Submarine Personnel News
From the New London Day, RADM John M. Richardson has been nominated to be the new COMSUBFOR. He will replace VADM John J. Donnelly, who has previously announced that he will be retiring.
With trepidation, here's a Navy announcement of which boats will get the first women officers:
USS Wyoming (SSBN 742) and USS Georgia (SSGN 729) homeported in Kings Bay, Ga., and USS Maine (SSBN 741) and USS Ohio (SSGN 726) homeported in Bangor, Wash., are the initial four submarines that have been selected to integrate female officers into their crews.More information can be found in this Navy Times article. If we could possibly keep the discussion from devolving into a series of gratuitous sexual terms, that would be great.
The blue and gold crews of the four submarines will each be assigned three female officers.
Two of the women will be submarine officers, and the third female officer will be a warfare qualified supply officer.
They will be assigned to their first submarine duty station after completing training, which consists of nuclear power school, prototype training and the Submarine Officer Basic Course. They are expected to report to their assigned submarines beginning December 2011.
posted by Bubblehead at 3:16 PM
149 Comments:
Well okay, that just means no more pussy jokes spoken allowed. Let's maintain ultra quiet gents, going co-ed just means you've gotta watch your surroundings at all times.
10/21/2010 3:35 PM
I wonder if there is a plan if some of the females don't make it through power school or prototype...
10/21/2010 3:36 PM
As a middle aged submariner, I know this is going to be very interesting. Assigning them in threes gives them a stateroom of their own.
In the end I think this will be a non-event.
I am old enough to remember ring knockers complaining about admitting women to canoe U and that didn't turn out to destroy combate effectiveness or morale.
There were be problems, but much of that has already been worked through with the assignment of women to surface combatants.
At OCS, oh these many years ago, my Company Commander gave us our mandated sensitivity training. He told us that you can't fuck them and work them. That got some laughs. Then he said you just have to work them first. That got more laughs.
Times have changed, and except for some crusty old farts in the goat locker, this will be a non-event.
10/21/2010 3:42 PM
And perhaps if submarine officers are forced to deal with females as peers and equals (some smarter, tougher, and better than many in today's crop of submariners), perhaps this might help calibrate the weak willed and slow learners, helping to keep them out of trouble with female relationships.
I've said for some time that submariners, living in the last male bastion, end up poorly equipped by experience to deal with a world in which females are equals. Stunts like those of the Murray Geros of the present day will be seen in a different light in a two-gender force, perhaps forestalling career-ending escapades. And this will serve retiring submariners well as they enter a civilian workforce where, at least in the typical Fortune 500 corporation, being confused about the rules involving the opposite sex gets you fired without ceremony.
Uncle Walt's got it right: following orders is something submariners do well.
10/21/2010 3:53 PM
It will be a non-event until it isn't, then the fallout will be directed at the CO/XO for poor leadership and it won't be talked about. There are going to be issues and since the big Navy thinks otherwise, they will fail to equip the force with the tools they need to deal with them. When the crap hits the fan, and it will, the CO/XO will just disappear and be labeled as failed leaders. The new ones will show up and no one will talk about the "incident". This is nothing new, so don't be shocked when you see some poor CO fired from one of these boats. The new Navy is just like the old Navy, it is never the senior leadership's fault that their crappy policies have real consequences that ruin other people's careers.
10/21/2010 4:08 PM
Geez, another poster worried about a CO getting fired. One would think the reason we have a submarine force is to provide assured employment for commanding officers.
Alternatively, if some guy in command can't figure out how to deal with everyone in his charge evenhandedly and fairly, following the rules he's given to enforce, perhaps he should be canned. The harshest thing to be said of a CO: "Does not know correct answer when told."
As to the source of policy recognizing and treating women as equals, it's not 'big navy,' whatever the hell that is. It's public law and national policy.
10/21/2010 4:21 PM
Warfare qualified supply officer = oxymoron.
10/21/2010 4:24 PM
I happen to know one of the first female submarine officers picked. She graduated recently (NROTC) and is one of the finest young people I have met in a very long time. The submarine force is lucky to have her.
10/21/2010 4:49 PM
Warfare qualified chop. LOL...! Made my day.
10/21/2010 4:49 PM
Duck,
I am sure you know how to ensure that everyone tows the party line at all times, so I won't waste my time explaining to you the sometimes dumbasses cause good people to get screwed over, but the bigger point is has the submarine force done a darn thing to prepare the CO/XO's on how to deal with the integration of women into this all male bastion? I am sure there were lots of smart people sitting around and thought about the possible issues and have provided training to the CO's so they will be well equiped to deal with these new challenges or are they doing business and usual and telling these guys figure it out on your own becuase you are leaders of men and should already know how. Thanks Duck you prove the point.
10/21/2010 4:58 PM
If the navy wants us to treat them as equals, they should treat them just like the other ensigns. None of my ensigns at prototype had press releases when their orders came in...nor would I expect it.
10/21/2010 5:05 PM
This has nothing to do with them being treated as equals.
Anyone who is of the misbelief that this isn't a whole new political dimension isn't smart enough to be on the boats.
"Big Navy" (read: super skimmers, Duck, if it has somehow escaped your attention that SecNav, Chair JCS, CNO are all just that) damn well won't stand for anything less than for this to be a huge political success. That has nothing to do with it being practical, nor truly successful.
New brow sign for the boats: "Surrender all hope (of fairness and honesty), ye who enter here."
10/21/2010 5:14 PM
"...has the submarine force done a darn thing to prepare the CO/XO's on how to deal with the integration of women into this all male bastion?"
Yes. It taught them how to lead and how to follow orders. It taught them how to treat fairly and evenly officers in their wardroom and sailors in their crew. It taught them how of rely on the chain of command to get the job done. it taught them how to recognize hard work and reward exceptional performance.
Sometimes the right thing to say is "Aye aye sir."
10/21/2010 5:24 PM
I wonder if their retention rate will be every bit as disastrous as the surface nuclear fleet's rate for females.
But...by golly...women will be on submarines, and somebody's gonna be oh-so-proud of how they wasted precious government dollars training them.
10/21/2010 5:28 PM
One of the new female officers was my instructor (as a SPU) at S8G, and I think she will be a great submarine officer. She is very smart, very motivated, and not quickly offended by this guy dominated environment. Provided she hasn't changed, and that there isn't any overtly sexual jokes directed at her, she should do fine in the submarine force. She's been around submariners for a little while (S8G at the time was heavy on the submariners)so it shouldn't be a big issue. This is what I interpreted anyway.
I really don't think it will be a big issue, because I think a lot of guys would just enjoy a little bit of an environment change. It just means we can't whip out our balls all of the time, and to be honest, I never really cared for that game, especially when a lot of submariners are so anti-homosexual. Seems hypocritical.
But in a serious note, how are we going to prevent the pre-deployment pregnancies that I hear occur frequently in the surface fleet This would be very important when we start integrating female enlisted into the sub force, and when they eventually come to the SSNs. I'm personally in favor of signing a page 13 that says you won't get pregnant until you rotate to shore duty, and if you do, you can pay back your submarine incentive pay.
What's everyone elses thoughts, or any other ACTUAL issues you may see happening. Remember, keep it tame, and keep them legitimate.
10/21/2010 5:29 PM
I think these fine young ladies will do great. The Chief's Quarters will make it happen...as usual.
Will there be problems? Yep, no doubt about it and it will be a press nightmare for the submarine force. But Big Navy knows what's best for the sub force and this move will improve our warfighting skills.
There Joel, I said a bunch of nice things as you ordered.
Now can we start talking about how we are going to rip and tear these new split tails?
One other question: LT Onion Butt (OOD) and MM3 Peter Puffer (Lookout) are in the bridge. Can we really say that the bridge is manned? Will we have to re-write the IC Manual?
Sub Force...relevant...yea right!
10/21/2010 5:37 PM
Joel, you have balls of steel.
In the Navy Times article, Admiral Donnelly says "“There are a group of people who have strongly held opinions, and they will be in the wings, waiting for the first indication there are problems,” Donnelly said. “But the vast majority of the submarines that I’ve talked to on active duty today are fully embracing this change. And I’m convinced that it will improve the atmosphere and war-fighting capabilities of our subs.”
To which I will say the same thing I have been saying all along. A senior officer like Donnelly is more connected to the politicians he works for than with the sailors that work for him. There is no way anyone on active duty is going to be able to say to the Admiral 'admiral I disagree with this policy'. I mean, really... think about it. Earlier this year we heard the same thing from Mabus and Roughead, yet the overwhelming majority of the people in the
community that I spoke with are opposed to making the policy change.
As for those that think this is a 'non-event' for everyone but 'crusty old fart chiefs' the
numbers in the petition say otherwise.
Opposed as of 21 Oct 2010:
E1 - 0
E2 - 2
E3 - 10
E4 - 41
E5 - 126
E6 - 116
E7 - 42
E8 - 21
E9 - 20
W1 - 0
W2 - 2
W3 - 2
W4 - 1
O1 - 2
O2 - 1
O3 - 22
O4 - 18
O5 - 10
O6 - 20
O7 - 2
O8 - 0
Active Duty - 70
Former Active Duty - 223
Retired - 164
Spouse - 106
Family Member - 15
Concerned Citizen - 17
I think it's a safe bet to say that for every one of those AD folks that had the courage to sign the petition there are another 10 behind them that would like to but choose not to take the risk. I have spoken with many who just won't take that chance. I have even spoken to a number of spouses who are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of jeopardising their husband's career.
When the admiral says there are people waiting in the wings, I am certain he is correct. And they will come from within and without the navy. And honestly? I hope there are people that will be looking for the first indication of any problems so that those problems may be addressed and solved as quickly as possible. Is Donnelly saying that would be wrong? Of course there are going to be problems. The challenge is going to be in honestly acknowledging the problems, identifying the causes, and then placing corrective measures in place. Sounds like simple troubleshooting to me. Is it too much to expect that the navy have an appropriate plan in place to ensure successful implementation of this policy change? (NOTE: If you have access to an implementation plan that addresses valid issues documented in prior studies, please let me know, because I've not yet found one. I will be more than happy to link to it on my site.)
