Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Swager on October 07, 2009, 09:59:25 PM
-
From Military.Com:
Breaking with a tradition that spans more than half a century, the Navy is in the final planning stages to integrate female Sailors into its submarine fleet.
"Having commanded a mixed gender surface combatant, I am very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force," said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead in a statement to Military.com. "I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews."
"This has had and will continue to have my personal attention as we work toward increasing the diversity of our Navy afloat and ashore," he added.
The CNO is an idiot! A mixed gender surface combatant is hugely different form a mixed gender submarine. Well maybe that is what the Navy is coming to.
-
Gives the guys different booty to look at besides each others...at least it will be a female booty. :aok Go Navy...LOL
-
Operation Petticoat....as nice as it seems, Im betting theres alot of old salts who will be retiring when that goes into effect.
-
Operation Petticoat....as nice as it seems, Im betting theres alot of old salts who will be retiring when that goes into effect.
Don't think they'd complain too much if they look like this:
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/903/downperiscope17qg.png)
:D
-
Lol, gives everyone something to look at that never gets boring.... I hope for the women's sake that they have seperat bunk rooms :lol....
-
for all those captains who cant put up with all the guys on board they have a new challenge ahead
-
whats long and hard and full of seaman.. err women!
-
gives new meaning to the term "hot bunking".
-
About time they joined the rest of the western world in the 21st century.
-
I predict a rise in submariners.
No pun, of course.
-
I had an older friend a while back who served on some of the last remaining diesel subs in the US fleet.
He said during there cruises they would have dingle berry competitions to see who could "grow" the largest dingle berry. He said some people on the ship would cheat and actually make there own to try and win the competition. It got to the point where they would actually dissect them to see if they were real or not.
I wonder if the women would participate in those contests. :rofl
Submariners... a strange breed indeed.
-
--
Here is a preview of the new uniforms that have been designed for the new female submariners:
(http://www.electriqueboutique.com/shop/images/C-5162Costume-350.jpg)
-
Don't think they'd complain too much if they look like this:
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/903/downperiscope17qg.png)
:D
i got a feeling they wont look anywhere NEAR that hot.
the majority of female sailors i've seen in the navy look eather to ugl...err i mean non-hotty OR they look to damn mean to try and piss off.
Now some of the aviator ladies in the AF is a different matter, i supose the navel aviatrix's have a few that are easy on the eyes
-
We're getting closer and closer to the co-ed military of Starship Troopers. Train together, fight together, eat together...sleep together. :D
-
We're getting closer and closer to the co-ed military of Starship Troopers. Train together, fight together, eat together...sleep together. :D
Yeah, but how many are actually going to look like Dennise Richards and Dina Meyer?
-
Yeah, but how many are actually going to look like Dennise Richards and Dina Meyer?
Hehe, and no one worries about the physical attractiveness of the men in the military... Ladies have to have standards too, ya know. ;)
-
Oh this is just wonderful. No escaping from the pms :x
-
Yeah, but how many are actually going to look like Dennise Richards and Dina Meyer?
According to Navy recruiters - all of em! :aok
-
Hell what about the fact that bubbleheads have a code of get along or find something else to do?
-
Hell what about the fact that bubbleheads have a code of get along or find something else to do?
Always figured that the pigboaters needed someone to wipe up that spilled torpedo juice!! :banana:
:rofl RC
-
i got a feeling they wont look anywhere NEAR that hot.
the majority of female sailors i've seen in the navy look eather to ugl...err i mean non-hotty OR they look to damn mean to try and piss off.
Now some of the aviator ladies in the AF is a different matter, i supose the navel aviatrix's have a few that are easy on the eyes
Many of them will return from the cruise pregnant no matter what they look like.
-
I'm currently 24 years Navy and still active duty, 16 enlisted, 8 Officer, 15 years and 10 days of it at sea; all on subs except for 3 years on a CVN. If my math is right I've spent 12 years underwater. I agree with what the CNO is trying to do as long as the deal includes two things.
