Submarine Video News Stories
There were two national news stories that showed video from Ohio-class submarines the last couple of days. First, here's one on food service aboard USS Alaska (SSBN 732) from Fox News on Wednesday:
And here's a couple of stories from NBC on the Women on Subs issue; one on NBC Nightly News and another from the Today Show, both shot on USS Maryland (SSBN 738):
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
For the historical record, here's a link to NAVADMIN 152/10 that officially integrates women into submarines.
posted by Bubblehead at 10:52 AM
92 Comments:
I would totally hit that Ann Curry.
4/30/2010 11:50 AM
CDR Grimes.....its SUB-MARINE-ERs!! (NBC Today show video, at the end!) Not sub-mariners!
Overall, at least they didn't embarass the Navy
STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET
4/30/2010 12:16 PM
If they really wanted to show what it's like, they should have shown that video from the NEW MEXICO. Lots of guys on a fast attack. And interview somebody other than the freaking Sailor of the Year! Geez. Why'd they even show a nine-"Sailor" bunkroom anyway. Whne are they going to force nine enlisted women aboard? Do you have to make sure you have a woman on a roving watch to do wake-ups? I swear I've never seen so many flags bend-over for a policy change in my life! They had to wait for guys like Konetzni and Chiles and Bowman to leave. goddammit.
4/30/2010 12:29 PM
18 boats out of about 54 are the size of the ones they show. Too bad they didn't use a LA class boat, but that would not be PC. They show the luxury liner of subs. I'll never forget going to the Alabama from a 594 class boat. Was on board for a couple weeks before I realized there was a 4th level in the MC. Went everywhere by stairs never thought to go down a ladder well, thought it was just a pipe locker or bilge.
Shame the females will take quality billets from male sailors, reminiscent of when females were put in the nuke pipeline in the late 70's/early 80's prior to the ERA. ERA didn't pass so the females were sent to fill shore billets and tender slots while males got to go to sea.
EMCS/SS (Ret)
MAth Teacher in UpState NY
4/30/2010 12:41 PM
18 big boats vice 54 small ones is what I meant to say,
4/30/2010 12:43 PM
Four 726 boats need to stand by for continuous blowdown.
4/30/2010 12:53 PM
Most sex pheromones are produced by females; seems fair to enclose a female or two in a tube with 90+ men for 60+ days.
Definitely for the "good of the navy." The Chinese PLAN navy, that is: last story, here:.
4/30/2010 1:20 PM
Unbelievable, Ann. Could you come off as more condescending and unprofessional? The way she "corrected" the XO about calling it a 3 man stateroom. WTF. This is the kind of PC crap that makes it ridiculous. No one wants it, and honestly after women get to doing it for awhile, very very few will want to do it.
4/30/2010 3:26 PM
Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) told the local SE CT Chapter of the Submarine League today that the request to Congress was very narrow and only requested permission to place woman officers on SSBNs and SSGNs. If the Navy wants to expand to female enlisted or to fast attack subs, the Navy would have to send another request to Congress.
This sounds like the Navy is approaching this in a gradual and intelligent manner (Slow and steady). Good luck to those early pioneering woman.
4/30/2010 4:00 PM
Come on guys grow up, it's gonna happen. It's working for the other branches of the service (any one want to say the U.S. combat force is second rate because of women in it?) Ya sound like a bunch of boys who want to take their ball and go home. I think one thing we've all learned in the military is how adaptable and capable we all are. We are all capable so much more than we realize. This will work too.
4/30/2010 5:26 PM
been there,
unless you have been qualified on submarines, Dude, you have NOT been there.
Rex
4/30/2010 5:38 PM
Mark,
Millington is actually asking some new male nukes who haven't gone to OCS yet to switch from sub to SWO(N) because of this...
Also, I am curious about one thing. I still have yet to understand the whole workings of a boat (only 7 weeks til OCS!), but why is there a chop on the bridge giving commands? Do supply officers have to be more well-rounded on a sub since there are less officers in the first place?
4/30/2010 5:55 PM
ah Rex,,, hate to burst your bubble...but I'm qualified.
4/30/2010 6:03 PM
Someone help me here...Doing coner math, we will see a female skipper in a little over 15yrs from now???Or are they going to sneak a couple of Lt's or LCDR's in the pipeline so they can have a women in command of one of our SSGN's in the shortest time possible. Any one giving an over/under on how many good CO's/XO's/COB's we are going to lose the first year once the first batch arrives on the boats???
4/30/2010 6:05 PM
Can't wait to see the first cluster fuck (no pun intended) to arise (no pun intended) from this PC experiment.
I remember how we used to treat nub JOs when they came aft to begin their training. It didn't take long to straighten out their attitude. Would love to be a fly on the wall when Ensign Mary Jane Crotchrot shows up in Maneuvering.
4/30/2010 6:46 PM
Let's get to the important stuff here: do you think Diane Macedo would take your man-meat in her pooper and then lick it clean before you have to take the watch?