Truthfully, I have no desire to continue this debate. My goal at this point is to provide a single-source location of information for those chosing to learn more about the issue. And yes, I do intent for the website to stand as a lessons learned for future reference.
@ JOEL - Unless someone specifically asks me a reasonable, pointed question, I will not participate further in this thread.
@ Everyone else - My email address and website (with pertinent documentation) are available by
clicking on 'etcs(ss/sw)' and then sending me an email or visiting my website. My website is not a blog, but a repository of information I have collected concerning this issue.
ETCS
10/21/2010 5:40 PM
The special treatment has already begun. The first few examples are: The female prospective submariners will be getting priority placement at NPTU - due to plant issues there is a holding pattern between NPS and NPTU, the females will all go before males. This is no BS its straight from the horse's mouth. Many a male ensign was either asked or volun-told to delay their orders to NPS in order to fill the classes with females. Also last time I checked, nub JOs slept in a bunkroom and didn't get a stateroom until they were more senior. Lastly, according to the NPC, males need not apply for an SSGN tour due to only two boats available for us. As far as the females go, most of them are already very friendly / dating other ensigns at NPS. It will be interesting to see what happens when the TH uses the Gatorade bottle in the port side EAB locker at 0400 instead of racking someone out so he can take a pee.
10/21/2010 5:42 PM
Common sense dictates that sexual tension, and actions, and misbehavior are all going to be a problem just like the surface force has seen...but perhaps that's my common sense, not yours.
10/21/2010 5:42 PM
I know we are all very smart people that will of course adapt and overcome any obstacle in our path, but as in any action there are going to be casualties along the way and some of them maybe deserved and others will just get screwed because the politicians and Big Navy said so. You can't talk about pregnancies because all females have reproductive freedom and just because they didn't make patrol doesn't mean they don't rank up there with the guy/gal that did. That is small potatoes to being accused and then being raked over the coals for something they didn't do, but that no one wants to hear their side. Nothing a few Aye, Ayes can't handle.
10/21/2010 6:03 PM
I also happen to know one of the first female submarine officers picked. She recently graduated from USNA and has the personality of a parched Brillo pad. She'll be one of the first problems, leaving a stain on the Submarine Force like Prussian blue.
Disclaimer--I graduated from USNA, so this isn't an anti-USNA screed. And no ROTC-graduate COs have been fired during the writing of this posting, although I considered it very seriously.
10/21/2010 6:10 PM
Anyone who says this will be a non-issue is an shit-filled-to-the-brim politician. There's going to be many, many issues. Some of them can probably be overcome. I suspect some of them (mainly female retention) will probably never be fixed, as we still haven't really figured out the right way to do this for the men, who, all things considered are easier to keep in the Navy.
Overall, I'm sure there will be some excellent female officers, there will also be the select few who realize their sex gives them a perverse power over their situation that they will use and abuse. About 1 in 10 will stay in past their initial tour, virtually ensuring that those who do stay on have a successful career due to their extreme minority status.
Officers only will help some of the truly irresponsible actors to some point. Though luckily, according to the Gero thread, most here think that (possible) adultery is ok, as long as both parties vehemently deny it to the IG or investigating party and there is not a film or pictures available to prove that it occurred, so at least THAT shouldn't be a problem.
10/21/2010 6:17 PM
Just wanted to say congratulations to Admiral Richardson on his selection as the next COMSUBFOR. Looks like he is on the path to relieve Admiral Donald as Naval Reactors. Its pretty amazing how quickly he has advanced through the ranks. Four years ago he was the Commodore of DEVRON 12, now he's going to be a three star, pretty amazing.
Its unfortunate that his promotion will be marginalized on this blog due to it being posted along with the women on submarines debate...
10/21/2010 6:32 PM
I'll chime in with congratulations for VADM(sel) Richardson as well. That's definitely an impressive résumé on his part, and quite the age spread with respect to Donnelly, who is seven years his senior.
And a hearty 'hand salute' for anyone who's been on Parche, like Richardson. 'Nuff said.
10/21/2010 6:43 PM
@anon 1515 your comments about "Big Navy" are way off course. These leaders are all in their "terminal pay grade" and have a great deal to their resume beyond getting the first women on a submarine. This is about doing what is right and should have been done when we designed Tridents, SEAWOLF, and VIRGINIA. I challenge those who strongly disagree to answer this question.
What do you tell your ten year old daughter when she asks; Dad, why don't they let women on submarines?
My answer was soon, I hope. And after doing this business for twenty five years, I can say if ANY part of our military institution can handle it, the submarine force can excel at it.
10/21/2010 7:13 PM
Those of you who just can't stand the idea of treating a woman as an equal - it's called misogyny - ought to get your own submarine and staff it however you want. But for those of you who plan to sail in my uncle's boats, quit being weenies and follow orders. Geez what a whiny lot. Not a pretty sight.
10/21/2010 7:17 PM
Yeah, some good old fashioned, shout-'em-down military "leadership." Nicely done, girls. "For shame" on anyone who dares disagree with you, your 25-yr princessness, right?
BTW, Tridents were designed in the early fucking 1970's. And what, exactly, is the question we're supposed to answer?
While you're in sputtering mode, why is it that this is such an emotional issue for you? Can you please describe the combat readiness factors (I'm sure there's more than one) that you foresee will be improved by having women on submarines? How do you answer the reasonable charge that this is all political theatre that will result in just as many problems and types thereof as the surface force has seen in putting women on ships?
Hold on a sec...let me caveat your responses for you: they're YOUR FUCKING OPINION.
"Carry on."
P.S. How many years did Murray Gero have in the submarine force? Maybe he knows better than you because of seniority?
10/21/2010 7:29 PM
There are two potential drawbacks connected with coed subs, and the significance of both probably will be restricted information for some time:
1- Once the novelty and publicity of such assignments wears off, the lure of high-paying jobs in the civilian nuclear power industry is not going to be enough to attract women to the unglorified sacrifices of submarine duty in the prime of their marriagable lives (certain preferences excepted).
Relatively cushy CVN reactor and pilot experience gives only an overly optimistic guide of what to expect from continuing female sub volunteerism.
2- Meanwhile, the experiment is going to favor women over male officers, however slightly. Feedback to the academy and colleges will circulate and very likely reduce male sub volunteerism, too.
It is in such a potentially unstable situation for force readiness and safety that a drastic solution will be found: End traditional distinctions between submarines and carriers. Just go where assigned for the convenience of big navy.
Like Rubber Ducky said, "Sometimes the right thing to say is 'Aye aye sir.'"
No wonder so many sub vets are alarmed by the coed crew concept; the pride they inherited the moment they qualified and that was passed on after their silent service appears rather tentative now.
And Rubber Ducky, females on subs was NOT the law until this year.
The reason it even became law this year could have been to help the current administration avoid appearances of an even thornier and much more of a high-profile gender issue here.
10/21/2010 7:38 PM
Bite your tongue posters will be everywhere.
10/21/2010 7:38 PM
And Rubber Ducky, please pass the air sickness bag every time you try to spin this in your typical name-calling fashion that people who disagree with you are 'bigots' or 'misogynists' or 'weenies' whatever epithet of the day you're hurling.
You are off your flat out of your head if you don't think that these women are going to get -- and in fact already are getting -- major-league, political, NON-equal treatment. Start being more honest and less delusional.
10/21/2010 7:40 PM
@7:29,
It is all about leadership and being able to lead a team of sailors in harms way, regardless of the group makeup. As far as "combat readiness factors" I don't and you don't know what you are talking about. , there is no factor that women on board would effect. As far as how will women "improve the atmosphere and war-fighting capabilities of our subs”, the answer is simple. The ability to select from the best and brightest our nation has to offer just doubles. Therefore, we can weed out the individuals who don't have what it takes and send the ignorant ones home as well. ANd you obviously do not have a daughter or you are just blowing wind.
10/21/2010 7:51 PM
I'd tell my daughter to thank God that women aren't on submarines, especially U.S. nuclear submarines, which are designed to project power and are away from homeport for 6+ months at a time.
There's this thing called ionizing radiation - perhaps you've heard of it - which damages DNA. Women have all the eggs they're ever going to have at birth, unlike men, who produce reproductive cells throughout their lives.
Do that math, and while you're at it tell me why it's worth it to any father's daughter to spend the best years of their life on a smelly, crowded, bored-or-panicked enclosed shit pipe with a group of coarse, too-often low-browed men that would just as soon screw them over the SSTGs as look at them...?
10/21/2010 8:02 PM
P.S. Am calling total BULLSHIT on this statement:
The ability to select from the best and brightest our nation has to offer just doubles.
Right...and when their retention rate is near zero after their first tour, your point is what, exactly? They'll make good reservists?
10/21/2010 8:09 PM
5:14PM (not 1515) Anon,
If you have ever served and deployed on a submarine (successfully) then the first question has already been answered.
The second part makes me realize you could never answer the first one.
Your third part supports the previous statement, so when and if you ever get the chance to sit and talk with experienced submariners you will find they may not agree but they will make the best of what life has to offer. Be that under the MIZ, in the Gulf or the East China Sea. Given that, when our daughters grow up they will realize high school and college do not make up the "best years of their lives" for they will have served and learned what you have yet to do. I wish you the best of luck, because your bitterness is obvious and saddening.
Ciao
10/21/2010 8:22 PM
Couldn't even try to answer the hard, honest questions? Gee, I thought 25-yr submariners were made of tougher stuff.
But if you can't stand the heat, don't come by the kitchen again, my little 25-yr princess. Please dilettante elsewhere.
