Women on Submarines

Excellent post USNA1985.

Just a quick question, and I ask this in all seriousness to anyone out there who may have knowledge on the subject:

What is the current policy in regards to women on the nuclear Carriers? Wouldn't there also be similar "what if they may be pregnant and near the reactor" concerns? Is is different on the sub due to recycling of the environmentals?

And if I'm getting too close to OPSEC, please let me know and tell me to mind my own business...:redface:

Bullet (someone who would rather be 20,000 feet above the water surface than 10,000 leagues below it.)
 
Bullet;

My semi-current information on the subject is that women are being assigned to carriers after they have competed Nuc School and Prototype training but are not usually assigned to engineering department commands (ie; E, M or RC divisions).

As far as catching zoomies (ionizing radiation, not USAFA cadets), an operating Submarine Nuclear Reactor is very well shielded and exposure is very slight. However, during refit periods, when maintenance is being performed inside the Reactor Compartment, exposures can be much higher (I can't play hide and seek in the dark anymore!).

You mentioned envrionmentals. That is a concern for everyone's health. IF the scrubbers are working constantly, than the CO2 is well controlled. However, tactical concerns (running silent for extended periods) and constant maintenance required on the scrubbers, will cause them to be secured for periods of time during which CO2 levels can go very high. (during deployment it was common to have a low grade headache from elevated CO2 levels). If the levels got past a certain level, we would open up CO2 canisters (chemical absorbers developed during WWII) to slow the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

YES! We too enjoyed being at 20,000 feet. Heading west from either Rota or Holy Loch, on a Tiger Air 707. End of deployment and on our way back to Groton for an off crew!
 
SubSquid:

what was the berthing like on USS HOLLAND ss1, I read that it even had a internal combustion engine,but I wanted to hear it from someone who was there.:shake::yllol::biggrin:

I was always surface Navy so I have to get in my shots when I can.:thumb:
 
Gunner1zues:

Bearthing was about the same: no females (damn!). Sorry to hear you spent your career as a target. Must have been a very stressful 20 knowing that at any moment the bottom could fall out of your skimmer!:shake:

Ooga!

Dive! Dive!
 
SVG:

From the century when a pirate was born two hundred years too late.

From a century when the Mickey Mouse Club was the most anticipated TV show in history.

From the century of Pax America when the United States Stood as a Colossus and stepped back.

From a century when PC meant parental control.

From a century when close proximity lead to unintended consequences.

God Bless your century. To paraphrase Sergeant Major Patrick Harper: "God Save America":beer1:

Even I know it is not automatic or immaculate!
God save America when the time comes that dire circumstances will not allow for medeival patriarchal practices to have any place in the military, but still men remaining living in that era. I do not know what a place like Israel would do if their military was filled with such old fashioned policies. I believe it is time for America to enter the 21st century in terms of military. If there is a woman with outstanding credentials who could be a grand asset to that submarine, it would be utterly foolish to deny her the right.
 
SVG - Increasing the opportunites for women in the military is happening and will continue to happen regardless of what a few men on this board think or feel.

Of course, it's ridiculous to think that an entire class of people are prevented from holding certain jobs and the opportunites for increased earnings and advancement solely because of their sex.
The military has changed a lot in the past 30 years and will continue to change.

A mid posted on another thread that female mids are currently being interviewed for Sub service. This is what I heard as well - it will be phased in with the class of 2010. These women will go to Nuke school and be stationed on boomers beginning in 2011.

Frankly, if the men don't like it - they only have themselves to blame. There simply are not enough men who are willing to step forward and serve so the inclusion of females now is a function of necessity.
The men on this board would do future officers a big favor by embracing change instead of complaining and offering excuses why it won't/can't work. Of course it can work, where there is a will there is a way - attitude is everything.
 
JAM,

Not saying it is not true that starting in 11 women will be on subs, but I do question it, since it would require the sub to be retro-fitted for women, or at least address living quarters. I would believe the MSM would have picked up on this if it came out of DOD. Additionally, that would mean the interviews are for the class of 11, since the class of 10 already have their track. That would put them off until at least 12, because they would have to go through training first, which is more doable in practicality.

Traditionally gossip is usually based on a kernel of truth, but only a kernel. For example, I remember living in the UK and the day we arrived everyone said it was closing (BRAC was big back then), 3 yrs later as we were walking out the door physically, the base got hit, and went care taker status 3 yrs after that. Look at Hickham and the 22, people from day one said the jets were going there(close to 5 yrs now), yet not one has arrived and it is not likely they will accept for a small cadre, they only are now becoming operational in AK.

I never saw submariners as a situation of not enough men willing to serve, but as a way to push forward the equal opportunity of women.