Trust me, if any of those officers is in any way hot, that is all that I am going to be thinking about. Field day, watch, drills, training, PMS...yea right...will she lick it clean?
4/30/2010 7:04 PM
With one head for all the Officers except for the CO and XO, the "occupied" sign on the WR Head is going be a problem. Will impact the ability to time-share the head, since no-one will be shaving or taking a leak while the female ENS is in the shower. We don't need more time added to our daily routine, which will be the net effect of the current plan.
If Big Navy really wanted to do this, they need habitability mods, just like were done on the surface ships before women came aboard. Need male and female heads for the WR, CPO Quarters, and Crew's Living spaces. Since the current plan is only for female Officers, they only need one extra head. Problem is, even on the 726 Class, this would be a major alteration.
If this is really a priority for the Navy, do it right. Otherwise the cost will be borne by the personnel who serve aboard the boats.
Also agree with the shortsightedness of this plan and the similarity of the problems that will be created with the first introduction of female nukes (they could only serve at prototype, NNPS, and on the Tenders).
4/30/2010 8:00 PM
6:46pm Anon:
You may quote me on this: "Life (on subs) as you've known it is over."
The submarine force's prison-like 'humor' and pseudo-gay 'jokes' are gonzo.
...and, who knows...maybe it's about time? No matter what, lot of dolphin dudes are about to grow the fuck up. Enjoy.
4/30/2010 8:04 PM
CSP put out at a recent Khaki call that the plans only call for officers now with no current plans for enlisted any time soon. Main driver for female officers seems to be opening up a larger pool of technical degree applicants to draw from in order to meet manning requirements. And, since they can do the "modification" for the price of a couple of door locks and sign on the head door, no big deal financially. Admiral further said that the three main reasons for not expanding to the enlisted ranks was (1) lack of available mentorship, i.e. Chiefs; (2) lack of interest (they can't even fill all the available female surface billets); and (3) the pregnancy issue (female officers get pregnant at a rate comparable to a guy missing an underway for a medical issue, female enlisted rate is much higher). So, at least for now, looks like some actual thought has gone into this decision. Of course, going back to the "modifications": if a couple of locks and a laminated sign are all it takes to make a boat "female ready," for 2-3 officers, why can't they do it on the fast boats? Haven't seen a Seawolf or Virginia, but the staterooms on a 688 are similar in size and layout to those on a T-hull. Hmmm... did I just shhot down my own argument? Oh, I'm so confused.
4/30/2010 8:13 PM
"No matter what, lot of dolphin dudes are about to grow the fuck up. Enjoy."
True words there. If the public only knew about some of the things that the guys who operate nuclear reactors and guard the nuclear weapons do while they are underwater? Think Abu Ghraib was a big deal? They haven't seen nothing yet.
That said, I, like "coming to attention" can't help but think what she is wearing under her NWU or poopie suit, wondering if she is a lesbo or will she lick it clean!
4/30/2010 8:17 PM
...and, who knows...maybe it's about time? No matter what, lot of dolphin dudes are about to grow the fuck up. Enjoy.
If that's true, in only 20 years the Navy succeeded in totally emasculating the entire submarine force. I'm expecting that allowing women (and in the near future, open faggots) aboard will result in an exponential rise in problems unforeseen. But you poor PC bastards can deal with - I'm busy making bank in the nuclear biz.
4/30/2010 8:19 PM
"There is nothing on this earth sexier, believe me, gentlemen, than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote 'em all, I say, 'cause this is true: if you haven't gotten a blowjob from a superior officer, well, you're just letting the best in life pass you by."
Colonel Nathan R. Jessep
Now get to work men. Not only does it get better after ORSE, but you are about to have the times of your lives!
4/30/2010 8:33 PM
I read that they're starting with 12 female officers: 3 per crew on two boats. Since this is such a big deal for the Navy, and has a HUGE potential for turning out ugly, I hope they pick their 12 women carefully. They're going to have to be tough, thick-skinned, competent, and above all ugly as hell. Although watching some of my less discriminating shipmates chase tender-ho's in La Mad, I guess being ugly wouldn't necessarily be a barrier.
4/30/2010 8:57 PM
Holy crap, there's a lot of room on a boomer! Crew's mess actually has aisles.
I lol'ed at the "this will solve our recruitment problems" line. Anyone have statistics on % females at USNA? I know when I went through power school we only had 5 female officers in a small class of 30. At least some guys who want to are getting to go SWO(N) if they choose.
4/30/2010 9:31 PM
Women submariners cannot, in truth, commit worse errors than some males have as exemplified frequently since the USS Greenville's blunders (for example).
What women submariners can do is ruin the fragile esprit and enduring pride of the world's premier silent service.
If the customary (as in all of the services and surface warfare) attempts are made to shield women from abject and embarrassing failures, a wedge will be driven into what has taken a century of male sacrifices and underrated traditions to forge.
