Why are woman not allowed to work on USN's submarines

[zoolander]

Why are woman not allowed to work on USN's submarines?

prefer if you also cite a source

[bmt]

i think a perfectly good group of working men can become unprofessional when a woman is brought to the group. Some men will show off, and some men will be sexist. (men at fault, not women, nessecarily) More importantly, there isn't room for privacy of another sex.

this quote is from about.com I can't post URL's until i have 15 posts


10. Can women go on submarines?

Women are not currently assigned to submarine crews because of the very limited habitability and privacy onboard a submarine. However, women have been on submarines for short durations as civilian technicians for specialized equipment testing, family members for one-day dependent cruises, and female midshipmen conducting two-day orientation cruises.

[riksavage]

The below quote was taken from a recent US interview with Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness by CNSNews.com. Same would apply to UK boats who spend a similar amount of time at sea.

Quote as follows: "Medical emergencies occur at two-and-a-half times the rate among women than they do among men, and a large percentage are due to pregnancy. If you create that kind of a situation, you shouldn't be surprised if the entire mission of the submarine is compromised. It's not a woman's issue, it's a national security issue. To say that men are just as susceptible to medical emergencies, as in the case of emergency appendicitis, for example, doesn't wash. I asked the Navy how many cases of appendicitis we've had, among either men or women, in the last three years. It's very rare. Pregnancies on the other hand are extremely common."

Also the US Navy estimated it will cost 300K per-female berth to convert the current batch of Subs to coed!

[BRAVE]

I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs

[submerged]

I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs

that's a weak argument because there's women just as harsh or harder then their male counterparts, like stated before the reason for women not being allowed to work aboard a submarine is:

1: privacy issues
2: social impact/complications on the crew
3: hygiëne issues (period and such)

these are the main reasons to disallow women to work aboard subs in a lot of navies around the world, ofcourse one could give the example of the german, swedish and norwegian navies allowing women aboard only these submarines don't do missions over extended periods of time in most cases so thereby the social/privacy/hygiëne issues are limited

[Rich]

Anytime you put men and women together they are going to be sleeping with each other. Lets face it! I was in one of the first US military Dorms that ever went coed so I think I can speak from some experience.

On a land base? Probably not a problem.

On a skinny little tube buzzing around the worlds oceans 200' down for months at a time? A problem! There's going to be issues and pregnancies because nothing can stop biology.

I dont think its anything that cant be dealt with, and I admit woman make a huge contribution to our military, and I honor them for it, I still think it would be a bad idea to have woman on a SSN.

[Systems Adict]

I can't fault any comments made here thus far, as it does come down to the practicalities of the human condition. However, what about this for a thought....

A submarine full of women, with not a man in sight.


No disrespect to female service personnel, but i find even the idea raising the hairs on the back of my neck !

Personal experience of the limited co-ed facilities on surface ships, as well seeing how having even just one or two women on board a ship affects how men operate / loose concentration, tell me that current policies are pretty much correct.


Your thoughts...?


Systems Adict

[Dae JoYoung]

'Ever seen the pregnancy rate of women on board Aircraft Carriers?

Women in military is still a major problem. Young people are the most sexually active, and often times, this has not been fully accounted for in the military service.

[Super Nimrod]

I have only ever been on conventional subs in dock and never at sea but it is immediately apparent that there is zero privacy. Typically sleeping accomodation is 3 bunks high either side of a corridor that people move through 24/7. You only have a curtain to pull across your bunk in that corridor and you have to share that bunk with your Oppo when he is on shift. The nukes do have more room but privacy is virtually unheard of.

In the future I suspect that Subs will get so large that this is no longer an issue (the new Astute class partially solves this) or we will see all female crews if someone takes the brave decision to do this.

[Tasman]

'Ever seen the pregnancy rate of women on board Aircraft Carriers?



No, I haven't seen these figures anywhere! Are there any statistics available in the public domain re this? A lot of claims are being made which may or may not be correct. I would like to see some accurate statistics to back up these claims one way or the other.

Some navies do have females aboard their conventional submarines and it seems to work OK. However, I accept that nuclear submarines may spend much longer on patrol so problems associated with privacy, etc, would be much greater in a nuclear submarine. On the other hand nuclear submarines are larger so providing privacy should be easier (though still difficult) than in a conventional submarine.

Cheers

[riksavage]

The main issue on UK/US Nuclear Boats is not one of privacy, it's one of national security. The statistical likelihood of a female crew-member becoming ill is three times greater than that of a male, which could result in an SSN or worse, SSBN being compromised because it is forced to abort a patrol or surface to CASAVAC a critically ill member of the crew.

Also the US DoD estimates it will cost 300K per-female crew space to change it's current batch of Sub's to coed!

[Tasman]

The main issue on UK/US Nuclear Boats is not one of privacy, it's one of national security. The statistical likelihood of a female crew-member becoming ill is three times greater than that of a male, which could result in an SSN or worse, SSBN being compromised because it is forced to abort a patrol or surface to CASAVAC a critically ill member of the crew.

Also the US DoD estimates it will cost 300K per-female crew space to change it's current batch of Sub's to coed!

I accept that the figures you mention here and in post 3 relating to medical emergencies provide a strong case for females not being assigned to nuclear subs which may deploy for long periods. The cost of 'converting' current subs would also be hard to justify.

