Women on Submarines

doubtful. They drafted way more men than women who volunteered this year. They tried to get a ton of female engineers to "volunteer" and only a few said yes. They then forced a number of males with a high QPR to "select" subs.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That apparently has changed to include USNA 2010 female grads.

--------------------------

Some women in the Naval Academy Class of 2010, who will be commissioned in late May, could be among the first female Navy officers to serve aboard submarines, academy officials said yesterday.

A number of highly competent female midshipmen have indicated a desire to go into the submarine service, academy Commandant Capt. Matthew Klunder told the school's oversight board.

As female submarine officers may soon be needed, "we feel very confident we can provide these," Klunder said.

Klunder said in an interview that the positions will be filled with midshipmen from all three commissioning sources - the academy, ROTC and officer candidate school. As many as 10 women from the Naval Academy Class of 2010 could be appointed.

Annapolis Capital 3/9/10

----------------------------------
 
usna1985 said:
^^^^

As a woman I have to agree with you at a certain level. I think the reason you won't see females as SEALs for awhile at least is that, while some women could handle it physically, the number who could is probably very, very small and thus it isn't worth the effort to bring in a bunch of women when <1% would make it. At least that's my guess.

However, remember that this was the argument used to keep women out of jets -- they couldn't handle the G forces, etc. Those theories ultimately were proven false. Also, the nature of flying jets changed and less physical strength was involved.

It is possible that, over time, the nature of SEAL warfare will change and it may, at some point, become less "physical." Not today, but perhaps in the next few decades.
Click to expand...


Yeah maybe they will get those exoskeleton suits that allow you to run faster and jump higher.... (That is a little sarcasm)

Warfare is war and I would not want my daughter for the sake of being compared as an equal to men to be a gunfighter, but that's just me I guess.

AS for sub duty no offense (Luigi or Lits I dont remeber who was taliing about the merits of sub duty earlier in the thread) but I don't believe a Coastie or for that member most civilians in the DoD or Congress are qualified to make assumptions about life aboard a submarine. I have served and know several that serve(d) aboard both Fast Attack and Boomers. Of the two Fast Attack seemed to be better option as they don't have as many 6 month deployments as the boomers. Let me share a story of experience because I served when they first started putting women on Combatants. While I think officers have a little more immunity from the vices associated with becoming your own man or woman. They have been away from home and had a chance to live life more than your typical enlistee who turned 18 six months to a year before their first deployment. One vessel left port for a West Pac within 3 months at least a 3rd of the 180+ female Enlisted compliment realized it was not very fun being deployed on a ship for 6 months and so you can guess what happened next. The problem got so bad that they had to keep women on board well into their second trimester. So I am not and never have or will be a fan of women on ships because at the end of the day or deployment as the case may be the men were the ones doing the greatest share of the duties(pregnant women get a light duty chit). I don't know how different it is today but as far as proximity to the reactor, we have had women serving in the nuclear field on service ships for about ten years and coupled with the fact our Nuclear Navy has had zero (which I believe is still the case) incidents then I would say it is relatively safe.I get a little nauseous when I hear people talk about the old boys club or women can do everything a man can do..... to me it is nothing less than the chic-ification of our Military and turning us from war fighters (which is or at least used to be our mission) to the Politically correct/expedient club of America. Sure women can fly jets sure they can serve on combatants but just because I can do something does not mean I should. Sorry for the long drawn out diatribe. Don't think I am women bashing or a chauvinist that is not my intention just concerned for my daughter as well as yours. I yield the balance of my time to the Floor.
 
Last edited:
Navy to move ahead with women on Subs

What some said wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be done is done.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_navy_women_subs_042910/

The Navy’s ban on women serving on submarines passed quietly into history Thursday morning.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates notified lawmakers in mid-February that the Navy would be lifting the ban, unless Congress took action against it. Navy spokesman Lt. Justin Cole said Thursday morning that the deadline for Congress to act passed at midnight.
The Navy plans a news conference later Thursday to talk about the policy.
“There are extremely capable women in the Navy who have the talent and desire to succeed in the submarine force,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said hours after the congressional deadline passed. “Enabling them to serve in the submarine community is best for the submarine force and our Navy.
“We literally could not run the Navy without women today,” Mabus said in a statement released by the Submarine Force headquarters in Norfolk, Va.
The Navy expanded the number of assignments available to women 15 years ago, allowing them to serve on surface ships but deeming that their service on submarines would cost too much. In preparation for changing the old policy, the Navy has worked out a plan to phase in women by allowing them to begin serving on submarines that will not require costly alterations to accommodate females.
The Navy plans to start by assigning three female officers each in eight different crews of guided-missile attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. That involves two submarines on the east coast and two on the west coast. Officials said that since more living space is available aboard those subs, it won’t require modification to the vessels, allowing the Navy to move faster to include women.
The female officers would be assigned after completing the 15-month submarine officer training pipeline, which consists of nuclear power school, prototype training and a submarine officer basic course. The first subs to get women each have about 15 officers and about 140 enlisted personnel.
Women make up 15 percent of the active duty Navy — there are 52,446 out of the force of 330,700.
“Today, women earn about half of all science and engineering bachelor’s degrees,” said Vice Adm. John J. Donnelly, commander of submarine forces. “There are capable women who have the interest, talent, and desire to succeed in the submarine force. Maintaining the best submarine force in the world requires us to recruit from the largest possible talent pool.”
Click to expand...
 