Their record in other services and surface warefare has been mixed (e.g. Capt. Holly Graf), truth be told. As many above have implied, this does little for the force, but gives a few admirals hopes for political careers or appointments to high offices.
If it were really a great idea, why is it not a bi-partisan movement? Always the Dems who push it and other military cuts, cuts, and cuts.
Standby.
4/30/2010 10:45 PM
I have to agree with been there.
I am also qualified in subs, and not floating hotels but LA Class.
Save your hate and contempt for the enemy.
Joe Alferio
5/01/2010 4:59 AM
COMSUBFOR:
You do, of course, realize that the character of Col. Jessup was the worst sort of bully and criminal, don't you?
It's always fascinated me how many military people identify with that character.
Joe Alferio
5/01/2010 5:03 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
5/01/2010 6:39 AM
CSP put out at a recent Khaki call that the plans only call for officers now with no current plans for enlisted any time soon. Main driver for female officers seems to be opening up a larger pool of technical degree applicants to draw from in order to meet manning requirements.
We have first hand info from a poster stating that: Millington is actually asking some new male nukes who haven't gone to OCS yet to switch from sub to SWO(N) because of this...
Would seem to me that Little Lord Farquaad McAneny was merely puffing the big Navy line. Having served w/ the little dipshit, no surprise there.
5/01/2010 7:16 AM
1. Doubling the pool of talent to draw from should allow bonuses to be cut in half.
2. Thou shalt not whine.
5/01/2010 7:25 AM
I recently saw some retention numbers for female surface officers, both nuc and non-nuc. They are below dismal. That is enough to tell me the bonuses are not going to drop. More recruits will not mean better retention for those the bonuses apply to. The bonus sure as hell isn't keeping SWO fems around.
Was it odd that the Alaska showed cooking on the ship and eating in a building? weird.
5/01/2010 11:23 AM
Ok, guys. If you want to stop this, it can still be done. Control of the House will most likely pass to the GOP after the 2010 election. That means that GOP Congressmen like Roscoe Bartlett (the HASC member who was most responsible for shutting down women in submarines last time around) will be back in power. Just taking back the House means control over appropriations and this can be shut down there.
Wanna speak out to those House members? You can. Below is a link to a petition. The guy collecting sigs is a retired ETCS(SS), who will deliver it to those Congressmen. I urge you to take just a few moments, sign it and leave a few comments as to why you think placing women on the boats is a bad idea. Give our friends in Congress some ammo. Clean, clear and professional guys. Thanks.
http://www.14olcott.net/index.php?option=com_mad4joomla&jid=3&Itemid=64
r/
sobersubmrnr
ET1(SS) (ret.)
5/01/2010 11:33 AM
I am still receiving inputs on the petition from folks that are just now getting the word. We am currently at 521 and climbing.
v/r
ETCS(SS/SW)(USN Ret)
5/01/2010 12:11 PM
srvd_ssn_co:
Care to elaborate on what the surface nuke officer retention numbers look like? I've tried finding this information, but haven't really been able to find any numbers other than "it's not that good"... Is it easily available on the high side where somebody willing to spend a few minutes looking might be able to get them...
I'd also heard that the senior female nuke in the Navy is a LCDR. Does anyone know if this is actually true? It sounds kind of hard to believe to me.
5/01/2010 12:58 PM
My favorite is the TP in the head that was folded into a little triangle at the tip. Very nice.
5/01/2010 12:59 PM
I'm so ticked off about the way Curry chided the XO when he said '3-man stateroom.' This is just the tip of the iceberg.
5/01/2010 4:15 PM
"We am currently at 521..."
Haha nice! Bad english AND ridiculously small numbers. Petitions rock!
5/01/2010 4:16 PM
How could Ann Curry pass the 3-man stateroom comment up?? He instantly corrected himself, making it more obvious, and the entire reason she's there is a story on the difficulties of female integration. She wasn't being PC, she's a friggin reporter.
5/01/2010 4:30 PM
I don't really see a problem with letting women and openly gay people serve aboard a submarine. There are already gay submariners, and in many cases people know, and they accept that person because they know we aren't gay and aren't going to try "hitting" on us. Not to mention, they do their jobs, and take a slot on the watchbill.
As for women, I don't see a problem with that gender serving on board ANY of our submarines. What are we afraid of? Women seeing us or them seeing us in our underwear when we crawl out of our racks? Are we going to be screwing in some hidden outboard like so many wives fear? Maybe some, but from what I understand, there are punishments on surface ships for that stuff, so it would follow.
However, I DO see a problem with women becoming pregnant right before a deployment, or expecting to get days off because of "women problems." This will only make matters worse, as we are already short handed as it is. If we can somehow keep this kind of stuff from happening and tone down the male submariner ego, then maybe it will work, but I just don't think most submariners want to play along.