Cheers

[nornavy]

I see no arguments for not letting women serv on sub's. In The Royal Norwegian Navy, we had the world's first female sub CO as long ago as 1995.
No alterations of the subs layout has been made.

[Todjaeger]

I see no arguments for not letting women serv on sub's. In The Royal Norwegian Navy, we had the world's first female sub CO as long ago as 1995.
No alterations of the subs layout has been made.

The Royal Norwegian Navy subs are SSKs and I would imagine that they have a fairly short patrol duration, at least when compared to something like a USN SSN or SSBN. A short USN patrol might only last a few days, but a long patrol could run a few months. Given the cramped conditions, plus US tendencies to exclude women from "combat roles" a long duration patrol could well become an issue. On surface vessels, especially on large vessels like carriers, it's much less of an issue.

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...

-Cheers

[nornavy]

Norwegian subs have been deployed to the Med for several months. Time between shore visits can vary.
I don't think US female sailors are any different than others. That they are more "lively" is just a pathetic excuse.
Norwegian policy is not to let couples sail on the same ship

[Rich]

I see no arguments for not letting women serv on sub's. In The Royal Norwegian Navy, we had the world's first female sub CO as long ago as 1995.
No alterations of the subs layout has been made.

Whats the average time at sea for each RNN SSK patrol? And whats the average time at sea for each USN SSN?

Having female Officers is a bit different then female service woman. Officers have strict non-fraternization rules with enlisted men and woman. In the US military such fraternization will probably ruin the career of an officer, if, they even survive the courts martial.

I dont like the idea of a bunch of 19yos, fresh out of high school, running around a SSN pulling their clothes on together during a drill. If so many girls get knocked up on a carrier then why wouldn't it happen on a submarine?

On Land bases none of this is a big deal. On a little tube in the ocean, 200' down, with 24 Trident D-5s loaded? Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one. Yank boats have tremendous firepower, long patrol times, and huge responsibilities. We need perfect discipline on them and that means 100% discipline, not 99%.

The last thing we need is some High school endless summer movie.

[USNavySEAL3310]

Here's a NYT story from '91. Click link for full story.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE6D6163BF933A05757C0A967958260

"Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say."

"More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship."

"He said nine women became pregnant before the Acadia left San Diego on Sept. 5, but were not tested until the ship was under way. Five others were transferred to the Acadia while she was sailing to the gulf, but their pregnancies were not discovered until after they were on board. Seven Months on Duty."

"The remaining 22 women became pregnant while the ship was deployed, perhaps on liberty calls in Hawaii, the Philippines and other ports the Acadia visited on her way to the gulf, Commander Smallwood said."

"The Navy has strict rules against sexual relationships between men and women while on duty or between commissioned officers and enlisted personnel, but Commander Smallwood said there was no evidence any such regulations were broken."
-----------------------------------------------------

Here is a '03 article mentioning women in their service in the USN:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2003/December/women.htm

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

I personally believe women in on-duty navy are fine (i.e. surface ships) because those ships can at least accommodate for most of the female conditions (i.e. giving birth). Like someone said earlier, you can't stop biology. It is very difficult to regulate sex on-board a navy vessel. So instead of prevention and deterrence, you have to focus on containment and that means knowing how to deal with it when it comes up, not just yelling at the couple.

On a sub, those conditions need to be sacrificed for the overall safety of the crew, the sub, and the mission. Again, like someone mentioned, breaking off a recon mission or patrol because a woman needs to be MEDEVACed is unacceptable. It compromises the three I mentioned above for a petty issue compared to the bigger picture.

Just my $0.02

[Tasman]

I personally believe women in on-duty navy are fine (i.e. surface ships) because those ships can at least accommodate for most of the female conditions (i.e. giving birth). Like someone said earlier, you can't stop biology. It is very difficult to regulate sex on-board a navy vessel. So instead of prevention and deterrence, you have to focus on containment and that means knowing how to deal with it when it comes up, not just yelling at the couple.

On a sub, those conditions need to be sacrificed for the overall safety of the crew, the sub, and the mission. Again, like someone mentioned, breaking off a recon mission or patrol because a woman needs to be MEDEVACed is unacceptable. It compromises the three I mentioned above for a petty issue compared to the bigger picture.



I think that you make some good points in this post and the attached articles certainly support your ideas re this issue.



Having female Officers is a bit different then female service woman. Officers have strict non-fraternization rules with enlisted men and woman. In the US military such fraternization will probably ruin the career of an officer, if, they even survive the courts martial.

I dont like the idea of a bunch of 19yos, fresh out of high school, running around a SSN pulling their clothes on together during a drill. If so many girls get knocked up on a carrier then why wouldn't it happen on a submarine?

On Land bases none of this is a big deal. On a little tube in the ocean, 200' down, with 24 Trident D-5s loaded? Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one. Yank boats have tremendous firepower, long patrol times, and huge responsibilities. We need perfect discipline on them and that means 100% discipline, not 99%.

The last thing we need is some High school endless summer movie.

