Quote :

"Another option would be commissioning several all-female submarines and increasing the numbers of all-female submarine crews as necessary to fit the recruiting reality."

no fucking way this would occur. you don't send a crew with zero experience out to sea with a submarine, much less any Navy vessel. The experience of the Chiefs is extremely important in keeping a sub off the ocean floor, as they often know the boat far better than the CO. Recipe for absolute disaster.

5/1/2010 9:32:03 PM

Did you learn that while you were "technically and truly in the Navy"?

5/1/2010 9:40:20 PM

do you have anything to add to the topic, or are you just trolling?

5/1/2010 9:58:10 PM

As a fellow submariner, I'd like to hear about your service.

5/1/2010 10:04:21 PM

so, you're just trolling. got it

5/1/2010 10:05:32 PM

You're the one who claimed to have "served" on a boat. When did calling out half-truths (at best) become trolling?

5/1/2010 10:18:44 PM

troll on, troll

5/1/2010 10:21:22 PM

You could just explain about how you "served" on a boat and "spent some time on subs". If you're going to claim experience in some area, it's not unfair to be asked questions about that experience.

But, I guess it's easier to accuse others of trolling.

5/1/2010 10:37:02 PM

Quote :

"tight quarters"

nothing tight about her quarters after serving on a sub. know what i mean...

5/1/2010 11:06:38 PM

^^

5/2/2010 12:30:45 AM

I, too, have spent some time on a sub and feel that I am qualified to comment on this matter. My credentials:

http://www.ussnautilus.org/virtualTour/index.shtml



I consider myself a responsible person, but if I weren't married and I were in a co-ed sub, I'd dedicate the entirety of my free time to trying to have sub-sex.

5/2/2010 8:38:53 AM

Quote :

"You could just explain about how you "served" on a boat and "spent some time on subs". If you're going to claim experience in some area, it's not unfair to be asked questions about that experience. But, I guess it's easier to accuse others of trolling."

5/2/2010 9:47:41 AM

It's quite an honor to be a member of both the mile-high and the mile-low clubs!

5/2/2010 9:52:30 AM

1. Double standards are problematic.
2. Therefore, women should be allowed on subs.
3. Some women would be incredibly uncomfortable doing so for obvious reasons.
4. Therefore, women should be able to opt-in to a submarine program.
5. Men, however, are not afforded that same option.
6. Go to 1.

STACK OVERFLOW

5/2/2010 10:23:55 AM

I could explain it, but all you want to do is ridicule me either way (ie, troll), so I won't give you the satisfaction

^ hahaha. men aren't allowed to opt-in? you might want to get your facts straight before you go off sounding like a dumbass

5/2/2010 12:52:10 PM

Interesting topic.... I didn't think it'd make TWW but I am happy to see people talking about it.

I have served in the Navy for almost 13 years now, first as enlisted, and now as an officer on submarines. Here are just a few random tidbits I can throw out.

At one point we did something where we actually loaded a couple of "fake" (ie non-radioactive) missiles onboard our sub (I was on an SSBN) and shot them to make sure our systems were functional and the crew had the proficiency to launch when told. We had to hook up some special equipment because we were in constant contact with a nearby boat, and thus we had riders (a rider is a term we use for someone not actually assigned to the crew) onboard as technicians. One of these riders was a female.

Things went OK. We took 2 officers out of their stateroom and gave it to her, so yes, the officers were displaced to enlisted berthing. Thus two enlisted guys were displaced into hot-racking (sharing a bed). Honestly this is not that big of a deal.... the junior guys know that is a part of being on a sub. She had a special time where the bathroom was "hers" (the only officer bathroom) and any time she needed to use it she just put up a sign. This was significant because there are 3 bathrooms on board with 7 toilets/6 showers total for 150 people. Is it fair that just because someone has ovaries, she gets preferential treatment? Not at all, but this is really kind of low on the totem-pole of concern.