10/21/2010 8:28 PM
Feh. A bunch of guys who get off on telling people they do the toughest, nastiest job on earth, even though they can't do anything else, are worried some chick's going to come in and do it better than them, thus reducing any smug advantage they used to hold over the "weaker sex"
10/21/2010 8:40 PM
And I’m convinced that it will improve the atmosphere and war-fighting capabilities of our subs. - Vice Adm. John Donnelly, Submarine Force commander
And monkeys might fly out of your ass too. How exactly, please explain, will this move improve the atmosphere and war-fighting capabilities of our subs?
This is pure political theatre allowed because of sack-less "leaders" just like Donnelly.
10/21/2010 8:47 PM
As I depart for the evening, first I laugh at this evenings banter with a pointed statement; Anyone who googles a noun and and throws it into his blog post as verb ought to realize he is outmatched himself and give up.
And I also leave the following to the morning readers. What is it that would cause you to justify NOT letting women on submarines. Then I would refer you to the bio and story of Vice Admiral Samuel Gravely, Jr. and his ten leadership characteristics that made him so effective: impression management, caretaker, pursuit of excellence, self-confidence, communication, team building, followership, morality, discipline and preparedness.
10/21/2010 8:48 PM
@8:40PM Anon:
No one argues that "women can't do the job" except people who wish that was their opponents' central argument.
Look at this or any other thread on Joel's blog. Has anyone made that argument except people like yourself...i.e., made purely strawman nonsense?
The real arguments against women being on submarines include common sense...but some people don't have that going for them.
10/21/2010 8:50 PM
Two things:
1) All this crap about how great submarine leaders are going to lead us all through this mess is really nothing more than a bunch of O-5 through O-8 lifers back patting themselves on how great they are at their jobs. Yeah... right.
Submarine leadership, is not outstanding across the board. There's a lot of smart people who are very poorly utilized by a rigid, hierarchical system. We may be better than all of our potential enemies, but quite frankly, that's not saying much these days.
I have seen no evidence that any leaders in the Navy are particularly enlightened about this topic, nor even acknowledge the very hard questions, much less provide meaningful answers to them.
I have seen a lot of feel-good pluralities though, so I'm sure that will ensure the successful integration of women to the crews.
2) 5:14 PM Anon has a point about retention. In fact, I'd argue that it is the biggest point worth considering. Female retention in basically every other field in the Navy sucks. In Every shipboard field it definitely sucks. So, why bother fucking around with all the hassles of adding women onto submarines just so that 1 out of every 9 of them spends the time to continue their career past their initial tour? It's a waste of money for minimum benefit.
3) Integration of women onto surface ships was hardly the resounding success that the Navy claims it is. Talk to your male SWO buddies about how they feel about it. It's definitely not all roses, even over a decade later.
The submarine force will muddle its way through, persevere, and make the best of it, for sure, but at least be honest enough to admit that it's not the great savior to American submarines that so many want to make it out to be.
10/21/2010 9:06 PM
I have plenty of pragmatic issues with women on submarines, but the basic fairness of the issue is impossible to get over for me. One thing that I am continually surprised on this blog though - are the ignoramuses that think that radiation exposure is an issue here. Y'all should know better - except for the ELTs and maybe the AMR watch, there is nobody on a submarine crew who gets as much exposure as the average civilian unprotected by several hundred feet of water and a few inches of HY-120 - certainly not a Chop and a couple of JOs. Get a friggin' clue folks.
10/21/2010 9:48 PM
The submarine force will muddle its way through, persevere, and make the best of it, for sure, but at least be honest enough to admit that it's not the great savior to American submarines that so many want to make it out to be.
I actually totally agree with that statement. But the same logic and degree of truth applies to the statement that submarines have had wrenches dropped in their main reduction gears and eventually made the repairs and gotten over that little problem, too.
My sense is that political expediency will rule (rue?) the day ad-infinitum once women and "3rd-sex" types are assigned to submarines that were never designed for them, and the idiots who created the apparently never-ending poor retention and other patriots-become-statistics (via Captain's Masts, blown up careers over "consensual" sex, etc.) won't be around to be held accountable for the mess they've made of things.
But yes...while these shit-breathing 4th-rate politicians are sippng their herbal teas in their taxpayer-funded retirements, the sub force will endure...as will the political correctness run-amok that they didn't have the courage to stand up to when they had both the opportunity and the obligation to do so.
10/21/2010 9:53 PM
I served with VADM sel Richardson on the Parche when he was a LT and he was one of the best officers I had ever met to date. Congrats!
10/21/2010 10:13 PM
Well, for all the arguments, the bottom line for me is manning. Right now we are having trouble keeping enough nucs on boats to man a 3 section watchbill. I served on the tender in R-5 for a couple of years, and had 2 of the female sailors that worked for me get pregnant. One was a POS nuc drop, and not good for much anyway. The other was married, and planned it with her husband to coincide with transfer to shore. I also had 2 male sailors put little slashes on their arms and go to medical because they were sad, and one with the "My wife she..." disease.
Will there be a few who will punch out? Sure. Is that different than the men? Nope. Got extra trained operators that you don't want? Feel free to go three section, and send them my way.
10/22/2010 12:03 AM
Busy week. Fall or not fall of DADT, Capt. Gero is relieved, female assignments to the submarine force. I've been sleeping. What is next? H R Clinton for President and the next thing you will tell me is that Bob Guccione is dead. Right..
10/22/2010 12:36 AM
The reason they are doing it with officers first and on boomers first is those are the only boats with enough staterooms to give all the females a stateroom to themselves. Even while male ensigns do not get the same accomodations. As was already mentioned.
Now when you have enlisted females hot racking on fast attack boats or bunking on top of torpedo tubes we can call that gender equality.
By the way pregnant females on Navy warships have to be within 6 hours of emergency medical care at all times re: naval policy now somebody tell me how the fuck to achieve that six hour rule on a submarine.
Just sayng.
10/22/2010 4:15 AM
I'm Ex-Australian Army, currently waiting to join the Royal Navy on submarines. In the latter part of my Army days, we started getting females into our Regiment as medics/drivers etc.
For me, the biggest issue with co-ed armed forces is the natural human tendancey to fall for members of the opposite sex. No matter how many standing orders there are forbidding it, people just can't help themselves, and it leads to tension, jealosy and headaches all round.
In my experience, usually (not always) it's the enlisted areas hit hardest by this. Usually because of the young age of the members, and because not all enlisted folk are career minded.
I think the experiment is fine, give it a go. What is worrying, is that in this scenario, it's rarely allowed to fail. If it doesn't work, politicians just keep patching and legislating untill it stays off the front page. Usually at the detriment of the work.
Women can be very capable, definately as capable as men. The best soldier I ever worked with in terms of fitness, ability and intelligence was female. However, it cannot be underestimated the impact they will have. Mostly in political terms rather that an increase in capability. It will be a minefield of harrassment charges, some legitimate, some not. I know, because I've seen it happen on an Army base, where there is far less tension than there will be after 3-6 months in a submarine.
10/22/2010 5:22 AM
Gasoline to add to the fire!!!!!
From Navy Times
Amphib New York’s CMC fired for frat
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Oct 21, 2010 17:51:00 EDT
NORFOLK, Va. — The top sailor on the amphibious transport dock ship New York was fired Thursday in Norfolk for fraternizing with a female shipmate, Naval Surface Force Atlantic said.
Command Master Chief (SW) Robert W. Stocklin was relieved following a Thursday afternoon administrative mast hearing before Amphibious Squadron 8 commander Capt. John Bruening.
Stocklin received a punitive letter of reprimand — generally considered to be a career-ender — and has been reassigned to Bruening’s staff, said Lt. Cmdr. Bill Urban, a SURFLANT spokesman.
Investigators concluded that Stocklin had an “ongoing, unduly familiar relationship with a female member of the ship’s crew,” Urban said. He would not identify the woman, nor verify whether she was an officer or sailor, because she was not in a top leadership position and “not a public figure.”
10/22/2010 5:28 AM
Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir."
Captain Renault: "Oh, thank you very much."
Captain Renault: "Everybody out at once!"
10/22/2010 5:38 AM
Random Comments:
The duck said 'geez, another poster worried about a CO geting fired.' Over the last few years, a common pep talk for a CO has been, "you know, one more issue and I can't guarantee you won't be fired." The finest way to motivate your COs.
I think the officer plan will probably work OK unless we shoot overselves in the foot (used to say step on our cranks, but that's probably not OK anymore):
-Perceived unfairness. Some excellent comments on how we are already doing it to ourselves with orders disparity.
-Dismal retention. You never really see the numbers, the last set of female SWO nukes I saw would create a manning crisis in the submarine force. Although in a weird way male promotions percentages to XO/CO would actually go up if all the female JOs got out (this assumes that they aren't 'extra' officers which they are right now).
-First feminine hygeine product found in the sanitary system. I hope the females don't underestimate the storm a tampon clogged san pump will cause. Sounds childish and probably is, but STFB if it happens.
-Dating among the JOs. This will be insidious. There are some comments about power school dating that is attributed to be going on. If two JOs on a boat (or even int he same homeport) start dating, the sub force had better be ready to come down on both. If they let it go, or if just the male gets punished, STFB. Female don't discount that the radiomen won't see the emails between jo1@ohio.navy and jo2@michigan.navy.
-Stupid male enlisted comment to female or (I guess to be fair since I've seen some foul mouthed women) stupid foul mouthed women comment to male enlisted. The females need to be ready to handle these firmly but not in an attacking manner. They certainly can't participate in them. I know the male JOs certainly particiapte in gutter conversations on the mid watch. Did it myself. So yes, it is a double standard, sorry females. If you want to make it work, you can't be a foul mouthed 'one of the boys.' It will come back to haunt you.
-The male JO who's been on board for awhile can't make a big deal about being in a bunkroom while the nub ensign ggets a stateroom. Sorry, suck it up.