5/01/2010 10:07 PM
However, I DO see a problem with women becoming pregnant right before a deployment, or expecting to get days off because of "women problems." This will only make matters worse, as we are already short handed as it is. If we can somehow keep this kind of stuff from happening and tone down the male submariner ego, then maybe it will work, but I just don't think most submariners want to play along.
Well, you seem all too willing to accept faggots & women aboard, yet turn around & whine about the problems that will happen. But you also appear pussy whipped and PC enough to suck it up - slack that is.
So, embrace that change pushed upon you by those PC assclowns at the Pentagon with their lips affixed to Obama's rectum and don't bitch about getting that boneus.
5/01/2010 11:58 PM
I don't really see a problem with letting women and openly gay people serve aboard a submarine . . .
Are you even on a boat or in the Navy?
5/02/2010 12:00 AM
Ann Curry is hot. Aside from that, f'ing grow up. If women can serve in more demanding physical roles in other branches of the military (and the Navy, for that matter), they can hack it on a T-hull. Seems to me that men are the problem here...
5/02/2010 12:10 AM
If the only point you can make is to call me on the carpet for typing 'am' instead of 'are', how am I to take you seriously? As for the 521 inputs? Where there's smoke there's fire. Make no doubt about the seriousness of this issue.
5/02/2010 3:00 AM
Anon @ 5:02:
I don't think there's any question whether women CAN physically/mentally do it, I'm mostly annoyed at the disingenuous nature of how the Navy tries to justify it and the whitewashing of some valid questions that they
essentially refuse to answer.
1) The Navy states that adding women to the Officer corps for submarines is necessary due to changing demographics at engineering schools. OK, I understand that in 1970 75% of technical majors were men and now 60% are. But at the same time, we also had several more submarines 20-40 years ago. And overall, there were less college graduates, including technical graduates. But without figuring out how those numbers shake out, that line of reasoning is at best, incomplete. I realize that statistics for some of that stuff is harder to find than one thinks, but I'm annoyed that Big Navy has shoe horned in this reasoning to explain it away, when it's obviously some kind of political play.
2) There's several questions related to the health of an unborn child on a submarine, as well as female vs. male retention that have not been significantly addressed. I don't know how these questions are going to play out, but the smart money is that women are going to do bad things to the overall retention numbers since women, historically, stay in at a far lower rate than men. I'm going to laugh in 10 years when they've had to double the nuclear bonus to try to "fix" retention.
5/02/2010 6:50 AM
In all this discussion of accessions and availability of nuke candidates is being lost that the nuke bonus is not the baseline. Adding females to the pool of prospects undercuts even more the rationale for the bonus. That's a good thing if one can find a use for defense dollars better than bribing the reluctant to serve.
The bonus came in in 1969 when entire year-groups of nuke officers were resigning at the first opportunity. The fleet was adding submarines every year, sea tours were far too long, wardrooms were going shorthanded, non-nukes had to be brought in to bail out the force, and the commercial nuclear power industry was holding out big bucks on the other side of the fence. ALL of that has changed ... and yet we keep the bribes in place.
The topic is worthy of a serious review (not expected in this venue).
5/02/2010 7:44 AM
Rubber Ducky:
I will note that the addition of women has done nothing to mitigate the necessity for a nuclear bonus in the SWO Nuke fleet. In fact, SWO Nuke's have more retention bonuses than submariners. Bottom line is that without the bonuses, submarine officer pay is not competitive with the "outside world". Unless women collectively have some kind of undying yearning to serve on submarines regardless of pay or conditions, I think the more likely scenario is that bonuses will go up in the future vice down. You may see a drop in accession bonuses for NUPOCs and the like, however, those are a drop in the bucket compared to the retention bonuses.
I think the smart money is for the Aviation bonus to go away in the next 5 years.
To be honest, given your post history on this subject, I think you actually are aware of this and are just trolling to spin people up.
5/02/2010 7:55 AM
ALL of that has changed ... and yet we keep the bribes in place.
You would be wrong Ducky, utilities and AE firms are hiring nukes by the boat load, for big dollars. I know cuz I r one.
5/02/2010 8:47 AM
OK, Duck, I have to ask now:
(1) When you were in command of a submarine, and NOT a nuke (nuclear propulsion-trained), did officers who WERE nukes get paid more than you with their accession bonus?
(2) How much is the annual nuke bonus these days compared to, say, a single circuit card in a major critical component? Fifty percent? My sense is that this whole "money savings" blather is just egotistical bullshit over pay-compensation.
5/02/2010 9:09 AM
"Unless women collectively have some kind of undying yearning to serve on submarines regardless of pay or conditions, I think the more likely scenario is that bonuses will go up in the future vice down."
Bingo. Somebody gets it. There is a serious renaissance going on in the world of nuclear power.