As a wife who saw women integrated into fighters, I will say it had issues, for example, the squadron had to be retro-fitted for ladies bathrooms (needed to have showers and changing areas, not just toilets). This is a squadron where you just need to knock some walls down and add plumbing, not a sub. My guesstimate is a typical squadron is at least 5K sqft, heck of a lot bigger than a sub that people eat, sleep and live in for months at a time. I will say even 20 yrs later on a base of 300 flyers, only 1-2% are women. Again goes back to retrofitting a sub for 1 maybe 2 women out of 100+, that is an extreme cost when we are fighting 2 wars at one time, and DADT is a higher priority.

Finally, fraternization is still a very big deal in the military, which means they have to find a way to configure the sub with sleeping quarters for the enlisted female. They can easily do it for officers, but can't do it so quickly for enlisted. It would also require the sub to have at least 2 JO's as female since they share cabins. You can't allow female officers while deny female enlisted. How do you hot bunk a female with a male?

These are true operational questions/situations regarding the integration of women, it has nothing to do with sex, but how to achieve it in a fiscally productive way with limited funding.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^ I agree. I am not against it I question the group dynamics. My daughter should have the right to apply for any job in the Navy. As long as she qualifies for that job under current Navy standards.
 
There is an adage: SERVICE BEFORE SELF

As much as I believe women should have the right to serve on subs if qualified, I also believe that the DOD is spread thin in costs, and if it takes money away from the troops that are currently fighting in 2 wars, than it is just not the right time.

Do I know the right time? NO, but if 10 million has to be diverted to retro fit a sub for 1 female instead of going to pay for supplies in war zones for hundreds of service members, than I am going to side with the hundreds, and not the one.
 
PIMA - perhaps you should trot on over to the Naval Academy and talk to some mids.
Female Firsties are being interviewed for subs. They will graduate in the spring - 2010.

Each year on the Navy forums mids talk about being recruited for Subs. They have to recruit because not enough volunteer. One of the articles about it alluded to the shortage of volunteers for Sub service.
 
Let's go with that, tell me how the sub will be retro fitted for women by 11, since we are currently in the 10 budget and there is no funding for retro-fitting. That means, the only way to allow this to occur is to have 2 JO's for cabin purposes.

Our very very close friend has a mid, and we saw them 2 weeks ago at the AF Navy game, his 1st choice is subs, he will get his track next spring. He is academically the top, so he will have his pick, this was a topic of conversation as we had lunch in the AOG tent, and according to them, there is talk, but the the problem is the sleeping arrangements since there are few officers making cabins an issue and hot bunking an issue for enlisted.

I place very little in what a mid says regarding gossip, and more into the fact that the DOD would address sleeping issues for officers and enlisted prior to integration. The Navy is still gun shy due to Tailhook and would not want their first co-ed sub to have a sexual stigma. When you only have small % of officers, and a small amount of berthing, sleeping arrangements are not an after thought, nor are showers or the bathrooms. If the AF re-jigged their squadrons before the 1st female was assigned, I would think that the Navy would do that with their branch, especially since it is a problem surfacing under antarctica.

Show me the DOD news release that states women will be on subs in 11 and I will be more than happy to eat crow. Mullen is calling for it, but there is nothing in writing that states they will end it. Two different things. For example, when Bullet entered the AF, we had female FAIPS, Jeannie Flynn was the first female pilot that got fighters 4 yrs later. It takes time, it will happen, but it takes time, and the way DOD budgets work, the earliest a sub will receive funding for retro-fitting would be FY11, and if it takes a yr to do so, the earliest will be 12 that we will see a woman. Of course, whoever that woman is her career will be golden and she will be on the cover of Time, Newsweek or People

This is the only article that gives even a hope, yet there is nothing in there that states in 18 months women will be on subs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090928/od_nm/us_submarines_women_odd
 
Exclusive: Navy to Lift Ban on Women Serving Aboard Submarines

Women Will Be Assigned to Subs if Congress Does Not Object
By DAVID KERLEY and LUIS MARTINEZ
Feb. 23, 2010

Women are a big step closer to serving on U.S. Navy submarines. ABC News has learned that the Navy has decided to lift the ban on female submarine crew members. Subs are one of the last places in the military from which women are excluded.

The only potential roadblock remaining is for both house of Congress to pass legislation specifically barring the policy change during the 30 working day window for congressional comment that began Monday.

A Defense Department official tells ABC News that the civilian Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, support lifting the ban. Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed a letter last Friday notifying Congress of the Navy's policy change. The 30-day window for congressional comment began when Gates' letter was delivered to Capitol Hill.

Through a spokesperson, Mabus said he "believes it's a great idea and the right thing to do. He fully supports the assignment of women to submarines."

"The Secretary supports the Navy decision," said Geoff Morrell, Gates' spokesman.

"The Chairman fully supports it," said Capt. John Kirby, spokesman for Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But even if Congress goes along, it will be at least a year and a half before a woman is able to serve on a U.S. submarine. The Navy plans to phase women onto submarine crews gradually, and the first to serve will be officers. Submarine officers must complete more than a year of "nuclear school" before being assigned to a "boat."

