Steel Beach
Here it is -- the video that's causing all the controversy on Facebook! The picture causing the questions, at about the 2:40 mark, is apparently of midshipmen on USS Michigan (SSGN 727):
Other (longer) videos by the same poster can be found here and here.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Bell-ringer 0818 8/9: Some people are saying in the comments that the female JOs aren't going to be filling existing billets, but that the wardrooms are getting +2'd in the manning document. Word on the street is that those commenters are telling the truth. If so, it looks like PERS-42 isn't going "all in" on this experiment working out.
posted by Bubblehead at 7:54 AM
62 Comments:
Good videos. Like his motto: "Life is simple--either you're qualified or you're not!"
A-freakin'-MEN.
And somewhere I still have a copy of a pic of us anchored off Maui with a buddy of mine holding a sign that said, "THROW BEER."
And they did. Oh, God, did they.
8/05/2011 8:21 AM
I can understand the controversy, those birds should not have been there without a security clearance or an escort.
8/05/2011 9:27 AM
The video is a compilation of various submarine swim calls - note the teak deck planking in the first frame.
More significantly, however, it is an attempt to negate an April 2010 question. Dollar to donuts, the swim calls will end sooner rather than later. <<<< Prediction.
8/05/2011 9:49 AM
And this is controversial why?
0:22 - Hooyah 585-class!
2:40 Middie on the far left now on first shore tour after serving as Nav on a CG.
8/05/2011 10:22 AM
OMG! Girls in bathing suits and men without their shirts on! What is the world coming too?
Bottom Line and I will type it slowly for those old men out there who can't read fast:
This is the new Navy...girls, gays and guys working together is not a big deal regardless of platform or war zone. If you can't handle it, retire.
End of discussion.
8/05/2011 12:11 PM
Had a "female only" swim call with MIDS on SSN-706 off the coast of FLA in 2005. Big deal! six years later and NOW people give a crap. Give up the ghost old dudes!
8/05/2011 12:13 PM
Anon (8/05/2011 12:13 PM)
"Had a 'female only' swim call with MIDS on SSN-706".
Thanks for your modern (2005, you say) example of a segregated swim call on a US sub.
Whether or not the practice will be expanded fleetwide or banished in ten years is the question.
Your apples and peaches example is more fitting to an answer than you have may realized. If, as you say, it's no "Big deal!", the decision might be left to CO discretion. If human nature intervenes as it always does, politicians of the stripe bringing us coed sub crews will banish 'female only' swim calls (and then, out of fairness, male swim calls) at the first hint of a problem. Of this we can be certain.
You command, "Give up the ghost old dudes!" While I can not speak for all of them, the qualified vets who pioneered the nuke era and slept adjacent to horrific weapons no longer allowed on SSNs, have a significant stake in maintaining the excellence of the world's premiere submarine force (and the elite morale of crews who have made the excellence possible).
Are you certain you wish to applaud the asexual "maturity" of modern sub sailors (including females) before the promised performance?
8/05/2011 1:24 PM
2:40 was the best part of the video. Lighten up, people.
8/05/2011 1:30 PM
Where is this on Facebook?
8/05/2011 2:25 PM
NOPE, not the MICHICANT. The West By God. The young lady in the center was a hotty. Smelled like heaven. We got a ration of crap from the NA handlers and squadron weenies for learing and standing "too close" to them. Guess after being at sea for 70/80 days some of the guys had the typical responses all young hetrosexual males would have had.
8/05/2011 2:25 PM
Mid 80s. Anchored Catalina. Went topside. All the weekend rich people leaving Catalina in their fancy boats. Most came right by our sub and the females all flashed us. Asked my Chief why? He pointed to DSRV. Sheet sign hanging from DSRV said "SHOW US YOUR TITS!" They did! Never heard any fallout from it! But saw hundreds of tits!
8/05/2011 2:34 PM
Have to agree with other posters that say it's time to move on.