One thing that does concern me is the sex thing. God keeps making these ridiculous comparisons and metaphors, which really don't deserve a response. Sadly there are people like him helping to dictate policy.... for lack of a better term, idealistic idiots. One of the pillars that the military, the Navy, and the submarine force operate on is keeping relationships professional while on mission. We see VERY high ranking, well-payed military people involved in sex scandals all the time, as well as politicians, including the President of the United States. If these guys can't keep it in their pants, what makes anyone think that a bunch of 20 year-old kids, making less than minimage wage, trapped in a tin can for 6 months at a time without seeing one single female, can possibly control themselves sexually? I will answer with the ONLY reasonable answer, they can't.

So punish them, they will learn. No, they really won't. I revert back to the politician/high-ranking military argument. They know the consequences and still engage in improper sexual activities. There is no way to stop these enlisted men (and even officers) from committing these acts.

Just kicking them off the sub is very very detrimental too. Just to paint a picture..... when I was underway, I slept on average, about 3-4 hours a day. I was exhausted. I had so many responsibilities..... MAYBE once a week I had time to sit down and watch a movie. If so, it was usually interrupted by something. When we lost someone it was catastrophic, because everyone else had to pick up more load. Sure, we integrated carriers..... but that is a crew of thousands with unlimited space. Their watch and sleeping rotations are amazing on a carrier. If someone on a carrier gets sick or pregnant or gets kicked off, it's just not that big of a deal because there are so many people to fill the gap. On a sub, we have a crew of as few as 100 people. Losing one or two people because they decided to have sex would be crippling and radically effect our ability to perform our mission. And lets face it, there might..... will be some female who is used as the crew fun bag (it happens on carriers) and half a submarine crew is going to go down in flames.

I understand how on the outside looking in, women on subs seems like a great idea. I wish we could integrate them, because women have a lot to offer and it would up our manning. But the cost is too high. We don't even have room for a real doctor onboard (we have an enlisted "doc" who has limited Navy training.) This idealogical integration will (not might.... will) have some very very negative consequences that people who have never served on a sub can not or choose not to acknowledge.

5/2/2010 12:57:55 PM

Quote :

"Things went OK. We took 2 officers out of their stateroom and gave it to her, so yes, the officers were displaced to enlisted berthing."

was that for the entire cruise, or was it for a week or so? I mean, yeah, you'll kick an ensign out for a couple days, but you won't stick him in with e-3s for an entire cruise

5/2/2010 1:01:30 PM

Quote :

"I could explain it, but all you want to do is ridicule me either way (ie, troll), so I won't give you the satisfaction"

TWW doesn't allow enough rolly eyes for a proper response to this.

5/2/2010 1:16:00 PM

It was for 2 weeks.

But yeah, we stick Ensigns and Lieutenants in enlisted berthing (E-1 to E-6) all the time, sometimes for a year (I was in enlisted berthing for 9 months I think). Just until space is available in officer quarters. That was on a boomer too. I imagine fast attacks might be worse.

5/2/2010 1:16:30 PM

Quote :

"^ hahaha. men aren't allowed to opt-in? you might want to get your facts straight before you go off sounding like a dumbass"

I actually didn't know that, sorry. I assumed that you don't have much of a choice what sort of vessel you're put on. GG being a total bag of dicks, though.

In that case, my opinion is this:
1. Double standards are problematic.
2. Therefore, women should be allowed on subs.
3. Some women would be incredibly uncomfortable doing so for obvious reasons.
4. Therefore, women should be able to opt-in to a submarine program.
5. Problem solved.

5/2/2010 1:20:27 PM

Feeble, since you've had Sub experience (I work for a military contractor and about 5 times I year I end up as a rider on mostly larger ships with a few exceptions where I was seasick most of the time ) do you feel it would be possible to train an all-female submarine crew?