Back on-topic (women on submarines), this is clearly a political decision, not one based upon true need. It doesn't speak well for the sub Navy's admirals that they won't be honest about this, but this is politics, after all -- not exactly a sphere of influence known for its integrity.
5/02/2010 9:24 AM
Expecting honest talk on a political subject is likely to meet with a great deal of disappointment.
While I understand the frustrations and sentiment, it's a little "disingenuous" to expect otherwise.
5/02/2010 9:27 AM
Yadda yadda:
To both your questions: beats me. Not uncertain: a fair discussion of nuke bonuses is never to be had from nukes.
In a time of little need for submarines other than as a fleet-in-being that keeps the art alive, it seems useful to ask if the money paid as workfare to nukes might be used better elsewhere. Or perhaps take back some of the bonus already paid when a topnotch team of bonus-babies rams another warship in a submerged transit or plows into a mountain in the open sea or kills kids in the crew.
Birthright or incentive? If incentive, incentive for what? I guess I'm just a bit curious to see if there exists even one nuke willing to permit the notion that bonuses are bullshit. Any takers? Or is this a universal good of perpetual virtue, a vaca sagrada?
5/02/2010 10:13 AM
I guess I'm just a bit curious to see if there exists even one nuke willing to permit the notion that bonuses are bullshit.
If there was any truth to your premise, you would most likely find a majority agreeing with you. However, bonuses are paid becasue they are necessary. Do you really think the military would pay bonuses if they had no need to do so? Maybe Big Navy will use the same rectally inserted reasoning used to allow women on boats and also do away with bonuses. Then we would really see whether or not bonuses are bullshit.
5/02/2010 10:54 AM
It's an incentive to stay in. It solely exists as a retention tool. I think you could make the argument that the rent-a-nuke bonus could probably be done away with, but as a community there are shortages in the sub community at the O-6 level, as well as there not being enough JO's to fill all of the shore duty billets (there is a trend among JO's to leave straight from sea duty to avoid Iraqistan). I'm not sure, however, if our end strength goals even support having enough LT's to actually fill all of the shore billets anyway.
I'm pretty sure we made our numbers for the last couple of years for Department Head, but only a fool would think that this trend is likely to continue indefinitely into the future. Retention is easy when a large proportion of the world thinks we're starting a global depression.
I'm a JO who's been in long enough to see several of his buddies get out. I've seen pay ranging from ~85k-~105K. Where people's pay falls in that range seems to depend heavily on where you decide to live and work. Without the bonus, submarining falls at the bottom of that band. It's simply not competitive given how hard you work on a sea-going boat unless you have the bonus.
Given the political climate for clean energy, the nuclear renaissance, and retirement of power plant (not just nuclear!) personnel, I expect to see the bonus creep up over the next 5 or 10 years.
5/02/2010 11:14 AM
Once upon a time, I recall being a nub LTJG visiting the New London subschool from my newcon boat. I recall that there was a LTJG female doing the admin thing there, a fact that struck me as odd for no particular reason.
Her sex was an attention-getter, but really didn't matter. What did matter -- when I thought about it -- was that this shore-duty, non nuclear-trained "naval officer" was being paid exactly the same as I was except for sub pay (a pittance then...$100 or $200 a month), stuck me in a way that I won't likely ever forget. And for the record, I'd have been just as unhappy with the situation had she been a 'he.'
I can imagine the substantial sound of the pitter-patter of little feet going the (bleep) away from the god-this-sucks world of nuclear power training if there were no bonuses.
I'm sure you could try that, but I'm just as sure that the ultimate entity that came to benefit from such a piss-poor decision -- the commercial nuclear power industry -- would not so much as say "thank you."
5/02/2010 11:18 AM
I am amazed how these threads turn into discussions of pay.
Here's a CW2 from 1968:
Base pay: $408.60
BAS: $47.88
Combat pay: $65.00
Flight pay: $110.00
Total: $631.48
For this money, a 20 or 21 year old Army warrant would fly 1000 to 1800 hours per year in VietNam, almost all of them combat. If they were lucky, they DIDN'T get a Purple Heart. If they were unlucky, well, you know.
Even in '68, of our theoretical CW2 was politically astute, he could tell there was no way we were going to win that war, or even have a decent long term outcome.
My point, if your doing it for the money, get a new job!
Joe Alferio
5/02/2010 2:28 PM
Joe,
Your right, doing for the money is definately not a reason to serve. Case in point:
Here's a real Chief w/18 years in 2010:
Base pay: $4085.70
BAS: $323.87 (off-crew only)
Sea pay: $520.00
Sub pay: $405.00
BAH: 1446.00
ANAV pay: 375.00
Total: $6750.57
As for the combat stuff, that sucks. Pick your rate, choose your fate!
5/02/2010 3:43 PM
Considering the following:
Average Cost of new house $14,950.00
Average Income per year $7,850.00
Average Monthly Rent $130.00
Gas per Gallon 34 cents
Average Cost of a new car $2,822.00
Movie Ticket $1.50
I'm not inclined to believe that the CW2 in 1968 was destitute.
