# Navy says it is ready to end ban on women in submarines



## Scotth (Feb 23, 2010)

> *Washington (CNN)* -- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has notified Congress of plans to allow women to serve aboard submarines, a Defense Department official said Tuesday.
> 
> Letters of intent were sent Monday to Congress, which has requested briefings on the matter, said the official, who asked not to be identified. There will be no vote on the matter in Congress.
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/23/women.sub.duty/index.html?hpt=T1

Never thought I would see this day in my life.


----------



## metalmom (Feb 23, 2010)

I'm for it-glad to hear it!!!


----------



## Gypsy (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't think this is a good idea, pretty surprised to see it.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> I don't think this is a good idea, pretty surprised to see it.



I'm with you on this. One big issue will be if you modify berthing spaces for women, to make use of them you would essentially need to keep the same number of women on the boat at all times; do a 1-for-1 swap when one leaves. Otherwise, they will receive different living arrangements than men and that will breed some resentment.

Some things have changed here, but on some camps women once had the same number of toilets and showers as the men despite making up around 10% or so of the camp's population. I have no issue with women serving so long as they are treated the same as men.....which they are not and that is a problem.


----------



## HOLLiS (Feb 23, 2010)

A frog friend said of Sub-Mariners,   100 sailors go down, 50 couples come up.  I wonder if he knew about this.    The New Subs, are ships.  I have a friend who is skipper of a squadron, I use to tease him about pig boats (old WWII diesels subs).


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 23, 2010)

Waste of money.  We can't afford shit we need, but can afford $$$ to refit subs for wat reason?  Will this enhance combat capabilities, and if so how?  Good news is the SEALs get some tail when they are on the modified boats now.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 23, 2010)

Other than the crew getting along in close quarters, I don't think it'd truly be THAT hard to do integration. You don't need new bathrooms, and you don't need new showers. If anything, schedule shift rotation so the women are getting off shift for shit and shower time where the males and females aren't vying for the showers. Normal duty day head calls just have a magnetic sign on the head door and bulkhead near it... if it's on the door it's whoever's using it. stand by till they're done.. if it's off the door it's free game. Toss a lock on the door so you don't have johnny jackass breaking in on jane taking a shit, or vice versa.


----------



## Scotth (Feb 24, 2010)

I agree with points made by both SOWT and Ranger Psych.  Spending money to retrofit boats to make this work would be a big No Go, there are bigger priorities.  If they can make it work with crapper signage and some kind of workable sleeping arrangement so be it.  My buddy was on subs back in the 80's and he said they had a higher standard to get on a boat and if they hold women to the same standard that's what is important in my eyes.


----------



## QC (Feb 24, 2010)

"The submarines expected to carry women initially would be the larger ones." What are they? Ballast!


----------



## The91Bravo (Feb 24, 2010)

Queens Cadet said:


> "The submarines expected to carry women initially would be the larger ones." What are they? Ballast!


 
QC,

That made me crack up... And with some of the women I saw on the Enterprise... you would need wider hatches too


----------



## QC (Feb 24, 2010)

USS Booby Prize...


----------



## digrar (Feb 24, 2010)

We've had girls on subs since 98, the Dutch since 88, just another thing to get used to, in 10 years time it will be as if it's always been like that.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 24, 2010)

We have allowed women to go on sea trials on subs for years. Granted these are short periods of time compared to a see the world at eight knots cruise. I believe there are things in life that can be done but often shouldn't be done. Just another thing for the wifes of the sailors to worry about. They don't know where their husbands are at and now can worry about who is playing hide the little guy. I know about the mile high club and I wonder what they will call it on subs. Test depth being the ultimate goal? I got it in the sonar dome during an emergency blow. A little play on words. Welcome aboard!


----------



## MsKitty (Feb 24, 2010)

Manolito said:


> We have allowed women to go on sea trials on subs for years. Granted these are short periods of time compared to a see the world at eight knots cruise. I believe there are things in life that can be done but often shouldn't be done. Just another thing for the wifes of the sailors to worry about. They don't know where their husbands are at and now can worry about who is playing hide the little guy. I know about the mile high club and I wonder what they will call it on subs. Test depth being the ultimate goal? I got it in the sonar dome during an emergency blow. A little play on words. Welcome aboard!


 
OMG I'm laughing so hard...spoken like a true Navy guy!    



I dated a bubblehead and lived near Kingsbay Sub base for 5 years, yes, sadly, I confess that.   This has been the talk for years to let the women on the subs, most of the men are mixed opinions on this.    Most of the guys don't even joke about the potential for fraternization as much as the things they'd have to deal with PMSing ALL at the same time, and the emotions that could occur after the first 30 days under and no land surfacing.   Ironically, most of the wives that have the gold crew husbands and the blue crew boyfriends (or visa versa) complained about the potential for affairs, etc.    I wonder if they would make birth control mandatory for any woman that goes on a boat.   I'd like to know the statistics for pregnancies or SDT's that happen after a 90 day out cruise.

Next thing you know, someone will try to push for women SEALs......blasphemy!


----------



## QC (Feb 24, 2010)

There's so many double entendres there, I wouldn't know where to start.


----------



## MsKitty (Feb 24, 2010)

Queens Cadet said:


> There's so many double entendres there, I wouldn't know where to start.


 
I'm talking with the former bubble head right now, he's giving me an earful of them.


----------



## LongTabSigO (Feb 24, 2010)

Why is it when the Dems are in power, they are hell-bent on screwing up the military?

As with open gays DADT changes, the question needs to be answered (and never is) is: How will the world's best military be made BETTER by the change?

Not "how do we appear better" or "how do we make certain segments of the population feel better about themselves".

