Humevac Video And Other News
Here's some IR video of a Coast Guard HUMEVAC from an unidentified 688i about 160nm west of San Diego:
Speaking of SSNs, here's a story about which two boats are going to be the first attack submarines to get female officers. Am I correct in assuming the Virginia's have 4 WRSRs? (I left EB before that module showed up on Virginia so I'm not sure.)
posted by Bubblehead at 4:43 PM
56 Comments:
Sidebar...and yes, this is real:
October 16, 2013
Dear Fellow Veterans and Service Members,
They're at it again.
This week news broke that a recent briefing to Army soldiers at Camp Shelby in Mississippi featured and endorsed dangerous and false left-wing anti-Christian propaganda. In this briefing, Fox News writer Todd Starnes reports that U.S. Army troops were explicitly led to believe that the American Family Association (AFA) -- a Christian ministry -- was a "hate group" which soldiers should avoid at all costs.
To make matters worse, in the presentation AFA was falsely associated with Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that causes great pain to families of fallen soldiers. Phelps was pictured holding a sign with a vile slogan alongside information on AFA -- a classic propaganda technique. The message was clear: A Christian group that many soldiers go to for inspiration, education, and encouragement was to be avoided by U.S. military personnel.
It would be bad enough if this were the first time, but it's happened before. This latest incident follows a clear and emerging pattern of indoctrination which seems to parrot the talking points of the liberal, anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center -- a group whose work has been connected in federal court with domestic terrorism. Earlier this year a similar incident was uncovered in which Catholics and evangelical Christians were demonized as extremists during a military training briefing that used SPLC's talking points. The license given to the trainers of our military to use leftist propaganda to intimidate Christians must stop. Separating our troops from Christian organizations they support and draw encouragement from must end now.
Please join me in signing our petition to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to call for an end to the intimidation of our troops in training them with anti-Christian left-wing propaganda.
Sincerely,
Lt. Gen. (US Army-Ret.) William "Jerry" Boykin
Executive Vice President
P.S. Please forward this alert to friends, family and fellow church members, and post to your favorite social networks.
10/16/2013 4:55 PM
Yes, the Virginia class has 4 WRSRs unless they change anything up on the new classes. However, there is only one head for the area. I guess they will need some sort of male/female sign or some other thing.
Co-habitation on SSNs will require a loss of some privacy for both genders, but submariners have been doing that for over a century.
10/16/2013 4:55 PM
^EDIT: I mean newer flight/boats/etc. Same class.
10/16/2013 4:58 PM
With those canoes on the aft deck it can only be one of two boats. Great job to the crew of the ship and of the helicopter for a successful medivac.
10/16/2013 6:28 PM
Has to be USS Greeneville
10/16/2013 6:39 PM
Well, at least they finally fessed up to the real PC reason for integrating subs: ". . . boosting the number of opportunities women have to serve by opening up branches closed to them."
10/16/2013 8:29 PM
It was a MEDEVAC not a HUMEVAC.
10/16/2013 11:21 PM
I've always loved 4 day old news. Does anyone know how the medevaced sailor is doing?
10/17/2013 2:11 AM
OBTW General...Hagel is a civil service hack who is taking orders from his boss just like the leadership at Camp Shelby. I'm sure you are familiar with "Divide and Conquer". It IS the trademark of the current administration.
10/17/2013 2:18 AM
I'm sure we'll be playing SCRABBLE with the soon to be two-gender crew of VIRGINIA...
10/17/2013 4:51 AM
This is Not Virginia...
10/17/2013 4:55 AM
That's not a sidebar. That's so far off topic that you may as well be taking about the price of peaches in the Andromeda system.
But, FWIW, I have never seen Todd Starnes' byline on an article that was wholly true. Never.
10/17/2013 11:18 AM
Bearing in mind that the calls for both the Coast Guard's latest and its 2009 sub medevac were made within the same Time Zone, during the same month of the year, and within minutes of the same hour of the day, know of any reason color video not available this time?
10/17/2013 11:58 AM
An excellent question, and one that had been analyzed three days ago. Curious readers will find evidence of Navy's interim safety and security tightening here:
10/17/2013 12:19 PM
I agree, this has to be the USS Greeneville. The only other boat out of Pearl Harbor with canoes on it is the USS Charlotte, she is currently in post-deployment stand down.
