Posted on 02/26/2010 4:44:12 PM PST by SandRat
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2010 – Female sailors will begin serving on submarines by the end of next year, with Naval Academy graduates leading the way, Navy leaders told a Senate committee yesterday.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Navy is in a good position to move forward with integrating women onto submarines.
“We think we learned a lot about integrating women in the services years ago, and those lessons are relevant today,” Mabus said. Those lessons, he said, include having a “critical mass” of female candidates, having senior women to serve as mentors, and having submarines that don’t require modifications: the SSBN ballistic missile and SSGN guided-missile subs.
Finally, Mabus said, “We have the lesson learned to make sure any questions are answered, … and we’re very open and transparent on how we’ll do this. We think this is a great idea that will enhance our warfighting capabilities.”
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates notified Congress on Feb. 19 of the intended change to Navy policy. Mabus had pushed for the change since taking office in May. Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, endorsed the change, saying in a statement released in September that his experience commanding a mixed-gender surface-combatant ship makes him “very comfortable” integrating women into the submarine force. The Navy changed its policy to allow women to serve on combatant ships in 1993.
“We have a great plan, and we’re ready to go for the first women to come aboard in late 2011,” Roughead told the Senate committee yesterday. In a prepared statement to the committee, he said the change would enable the submarine force “to leverage the tremendous talent and potential of our female officers and enlisted personnel.”
Besides the incoming officers from the academy, the first women submariners will include female supply corps officers at the department head level, Roughead said. The change will be phased in over time to include enlisted female sailors on the SSBN and SSGNs, he said. Women will be added to the Navy’s SSN fast-attack submarines after necessary modifications can be determined, he said.
“This initiative has my personal attention, and I will continue to keep you informed as we integrate these highly motivated and capable officers into our submarine force,” Roughead told the committee.
The answer to your question, whether this would affect the operation of the submarine-— is in a phenomenal number of ways.. yes. Regardless of the preferences of the crewmembers, ie. sexual preferences, it is the interactions that would have to be controlled beyond usual capability in a normal social interaction. There is simply no room for error at 500 plus feet.
Here’s an example of just ONE internal defense: on a missile boat, the missile integrity officer on board on watch has a sidearm and a billy club— to defend the safety of the missiles in the launch tubes from one of the crew who might go crazy, despite all screening, or turn traitor or just turn revengeful for some slight. The officer has “shoot to kill” orders on a war footing to protect the 24 tubes each with a missile, each missile with 8 separately targeted re-entry vehicles of 475 Kilotons apiece. Taken from this vantage point it is far more than just “how will the guys and gals get along” it is.. “how will the critical mission be performed flawlessly do defend our nation?” And therein lies the crux of this discussion. Social engineering nuts, or recruiters trying to maintain their quotas cannot get around this basic question. It is why there will NEVER be females in a SEAL team. It’s not a video game and it’s not Star Trek with actors or something as idiotic as “Crimson Tide” movie.
The nitpicking about perceived sexism on this thread is just a tiny peek into what WILL happen if women get put on subs.
It is not the place for this kind of drama. There is no room for it in the mission.
And who is Ray Mabus? Harvard Law, from Mississippi, who served as a LT JG on a WWII era cruiser, USS Little Rock, which was decommissioned in 1949. He’s never been aboard a nuclear service vessel, much less ANY kind of submarine. Largely been a CEO for industrial companies... one in particular makes...... batteries (like for electric boats, too?) He has little to no command experience of any recent type and little to no understanding of what this would mean to a submarine as opposed to a massive WWII era cruiser or a carrier, or more precisely a surface vessel. What he WAS was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bill Clinton... and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hey, it all works for these types... just a management issue. No focus on our readiness or warfighting capabilities. He was at Saudi when 1993 WTC attack occurred.
Nothing was based on actual knowledge of life on Subs or on reality.
Answer: It won’t and cannot be demonstrated in any fashion that it would. This is not being pushed for that... it is to make life “fair” for female Navy Academy grads who need more “fair” opportunities. These are multibillion dollar vessels that are entirely a weapon unto themselves. Totally wrong thinking on many levels. This is NOT like females in a fighter cockpit. Mistakes underwater can result in total loss of vessel with all hands and... all useful weapons in a firefight. Disaster.
