Women should be allowed to serve aboard Americas fleet of nuclear submarines, the nation’s top military officer, Adm. Michael Mullen, quietly has told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
If the Navy agrees to it, this would be a huge policy change and potentially a significant expansion of career opportunities for female officers and sailors.
Women have been barred by Navy policy from submarines, even as the sea service began 15 years ago to integrate females into other seagoing combat roles including aboard surface warships and in fighter jets.
Mullen, former chief of naval operations and a career surface warfare officer, made his position on submarines known in written responses to questions from the committee to prepare for Mullen’s confirmation hearing to serve a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
“As an advocate for improving the diversity of our force, I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines,” Mullen told senators.
Opponents of lifting the ban have argued for decades that space is at a premium on submarines. To accommodate privacy needs of females, including separate berthing and “heads” or toilet/shower facilities, would be “prohibitively expensive,” Navy has argued. Watch duty, bunk management, extra supplies and incidents of fraternization and harassment would complicate submarine life, according to one study done for the Navy in 1994.
No senator actually raised the female submariner issue with Mullen during his Sept. 15 confirmation hearing. The focus was Afghanistan and Iraq. And Navy officials had no immediate comment on Mullen’s position.
Mullen’s spokesman, Navy Capt. John Kirby, said the chairman did tell Adm. Gary Roughead, current chief of naval operations, what position Mullen was going to take on women submariners in comments back to committee.
Mullen had focused some attention on this issue in the past, Kirby explained. While serving as CNO, Mullen had asked Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, and other submarine community leaders to “take a look” at ending the ban on women in the “silent service.” That review was still underway when Mullen stepped down in 2007 to become chairman and, as such, senior military adviser to the president.
Allowing women on submarines, Kirby said, “was something he always had in his mind and still believes in.”
But Mullen doesn’t intend to hold “meetings or discussions with the Navy on this,” Kirby added. “As a former CNO, he understands the Title 10 responsibilities that the CNO has. I don’t think he is keen to be too deeply involved in what is clearly the Navy’s responsibility to manage the force.”
As to why Mullen even raised the issue, Kirby said, “He was answering a question honestly about women in combat, and that’s how he really feels.”
Among the dozens of written questions posed to Mullen was this: “Does the Department of Defense have sufficient flexibility under current law to make changes to assignment policy for women when needed?”
Mullen answered that the department has all the flexibility it needs. But he referenced military women’s “tremendous contributions to our national defense. They are an integral part of the force and are proven performers in the operational environment and under fire.”
He noted too that DoD policies “fully recognize that women are assigned to units and positions that are not immune from the threats present in a combat environment. In fact, women are assigned to units and positions that may necessitate combat actions – actions for which they are fully trained and prepared to respond and to succeed.”
More than 100 U.S. service women have been killed since 2001 while serving in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait.
One Capitol Hill source said he was told by a submarine community officer that the Navy had readied plans at one point to allow women to serve aboard Ohio-class strategic missile submarines. Kirby was asked if Mullen had these larger boats, nicknamed “boomers,” in mind for gender integration as opposed to the smaller attack submarines.
“I dont believe he’s made that distinction in his mind yet,” Kirby said.
The Navy was under enormous pressure a decade ago from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) to open the submarine community to women. DACOWITS at the time was an influential 34-member advisory group to the secretary of defense.
In 1999, the Navy allowed several members of this group aboard different classes of submarines while underway. For a few days they lived aboard. But they returned to shore unconvinced that the gender ban was appropriate. That fall DACOWITS unanimously recommended that the Navy secretary and the CNO “commit to the integration of women in the submarine community and develop an implementation plan.”
Given that submarines are built to last 40 years, the group suggested it was unrealistic to assume women wouldn’t serve aboard these platforms at some point. So, long term, the group wanted new Virginia-class attack submarines to be redesigned to accommodate mixed crews. Short term, DACOWITS wanted women assigned soon to the larger missile boats.
If there were plans drafted to begin gender integration, they were shelved after the Bush administration arrived in 2001. With the Pentagon under new management, the number of DACOWITS members was cut to 15, their charter was watered down and their influence waned. Gender integration on submarines fell from the group’s agenda by April 2001.