I served for the experience, not for the money, which I knew would come later. In fact, after doing my six, there was no amount the navy could offer me to keep me. But if the Navy wants to keep qualified personnel on boats after the individual's goals are met, they, like any other entity, will have to pony up.
5/02/2010 5:47 PM
Of course the Navy needs to pay a prevailing wage if they want to keep people in. Patriotism is nice and fuzzy but money talks.
Ass, gas or grass, nobody rides for free!
5/02/2010 7:26 PM
RD,
The best rationale for retention bonuses is purely economic, i.e. the pay package is not competitive with the civilian alternatives, especially considering quality of life - of course, an economic rationale would be beyond the average socialist...
5/02/2010 8:52 PM
{I'd also heard that the senior female nuke in the Navy is a LCDR. Does anyone know if this is actually true? It sounds kind of hard to believe to me.}
Think back to when the female nuc thing got rebooted - 1996ish? And probably just a few, at that. Should be CDRs starting to spring up, if they stay in long enough.
As far as bonuses and employment - there are lots of civ nuclear jobs these days (gobs of folks retiring) and lots of civ non-nuclear jobs (Nucs are highly regarded throughout the engineering world). Many of them pay nicely with a better quality of life.
I'm not sure its about the bonus for a young guy. At 30 with wife and a baby? Its about both life and money.
5/02/2010 11:08 PM
Well, I did 4 in the Army and 8+ in the Navy. I don't regret any of it. I never did it for the money. I did my duty to my country when I was in and, IMHO, my country did it's duty to me.
This is what happens to a military force without a mission OR an enemy.
Joe Alferio
5/03/2010 6:41 AM
Yawn, Sigh, repeat. A) no changing it now, so why prognosticate. What we need to figure out is how we are going to rig their poopie suits for easy access."LT, I would like to volunteer my services to you.... "Need a shave?"
5/03/2010 10:39 AM
Joe, you said, "My point, if your doing it for the money, get a new job!"
I did. I was a lowly ET1(SS) 10 years ago. My first year out (I got out in January of 1999) I made double what I made the year previously. I make double that again now--read: JO's getting out make less than I do. Do I think for a second that I would be where I am without my Navy experience?
No, but there comes a point where 300 days a year out of homeport and port-starboard shiftwork (or 3-section duty at best) the remaining 60-90 days, watching the divorce rate hover around 75-80 percent, not seeing your kids even grow up, kind of makes the decision to "chase the dollars" that much easier. Last time I checked, nuke plants don't get unscheduled 60-day underways very much.
5/03/2010 10:56 AM
in the readings above, the economic/incentives argument for the nuke bonus seems to boil down to a binary situation: with the bonus, everyone stays in; without the bonus, everyone gets out. Somehow I suspect it's a bit more complex than that...
In a time of decreased demand and (with females) increased supply, most economists would predict a drop in price. So let's drop the price we pay nukes to basic pay and submarine pay. Seems to fit theory.
But my real point was in suggesting that the total number of nukes on this blog who would even entertain an end to the bonus would equal zero. So far, a good bet. Vaca sagrada.
5/03/2010 11:41 AM
RD:
Actually, there was a rumour that they were discussing getting rid of the bonus a few months after the financial world ended. I remember them discussing it. I think there's a good case for killing or reducing the aviation bonus, as they are overmanned at all ranks throughout the Navy. That is not the case for the sub force.
I will publicly make my prediction that the addition of women to submarines will paradoxically put upwards pressure on the bonuses and we will either see bonuses that are bigger in real-world terms or see another bonus ala the SWO retention bonus added in to the mix.
Opening the submarine force to women is going to "open the aperture" and may help with the supposed accession problems (though I am unaware of a shortfall in number of JO's brought into the program). I'm confident this is going to be at the cost of officer retention further down the line.
Again, I think you know this, but I think we're just seeing trolling and sour grapes.
5/03/2010 5:31 PM
By "them", I mean the slightly more senior than me officer rumour mill, by the way.
5/03/2010 5:32 PM
RD's application of supply-demand principles is far too general to be applicable to the real situation in the submarine labor pool, which is not a free market in any meaningful sense. Letting females into the pipeline affects supply at the input end, but at every other career gate (post-JO, post-DH, etc), the supply of bodies available to fill job openings is fixed. (# Billets/submarine x # of submarines)
The useful analysis is this: if females resign from the service at higher rates than males, putting females on subs will increase the sub force's overall resignation rate. Keeping the math simple, a wardroom of 10 JOs will now have 2 people stay instead of 3. If you want to man DH billets fully, you'll need find some way to get that number up to 3 again (reducing manpower requirements at the next level is another balancing tactic)
Money is probably the only realistic way to do this. Despite what people say, they will follow the money. There are other ways - reducing tour lengths, cutting out management layers, getting rid of boats, putting a higher proportion of JOs on boats - but all would come with major consequences to the real-world operations.
