Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Women Join The Crews Of U.S. Boats
SYSOP    5/18/2012 5:07:41 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
trenchsol       5/18/2012 7:59:37 AM
Interesting is how things change. In ancient Greece sexual activity among and between soldiers was encouraged, although it was a homosexual activity at that time. It was believed that it could build tighter bonds between soldiers.
Today, as we can see, it is banned.
Quote    Reply

Gatordad699       5/18/2012 4:54:32 PM
I really like this site, but I do not agree with most of this article. I was a nuke electrician Chief on 6 subs during and after the Cold War. I taught at both Nuclear Power School and Prototype. The vast majority of female students were a waste of time. They just wanted to get by on being the only female around. Talk to people who have served on ships with females on them and see what they say. If a female does not want to go underway, or get out, boom, pregnant. On a surface ship, no big deal. Except the years of training out the window. A 6 man (person) division might end up port and starboard due to this. Then the statement "The berthing problem seems to be overrated,". My first 2 years on a fast boat, I hot racked. Lets see the PC Navy make a girl share 2 racks for 3 people. Let me tell my wife that I share my rack with a girl. A 688 only has two heads for the entire enlisted crew. CPOs have a very tiny quarters with only one head. Tridents have only two heads in the missile compartment for all of the enlisted crew. You going to give one entire head to the 6 females on board? The Chiefs quarters is separate but still small. Then there is the sex. Junior officers and enlisted are 19 - 26 ish years old. Put them underwater for 3 months at a time and there will be sex. Plain and simple. As a 22 year sub vet, I feel that females on them are a very bad idea.
Quote    Reply

frylock       5/19/2012 4:07:40 AM
Gatordad699 thanks for the very informative post. Great to hear the opinion of somebody who has served so long on these boats. I had read before about the pregnancy problem in the Navy and the rest of your post dumps a bucket of cold water (reality) on this somewhat of an op/ed piece of an article.
Unfortunately this is a PC driven world and the politicians that decide these things aren't going to let a little thing like reality  intrude on their continued social engineering of the armed forces.
Quote    Reply

Vigilis       5/20/2012 12:12:04 PM
Start with the world's premiere naval submarine service.  Introduce physically inferior (limited use to carry other bodies in emergency situations and 34% higher requirement for medical treatment), and inferior commitment (after all their training the retention rate for women is much lower than for men due to something "biological clocks"). Inject them into an elite service that has resisted lobbying by DACOWITS for decades because it has been wrong.
What is the best that could possibly happen with such a gamble?  Recruitment of male submariners might not suffer due to promotion and berthing references given to females (who serve only in supernumerary roles - which the article omits so high-stake submarine missions will not be interrupted by female MEDEVACS)? 
So, someday when we learn that our once elite submarine force has become rife with misfits (lowered recruiting standards for males - the mainstay) how can this dumb move ever be reversed?  -- Score one for opponents of American military primacy. - SSN guy whose 4 healthy wisdom teeth were removed as a standard medical preventative after I volunteered.
By the way, the article stated there was a shortage of male officer volunteers for the submarine force.  In fact, some male officers who had been slated to serve on submarines were reassigned to CVNs to accomodate the females:
May 17, 2010, Nuclear Power Officer Candidate Program: " Navy Recruiting is looking is looking for NUPOC submarine volunteers who will be graduating this year to switch to SWO(N). Let your recruiter know if you are interested and tell your recruiter to forward your request to the NUPOC Program Manager"
More on the hidden agenda at Molten Eagle blog, Sept 01, 2010, "May the Force be with you."
Quote    Reply

Heorot       6/12/2012 6:22:46 PM
The Royal Navy is following the US in allowing women to serve on subs. The first women officers will begin serving on Vanguard-class nuclear subs in late 2013.

They will be followed by female ratings in 2015, when women should also begin serving on the new Astute-class subs.

Allowing women to serve aboard submarines is not just about opening opportunities and ending discrimination.

It has not always been easy for the Royal Navy to find volunteers willing to spend months under the sea, in confined conditions and with little contact with the outside world.

There is additional pay for submariners - starting at an extra 12 pounds a day for junior ratings. But even that's not enough to persuade everyone that the isolation's worthwhile.

There are also many practical problems with accommodating women.

On the older Trafalgar class submarines men still "hot bunk" - sharing a bed with someone on a different shift.

So women will only be able to serve on board the four larger boats that carry Britain's nuclear deterrent and the latest Astute class submarines. At least here they will be able to have their own sleeping quarters, toilets and showers.

Enforcing the Royal Navy's "no touching" rule for mixed crews might be harder, given the limited confines of a submarine.
Quote    Reply

TonoFonseca    No   11/11/2012 6:56:10 PM
There is a reason why women have to be kept away from combat situations.  It is not "male exploitation"; women should consider it their right to not have be put in situations like this.  Plus, they are a distraction to men.  They don't integrate with the male teamwork, and if a man gets his mind on a woman instead of on his duty, he is as good as useless.
Quote    Reply