Academy falls short of sub volunteers

Just_A_Mom

10-Year Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
4,774
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/navy_nukes_SAT_102409w/

Too few Naval Academy seniors opted to become nuclear-qualified submarine officers this fall, so the school’s administration has asked more students to make that their career path and, if necessary, will force them.
In a message to the Brigade of Midshipmen on Tuesday, the academy’s director of professional development, Capt. Stephen Evans, wrote that the academy this year was required to send 125 officers into the nuclear submarine training pipeline, but that only 92 had been accepted by Naval Reactors. That meant 33 midshipmen would be asked to volunteer or told to become sub nukes.
“If you are subsequently identified for a submarine interview, understand that you were released from your preferred community after serious consideration,” Evans wrote. “Be professional and focus on the positive aspects of serving your country in the submarine force.”
Naval Academy spokesman Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said it wasn’t uncommon for academy officials to move midshipmen from preferred warfare areas to areas where they were needed, although he said there weren’t records showing when or for which disciplines. The academy’s mission to provide the officers the Navy requires means the school must sometimes supercede mids’ wishes, he said.
Evans wrote to the midshipmen: “Although your personal desires are strongly and tirelessly considered, community assignments are ultimately grounded in Navy and Marine Corps requirements.”
In last year’s graduating class, 78 percent of midshipmen entered the warfare area they selected as their first choice, and 92 percent got their first or second choice, Carpenter said. The first midshipmen this year who will be urged to choose submarines are those who picked it as their second choice, he said. They are required to serve at least five years after commissioning.
Although the Navy’s top leaders have said they want women to serve on subs, female midshipmen aren’t yet permitted to choose the submarine career path.
Demand for nuclear-qualified submarine junior officers has grown over the past few years as more young officers leave the fleet to pursue civilian careers, Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson told Congress in March.
Although he did not provide statistics, Ferguson said the Navy needed plenty of junior officers to grow into control-grade officers.
Naval Reactors’ total yearly requirement from all three sources of officers — the academy, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps and Officer Candidate School — was unavailable by Friday.
 
Same thing has happened for several years now, no one wants to go subs and they have been increasing the quota.
 
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:
 
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:
 
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.
 
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:

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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:
That was it, thanks!
So, you Class of 2012 female Midn's, you'll be the first in the silent service!
 
Maximus - you are misunderstanding the article, if the plan is approved the first will be Class of 2010.

A handful of female seniors at the Naval Academy or in the Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps could very well be the first women to be assigned to a U.S. submarine.
And if initial plans fall into place, those women — joined by some seasoned supply and surface nuke lieutenants already in the fleet — will be included in four crews assigned to two Ohio-class submarines by late 2011

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:
The plan to be submitted to leadership for approval will likely involve integrating four crews at first: the blue and gold crews of a ballistic sub on one coast and the blue and gold crews of a Tomahawk shooter on the other, officials said.
The first group would come from the Class of 2010. Seniors interested in surface and undersea nuclear careers are already undergoing personal interviews with Adm. Kirkland Donald, head of Naval Reactors. Right now, women being interviewed are eligible only for nuclear propulsion billets aboard aircraft carriers. The men are eligible for carriers and subs.
Donnelly said the first female officer cadre would depend on volunteers this school year.
It’s already a healthy pool. In the academy class that graduated last spring, half of the 32 ensigns headed to nuclear propulsion school were women. That bodes well for finding volunteers among this year’s crop of seniors.
“I think it would be possible to go back to that pool [of senior midshipmen] that has been accepted into the nuclear propulsion program with the intent of going into the surface community, to go back and say, ‘Are there any of you that would care to volunteer for submarine duty?’” Donnelly said.
After graduation in May 2010, they would enter the submarine officer pipeline with their male classmates
.

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!
 
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!

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.
 
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!

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.”
 
Maximus, did you even read the article or click on the graphic?
Your post is contradictory and doesn't make much sense.
 
Maximus, did you even read the article or click on the graphic?
Your post is contradictory and doesn't make much sense.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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!
 
Back
Top