Navy will soon let women serve on subs

iangb said:

What opposition would there be to subs manned (no pun intended) by an all-female crew? To my mind at least, that would solve most issues...

Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that they first have to serve on some other boat to get the experience needed to do what you're saying?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Let's put it this way....the Ohio is a BIG submarine. When it was sitting on the dock at EB, you could see it was enormous compared to the Los Angeles class boats built around it.

Click to expand...

The Ohio has been converted to a platform type ship from a Trident.....They need a lot of space to launch the Tomahawk missiles...........I have been down in the berthing compartments of both the crew and the chiefs with the COB....Trust me there is no room......

Its kind of ironic that we are talking about the OHIO because I was at a change of command ceromony for her last Friday.........

Gray_Fox_86 said:

But people don't get that. It has become wrong to say that a women are not as strong as men. And that women can do the same as a man, they can't and that is considered offensive. Sometimes its the best thing to let men take care of thing like working in a sub. Gosh it boggles my mind:doh

Click to expand...

The only comment I can make is that where I work, physical labor is the norm and women are twice as likely to have worker's comp issues than men. The average age where I work is 43.

iangb said:

What opposition would there be to subs manned (no pun intended) by an all-female crew? To my mind at least, that would solve most issues...

Click to expand...

That's what I'd suggest. However, the only problem is there are no experienced female submarine officers and seamen (seawoman? seaperson?) to crew a submarine. Unless we do an officer exchange program that allows our female officers to serve on submarines of foreign countries with all-female submarine crews, we'll have to allow a few mixed crews just to allow females to gain experience to pass on to an all-female crew later.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

But people don't get that. It has become wrong to say that a women are not as strong as men. And that women can do the same as a man, they can't and that is considered offensive. Sometimes its the best thing to let men take care of thing like working in a sub. Gosh it boggles my mind:doh

Click to expand...

That is why the senior officers are gutless..........If you ask them on the record a lot of them will say go for it, they can do it..........If you ask them off the record its a different story.....They know not agreeing with the big shots could be the kiss of death for a promotion or even their career........

By the way, I'm a Navy vet, too. So I understand the reasons for being opposed to women on submarines.
I also understand why some seamen would be willing to

"Welcome aboard!" women.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

It'll be the TDU weight loads.

All of the crew has to hand-to-hand those things down into the boat. We loaded them by the ton, and there were eight ten-pound steel disks in each box. They have to be handed down vertical ladders, and we lost the tallest man on the boat, because, naturally, he was placed at the bottom, and the man above him dropped a box. Didn't kill him, just destroyed his shoulder.

How many women are going to be standing at the bottom of THOSE ladders, hmmmm?

I got the COB to loan me three seamen so we could carry eight R-114 refill cylinders down from the McKee, the tender. They weighed forty-five pounds apiece, there wasn't a truck handy, and after we hiked them over, little old me had to climb into the damnedest places to hoist them into their stowage brackets. How much help is the lady Machinist's Mate going to need to do her job as the ships Air Conditioning technician?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a redesign of the cargo loading procedures and hatches, not to mention crew safety measures, is necessary.

Of course, there are probably reasons I am unaware of that such has not been accomplished...

Perhaps structural issues?

/shrug

Goyboy said:

By the way, I'm a Navy vet, too. So I understand the reasons for being opposed to women on submarines.
I also understand why some seamen would be willing to

"Welcome aboard!" women.

Click to expand...

I expect a lot of the guys on the sub would love it.........

Navy Pride said:

I expect a lot of the guys on the sub would love it.........

Click to expand...

As soon as they drop DADT... a few hormones and some of their ship mates might just look like tht...

:shock:

Navy Pride said:

The Ohio has been converted to a platform type ship from a Trident.....They need a lot of space to launch the Tomahawk missiles...........I have been down in the berthing compartments of both the crew and the chiefs with the COB....Trust me there is no room......

Its kind of ironic that we are talking about the OHIO because I was at a change of command ceromony for her last Friday.........

Click to expand...

Ah, well, the last time I saw the Ohio personally, it had never been wet.

I recall hearing that they took the USS LaJolla and stretched it to make room for a set of vertical launch tubes for Tomahawks.

MrVicchio said:

As soon as they drop DADT... a few hormones and some of their ship mates might just look like tht...

:shock:

Click to expand...

That is a whole new ball game.........