Vigilis will attack me, but from my time as a USNA company officer where I probably received the most exposure to females i have had, there are outstanding female and their are piece of sh.. females and everwhere in between (just like males). I haven't completely made up my mind whether the women on subs is a good thing or a bad thing, but it will definately be a bad thing if we aren't allowed to treat them as appropriate for the spectrum of performance they will bring. Yes, even this 'hand picked' first group will bring a spectrum of performance.
Finally, sorry Duck I respect your view point even though I disagree with some/most, butt please stop the misogyny name calling. Just because someone doesn't accept homosexuality, they aren't homophobic, just because someone has some real issues with females in combat, they aren't misogynistic. Leave they name callign to Joy and Whoopi on the View.
10/22/2010 5:55 AM
The NEW YORK CMC was having an affair with an officer....the SUPPO who was an O-5!
10/22/2010 6:54 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
10/22/2010 7:26 AM
"please stop the misogyny name calling."
Not guilty. Direct quote: "Those of you who just can't stand the idea of treating a woman as an equal - it's called misogyny ..." That's a definition, not a direct accusation.
But some of the posters accuse themselves, with rank sexist comments and bizarre fantasies of what it would be like to serve with females, beneath which can only be a heartfelt attitude that disdains women, disrespects them, and (read the comments) can only consider females as sexual objects. That's a pretty good way to describe misogyny, of which these posters are self-incriminating.
BTW, if expressed in the workplace, it's also a pretty good way to leave the employ of the federal government. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some seem to think this is a free game in which any attitude is OK. It's not. The system - whether you describe it as Big Navy or the PC Police or the inexorable operation of federal law and policy - has a hell of a lot more ammunition than a sailor with an attitude.
There's a marvelous line in Faulkner's The Bear that tells the reluctant what their choices are: "Them that's going, get in the goddam wagon. Them's that ain't, get out of the goddam way." Amen.
10/22/2010 7:36 AM
Rut.
Stuck.
Duck.
10/22/2010 7:38 AM
{-Dating among the JOs. This will be insidious. There are some comments about power school dating that is attributed to be going on. }
This.
I don't think harassment will be as much of a problem as people think. The attrition will be dealt with.
However, JOs are going to date. And more than date - they are in a high pressure environment with someone of the opposite sex who they have everything in common with: Navy, submarines, being dorks (for the nukes), etc. You see this on both the officer and enlisted sides of NPS, right now. I am good friends with two ROs who got married and had kids (post-Navy) (yes, male AND female, surprisingly for ROs.)
This isn't right or wrong - its just human nature. Will be interesting to see how its dealt with amongst such a small crew.
10/22/2010 9:33 AM
To "Rubber Ducky" and other "Progressives,"
For one thing, I find it very difficult to accept much of anything said by someone whose "handle" implies he plays with toys in his bathtub! (Possibly the only underwater duty he had!)
Loved the beautiful comment from one fellow submariner about the "warfare qualified chop!" This supposed exercise in combatting discrimination gets more hypocritical by the minute! Why does the supply officer have to be "warfare qualified?" Why didn't they just stipulate "Males Only!"
And speaking of "Warfare qualified," has anyone yet taken note of the illustrious Naval career of our current SECNAV, who in his very own navy.mil bio claims to have been SWO qualified while serving on the USS Little Rock? Let's see, he served from 1971 to 1972 AND THE DESIGNATION WAS CREATED IN 1975! Wow! According to my math, his flux capacitor had him three years pre-program! Quite a feat of time travel....or just another case of "stolen valor?" If anything, we need to ring him up on that bit of deception!
How our military survives in this day and age astonishes me, and now they want to add openly gay folks to it as well! Heaven help us all!
And God Bless America!
Lil'Joe in Texas
MT1(SS), SS-347, SSBN-630(G) Plankowner, SSBN-635(B)
10/22/2010 10:05 AM
I'm planning to post the USS New York CMC story later on, but with a context of "are officers considered Sailors". Here's the article for those who want to get a head start.
10/22/2010 10:10 AM
1. I'm wondering why they don't also implement quotas for enlisted women to serve on submarines like A-gangers and commissary also.
2. I'm glad I never served with Rubber Ducky.
3. Wonder how soon Clancy will come out with a new book where the CO is a poor misunderstood woman with husband issues who takes her SSN into Chinese waters and saves the world from WWIII?
4. Will political officers be assigned to submarines to enforce the rules like on the Red October?
10/22/2010 10:14 AM
"someone whose "handle" implies he plays with toys in his bathtub! (Possibly the only underwater duty he had!)"
Five boats. Silver and gold whales. Qualified in SS-244 (enlisted) and SSBN-611 (officer). FBM pin. Holland Club next February. 'Rubber Ducky' was the nickname of the one I commanded, with BATFISH one of two boats in CNO Project 699 evaluating anechoic coatings.
As to SWO quals prior to 1975, those who had previously qualified in a surface ship as Underway OOD - Formation Steaming ('Fleet OOD') and could document it were grandfathered into SWO qualification.
If you'll send me your address, I'll mail you some boot polish...
10/22/2010 10:18 AM
Regarding radiation and pregnancy, it doesn't matter that submariners underway receive less radiation exposure than the general public. The first female submariner who gives birth to a baby with ANY type of defect is going to sue the Navy and win big money.
Further, I expect big league ballplayers that start having medical problems will sue MLB because baseball allowed them to use steroids and other PEDs. Assuming that they were users, guys like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Rafael Palmeiro may be at the head of the line. It's all about who has the deep pockets.
10/22/2010 10:38 AM
Just to step back a minute.
Does anyone recall ever hearing of something called "the Revolt of the Admirals"?
Or is that just another urban legend?
ex-EM1(SS)
10/22/2010 10:39 AM
4. Will political officers be assigned to submarines to enforce the rules like on the Red October?
What do you think the primary role of the female "warfare qualified chop" might be, especially since that warfare qual will absolutely be SKIMMER?
She is absolutely going to be the run to run to politico-papa if the CO/XO get out of line with the ladies.
So, that's a definite "yes" to your question. The only thing I'm wondering is: Does the ZAMPOLIT merit tolling of the ship's bell when she walks either way across the brow?
"Ding-Ding....Ding-Ding...ZAMPOLIT...Arriving!"
10/22/2010 10:54 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals
Hot link here.
10/22/2010 10:55 AM
{or just another case of "stolen valor?" }
Please. Stolen Valor doesn't apply to SWO pins, or any other designation that you must go to a judge for expunge from your permanent record...
Besides, his bio says "served as a Surface Warfare Officer in the U.S. Navy aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock." And he did, yes? Get back on your meds, dude.
10/22/2010 1:14 PM
There's a marvelous line in Faulkner's The Bear that tells the reluctant what their choices are: "Them that's going, get in the goddam wagon. Them's that ain't, get out of the goddam way." Amen.
After reading RD post that same lame line for the 12th time, I've had enough. If he's the author, it's getting skipped - not that I'll miss anything other than some left-wing PC ass kissing BS.
10/22/2010 1:25 PM
The pregnancy issue is going to be there until men have to stay home when they impregnate someone (it would only be fair, it takes two). I am certain that a lot of the women on surface ships had to make the VERY difficult decision to have a family and sacrifice their career. How is it equal that their male counterparts can have both? Until that is settled somehow, there will be a bit of unrest.
10/22/2010 2:29 PM
If sending men home is the 'cure' for getting women pregnant on ships at sea, you'll probably find more than a few volunteers to trial-run that punishment.
10/22/2010 2:33 PM
Yes the Chop has to be qualified like the rest of us. He/She will still have up to 15 months to qual. How much more time time do you need anyway?
Now, a Chop isn't going to command the boat or even screen for XO. Infact I've never heard of a Chop standing OOD or SDO. But He/She still needs to put their time in and have a familiarity in damage control, and as Diving Officer on occasion. That's basically all they do regarding basic operations.
Just remember that a Chop (regardless if He/She is quite skilled in their work or just a below average shithead) can make or break a patrol very easily. So yeah, I want that fucker qualified regardless if they're a guy or a girl.
10/22/2010 3:02 PM
One of these days I'll stop being surprised at the vitriol that pours forth from the bowels of the intertubes whenever this topic comes up. Do any of you see a connection between the ridiculous filth that pours out of your mouths when the prospect of serving with females comes up and the low retention rates for females in the Navy? This is a perfect example of why equal opportunity programs are absolutely necessary. We want highly-trained, professional women to stay in the Navy and become highly-trained, professional senior officers. You don't get them to stay in by making it abundantly clear that you don't value them or their contribution to the fleet. Any CO that can't see that deserves to be fired, and some of the things said in this comment section would land many sailors in the unemployment line. Good riddance. Review your sailors creed.
10/22/2010 3:21 PM
"We want highly-trained, professional women to stay in the Navy and become highly-trained, professional senior officers."
And why's that, pray tell...?
And who is the "We"...? Might that be the royal "we," your worship...?
Submarines go to sea for six months at a time. What women would we want to do that? The STD-ridden, sterile ones that don't and won't have any children...? Maybe just the lesbians...?
Enlighten us on this obviously _great_ "want" that "we" have.
10/22/2010 4:34 PM
The retention problem will not be an issue if you provide NEC based on rate AND gender => you can target the SRB accordingly. SRBs are not intended to be fare otherwise ELTs would get less than everyone else vs more.
10/22/2010 4:36 PM
anon @ 3:21,
Are you advocating removing those posts for fear of career retribution or concern that personal offense be taken.
-JK
10/22/2010 4:40 PM
Two comments about pregnancy on subs.
Ionizing radiation is much more harmful to a fetus than to a healthy pregnant woman. This was shown in Hiroshima survivors who gave birth after the war and also Chernobyl. Maybe the could compel female sub nukes to take birth control but not sure if that is legal.
Second the six hour rule for emergency medical care of pregnant women. Nobody can promise a submariner that for the simple reason it is impractical. Yet it is a hard and fast Navy rule. Something has got to give.
10/22/2010 4:43 PM
Navy Times: "Vice Adm. John Donnelly, Submarine Force commander, said the biggest challenge for the new policy is going to be determined critics."