10/17/2013 7:08 PM
“…the submarine force has integrated 43 women onto six Ohio-class ballistic-missile (SSBN) and guided-missile submarines (SSGN).”
The 43 total doesn’t seem to work. The pattern has been to have them come aboard in groups of three consisting of one Chop and two JO’s in order to fully utilize one stateroom.
Six boats with two crews x 3 = 36 women not 43. It seems a little early for any to have completed a normal tour and rotated off.
Have seven women attrited? Shorter tours?
10/19/2013 11:08 AM
Some boats have 4 (Chop and 3 JO's)
10/19/2013 8:08 PM
Are the women still being assigned in excess?
10/19/2013 9:13 PM
Does anyone still give a crap?
10/20/2013 7:11 PM
Taxpayers do. I'm not sure about boomer fags.
10/21/2013 2:15 AM
"Some boats have 4 (Chop and 3 JO's)" - anon 8:08 PM
The college I attended assigned 2 men to a dorm room in the first semester. The luxury of getting assigned to the only larger, 3-bed room was reserved for the 2 brightest scholarship admissions plus the guy most likely to drop out for poor academic ability.
I think you may have described the submarine navy's coed version of a similar scenario.
10/21/2013 12:33 PM
My intel out of Hawaii says the patient is doing well. BZ to the crew.
r/HMCM(SS) Ret
10/21/2013 1:31 PM
"Some boats have 4 (Chop and 3 JO's)" - anon 8:08 PM
How does that work with (1) SR?
10/21/2013 4:09 PM
Anon @ 10/21/2013 2:15 AM
Taxpayers do. I'm not sure about boomer fags.
Is that what your mommy calls that little thing you play with in the tub?
10/21/2013 4:12 PM
^ Seriously? That's the best you've got, DC boomer fag? Best go talk to your fellow trannie boomer butt boys and see if you can come up with something better.
10/21/2013 4:48 PM
fast boat guys are going to care when they have to start giving up staterooms for NUB jo's and a chop who still expects to be treated like she is a senior LT on a surface ship. Just ask the SOBC instructors how awesome the first class of surface chops was to deal with....
10/21/2013 6:00 PM
OK, how awesome?
Actual facts?
10/21/2013 10:18 PM
Regarding anon 10/21/2013 4:48 PM
Joel, is it time for registration here?
Wannebes like the anon above add no value to what you are trying to do here.
So, anon wannabe, You were responding to my comment. Sometimes I post without a user name.
Unlike you I am actually qualified in submarines and am well known on several popular submarine sites.
How about you? Do you have a name and a submarine history or are you just the pathetic little troll that you sound like?
Chris Surprenant
10/21/2013 11:20 PM
before attacking reasons for putting women on subs, how about you list the reasons we should continue to not have them on subs. I'm sure the list will include typical sexist nonsense packaged in a plain all-male wrapper and include things like 'combat effectiveness.'
While I understand the concerns about putting junior officers in WRSRs ahead of their senior peers, that's just the way it is going to be until the US is happy with assigning personnel quarters in a gender blind manner...and I don't see that happening any time soon. It's not anyone's fault, it's just the way it is.
BT BT
what was that nonsense at the top of this post? Joel, you need to delete that tripe, it's as bad as that troll who hangs around here.
10/22/2013 1:55 AM
Since it is the midwatch back on the mainland, I'll continue a bit. I must admit I'm surprised at the lack of vocal opposition from the usual sources...you know, the ones who think USNA could possibly have some kind of sinister agenda that could possibly affect the rest of the Navy through the Ensign corps.
Standing by to receive.
10/22/2013 2:01 AM
"Unlike you I am actually qualified in submarines and am well known on several popular submarine sites."
You've got no business calling someone else pathetic.
Get a life Chrissy, it's the internet.
10/22/2013 5:52 AM
"How about you? Do you have a name and a submarine history or are you just the pathetic little troll that you sound like?
Chris Surprenant"
WOW! A whole whopping seven years as a submarine officer. That REALLY makes you an expert I would seek out for advice and mentoring especially since you migrated to selling 'yachts'.