After all, if we can't trust the guys and girls who go to sea on an SSBN carrying 24 missles with each having up to 5-7 warheads, ready to be launched when the order comes in, then who can we trust?
If you are not currently on active duty then your only say as a taxpayer is through your elected representatives. So unless you are contacting them to voice your displeasure, move over and get out of the way.
Times have changed and apparently some people have missed the boat.
8/05/2011 2:48 PM
Reminds of swim call we did off of Waikiki when these to drunk chicks jump off their boat to swim with us. As a responsible safety swimmer and the fact that these two girls were obviously about to swim next to the reactor I had to bring them on deck to catch their breathe. Of course some pictures were taken, before the old man told us to swim them back across. After getting them to their boat I finally figured out they weren't drunk, but rather high as a kite.
8/05/2011 3:32 PM
Times have so changed that more of us who chime in here anonymously are women.
Give us a chance. Males in today's navy can behave like professional eunuchs.
I think some of you older dudes are afraid subs will get a rep for attracting mostly effeminate recruits with squeaky voices.
Lolly
8/05/2011 3:42 PM
ekol hoca
thanks for share
8/05/2011 3:59 PM
I don't get it. It's not like this is the first time we've had female midn take part in a swim call...
I was more offended by the topless gunner on the bridge. Oh, never mind.
8/05/2011 4:41 PM
Wish I'd been there to take the picture. Congrats ladies, work hard and keep the faith. Nothing us old dudes did can't be done by you.
8/05/2011 5:56 PM
I will second the comment that the pic at 2:40 was on the West Virginia SSBN736.
8/05/2011 6:37 PM
And I think the guy at :30 is taking part in Operation Golden Flow.
8/05/2011 9:05 PM
I think I spied a camel toe!!!!!
8/05/2011 9:09 PM
"I can understand the controversy, those birds should not have been there without a security clearance or an escort."
And the real problems start when you bring buoys onboard, not gulls.
8/06/2011 8:41 AM
The "controversy on Facebook" part was written ironical; I just felt it needed an opening other than "here's a cool video" as a literary device. Sorry for any confusion.
8/06/2011 9:02 AM
"I think some of you older dudes are afraid subs will get a rep for attracting mostly effeminate recruits with squeaky voices."
No, we've always had sonarmen.
8/06/2011 6:34 PM
I think Joel is just going to overload us with blog posts about gays and women on submarines, so all of you grumpy old bastards can get all the bitching out of your system, as if your opinion matters anyway.....just to be clear, it does not.
8/06/2011 8:11 PM
You are right. Our opinion doesn't matter. And, for the most part, we are not trying to shove our opinions down your throat. But, like most bubblehaeds, we try to pass on knowledge we have learned the hard way so those of you that listen can learn from our mistakes, instead of turning them into your mistakes.
And it is really easy to attach a name. Even us old farts can do it.
8/06/2011 8:30 PM
In any case, I love steel beach time. Unfortunately, you don't see it as much as in the past.
I had one CO who felt that we shouldn't cook anything topside because it made it hard to "quickly submerge the ship" in an emergency. He didn't agree with my assessment that we could just throw the grill overboard if we needed to do that.
Oh well, sunburns come quick for those who have been away from the sun for a long time.
We have to have fun at sea, or we are losing part of what makes the sub force great.
W/ regards to the 2:40 section. Who cares?
R/
MM1/SS
8/07/2011 11:58 AM
Disrespect by the above gnats for submariners who fought the Cold War tells me plenty about the current crop.
Women and gays would may well be an improvement over some of these ass clowns.
8/07/2011 1:49 PM
Some good discussion going on here, interspersed with blowing of anonymous sanitaries.
"Disrespect by the above gnats for submariners who fought the Cold War tells me plenty about the current crop.
Women and gays would may well be an improvement over some of these ass clowns."
^^ This. Hard to think the kids out there today defending our freedom of expression are on here making it plain that the only opinions that matter are their own. Sad.