Yup. Gotta wonder whose submarine force these guys belong to, these 'determined critics.' For sure: if the boats screw this up, the submarine force will be harmed in a big way.
The rest of the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Army and Marine Corps in combat zones, the Air Force, other navies, other nations have all brought women into previously all-male military units without serious issue and to the benefit of the units being integrated. If our submarine force can't do this and do it well, it brings question of the whole enterprise.
This is not a free game. Do not screw it up. And it starts with the language. Many of the posts above are simply disgraceful.
10/22/2010 4:56 PM
Welcome to 2010, ladies and gentlemen. Some very good points here as well as some distressingly ignorant views.
First of all, the "warfare qualified supply officer" refers to a female supply officer already qualified (e.g., on surface ships) who has some sea time and can provide a level of mentorship to the other two women.
Secondly, we will not take pregnant women to sea. The IDC will not be a prenatal care provider. If we discover that they are pregnant once we are at sea, we will medevac them as we would any other Sailor with a non-emergent medical problem.
Third, with respect to equal treatment, come on already! So they will get a stateroom while male ENS Schmuckatelli won't (for his first few months on board). Privacy requires it. Tridents allow this--not 688s and not 774s. Those who ignore the obvious male/female biological differences in their demands to "treat them equally" are the same type of maliciously compliant malcontents who write books about their "nuclear family."
Fourth, the same fraternization rules and sexual harassment/misconduct rules that apply to the rest of the USN will clearly apply here. As an organization that professes to be "elite" and more professional than the rest, I'm relatively certain that we can handle it. Will there be problems? Perhaps. But it's up to those in charge to create the professional environment in which this can and will succeed. It's certainly within our power...
Oh, and by the way, it's pretty clear that we'll see the demise of DADT long before the female officers arrive. Neither will negatively impact my mission.
10/22/2010 5:03 PM
"Oh, and by the way, it's pretty clear that we'll see the demise of DADT long before the female officers arrive."
You forgot to add "in my opinion" or words to that effect. Y'need to do that, or the arrrogant thing gets a little too obvious.
BTW, the only demise that I'm comfortable forecasting is the demise of the Democrat party's stranglehold on our nation's highest institutions. "IMHO"
But let's check back on Nov. 3rd and compare notes. As the U.S. Congress sets DATD policy, not a single district federal judge, your crystal ball might have a different picture on display then.
10/22/2010 5:51 PM
You forgot to add "in my opinion" or words to that effect. Y'need to do that, or the arrrogant thing gets a little too obvious.
Regret if I offended you, party time. The facts are these: Women will begin arriving on submarines in November-December 2011. DADT was ruled unconstitutional by a district court in California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals emergency stayed that decision, but only long enough to determine whether it would hear the government's case. The administration is publicly committed to overturning DADT, but wants to do so outside of the courts (via legislation). The courts and/or the Senate have 13 months in which to overturn DADT for my prediction to come true.
So...
it's pretty clear to me that we'll see the demise of DADT long before the female officers arrive.
10/22/2010 6:29 PM
anon @ 5:03
Actually now that you mentioned it, the VIRGINIA has a 3 person bunk room that could be used for JOs as well. You could even hot rack them with a senior officer in 1 and 3 women sharing the other. I say we start there and then move on to the luxery liners.
10/22/2010 6:40 PM
correction ...the other (2) bunks and ...(luxury) liners
10/22/2010 6:43 PM
The comment regarding taking pregnant women to sea is naive for at least two reasons: (1) women don't know they're pregnant on day 1, it takes some time; and (2) women can get pregnant while at sea. In both cases, the Navy is going to end up with women that are pregnant at sea on submarines.
10/22/2010 7:33 PM
Like restraining orders, fraternization and sexual harassment/misconduct rules look great on paper. Where they fail is when a horny female Ensign is on a midwatch tour of the engineroom with a good-looking stud standing watch as the shutdown reactor operator, somebody badly needs a qual sig to stay off the dinq list, a young male and female officer on a WestPac get drunk together during a liberty call in Chinhae, or a miscreant CO gets ideas during a watch-relief report in his stateroom.
Women will go on boats. Problems will occur frequently. Many will be handled poorly. Good-looking women will be able to get away with murder, if so inclined. Women will be assumed to be the victim, even if evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Lots of covering up with be done to conduct damage control on the Navy's public image. No new lessons will be learned. S-squared, d-squared.
10/22/2010 7:55 PM
SROs have sex with someone besides themselves? Yer gonna need some photographic evidence to back that one up.
10/22/2010 8:03 PM
For some SROs, their shim switch goes both ways.
10/22/2010 8:12 PM
The pregnancy issue is going to be there until men have to stay home when they impregnate someone (it would only be fair, it takes two). I am certain that a lot of the women on surface ships had to make the VERY difficult decision to have a family and sacrifice their career. How is it equal that their male counterparts can have both? Until that is settled somehow, there will be a bit of unrest.
Me detects a most definite non-submariner female type get even response.
10/22/2010 8:25 PM
The retention problem will not be an issue if you provide NEC based on rate AND gender => you can target the SRB accordingly. SRBs are not intended to be fare otherwise ELTs would get less than everyone else vs more.
Spoken like an Obama supporter who still doesn't get it. God, am I glad I'm out and don't have to serve with the sackless leadership now driving the ship.
10/22/2010 8:30 PM
This is not a free game. Do not screw it up. And it starts with the language. Many of the posts above are simply disgraceful.
And you're quite the pompous, namedropping, DBF jackwagon. No one, and I mean no one, gives a flying fuck who you knew or hobnobbed with in the 50s or 60s.
10/22/2010 8:34 PM
Those who ignore the obvious male/female biological differences in their demands to "treat them equally" are the same type of maliciously compliant malcontents who write books about their "nuclear family."
We've been told since the ERA movement how we are equal. If they (those pushing this PC social lab) want to be treated as EQUAL, then treat them as equal - i.e., no preferences for bunks, billets, physical fitness standards, etc.
How do you think Petty Officer Smith, who is adamantly opposed to homosexual behavior, will be treated if he refuses to hot rack with Petty Officers Fairy and Queen? Will he be given special treatment? I think not.
10/22/2010 8:40 PM
The courts and/or the Senate have 13 months in which to overturn DADT for my prediction to come true.
So...
it's pretty clear to me that we'll see the demise of DADT long before the female officers arrive.
Only one problem with your pipe dream, and I bet you have those a lot - The Senate will be under GOP control.
10/22/2010 8:43 PM
"The Senate will be under GOP control."
Yes, just as the U.S. House of Representatives will be. No one is predicting that the Democrats will control that house, either.
Which means that it could be just a bit difficult for DADT to be rescinded if such a non-existent provision doesn't pass either the upper or lower house of the Legislative Branch of government...but maybe my civics lessons are a little rusty.
10/22/2010 9:16 PM
Again, implicit in any decision/opinion to place women on ships of the line such as submarines is the notion that a boat could be manned entirely by women without any loss of readiness, seaworthiness or warfighting capability, else how do you justify your decision/opinion to do so. Indeed, the implication extends further to that the entire submarine force could be manned exclusively by women and be just as effective. Who believes this? And if you don't believe in this notion but still support women on subs then your position can only be due to political correctness and a fascistic desire to go along to get along which is both pathetic and dangerous.
10/22/2010 9:24 PM
anon@ "The Big Gun" 755
Very good point, this will be chjallenging in a number of "traditional" scenarios:
The COs are going to have to watch out for those midnight turnover reports wearing just skivvies. And spill drills with a contaminated women are going to require a heck of a lot more simulation.
10/22/2010 9:58 PM
There's no mistaking the fact that putting women on submarines is a purely political act, one brought about by unbalanced (as in ignorant, not mentally disturbed) judgement at the senior-most levels of the Navy's political structure.
The Navy itself does not see women on subs as satisfactory replacements for men, or else they'd be permanently assigned that way, rather than in-excess as they are being planned to be.
Before someone's panties get so knotted as to choke off their blood supply, what I mean by that is that they - the women - are truly a sort of "super VIP rider" that qualifies to man (whoops) watchstations, and are not planned to be long-term permanent crewmembers.
So it's not that women can't do that job, it's that they can't be relied upon to be around to do the job over the years due largely to their lack of retention...which IMHO is applaudable - it tells me that they have their priorities straight.
MOST male JOs leave the service to pursue other interests. NEARLY ALL women will do the same. Thus the only reason to have them onboard is to placate some zero-mil-experience politicans' misplaced sense of right and wrong.
The surface fleet has done nothing to address the many problems of having women onboard combatant vessels, so I personally very much doubt that today's "leadership" will be anything other than part of the problem until long after their replacements are found.
10/22/2010 10:00 PM
P.S. Before any "shit-filled to-the-brim" politician -- submarine CO or otherwise -- tries again to sling the bullshit that bringing women to submarines doubles the people supply: go look at the 2:1 to 4:1 male/female ratios at major engineering schools like Georgia Tech or Carnegie Mellon University...and reload.
And before the "bigot" name-calling begins, I'm more than willing to say (because I believe it, not because I've been told to believe it) that women can do the engineering job...and, yes, they can do the submarine JO job...but they very clearly just don't want to -- not in numbers or longevity that matters. And it's not the job of "guvmint" (that entity that ostensibly works FOR the people) to force them to think otherwise.
10/22/2010 10:21 PM
"First of all, the "warfare qualified supply officer" refers to a female supply officer already qualified (e.g., on surface ships) who has some sea time and can provide a level of mentorship to the other two women."
And that matters how exactly? Once she finishes SOBC and then steps onboard, she'll be handed her basic stack of qual cards like everyone else. The Chop isn't learning how to command/fight the boat. What she accomplished on the surface doesn't carry much weight once she finds her way many fathoms below the waves. Granted, it will be nice to have someone else to talk to, but the other two girls will be starting out as bare ass nubs and their ultimate goal IS to learn and experience why and how to command/fight the boat and get your crew home safe & intact.