So I agree with the previous poster - bonuses will probably go up unless the number of boats keeps falling. Cut the number of boats by a third and you can afford to retain 2 JOs instead of 3. Maybe this is all part of the plan?
5/03/2010 9:52 PM
Really, I see women on subs going the same way putting women in Bancroft Hall went...most are pretty cool, but there's always that vindictive one who cries rape/sexual harassment at the drop of a hat (or her panties). Think whatsherface, the volleyball player, who got drunk (underage), made a bad decision with Lamar Owens, then yelled rape far and loud to avoid being seen as loose and beat the underage drinking charges.
Most would be fine shipmates, but it would just take one bad egg to polarize a crew against each other for a long time, and completely destroy the career of someone...whether or not he is guilty of doing anything wrong.
As an aside, I still think it's a travesty that Owen's name is everywhere, but not hers. I have half a mind to do a bit of research to figure it out so it can be dragged, false accusation and all, through the mud of the Chesapeake. Though she is a SWO now, iirc, so I'm sure I'd be violating something in the UCMJ if I did that.
5/03/2010 10:08 PM
NHSparky,
You are exactly correct, and your situation parallels mine almost exactly.
I got out in '89 after 8 years, 4 months in the Navy, as an ET1(SS). With my 4 years army time I had a little over 12 toward retirement.
I think the most I ever made in the service was $29K in '88. I never felt shortchanged in the pay department.
When I left the Navy I took a job at a nuke plant and my pay immediately doubled. I'm making lots more than that now, although I'm no longer a nuke.
Would I have gotten where I am today without my Navy training and experience? No, of course not.
I never thought my pay was the number 1 motivation when I was in, and I can honestly say that money is practically my ONLY motivation in my civilian career.
Joe Alferio
5/04/2010 5:52 AM
OK, if overall officer retention goes up, then the bonus stays the same or goes down--that has always been the case. If, however, retention goes down, then HISTORY shows that raising the bonus makes it go the other way. Huh, a market that works.
Bonuses, throughout the military, need review, and SecDef has said this many times.
As for numbers, well, the one i clearly remember is 7% female nuc officer retention. Imagine if only 1 in 14 officers stayed in the sub force. Yikes.
One last thing: about this 'they get pregnant and miss deployment' argument. Hmm, seems I remember a lot of guys finding excuses to stay home over the years. Doesn't sound like a female exclusive thing to me.
5/04/2010 5:18 PM
As expected, srvd_ssn_ego implies that women on boats is a good thing - right after presenting a cogent argument for why it is a bad idea.
5/04/2010 7:55 PM
You mean like the 15 women who got pregnant on the Ike when they first got women? Lose 15 people off a carrier, no big deal--lose 15 people off a boat...
5/04/2010 8:07 PM
Anyone that thinks adding women to the sub force is going to increase overall retention is deliberately fooling themselves. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where this plays out in a positive way for the sub force as a whole.
Ironically, I suspect it will help the surface nuke community. I highly suspect that the pool of women that are interested in joining the submarine force in the future is basically the exact same pool of women interested in joining the Surface Nuclear Navy. Any women we can leech out of their program become our future retention problem and not theirs.
My prediction, ten years from now: return to 13 JO wardrooms, 3-5 female nuke JO's per Ohio class hull, and some kind of signing bonus on top of the yearly nuke bonus, just to make their DH numbers.
Then, of course, COMSUBFOR will claim that we couldn't man our Navy's nuclear submarines without female officers, completely ignoring the fact that they're basically assessing almost the exact same number of men as they were before women were allowed on subs.
5/04/2010 8:37 PM
One last thing:
Srvd_SSN_CO:
You suggest that the Nuclear Continuation Pay bonus has at some point went down due to increased retention. I don't believe it has *EVER* went down year-to-year. It didn't happen for the FY 01-03 guys when JO's were overmanned and DH selection actually became competitive (though IIRC, as usual the sub force actually overshot how many they declined to select and didn't make their numbers for at least 1 or 2 of those years). It also did not happen in 08 or 09 as the world fell apart around us and retention suddenly shot up. It's also not set to happen in FY 10.
So, when, exactly, did it happen?
5/04/2010 8:44 PM
"You mean like the 15 women who got pregnant on the Ike when they first got women? Lose 15 people off a carrier, no big deal--lose 15people off a boat..."
What was the actual percentage? How many were officers vs. enlisted?
Boats always lose a few men due to "saltwater disease" prior to deployments, what's the difference?
5/04/2010 8:56 PM
Boats always lose a few men due to "saltwater disease" prior to deployments, what's the difference?
Utter bullshit. In the four years I was on a boat, we lost two guys for medical and one guy for being a dirtbag. Not sure what kind of shitbags were infesting your boat(s), but I rather suspect you're blowing smoke - as have all propping up this asinine idea of gender equalization for manning purposes.