10/22/2013 7:50 AM
I still think that Vaginus is the biggest tool around. Oooh look mommy I posted random drivel on my blog DAYS before the letters in the words were even INVENTED!
Please just go away.
10/22/2013 11:42 AM
"Get a life Chrissy, it's the internet".
Hi Mike652. Why are you hiding behind anon? Are you banned here too?
To the other idiot @ 10/22/2013 7:50 AM, ranting incoherent babble is what you produce when you have nothing else to say.
I notice that you didn't post any submarine bio of your own which is pretty much what I expected.
10/22/2013 12:44 PM
As someone quite accurately points out above, this IS the Internet, and people have posed in the place of others more than once or twice in its history.
So...without naming names of people who may or who may not have posted here, a couple of thoughts come to mind:
1) It's beneath the dignity of a sitting submarine squadron commander to be picking fights on the women-on-subs topic. That thought stands by itself. Moreover, as this is a purely political topic, unless one aspires to become viewed as a second-rate politician, one would do well to stick to one's submarine knitting, and not defend the indefensible. While we're here, a handy definition of "politics" in this context: "seeking to acquire position or power without sufficient merit." Women are on subs for political reasons, not military. We get that. Don't pick up a stick unless you're willing to be on the receiving end of it.
2) Having said that, an honest and credible CSS would bring up the valid arguments against women on subs on his own -- were he so-inclined to step into this subject on a civilian blog at all -- and then address them with forthrightness, not self-righteousness. These include overall higher costs due to significantly lower retention rates for women on surface ships, including nuclear, without any stated or "sufficient merit" for this extra cost in a time of ever-restricted budgets. Not to address these visible-to-all-who-can-see topics does not help one's position, political or otherwise.
3) It is dishonorable -- yes...that special adjective -- for a sitting CSS to demand (were one to actually do so ) that a civilian blog delete First Amendment-protected speech for purely political reasons.
4) If one has an issue with what U.S.A. Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin is advocating in the public domain, and goes so far as to herald his words as "tripe," I'd suggest you cut out the middle men and say that directly to LT GEN Boykin. I would caution that this may undercut one's aspirations to second-rate politician, but at least it's more honest than disingenuously trying to bully someone who is clearly outside your limited reach to censor words that you do not own..."sir."
10/22/2013 4:31 PM
http://jerryboykin.com/contact.html
10/22/2013 6:03 PM
^^^ But hey, if the Minium wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the MINIMUM ^^^
Scrape the bottom of the barrel and keep up the self promotion
10/22/2013 6:10 PM
Scott Minimum said, "Standing by to receive."
I'm sure he is well practiced in receiving.
10/22/2013 7:01 PM
If it's off topic, why not delete it? As for shying away from the topic, I'm not. I'm simply wondering what arguments people still have against women in subs that can stand the light of day. I find it encouraging that on this comment thread there are no returns to the arguments of old. Quite encouraging.
Oh, and as to the 'if it weren't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum' wow, you're funny. Never heard that one before...at least not since 1984.
10/23/2013 3:18 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention. So far as I am concerned the only valid argument against women on subs has been and continues to be privacy. However, with the few trade offs already mentioned here, they've been solved.
10/23/2013 3:20 AM
The reason we're so polarized in our country today boils down to two things: (1) lack of respect for opposing points of views, and (2) cowardice.
People who are truly confident that they're speaking the truth -- rather than trying to get away with something in a diabolical or conspiratorial way -- should have plenty of courage when it comes to summarizing their so-called opponents viewpoints in a non-judgemental way, and then reviewing them in a Socratic sort of way.
Far too many of us are running around thinking that this is all some big dumbass football game, and that we always have to be cheering for our side, and never give an opposing point of view an inch for fear that it will take the proverbial mile...especially so if that's the righteous course.
"Privacy" as a top concern and only "valid" issue with women on subs? I don't think that would even make the top-ten list of those who can see the issues with women on subs.
Internet-Commodore, I honestly haven't the time to course-correct your behavior. But I would invoke you to demonstrate 'best' leadership by first developing and *then* encouraging a mode of honest discourse amongst your subordinates.