MrVicchio said:

My wife told me abotu the "alpha female" syndrome, where a strong female leader in a group can have an effect on other females in the group. I.E. they all PMS on HER scheduale. Now I have no clue if this is actually true, but do you REALLY want to chance a submarine where 5 days a month the women are in total bitch mode?

Click to expand...

NavyPride said:

There are a lot of situations aboard a sub that takes physical strength....Most women don't have it...

Click to expand...

Neither of these present barriers to all women. Most/many, sure - but not all. That's the discriminatory bit.

Pick the women who will do the job well - ones who are as competent as the men who currently serve. Don't pick the women who aren't good enough; it'd be daft to do it any other way. But don't discriminate purely on gender - as long as that gender is not an issue (hence the single-sex subs).

Incidentally... any opinions on the fact that some of the current male submariners could well be DADT-ing?

Scarecrow said:

You mean besides the fact that they first have to serve on some other boat to get the experience needed to do what you're saying?

Click to expand...

Surely when the subs were initially brought into use by the Navy (only just less than 100 years ago), the men in them had a similar lack of experience?

If the US army has insufficient training facilities to prepare people for submarine life without actually putting them inside a live and active sub, shame on the US army.

The Mark said:

Sounds like a redesign of the cargo loading procedures and hatches, not to mention crew safety measures, is necessary.

Click to expand...

No.

It's a submarine. When they're run by men, bad things don't happen. Letting boys and women get involved, and bad things will.

bhkad said:

Perhaps structural issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, women don't have the structure to man-handle TDU weights.

That's why it's called "man"-handle.

The Left persists in this myth that there's nothing a man can do that a woman can't. Well, I'm sure the Left hasn't noticed, but men and women are different.

This will be a great moral booster and give a new meaning to several terms used on Subs but i won't go into them. Suffice to say they all involve Torpedoes. Nuff said.
What was it they used say when a whaler saw a whale?

All kidding aside there was a time when respect for women and their safety was the main concern, but if they want to serve it's no big deal. It's not like an Aircraft Carrier or other surface ship where they can sneak off to some secluded location for secret snuggle.

iangb said:

If the US army has insufficient training facilities to prepare people for submarine life without actually putting them inside a live and active sub, shame on the US army.

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely certain the US Army does not have the facilities to train women for submarine duty.

iangb said:

Neither of these present barriers to all women. Most/many, sure - but not all. That's the discriminatory bit.

Pick the women who will do the job well - ones who are as competent as the men who currently serve. Don't pick the women who aren't good enough; it'd be daft to do it any other way. But don't discriminate purely on gender - as long as that gender is not an issue (hence the single-sex subs).

Incidentally... any opinions on the fact that some of the current male submariners could well be DADT-ing?

Surely when the subs were initially brought into use by the Navy (only just less than 100 years ago), the men in them had a similar lack of experience?

If the US army has insufficient training facilities to prepare people for submarine life without actually putting them inside a live and active sub, shame on the US army.

Click to expand...

As for who serves on a sub, you don't pick them..they volunteer.....Every woman that volunteered would have to be and amazon like I said........

I know I wouldn't want MY daughter serving on a sub.

Operation Petticoat. :rofl

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CPWRoKHlBs"]YouTube- It's either her or me in this engine room![/nomedia]

Captain America said:

I know I wouldn't want MY daughter serving on a sub.

Operation Petticoat. :rofl

YouTube- It's either her or me in this engine room!

Click to expand...

You won't have anything to say about it..........

MrVicchio said:

Stupid, dumb, misguided and bad.

That's what this idea is.

Subs are small, their crews, smaller. What happens when they lose a gal cause she's pregnant? Eh? Say... 2 weeks before deployment? Hard to replace her with a well trained person ready to go. Happened on the Inchon quite a few times, we'd deploy and have departments and divisions short manned cause of this. And now we'll lift the ban on SUBS!

Oh screw reality, readiness and all that mean evil ****, let's be PC!!!

Whatever, glad I'm out and more so glad I ain't on subs, this would just piss me right the **** off.

"We're sorry Petty Officer Vicchio, you're just gonna have to do more work and work harder cause Seaman Jones and White are both pregnant and can't deploy with us. We'll TRY to get someone on in Hawaii and you'll have plenty of time to train them up. I know I know, ya'll have 8 people and just lost 2, but hey we're a diverse Navy that doesn't discriminate, change your attitude mister!"


Sometimes, I REALLY hate people.

Click to expand...