1) No seperate berthing or shower facilities. A submarine does not have warehouse style berthing like a surface ship does. Berthing on a boat is partitioned into small areas. If females get their own (female only) berthing area they must have the exact amount of woman on that crew's roster during underways to occupy every rack. Ensuring that exactly the amount of women = the "9 man" accomodations is extremely difficult if not impossible.This includes hot racking; a necessary measure on fast attack submarines. On a 688 class the smallest enlisted berthing is called "9 man". Imagine the frustration in the crew and angst for the COB (Chief of the Boat) if only one female was occupying "9 - man", and 8 racks went empty on a 6 month deployment because females were mandated a segregated area. Heads are not like surface ships either. The showers are 2 ft X 2 ft and the door is a telephone booth style folding hinged partition. The shower door exits into a common and public area. Take one head away because of gender segregation and you've just removed 50% of the showers and toilets from the crew. The Aussies have women on their boats right now. No special accomodations whatsoever.
2) All hands efforts are exactly that .......all hands. No reason why a woman shouldn't participate in stores loads. Just like the guys...the newbie gets the escape trunk. All food is loaded by hand through the narrow circular hatches. The two story escape trunk is the worst spot. Try passing concrete bags down a ladder for a couple hours and you get the idea. If you eat it you have to load it, Lieutenants and below.
Some of you might snicker or make a clever comments; but I'm actually sincere. I have witnessed the females at sea on one CVN. There are smart ones as well as idiots(no different than men). There are strong ones and physically weak ones (again no difference from male counterparts). Some, ....actually most, are highly dedicated. As a fraction I would say dedicated more so than the men.
One sore subject is the fact that all US boats are nuclear powered. If a woman was to get pregnant she would have to be flown off the boat immediately. That's right Captain Shark of Steel, you must come off mission and surface in a safe area to transfer her off. The gestation period of the fetus is at risk if exposed to ionizing radiation. Oh, by the way Captain I just missed my missile launch envelope, she was in three section watch rotation, so two of your guys are now port and stbd watches for the duration of the deployment. Her replacement is in the training pipeline and should report for duty in 3-4 months. This is an aspect that surface ships can and do easily handle. I think (easy now politically correct citizens) that female submariner contraception should be mandatory for the sake of the mission and crew.
I served up to E-7 wearing silver dolphins, and am an O-3 wearing gold dolphins now, I say give 'em a chance.
Of course, I'm not the CNO, so I don't get a vote.
<S>, jink
-
I'm currently 24 years Navy and still active duty, 16 enlisted, 8 Officer, 15 years and 10 days of it at sea; all on subs except for 3 years on a CVN. If my math is right I've spent 12 years underwater. I agree with what the CNO is trying to do as long as the deal includes two things.
1) No seperate berthing or shower facilities. A submarine does not have warehouse style berthing like a surface ship does. Berthing on a boat is partitioned into small areas. If females get their own (female only) berthing area they must have the exact amount of woman on that crew's roster during underways to occupy every rack. Ensuring that exactly the amount of women = the "9 man" accomodations is extremely difficult if not impossible.This includes hot racking; a necessary measure on fast attack submarines. On a 688 class the smallest enlisted berthing is called "9 man". Imagine the frustration in the crew and angst for the COB (Chief of the Boat) if only one female was occupying "9 - man", and 8 racks went empty on a 6 month deployment because females were mandated a segregated area. Heads are not like surface ships either. The showers are 2 ft X 2 ft and the door is a telephone booth style folding hinged partition. The shower door exits into a common and public area. Take one head away because of gender segregation and you've just removed 50% of the showers and toilets from the crew. The Aussies have women on their boats right now. No special accomodations whatsoever.
2) All hands efforts are exactly that .......all hands. No reason why a woman shouldn't participate in stores loads. Just like the guys...the newbie gets the escape trunk. All food is loaded by hand through the narrow circular hatches. The two story escape trunk is the worst spot. Try passing concrete bags down a ladder for a couple hours and you get the idea. If you eat it you have to load it, Lieutenants and below.