Ya beat me to it JAM...this is actually really good news.

I'm sure that the male engineering students at USNA are really happy right now (no sub drafts)

:thumb:
 
Bout time.:thumb: I think Boomers have the most room for retrofit and/or considerstion for gender modification although longer deployment. Guaranteeeee you there will still be SUB Draft.
 
AF6872 said:
Bout time.:thumb: I think Boomers have the most room for retrofit and/or considerstion for gender modification although longer deployment. Guaranteeeee you there will still be SUB Draft.
Click to expand...

But unlike that other draft, at least women are eligible now.
 
So i saw the news that women are now allowed on subs!! I was wondering if anyone would know when women will be allowed to be in ground infantry. Although the thought kills my mom, i would like to be in ground infantry for the marine corps, but, as a girl, can obviously not do that at the moment.
 
Let me preface this by saying a few things:

1) I am a father of three girls. They should have the right to be whatever they want in life.

2) I am a former Army officer and military aviator. Some of the best soldiers and best pilots with whom I served/flew were women.

3) I am a combat veteran. Most of the challenges I thought I would face in a mixed-gender field/combat environment were easily overcome.

That being said, the unique demands of military service necessitate that it discriminate in ways that would be wholly unacceptable, if not illegal, elsewhere in the public or private sector. For instance, the military routinely and necessarily discriminates based upon age and physical/medical limitations. However, because of its unique mission, federal laws prohibiting age discrimination in hiring and the Armericns with Disabilities Act do not apply.

There are certain places of military duty and entire military occupational fields, which require additional degrees of discrimination. Pilots, for instance, cannot have color blindness, which is acceptable in other military jobs. Could some technology be developed to overcome that physical limitation and allow otherwise-capable individuals to become pilots? Sure. However, that would be a huge and unnecessary waste of resources. [Note: I am NOT equating gender with "limitation;" I am merely pointing out that the military has unique needs to discriminate, often based upon physicality, and that making special accommodations, simply in the name of fairness is contrary to the military's mission. By the way, I intentionally chose the least contentious illustration I could think of to avoid going off on a tangent...PLEASE no arguments from color-blind would-be-pilots!]

Bottom line: the military is NOT a federal jobs program that exists to provide equal career opportunities to all citizens; it is a combat force that exists to provide security for our nation and its allies and be an instrument of our foreign policy! As a taxpayer, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives as efficiently as possible. As a father of four children, any or all of whom might one day wish to join the military, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives with as little risk to America's brave sons and daughters as possible. That means that if it is simpler, safer, and more operationaly effective to maintain a submarine force, which is not gender-integrated, I will accept that minor inconvenience to some individuals who might otherwise have pursued that career path...including my daughters, who are every bit the equal of their male counterparts. If one of them wants to be on a submarine and the Navy decides that it wishes to continue to restrict that duty from women, I guess she will just have suck it up and become President and Commander-in-Chief instead.
 
Last edited:
Physical discriminations are necessary in a physically centered military role. I would be in favor of allowing women in all combat roles AS LONG AS the physical standards are 100% the same for them as for the men. Prove you are physically and mentally fit for the job and you can have it. My 2 cents as an inexperienced civilian.
 
scoutpilot said:
Based on actual experience, I wouldn't expect that policy to last long. Bad for business.
Click to expand...

explain please - actual experience - serving on a submarine?
Bad for business??
Actually to meet the needs of the Navy it's success is imperative. There just are not enough young men willing to serve on Submarines.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Guess your wish won't be coming true:

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/ne...-introduces-first-women-to-serve-on-subs.html
Click to expand...