Good points Rich. I originally had no objection to women serving on submarines but I was looking at the Australian situation with SSKs and in the case of American SSNs and SSBNs I have now changed my mind. With the long patrols undertaken by USN subs and the responsibility for the nuclear deterrent on board the SSBNs I am certain that you are totally correct. You need 100% discipline without unnecessary distractions. IMO, there is no room for political correctness to compromise this requirement.

Cheers

[AegisFC]

Here's a NYT story from '91. Click link for full story.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE6D6163BF933A05757C0A967958260

"Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say."

Just about everyone in the USN has heard those horror stories but that just doesn't happen to most ships.

I just got off a six month deployment with on a DDG and none of the 30 or so females on board became pregnant while on deployment or were shipped off because they became pregnant before deployment. In the year or so before we deployed we lost maybe 4 or 5 females due to pregnancy. The USN's policy on pregnancy is that they can serve on a ship for a couple months (sorry I don't know what month they remove them) and then after some baby leave after the child is born they are put back on another ship (though it may not be their original ship).

[VexxSkyRider]

We can't let political correctness cloud our judgment here people. We haven't got room to bull**** around at 200 feet below the surface. If we really want women on our subs we need <b>mandatory</b> birth control, stringently healthy women and discipline regarding how male sailors act around them. As for all female sub crews? No way in hell. We must select whoever is best suited to that mission. What if there are no female personnel that have the needed skill set relating to the mission available at that time? It is a possibility that they could serve on conventional subs but nuclear subs are much more troublesome.

[Cooch]

On a sub, those conditions need to be sacrificed for the overall safety of the crew, the sub, and the mission. Again, like someone mentioned, breaking off a recon mission or patrol because a woman needs to be MEDEVACed is unacceptable.

This is one of the major reasons why subs, particularly nuc subs, are different.
A surface ship does not compromise its normal security very much by having to evacuate a crew member or meet another vessel with the resources to deal with a medical emergency.

Nuc Subs - OTOH - depend on remaining hidden under-water for a considerable period of time as a part of their operational security. Every time that they surface, they offer a potential enemy an increased opportunity to detect and observe them and thus reduce the potential advantage that they have as submarines.

Peter

[IrishHitman]

I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs

You've never met an angry Irishwoman then have you?

To be honest, men are just too sexually motivated to justify women being allowing on a submarine, where the mission depends on the stealth of the ship...

[McVine]

Norwegian subs have been deployed to the Med for several months. Time between shore visits can vary.
I don't think US female sailors are any different than others. That they are more "lively" is just a pathetic excuse.
Norwegian policy is not to let couples sail on the same ship

I concur. I think the Mandatory birth control for any woman who may want the assignment may be a good idea but hey while we're at it why not a mandatory vasectomy? Its reversible. I can see the hygiene issue also but provisions can be made for equality if a competently qualified woman should want to work on a sub.

[kato]

vasectomy? Its reversible.

Umm, what? ... only if it's only "tieing the knots".

:rolleyes:

[barra]

I concur. I think the Mandatory birth control for any woman who may want the assignment may be a good idea but hey while we're at it why not a mandatory vasectomy? Its reversible. I can see the hygiene issue also but provisions can be made for equality if a competently qualified woman should want to work on a sub.

Yeah, well getting a needle in your nuts friggin hurts, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I was laid up for a week after my vasectomy. :shudder Taking a pill is a bit different from a vasectomy.

[Cooch]

Have we considered the implications of a strategy which implies that personnel will disobey a direct order against sexual contact?

"YOU WILL NOT DO THIS, but when you do........"

Bluntly, I suggest that much of the reasoning behind the desire to put women in such situations is fallacious, and lacks both understanding and priority. The military is - as ought to be obvious - not about maximising the rights and freedoms of the individual. Rather, it involves individuals giving up a great many of their rights, in order to protect the rights of the greater portion of the population.

This should include the "right" to be treated in an identical fashion when you do not have an identical capacity to do the job. Please note that "the job" in many cases involves more than the direct function required by rank, position and specialist qualifications. It also includes the ability to ensure that the whole unit functions in the best and most efficient manner. Effects upon morale and personal interaction are not invalid considerations in such a situation.

People are tending to focus on sex in this thread, when sex is merely a part of a spectrum of physical and psychological differences which render many people - not just females - unsuitable for some military positions. If you think that genetic differences that are either inherited or an accident of birth are unfair, I suggest that you take up the issue with your parents. Or God.
Why should the lack of a Y chromosome be treated any differently from other genetically based issues when assessing suitability for a job?

Respectfully......... Peter

[gf0012-aust]

Nuc Subs - OTOH - depend on remaining hidden under-water for a considerable period of time as a part of their operational security. Every time that they surface, they offer a potential enemy an increased opportunity to detect and observe them and thus reduce the potential advantage that they have as submarines.

Peter


The cousins do have women on their nukes. A couple have just completed PWO/AWO recently.....

[IrishHitman]

Have we considered the implications of a strategy which implies that personnel will disobey a direct order against sexual contact?

"YOU WILL NOT DO THIS, but when you do........"

Bluntly, I suggest that much of the reasoning behind the desire to put women in such situations is fallacious, and lacks both understanding and priority. The military is - as ought to be obvious - not about maximising the rights and freedoms of the individual. Rather, it involves individuals giving up a great many of their rights, in order to protect the rights of the greater portion of the population.