With a single sentence in a 72-page packet returned to senators, Mullen has restored and elevated the issue to new heights.
(Northern) European subs already operate with women onboard, without any ‘prohibitvely expensive’ modifications. They sleep in the same type of bunks, use the same showers and heads. If they can successfully operate aboard surface vessels, they can operate aboard subs.
If I wanted to cause trouble in the submarine service I don’t think that I could come up with a better idea than this one.
The US Navy has enough trouble as it is, and now an Admiral named Michell decides that women should be in submarines.
What will happen to all the hookers in the cities that host sub bases?
Further economic trouble and unemployment is not what this country needs right now.
Keep the girls where they belong. On shore, serving drinks and pole dancing.
The logic of introducing a whole new level of stress, aboard an already stressful situation, not to mention an entirely new set of potential medical issues and treatment requirements escapes me.
If the reasons are opportunity, capability rather than political correctness, perhaps the best service we could provide women in the Navy are ships to be commanded and crewed by women.
This is not a sexist suggestion but rather affords women the opportunity to function independently, acquire the complete skills of running all aspects of a ship.
It should be noted that the real world is not a T.V. show where human beings act according to the writer
Just when you thought the Clinton era & Carter era was bad…………….. After that speech at the UN yesterday, I’m convinced Nevile Chamerblin has been reborn as a Community organizer from Chicago. The idea of females on subs is better left to movies like “Down Periscope” & “Operation Petticoat.” The use of females in the surface force have not made me jump for joy either. Is the job of the Navy to sail the seas and sink stuff OR be some sort of EEOC feel good program? A sub is a no frills design with people added. I’m not changing subs just so 3 or 4 Females can be on board. Sorry I’m not ready to turn the Navy sub service into “Starship troopers” just yet. What’s next Adm Mullen? Wheel chair ramps? Braile controls on F18’s????
Hell, Next we will replace Parris Island DI’s with Dr. Phill types….. UGHGH!!!!! America you voted for this bunch, not me.
It never falls to amaze me how sexist so many people are. Men are not better or more qualified to do these jobs than women are. The time I spent on the USS Hue City showed me that the women officer and Chiefs at least where good at their jobs and hard workers. Having said that, subs are not as easy to refit and I could understand if smaller already existing boats couldn’t be refitted, but to say the larger boats and the new boats couldn’t do it seems foolish and sexist.
And as Marcase said, most of the rest of the western world does it without issues, are we just so backwards and sexist we can’t do it?
I have Dolphins, and have made 9 strategic deterrent patrols aboard two different boats.
Here’s the answer:
It’s not a good idea for enlisted women.
Regardless of how well you think you know sub life, integrating officers aboard submarines would work, in theory. The biggest problem would be “pregnancy preventing deployment”. In some crews, there are barely enough enlisted watchstanders (or not enough) to fill the watchbill, and there is even a smaller compliment of officers.
Medical and dental approval for each deployment is strict, and I imagine that pregnancy, at some stage, would become a limiting factor. Combined with the potentially-critical watch qualifications of the affected female sailor, this could be a very serious concern.
Aside from this issue (which is serious), female officers posses all attributes required for service aboard submarines.
My recommendation to the Navy is to either begin with female Medical Officers or, in the exception for enlisted females, a Hospital Corpsman at the Chief level or higher. The submarine-specific (watchstanding and political) expectations of the Doc aboard a submarine would not be compromised by replacing an officer or crewmember who was pregnant.
The U.S. military, and public has a long history of fearing any major race or sex policy changes. These unfounded fears have been disproved and dismissed time and again. They will continue to be because they lack any real merit.
Good Morning Folks,
Not being a submariner I won’t even attempt to address the argument about deployed habitability concerns, as I won’t go into the social and equality issues. All these have no answers until the program is put in place and the finer point are dealt with by boat Captains.
The one thing the Navy is facing is it future labor pool of officers and technically trainable enlisted is shrinking. Over all under grad. enrollment in US Colleges and Universities is roughly 60% female and 40% male, in technical education including engineering females are in the majority. The shrinking male labor pool of college grads especially in science degrees has driven up entry wages way beyond where military service is competitive, the patriotic motive has it limits, females may be more open to military careers if they saw that they had equal access to more fast track career opportunities.