Some of you might snicker or make a clever comments; but I'm actually sincere. I have witnessed the females at sea on one CVN. There are smart ones as well as idiots(no different than men). There are strong ones and physically weak ones (again no difference from male counterparts). Some, ....actually most, are highly dedicated. As a fraction I would say dedicated more so than the men.
One sore subject is the fact that all US boats are nuclear powered. If a woman was to get pregnant she would have to be flown off the boat immediately. That's right Captain Shark of Steel, you must come off mission and surface in a safe area to transfer her off. The gestation period of the fetus is at risk if exposed to ionizing radiation. Oh, by the way Captain I just missed my missile launch envelope, she was in three section watch rotation, so two of your guys are now port and stbd watches for the duration of the deployment. Her replacement is in the training pipeline and should report for duty in 3-4 months. This is an aspect that surface ships can and do easily handle. I think (easy now politically correct citizens) that female submariner contraception should be mandatory for the sake of the mission and crew.
I served up to E-7 wearing silver dolphins, and am an O-3 wearing gold dolphins now, I say give 'em a chance.
Of course, I'm not the CNO, so I don't get a vote.
<S>, jink
Sorry, too long for me to read this late. I'll go throught it tomarow :aok.
-
Sorry, too long for me to read this late. I'll go throught it tomarow :aok.
That's because 95% of your posts exists to merely increase the number of posts you have.
@Smedddd
My initial reaction upon hearing the news was negative. Your post was encouraging, although, my experience with this issue in the past is that your separate billeting issues will be a reality. I don't see uni-sex facilities being palatable. Should be an interesting transition to say the least. I always figured the boomers were due, but that the fast-attack boats were insulated, for the very reasons you stated. Regardless, nice to hear your perspective.
-
Germany already has Female submariners. :banana:
-
makes me glad i joined the marines and not the navy, had my own bunk and the shower was big and i never had to "load" the food, just went to the mess hall.
oh yeah, and beer after work. :)
-
I am pretty sure the SSBNs and SSGN will be first to get this tested....SSN may be later down the road.
I am an E7 on a SSN now.
-
I am pretty sure the SSBNs and SSGN will be first to get this tested....SSN may be later down the road.
I am an E7 on a SSN now.
Good luck to you both. This won't be a painless transition.
-
Most likely correct Killnu, the impact to the crew and boat facilities would be less if the idea tanks.
What boat are you on?
-jink
-
On a cramped fast boat, there is no place to go, to get away. If you have any type of problems with other personnel you have to deal with it, promptly and efficiently. Women are not good at this, never have been. They hold grudges and are unforgiving.
As far as I know German submarines do not go on regular long term deployments away from home port, such as US submarines do.
I do believe it is a mistake, but other will have to live with it.
Upon re-assessing the situation, with the US submarine force not really having a undersea enemy as in the Cold War, maybe this can work. Deployments are not as frequent, important, or stressful. Submarine underways are more of a policing action and exploration, than gearing for war and ocean conflict. In fact, based on the experience I have had dealing with US submariners the last 15 years, maybe having girls on submarines is exactly what the US submarine force needs. Good luck with it!
The ole Silent Service, it isn't what it used to be. Thank God, I was a part of it when it meant something to be called "Submariner"
-
Germany already has Female submariners. :banana:
Really? Any idea when it started?
-
From Wiki:
"Most navies prohibited women from serving on submarines, even after they had been permitted to serve on surface warships. Norway opened up every function in the armed forces to women in 1985, making the Royal Norwegian Navy the first navy to allow female crew on its diesel-powered submarines. The Royal Danish Navy conducted trials with mixed gender crews in 1985 and 1987, making no alterations to their diesel-powered subs, and allowed for female submariners in 1988.[15] The Swedish Navy made the change in 1989.[16] The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) began to allow female personnel in 1998 and thereafter Canadian Navy in 2002. Germany, Spain and Portugal also allow for females on all military functions, including submarines. In 1995, Solveig Krey of the Royal Norwegian Navy became the first female officer to assume command on a military submarine, the HNoMS Kobben."