I only see it working if it starts out as a temporary program where the best, brightest, and most enthusiastic female officer and enlisted candidates would be rotated in on submarines for several months and then rotated out while putting as many on a sub that could be trained at once without compromising safety and the mission at hand. Subs that take on that burden would then be exempt from female trainees for at least a rotation, if not two.

I would imagine two (or more) rotations of at least several months would be necessary to give a completely new crew enough experience to run their own sub. Is this wishful thinking even given that these candidates are going to be the top tier of available talent?

If the previous estimate is reasonable then once this has gone on for two-three years at least a single crew, if not two, would be ready for deployment. At that point if there was significant talent still available in the female pool then perhaps more rotating deployments would be necessary, but once three to four all-female crews have been established I'd imagine that training of new female members could occur only on those vessels.

When I first thought of this my initial gut reaction was to be venomously against it, but the more I thought about it the more do-able and reasonable it seemed based on what I had seen it took training-wise for new crew members on the ships I've been on for extended periods. You mention that submarines are much more demanding than the larger ships that I have experience on and so that in itself could make what I'm proposing completely unreasonable. Even if this doesn't sound like a reasonable plan to implement, can you think of a different implementation that could possibly work? What is the normal training regime for a new submarine crew member?

5/3/2010 3:14:10 PM

^ Keep in mind the large amount of experience found in a submarine crew. Senior leadership (officer and enlisted) likely have 20+ years and 'middle management' over 10 years. There's no easy way to train that kind of experience.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 5:50:07 PM

^ BINGO!!!

Without a doubt a woman can do the job of being a submariner as well as a man can do. I want to get that out in the open to start. But to fully staff a submarine with women anytime in the near future is impossible.

I am not certain of the training/career path that other platforms in the Navy or other branches of the military take, but let me give you a quick rundown of an average "year group" of submarine officers. We'll start, for sake of argument, as if we start training women to be on subs right now (which we apparently are doing).

Long Version

2009-2010: Roughly 400 men/women (officers) go through the nuclear power pipeline and decide they want to be submariners. They go to nuclear power school, prototype, and sub school, which takes about 1.5 years when everything is said and done.

2010-2013: For sake of argument, let's say everyone gets through the program (never happens) and goes to a submarine. They spend 3 years on a submarine as a junior officer. About half of these junior officers get out of the Navy at this point (or after their shore duty).

2013-2015: Shore duty.

2015-2018: 200 officers left who go on to to a "department head tour" where they head up either Engineering, Navigation, or Weapons Department.

2018-2020: Shore duty. At this point many people find out they have not been selected to be an XO (2nd in command). To throw out an average number, we'll say out of the 200 remaining, 125 either get out of the Navy or are not selected to be XO's. So we have 75 people remaining.

2020-2022: XO tour.

2022-2024: Shore duty. We'll say of the 75 people left 40 get selected to be CO's.

2024-2027: CO tour. Captain of the sub!!

Short Version

It takes almost 20 years of being an officer to get command of a submarine. I know my estimate says 17 years or so, but there are lots of schools, etc that I kind of glazed over.

So big picture, it is impossible to fully staff a submarine with women for about 20 years from now. I gave the averagish number of 40 people out of 400 make it. Well, using figures from today, about 10% of all the people in the nuclear power program are females, so we get about 4 female commanding officers in 20 years.

I know people may be thinking "Hey, just give them a crash course and speed promote them." I can say, this would never ever work. I can't speak for other fields, but in submarining, you have to absolutely know your shit or you have a very high chance of dying. If you experience a major fire or flooding casualty on a carrier, you seal off the compartment and/or have one of your dedicated damage control teams fight the casualty while you float there. If you experience the same casualty on a sub, if EVERY person doesn't act right away, the sub will sink (for good). There is absolutely no substitute for experienced operators and leadership. Nobody could ever be successful being propeled through the ranks, and on top of that, they would not have the trust and/or respect of the crew.

I really really wish there was a way to infuse women into the sub force, I just don't know if it is possible. Maybe I will eat my words (would not be the first time), but I don't think it is going to go well. I think there will be a few major incidents involving women in such closed quarters with men, some that may be crippling to a boat and even the submarine force. I hope I am wrong.