This should include the "right" to be treated in an identical fashion when you do not have an identical capacity to do the job. Please note that "the job" in many cases involves more than the direct function required by rank, position and specialist qualifications. It also includes the ability to ensure that the whole unit functions in the best and most efficient manner. Effects upon morale and personal interaction are not invalid considerations in such a situation.

People are tending to focus on sex in this thread, when sex is merely a part of a spectrum of physical and psychological differences which render many people - not just females - unsuitable for some military positions. If you think that genetic differences that are either inherited or an accident of birth are unfair, I suggest that you take up the issue with your parents. Or God.
Why should the lack of a Y chromosome be treated any differently from other genetically based issues when assessing suitability for a job?

Respectfully......... Peter

This.
Couldn't be more right.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Still i dont see any real problems with women on boats. The RAN has been doing it for a while now and there have been nos issues AFAIK. Culturally the Australians and Americans are pretty close, if we're not having any problems why would you? I know nukes have long cruises, but Collins are no ordinary SSK's and LONG cruises are routeen. Without considering all the equal rights stuff, i dont see a problem with in the real world. Your also limiting your talent pool significantly.

[gf0012-aust]

Culturally the Australians and Americans are pretty close,

nope, I work with the cousins regularly and have so for a number of years. we have similar mindsets across numerous operational parameters, but culturally? we can be chalk and cheese and have a few problems getting the message across. sure we have strong links and operational symbiosis, but culturally there is some basic stuff where we can and are very different. One of the members in here is a dualie, and even though he is a "skip" when we did work in the US together recently, it was a struggle.

if we're not having any problems

not entirely true.


but Collins are no ordinary SSK's and LONG cruises are routeen.

we don't talk about any sub missions detail in the pubic domain, in fact info on Collins and or Australian sub/UDT is just as closely witheld as Specops missions (and are regarded as the same across various vectors)

[Cooch]

Your also limiting your talent pool significantly.

Are we?
What percentage of would-be submariners are rejected due to lack of a Y Chromosome? (Not that such persons cannot be profitably used in other branches of the Navy in question).

As with any such issue, it is not as simple as just "sex" or "available talent", but the ability to put together a whole crew/hardware package. Inclusion or exclusion on any one basis will have flow-on effects into other areas.

I argue that both the military personnel who accept the dangers, and the civil population who pay the bills are entitled to the best "package" possible, and the compromises required to accommodate political correctness need to be recognised.

Regards......... Peter

[Ozzy Blizzard]

nope, I work with the cousins regularly and have so for a number of years. we have similar mindsets across numerous operational parameters, but culturally? we can be chalk and cheese and have a few problems getting the message across. sure we have strong links and operational symbiosis, but culturally there is some basic stuff where we can and are very different. One of the members in here is a dualie, and even though he is a "skip" when we did work in the US together recently, it was a struggle.

Well its a tad closer than say the navy of say Iran or Mozambique...

What i was referring to was cultural mindsets towards the sexes. But, I don't know personally haven't worked in the US but as far as I can tell, things shouldn't be too different.

we don't talk about any sub missions detail in the pubic domain, in fact info on Collins and or Australian sub/UDT is just as closely witheld as Specops missions (and are regarded as the same across various vectors)

I would assume given the Collins range and area of interest, several months submerged would not be out of the question. That would be comperable to a nuke boat AFAIK.

Are we?
What percentage of would-be submariners are rejected due to lack of a Y Chromosome? (Not that such persons cannot be profitably used in other branches of the Navy in question).

As with any such issue, it is not as simple as just "sex" or "available talent", but the ability to put together a whole crew/hardware package. Inclusion or exclusion on any one basis will have flow-on effects into other areas.

I argue that both the military personnel who accept the dangers, and the civil population who pay the bills are entitled to the best "package" possible, and the compromises required to accommodate political correctness need to be recognised.

Regards......... Peter

IMHO at an aggregate level, only using a single sex will reduce your talent pool, unless you beleve one sex is significant less capable or incapable of doing the work it has too. At the individual crew level, well maybe not in the short term, but by raising the sex restriction you improve competitiveness, which will only lead to better crews in the log run. I don't think its about political correctness (i hope its not), I simply question the wisdom of the (mis arguably) conceptions regarding woman in combat roles.

[Cooch]

IMHO at an aggregate level, only using a single sex will reduce your talent pool, unless you beleve one sex is significant less capable or incapable of doing the work it has too. At the individual crew level, well maybe not in the short term, but by raising the sex restriction you improve competitiveness, which will only lead to better crews in the log run. I don't think its about political correctness (i hope its not), I simply question the wisdom of the (mis arguably) conceptions regarding woman in combat roles.

The reduction in the talent pool should be comparable to the proportion of women seeking positions in that particular branch of the service. Women are already a minority in the armed services, and (IIRC) a smaller minority in the combat arms. If they follow the normal patterns for civil occupations, they will also spend less average aggregate time in their careers and have less ambition to advance their careers. (This may not be entirely the case, as the military is not a "normal" subset of the population in any case) Point is that the reduction in the talent pool is not as great as you might suppose. Even granted that it is significant, it is quite arguable that such female talent may be utilised in other branches on the Nay, freeing up male counterparts to participate in areas for which females are less suited.