To put a point on it:
1) Be able to state your so-called opponent's points of view in a prioritized, respectful fashion...i.e., without any dismissed-out-of-hand peanut gallery comments.
2) Be able to state your own points of view without justifications.
3) Discuss.
You might just find that this is what's needed at the uppermost levels of government. And people hire what they need.
10/23/2013 8:12 AM
Pal tells me called out at this blog. I question fool uses her time to mentions me?
10/23/2013 12:43 PM
Since everyone here now has to post a submarine bio in order for his or her opinions to matter:
My name is Chester Nimitz and I snatched my fish off the floor of the Laurentian Abyss (freediving, of course). I taught Rickover advanced reactor theory; I introduced Don Gerry to ray traces and CBLUG. When I drop a deuce it's a Mk48 ADCAP. Chris Suprenant was my under instruction as Internet Troll of the Watch and Scott Minium learned to address the counterargument in my Persuasive Argument 601 seminar. You must all bow to my greatness.
Joel, please link my bio to your home page so I don't have to keep repeating myself on every thread.
10/23/2013 3:58 PM
Let me take a wild guess, Chester...Persuasive Argument 601 is a Poli Sci class originally taught by Karl Marx, which focuses on how to undermine religious freedom for less than $20 a day?
10/23/2013 4:13 PM
Anon @10:21
We used to have "senior surface LT chops" on submarines. And it worked out (for the submarnes) a hell of a lot better. You actually had a chop who knew what he was doing, versus thet typical LTjg chop fresh out of supply school who has problems properly supervising his department.
It didn't tend to work out for the chops, as their non-submarine peers has more career-enhancing jobs.
Which is why we ended up with NUB chops.
Any CO would jump at the chance to "get a senior LT surface chop wh expects to be treated as a senior LT" way better than the alternative. So she is female? If she does here job better then the alternative,then who cares.
10/24/2013 11:04 PM
I think whoever is posting as Capt Minium is a poser because a Commodore can't be stupid enough to troll an internet blog, but I'll bite for the sake of discussion.
You have already dismissed any counter-argument to the claim that women should serve on submarines, which is narrow minded and dangerous to national security.
Aside from privacy and logistical concerns, which despite your claim have not been solved without severe inconvenience to more senior personnel, there are other reasons to keep women off subs (and out of the military entirely). First, there is no evidence that the presence of women enhances warfare effectiveness. If you are going to spend a ton of money and make people's lives tougher, you ought to be sure you are getting an adequate ROI. In fact, the presence of women has been shown to impede readiness because of fraternization and lowered morale from petty drama. Additionally, men make different decisions when a woman is in peril than men. It is part of a natural masculine instinct and it is dangerous to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Secondly, much more likely than men to resign after a single tour. This is due in large part because there are much fewer men willing to play the role of a Navy spouse and forfeit their career aspirations than women. In a community that historically has trouble retaining enough JOs to be DHs, this is bound to create a manning shortfall downstream. This will cause the Navy to have to commission more submarine Ensigns to make DH goal or raise COPAY, both of which will cost the taxpayers more money.
Finally, I will bounce the ball back and say that I have yet to hear a compelling argument why women should be serving on submarines. I have heard a lot of arguments why they could, and we're seeing that they are correct, but what is the gain in terms of fulfilling the submarine force's primary mission? It is especially concerning that the shift was orchestrated by old men and not by popular demand from women.
10/24/2013 11:31 PM
I think whoever is posting as Capt Minium is a poser because a Commodore can't be stupid enough to troll an internet blog, but I'll bite for the sake of discussion.
You have already dismissed any counter-argument to the claim that women should serve on submarines, which is narrow minded and dangerous to national security.
Aside from privacy and logistical concerns, which despite your claim have not been solved without severe inconvenience to more senior personnel, there are other reasons to keep women off subs (and out of the military entirely). First, there is no evidence that the presence of women enhances warfare effectiveness. If you are going to spend a ton of money and make people's lives tougher, you ought to be sure you are getting an adequate ROI. In fact, the presence of women has been shown to impede readiness because of fraternization and lowered morale from petty drama. Additionally, men make different decisions when a woman is in peril than men. It is part of a natural masculine instinct and it is dangerous to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Secondly, much more likely than men to resign after a single tour. This is due in large part because there are much fewer men willing to play the role of a Navy spouse and forfeit their career aspirations than women. In a community that historically has trouble retaining enough JOs to be DHs, this is bound to create a manning shortfall downstream. This will cause the Navy to have to commission more submarine Ensigns to make DH goal or raise COPAY, both of which will cost the taxpayers more money.