SgtBob- and it is the fast attack boats that are becoming far more important in littoral (shallower water) combat. Exception being the converted old Ohio class SSBNs that now deliver SEAL teams to operational areas for stealth insertion. The commander of that type of sub would have to be an expert in stealth running, quiet running, and evasion tactics as well as close quarter battle tactics with a vessel that is much larger than a fast attack boat. Either way, there is NO room or money to make more room for the “special” crewmembers. This is pure social engineering. They are not interested in warfighting capabilities. We are not, incidentally, at peace at any time in the submarine service. There continues to this day to be encounters not remarked on or known with our “pals” the chi-coms and what remains of the desperate russian sub fleet. So called “bumping” episodes occur, and risk taking is the name of the game for command characteristics. They are brave men, submariners.. on so many levels and with so much stress on them, to add to it with this... imagine the wives and kids at home. Nuts.
That was something I learned by reading "Hunt for Red October," one of my favorite books ever. Back when Tom Clancy was in his prime.
One more comment before I bust a seam. EVERY single one of the people listed as being for this are SURFACE fleet people. Roughead was cruiser group commander, Surface fleet. Mullin was surface fleet. Gates was an intel officer in the USAF and the closest he came to a nuclear missile was to deliver intel reports to Whiteman AFB out west, ON LAND. He’s CIA, and nothing wrong with this but, a Boy Scout goody two shoes (with whatever that implies) willing to work under Obama— good God. This whole discussion reminds me of the old school tie Brits who used to say espionage was wrong because “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail”. Well all of these people have NO clue what submarine warfare is about, with the exception of their having in two instances served aboard what are known as TARGETS! In modern naval warfare, a carrier is something that can easily be taken out by a skilled sub commander with nuke torpedoes... who also may sign their death warrant doing so unless they are really crafty and escape. It takes a skilled tactical mind capable of deception to do this. Big blustery surface fleet types and air force flyboys have no clue and never really did. Ask a P-3 Orion subhunter vet how “easy” it was to find one of our own. They are putting this crucial element in our new defense structure in jeopardy by insisting they put submarines through the stupid social experiment to which they’ve alreay subjected the poor surface fleet. Did you know there was a commander relieved of command because he was on the surface too long, transferring a sailor with a rupture appendix 300 miles South of Iceland to a helo... and it was the helo who was LATE! I’m done, unless I read a PC type comment here. Our readiness is in jeopardy.
From what I’ve read here, there is simply NO ROOM on a submarine for social experiments.
Right. Someone should ask this guy, everybody take a look at this warrior who knows BOTH above and below the ocean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_D._West
FReepgards.
If she can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen or get herself an asbestos apron. She is the PERFECT ILLUSTRTATION of why women on submarines is such a stupid idea: she wants the world to adjust to HER expectations, instead of the other way around.
Been tried. Their hormones synchronize, and uh.. well it’s not a dormitory.
Thanks for your kind words.
It is so fascinating that you prattle on about people not respecting each other and not only fail to identify genuine disrespect of men when you see it, but rationalize it into a twisted form of “respect.” My “nice try” was dead on target. LOL.
Blasted Skimmers!
Even Real Boy Scouts know better than this idea.
As for the others pushing they are Seat of the Pants Polishers or DACOWITS TWITS and nothing more.
In all courtesy it is NOT sexist to point out that what are wonderful biological differences do not lend themselves well to specific tasks that must be performed by every crew member without exception. These tasks and redundant command functions have been rigorously studied, reviewed, revised, practiced, graded, and drilled to the point where a crew member does them without regard to self. Females within modern physical parameters cannot perform those tasks the same as men. I say parameters because there are size limitations for submarine service (obviating the potential for say a 6’5” female shotput medalist). These are demonstrable and demonstrated facts, and trying to accommodate this for reasons of “social justice” is simply unacceptable in a vessel designed and conceived to deliver massive destruction from an undetected position and with the practiced capability to deliver the same again from another location. Perhaps an understanding of the kind of abuse submariners have faced in the past and the present from fellow Sailors, Marines,Army, Air Force and even Coast Guard (how about this one—”all queers”— and they are NOT)might help. Submariners are screened incidentally, against such behavioural dangers to operational readiness, whereas a woman could not be screened out not to be... a woman or for that matter a man not to be.. a man. This interaction and many others have been tested by several real navies- and they do not have mixed or even all female crews. I would say that it should be out of respect for women that they not be placed in such a situation, and thus place our war fighting readiness in jeopardy. The woman who runs a Predator drone and takes out an al-Qaeda leader from a base in Arizona is a heroine in my book. She doesn’t belong, however on a US submarine. It is an environment that cannot be compared to anything else.
Pat yourself on your back!
There are real limits to pranks at sea, so they are generally done on land, if at all, and since these sailors are looked after like family, the pranks are not ones to cause harm to the other crewmembers in any way- all their lives depend upon it. Again, this is not like a surface vessel, where people get away with a lot more. I might add a caveat.. about which see the USS Iowa and the so called “investigation”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.