With regard to your point on competitive behaviour, it certainly hasn't worked in our educational facilities and the norm (exceptions are acknowledged) is that females are by nature less competitive (more prone to place emphasis on work-life balance etc) in civil employment.

In short, while I think it valid for you to question various attitudes on this subject, I'd argue that the questions have been well and truly answered,,,, and that your objections do not lead to as great a nett penalty as you suggest.

Regards.......... Peter

[gf0012-aust]

What i was referring to was cultural mindsets towards the sexes. But, I don't know personally haven't worked in the US but as far as I can tell, things shouldn't be too different.

Actually, again I'd argue from first hand experience that its very different


I would assume given the Collins range and area of interest, several months submerged would not be out of the question. That would be comperable to a nuke boat AFAIK.

Not even close. completely different capabilities means that tempo is very different. at sea is not the same as submerged. mission length in calendar terms is not indicative of platform capabilty or atypical tempo issues

[IrishHitman]

Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one.

I take offence to that...
Are you implying that European militaries have less discipline?
All one has to do disprove that is look at the US military's record in Japan and Iraq, and you'll see that is absolute BS.

As for all female crews, I don't see a problem with that provided that they have the same standards as the male crews. Which are harsh enough.

Mixing the sexes is a bad idea for many many reasons, however.

[AegisFC]

On US surface ships the number of female enlisted billets are tightly controlled, on destroyers usually about 30 or so with 2 female chiefs, their is a female detailer who keeps track of what ship has how many females. With so many ships and females representing a smaller portion of the USN their really is no need to justify spending the extra money to train them, convert the subs to accept females especially since frigates still do not have female enlisted, their just are not enough of them to be worth .
Another issue is the USN's policy regarding pregnancy, on surface ships the female can remain on ship for a few months before she gets shipped off to shore duty then they can go back to sea duty a few months after the baby pops out, unfortunately while she is gone that billet is not refilled and the ship has to make due without her, which can be tough on a 220 or so man DDG and it would be potentially devastating on a sub.

[Cooch]

I take offence to that...
Are you implying that European militaries have less discipline?

A little OT for this thread, but I'd suggest that few of us would be foolish enough to assume that the number of distinct military services within Europe all have precisely the same standard, whether high or not.

If I were to state my impression - which may be faulty - of European society generally, it is that it is somewhat more PC than some. Of course, this impression is generally derived from areas other than the military, and may not carry through into the services. I am willing to be corrected on any area of which you have personal knowledge.

Tarring with the same brush is so frequently an error.

Peter

[DIREWOLF75]

Wow, this thread is really filled with prejudice and just ridiculous claims overall...

I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs
I suggest you look into what was found during the "Space race" on this issue.
Women were found to handle anything from cramped cabin space via psychological stability to radiation, better.
Not a huge difference, but just about none in male favour.

1: privacy issues
2: social impact/complications on the crew
3: hygiëne issues (period and such)
Swedish subs can and have done missions beyond 6 weeks, sure not same as a SSN might, but its certainly an "extended period".
1, irrelevant, just like for women in the army or airforce, no special accommodations have been made or required. To my knowledge, hasnt been any problems at all because of this.
2, you´re joking? Or do USN male crewmembers somehow operate on a different social level that they cant handle the presence of females without going "nuts"? Experience sofar with adding females to sub/ship crews is that the effect is usually(if any effect could be seen) positive.
3, oh yeah, men dont need to keep up their hygiene like those fragile women... :rolleyes:

'Ever seen the pregnancy rate of women on board Aircraft Carriers?

Women in military is still a major problem. Young people are the most sexually active, and often times, this has not been fully accounted for in the military service.
Odd that we dont have that problem here then...

However, what about this for a thought....

A submarine full of women, with not a man in sight.

No disrespect to female service personnel, but i find even the idea raising the hairs on the back of my neck !
No disrespect? You just placed yourself back in pre 19th century territory of prejudices. -Cant let women vote, since they obviuosly cant understand political complexities...
:rolleyes:

On the other hand nuclear submarines are larger so providing privacy should be easier (though still difficult) than in a conventional submarine.
Swedish subs today have a crew size of 24, you can probably figure how muc crew space there is then...
And IIRC the crew sofar with most women had 6, but anything between 0 and 6 have happened. Privacy doesnt exist at all. But it hasnt been a problem.

The main issue on UK/US Nuclear Boats is not one of privacy, it's one of national security. The statistical likelihood of a female crew-member becoming ill is three times greater than that of a male, which could result in an SSN or worse, SSBN being compromised because it is forced to abort a patrol or surface to CASAVAC a critically ill member of the crew.
Say WHAT??? That is simply incorrect.

Also the US DoD estimates it will cost 300K per-female crew space to change it's current batch of Sub's to coed!
Why change them at all? That would mean you have to designate bunks as male or female, there´s just no room in a sub for that and it would be totally stupid.
And as i already said, its also not needed.

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...
That would be Kayla Williams. I stumbled onto the interview with her on BBC once.
From all the noises made, the males seem more likely to be the problem however. Or maybe both.

With the long patrols undertaken by USN subs and the responsibility for the nuclear deterrent on board the SSBNs I am certain that you are totally correct. You need 100% discipline without unnecessary distractions. IMO, there is no room for political correctness to compromise this requirement.
And yet another assumption based on prejudice... Unfounded and actually even proven as wrong already again and again...