5/3/2010 8:55:41 PM

They're looking at year group 08-09 for lateral transfers and they're also petitioning collegiates. So that's at least 2028 before there's a female officer 'normally' trained to be CO on a boat.

^ I'm a little more optimistic than you, though I agree there's likely to be an incident at some point. The key will be how it's handled.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 9:13:38 PM

They gonna make babies.

5/4/2010 9:59:53 AM

Quote :

"I know people may be thinking "Hey, just give them a crash course and speed promote them." I can say, this would never ever work."

That's a rather extreme case of what I was getting at when I posted the link about Holly Graf.

5/4/2010 11:46:25 AM

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-ches-submarine-woman,0,5095906.story

Quote :

"Chesapeake, Va. - One of the first women ever allowed to serve on a Navy submarine is from Chesapeake. The Chesapeake woman is 22-year-old Midshipman Megan Bittner. She is a student at North Carolina State now majoring in Chemical Engineering. Bittner and a female classmate from New York will graduate and be commissioned as submarine officers. "

GO STATE!

5/6/2010 10:13:15 AM

So the Navy is finally gonna let lady Sailors go down after years of only letting men go down?

5/6/2010 6:42:05 PM

Quote :

"You're still missing the point. I'm not even bothering to argue whether it would work, and anyone who does is wasting keystrokes. It's a no-factor, because the Navy isn't going to do it."

Quote :

"Again, I haven't argued the merits or feasibility of such a setup. I'm just saying that it isn't going to happen. Not in the U.S. Navy in the year 2010, at least. You're wasting your breath even talking about it."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/05/07/471122/ncsu-women-get-sub-duty.html#ixzz0nE8ZSDZC

Quote :

" Email Print Order Reprint Share: Yahoo! Buzz Text tool name close x tool goes here BY LEAH FRIEDMAN - Staff Writer Tags: local | national | news RALEIGH -- Two members of N.C. State University's Naval ROTC program are among the first women selected to serve aboard Navy submarines. The women, Midshipman Megan Bittner, 22, and Officer Candidate Karen Achtyl, 25, received word of their new assignments on Monday after an interview with a four-star admiral in Washington. It came just days after the Department of the Navy announced it would change its policy that forbade women to serve on submarines. ... Magna cum laude diplomas Bittner and Achtyl will be commissioned as ensigns in the U.S. Navy on May 14. A day later, they will graduate from NCSU magna cum laude. Both women will receive bachelor's degrees in chemical engineering. They will then head to Charleston, S.C., for training at the Navy's nuclear power school for six months, followed by six months at a nuclear prototype site for hands-on submarine experience. They will finish training at the Naval Submarine School in Groton, Conn., and receive their first assignment aboard a submarine in the fall of 2011."

Looks like Duke was right, not going to happen in 2010

5/13/2010 12:42:12 AM

So this won't even be an issue worth talking about for 16 months.

5/13/2010 1:41:11 AM

^^ I'm pretty sure that was in reference to coed heads and washrooms, not simply broads being on the boat.

Now, maybe they'll use the same facilities but have it segregated by time or something like that, but the USN is a long way from having boats full of dudes and chicks showering and peeing and whatever in the same head at the same time.

9/14/2011 9:03:31 PM

So I have unofficial orders (should be official soon). I will be serving as the Navigator on one of the submarines that is integrating women. Good times.

11/21/2011 9:55:18 PM

You are in SOAC, Jim?

11/21/2011 10:43:00 PM

Yup yup, started at the beginning of this month.

11/21/2011 11:19:00 PM

bump

3/4/2012 4:28:20 PM

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/navy-female-submarine-fraud-investigation-030212w/

Quote :

"Three female supply officers were pulled from submarine crews within months of joining the force for allegedly committing fraud prior to checking in at their boats, a Submarine Forces spokeswoman confirmed Friday. These three were among the eight Supply Corps lieutenants that reported to the submarine force, a cadre chosen to be role models for the younger female submariners reporting straight from training to the previously all-male force."

