL BE RESOLVED.
3. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF NNWC DECISION TO 'SUNSET' THE MARS MISSION, I AM FORCED TO INITIATE ACTION TO CLOSE DOWN NAVY-MARINE CORPS OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES BY 30 SEP 2009. ACCORDINGLY:
 A. AREA DIRECTORS WILL TRANSFER ALL MEMBERSHIP RECORDS TO HQ NLT THAN 31 JUL 2009. WHEN RECORDS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED, STATE DIRECTORS WILL SEND ALL MEMBERSHIP RELATED MATTERS DIRECTLY TO CHNAVMARCORMARS VICE THE AREA DIRECTOR.
 B. AREA DIRECTORS WILL CLOSE DOWN THEIR OFFICES AND TURN IN ALL EQUIPMENT TO DRMO NOT LATER THAN 30 SEP 2009.
 C. NONE OF THE EQUIPMENT AT THE AREA DIRECTORS STATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY MEMBERS. THE EQUIPMENT MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER OFFICIAL NAVY ORGANIZATIONS (LIKE MWR OR SPECIAL SERVICES) TO HELP EQUIP OR START UP MILITARY RECREATION STATIONS. THESE TRANSFERS WILL BE APPROVED BY HQ ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
4. IF NAVY'S REQUEST TO BE DELETED FROM REF B IS NOT APPROVED, THERE WILL BE A NAVY-MARINE CORPS MARS PROGRAM BUT IT WILL NOT HAVE AREA DIRECTORS (THEY WILL HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED). ALL MEMBERSHIP CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE HANDLED BETWEEN THE STATE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF, NAVMARCORMARS DIRECTLY. AREA DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND AREA STAFF POSITIONS WILL BE RETAINED TO COORDINATE FREQUENCY MATTERS, TRAINING, ETC.. ALL OPERATIONAL MATTERS WILL BE HANDLED BY STATE AND REGION DIRECTORS.
5. I WILL INFORM YOU AS SOON AS I FIND OUT THE FINAL RESOLUTION OF NAVY'S REQUEST TO 'SUNSET' NAVY-MARINE CORPS MARS.
BT
NNNN

It's a bit difficult to understand.  Obviously all funding, equipment, billet and civilian positions are being eliminated.  Whether it continues without funding is not clear.  It seems Area directors are to shutdown their offices, yet State directors appear to continue to exist and communicate directly to NAVMARCORMARS Chief directly.

It appears to me that Navy/MarineCorp MARS is not dead - every single item has not had any final decisions made at the top.  It's like a "just in case plan".  It is like issuing orders in case the orders get issued?

Of course - what do I know?

Howard
Logged
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2009, 03:39:00 PM »

Not dead, but certainly on life support.  If you read paragraph 4, if DOD tells NAVY that their MARS program must continue, it will continue with no real service support.  Looks like only the civilian Chief position will remain, and he will be working with volunteer staff at the state level.
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2009, 06:28:34 PM »

With the exception of one active duty assistant and two active duty Area Directors (the other two AD billets are currently unfilled) all Bo has already is volunteer staff. There are no other paid positions.

In reality, all that will be eliminated is one layer of administration.

Lon - NNN0OOR (Former MDE SMD, Deputy SMD, Assistant For Net Operations)
Southern New England Navy-Marine Corps MARS
Proudly Serving Those Who Serve
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2009, 07:13:39 PM »

Lon,

I wonder what has changed in the updated DODI (increased support from within the service)?
Have you seen it?

73

Dwight
Logged
KD4NUE
Member

Posts: 20


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2009, 06:48:59 AM »

Here is the Directive:

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:gbekwrsZi1UJ:www.qsl.net/aga6la/d46502p.pdf+directive+4650.02&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It is a cached page from when the qsl.net .pdf file link was valid.

It is a 10 page outlining the change in name from Affilliate to Auxillary (Military Auxilliary Radio System)

This does not seem to be a completed or posted instruciton; it does not show up on the DoD website for published Directions and Instrucitons

Here are the broadstrokes:

Department of Defense
INSTRUCTION NUMBER 4650.02ASD
(NII)/DoD CIO

SUBJECT: Military Auxiliary Radio System (MARS)

1. PURPOSE. This Instruction reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 4650.2 (Reference (a)) as a DoD Instruction (DoDI) in accordance with the guidance in DoDI 5025.01 (Reference (b)) and the authority in DoDD 5144.1 (Reference (c)). This Instruction renames the Military Affiliate Radio System and updates its organization, membership, and functions and the related responsibilities within the Department of Defense.