I know cause women are just running around popping off babies like its nobody's business, must have used too many public restrooms. And don't even consider for a second that women could possibly understand the need to preserve unit readiness and effectiveness, clearly that is something it takes a real man to do. And lastly we all know men never do stupid **** that could stop them from deploying or going out to sea.
And if you're thinking to yourself, well women already serve on all other Navy vessels in all other roles and there's no 3rd world birth rate on those ships. WELL STOP because that's different, somehow.

Navy Pride said:

You won't have anything to say about it..........

Click to expand...

What else is new? :doh

Navy Pride said:

Subs have P250 and P500 submersible pumps on them......they weigh about 150 lbs each.......A lot of guys can't carry them.......The only women who can would be amazons.....

Click to expand...

I have seen women Aviation Ordnancemen load 500 pound bombs, 3 women, one on each end with a length of pipe screwed in, 1 in the middle guiding it.

I seen some Navy women do some real freaky ****.

But I'll never tell. :3oops:

God bless the Navy.

Scarecrow said:

The Left persists in this myth that there's nothing a man can do that a woman can't. Well, I'm sure the Left hasn't noticed, but men and women are different.

Click to expand...

There is a difference, but it all it means is that more men are likely to qualify for the job. That isn't a reason to deny a well-qualified (mentally and physically) woman, though.

I'm absolutely certain the US Army does not have the facilities to train women for submarine duty.

Click to expand...

On what grounds?

NavyPride said:

As for who serves on a sub, you don't pick them..they volunteer.....Every woman that volunteered would have to be and amazon like I said........

Click to expand...

If every one of them was physically fit enough (you can call them 'amazons' if you really like), and was competant in what they did, would you still object to them crewing a sub?

I'm not suggesting we go out conscripting women. I'm suggesting that I see no reason why we should deny those who both want to do the job and would do the job well, purely because they were born with the wrong set of organs.

Councilman said:

It's not like an Aircraft Carrier or other surface ship where they can sneak off to some secluded location for secret snuggle.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah?

On the Los Angeles Class:

Engine Room Lower Level, outboard each Main Condenser. No one goes back there for hours.

Engine Room Lower Level SSTG Lube Oil Bay Mezzanine. Quite Secluded.

Engine Room Aft, just forward of the ERFW pumps, cozy. Better yet, there are two access ports to the Main Engine support structure that's just great for a nap or snuggle.

Engine Room Aft, outboard the #3 and #4 R114 AC units. Good for a quicky.

Engine Room Upper Level. Nucleonics Lab. Has a door that locks.

Engine Room Upper Level. Behind the Nucleonics Labs, around the 10k Evaporator. Some quiet places, wink wink.

Engine Room Upper Level, Charging Water Storage Tank Mezzine. Nice and warm up by MS1 and MS2, and the humidity will excuse the sweaty appearance.

Engine Room Upper Level, outboard the main electrical switch gear.

Engine Room Middle Level Forward, Outboard the #2 SSTG.

Forward Compartment spaces.

Each officer has a bunk. The captain and the XO have their own staterooms.

The Fan Room deck is covered with neatly flaked out mooring lines. A padded floor, and noisy enough to cover the orgasmic moans.

Most crew have their own bunk.

The food storage room at the bottom of the Forward Escape Trunk.

The supply shack.

The torpedo room is usually quiet.

The Auxilliary Machinery Room is ideal for women who get off on CO2 Scrubbers and electrolysis machines, and especially women who like getting banged standing against a Faribanks-Morse Diesel.

The Battery Compartment for the enterprising electrician.

The radio room.

The Sonar Room.

There's LOTS of places to play hide the submarine on a submarine.

iangb said:

There is a difference, but it all it means is that more men are likely to qualify for the job. That isn't a reason to deny a well-qualified (mentally and physically) woman, though.

Click to expand...

No, the reason is that they don't fit on the damn boat.

iangb said:

On what grounds?

Click to expand...

I refuse to answer this question because it's just too god damned funny.

You read it a few more times and maybe you can get your best buddy to help you figure it out.

iangb said:

If every one of them was physically fit enough (you can call them 'amazons' if you really like), and was competant in what they did, would you still object to them crewing a sub?

Click to expand...

What if the moon was made out of cheddar cheese, would that cause an economic crash in Wisconsin?

iangb said:

I'm not suggesting we go out conscripting women. I'm suggesting that I see no reason why we should deny those who both want to do the job and would do the job well, purely because they were born with the wrong set of organs.

Click to expand...

The reason is they don't fit. A submarine isn't a hunk of steel, it's a community of peers. Women don't belong in the military at the combat level, and a submarine is a combat warship.