This whole new dynamic is gonna get interesting rather quickly. I don't have a problem with going coed, I just hope we're approaching this whole thing correctly.
10/22/2010 11:26 PM
Straight Up:
Well Said.
Rubber Ducky:
"The rest of the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Army and Marine Corps in combat zones, the Air Force, other navies, other nations have all brought women into previously all-male military units without serious issue and to the benefit of the units being integrated. If our submarine force can't do this and do it well, it brings question of the whole enterprise."
A bigger load of bullshit has never been spoken than these couple of sentences. The integration of women into surface ships, was and still is rife with problems. I challenge to name the ways in which units have "been improved" by adding women. I submit that there is more diversity and that women are capable of doing the same jobs that men are. And retention sucks, and there's a whole host of other problems that erode crew morale. The submarine force can do this, but we won't do it particularly well.
Anon:
"The Senate will be under GOP Control."
I'm speechless, you honestly think this is going to occur this year? I'll give you the House of Representatives, but it's nigh impossible for the Republicans to win the Senate this year.
10/23/2010 2:08 AM
There are pregnant sailors on surface ships right now. They stand watch too and remain on the ship until 20 weeks pregnant. Rule is they complete current sea deployment if it ends before 20 weeks. Policy was revised in 2003. According to a 2005 study 2/3 of female sailors' pregnancies are unplanned. So the blessed event must be starting while underway in some cases when three months into the cruise a sailor turns up two months pregnant.
10/23/2010 4:31 AM
We can't have women on submarines! The IC manual is full of "Man" clauses. Even our bunk rooms and berthing areas have this. Oh what will we do.....what will we do? Let's try some of these new phrases: "station" battlestations, 21-"Person" bunkroom, send a 5 "person" working party topside, "populate" the bridge, the injured "person" is, "employ" fire hose team 1 to AMR1LL, etc.
-This is sort of a reality smack, isn't it? The first thing I would do if I were a woman, would be to cry to the press about the use of these "man" phrases get out of the navy, and make a national name for myself with interviews, books, and so on.
10/23/2010 7:54 AM
Yesss...political correctnessss...that is the wayyyy...I see that nowww...my trance becomes realityyyyyyyy...
10/23/2010 8:00 AM
I think it was 60 Minutes that ran an episode within the last year about success and failures of Women on military ships. Although it played up integration was generally successful, it had predictable effects - large percentage of pregnancies on deployment ~60% amongst enlisted, petty incidents up, difficulties in staffing watches and posts due to higher outage rates, etc.
10/23/2010 9:48 AM
"RADM John M. Richardson has been nominated to be the new COMSUBFOR. He will replace VADM John J. Donnelly, who has previously announced that he will be retiring."
Grats to Richardson for his upcoming billet and to Donnelly for a planned retirement. It is getting old hearing about unplanned retirements for cause.
WRT Anon 4:31
I’ve been out of the Navy since Nov 2004 and did 25 years mostly on boats or teaching boat sailors, so had very little interaction with female sailors or issues with female sailors. My understanding was that once you are pregnant you can have zero exposure to navy produced ionizing radiation and cannot have a TLD because it proves you received radiation. Surface ships only issue TLD’s to folks that go into spaces that receive radiation. So it is possible to stay and work on a surface ship up to the 20 week when the physical effects of being pregnant come into play. If you are found to be pregnant underway, they can shift you to a non-TLD wearing billet. That luxury does not apply on a submarine. Everyone underway wears dosimetery. All nukes wear TLD’s. An unexpected loss of a qualified watch standing sailor during deployment is very harsh on a submarine. We are three section at best and often p & s to support the maximum number of sailors inport. This was especially stressed in the 21st century touchy feely navy. Upped manning for the ORSE watch bill is the only exception.
So my question is what is the plan for pregnant nukes (Officers or enlisted)? They cannot stand duty (in port or at sea) or enter key engineering and many non-engineering spaces required of them or has the requirements changed?
As a side note on females on submarines…
It was a real culture shock going into teaching after the navy. I was the only male teacher at my school in my first year of teaching. I adapted and so will the submarine force, but not without a few embarrassing moments. The old goats, the wardroom, and the khaki shirts (cannot call them blue shirts any more) will figure it out. They are a bunch of smart folks that I am proud to be part of.
EMCS/SS Retired
Math Teacher Up-State NY
10/23/2010 10:33 AM
Well, 60 minutes is wrong. In actual fact, women have done nothing but positive things for the surface fleet. We now have twice the pool of the best talent in the USA to choose from! So if you think about it, they're actually twice as good as they ever were before. Women are the future of submarines, because they are so awesome at being sailors.
Also, the retention is really a non-issue if you think about it, because submariners are so awesome that we will solve this small insignificant problem with creative leadership, because we are the best talents and leaders in all of the worlds. My CO's will just say super cool stuff and chicks will be all "Cool, bro, I'm totally a lifer now. Kids and families are lame! ORSE and TRE, that's for me!"
Also, I've done no studies on this, mind you, but all evidence points to the fact that pregnancy on submarines is no big deal. Diesel fumes and Amine and lower O2 levels are actually good for babies, if they weren't, somebody would have done a study on this, am I right? And besides that, as we all know, submariners are some of the most professional people in the world and on Xbox live, so they will definitely not ever fraternize or anything.
In short, we need women to man our subs. Despite the fact that we have less than half as many subs as we did in the 80s, and the population is higher, there's not enough men with the advanced degrees needed to man submarines. Simple math, really. And there's a lot of fine young women out there who have been dying to go on submarines since fertilization. So, in 2 years, you'll be like "dude, this is way better than when it was all guys."
10/23/2010 10:39 AM
LOL...classic! Very nicely done.
Who says that the submarine force lacks a sense of humor?
10/23/2010 11:20 AM
Mark,
According to 10CFR20:
§ 20.1208 Dose equivalent to an embryo/fetus.
(a) The licensee shall ensure that the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus during the entire pregnancy, due to the occupational exposure of a declared pregnant woman, does not exceed 0.5 REM.
The only thing that would prevent a pregnant nuke from standing watch is policy. But how the hell is the fetus going to wear that damn TLD?
10/23/2010 12:10 PM
Command policy will probably limit exposure to less than the legal limit, just as in all other cases. The only real decisions will be for things like maintenance in the RC, casualties in the RC, and possibly contaminated work. Also, we probably wouldn't want the underway ELT drawing samples to be pregnant, but she could still stand ERF.
10/23/2010 1:02 PM
Some things in this world you can depend on such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Another thing you can count on is that the first woman who spends any length of time on a sub and then gives birth to a deformed or chronically ill baby is going to claim it was caused by her sub duty, and she may very well be correct. You can also bet that the Navy will hand her a blank check if only she will not make a big public stink about it and bring scorn and ridicule on the Navy Brass who know full well that the decision to billet women on subs is purely due to political correctness.
10/23/2010 2:42 PM
Semper gumby.
Roll with the punches.
That's what we're doing here at Nuke School.
Big Navy made a decision, and it isn't likely going to be retracted.
Now it's time to just keep on being the best submarine force in the world.
10/23/2010 2:57 PM
portnstarboard:
The fact that the Navy has refused to do studies on the effects of the submarine environment on fetal development is just damn foolish. They don't have any real recourse when someone has a baby with down syndrome, autism, etc, and claims it's due to the 3 weeks she spent underway while knocked up.
Eventually, some smart chick will have this happen and sue the piss out of them and probably win.
10/23/2010 4:50 PM
Its not just exposure of the fetus to a hazardous environment that is the problem. The effects of ionizing radiation on a woman's reproductive system are more of a problem than for men as women carry with them all the eggs they will ever have. Damage to those eggs due to ionizing radiation is cumulative; men do not share the same risk. All it takes is one zoomie striking a strand of DNA in an ovum to cause problems that may not show up till later. But hey, the occasional deformity is a small price to pay to mollify the misandrists, right?
10/23/2010 8:04 PM
§ 20.1208 Dose equivalent to an embryo/fetus.
(a) The licensee shall ensure that the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus during the entire pregnancy, due to the occupational exposure of a declared pregnant woman, does not exceed 0.5 REM.
The only thing that would prevent a pregnant nuke from standing watch is policy. But how the hell is the fetus going to wear that damn TLD?
Nice - except for the part that these are commercial requirements and have zilch to do with military reactors.
10/23/2010 8:22 PM
Anony 12:10 thanks for the update. I think that has not changed from when I was in. CFR numbers were referred to as the “Legal limit” and our “navy limit” was 10% of the legal limit and our boat limit (depending on which boat and your watchstation) was significantly lower than that. Policy was no ionizing radiation for pregnant females. What is the current policy on surface ships? Do they keep their TLD’s and continue working in radiation areas?
EMCS/SS Retired
Math Teacher Up-State NY
10/23/2010 8:25 PM
So OldSalt, when you and I served together 20+ years ago, there were way more boats, a significantly smaller population and a roaring economy. So, with significantly fewer boats, a much larger population, Obamanomics working its magic on the economy, and obviously PC enlightened mental giants running Big Navy, how is it possible to be having trouble keeping enough nucs on boats to man a 3 section watchbill? If it is true that you can't man the boats enough to remain three section, I'd suspect criminal mismanagement by Big Navy. Shoving split tails onto the boats is only going to exacerbate obvious shortcomings in leadership.
10/23/2010 8:33 PM
Big Navy made a decision, and it isn't likely going to be retracted.
Now it's time to just keep on being the best submarine force in the world.
How sweet - especially coming from a nub JO who's yet to actually do anything. Can't wait for you to experience the nub JO welcoming committee in Maneuvering - of course with the kinder gentler Navy and fraulein Helga as the Chop, that will probably be a thing of the past.