2. APPLICABILITY. This Instruction applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).

3. DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this Instruction. a. contingency radio communications support. The provision of radio-based transfer or exchange of information to assist with Department of Defense or civilian authorities’ operations during, or responses to, any major disruption of DoD or other communications networks, such as those associated with official National Security / Emergency Preparedness events or activities. b. military auxiliary. An organized body of volunteers prepared to supplement the uniformed Services or any designated civilian authorities by provision of specialized autonomous services when called upon or when situations warrant (e.g., Civil Air Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary).

4. POLICY. It is DoD policy that:

2a. A MARS capability for contingency radio communications support to U.S. Government operations shall be provided through the utilization of organized volunteer radio operators and operating facilities under the appropriate authorities, directed by and coordinated with the Military Departments.

b. MARS shall provide contingency radio communications support to the DoD Components.

c. MARS shall provide contingency radio communications support to civil authorities at all levels, in fulfillment of DoD responsibilities under DoDD 3025.1 (Reference (d)) and DoDD 3025.15 (Reference (e)).

d. MARS shall provide health, morale and welfare radio communications support to military members, civilian employees and contractors of DoD Components, and civil agency employees and contractors, when in remote and isolated areas, in contingencies or whenever appropriate.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES. See Enclosure 2.

6. PROCEDURES. See Enclosure 3.

7. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. The reporting requirement in paragraph 3.f. of Enclosure 2 has been assigned Report Control Symbol (RCS) DDNII(AR)XXXX in accordance with DoD 8910.1-M (Reference (f)). [Where XXXX is a placeholder for a To Be Determined RCS.]8. RELEASABILITY. UNLIMITED. This Instruction is approved for public release and is available on the Internet from the DoD Issuances Web Site at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.

9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Instruction is effective immediately.

John G. Grimes
Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Networks and Information Integration
/ DoD Chief Information Officer

Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2009, 07:05:26 AM »

<< I wonder what has changed in the updated DODI (increased support from within the service)?
Have you seen it?  >>

I just read it in the previous post.

From what I have just read, I feel (just my own opinion) that Navy MARS is not going away. If the DoD mandates the existence of a particular service/function/activity I don't see how the CO of the supervising authority can tell DoD "I ain't gonna do that", if he wants to continue his career in the Navy, that is. Smiley

Lon - NNN0OOR (Former MDE SMD, Deputy SMD, Assistant For Net Operations)
Southern New England Navy-Marine Corps MARS
Proudly Serving Those Who Serve
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
KD4NUE
Member

Posts: 20


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2009, 07:14:05 AM »

As far as why Navy (or at least the Commander, Naval Network Warefare Command [NNWC])has taken this decision; only time will tell.

However, in light of their domination in the establishment of the Tri-Service SOP and the previous years Dayton confab, it may be due to them not being able to do the same this year - At least the timing is right for this theory.  (Lets call this the Bulldozer off it's tracks theory)

The link in the previous post will take you to the full text with enclosures for Responsbility and Procedures

**************

In the Responsibilities Enclosure, Figure 4, "The Secretary of the Army ..... shall have the primary responsibility for the MARS DSCA mission"

(DSCA = Defense Support of Civil Authorities)

**************

It also indicated the need to play well with others, and the possibility for inter-operability guidelines requiring that Navy may have to change some to morph into a single service, rrather than Air Force and Army having to change to meet Navy requirements, which has been the policy for the past year.

(If you know an Army or Air Force MARS member, ask them how that worked out over the last year)

*******

It very much resembles a fairly common attitude, where one picks up their toys and goes home.

This is a real shame, as there are a lot of good Navy MARS operators in the program, and they deserve better than this....

They now face what the other 2 services faced over the previous year; serious change where your flavor/brand may not be in complete control of it's destiny.

This is one of those situations where you would just like to wake up after it is over and working, and not have to endure the process, as there will be a lot of flared tempers and thoughtless things said, penned or done before this episode is over...

As an Army MARS member, I was hoping for a little less attitude and a little more cooperation where it comes to the task of serving the country as a volunteer communications force.  


