Academy falls short of sub volunteers

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Just_A_Mom, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/navy_nukes_SAT_102409w/

     
  2. Kero

    Kero Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same thing has happened for several years now, no one wants to go subs and they have been increasing the quota.
     
  3. gunner1zeus

    gunner1zeus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    JAM:

    If any of the fields (SWO aviation sub) meet 100% of their requested manpower it would mean they didn't request enough people and could face cuts in manning and funding in the next budget. It's a military thing. Ask for more than you want and hopefully get what you need.:eek:
     
  4. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,753
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    I can't blame them...who wants to be on a sub?
     
  5. gunner1zeus

    gunner1zeus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remembered "Down Periscope" it looked like duty on a sub would be a blast. There was a female officer on that sub diving officer i believe. It looked like being the XO might suck. if my memory serves me right.:yllol:
     
  6. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    JAM I'm sure you read the Army Times (19 Oct issue) and saw the article from the Navy Times, that stated: in 2011, female senior Midshipmen from the Academy and NROTC will be the first women on subs during summer cruise. They'll start with officers because they stated the obvious, it will cost too much to put enlisted female sailors on subs now.
     
  7. Kero

    Kero Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gunner thats not exactly true since the academy quotas are seperate from the general quotas so they know exactly how many people they are dealing with plus I know some are set by congress but that might just be the marine/navy split. Sub's are the only one that regularly don't make their quota, at least as far as peoples first choice.
     
  8. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Maximus was that in the print edition? I only read the online editions occassionally.
    Firstie mids have been interviewed this year for Sub service. I don't know why the article didn't mention it.
    My understanding is they will be ready in 2011 (after Nuke school) and serve on boomers. They are opening it up to Academy grads first and then roll it out to NROTC. Perhaps they want some female officers on board when the female mids go on summer cruise.
     
  9. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Print edition, Army Times-19 Oct 2009

    I did give a cursory search on line for the text and could not find it, I did not re-type the whole article. But, it clearly states that USNA "Firsties" and Senior NROTC women will be the first females on submarines, Sumer of 2011.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  10. kapojinha

    kapojinha Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was it, thanks!
    So, you Class of 2012 female Midn's, you'll be the first in the silent service!
     
  12. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Maximus - you are misunderstanding the article, if the plan is approved the first will be Class of 2010.

    The handful of seniors are this years firsties. A bunch have been interviewed. After graduation in May of 2010 they will go to Nuke school and be ready to serve as officers in late 2011.
    The article goes on to say:
    .

    I see from the article that the so called "impossibility" of solving the bunking issue that some folks on this forum represented has been solved.
    Since housing was the only issue in preventing women from selecting Subs and it has been solved; I would think Congress would support the plan.
    Thanks for posting!
     
  13. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't misunderstand anything, my copy of the Army Times skipped that part and I didn't read the on line article. I see that part now after reading the whole article on line.
     
  14. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
  15. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Solved? Looks like they are going to do exactly what some people here said would need to be done in another discussion, Staterooms for the ladies and hot racking for the sailors, unless they get Congress to spend money and alter the subs. That sounds real cost effective for a force that could pop in one day and say: "I'm out, I'm pregnant" It is a real possibility :wink:

    Enlisted modifications
    The other issue, besides personnel, will be to modify enlisted berthing on the Ohios. Donnelly said the volume of that hull allows for relatively uncomplicated modifications. But fairness is key to any change.

    “I would not entertain a solution that forced the men to hot-bunk on one of those ships. So we’ll do this right, and the right answer is give the women their own head,” he said, “and make sure the men aren’t inconvenienced or treated unfairly in any way.”
     
  16. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Maximus, did you even read the article or click on the graphic?
    Your post is contradictory and doesn't make much sense.
     
  17. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are confused again because you don't like the facts but, I'll play, show me where they "solved" all the berthing problems (aside from just putting female officers in Staterooms on Boomers) and where I was contradictory. I read the article but since I was also working today, I didn't analyze each word as it's not that important to me.
     
  18. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,802
    Likes Received:
    932
    Until they solve "all" berthing issues it will be a minute integration, meaning no female enlisted. We will all be able to see it coming down the line since they would request it in their FY budget, which starts in October. Thus we are in FY10, with no money set aside for retro fitting subs for women. That means the earliest they could start the funding will be next Oct 1 in FY 11. As it states they are intending for the first female officers in FY12, thus it will probably that budget they request funds for regarding retro-fitting. I am guessing they will do many RAND studies after the first cruise before the request the funds.

    I use to love the show JAG, and this was once the story line on the show. In the end, Mac (the female) was on a sub for a week and said due to cramp quarters of a sub, she felt it was not in the best interest of the Navy to allow women on subs. What will be interesting to see is how the submariners spouses feel about this. It is a very tight community, probably tighter than the fighter community in the AF. I remember when women start flying fighters, they were shunned not only by the guys, but their spouses too. Not for the fear that their spouse may cheat on them, but for the fear of physical abilities. When a jet goes down in the sink or the badlands, they rely on each other to survive. Wives feared looking at their 6'4 hubby weighing 200 lbs, that the 5'4 girl weighing 130 lbs would not have the strength to save them. 15 yrs later the women are treated like peers and are just one of the gals with the wives. However, that is 15 yrs and women are still rare in the combat world...maybe a handful out of 200 fliers on a base. Operationally it is easier for the AF to integrate, in the submarine world, that means they need to always have 2 females for berthing reasons, making it a more difficult logistical issue.

    I am for women being able to do everything that the military allows a man to do...here's my issue...if you want to be treated like an equal and your strength/stamina may be needed in the bad juju times, than I think we should not have 2 different PT assessments. I know there are women who can out run my husband, however, women are not required to do so. Of course, I also find it insulting that they lower the regs just because you have 2 XX's in your genetic make up.
     
  19. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    342
    Ya gotta admit though, "FiFi" made a VERY nice looking T-Bird pilot!
    (and ALL Eagle types would love the plaque she gave the 63FTS at Luke at the end of her F-16 transition)

    Steve
    USAFA ALO
    USAFA '83
     
  20. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,802
    Likes Received:
    932
    Hey I'll admit that most of the female fliers are very attractive...except you still have to pity them because very rarely does the flight suit fit right on any of them. I remember seeing them on base and then seeing them at church or off base and think wow, that is the figure you have hiding under the bags... for females the meaning of wearing a bag is very appropriate!
     

Share This Page