On topic: Here's my perspective (not that it means anything, right AnonymousCoward@8/06/2011 8:11 PM?). I sailed the 641 from '86 to '89, then the 730 through '93. Took the 641 out of refueling overhaul in Kittery, through every inspection the Navy had, and onto patrol 54. Did 5 runs on the 730. On both boats, every patrol, we had confirmed or suspected gay sailors onboard. Was it a problem? No, not as long as they did their jobs like everyone else and kept their hands to themselves. Hell, we protected them, because they were good sailors and excellent technicians. On 641, leaving the yards, we had a female tech rep who'd had to sue the Navy for the right to go on sea trials like the males in her shop. She won, she accompanied us on bravo and charlie trials. Remember it clearly, as I was one of the 3 guys who had to give up our racks to accommodate one woman. Inconvenient? Yep. End of the world? Nope. Non issue.
Steel beach video - brings back some great memories, thanks Joel! As far as the MIDs at 2:40ish go... good for them!
@Anonymous Coward @ 8/06/2011 8:11 PM: Watch what I do with this part, nub:
Many in our community disagree with gays and women on submarines. I myself have concerns over the women, primarily do to the risk to reproductive health and unborn fetuses... HOWEVER it is clear that this WILL happen. No amount of 400Hz whine will change it. Of course, your opinion DOES matter.. but why not spend the time recommending ways to make the transitions easier, less stressful? (Nvm, a bitching sailor is a happy sailor, right?)
I've been out of the Navy for a long, long time. These days, I amuse myself by being a fire department Captain and Company officer. The fire service in America is much like the (old) sub force. We've got (Oh my God!) women who think they can be firefighters! Gay firefighters! What are we gonna do?!?!?!
Same thing my Chief told me back on the 641 when I lost my rack: Your opinion is noted and respected. Now, get back to work.
Thanks to all of you who served or are serving. We know who has America's back.
-MT2/SS Gerry Smith
p.s. Word verification: promboot
Hmmm. Boot is German for Boat.. Prom Boat... too funny.
8/07/2011 2:59 PM
Risks to reproductive health, if you're thinking radiation, are minimal to none. At least none worse than non-nuclear work ashore. The doses and dose rates are well within the "declared pregnant woman" regulations put out by the NRC. I received more radiation going to college in a year than I did on the boat in a year. The sea is a wonderful radiation shield.
8/07/2011 3:37 PM
It's not just radiation...though I think it's a bit FUBAR to have female radiation workers (nukes) who will get spike exposures in overhaul, etc.
It's the submarine atmosphere that has caused very reasonable concerns. Between amines, paint, sporadic high CO2 conditions, and that godawfulsubmarinesmell...who knows what the effect on a fetus would be?
Here's one undersea medical officer's opinion on the matter...an admiral, no less:
http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf
BTW, the smoking ban (something I applaud loudly) may very well have been put in place well before the women arrived in order to help mitigate atmospheric concerns for the ladies and the unborn.
8/07/2011 4:23 PM
Anon 4:23 PM
Well said, and with an interesting link to boot.
All of us should realize that the political party promoting women crew is financially supported in large measure by trial lawyers.
Trial lawyers are opportunistic souls who will benefit when women sue the navy for gynecological complications and/or birth defects. Legal wisdom proclaims it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. In other words, litigation against the navy will be a safe and lucrative bet.
Consider an accident involving leakage of primary coolant (modern version of Soviet K-19 event). - The Russian CO sent a team of seven engineering officers and crew to stabilize the malfunction. All seven men in the repair crew died of radiation exposure within a week, and fifteen more within the next two years.
Hold up your hand if you think the US would ever expose a female engineering officer to such hazards. What would public reaction be?
The women will be glorified riders during periods when their relatively extensive medical needs allow. Just wonderful. Males will, take up the slack. That is equal opportunity for extra duty.
Scoffers need to get off their high horses: Either make women eligible for the draft, like males, or get off your equal opportunity kick.