David
KD4NUE
Logged
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2009, 07:43:55 AM »

David,

That's an interesting outlook, and probably not far off.  As I posted earlier in the thread, in my long experience in the DOD and Army resource area, Navy has always tended to go its own way.  We always attributed the attitude to the fact that so many Presidents and others in the D.C. power structure had Navy backgrounds and as a result, the Navy became like spoiled kids.  I can recall a few DOD initiatives where Navy would just totally ignore the requests for input.  Kind of like a little kid who holds his breath when he doesn't get his way.
It would make sense if the Army would be the 'executive agent' for MARS, for lack of a better term, since we are the only MARS service that is in the process of upgrading requirements, standards, and training.
I agree that there are a lot of good Navy MARS operators out there.  If Navy MARS goes belly-up, I'm sure many will realize they are in it to serve America and not just the Navy, who doesn't seem to care much for them, and will transfer to Army or Air Force.
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2009, 08:01:25 AM »

<< not just the Navy, who doesn't seem to care much for them,>>

What an absolutely outrageous statement!!!

It's not the NAVY  that is resisting, it appears to be ONE MAN. And all you Army folks are jumping the gun and gloating over a possible bunch of new members before the scenario has played out.

<< If Navy MARS goes belly-up, I'm sure many will realize they are in it to serve America >>

I'm not going to get into a p****** match with you, but this attitude is exactly the reason I WON'T join Army MARS - your smug sense of superiority.

If Navy MARS does go away, which I am betting it doesn't, I'll continue to serve America, just not through Army MARS.

This ends my participation in this discussion, since it seems to be turning into a Navy bash, based on the last few comments.

Lon - NNN0OOR (Former MDE SMD, Deputy SMD, Assistant For Net Operations)
Southern New England Navy-Marine Corps MARS
Proudly Serving Those Who Serve
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2009, 10:00:43 AM »

Hey Lon, don't be so defensive.

I've been on both sides of the fence, and I'm just calling it like I see it.  I doubt if it's just one man doing this....I'm sure that the Commander of Naval Network Command didn't just wake up one morning and say, "hey, I think I'll chop Navy MARS today!".  Things just don't work that way.
I hope Navy MARS does survive, however, I've always thought that at some point, we would all be brought under one roof and become "purple suiters".  How that will happen remains to be seen.

Good luck...I want nothing but the best for Navy MARS and I hope it survives.

Dwight

Logged
K7VV
Member

Posts: 32




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2009, 12:01:55 PM »

Well, I was at Dayton last week and heard it direct from the mouth of Chief Navy MARS; the program is quite likely to come to an end.

I've been in and out of Navy MARS for over thirty years; in when wanting to do something, and out when it got toooooo boring.  

Navy MARS has nobody to blame except itself.  It has failed to develop a mission.  While Army MARS has moved quickly and firmly into emcomm using Winlink, Navy MARS still toys around with an outdated application (MT-63) with no long-haul usefulness or national network infrastructure.  On top of that, how many times can you be expected to check into a voice net and only say 'No traffic'?

de Vince, K7VV/NNN0BPP/NNN0OEM
Logged
CURIOUSHAM
Member

Posts: 17




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2009, 12:06:09 PM »

KD4NUE wrote:

It very much resembles a fairly common attitude, where one picks up their toys and goes home. (referring to Navy).

____________________________________


W3LK wrote:

This ends my participation in this discussion, since it seems to be turning into a Navy bash, based on the last few comments.

________________________________

I guess Lon picked up his toys and went home!  Kind of proves KD4NUE's point about the swabbies, doesn't it?

HA HA HA HA!
Logged
K3WVU
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2009, 12:21:58 PM »

Vince,

Army has not only firmly moved into using WINLINK, it has made having WINLINK capability a membership requirement.  We also use MT63 on occasion, along with OLIVIA and EASYPAL, but I think the purpose there is to be able to use a variety of digital modes.
I transferred from Navy MARS to Army last year, and at the time, Navy was switching over to MT63 to pass traffic, but many were still using AMTOR FEC.  A few ops were dragged kicking and screaming into the WINLINK world,(and, to be fair, some ops got up and running quickly) but some state organizations had little or no WINLINK capability at all.  

It's the old "RTC" (resistance to change) factor.

73

Dwight
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!