You should reread my post. My "wish" is not for anyone (especially my own daughters) to be restricted from anything in their lives based upon their gender. What I said is that if the Navy were to determine that there is an operational cost of gender-integrating their sub force, which they find unnecessary and/or prohibitive, that is reason enough. It is not about jobs, or fairness, or equality; it's about national defense at the least cost of blood and treasure.
 
Gray Hog said:
As a taxpayer, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives as efficiently as possible. As a father of four children, any or all of whom might one day wish to join the military, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives with as little risk to America's brave sons and daughters as possible. That means that if it is simpler, safer, and more operationally effective to maintain a submarine force, which is not gender-integrated, I will accept that minor inconvenience to some individuals who might otherwise have pursued that career path.
Click to expand...

Simpler, safer, and more operationally effective? I will partially buy the ‘safer’, but not the ‘simpler’ or ‘more operationally effective’. Simpler equates to the easy way out, not a goal of any organization when it conflicts with other objectives. Safety, operational effectiveness, costs, and a few other variables is a matrix where an acceptable overlap must be found. The safest employment of your helicopter would be that it set on the ground and never go flying. It’s most effective utilization would be a truck load of spare part backups for each and every component on board following it around 100% of the time with a full maintenance crew. A balance must be achieved and maintained. Many many interrelating requirements affect this balance.

scoutpilot said:
Based on actual experience, I wouldn't expect that policy to last long. Bad for business.
Click to expand...

Just_A_Mom said:
explain please - actual experience - serving on a submarine?
Bad for business??
Click to expand...

Still waiting, scoutpilot.

JAM, you do know that there is an urban legend that the Army has more aircraft than the Air Force and more boats than the Navy. I always thought they were comparing Boston Whalers to aircraft carriers. I never realized that there were SSBNs and SSGNs in their mix.

It is quite disturbing to see the official representative of a SA to come on these forums and project their biases. They should be helping all candidates reach an informed decision. He probably knows less about women on SSBNs/SSGNs than his accusation that you know nothing about women in combat.
 
Mongo said:
Simpler, safer, and more operationally effective? I will partially buy the ‘safer’, but not the ‘simpler’ or ‘more operationally effective’. Simpler equates to the easy way out, not a goal of any organization when it conflicts with other objectives. Safety, operational effectiveness, costs, and a few other variables is a matrix where an acceptable overlap must be found. The safest employment of your helicopter would be that it set on the ground and never go flying. It’s most effective utilization would be a truck load of spare part backups for each and every component on board following it around 100% of the time with a full maintenance crew. A balance must be achieved and maintained. Many many interrelating requirements affect this balance.





Still waiting, scoutpilot.

JAM, you do know that there is an urban legend that the Army has more aircraft than the Air Force and more boats than the Navy. I always thought they were comparing Boston Whalers to aircraft carriers. I never realized that there were SSBNs and SSGNs in their mix.

It is quite disturbing to see the official representative of a SA to come on these forums and project their biases. They should be helping all candidates reach an informed decision. He probably knows less about women on SSBNs/SSGNs than his accusation that you know nothing about women in combat.
Click to expand...

Is scout pilot an "Official Representative of a SA"? I remember when mombee was representing herself as official representation of admissions at USNA but don't recall anyone else claiming that??? :confused:
 
Mongo said:
Simpler, safer, and more operationally effective? I will partially buy the ‘safer’, but not the ‘simpler’ or ‘more operationally effective’. Simpler equates to the easy way out, not a goal of any organization when it conflicts with other objectives.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get "easy was out" from "simpler." Simpler means not unnecessarily burdened or overly complex. Anyone who has planned a military operation (which clearly you have not) knows that simplicity is one of the keys to ensuring that execution goes according to plan. Every element of added complexity adds risk. Likewise adding unnecessary burdens wastes valuable resources, hinders execution, and jeopardizes mission success.

The Principles of War, as taught to me at USMA:

Mass
Offensive
Maneuver
Unity of Command
Simplicity
Economy of Force
Security
Objective
Surprise

Mongo said:
The safest employment of your helicopter would be that it set on the ground and never go flying. It’s most effective utilization would be a truck load of spare part backups for each and every component on board following it around 100% of the time with a full maintenance crew. A balance must be achieved and maintained. Many many interrelating requirements affect this balance.
Click to expand...

Ummm...sitting on the ground is not "employment." That, and the rest of that nonsense reflects a lack of understanding military operations at any level. The one thing you said that has some basis in reality is the need for balance. However, you should take note of your own words; what must be balanced are requirements. Throwing additional burdens and unnecessary demands (which are not real requirements) into the equation upsets the balance and results in a suboptimal solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top