Submarines and Females

[boundless]

Hello all Im a potential nuke leaving for rtc in about 13 days, super pumped for training after! When I first dep'd in last year I was informed that since I am a female then my only ship option is going to be a carrier. I have been hearing little bits of news about females starting to be placed on the submarines and was wondering if anyone knows any more information on this. I expect that if it is starting to happen or is being tested now, then perhaps in the 2-3 years Ill be in school that I could be looking at being placed on a sub. Just trying to be a little more prepared for the potential future

I was also curious on if its typical for you to request a type of ship over another? It is not something I had previously looked into since I was informed my only route would be a carrier.

Thank you for your replies / opinions!

[SpaceJustice]

Unless you become an officer you are not eligible to be on submarines, so your only choice will be carriers.  It is unlikely that they will start putting enlisted females on subs by the time you have completed the pipeline.

[MMM]

I think in the next couple years they will probably move ahead with putting female enlisted on subs. However, they will be starting at the CPO level so the junior enlisted have some mentorship when they get there. Most likely, E-6 and below will start being assigned to subs in 5+ years.

[SpaceJustice]

I think in the next couple years they will probably move ahead with putting female enlisted on subs. However, they will be starting at the CPO level so the junior enlisted have some mentorship when they get there. Most likely, E-6 and below will start being assigned to subs in 5+ years.

Really, that fast?  I mean I have no idea what the intended timeline is, but that is fairly impressive for making such a large manning change.  I know RC Div wouldn't mind some extra bodies on a sub.

[ChiefRocscooter]

"Really, that fast?"  They have only been debating it for 20 years (well more but 20 sound good!).  My guess, it will be on boomers 1st when it happens, as for CPO level now you have made the chicken and egg argument!  No SS female chiefs and any SW nuke female chief will be up against a huge learning curve face it there is no room in a sub crew for "learner" leaders.  Either they will have to increase the senior "manning" or there will be problems with them not knowing the job.  A sub MMC/EMC/ETC nuke is not the same as a Carrier one!  Hell I saw a boomer Chief come to a fast attack and end up getting booted because he could not function at the "fast attack" pace.  Yes, I know that's just one example but it makes the point that there will be problems.  Will they be over come, of course the Navy always "get it done" just sometime the pain is great while the gain is little. 

[boundless]

thank you all for your replies

[spekkio]

There are no officially released plans to place female enlisted sailors on subs.

My personal speculation is that it would never happen on fast attacks, not with 1/2-2/3 the crew already hot-racking on mission. You'd have to make 21-man a female berthing area and then you'd have to somehow always have nearly exactly 21 females per sub.

[DLGN25]

The entire movement of placing women on submarines or in combat units has nothing to do with the fighting force.  Rather it has to do with the officer corps and the inability of women to become generals or admirals without command experience.

Unless I misread the press, there is not a staffing problem on submarines, or for that matter surface ships.

Sorry ladies, but women on boats is not a good idea, and it is not about sex, (whether ladies on ladies or men huffing and puffing) it is about, well, give it a try and see how it goes.

Living on a ship or a boat is not all that pleasant.

[SpaceJustice]

"Really, that fast?"  They have only been debating it for 20 years (well more but 20 sound good!). 

Well they just put female officers on subs fairly recently and I figured they would be getting data from that for a couple of years before moving into enlisted.

[Marlin]

Navy Examining Enlisted Female Integration on Subs


Commander, Naval Submarine Forces in Norfolk established a flag officer-led task force in May to focus on effectively integrating enlisted women Sailors on board multiple submarine platforms.

Vice Adm. Michael Connor stood up the task force to specifically look at best integration practices for SSBNs, SSGNs, and VIRGINIA-class SSNs.

Commander of Submarine Group Two, Rear Adm. Kenneth Perry is leading the task force. The group is charged with developing a comprehensive Plan of Actions and Milestones (POAM) by January 2014.

This POAM will mirror the previous deliberate process used to successfully integrate female officers by including feasibility studies, potential courses of action and candidate timelines. Pending the results, a detailed implementation plan will be presented to the Chief of Naval Operations by March 2015.