A Defense Department official tells ABC News the hope is that 12 to 18 ROTC or Naval Academy graduates will enter submarine training.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy...g-aboard-submarines-congress/story?id=9921378
 
So yeah i just kind of breezed my way through all the old posts so I don't know if anyone already said this but...

As far as integrating society completely (in regards to what was said about unisex bathrooms and the like) if you really want to have complete and true equality, shouldn't women be required to meet the same fitness requirements as men on PT tests? And wouldnt they have to have their heads shaved during basic training as well? And shouldnt they not be allowed to wear make-up? That is really the only way you could have real equality. That way you would know for sure that the person getting the job was really the one who was most qualified. However, I'm sure implementing true equality like this (PT test requirements for the most part) would disqualify a lot of women from most jobs in the military.

Also another thing, since so many people think the issue is just simply about opening up "opportunities" for women in the military, when are women going to be required to register with Selective Service? I can see a lot of women rethinking their ideas of "equality" if we had another Vietnam/Draft situation and this was put into play.

All that said, i think complete gender integration of society is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever. Not trying to offend, or be a sexist or what not. JMHO :redface: .

PS, I'm pretty sure this sub-integration issue would get some interesting comments from my late grandpa and late great-uncle who were both submariners back in WWII.
 
For years, women have been going on submarine sea trials during new construction. They hot bunk, shower and use the head without any problem. It can be done.
 
It will be interesting to see what kind of female "manning" subs will see, and what adjustments they make for berthing.
 
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/02/navy_women_subs_022310w/

According to the Navy’s initial plans last year, the first women on submarines will likely be nuclear-qualified supply and surface lieutenants already in the fleet, who will join the crews of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines by late 2011.

I think the berthing issue was already addressed and outlined in an earlier article - way back in this thread.http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?p=96975#post96975
 
Ditto LITS' comments on "interesting."

I'm sure if we figured this out 30+ years ago to get women into military airplanes and ships, we will take American ingenuity, common sense and lessons learned to get women on subs. We have somehow managed to get men on the moon in the last century, men and women into space stations and allow women to run marathons in the Olympics (women weren't allowed to run longer distances years ago, because of a raft of social reasons and prejudices). My mother played half-court basketball because of concerns about women's reproductive health if they tried to repeatedly run back and forth - gasp:eek: - the entire length of a regulation basketball court. Cultural change will play out before our eyes as it has many times before.

In 1978, when it had all been settled that women could be assigned for the first time to Navy ships and aircraft, I had an officer, a male, say to me he had no problem with women going aboard ship, of course, since it wasn't a matter of brains or ability to do the job, but there was a major engineering problem. Of course, I asked him what that was. Well, we couldn't have Navy ships going DIW (dead in the water) because "certain things clogged up the ship's plumbing." Yep, we could figure out how to put men on the moon but that was gonna be the war-stopper right there. :biggrin:

There are unique challenges on subs with space, cultural norms, retro-fitting, budget, timing, all the "how-to's," but I have faith it will all be done, no doubt with a few bumps and headlines along the way. There will be surprises, set-backs and successes, too.

A sponsor daughter of mine is on the informal USNA subs list. Since nothing is "go" as yet, she still has her service selection for another warfare community. Women in the current nuclear schools pipeline (currently designated for SWO [Surface Warfare]) nuke have also been briefed and offered the opportunity to switch horses mid-stream if the timing is right. Sponsor daughter is excited and challenged about the opportunity to serve her country in this warfare community.

A long-time mentoree of mine currently working this project on a major staff in DC confirms the press release noted above and described the years of research and planning that have gone into this. The gears are primed and ready to go into action.

And I can't resist, in response to 2010's post above with concerns about "true equality," I always felt men should be allowed to wear skirts, hose and heels, with long hair, and make-up, in the interests of equality...my tongue-in-cheek response. It's just SO not fair men don't have as many uniform items to choose from ... :rolleyes:Most of the apparent disparities in certain requirements come from application of a relative standard. Men normally have short hair, so going to no hair takes them to an equal plane. Women normally have longer hair, so taking them to a much shorter cut (that's at USNA, I know other Academies have different practices) takes them the same relative distance back to an equal plane. Everybody gets a haircut that takes them to some relative state of ugliness. That's all superficial stuff anyway, and as for make-up, I had to laugh. Women who attended Navy Women's Officer Candidate School (before my time) in the early 70's and earlier, HAD TO WEAR make-up and girdles, as required in uniform and grooming regulations. The physical fitness standards, I wondered about myself pro and con over the years, though I believe the thinking is the "relative standard" above, that the majority of a group should be expected to meet standards applicable to their group - as an equivalent standard, not necessarily an exactly equal one. As for Selective Service, write your Congressman - that's a matter of law.

OK, enough musing, the integration of women into the submarine community will indeed be interesting to watch unfold.
 
HAHAHA No more Sub Drafting!

Looks like male students who major in engineering won't have to worry about getting sub drafted any more :shake:

:thumb:
 
Back
Top