5/04/2010 9:14 PM
My prediction, ten years from now: return to 13 JO wardrooms, 3-5 female nuke JO's per Ohio class hull, and some kind of signing bonus on top of the yearly nuke bonus, just to make their DH numbers.
5 section forward, 4 section aft, 2 in quals and 2 on leave + sweet JO-on-JO love in the fan room - life is good.
Bring on the women to the submarine wardrooms!
5/05/2010 6:10 AM
enough already--nearly 10 percent, IIRC. Don't have a breakdown of officer versus enlisted, but either way that's completely unacceptable. In five Westpacs on two boats, we lost a total of one guy due to a broken collarbone prior to Pac, and that "loss" was made up by cancelling an augment--specifically, mine.
5/05/2010 7:33 AM
Not sure about other places, but there is an entire cottage industry setup in Bangor for the sick, lame and lazy who can't go to sea. NSSC manages a pretty sizable body locker. It's great if you need some work done that doesn't require too much thought.
5/05/2010 6:26 PM
From TriscuitBiscuit: "Also, I am curious about one thing. I still have yet to understand the whole workings of a boat (only 7 weeks til OCS!), but why is there a chop on the bridge giving commands? Do supply officers have to be more well-rounded on a sub since there are less officers in the first place?"
Triscuit, as a Chop, I can tell you that yes, you are expected to be much more well-rounded than I imagine the average Supply Officer on a ship is, for the exact reason you say. However, that Chop was not on the bridge giving commands, the guy (who I went to Sub School with, by the way, good to see him again) up in the sunlight that she was talking to was in the bridge as the Officer of the Deck...that Chop was in Control, stationed as the Contact Coordinator, basically acting as the "traffic controller" for the OOD and making recommendations on how to maneuver the ship to keep it safe and driving in accordance with the Coast Guard rules of the road.
5/05/2010 8:32 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
5/06/2010 4:26 PM
Hopefully the Navy is ever so slightly more mature with these women:
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/chesapeake-woman-be-one-first-serve-submarine
than the idiots at the Citadel were with her:
http://jezebel.com/5421544/first-female-citadel-cadet-reflects-15-years-later
Which was only a bit more painful than the first women at USNA.
chop standing watch on the bridge? maybe in the 80s.
5/06/2010 4:27 PM
That's some pretty nice eye candy - so much for starting with ugly chicks. Whole crew's gonna be obsessing about putting it in their pooper...I'd want either one for a U/I watch in ERLL...
5/06/2010 9:56 PM
Wow! That is some pretty nice meat! Just goes to show you that the Navy is really thinking this through.
Should have started with the Chiefs.
5/07/2010 6:31 AM
It was good to see the old XO in command and he didn't do a bad job in a tough situation. Yes, he did use sub-mariner, but he didn't do too bad otherwise. I was hoping to see my son, who happens to be a radioman on that boat. They didn't talk to him because he would not have been PC. He is one of the ones that will be getting himself into trouble over having females onboard. As for female nuke officers, I was at the prototype when the first class came through around 1996, so there should be a LCDR by now. I am wondering if they will take a surface nuke and make her ENG? Wouldn't that be interesting.
5/07/2010 6:54 AM
2013, somewhere in the Pacific...in the control room, rigged for black, at PD:
"What was that?"
"Oh, sorry, that was my flashlight"
"Do it again...and get something bigger!"
"Aye Ma'am"
The flashlight game during PD ops will never be the same...I love Hope and Change!
5/07/2010 7:22 AM
If I were the XO, after Ms. Curry made her "three woman stateroom" comment, I would have introduced her to the three dolphin qualified, watchbill supporting officers that had to be kicked out of their stateroom to support her little "field trip". What a Bi#@*
5/07/2010 8:19 AM
Here is the entire stable which contains a nice variety.
http://rontini.com/LadiesSS.jpg
5/07/2010 8:27 PM
typical shimmy looking navy chicks...
5/07/2010 10:03 PM
I can't wait to see what happens the first time they're standing EOOW and the RO is doing a FRSU. Not to divulge NNPI, but Tridents have a, shall we say, "unique" method of recovery.
5/08/2010 5:48 PM
Any idea if any of these gals in the picture has a daddy or mommy with stars on his/her collar? That will only make it that much more interesting.
I don't know what the hell this is going to do to the Force. I only been doing this for 8 years, but many of the retired dolphin wearers I know have said it's been going downhill since the Cold War ended.
Fucking politics...I pray the PLAN doesn't fix that problem for us like the Japanese did in WWII. I hope those guys enjoy those shiny stars they get by playing PC...they won't be on the boats to deal with it firsthand.
5/21/2010 2:17 AM
Marine and Ship spares parts such as oil separator and plate heat exchanger from Alfa Laval and Westfalia Separators by Premier Separator Services.
11/20/2010 5:31 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home