Should women serve on Subs?

[Silver Fox]

Former Submariners Wary Of Women Onboard
I'm all for women in the military, but combat and Sub duty are two areas they should be omitted from. Women are now serving on every type ship in the navy from carriers to tugs and doing a good job, but IMO they should be kept on the surface of the 7 seas and not under it.

[Ispbear]

I don't know, have you ever seen my wife PMS. Give her a gun and send her to the battlefield and pitty the poor bastards she encounters.

[Kimble]

IMO [women] should be kept on the surface of the 7 seas and not under it.

Why?

[Safety Steve]

I don't know, have you ever seen my wife PMS. Give her a gun and send her to the battlefield and pitty the poor bastards she encounters.

LOL. Then all wars would only last a week!

Be Safe.

[Silver Fox]

Why?

Have you read the article? For exactly the same reasons the author lists.

[mobrien316]

Until the grooming standards and physical fitness standards are the same I don't think it is appropriate to be considering women for combat or submarine duty.

And, just to clarify, I think women should be able to serve in combat and on submarines, just as I think they should be subject to the same fitness and grooming standards. That's equality.

[Kimble]

Until the grooming standards and physical fitness standards are the same I don't think it is appropriate to be considering women for combat or submarine duty.

And, just to clarify, I think women should be able to serve in combat and on submarines, just as I think they should be subject to the same fitness and grooming standards. That's equality.

I agree completely. Equal training and equal standards means equal duty. It's fair and reasonable. But to say across the board that females (if they do receive equal training and are held to equal fitness/job standards) are not fit for duty simply because it's underwater seems unreasonable and unfair. If there's different/lesser standards, then of course that's a different issue. But as MObrien pointed out above, why would you neglect someone holding a position (male or female) if they are able to meet the required training/standards?

[retdetsgt]

And, just to clarify, I think women should be able to serve in combat and on submarines, just as I think they should be subject to the same fitness and grooming standards. That's equality.

Hmmm. I've had that same discussion with a few women in LE. Same pay and benefits should equal same duties and responsibility.

[greg72982]

Until the grooming standards and physical fitness standards are the same I don't think it is appropriate to be considering women for combat or submarine duty.

I agree witht he grooming thing. Women should NOT have facial hair. I think we should also pass a civilian law governing that.

[Curt581]

I agree witht he grooming thing. Women should NOT have facial hair. I think we should also pass a civilian law governing that.

Yeah, but then you'd have to arrest every woman that might think you're cute.

[Wolfman]

I served on a ship that had a high percentage of female crew, my problems with women serving on a submarine doesn't stem from the issues caused by a mixed crew (i.e. love triangles forming, women pregnant during deployment, etc.) it comes from the space-issue on a submarine.

Things were pretty tiny on a destroyer but on a submarine it is even more so. When you have to take already cramped quarters, where men are already "hot-racking" and bathrooms/showers are at a minimum, and then try to separate them into "female only/male only" showers and heads, I think you will get a lot of dissatisfied sailors. On the other hand, if you DON'T separate them, then you will IMHO cause a lot of drama, whether it be sailors walking in on sailors of the opposite sex, or more severe things that would bring NCIS onboard to investigate.

I'm not saying with todays politically correct, more-concerned-with-not-offending-anyone-instead-of-war-fighting country that it won't happen, but I am definitely against it.

[Rlong1985]

I too have had the opportunity to spend time ( 3 Years and two Deployments) underway on a United States Warship, a destroyer is barely big enough to hold female service members. I served on a destroyer with a mixed crew of both male and female. I am not sure what space people think sailors have while underway but it’s not much. Females on submarines are a logistic nightmare; facilities on submarines are purpose built for males and the confines are tight to say the least. Hot racking is common place, showers may be rationed and berths are open. Females are currently being considered for our largest class of submarines but not attack. Some countries in Europe have females on subs but they have separated the crews some one hundred percent male or female and do not mix them together. Purpose built future submarines are better suited for such a task rather than refitting our current fleet. Our Ohio class has no replacement on the books and our current attack submarines too small for duel crews.

[Sangiovese]

I spent ten years on attack submarines. I have no doubt that women can do the job.

As others have mentioned, space is the issue. Providing gender-specific berthing and head areas is something that simply takes up more room than is available on a submarine. Find a workable solution to that, and I support the idea.

It would be simple enough to say ok... 9 man berthing is now female berthing and they get the lower level head.

Presto! Problem solved, right?

OK... now you've given up 9 bunks to female berthing, so you need somewhere between 9 and 14 female crew (hot racking is a necessity in submarine life). It can already be difficult to fill all the required specialties on a submarine... but this would lead to additional problems. Instead of saying, in the next 2 months we will need a nuclear trained electronics technician, a conventional electronics technician, and a torpedoman.... you will have to say, we need those three specialties... and 2 of them need to be female.

It can probably be overcome... but it's certainly not as simple as hanging a sign on a berthing space and saying, ok, we're done!

[retdetsgt]

Looks like the question just got answered.....

My Way News - Navy to allow women to serve on submarines

[Kimble]

I spent ten years on attack submarines. I have no doubt that women can do the job.

As others have mentioned, space is the issue. Providing gender-specific berthing and head areas is something that simply takes up more room than is available on a submarine. Find a workable solution to that, and I support the idea.

It would be simple enough to say ok... 9 man berthing is now female berthing and they get the lower level head.

Presto! Problem solved, right?

OK... now you've given up 9 bunks to female berthing, so you need somewhere between 9 and 14 female crew (hot racking is a necessity in submarine life). It can already be difficult to fill all the required specialties on a submarine... but this would lead to additional problems. Instead of saying, in the next 2 months we will need a nuclear trained electronics technician, a conventional electronics technician, and a torpedoman.... you will have to say, we need those three specialties... and 2 of them need to be female.

It can probably be overcome... but it's certainly not as simple as hanging a sign on a berthing space and saying, ok, we're done!

This makes complete sense to me, someone who has never served on active duty and doesn't fully appreciate the challenges this sort of change would make. Very well put (though the link retdetsgt posted above about the USN's final decision on this matter seems to make the arguement for or against a moot point).