As for all female sub crews? No way in hell.
And that is worse than all male crews because of what exactly?

I argue that both the military personnel who accept the dangers, and the civil population who pay the bills are entitled to the best "package" possible, and the compromises required to accommodate political correctness need to be recognised.
Stuff PC up your behind. Experience with female sub crewers sofar in Sweden is that they tend to be overall clearly better than males as sonar and radar operators. The opposite but to a much lesser degree is true for navigation.
So it seems, you want to make sure you´re NOT getting the "best package"...

On Land bases none of this is a big deal. On a little tube in the ocean, 200' down, with 24 Trident D-5s loaded? Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one. Yank boats have tremendous firepower, long patrol times, and huge responsibilities. We need perfect discipline on them and that means 100% discipline, not 99%.
And yet, Gotland, with and without females in its crew are continually kicking USN behinds... So i guess by being European you mean superior then?

If I were to state my impression - which may be faulty - of European society generally, it is that it is somewhat more PC than some.
:onfloorl:
Not MORE PC, different.

A little OT for this thread, but I'd suggest that few of us would be foolish enough to assume that the number of distinct military services within Europe all have precisely the same standard, whether high or not.
Different standards sure, but at least here, we´re almost making it the norm to kick US military behinds whenever there´s joint exercises.
"pro" US soldiers getting so by Swedish conscripts... The most extreme example is from some years ago when SEALS came over here to exercise against our coast rangers, after getting run over a couple of times, the SEALs went home early on the pretense that the remaining exercise was too dangerous.

[subcommander]

it would be a little difficult to make hot bunk in SSK's ;)

[gf0012-aust]

it would be a little difficult to make hot bunk in SSK's ;)

There are numerous navies where hot bunking in SSG's and SSK's already occurs. It's standard practice on conventionals as space is a premium. Even the larger long range conventionals have to use hot bunking.

[subcommander]

i mean making a hot bunk with a woman would be a little difficult. :D

[AegisFC]

Women on USN submarines may happen sooner than anyone thought.

SecNav, CNO: Women should serve on subs - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/09/navy_roughead_subs_092409w/)

SecNav, CNO: Women should serve on subs

Women should be allowed to serve aboard submarines, and the Navy is “moving out aggressively” to make it happen, according to the service’s top civilian.

“I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Thursday in a statement to Navy Times.

His comment comes one week after Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told congressional lawmakers that he thought it was time to end the ban against women on submarines.

Mullen’s successor, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, also said he is “very comfortable” addressing the crewing policy.

“There are some particular issues with integrating women into the submarine force; issues we must work through in order to achieve what is best for the Navy and our submarine force,” Roughead said in a statement. “Accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable.”

The rest of the article is on the Navy Times site.

[Sea Toby]

America's nuclear submarines usually do long patrols without ever surfacing. A submarines loses its stealthy characteristics every time it has to surface. Submariners also have to have secondary skills as well, much more so than a surface warship.

Frankly, considering the storage situation aboard, I don't see where there is enough storage to store feminine products....

[DIREWOLF75]

America's nuclear submarines usually do long patrols without ever surfacing. A submarines loses its stealthy characteristics every time it has to surface. Submariners also have to have secondary skills as well, much more so than a surface warship.

Yes, that is why you want highly skilled people, and the relevance for wether those should be male or female is exactly what?
And yes, surfacing needlessly is bad for submarines, ALL military submarines i might add, your point being again?


Frankly, considering the storage situation aboard, I don't see where there is enough storage to store feminine products....
:onfloorl:

Wow, i mean WOW, how silly can the arguments get?

[r.e.b.c]

America's nuclear submarines usually do long patrols without ever surfacing. A submarines loses its stealthy characteristics every time it has to surface. Submariners also have to have secondary skills as well, much more so than a surface warship.

Frankly, considering the storage situation aboard, I don't see where there is enough storage to store feminine products....

Store feminine products..?
Most of you seem fairly self absorbed to possibly realise that women have a choice in contraception ranging from pills, injections to IUDs. These all come with the option to suppress the 'hygeine' issue. Therefore..not an issue...
The threads suggesting women will divert their male counterparts (yes...counterparts aka equals) from the task at hand and render them incapable of efficiently completing their duties says more about the men, than it does about the women.
And as for privacy, again..male issue as, quite frankly, women have better things to do than worry about checking out egotistical male bodies... Why would we need privacy anymore than anyone else..??

[Sea Toby]

Yes, that is why you want highly skilled people, and the relevance for wether those should be male or female is exactly what?
And yes, surfacing needlessly is bad for submarines, ALL military submarines i might add, your point being again?



:onfloorl:

Wow, i mean WOW, how silly can the arguments get?

Maybe you don't realize the scale of three or four or five months of stored products. One doesn't go to the grocery store every week or two to restock. A submariner learns to appreciate powered eggs. A nuclear submarine don't restock eggs every week either.

[deadman0513]

2 article on female crews in US SSNs
Defense Tech: Mullen Wants Females on Subs (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/005032.html)
Navy Set to Crew Subs with Female Sailors (http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-set-to-crew-subs-with-female-sailors.html)

[Marc 1]

Maybe you don't realize the scale of three or four or five months of stored products. One doesn't go to the grocery store every week or two to restock. A submariner learns to appreciate powered eggs. A nuclear submarine don't restock eggs every week either.