-
Thanks Die Hard :airplane:.
-
Party!!!
Party Boat in the Gulf. (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html)
There should just be strict non-fraternization rules and teach some maturity to the crew members and there should be no problems. No "boys will be boys" stuff.
Or, reversible vasectomies!!
Party!!
wrongway
-
Party!!!
Party Boat in the Gulf. (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html)
There should just be strict non-fraternization rules and teach some maturity to the crew members and there should be no problems. No "boys will be boys" stuff.
Or, reversible vasectomies!!
Party!!
wrongway
doesn't the navy provide "protection"?
-
Maybe, but I wouldn't trust them.....
-
Does USN still use the Ohio's... I'm thinking that's the biggest thing we have?....my knowledge of boats is minimal
-
I have another question: What are the big 14" or 16" guns used for? Or did we finaly do away with them?
-
I have another question: What are the big 14" or 16" guns used for? Or did we finaly do away with them?
Start your own thread for this. It will help add to your post count.
-
Western countries should have national service of 18 months, drawn as a lottery, absolutely NO exceptions, unless medically deemed unfit, crim record, ect. No exceptions for College, or any of that crap, if your name is drawn your going, unless there is a very, very good reason. The whole notion of an all volunteer force makes these kind of issues inevitable. You would not need females in so many roles of there were enough male recruits coming into the services at reliable #s. The USN for instance would not need to rely on females crewing combat vessels, especially subs.
Volunteers? thats fine, and a desirable and honorable tradition, but there is nothing wrong with saying to a small percentage of citizens on an annual basis (the # would vary from year to year), that your country needs you, and you are in for 18 months, due to certain recruiting goals. This idea that we have a choice in not serving, while hiring more and more "contractors" and "outsourced services" and now females, only reyling on a very small slice of the overall citizenry is at its core, wrong headed, imho. The population over time is also conditioned to think that its ok not to participate, that "somebody else" will always do it. Is that what we want to foster as an idea?
If you dont think we wont go the same way Rome did, your wrong. At the end, few of its citizens felt it was "their" duy to fight the Barbarians, no, rather they just said "lets buy more foreign auxiliaries" while we live the good life. It worked...for awhile.
-
Draft versus all volunteer force is a separate argument from this. The gender integration of the American military is inevitable, regardless of whether or not we drafted all the men we "needed". Society won't allow us to stop it.
As a former Marine officer, I'd just as soon not have any draftees in one of my units.
-
That's because 95% of your posts exists to merely increase the number of posts you have.
:lol Yeah I've noticed that too.
Women will be integrated just fine into submarines, the Navy understands the issues involved. The women will be smart and hard working and who knows, maybe this will stop those rumors about Navy guys. :neener:
-
With respect, its not a seperate argument at all. The military cannot sustain its recruiting goals unless it aggresively recruits females, and thats a direct result of not requiring any of the citizenry to serve unless they ask to.
"As a former Marine officer, I'd just as soon not have any draftees in one of my units."
I hear that sentiment a lot. Quite frankly it surprises me. The first thing is that it doesnt say a lot for ones faith in its own citizenry, or the ability of a well led officer and nco corps to properly train, motivate and lead people who come to them through a national service plan. I have no doubt the USMC is up to the task if it was asked to. Im sure you would have been up to the challenge, I find it hard to beleive you never dealt with a few under your command that required some "motivating"? they couldn't have all been perfect.
Do you think they would be recruited from another planet? they are your neighbors, your schoolmates, your own kids. We are probably talking no more than 10 percent in most years, and many of them would be very high quality people to boot. They aren't skid row bums with a grade 8 eduaction just because they got a notice in the mail. Sometimes you guys talk about it as if they would be recruited solely from the national child sex offender registry.
...In the meantime, enjoy "babes on boats", cuz thats the other option.