10/23/2010 8:46 PM
"Its not just exposure of the fetus to a hazardous environment that is the problem. The effects of ionizing radiation on a woman's reproductive system are more of a problem than for men as women carry with them all the eggs they will ever have. Damage to those eggs due to ionizing radiation is cumulative; men do not share the same risk."
portnstarboard: Although it's a good point, there's a couple of other factors not considered:
1. Cells repair DNA from radiation damage over time, even female gametes (i.e. eggs). Otherwise why would we as a society ever allow women to take commercial flights, get X-rayed, or smoke, since those are all activities that subject the egg cells to additional ionizing radiation.
2. Although males produce sperm in a more on-demand fashion, every sperm cell still comes from a stem cell, which if we're assuming cells cannot repair themselves, could eventually be permanently damaged. So if cells can't heal themselves then ionizing radiation exposure is a large concern for men as well.
10/23/2010 8:56 PM
Joel, remove the "the real Adimiral Bruhner" comment. I would not want a shipmate's name tarnished. He was one of the best CO's I served with. Whoever is
posting that should be shot.
Dumb sunna bitch couldn't even
spell his name right.
2/3d's unplanned pregnancies?
ACK, I was 43 before I impregnated
anything. Disquall and kick them
out if they are on a boat. But
we won't do that, it's MEAN. BS.
But jeez, I was a sea going
SAILOR.
Hagar,
BTDT
10/24/2010 1:41 AM
Shipmate, I remember when we were Kickin' Ass and taking names out on the Florida Gold Crew! We may have gotten the Battle E's and Omaha trophies, but none of that will compare to the honor I, err, WE receive on the day that the first angle of the deep saunters across the bow of a might submerged warship. On that day, POODs everywhere will say to themselves "Ding! Ding! Our saviors, arriving! Ding Ding Ding!".
I'd like to take a quick moment to pride ourselves on the amazing amount of openness that Senior Leadership has given this process. Literally, I believe that the various round tables and conference calls have left no stone unturned about how the process will proceed. But please, if anybody still has any questions, please pose them to me here and I will answer them as quickly and honestly as possible.
For example, I will start with the softball question of how to spell my name correctly... It is B-R-U-N-E-R
10/24/2010 5:28 AM
Joel-
You know whether The Real Admiral Bruner is the real Admiral Bruner. If he is, blog on. If he's not, you need to 86 this bozo.
Sluggo
10/24/2010 7:14 AM
"In fact, 2 of 3 enlisted Sailors who got pregnant in 2001 siad they did not plan to get pregnant."
- Navy GMT on Unplanned Pregnancy Prevention (PowerPoint)
10/24/2010 7:17 AM
Joel isn't everyone's I-don't-like-this-post-delete-it bitch.
OTOH, I would say to "The Real..." that you're a too-true funny guy that doesn't need to impersonate a particular submarine admiral in order to stay funny.
Call yourself "XXY Admiral" (extra female chromosome) or whatever, but it does take some enjoyment away from the no-B.S. humor for you to be misclaiming like that.
10/24/2010 7:33 AM
The real Admiral Bruner would probably know how to spell "angel".
10/24/2010 7:45 AM
Get a grip dudes, it sounds like I'm in the box with a couple of children. "Senior, the RO touched me, whine -whine - whine". Or with my kids on a road trip. The guy was being funny. The real admiral would probably laugh about it also. I'd say grow a pair and quit bitching, but that is not PC any more.
EMCS/SS Retired
Math Teacher Up-State NY
10/24/2010 10:00 AM
Just think of all the firsts:
- I want to be the first submariner to get my Red Wings at test depth!
- first to go anal at the 12nm limit off of country XYZ
Ok, you guys get the drift, start the list!
Hagar and sluggo, you guys can't play because you are whiney vaginas.
10/24/2010 10:14 AM
Only one problem with your pipe dream, and I bet you have those a lot - The Senate will be under GOP control.
Thanks for the insult, shipmate. You should have avoided mixing your commas and emdashes in your aside, but thanks anyway!
The fact is that it is effectively over now. The DoD has issued direction--yes, direction--to stop enforcement. Take a gander at that unclassified message traffic. Moderates in the Senate are primarily holding out until the completion of the military's study due back in December. Assuming that the GOP takes control--a long shot, but possible--it is likely that the administration will cease its legal challenges and allow the court system to "legislate from the bench."
In any case, I, personally, in my ever so humble opinion, don't see the DoD rescinding its current direction to not enforce DADT until this has played out.
10/24/2010 11:20 AM
The Executive Branch will almost certainly not allow a single federal district court judge determine the military's policy on DADT.
The precedent for such a civilian court ruling over the military doesn't exist, and could easily be re-challenged/appealed in the future, thus the insistence on legislation...one way or the other.
There are reasons to do this right, including the fact that only Congress can make rules for the military, per the first paragraph in the DADT law.
Moreover, there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military, thus the circular argument that DATD is "unconstitutional" for military service members is specious logic.
People who get all lathered up (no pun intended) over DADT in terms of insisting that gays be allowed to serve openly need to consider the possibility that going back to pre-DADT rules is not an impossibility.
These same people -- too many of whom would gladly cheer the court's ruling over the military just to see "their team win" -- probably would not feel as chipper should the day ever come when the military rules over the court system.
10/24/2010 11:50 AM
LMAO, The Real. There are some who will fit right in with the new gynecological environment coming down the pike. Glad my days on patrol are past. I wouldn't follow the current PC leadership out of a burning building.
10/24/2010 11:50 AM
Casual Observer:
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the military is bound to the Constitution and the rule of the courts just like everybody else.
I realize that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military, but neither is there a constitutional right to be able to hold any type of particular job... that doesn't mean that Wal Mart can just refuse to hire people specifically on account of their skin color just because there's no constitutional right to work there.
I would think a similar situation would apply to the Military.
10/24/2010 2:15 PM
§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
10/24/2010 2:19 PM
@2:15PM Anon:
Moreover, you're trying to draw an equivalence between racial prejudice, and rules over sexual preferences. The latter is not the same thing, and -- in any case -- not protected by law.
To draw a comparison between similar judicial circumstances, the Supreme Court created a Constitutional 'right' to an abortion out of thin air (specifically, the 14th Amendment, which does not in any way address this). Even many advocates of abortion know that this overreached and set us up for perpetual conflict, because it bypassed both the will of the people and the U.S. Congress.
One single, solitary judge finding anything as major as DADT "unconstitutional" is not how any of he sane amongst us want our country to be run. It's called "an opinion" for a reason.
10/24/2010 2:31 PM
The right to an abortion was not created out of thin air. Instead, it was found among the penumbras and emanations of other constitutional protections.
Oh, all right, it was created out of thin air.
10/24/2010 3:59 PM
In any case, I, personally, in my ever so humble opinion, don't see the DoD rescinding its current direction to not enforce DADT until this has played out.
I guess you'd better re-read your traffic - , because you're already wrong.
10/24/2010 6:47 PM
There is no constitutional right to military service, but there is a constitutional requirement to provide equal protection under the law. In the case of state government, this requirement is derived from the fourteenth amendment; for the federal government it is derived from the fifth. Unless the federal government can demonstrate that gays are materially different and unqualified for military service, congress does not have the authority to legislate away the right to employment with a branch of the government.
The argument is about whether gay people are unsuited to military service, not whether it says in the constitution "Gay people can be in the military." That argument would be very short, indeed.
10/24/2010 6:51 PM
And does bestiality merit equal protection under the law by your same argument? If not, by what argument would you deem those who engage in this or similar acts of sexual misbehavior from serving in the military?
The real question is what puts the military, and its integrity, and good order and discipline at risk.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps does not believe that homosexuality is acceptable; that it is "unsuited" as you put it. I trust that judgement a great more than that of a statistician wearing four stars.
10/24/2010 7:28 PM
Apologies for continuing with the thread high-jacking, but I think this line of reasoning is important to refute. Being gay is not the same as being black, as you mentioned earlier. But it is also not the same as committing bestiality, and we shouldn't draw false equivalencies. Independent of your personal feelings on the matter of homosexual conduct, it is the consensus of psychological professionals, sociologists, the CNO, the President, and the vast majority of Americans that homosexuality in and of itself carries no bearing on military aptitude. Wildly deviant sexual behavior along the lines of bestiality does not exist in a vacuum, and probably points to deeper psychological issues, which definitely have bearing on military aptitude. The most immediate difference worth pointing out is that no one is demanding to have the right to openly engage in bestiality in the military, and if someone advocated for that right, they would be ignored because their activities are held by reasonable people to be morally abhorrent and are not tied to any sort of responsible social behavior. No one wants to find a cow to settle down with in a loft in the Village, to put it differently.
10/24/2010 7:50 PM
"...it is the consensus of psychological professionals, sociologists, the CNO, the President, and the vast majority of Americans that homosexuality in and of itself carries no bearing on military aptitude."
Speaking of refutations:
* The President has no qualifications that I am aware of for making that judgement, and until his most recent election had no respectable military knowledge whatsoever. Even his own hand-picked general for Afghanistan (now fired for his STAFF member's calling the VP the equivalent of a "doodie head") did not respect his military judgement or knowledge.
* The CNO's Commandant of the Marine Corps is, very publicly, very much at odds with him on this subject; sounds very much to me like "Reasonable Doubt" that open gay behavior is a good idea.
* "The vast majority of Americans..." - by what measurement, the Washington Post and some other MSM, alphabet-soup liberal broadcaster? People who make this assertion have no dog in this fight, and all too commonly would just as soon see the military fall flat on its face (e.g., the NYT readership). Sadly, most American people are ignorant about their country and their military. Letting the mob rule would likely be headed for a bad outcome.
You sound like bestiality makes you feel repulsed, but I do not hear you make a good case for how this kind of sexual behavior is wrong for any other reason than a value judgement...much similar to acceptance or disfavor of homosexuality.