Ignoring the totally practical suggestion from R.E.B.C. post #45 (confirmed by my wife who is a military Registered Nurse who is also fully qualified to operate as a Reproductive Health specialist - Norplant would work) - my wife reckons she would go through no more than 160 Super sized tampons in 6 months - space required - a rectangle 2 x 4 x 12 inches.

I have quite a high opinion of most of your other opinions, but to use the argument that there is insufficient space in the ships stores - this is rediculous.

[ThePuss]

[quote=

[DIREWOLF75]

Maybe you don't realize the scale of three or four or five months of stored products. One doesn't go to the grocery store every week or two to restock. A submariner learns to appreciate powered eggs. A nuclear submarine don't restock eggs every week either.

Considering how the average male eats more than the average female, the net difference is actually a clear reduction in storage needed. :D

:onfloorl:


Im now eagerly awaiting you to start arguing for the logical extension of your own arguments, ie all female sub crews everywhere.

[gf0012-aust]

well, in the RAN the women eat the same as the men... :)

as for personal acoutrements in sanitary hygiene, they carry it on board as its their own personal choice in product selection.

ie the ships stores don't have a range of personal hygiene products to choose from ... :) granted the medical officer might have extras, but its not like going to woolworths or your local capital chemist..... :)

[DIREWOLF75]

well, in the RAN the women eat the same as the men...
SAME, well of course. But same amount? I very much doubt it. For Europe, men on average eat 20-25% more per day. The difference differs based on what the normal difference in average bodysize between men and women is.

And people with unusually high or low metabolism is spread fairly evenly among both men and women so that shouldnt make a significant difference either.

[gf0012-aust]

SAME, well of course. But same amount? I very much doubt it. For Europe, men on average eat 20-25% more per day. The difference differs based on what the normal difference in average bodysize between men and women is.


My comment was meant to be flippant (just in case you didn't detect it!)

we've had female submariners since 1999

I'm unsure as to the big deal with having women submariners on board. there is a view in some circles that they might be better acoustic warfare officers due to perception senses/sensors (no pun intended)

either way, they do the job, and do it well.

[LancasterBomber]

....there is a view in some circles that they might be better acoustic warfare officers due to perception senses/sensors (no pun intended)

Easyyyyyyyyyyyyyy now tiger! Lets not get carried away! :D You will upset my fragile male ego. ;)

either way, they do the job, and do it well.

Agreed.

Female members of RAN serving in the sub fleet are class acts - today, next year and 20 years from now. If they weren't we would not put them there.

[Lofty_DBF]

I cant stand females onboard submarines it was one of the many reasons I discharged from the Navy.
I know work for a company that fixes the Subs and I cringe every time i hear a female voice making a pipe.
Females have not solved any crewing problems the Sub Force has they are a pain in the Ass.

[Moderator edit]Listen, mate: we'd rather not know about your misogynism. This is not the place for prejudice of that kind. If you wish to express a reasoned view, we'll pay attention, but not to this sort of stuff. [/edit]

[localhost127]

My comment was meant to be flippant (just in case you didn't detect it!)

we've had female submariners since 1999

I'm unsure as to the big deal with having women submariners on board. there is a view in some circles that they might be better acoustic warfare officers due to perception senses/sensors (no pun intended)

either way, they do the job, and do it well.

on that note, wouldn't the young serve better for acoustics? as hearing damage/freqency cut-off increases with age? is this taken into consideration at all? or does experience of an older submariner negate the (if any) acoustical advantage of the young

[gf0012-aust]

on that note, wouldn't the young serve better for acoustics? as hearing damage/freqency cut-off increases with age? is this taken into consideration at all? or does experience of an older submariner negate the (if any) acoustical advantage of the young

I would have thought so, except the current generation are generally stuffing up their hearing a lot faster.

[localhost127]

I would have thought so, except the current generation are generally stuffing up their hearing a lot faster.

all that audio compression and cheap earbud headphones don't help, either.

sorry to tangent---
gf, if you have a moment, is there any material (online) in which i could learn about sonar systems? im just a hobbyist, but im interested in just how much passive "listening" is done by humans today, versus computer systems and algorithms (processing, etc).

how much "listening" is still relied on by humans?

im having difficulty finding out the types of processes that are followed on a modern submarine re: sonar.

thanks,

[gf0012-aust]

gf, if you have a moment, is there any material (online) in which i could learn about sonar systems? im just a hobbyist, but im interested in just how much passive "listening" is done by humans today, versus computer systems and algorithms (processing, etc).

You won't get much on the processes, but the best way is to look up the companies that are typically involved and visit their sites.

if they are involved in oceanography, then you might come across some that have downloads of sonar models and sounds. ATLAS used to, but I don't recall seeing anything recent.


how much "listening" is still relied on by humans?

It's still a black art - humans stay in the loop

im having difficulty finding out the types of processes that are followed on a modern submarine re: sonar.



CREF pt 1. you can get better "general" ideas by also visiting the oceanographic reserach sites and deep sea technology sites.

sometimes the most useful answers don't lie with the "industry" vendors...