Finally, I will bounce the ball back and say that I have yet to hear a compelling argument why women should be serving on submarines. I have heard a lot of arguments why they could, and we're seeing that they are correct, but what is the gain in terms of fulfilling the submarine force's primary mission? It is especially concerning that the shift was orchestrated by old men and not by popular demand from women.
10/24/2013 11:43 PM
^^^ "I think whoever is posting as Capt Minium is a poser because a Commodore can't be stupid enough to troll an internet blog"
You obviously haven't met Capt Minium....Stupid is as stupid does. I'll repeat a previous accurate post...."If the Minium wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the Minimum" a phrase repeated daily by those around him, well after 1984.
If someone is posing as him, all he has to do is email Bubblehead and have the comments deleted.
10/25/2013 4:39 AM
"Finally, I will bounce the ball back and say that I have yet to hear a compelling argument why women should be serving on submarines."
Your heads so far up your ass you don't hear anything.
Here's a word for you --- discrimination. Have someone very slowly explain that word to you. Have them do it again. Then try really hard to understand why it's wrong.
That's why women and gays and black eople and everyone else you don't like are supposed to get the same opportunity you do. Becasuse denying them that opportunity is wrong and illegal.
10/25/2013 6:12 AM
The so-called "discrimination" issue simply does not hold any water. You can't thrust around, fucking up everything in your path, just because *you* don't understand that. It's a false, intentionally emotional claim that is designed to bully others from using the rest of their minds to have an intelligent discussion.
Address the issue on the merits, or shut the fuck up, second-rate politician.
10/25/2013 7:26 AM
It's only discrimination if it can be shown that the presence of (insert group) enhances submarine mission readiness. In the case of women, no one has remotely demonstrated that and no senior officers even mentioned it as a reason for integration. What we do know is that climate on some surface ships has been decimated by mixed gender crews and the challenges they bring.
Claiming discrimination is just a way of dismissing the challenges that come with integrated crews and ignoring the very real and tangible drawbacks. The claim has no place in intelligent discussion about the topic.
10/25/2013 9:49 AM
"The so-called "discrimination" issue simply does not hold any water. You can't thrust around, fucking up everything in your path, just because *you* don't understand that. It's a false, intentionally emotional claim that is designed to bully others from using the rest of their minds to have an intelligent discussion.
Address the issue on the merits, or shut the fuck up, second-rate politician."
Suck my ass second rate human being. Quit being a bigot, conduct yourself in acccordance with your oath.
"It's only discrimination if it can be shown that the presence of (insert group) enhances submarine mission readiness"
That is, far and away, the stupidest fucking comment posted on here in quite a while.
Replace "women" with your favorite racial slur in any of these posts and you'll have the same argument that was made by the bigots and racists in the 40's trying to stop the integration of the services. The hooded troglodytes were ignored then and thankfully tou're being ignored now.
10/25/2013 1:47 PM
Muh red herring.
That's all you got.
10/25/2013 10:07 PM
Oh, blow it out your ass, "discrimination guy."
We fart in your general direction.
Speaking of which: here is Monty Python's John Clease, with some humor and wisdom on "self-important people who dishonestly pretend their deficiencies make their views more substantial..."
10/26/2013 10:45 AM
Suck my ass second rate human being. Quit being a bigot, conduct yourself in acccordance (sic) with your oath.
Looks like someone upset the faggot troll.
10/26/2013 12:28 PM
Back the first post here that upset poser (?) Internet-Commodore Minium so much:
Good News and congratulations to those here who bucked up to sign the petition to Secretary Hagel that LT GEN Boykin was advocating: the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, has just sent an Army-wide memorandum ordering a halt to all briefings classifying Christian groups as domestic hate groups.
Proving that if Good Men actually stand up and do something, the Bad Buys can't win.
10/26/2013 1:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home