-
I'm thinking Vietnam era nco's could enlighten us about having conscripts in combat...I'm sure we have some in this bbs
-
the great things now is if your sub has a accident and you are 3 miles below the water at the bottom of the ocean and waiting your death you can die happily
-
The most proficient and experienced army in the world consists almost exclusively of draftees (or more correctly termed: Conscripts).
-
The most proficient and experienced army in the world consists almost exclusively of draftees (or more correctly termed: Conscripts).
Yah, but Israelis have something going on that the US likely never will--the very real possibility that their society will be erased by a mass of tanks and planes from half a dozen countries swarming across their border....every man, woman and child there is reminded of that daily--great motivating factor. Only thing US has coming across their border are future lawn-care professionals
-
Only thing US has coming across their border are future lawn-care professionals
You're lucky I wasn't drinking anything, you'd have owed me a new monitor.
-
As with most things of this nature, it is a very loud minority that pushes for female integration. If all female naval personel were polled, they would probably overwhelmingly vote against sub duty. Like everything else the military has done regarding female integration, rather than exclude the majority of women by requiring them to maintain the same physical standards as men, they will reduce overall combat readiness/effectiveness by allowing women to have lower standards so that the majority of them will be able to pass. This type of "diversity" is not good for the military.
-
I'm not in great favor of all the integration. An all female sub would allow them to serve in that capacity if they wish to, without all the distractions that come along with the integration. But what woman would want to be in such close quarters with that many other women? Sounds like a lose/lose situation.
*edit*
If one were to go back and research the push for integration (which maybe I'll do someday if I decide that I'm willing to dedicate the time to it), it will probably be found that the staunchest advocates are the officers (women, of course) who have reached their cap of progression... but that if women were integrated into other areas, they could be placed in a leadership position that they weren't otherwise eligible for ~ hence: they can continue to push their career upward. I bet it's never to "advance" regular serving women... just the ones at the top.
-
Women should have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men... whether they like it or not. Same requirements as well.
-
I'm not in great favor of all the integration. An all female sub would allow them to serve in that capacity if they wish to, without all the distractions that come along with the integration. But what woman would want to be in such close quarters with that many other women? Sounds like a lose/lose situation.
*edit*
If one were to go back and research the push for integration (which maybe I'll do someday if I decide that I'm willing to dedicate the time to it), it will probably be found that the staunchest advocates are the officers (women, of course) who have reached their cap of progression... but that if women were integrated into other areas, they could be placed in a leadership position that they weren't otherwise eligible for ~ hence: they can continue to push their career upward. I bet it's never to "advance" regular serving women... just the ones at the top.
I've heard that several times as well
-
Women should have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men... whether they like it or not. Same requirements as well.
crazily wrong.
-
crazily wrong.
Please qualify this statement.
-
I just keep imagining so many scenes from submarine movies............ where they are in close proximity to an enemy sub........ everyone onboard is absolutely silent so as not to alert the enemies sonar........
then some female with PMS comes storming through the sub yelling "STOP LEAVING THE TOILET SEAT UP"
I know I know unrealistic........ but makes me chuckle thinking about it :)
-
The most proficient and experienced army in the world consists almost exclusively of draftees (or more correctly termed: Conscripts).
I've trained with the IDF, and no disrespect to their elan and esprit, they're not the most proficient or experienced army in the world. Fighting the Junior Varsity can make you look good--we should know. And, I can tell you from personal experience that the gender issue is by no means a non-issue in the IDF.
My point Squire, was that the U.S. military is not compensating for a lack of bodies by aggressively recruiting women. The hardest slots to fill right now are not occupational fields that are open to women anyway. Combat MOS fields are seeing the highest turnover, and I mean grunts and such. Women can't replace those bodies. The fact that there are as many women volunteering for the military these days is a testament to the opportunity this country affords women.
I'm not even arguing that women shouldn't be on subs, just that the transition will be difficult. Those ships are not designed for mixed-gender crews, and the sub-surface Navy is certainly not experienced in dealing with the host of issues that arise from mixed-gender crews. It would be better if the Navy made a decision that the next class of fast-attack sub will be designed with mixed-gender crews in mind, rather than wedging chicks into the boats as is. Regardless, the decision is made--I just hope it is a better transition than some others have been in the past.