Pubs like Maritime Reporter, Ocean News, Sea Technology have very very god generalist titles that are worth reading. esp on dual use issues like synthetic scanning for wrecks etc....

[Grand Danois]

Here's a sonar image by the Danish Navy of a Soviet Whisky class, which sank under tow in 2007. Not on the rocks, but on the soft sea bed.

[Bonza]

Here's a sonar image by the Danish Navy of a Soviet Whisky class, which sank under tow in 2007. Not on the rocks, but on the soft sea bed.

Very interesting, thanks GD. Do the differences in colour denote a stronger sonar reading being returned for a given part of the hull?

[dragonfire]

Here's a sonar image by the Danish Navy of a Soviet Whisky class, which sank under tow in 2007. Not on the rocks, but on the soft sea bed.

Looks like a thermal image :)

But am guessing it isnt since it's already sunk, was there any deaths reported from the incident ?

[Grand Danois]

Very interesting, thanks GD. Do the differences in colour denote a stronger sonar reading being returned for a given part of the hull?

The color does represent some property of the returned sonar beam, probably some time-arrival code (depth or distance). The signal can be modulated, though. The multibeam sonars in use here for this type of work can distinguish between differing seabed sediment compositions, like boulders, gravel, sands, bedrock, so expected returns etc are known.

dragonfire, the colors are for visualisation and no one died, as it was under tow with no crew on board.

[Lofty_DBF]

I cant stand females onboard submarines it was one of the many reasons I discharged from the Navy.
I know work for a company that fixes the Subs and I cringe every time i hear a female voice making a pipe.
Females have not solved any crewing problems the Sub Force has they are a pain in the Ass.

[Moderator edit]Listen, mate: we'd rather not know about your misogynism. This is not the place for prejudice of that kind. If you wish to express a reasoned view, we'll pay attention, but not to this sort of stuff. [/edit]

If my comments on here come across as misogynist its only speaking from personal experience from many years on submarines.
There is one stag submarine crew at the moment in the RAN they are not looking forward to the prospect of that status changing.
I am a Electrician which is a trade heavily dominated by males I have no problems working with females in this capacity.
When you go to sea on board a operational submarine for weeks on end you might have some idea of what i am talking about.

[elgatoso]

The Royal Norwegian Navy subs are SSKs and I would imagine that they have a fairly short patrol duration, at least when compared to something like a USN SSN or SSBN. A short USN patrol might only last a few days, but a long patrol could run a few months. Given the cramped conditions, plus US tendencies to exclude women from "combat roles" a long duration patrol could well become an issue. On surface vessels, especially on large vessels like carriers, it's much less of an issue.

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...

-Cheers

Kayla Williams is the author

[DIREWOLF75]

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...
Happened to see her interview on BBC World, and yeah "a need for growing up" would be about the nicest way you could describe it.
Complete lack of professionalism is what i call it.

Someone who cant see or act beyond their own macho posturing, really doesnt belong in any military at all.

In comparison, >95% of the cases of military "gender problems" that are considered issues here are so minor they wouldnt even register on Kayla Williams "scale". Only case i can recall that comes into the same vicinity of harassment, got the man in question prosecuted and convicted.
So then is it a difference in society or military culture that creates this problem?
My guess would be both.

[John Sansom]

Norwegian subs have been deployed to the Med for several months. Time between shore visits can vary.
I don't think US female sailors are any different than others. That they are more "lively" is just a pathetic excuse.
Norwegian policy is not to let couples sail on the same ship

It would be helpful to this discussion if we could have some of the data generated by some really careful studies "in situ", as it were. My experience is that some men get really stupid in continuing close company with women. On the other hand, through no fault of their own, women's chemistry can make them prone to somewhat erratic behaviour. Sorry, ladies. Just one of the hard lessons of personal experience. (I hope my daughters don't read this.)

[DIREWOLF75]

It would be helpful to this discussion if we could have some of the data generated by some really careful studies "in situ", as it were. My experience is that some men get really stupid in continuing close company with women. On the other hand, through no fault of their own, women's chemistry can make them prone to somewhat erratic behaviour. Sorry, ladies. Just one of the hard lessons of personal experience. (I hope my daughters don't read this.)

Heh, try asking a medical specialist in the area about that, about 90% of the time women are men without the very erratic influence of some serious doses of hormones.
The last 10% of the time its a tossup who´s the most "erratic" IF you base your view on medical facts.

The "unlogical and erratic" women is a historical and mythical diminuative excuse for a patriarchal society.
And as noted above, the facts of the matter is that "chemically" the ones in trouble are men, because we have lots of influence from hormones ALL the time, while women are only seriously influenced during certain parts of periods and if pregnant. Of course, this difference between sexes as well as influence overall is much reduced with age.


The most i can say about "in situ" is that women in crews on Swedish subs have caused no real problems(and no silly antics about building separate quarters and whatever), while having added valuable abilities as sonar ops, as this is one area where women have shown to be clearly superior to men(theorised to be due to womens better natural social ability, ie like hearing the difference in tone and inflection as well as better multitask ability being beneficial for the work of sonar(and radar) ops), while slightly inferior as navigators(not surprising since men tend to be better spatially).
When Gotland "sunk" the USS Reagan and then got away from the screen, women were part of the crew every time. ;)