Female officers have been successfully integrated on board OHIO-Class SSBNs and SSGNs, and will be integrated onboard VIRGINIA-Class SSNs in fiscal year 2015.
 
 The Navy is working with industry to design the Ohio replacement SSBN to support both officers and enlisted mixed-gender crews.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/08/navy-examining-enlisted-female-integration-on-subs.html

[leavingreality]

Navy Examining Enlisted Female Integration on Subs


Commander, Naval Submarine Forces in Norfolk established a flag officer-led task force in May to focus on effectively integrating enlisted women Sailors on board multiple submarine platforms.

Vice Adm. Michael Connor stood up the task force to specifically look at best integration practices for SSBNs, SSGNs, and VIRGINIA-class SSNs.

Commander of Submarine Group Two, Rear Adm. Kenneth Perry is leading the task force. The group is charged with developing a comprehensive Plan of Actions and Milestones (POAM) by January 2014.

This POAM will mirror the previous deliberate process used to successfully integrate female officers by including feasibility studies, potential courses of action and candidate timelines. Pending the results, a detailed implementation plan will be presented to the Chief of Naval Operations by March 2015.

Female officers have been successfully integrated on board OHIO-Class SSBNs and SSGNs, and will be integrated onboard VIRGINIA-Class SSNs in fiscal year 2015.
 
 The Navy is working with industry to design the Ohio replacement SSBN to support both officers and enlisted mixed-gender crews.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/08/navy-examining-enlisted-female-integration-on-subs.html

This should be fun.

[DLGN25]

What is sad is this is not a staffing issue, it is a political issue.  There is nothing that I can find to indicate that women on boats will make them more efficient.

It is a sad joke...  No, no a sad joke, just sad.

[Fermi2]

They'll do just fine.

[DLGN25]

They'll do just fine.

Or so it will be reported.

[DLGN25]

They'll do just fine.

how many women are in your world?

[Fermi2]

A lot. Two are which are engineering officers in the navy and I will put them against any man.
Heck you are just a skimmer puke.
What do you know about life on submarines?

[HeavyD]

Putting women back into the program was never about efficiency, neither was allowing them to serve aboard combatant vessels.

If they can physically do the job, then the Navy will attempt to find a way to make it work.

In my 20 years I saw plenty of women Chiefs and Officers who could run circles around men of the same rank in the areas of leadership ability, plant knowledge and watchstanding capability.  I've seen the same thing in my short time in the commercial world.  The gender of an individual is often gives zero indication as to whether or not they can actually perform at a given task or succeed in a given role in a given environment.

[Fermi2]

Well said HeavyD!

[Marlin]

   Most arguments (reasonable ones anyway) against women on submarines had nothing to do with capability of the women. The Ohio class subs removed most of those arguments. I don't know what the lay out of the Virginia class boats is, I was a 637 class sailor, but until newer ones are designed specifically for a mixed gender crew I am a little doubtful that staffing them with women is anything but PC BS.

[jams723]

I agree.  If they are competent and do their job without expecting allowances to be made because they are female they will be accepted and do just fine.  

The problems would come if there was an entitlement attitude or they say they cannot do some aspect of their job.

Just like in commercial power, prove you can do the job, don't back down to a challenge and you will be accepted.

[Fermi2]

Just as many men feel entitled as women. Heck look at the baby nukes coming out these days.

[HydroDave63]

how many women are in your world?

Don't they usually have about 5 ELTs aboard when fully staffed? 

[spekkio]

  Most arguments (reasonable ones anyway) against women on submarines had nothing to do with capability of the women. The Ohio class subs removed most of those arguments. I don't know what the lay out of the Virginia class boats is, I was a 637 class sailor, but until newer ones are designed specifically for a mixed gender crew I am a little doubtful that staffing them with women is anything but PC BS.

This. I have no doubt that female JOs can dance with the one-eyed-lady (man now?) with the best of them, sound semi-intelligenct on the 1MC/2MC/7MC, and do QA vertical audits like a champ.

The issue is whether the costs of putting women on submarines are offset by maintaining warfighting readiness. What are those costs?