Submarines require sailors and officers who score above the average on exams and come to the service with an educational base.
This is strictly a no brainer form the aspect of personal. The best young recruits have post high school educations and most of them are female, the silent service needs a pool of these recruits to pick from, most of college grads are now female and by a large margin, this is the pool of submariner officers.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I think that anyone who does not value the women that fight in our Navy and Army are truly sexist pigs. Having women fight and board the submarines is truly a wonderful idea. And I thank you Michael Mullen for putting this on your top agenda.
Just a question from the submarine-uninitiated… how private are the heads? Are we talking a head, sink, and shower in a compartment with some sort of hatch, or larger, less private shared spaces?
If it’s the former… who bloody well cares about the plumbing of whoever used it beforehand?
As to pregnancy, mandate an IUD for all interested pers.
As to the ignorant, chauvinistic, useless sacks that can’t work with female pers without making a grab… their presence is already a disgrace to the Service.
I served on Submarines I made 11 deterrent FBM patrols. I would love to see women able to serve on submarines. I can’t imagine enlisted women working side by side with men. It would be about as easy to integrate gays into the submarine force. Someone would get badly hurt or killed in either case. Possibly women officers or CPO’s or Corpsmen could be made to work as someone has already noted. An all woman crew would definately be the best way to go. I think women might excell if they had their own submarine. Mixed with enlisteds There would be many obsticals to overcome and it would be very detremental to moral and well being. In my mind I can’t see it ever working but it certainly would be an interesting experiment. There would sure be a lot of unhappy navy wives when husbands went to sea with women on the crew.
Please, Mandy, don’t make sense. The libs can’t process logic that interferes with their political views. Remember, with a lib, politics trumps all; national security be damned!
Lets make this perfectly clear. This has NOTHING to do with intellect or ability. It has EVERYTHING to do with SEX (not gender.)
Before this discussion goes any further I would like to see some genuine, honest statistics on at-sea pregnancy. How about statistics on those female/male couples charged with
I served on 2 subs in my time in the navy. The USS Francis Scott Key and the Nebraska, both of them the larger SSBN or missile subs. On the Key it would have been impossible to fit women into the crew and pretty much so on the Nebraska without some major refits if the navy continues with the policy of giving female sailors their own head and berthing. Other countries have women onboard subs but they share berthing and the heads. Unless the US Navy is willing to do this i do not see how it can be done.
I have no doubt that women can preform the same functions as men on a sub but you must understand if you have never been on a sub that privacy is non-existant. Everybody knows where you are and what you are doing. On fast attack subs most of them are so cramped for space that they use what is called hot-bunking. 2 crew members share a bunk. While one is onduty the other is sleeping. On a ballistic Missile sub the crews berthing is in one compartment and the only privacy you have is a cloth curtain that shuts your bunk off from the sub.
The heads or bathrooms on the sub are likewise cramped. The Nebraska had 2 for about 100 enlisted crew members with 3 or 4 showers in each and 4 toliets and 2 sinks. Are you going to close one off for the 5 or 10 women who maybe on a sub?
Like i said earlier unless you get the women to agree to share the bathrooms with men. which means men and women in the same bathroom at the same time showering and all the other stuff i do not see how it can be done.
there is the option of having a submarine with exclusively female crew. on average women take up less volume and consume less food and o2. staffing a sub designed for an all male crew with an all female crew would mean a longer underwater endurance and more comfortable living conditions for said crew.
the same goes for space flight but thats off topic here
The military is not the place to further social agendas.
Besides…you can’t fit a submarine in the kitchen.
An all female crew? Good lord! After their periods synchronized, it would give new meaning to the term cramped quarters.
Soda, you slay me. Hahahahaha!
50% will come home with babies or pregs.
With subcutaneous long-period contraceptives I don’t see any problem. Its about time they brought back comfort women into the forces.
Leave it to some “SKIMMER PUKE” to start up the women should be able to BS all over again in an area he only read about.
Gives new meaning to HOT RACK, BOMB ROOM, NUTS TO BUTTS.
Ain’t no slack in fast attack!!!
More and more, it seems like Mullen is basing his professional recommendation on “how he feels” and whims.