-
I dunno why I am saying this, but what the hell. If there is a risk of a pregnancy reducing the overall combat effectiveness of a deployed unit - why not mandate female deployment to have mandatory prophylaxis such as an IUD, Pill or Depo shot? The 1st and 3rd are fire and forget - or at least the 3rd can be administered by the medic onboard. Pills I can see being a problem with having to stock and remembering toejam during duty shifts.
Just seems like a good idea rather then leaving 30 guys short. Imagine if they were EWO's or something really necessary in a high threat environment.
-
I dunno why I am saying this, but what the hell. If there is a risk of a pregnancy reducing the overall combat effectiveness of a deployed unit - why not mandate female deployment to have mandatory prophylaxis such as an IUD, Pill or Depo shot?
Latest reports are that pregnant female sailors will not be allowed to serve on submarines. And the women who do may be required to take the pill, in order to prevent pregnancy.
Studies have shown that the air inside a submarine can be very harmful to an unborn fetus. Here is a link to a document about this issue:
http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf
An interesting fact from the above report by Admiral Hugh Scott is the fact that at any given time, 9% of the women serving in the Navy are pregnant.
Should pregnant women be allowed to go into combat??
I wonder if the Army's pregnancy rate is that high?
--
-
Start your own thread for this. It will help add to your post count.
Do you have some ax to grind I'm unaware of :headscratch:?
-
Your post that I quoted was completely unrelated to the issue being discussed. So, I stated for you to start your own thread where you can discuss battleship armament. I could just report you for hijacking, but we're all big boys around here.
-
We have female submariners and it works good. They dont get any special treatment at all. Back in 1995 we also got the first female submarine captain in the world so it can be done.
-
Women should have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men. Same requirements as well.
I hate to say it but i agree with this statement. If there is to be true equality then the separate requirements for the sexes need to go the way of the dinosaur.
-
Women should have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men... whether they like it or not. Same requirements as well.
Agreed. I just don't think they really know what they are getting themselves into. There is no privacy on a SSN...none. I am sure we will get through the maturity issues that will "arise"....but having zero privacy may be more than many can handle. I have worked with several women since I have been in that I believe would do well on a submarine...not many of them wanted to give it a shot even if it was available to them due to the life on board.
Either way, I am all for making it work, with the thought process of what is in quotes above.
-
Agreed. I just don't think they really know what they are getting themselves into. There is no privacy on a SSN...none. I am sure we will get through the maturity issues that will "arise"....but having zero privacy may be more than many can handle. I have worked with several women since I have been in that I believe would do well on a submarine...not many of them wanted to give it a shot even if it was available to them due to the life on board.
Either way, I am all for making it work, with the thought process of what is in quotes above.
I suspect a bunch of whines/complaints/lawsuits that would result in untold millions of $ of alterations to make the boats habitable....millions that could be put to better use
-
We're getting closer and closer to the co-ed military of Starship Troopers. Train together, fight together, eat together...sleep together. :D
Lets not forget shower together.
-
well yes, but you seem to be fixated on my post count.... OK, maybe in the first 2 weeks or so. Really I have nothing to right now, so if it seems like I'm posting a lot then that'll stop when my computer is fixed (using the old one that won't run AH2. Kinda raining here pretty bad lately so can't go outside, and not much to do around that house.... But I'm off topic, does anyone know why they didn't let females serve on subs right away?
-
does anyone know why they didn't let females serve on subs right away?
because when they started using subs women werent allowed to do anything but cook and breed
-
But I'm off topic, does anyone know why they didn't let females serve on subs right away?
Anyone have a facepalm emoticon?
-
will this make untill you find one? Maybe follow its advice. :bolt:
-
(http://chat.anncoulter.com/phpBB3//images/smilies/083.gif)
-
(http://chat.anncoulter.com/phpBB3//images/smilies/083.gif)
:rofl