Will this markedly improve the force such that all the upheaval it creates is justified?

Haven't heard a strong case for either situation made.  Only the social engineering cases.


----------



## Scotth (Feb 24, 2010)

My buddy that was on subs back in the 80's had his boat dry-docked for upgrades.  He always told me when he was in port going to a club it wasn't hard to get laid, it was hard to get laid by a single women.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2010)

Guess we will have to modify that old joke:

What's long hard and filled with seamen?
Old answer- A submarine; new answer-The XO?

Hellbound I am, hellbound.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2010)

LongTabSigO said:


> As with open gays DADT changes, the question needs to be answered (and never is) is: How will the world's best military be made BETTER by the change?



Exactly.

Our military doesn't exist to play for hugs and gold stars. we should look for better ways to do things, not the most "fair" for all parties involved.


----------



## LongTabSigO (Feb 24, 2010)

The irony, from a  a friend of mine's perspective, is this:  an enlisted submarine Sailor who is now an LDO cannot get back onto a sub (no LDOs on subs for some reason), yet some gal can.   Don't get that.

I'd like to know how much better the Surface Navy is with women aboard.  We already know that they lowered standards from female F-14 pilots.


----------



## MsKitty (Feb 24, 2010)

LongTabSigO said:


> The irony, from a  a friend of mine's perspective, is this:  an enlisted submarine Sailor who is now an LDO cannot get back onto a sub (no LDOs on subs for some reason), yet some gal can.   Don't get that.
> 
> I'd like to know how much better the Surface Navy is with women aboard.  We already know that they lowered standards from female F-14 pilots.



Psst.....let's talk about this comment privately....................


----------



## AWP (Feb 25, 2010)

MsKitty said:


> Psst.....let's talk about this comment privately....................


 
You two have fun with that, but he's right. All? No. But the first generation of pilots were allowed standards that were less than that of their male counterparts. Now, did every one of them use those standards? Nope, but at least one did and her family collected SGLI for it. Hultgren's death will always be a source of contention, one of those issues where both sides are adamant that she was allowed lower standards than her counterparts/ she wasn't allowed lower standards/ conspiracy/ whatever. 

I think she got a pass and I think others did too, she was the only one to die from it.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 25, 2010)

MsKitty said:


> Psst.....let's talk about this comment privately....................


 
Why can't we talk about it publicly?


----------



## MsKitty (Feb 25, 2010)

0699 said:


> Why can't we talk about it publicly?


 
I don't like to discuss a few things on a public forum if I have a "personal/emotional" opinion about something, that's just my own personal way of handling it.   He and I discussed it, it's all good.  :)    I'm a civilian with a civilian viewpoint only.   I personally don't think women should be in subs either, surface or airdale I don't see a problem as long as they are TRULY qualified.   Again, just my viewpoint and it's ok to disagree.   :)


----------



## Gypsy (Feb 25, 2010)

LongTabSigO said:


> I'd like to know how much better the Surface Navy is with women aboard.


 
I wrote to a female sailor for a long time...you don't want to know.  And I'm not going to discuss it privately either...nothing personal.



MsKitty said:


> I don't like to discuss a few things on a public forum if I have a "personal/emotional" opinion about something, that's just my own personal way of handling it.


 
Yeah, well "personal/emotions" have nothing to do with facts.


----------



## LongTabSigO (Feb 25, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> I wrote to a female sailor for a long time...you don't want to know.  And I'm not going to discuss it privately either...nothing personal.



I'm not offended.  

Ms Kitty and I had a very reasonable and reasoned discussion on the topic.  We understand each other's positions on the topic.  We approach from different points of view. 

My position is solid on this because if it can be refuted by actual supporting facts, I could be persuaded.  Thus far on this, and other similar topics, I've not heard a compelling "pro" argument presented.

Unfortunately, most of what counts as debate on this type of social engineering policy trends to emotional positions. That does not sway me; if that makes me a bigot or chauvinist, so be it - the use of that term makes my point.

So, I reiterate my question to those who think this is a great idea: how is the military made measurably better?


----------



## Manolito (Feb 25, 2010)

I re-thought my post I look forward to them joining the submarine force.
Bill


----------



## Freggel (Dec 7, 2010)

digrar said:


> We've had girls on subs since 98, the Dutch since 88, just another thing to get used to, in 10 years time it will be as if it's always been like that.


Sorry for digging up an old thread. To my knowledge the Dutch do NOT have female on board submarines (maybe as passenger but not as crew)
Marine corps still dont have female in their ranks and neither has army SF. Rest of NL MOD does have them in their ranks


----------



## digrar (Dec 8, 2010)

Wrote Dutch, meant Norwegian... Can't really account for the error.


----------



## Headshot (Dec 8, 2010)

I don't see what all the fuss is about, I for one think we should have more women going down on our military. :eek: Oh no he di-int.

On a serious note:  I agree with LongTab on the question of how will we be made better for it.   Everybody always screams about fairness when it comes to letting women have a go at certain things, then give them their own sub full of women to prove it with and they won't have to change a thing.  The standard is the standard and should be risen to, not lowered or changed for whiners.  This is especially true for SOF groups that do not allow women.  If they can do it that well then they don't need men along to hold their hands, give them their own team and let them do the job.


----------



## ÉIREGOBRÁCH1922 (Dec 8, 2010)

Will they be able to find a sub big enough. :)

Sex in confined spaces..? Ha..ha! 

Knowing the time women can spend in the bathroom, could you imagine the queue to the head or shower running to the whole length of the sub. Ha..ha! :eek:

No offence intended! Only joking there!! ;)

In a more serious note, as long as it does not effect the morale of the majority of the male crew or ends up costing a fortune in having to refit subs to accommadate women.


----------