Women already serve on Australan, Canadian and European submarines far smaller. It obvious a lot of people are confusing women serving with having to give up greek.
On Tridents, the Watchstander’s Head could become the Female Head. They could use the Officer’s Head to shower and just flop a two-sided sign on the door.
I’m not saying it’s an amazing idea, and I think it would be distracting and there would be a lot of problems.
I do disagree with people who say it wouldn’t work on a Trident, using either the “officers only” or “Doc only” idea.
And Trident nuclear Occupational Workers get regular training on prenatal radiation exposure, so it’s not a foreign concept.
Good Evening Valcan,
I see you hunted up from the 1980’s the reasons why women shouldn’t be serving on naval vessels. On the areas of personal behavior, all military personal are adults and are expected to conduct themselves accordingly.
So far other then their gender no body has given a sound reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to serve on submarines. In fact women may have some advantages over males. They tend to be small in size and weight, (could fit better into smaller spaces) eat less (less food consumption could mean longer periods away from supply lines) and by make up tend to be less aggressive then men which could mean fewer discipline problems for the boats Captain.
In the Army and Marines the old school thinking was that women shouldn’t be assigned to Combat MOS’s, involved in combat unit operations, or be in direct combat operations. Afghanistan and Iraq changes all that and it’s been found that women will fight along side males on equal terms. Many a female medic/corpswoman has save the lives of a male soldier in a fire fight.
ALLONS,
Byron
“Stewart’s Platoon”
Re all-female sub crew, aka USS SHEWOLF, problem is how would all the officers chiefs etc. get the years of real nuke sub experience they’d need to crew the sub, withhout having co-ed crews for a long while first anyway???
Re all-female sub crew, aka USS SHEWOLF, problem is how would all the officers chiefs etc. get the years of real nuke sub experience they’d need to crew the sub, without having co-ed crews for a long while first anyway???
Since people are so dead against having a male & female sub crew then I say let the women have a sub of their own. For the first five years they can have an all female crew with two captains. One experienced male and one female. The guy can train the female captain and her crew and then after the five years (or maybe less) she should be able to command the sub. Give the program two to three more years and if theirs no drama then they can think about repeating the process until theirs at least 4-5 all female crews in active service. It’s time for America to progress.
We’ll see how well they run the boat w/ a skeleton crew. Because most of the women get prego before deployment and the others get prego on deployment. I’ve seen this technique used many times to avoid deployment or get off deployment. And guess what we got 0 backfills. So men on the crew have to do not only their jobs, but the jobs of those women who skipped deployment. The military is not a social experiment! Nor is it a jobs program. It is to protect our country!
” see you hunted up from the 1980’s the reasons why women shouldn’t be serving on naval vessels. On the areas of personal behavior, all military personal are adults and are expected to conduct themselves accordingly. ”
Please dont get me wrong here im not saying that women dont have some advantages. Hell they can take G’s better than men for example.
And there advantages on subs have already been metioned.
What i wonder are questions. How will this affect current sub deployments excetera.
The problems with pregnancy before during and after are very real. And to my knowledge have never been fixed.
Sex on surface ships already happens between men and women, men and men, and women and women.
Thats just a fact of life.
Heres the fact women are VERY different than men. There better in some feilds than men are as we are to them. As one poster noted women cause DRAMA. Wont admit that you havent known enough women.
The question is how are we going to deal with these issues.
Haha American military is behind regarding equality, whats new? In anycase once you start failing to attract enough recruits for the subs you have, all your ‘arguments’ against women will be tossed away.
If this pea-brained idea gets implemented, then it’s another Tailhook-type scandal waiting to happen.
Good Morning X-Factor,
What we are talking about here is personal behavior between adults, it can be one of two types. It can be criminal, in which case the UCMJ comes in, or it can be consensual and mature desecrate behavior must be expected.
In Iraq and Afghanistan there have been numerous stories in the media regarding married couple serving on the same base but manage to control the amorous desires.
The submarine service recruits only the brightest and most emotionally stable personal, there is no reason to expect relationships between crew member to effect the mission.
Two billion dollar plus submarines need and deserve the best people not just the best men.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I am a retired diesel and boomer sailor and my question is ARE YOU BRAIN DEAD. This idea exceeds the definition of BRAIN DEAD!