8/07/2011 8:38 PM
Actually, the two nuke gals will be riders to the extent that the JO complement has been increased by two to accommodate them. Of course they won’t really just ride as they will have quals and I suppose two new jobs have been created for them. But they will be extra.
The female CHOP will have a real job. (Did I just say that)?
8/07/2011 11:39 PM
Ah, you guys are all full of it. Get a real life.
8/08/2011 1:22 AM
Actually, the two women will have jobs. They will be filling two JO billets, and they will share a stateroom. There will be a sign on the head that will get flipped so everyone knows who is in there. Not really a huge deal. I do not really see how they will be extra bodies when they are taking the place of two men that would have otherwise been assigned to the sub. They will qualify and stand EOOW and whatever other watches that JOs stand on submarines.
Why wouldn't a female submariner be held up to the same standards as their male counterparts? I would expect nothing less from them, and they should know the risks and what could go wrong in case of a "Widowmaker" type incident.
Anyway, we had swim calls on the surface. Well, it was only one, during a craptacular deployment, but males and females swam together and managed to get through it unscathed. I am sure the rest of you in the sub force will learn to get over yourselves and do the same.
Very cool pics.
8/08/2011 6:12 AM
Better check again Erica. The boats with the gals will have two extra JO billets.
8/08/2011 8:22 AM
Forgot to add. I haven't heard where the two displaced JO's will bunk but they will be out of a stateroom.
8/08/2011 8:24 AM
And the odds are that the male JOs that get booted out of their stateroom will be qualified, watchstanding LTs.
Equal opportunity? Yes...but apparently some are "more equal than others."
Purely political bullshit.
8/08/2011 9:08 AM
This women on submarines thing is such a terrible idea. It's too confined of a space. Besides, have you ever lived with 2 or more women? They all go on the rag at the same time after a while. Imagine the shitstorm that will come from a group of PMSing women locked in a tube with you. I would rather have gay guys onboard anyday.
8/08/2011 9:10 AM
I think all newly reported JOs should be berthed in 9-man as it has always been. Some of those guys wait up to a year to get into a stateroom! Everyone should get the opportunity to shack up with a 3-inch launcher!
8/08/2011 5:49 PM
They will be on a GN/BN. So they will move into a SR. They ought to just fabricate a temporary 1/4" plywood door/wall in MC2L between two Supply lockers and they would have privacy until they are senior enough to legitimately warrant a SR.
Nice swim call pics btw.
8/08/2011 5:58 PM
up to a year? I think I got a stateroom at almost 18 months!
8/08/2011 6:29 PM
What they ought to do on the BN/GNs is turn the officer's study into a 5-6 man berthing area for the women. You could even make it a 9-12 man if they really wanted to. It is a wasted space that doesn't get used that much (at least what I have seen).
Just a thought!
STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET
8/08/2011 6:56 PM
Stsc said...
They will be on a GN/BN. So they will move into a SR.
What SR? There are now 2 extra JO's over and above the normal complement.
8/08/2011 8:52 PM
"What SR? There are now 2 extra JO's over and above the normal complement."
Of course it will be the stateroom currently occupied by LT's Dick and Wad.
I agree with STCS about the O-study...but then, were would we do all our critiques at?
Personally, I think the experiment will work out just fine and things will settle out after a while. The younger kids (officer and enlisted) are more interested in World of Warcraft, XBox and other video games much more than they are with pussy.
That being said, I am glad I am retired and it's someone else's problem.
Good luck!
Retired ANAV
8/08/2011 9:49 PM
I was wrong. I asked about it, and apparently the JO Jungle is going to be done away with, but in regards to what I was reading, I assumed (yeah I know what happens when you assume) that these women would naturally fill a billet rather than have a new one created. That really does not make any sense.
The fact that extra jobs could be created is actually doing these women a disservice. I have every confidence that they can handle the work load. I almost feel like this is setting it up for failure before it has even started.