-Women leave the Navy at a much higher rate than men after their initial tours. The sub force has enjoyed high retention over the past few years thanks to a tubbed economy and a supposed culture shift among XO/COs to take better care of their wardrooms, but the economy will eventually recover.
-There is a big push from Big Navy to make more senior female COs and Major Commanders, and you know that the first female submariner who wants to stick around long enough will be put on the highway to command at sea. This results in pressure on COs to give females higher marks on fitreps for equal or sometimes lesser work.
-Fraternization is one of the leading causes of COs/XOs being relieved, many of whom were probably otherwise very capable Officers. It's easy to point your finger at them and say 'you should know better,' but Mother Nature is what it is -- you work in close quarters with someone for months on end and this stuff will happen.
-Inconveniencing a crew that is already living in spartan conditions, many of whom chose it because of the culture onboard submarines that doesn't involve having women around.

The SecNav and SecDef have decided that it is worth the cost, so who am I to disagree. I just haven't really heard them present what the benefits are to warrant having to deal with these new set of challenges, nor have I ever met a woman who said "You know, it's totally bullshit that I can't be a submariner." But we'll adapt and overcome, it's what we do.

[Fermi2]

Unless I was on board. Then you only need one.

[Marlin]

This. I have no doubt that female JOs can dance with the one-eyed-lady (man now?) with the best of them, sound semi-intelligenct on the 1MC/2MC/7MC, and do QA vertical audits like a champ.

The issue is whether the costs of putting women on submarines are offset by maintaining warfighting readiness. What are those costs?

-Women leave the Navy at a much higher rate than men after their initial tours. The sub force has enjoyed high retention over the past few years thanks to a tubbed economy and a supposed culture shift among XO/COs to take better care of their wardrooms, but the economy will eventually recover.
-There is a big push from Big Navy to make more senior female COs and Major Commanders, and you know that the first female submariner who wants to stick around long enough will be put on the highway to command at sea. This results in pressure on COs to give females higher marks on fitreps for equal or sometimes lesser work.
-Fraternization is one of the leading causes of COs/XOs being relieved, many of whom were probably otherwise very capable Officers. It's easy to point your finger at them and say 'you should know better,' but Mother Nature is what it is -- you work in close quarters with someone for months on end and this stuff will happen.
-Inconveniencing a crew that is already living in spartan conditions, many of whom chose it because of the culture onboard submarines that doesn't involve having women around.

The SecNav and SecDef have decided that it is worth the cost, so who am I to disagree. I just haven't really heard them present what the benefits are to warrant having to deal with these new set of challenges, nor have I ever met a woman who said "You know, it's totally bullshit that I can't be a submariner." But we'll adapt and overcome, it's what we do.

   "In 1995, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) prepared a report for the Navy about women in submarines. It was not available to the public until just after the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) Conference, held in San Diego in October 1999. The SAIC report was comprehensive, and laid out many reasons why having women in submarines would not work. A key concern was that complications raised by women on board would undermine the operational effectiveness of the crew. Nevertheless, DACOWITS voted unanimously for a resolution recommending that plans for future submarines should make provisions for women."
   Although I agree with much of what the report says a conversation with a retired admiral mitigated my negative opinion to a point. He stated that there is also a need for quality personnel to staff the boats and excluding women precludes many capable personnel in a very competitive and difficult to staff service. Listening to many complain on this site complain about the low quality of current crop of "Nukes" (perception in my opinion, same stuff different day) and the cheating scandals a little fresh blood may not be a bad thing provided readiness is not compromised. I am still somewhat skeptical but I am also from a different era of "bubbleheads" where we lived inside our machinery spaces, valves were located outboard of some of our racks, the diesel was accessed through the berthing areas, hot racking was common due to lack of berthing, and junior personnel slept in temporary racks placed on the torpedo handling gear (had to make sure their bunk was not parked over a nuke). I suspect the Virginia class has not advanced much beyond that even though design for mix gender crews has been an issue since the before the NSSN (Virginia class) was being designed.

http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/SAPA%20020195.pdf