FLOODING IN CREWS HEAD!! Kotex STUCK IN HULL VALVE!!!
I Think a pilot program should be implemented first hand with the right ratio of women to men as well as age. In a submariners situation where your out there men fall in love quickly. There is going to be a lot of tension competition and distraction.
To avoid sanitary conditions it would have to be mandatory for women to take birth control. There are pills or shots that prevent women from menstruating. One person stated unsanitary conditions.
Qual date 12 June 1970.
NO, NO, HELL NO!!!
No women on submarines! Boats aren’t designed to accompany both sexes. There are too many obvious problems which would arise.
Having served on both fast attack and boomer class sub. The problem is they are not made to support mixed gender crews. Future classes could be designed to fix this problem. I have gone to see with females onboard, it is a disruption to the crew. The normal paterns are not maintained it is easy to live with short time, but long term becomes more difficult. The real problem is simply the numbers of showers that are available. 5 on a 688, and 7 on a boomer. Even then the showers are only semi-private.
Honestly I think the wives would have the biggest problem with this plan. The divorce rate is high enough as it is no reason to add to an already difficult situation.
As former Medical Officer on USSGEORGEWASHINGTON in 1962 when actual physicians were on board, I think Admiral Mullen, and any other Navy officer or legislator who thinks women should serve on submarines, should be required to take a 60 day submerged mission before they are allowed to decide. Afterwards, I have no doubt they will say: NO WAY.
Admiral,
You must have been deprived of oxygen sometime or other because you are partially brain dead. Some leaders think that everyone wants to be P.C. That simply is not true. Common sense has shown that even on surface craft, women disrupt the lives of men and the pregnancies which ensue cannot serve anyone well. You sir, are a disgrace to everyone who has earned their dolphins. Remove them from your uniform if you wish to honor those of us who are proud to have earned our.
COED Submarines… What are they finally going to put real men on Tridents
I’ve been on subs for ten years. More than one variety, and with the different crews that come with that. So to the interested ladies, TAKE MY SPOT!!!!!!! Pride runs deep, because it is a horrible disgusting existence from which no one walks away with a complete soul! If you think I am kidding please take my spot, you are more than welcome to it, Idiots.
i am currenly serving abord a submarine in hawaii right now. and let me tell you, this subject is all over the boat. when ever a female civilian comes abord to do work on a system….all other work by the crew stops cause of her. they all stop and gaze with their jaws on the ground. a female submariner would destract the male crewmen from their job, there for leading to a half A** job. not to mentin the space limitations. there is no space at ALL for a female head or seperate female quaters. the enlisted men only get one and a half bathrooms as it is, plus hot racking. i understand the intention trying to be put forth, but the simple fact is that you would have to devide the ship in half to allow for female privicy and habbitation. theres just no room for it….
I am a wife of a submariner….but that aside and just putting in my opinion on this “women on subs” thing….BAD IDEA!!! These man don’t want to deal with women when they are trying to do their jobs. Being a submariner is hard enough, now they will have to worry about these women and their feelings. I think that it is bullshit that the Navy is saying “well it’s time to make it fair to women, and give them a chance to do what these men have been doing….I want my husband home from deployment right now but that’s not going to happen. The sub force is doing a good job right now how it is and why fix something that’s not broken??? All I’m trying to say is that women have no place on subs and if the want to be in the sub community so bad then do what all the other women have done….marry a submariner!!!!! This job is for the men of the Navy to do and they do it well without women on their boats right now, it should just be left as it is.
I am a wife of a submariner….but that aside and just putting in my opinion on this “women on subs” thing….BAD IDEA!!! These man don’t want to deal with women when they are trying to do their jobs. Being a submariner is hard enough, now they will have to worry about these women and their feelings. I think that it is bullshit that the Navy is saying “well it’s time to make it fair to women, and give them a chance to do what these men have been doing….I want my husband home from deployment right now but that’s not going to happen. The sub force is doing a good job right now how it is and why fix something that’s not broken??? All I’m trying to say is that women have no place on subs and if the want to be in the sub community so bad then do what all the other women have done….marry a submariner!!!!! This job is for the men of the Navy to do and they do it well without women on their boats right now, it should just be left as it is.