8/09/2011 6:21 AM
The creation of 2 extra billets does make sense, incase they have medical needs such as pregnancy. If the sub has 9 JO's and loses 2, then the majority will be port and starboard for a deployment or have to be augmented in some way. Granted I only have experience with the enlisted watchbill, but numberswise it still would work out to me putting the fellas port/stbd.
So as for you neighsayers, the USS enterprise had a pregnancy rate of basically 0, while in the yards and right before they deployed in 2009/2010, a number of new pregnancies were reported. I even had a MM3 in my division who was married to a ET3 on the prise and told me that he/she wanted to get pregnant where she could miss deployment. So if that situation was reversed, I can tell you I would be putting guys port/stbd and not getting replacements gauranteed on short notice. Not to say that this was the exception to the rule, but please dont say it doesn't happen. Know your people, and you are welcome to get some more time on the pond.
8/09/2011 6:46 AM
on a different note, Rear Adm. Maurice H. Rindskopf, believed to be last living American submarine skipper to have conducted WW2 combat patrols has passed away
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/07rindskopf.html
8/09/2011 6:46 AM
I am not saying that pregnancy does not happen, but it is more likely to happen in the absence of good leadership. Pregnancy also tends to happen more with the enlisted ranks. Like it or not, I did not know one female officer who got themselves pregnant while on sea duty.
I think that introducing females to the submarine community via JOs, is a great move, that way, there is leadership in place that can provide proper guidance.
I also think it is pretty crappy to assume that females are automatically going to get pregnant and that is why the two extra billets are there. Women are not being treated as equals for that very reason, and it is a shame that some women use that to their advantage.
I wanted to have children when I was married. I got married when I had four years left. There is absolutely no way I would have ever been able to live with myself if I would have been that girl. It did not matter if I was married. I was not going to add fuel to the fire, so I have a lot of disdain towards women who pull that stunt and get away with it.
I got out in July '04 and my daughter was born the following May. Please do not let the few women who take advantage ruin for the rest of us who worked our assess off. Only 15% or so of the people who are in the Navy are women, so it is so easy to put them into the limelight.
8/09/2011 7:12 AM
To active duty brass who allegedly keep tabs on this blog, the above commentary speaks for itself.
Better decide now whether you will attempt to cover up the inevitable troubles, marginalize them as minor transitional pains, or maintain the enviable camaraderie of today's prized submarine force.
- Just another taxpayer out for the blood of any spineless, go-along to get-along flags.
8/09/2011 6:40 PM
Interesting that the commentator labels flags as "spineless" yet hides behind an anonymous posting.
8/09/2011 6:57 PM
Anon @ 6:57
Like many of the rest of us, the taxpayer IS paying for national defense. The brass receive a handsome portion of what he/she is paying.
What's your problem, besides an evident inability to respect truth, anonymous dude?
Leroy
8/09/2011 7:11 PM
@6:40pm Anon:
I hear you, brother...but as posted on the just-previous thread, put yourself in the shoes of the submarine flags for a moment.
There yet? Okay...good.
Now: you've been given the lawful-but-dumbass order -- one entirely based on political beliefs of those in the current administration -- to put women on submarines. It is an order without sufficient medical/psychological investigation to prove or disprove the validity of the idea...but, regardless, it's a lawful order.
So...what do you do, Admiral Anonymous?
8/09/2011 7:27 PM
So...what do you do, Admiral Anonymous?
"I resign my commission. Go fuck yourself."
8/09/2011 8:04 PM
Nice try, Admiral Anonymous...but you've just stepped into the trap they'd hoped for. They get to name your replacement AND put women on submarines anyway.
As an added bonus, they'll mention your misogynous, male-superiority-complex to the hyper liberal media, who will hound you to your grave.
And on your way out the door: know that your replacement's political affiliation, if you're interested, will end with a syllable that rhymes with "crap."
Thanks for playing.
Who's next?