10/24/2010 8:11 PM
The vast majority of Americans means just that. Look at the results of any recent poll on DADT. I'm not suggesting personnel policies should be dictated by mob rule, but offering the numbers as an indicator of gay servicemember's level of acceptance in the population that the ranks are drawn from and that the men and women of our military are here to defend.
The President's qualification for policy decisions is that he is the commander in chief. The CNO and CJCS's qualifications should be obvious. And the (former) CMC said not that he opposed a policy change, but that he thought most Marines would, which is a completely different claim.
You are correct in pointing out that the difference I see between bestiality and homosexuality is based on a value judgment. I admit that my point was obscured a bit. I apologize in advance for the following lengthy explanation that will probably not convince you, but which I think deserves airing. Bestiality amounts, in my mind, to a deviant sexual behavior because it involves exploiting a creature that cannot possibly consent for the purpose of fulfilling a sexual urge. There is no possible content of an act of bestiality beyond abhorrent sexual violence.
On the other hand, there are many possible acts of homosexuality which, even if you view physical consumation of a same-sex relationship as morally abhorrent, do not even rise to the level of sexual content. A walk in the park with a loved one, a date in public, buying a house to live together, doing yardwork, or carrying out any number of mundane everyday activities as a same-sex couple are all acts of homosexuality. This is, of course, not to say that gay people don't have sex, but rather that homosexuality has more significant social content than a fetish.
This is important, because I actually think that the sexual behavior of members of the military is their own business, provided they act responsibly and discreetly. The only bearing sexual behavior has in the matter is when it could result in a loss of confidence in the chain of command. If I knew my CO was openly committing bestiality, I would be concerned for his mental stability and I think that would be grounds for dismissal in itself. On the other hand, I believe along with a growing majority of Americans who see gayness as mainstream, that being gay has no bearing on the ability of a leader to lead. Granted, that assessment is based on my own opinion alone, but I think I'm allowed to make that assessment.
10/24/2010 8:52 PM
"This is important, because I actually think that the sexual behavior of members of the military is their own business, provided they act responsibly and discreetly."
FINALLY, we have some agreement.
In the military, what you describe above even has an acronym: it's called DADT.
10/25/2010 7:33 AM
Republicans do not need to win a majority of the Senate in next week's election to prevent DADT from being repealed. Assume there are 48 or 49 Republican senators but Democrats still control the next Senate. Assume Republicans win the House by a big margin.
The next Congress is seated on January 3 of next year. Unless the current Senate passes a "repeal DADT" measure in 2010 in a lame duck session of Congress after the elections, and Obama signs it, the bill dies. It does not matter that the House passed it; because the Senate did not also pass it the bill dies in the Senate.
A bill that died at the end of one session of Congress does not get reborn in the next Congress. Any unfinished legislation from the previous Congress becomes moot.
Democrats in the next Congress will then have to start all over trying to repeal DADT with a whole new bill. Republicans will control the House so unless Republicans want to repeal DADT it is not going to happen.
10/25/2010 10:16 AM
Under don't ask don't tell it is not allowed to be in the military and be gay. This doesn't mean just sexual behavior must be kept to yourself. I think we disagree fundamentally on whether gayness is a purely sexual phenomenon. I tend to take gay people on their word when they say it is more than that. They are probably the experts.
10/25/2010 10:42 AM
The debate surrounding DADT all centers on 'discrimination' against homosexuals. The problem is that discrimination happens all the time i.e. too fat, old, asthma, etc... There is nothing thing wrong with thus in the military concept. So why should gays serve when a significant percentage of personnel believe that their behavior is a choice of sexual deviancy. Most would respond that they are born that way and it's not a choice. The dubious science behind the so called gay gene aside people do in fact have a fat gene. Yet we discriminate against fat people all the time. Look at discharges based on failed BCA for proof. One might say that it helps readiness to have a fit sonar tech who sits in a chair all day, however I maintain that the fat ST is doing what his genetics makes him do (being fat). This would be the same reason that women / old guys have different PT standards. It's not an absolute scale it's all relative. Basically I throw the BS flag when people talk about discriminating against gays. My opinion is that it is a choice, and if I'm wrong that they are actually born that way, so what. On a final point, the vast majority of gay servicemembers all voluntarily joined knowing full well about the policy known as DADT so cry me a river that you don't like a policy that you agreed to serve under.
10/25/2010 4:18 PM
We don't detach people who are fat because people disagree with their lifestyle, we do it because fatness is in and of itself a detriment to mission readiness. You are of course correct that anyone who is in the military and gay joined knowing the life they would have to leave. It is a sign of these peoples' dedication to their country that they joined nonetheless, and many if not most gay servicemembers would doubtless continue to serve even if DADT was revoked. Two things are worth pointing out, however: The problem is that they would still face dismissal in any number of circumstances beyond their control. The argument that they knew the deal when they signed up and should therefore deal with the consequences amounts to arguing that since a policy is in place, it should remain in place. I realize this is the mindset of the Navy in most things, but it isn't really one that we normally strive to maintain.
10/25/2010 7:52 PM
Correction: I meant that they would continue to serve even if DADT were NOT revoked.
10/25/2010 7:55 PM
Of the 3 crew members kicked off my boat for being to fat (a nuke mechanic, a smag (elt), and an a-ganger) none were to fat to do there job and to do it well. Kicking people out for fatness has nothing to do with mission readiness, it is just more PC bullshit - how you look in uniform is more important then how you do at your job. Our command tried everything it could to keep 2 out of the 3 because they were both awesome at their job. Who cares that they were both 25 - 30 % body fat.
10/27/2010 11:15 AM
The keel for my first boat was laid before I was born. On that boat, I really didn't care if the sailors in my division/department looked 4.0. Instead, I cared if they could fix broken equipment, which we had in abundance.
Although it was a surprise to me, our heftiest division was sonar. Perhaps the "girls" were trying to insulate themselves from the freezing temperatures in the sonar shack? In any event, they got no sympathy from the nukes, especially after running drill sets in the sweltering engineroom.
10/27/2010 12:46 PM
As for us forward 'girls' I've got a story to share.
On a boomer, the navigation center is one of the coldest places on the boat due to the sensitive electronic equipment. On the a Poseidon, the ambient air temp in the nav center was between 60-62F, and there was continuous airflow besides that. Wearing utility jackets was while on watch was typical.
A scram would give us a great opportunity to mess with the nukes. Yes, occasionally the power glitch would mess with SINS or ESGM, but we could handle that.
Where it go interesting was as the temp rose due to loss of CW, we'd get a warning somewhere around 68 or 70 degrees and call back to maneuvering... "Maneuvering, Nav Center, 'Status of Chilled Water?'" knowing full well they were sweating their asses off back there and working like the dickens to get the plant back on line.
But, hey... we were just doing our jobs too.
John
10/27/2010 2:41 PM
Nav Center calls never bothered me in Maneuvering - the only call that set me off was the one during a drill set when the dial-x telephone went off...
We were in the middle of a full ORSE flail-ex and the reactor was tits up with everyone working like mad to get it back online when the phone went off. Normally the only one stupid enough to call Maneuvering on the dial-x in the middle of an ORSE drill set would be the CO, so I reached back to answer the phone, expecting to hear the CO telling us to secure the drill due to some other issue.
Nope
Instead I hear the Chop asking what time the power will be back to the oven so that dinner can be made!!
I hand the phone to the ENG without even commenting. The ENG listens, goes purple, directs me to finish the drill set while he goes forward to "correct" a fell department head!!
10/27/2010 8:26 PM
On the other hand - I don't know the facts, but it does seem that the Eng could run the Rx scram drill first in an afternoon drill set, so the electrical plant doesn't get monkeyed up too much the rest of the drill set. If the Eng refused to consider such a thing, and I was a Chop (god help me) - I'd give serious thought to serving cold cuts for every meal following a drill set, and see how long that lasted.
10/27/2010 9:32 PM
I'm pretty sure that in a drill situation, the electric plant can handle the oven in the kitchen, after you get your RFRE tight enough to show the ORSE team
10/28/2010 6:09 AM
My (SSBN) favorite response to the Nav ETs calling on the dialx to complain that the chill water was too warm (by the RO):
"The chill water's too warm up there? Why don't you try removing one layer of bra and panties?"
11/01/2010 6:02 PM
All this political correctness is about to make me puke. "They're the best people I've ever worked with....They're going to be a great asset....They're going to save us all from ourselves." For Christs sakes! When did we stop selecting MEN to be submariners? It would appear it was long before we decided to send women to sea on the boats. If tradition and esprit de corp mean nothing, how about morale and readiness? If I was flat on my back in the Engine Room Lower Level as it was filling up with smoke, I'd sure be glad to see some 95 pound co-ed drop down the ladder to drag my ass out of there. Did you ever see the HBO series Band of Brothers? Notice the name; Band of Brothers. Not Band of Sisters or Band of Co-Eds or Band of Alternate Life Style Choices. And what about readiness? I have the pleasure of working with the officers and men of navy combat ships in the yard. As you get to know these fine young men, they start to confide in you. Next time you run into the department head from a big skimmer, ask him what the effect is on readiness and morale when they have to evacuate 50, 60, sometimes as many as 100 women in the case of a carrier back to the States because they're pregnant, and the men left behind have to take up the slack. Or ask them about breaking up fights on the crews mess because, "He was lookin' at my bitch." It comes as no surprise that this "improvement" is being rammed down submariner's throats by an administration that has a visceral hatred of the military, its traditions and all they stand for.
11/03/2010 6:46 PM
Anyone who is opposed to putting female personnel on Subs is a sexist and so forth. BULL! Only politically correct, left wing morons buy into that nonsense. From a realistic standpoing, do you honestly believe that a Sub Skipper will be able to complete his mission at sea once one or more of his female submariners gets pregnant? I think not, and terminating the mission is hardly going to be good for the fleet. It is also going to be expensive from a monetary standpoint. Putting women on subs is going to be a non event? WRONG! And you don't need to be a Navy Vet to figure that one out (I was in the Army).
3/30/2011 9:05 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home