Good Job.

[Edited on March 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM. Reason : Thanks Tree!]

3/4/2012 4:31:18 PM

Quote :

"“The alleged actions under investigation involve financial misconduct and in no way involved their performance while assigned to their current operational units,” said Submarine Forces spokeswoman Cmdr. Monica Rousselow, who explained the allegations concerned fraudulent travel claims while on temporary assigned duty."

'Financial misconduct' sounds a lot worse than 'fraudulent travel claims'.

Maybe they claimed titty-bar tips?

3/4/2012 4:35:55 PM

rape

3/4/2012 7:12:40 PM

sorry, that's too convenient for me. Somebody is fucking with the careers of these women

3/6/2012 12:45:33 AM

I hope you're just trolling and not really dumb enough to think that.

6/1/2012 2:30:03 AM

I have no idea about the validity but here's a comment from the article:

Quote :

"I've spent 29 years in the submarines and will retire this year. First, who in the Navy who has ever filed a travel claim, hasn't fudged it a little bit? Like the mileage...Second, it's odd that THREE of them are removed at the same time....Third, it must have been a really ridiculous fudge on the claim, because more often than not, it's a YN3 who does the paperwork and wouldn't question it, especially from an officer. So, I really think there might be more to this than the Navy is saying (as usual). It makes you wonder about the integrity of the supply officers...remember, they handle a multi million dollar budget...I think there is more to this, but we will probably never know."

6/1/2012 8:19:33 AM

Fraudulent travel claims is one step above stealing pens from the office supply room. I wouldn't be surprised if someone's got it out for them to have them yanked from a sub for this. Then again I only have experience in the private sector, maybe the Navy boots people for ganking pens, idk.

[Edited on June 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2012 12:33:09 PM

It does sound like an incredibly minor thing to boot them for, but I'm betting there's either a lot more to this story that may take a long time to come out or another possibility is that this was concocted to get them off the boat without embarrassing them to greatly (maybe they're pregnant, maybe they were sexually involved with a subordinate, maybe they just plain couldn't hack it and made a critical error which could have resulted in death or injury for the crew).

Lot's of possibilities here, we may well never know the truth.

6/1/2012 4:20:51 PM

Saw orders today for the next set of submarines with females.

6/1/2012 9:05:38 PM

First of all, it was not a fraudulent travel claim. I was recently in Connecticut and had the opportunity to talk to some of the people involved with the whole fiasco, so I was able to hear the whole story. I'm not sure how much or how little I am supposed to discuss, so as a CYOA measure I will simply say that it was not a travel claim issue. Trust me, the Navy really wants to make the women on submarines thing work (they just sent them all to DC to meet Obama, the First Lady, and the White House staff http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116533 ). The Navy is not looking for ways to get women kicked off subs, or discredit them in any way.

I reported to my new sub last month, and there are three women serving there now. All of them are very motivated and intelligent individuals, just like the men serving on board. There have been only minor impacts to the crew, and those have been mainly to the wardroom. Probably the most noticeable is that women get promoted to a three-person stateroom immediately after checking on board, vice waiting the normal 18-ish months that male officers do. It's not a huge deal, but I am sure it sucks for the male officers to have to live in 9-man berthing for a longer period of time. Nobody complains, as having competent individuals to stand watch and lead the ship is much more important than where you sleep in the big scheme of life. I am sure eventually, when more female officers (and in the future, enlisted women) start to check on board, then they will probably be assigned a 9-man bunkroom when they first get their vice getting a stateroom right away.

6/2/2012 11:53:06 AM

I was working on the SSBN-741 and saw they had female officers down there...pretty interesting to say the least.

I am a carrier sailor working on subs, so the female thing isnt that big of a shock...

6/3/2012 12:10:26 AM