8/09/2011 9:15 PM
As a USS Michigan Alumni, some of thise pics are not 727 - as noted. Usual pasty palde submariners. I never saw a swim call on Michigan, but did see a steel beach picnic as we we did do a tour of the San Juan Islands on the final patrol in July 1994 before the mini-overhaul 94-5. We had the Ney team onboard and were mod-alert. CAPT Walsh refused to do submergerd circles between the transit lanes in the Straight of Juan de Fuca and suggested to Squadron 17 that we do a surfaced loop around the San Juan Islands, Navigator has experience in these waters (yes, in my father's fishing boat, I had experience, LOL Plus I was on a certain sub Tender team to Vancouver BC }
Rejected. Canada requires a pilot throught the Haro Straight and it isn't in the budget. OK, how about a trip only in US waters? OK, approved. Steel Beach Picnic time as we took a left instead of a right at Whidbey Island then north to Bellinghams, then a 180 back to Admiralty Inlet and the Puget Sound and RTP. Weather was great. And Michigan (B) was awarded the Ney Food Service competition (deserved - best ship food I had on my four ships. )
8/10/2011 1:56 AM
So...what do you do, Admiral Anonymous?
Correct Answer Sheet:
(1) "That's a fine progressive objective, though clearly submarines have vastly different issues than surface ships, so at the moment we have no solid knowledge on the effects."
(2) "We'll move out on this right away with medical studies that can provide professional guidance on both physical and psychiatric issues for both the men and the women. I'll ensure we have a report within six months."
(3) (Three months later...a couple of phone calls): "Hello, Wall Street Journal and U.S. News and World Report? I'd like to hold a not-for-attribution briefing on our findings regarding the current political initiative to put women on submarines. The medical professionals are finding health issues for the women that put this in conflict with the politics."
(4) (Two weeks after the above phone calls, a couple more): "Hello Congressman XY and Congresswoman XX. I'm happy to provide you with background information regarding the Women on Submarines initiative, which we would like to be able to support. The medical experts have a few very reasonable concerns, and I've arranged for them to participate in today's briefing. Thank you for taking the lead in these communications."
(5) (Simultaneously): "Navy Times headline -- women on U.S. submarines initiative runs into operational questions...foreign navies not comparable...cost and retention issues are a red flag."
(6) (And so on...)
8/10/2011 8:47 AM
(7) (under 'break glass to use'...Fox News headline): "Congress reviewing Navy's manning levels...finds only 10% of the Navy's sailors needed to man 40% of its warships (submarines)..."
(8) (And so on...)
8/10/2011 9:58 AM
For those commenting on the "extra manning," don't forget that we just went through a period where every boat in the fleet was at +2 to +4 on JO manning when there were too many JOs brought in. Sub force already dealt with extra bodies onboard. Some plusses and minuses --- was good to have extra JOs to do the work (if they did a quality job), but the big downcheck was working to get practical factors and operational experience for the larger group of JOs.....there isn't a lot of opportunities on a BN for quality shipdriving experiences, especially with the shortened JO tours and diluting the experience for some of the JOs that needed more time probably hurt their performance today as DHs and XOs.
8/18/2011 2:40 AM
With regards to picture at time 2:40, I'd hit it. Especially if I'd been at sea for far too long.
8/18/2011 7:16 AM
Vigilis needs to chill out and perhaps recall that he most certainly did not create the submarine force, nor will he be crewing these fine ships in the future. I am confident that the Navy will, after some failures no doubt, make the appropriate cultural shifts to make women part of the crew on submarines. Aside from the look but don't touch aspect of hotties in bikinis I see no reason why women can't serve on submarines (aside from the question of Why would they).
ETC(SS)
I earned my fish on SSN 666
8/18/2011 8:37 AM
"Life is simple--either you're qualified or you're not!"
Sub quals were important, but it was a little funny when a sub-qual'd SN topside watch called me a NUB since I had "only" qualified my senior in-rate watch stations, RO and SRO. On my boat, nuke quals pre-empted sub quals for some reason.
Oh well, we all cleaned and painted equally poorly.
8/22/2011 9:31 PM
It cannot have effect in reality, that is what I think.
12/08/2011 8:55 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home